Goat and Calf, Intention and Deed

He said to Aaron, 'Take yourself a calf for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering, (both) unblemished, and sacrifice them before God. Speak to the Israelites, and tell them to take unblemished (animals): a goat for a sin offering, a yearling calf and a lamb for a burnt offering…                                                    Leviticus 9:2-3 You are culpable for "they slaughtered a goat" [Genesis 37:31, Joseph's brothers, after selling him into slavery] and for "they have made themselves a cast-metal calf" [Exodus 32:8, the golden calf]. Let this goat come and atone for the matter of slaughtering the goat and this calf to atone for the matter of the golden calf.                                                 Midrash Torat Cohanim

          Malbim asks why it was necessary specifically at the time of the dedication of the Tabernacle to atone for the sin of the brothers having sold Joseph into slavery, while this sin did not interfere with the exodus from Egypt, the splitting of the Red Sea or the Divine revelation at Mount Sinai.

                Malbim posits that there is a substantive contrast between the sins of the sale of Joseph and the golden calf. Joseph's brothers' intention in selling him was bad, while the deed itself ended well, since the sale brought about the salvation of the Children of Israel during the famine. In contrast, the golden calf was motivated by positive intention (according to the approach that the Israelites saw the golden calf as a symbol of God's presence within the nation), while the deed itself was evil.

                Thus, if God were to judge Israel for the sin of the golden calf based upon their intention, He would find grounds for great leniency. However, if that were the case, then He would have to deal harshly with the sin of Jacob's sons in selling their brother, since their intention was bad.  Therefore, whether God judges based upon intention or based upon the actual deed, Israel is culpable in one of the two instances, hence the nation must achieve atonement for both the sin of selling Joseph and the sin of the golden calf, that is, both for intention and for deed.

The lesson of the two sacrifices is that Israel bears responsibility both for its intentions and for its deeds.

"Raising Hands" Before Eating

For I, God, am your God, therefore you shall sanctify yourselves, thus shall you become holy for I am holy …

                                                           Leviticus 11:44

Our Sages taught: “You shall sanctify yourselves” refers to “the first water.”       Babylonian Talmud, Brachot 53b

Our verse supports the Rabbinic practice of washing one’s hands before eating bread at a meal (n’tilat yadayim). As Keren Orah (Rabbi Yitzḥak Minkovski, mid 19^th century) explains, the underlying message of n’tilat yadayim is that one must purify his hands, and raise them (the literal meaning of “n’tila” is “to raise”) toward heaven, to show that he does not raise his hands except with the will of his Creator, that he does not eat merely for his own pleasure, but eats with the intention of strengthening himself to do God’s will.

Therefore, n’tilat yadayim serves to stress that the physical act of eating is not an end in itself, rather it ultimately serves a spiritual purpose. Likewise, to emphasize the spiritual aspect of a task as mundane as eating, Hayye Adam (Rabbi Avraham Danzig 1748-1820) writes, “men of great deeds” preface their meals with the statement: “My intention is to eat in order to have the strength and health to serve the Creator.”

If one eats a meal and does not walk four cubits, the food rots and causes foul breath.

                                  Babylonian Talmud  Shabbat 41a

In his brilliant analysis of this rather curious Talmudic comment, Rabbi Kook notes that like all animals, man must eat to survive. However, man, uniquely within God’s creation, has both physical and spiritual dimensions. In the ideal, man eats to be able to live and devote himself to improving his spiritual side. “Four cubits,” for our Sages, represents one’s personal space, hence walking four cubits represents advancement.

The message the Talmud conveys is that if one eats only for the sake of eating and does not take advantage of his meal to further himself spiritually, he has accomplished nothing, and the food will rot. Further, it is man’s mouth, his power of speech, which elevates him from the rest of the animal world. Thus, not only will the food rot if it has not been used to further oneself spiritually, but it will cause foul breath, that is, it damages the one thing which makes man superior to other animals.

Unclean to You

Nevertheless, these shall you not eat, of those that chew their cud, or of those that divide the hoof: the camel, because it chews its cud, but does not divide its hoof; it is unclean (tamei) to you.                                    Leviticus 11:4

It is significant that the Torah refers to that which is not fit to eat as “unclean to you” and not as “forbidden to you.” To partake of non-kosher food damages the sanctity of Israel. If this not inherently true, it is so at least because Israel’s sanctity derives from Torah.

Double Atonement

And Moses said to Aaron: approach the altar, and offer your sin-offering, and your burnt-offering, and make atonement (v’caper) for yourself and for the people; and present the offering of the people, and make atonement for them, as the Lord commanded.             Leviticus 9:7

Ba’al haTurim connects our verse’s double use of “v’caper” with that of two other verses: “and make atonement for them,” [Numbers 17:11] (concerning the incense) and “And atone for our sin.” [Psalms 79:9] As our Sages noted, these verses teach that just as offerings effect atonement for sin, so too does the incense [Babylonian Talmud, Zevaḥim 88b].

        My father suggested an additional teaching of the common use of the word “v’caper”: the Kohain, whose function it is to be the nation’s spiritual leader and guide, must be prepared to make his own offerings on behalf of the people, in order to help them achieve atonement, and may not satisfy himself with merely encouraging others to make their offerings. The verse from Numbers teaches that the Kohain must be ready even to face the angel of death, in order to save the people, as Aaron himself did. [Numbers 17:12-13]

Not Like Father Like Sons

And the sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu each took his incense pan, put fire in it and placed incense on the fire, and brought a strange fire before God which He did not command.                                              Leviticus 10:1

While the verse mentions the “strange fire” brought by Nadab and Abihu, the exact nature of their sin is not clear, since Midrashim, in various locations offer at least eight different suggestions of the nature of their sin. Although I certainly do not intend to determine which of the possibilities is to be preferred, our Sages have taught us to judge all people favorably. Therefore, it seems best to assume, as at least one of the Midrashim and some commentators do, that whatever the exact nature of their sin, Nadab and Abihu acted with good intentions, albeit in a mistaken manner.

In the aftermath of the deaths of two of his four sons, we see Aaron perhaps at his greatest: “and Aaron fell silent.” In the midst of tragedy, Aaron accepted the divine decree. By contrast, in Parashat Ki Tissa, Aaron faced a different crisis, the request of the Israelites “make us a god who will go before us, for this man Moses who lead us out of Egypt, we know not what has become of him.” In Aaron’s response, acquiescing to the request by making the golden calf, we do not see him at his best, even though, as Rashi comments, Aaron’s intention was to delay the people until Moses’ return.

As the Torah mentions no consequences to Aaron, he was, apparently, not punished for his role in the sin of the golden calf. Abravanel (15^th century) raises this issue in his commentary, saying that it is astounding that Aaron remained unpunished.

I believe the contrast between Nadab and Abihu and their father adds to the astonishment. Whatever the sin of Nadab and Abihu was, it was committed in private, within the Tabernacle, where only they and He who sees all knew of their sin. Although Aaron acted in public, and his actions contributed to the deaths of three thousand Israelites, God killed Nadab and Abihu, while Aaron went unpunished.

Abravanel’s explanation that Aaron was not punished because he acted with good intentions, seems insufficient since we assume that Nadab and Abihu, too, acted with pure and good intentions, and since ultimately one bears responsibility for the results of his actions, even when those actions are taken in good faith.

Therefore, I believe it is necessary to add another dimension to Abravanel’s answer: not only were Aaron’s intentions pure, but he acted in order to save the People of Israel by trying to “buy time” in order to prevent the People from sinning. Perhaps because he acted on behalf of the entire community out of his desire to save the People, Aaron averted punishment. This approach is clearly consistent with Aaron’s qualities “lover of peace, pursuer of peace, lover of mankind, who brought them near to Torah.” [Ethics of the Fathers 1:12]

God's Command

And Moses said: “This is the thing that the Lord commanded that you shall do, so the glory of the Lord may appear to you.”                                  Leviticus 9:6

Several classical commentators note that our verse is apparently disconnected, seemingly addressed to the entire congregation, as the previous verse notes “and all of the congregation drew near and stood before the Lord,” yet there is no specification of what the people are to do.

My father suggested that the verse can be understood to mean: this is what the Lord has commanded: “Do.” That is, Moses informed the congregation that it is God’s will that they take action. Rather than simply awaiting God’s revelation, Moses taught that it is through action and fulfillment of mitzvot that Israel is privileged to experience Divine revelation.

Three Crowns

Our parasha begins with the consecration of Aaron and his sons as Kohanim, priests. Great honor and distinction were bestowed upon them, as they and their descendants forever will be the only ones privileged to serve God in the Temple.

Our Sages taught [Avot 4:17]: “There are three crowns: the crown of Torah, the crown of priesthood and the crown of monarchy.”

The crown of priesthood, as we read in our parasha, was granted to Aaron and his descendants, the crown of monarchy to King David and his descendants, while the crown of Torah was granted to all the people of Israel.

The difference among the crowns is that priesthood and kingdom are inherited, while Torah must be acquired by the individual himself. The crown of Torah does not depend upon who ones parents are, it is granted to the individual who devotes his time to the study of Torah. Indeed, without devoting oneself to Torah study, one cannot achieve the crown of Torah.

It is significant that the Kohanim were expected to become Torah scholars as well, since their main task was to be the spiritual leaders of Torah Judaism. The clear lesson is that one must not satisfy himself with the position to which he was born, but must strive to achieve the maximum of which he is capable.

Fire With Fire

On the eighth day of the celebration of the installation of Aaron and his sons as priests, tragedy struck with the deaths of two of Aaron’s sons.  God killed Nadav and Avihu because they “brought a strange fire”. [Leviticus 10:1]

Our Sages tell us: even though the fire descended from heaven, there is a mitzva for the Kohanim to bring their own fire. 

Two basic questions arise from our Sages’ teaching. Firstly, if there is a heavenly fire, why must we bring our own? Secondly, given that there is a mitzva to add to the heavenly fire, why were Aaron’s sons punished by death?

My father answered that Torah teaches us that there is a partnership between God and man in all our endeavors. We need God’s help to succeed, and without His help, all our efforts will be to no avail. Since it is a partnership, we cannot leave everything to God, we must do our best and then God will help. Although holiness comes from God, man must still contribute to realizing this holiness, thus creating a holy fire requires the participation of both God and man.    

The sin of Nadav and Avihu was not so much in bringing their own fire, but in believing that their fire sufficed. They did not depend upon God’s fire, but thought they could accomplish things on their own. In essence, Nadav and Avihu denied their partnership with God.

Nadav and Avihu’s punishment was srefat haneshama, their souls were burned but their bodies remained intact. This was a fitting punishment, because they had divorced the spiritual from the physical.

The Heavenly Flame

Command   Aaron  and   his  sons   saying: This is the law  of the elevation offering;  It  is the  elevation  offering  on the fire  place  all night until  the morning and  the  fire   of the  altar  shall  be kept  burning  thereby.                  Leviticus 6:2

One of the miracles which occurred in the Tabernacle and the Temple was that a flame descended from the heaven to light the altar. Nonetheless, our Sages teach us that there was a mitzva for a Kohen to bring his own fire. First a Kohen would light the fire on the altar, then the heavenly fire would kindle the wood.

This arrangement clearly teaches us the partnership between God and man. We must do our share, and then God will help. Without divine assistance we cannot succeed. However, we must not refrain from doing our part. The verse says “and the Lord your God will bless you in all that you do.” [Deuteronomy 15:18] Our Sages understand the verse to mean that only when we do our share can we expect God’s blessings.

This approach is necessary in the private lives of the Children of Israel as well as in our national life. 

Thanking God in Times of Tranquility

This is the law of the peace offering that is sacrificed to God. If it is offered as a thanksgiving offering, then it must be presented along with unleavened loaves mixed with oil, flat matzahs saturated with oil  and loaves made of boiled flour mixed with oil.     Leviticus 7:11-12 Rabbi Pinḥas, Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Yoḥanan, quoting Rabbi Menaḥem, say: In the end of days all sacrifices will be abolished, except for the thanksgiving offering; all prayers will be abolished, save prayers of thanksgiving, as the verse [Jeremiah 33:11] states: "the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the voice of those who say: 'Give thanks to God of hosts'" this refers to (prayers of) thanksgiving, "even of those who bring offerings of thanksgiving into the house of God" refers to the thanksgiving offering. And so (King) David said [Psalms 56:13] "Your vows are upon me, O God; I will render thank-offerings unto You." The verse employs the plural (thank-offerings), referring to thanksgiving prayers and offerings.                         Midrash vaYikra Rabba, Parashat Tzav 9:7

Our Sages [Babylonian Talmud Berachot 54b] taught that "there are four (classes of people) who have to offer thanksgiving: those who have crossed the sea, those who have traversed the wilderness, one who has recovered from an illness, and a prisoner who has been set free."

My saintly teacher, Rabbi Mordechai Rogov, commented that the way of the world is that when a person is saved from danger he feels an obligation to thank God, however, when all goes well, with no  immediate difficulties, one does not feel the need to thank the Creator. However, in truth, at every moment, our very existence depends upon hidden miracles, and therefore, one should constantly express appreciation to God.

Rabbi Rogov quotes the comment of the Gaon of Vilna on the statement in the Hagaddah: "but Laban wanted to uproot everyone." The Gaon notes that the verses tell us that Laban cheated Jacob, but nowhere do we find a verse which explicitly states that "Laban wanted to uproot everyone," and comments that the Hagaddah no doubt refers to a danger of which Jacob was not even aware. When the authors of the Hagaddah tell us "Go forth and learn" (the introduction to the statement that Laban wanted to uproot everyone), they are stating that this represents the norm of Jewish history. Just as Jacob and his family were saved from Laban without even realizing that they were in danger, so it is generation after generation, the Holy One, blessed be He saves us through hidden miracles.

Based upon this, Rabbi Rogov explains the intent of the Midrash: even at times of tranquility, when there are no overt threats to our people and there appears to be no reason to give thanks to God, the requirement to give thanks to God remains. A Jew must always understand and feel that he benefits from God's providence, and that the situation of tranquility and lack of threats comes from Him.

The meaning of Jeremiah's words is that even in the situation in which "the voice of joy and the voice of gladness" precede "the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride," that is, when joy pervades life, even then "the voice of those who say: 'Give thanks to God of hosts'" will be heard as well as "those who bring offerings of thanksgiving into the house of God," since all Israel will understand and appreciate the need to offer thanks to God, as if they had crossed the sea or traversed the wilderness.

Two Perpetual Flames

And the fire upon the altar shall be kindled on it, it shall not be extinguished...   The fire shall ever be kindled on the altar, it shall never go out.                                             Leviticus 6:5-6

These verses present both a positive mitzva  to kindle a flame on the altar and a negative mitzva  of extinguishing the flame. Rashi comments that based on these two verses, one who extinguishes the flame of the altar, in fact was guilty of violating two negative miztvot.

Our Sages  tell us that even during the Israelites' journeys in the desert, the flame of the altar was not extinguished. (Torat Cohanim, chapter 5) Further, the flame which descended upon the altar at the dedication of the Tabernacle burned continuously until the First Temple was dedicated by King Solomon. As Solomon completed his dedicatory prayers, again fire descended from heaven to kindle the wood of the altar. (II Chronicles 7:1) This flame was extinguished only during the reign of King Menashe, fourteen generations after Solomon.

The perpetual flame of the altar is obviously of great significance. As my father noted, our Sages comment that the altar brought peace between Israel and its Heavenly Father. The essence of korbanot  (“sacrifices”) is bringing man closer to his Creator. Yet, because the altar also represents peace between man and fellow man, our Sages tell us that when a couple divorced, the altar cried. The altar, thus, is the symbol of unity, peace and proper relations between man and God and between man and fellow man. The flame of the altar therefore represents the most basic element of man’s relation with God and with mankind. This flame may never be extinguished, we must always be aware of our obligations both to God and to man.

Within the Tabernacle/Temple there was another eternal flame, that of the menorah. The Rabbis taught that should the flame of the menorah  be extinguished, it must be rekindled by fire brought from the altar. The menorah, as our Sages tell us, symbolized the Divine Presence resting among the Children of Israel. By telling us that the menorah must be relit from the altar, our Sages teach us that God’s presence among us is dependent upon our continued efforts to maintain closeness to God. Ultimately, it is up to us.

This concept is also clear from the Rabbi’s’ statement that even though the fire descended from heaven, it was incumbent upon the Kohanim to add fire. Clearly, the Rabbis wish to teach us that there is a partnership between God and man, and man must do his part to maintain that partnership.

God's Agents

Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt offering, such burnt offering shall remain on the fire-place of the altar all night until the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be blazing in it.     Leviticus 6:2

Parashat vaYikra, which precedes our Parasha ends with the verse:

And the Kohen shall make atonement for him before God, and it shall be forgiven him for anything he has done in incurring guilt therein.                 Leviticus 5:26

The juxtaposition of this verse with the opening verse of our Parasha stresses that the Kohen effects atonement for a sinner only as God’s agent, not through his own personal greatness. The Kohen may not pride himself on his power to achieve atonement for others, but must be dedicated to God’s service, with no personal interest.

This concept is conveyed as well in verse 3: “And the Kohen shall put on his linen robe (middo, which can also mean “his measurement”)…,” from which our Sages learned that the priestly garments must be made to the measurements of each individual Kohen. The Kohen may not wear garments too large or too small for his own measurements, teaching that neither may he be haughty about his position, nor may he lower himself or fail to appreciate his position as one who carries the crown of Divine service. It is when the Kohen strikes the proper balance that he will be able to fulfill his obligation a spiritual guide to the People.

Ba’al haTurim notes the continuity of the two verses: “in incurring guilt therein… command Aaron and his sons,” and comments that this teaches that the Kohanim must be diligent in Torah and mitzvot.

The Kohen, the spiritual guide of the People, must be diligent and careful in his personal fulfillment of mitzvot in order to be able to have a positive influence on the nation. If the Kohen fails in this, it will indeed “incur guilt” for the entire nation. 

Purim: Non Hallel

The Talmud [Megilla 14a] discusses the reason that Hallel is not said during Purim.

The first explanation is that Hallel is not recited for a miracle which took place outside the Land of Israel. This explanation obviously stresses the importance of Eretz Yisrael. Even commemorating a miracle of the Diaspora must remind us of the primacy of the Land of Israel.

Rava’s opinion is that Hallel cannot be said on Purim because it would not be accurate. Hallel includes the verse “Give praise, servants of the Lord…” [Psalms 113:1], and even after the salvation of Purim, the Jews remained servants of Ahasuerus.

Those of us privileged to live in Jerusalem celebrate Shushan Purim, on the fifteenth of Adar, a day later than most places. In fact, any city that was walled at the time of the conquest of Israel by Joshua and the Tribes of Israel celebrates Shushan Purim.

Rabbi Kook commented that those who recognize the criterion of the days of Joshua cannot remain servants of Ahasuerus.

Rabbi Uzi Kalcheim explained Rabbi Kuk’s comment: The Jerusalem Talmud teaches us that the criterion of the days of Joshua (while the logical criterion should be any city walled at the time of Esther and Mordechai) was chosen to honor the Land of Israel. Those, who at the peak of their success in the Diaspora, remember the Holy Land and “raise it above their chiefest joy” [Psalms 137:6] cannot remain servants of Ahasuerus; they will not accept their temporary success in exile, but will continually pray from the depths of their hearts for the return to Zion, for the “sons to return to their borders.” [Jeremiah 31:16]

Shushan and Sinai

Rava  says: though Israel initially accepted the Torah because  God held Mount Sinai above them (Exodus 19:17; according to the Talmudic explanation, forcing the  Jews to accept the Torah), even so, later  they accepted  Torah (willingly) during the days of Ahasuerus, as is written [Esther 9:27] “the Jews fulfilled and took upon themselves (kiyemu v’kiblu) …”                                    Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 88a

Rava understands that whereas, at Mount Sinai, the Israelites were forced to accept Torah, following the miracle of Purim, the Jews voluntarily accepted.

Torah Temima suggests that the basis of Rava’s comment is the apparently incorrect order of the verbs in the verse: “fulfilled” and then “took upon themselves”. Logically, one first accepts a responsibility and then is able to fulfill it. Thus, Rava completes his comment by stating “they fulfilled what they had previously accepted (at Mount Sinai)”.

Sfat Emet  takes  a different approach and notes that the order “kiyemu v’kiblu “ is the parallel of na’aseh v’nishma “we will do and listen”, uttered by the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai. In each instance, both times the Jews accepted Torah, they first accepted the practical commitment.

Sfat Emet adds another parallel between Mount Sinai and Shushan. Acceptance of the Torah at Mount Sinai followed shortly after the attack by and defeat of Amalek. The second, voluntary, acceptance of Torah followed the defeat of Haman, the descendant of Amalek. The basic reason for Amalek’s hatred of Israel is his opposition to Torah. Therefore, defeating Amalek is followed by accepting Torah.

There is yet another similarity between Israel’s two acceptances of Torah. The evil decree of Haman began with the disunity of the Jews. Haman presented his plan to King Ahasuerus, telling him “there is a certain people scattered and (internally) divided (m’forad)”. It is this disunity which allowed Haman to proceed with his plan. The salvation of the Jews began with their unity. Esther instructed Mordechai “Go, gather all the Jews who are in Shushan and fast for me....” [Esther 4:16] With the renewed unity of the Jews, God provided the salvation.

The description in Exodus of the giving of Torah at Mount Sinai begins: “And they (the People of Israel) journeyed from Rephidim and reached the Desert of Sinai and encamped in the desert, and Israel camped there opposite the mountain”. [Exodus 19:2]

Our Sages interpreted Rephidim not only as a place name, but as meaning “disunited”. Note, it is the same root word used in our verse from Esther. Prior to Sinai, the People were internally divided. But the People arrived at Sinai united. Rashi, quoting the Midrash, notes the change from plural in the first part of the verse to singular at the end (“and Israel camped”) and comments:  Israel encamped at Sinai “as one person, with one heart”. It is quite likely that this unity is what prepared Israel and allowed us to experience the greatest divine revelation in history.

(It is worth noting that our verse from the Book of Esther has the word kiblu [they accepted] written in the singular, paralleling the verse in Exodus.)

It is the unity of Israel which allows us to accept the Torah. (Perhaps there is a reciprocal relationship, in that, ideally, it is Torah which provides the basis of the unity of the People of Israel.)

The lessons of Purim, the disasters which can befall Israel when we are disunited and the salvation which results from our unity must not be lost on us.

Rachel's Descendants Versus Amalek 2

Rabbi Yeḥiel Michel Epstein (author of “Aruch haShulḥan”) comments that God singled out Amalek from among all of Israel’s enemies because of the nature of its attack on Israel. Typically, wars are fought for territorial gain, yet Amalek attacked Israel in the desert, before it had entered its Land. Amalek’s attack was motivated by pure, and unfounded hatred, and this is the reason the Torah instructs us to “remember what Amalek did to you on the way, when you left Egypt”. [Deuteronomy 25:17]

Historically, it has been the descendants of Rachel who have fought against Amalek. Our Sages comment: “Jacob saw (prophetically) that the descendants of Esau (Amalek) will fall only into the hands of the descendants of Rachel”. [Babylonian Talmud Bava Batra 123b] This is necessary, explains Rabbi Epstein. The sons of the remaining Mothers were guilty of unfounded hatred towards Joseph, and thus were not suited for countering the unfounded hatred of Amalek. Only the sons of Rachel were uncontaminated by unfounded hatred among the brothers, and therefore capable of fighting Amalek.

Indeed, it was Joshua, of the tribe of Ephraim, who was sent by Moses to counter Amalek’s attack in the desert.

It was necessary for Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin to reign as the first king of Israel, even though monarchy belongs to the tribe of Judah, because it is the king’s task to eradicate Amalek.

As well, the Purim miracle, the salvation from Haman, the descendant of Amalek had to come through Mordechai and Esther, of the tribe of Binyamin, descendants of Rachel.

Half Sheqels vs.10,000 Sheqels

Resh Lakish said: It was well known beforehand to Him at Whose word the world came into being that Haman would one day pay sheqels for the destruction of Israel. Therefore He preceded Haman’s sheqels with those of Israel. And so we have learnt: "On the first of Adar proclamation is made regarding the sheqalim.”                                                       Babylonian Talmud Megilla 13b

            Concerning the half-sheqel (Resh Lakish’s “sheqels of Israel”) the Torah commands [Exodus 30:15]: “The rich may not give more, and the poor may not give less than this half-sheqel,” a law which stresses the equal worth of every individual within Israel. Every individual Israelite is an equal part of the collective Israel. This approach is an expression of the unity of Israel, and thus, one of the lessons of the half-sheqel is the ultimate importance of Israel’s unity.

            The Purim story revolves around the concept of Israel’s unity. The trouble brought upon the nation by Haman began with his declaration [Esther 3:8] “There is one nation scattered and disunited..” It was Israel’s lack of unity which made it vulnerable to the Aggagite’s plot. The turning point and the commencement of Israel’s salvation came when Queen Esther ordered [4:16] “Gather all the Jews..” The national unity which Esther achieved facilitated God’s salvation of Israel.

            Thus, Resh Lakish’s comment can be understood to hint at the power of Israel’s unity. God preceded the lesson of the importance of Israel’s unity to the nefarious deeds of Haman in order to teach His people how to deal with its oppressors.

Rachel's Descendants versus Amalek

The descendants of Esau will fall only into the hands of the descendants of Rachel.                                               Breishit Rabba 99:2

Based upon Midrashic comments, Rabbi Yehonatan Eybschutz notes that Esau had the merit of honoring his father. Yet Esau’s professions of honor for Isaac were hypocritical, as our Sages tell us that Esau sent his son Eliphaz to assassinate Jacob, thereby showing no concern for the suffering his father would experience at the death of one of his sons.

Joseph’s brothers, after selling him into slavery, allowed their father to believe that Joseph had been killed by a wild animal. Thus, the brothers were as guilty of hypocrisy as was Esau, and they are not qualified to overcome Esau.

Only Joseph himself and his full brother Benjamin were not party to the pain inflicted by their brothers' deceit of Jacob, and therefore only they, the sons of Rachel, have the merit to overcome Esau.

Amalek is a descendant of Esau, and indeed, historically, it was the descendants of Rachel who battled Amalek: Joshua (of the Tribe of Ephraim, one of the two tribes of Joseph) fought against Amalek in its original attack on Israel in the desert; King Saul, of the Tribe of Binyamin, was called upon to annihilate Amalek, as we read in the Haftara of Parashat Zachor; Mordechai and Esther, of the Tribe of Binyamin lead the fight against Haman, the descendant of the Amalekite Agag. 

Eternal Purim

All the appointed times (holidays) are destined to be cancelled (in the end of days), except for the days of Purim, as the verse [Esther 9:28] states: "…that these days of Purim should not fail from among the Jews, nor the memorial of them perish from their seed."    

                                                      Midrash Proverbs 9:2

         Purim is unique among the holidays which the People of Israel celebrate, in that it commemorates a hidden miracle. All of the events of the story of Purim, thwarting Haman's plans and the salvation of the Jews, can be seen as "natural" events. In contrast, all other holidays mark overt miracles. Thus, we can understand the Midrash's declaration to mean that in the end of days, when there will be no need for overt miracles, the holidays which commemorate overt miracles in Israel's history will no longer be relevant. However, Purim, which constitutes recognition of the great truth that "nature" indeed is directed by God, that the natural is miraculous, will not be cancelled, for all Mankind will achieve this realization.

Perhaps this is the message of Isaiah's prophecy [11:9] "for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of God, as the waters cover the sea." The defining characteristic of the end of days is direct and personal knowledge of God, with no need for overt miracles.

Haman and the Tree of Knowledge

Where do find Haman alluded to in the Torah? It is in the verse [Genesis 3:11]: "Did you eat from (hamin, the same consonants as the name "Haman") the tree which I commanded you not to eat?"              Babylonian Talmud Hullin 139b

Rabbi Aharon Kotler explained that our Sages wish to convey a substantive connection between Haman and the Tree of Knowledge.

Haman should have felt exalted, being the second most powerful person in the vast Persian empire, blessed with great wealth and "multitude of children” [Esther 5:11], yet there was one thing which he allowed to destroy his life (in Haman's own words [ibid. v. 13]: "all this [wealth, power and children] avails me nothing") : the fact that Mordechai refused to bow to him. 

Haman's situation was an exact parallel to that of Adam and Eve in Eden: God permitted them everything in the garden, except for the Tree of Knowledge. Yet, instead of focusing on all the good they were granted by the Creator, the primal couple was unable to resist the one thing that God had forbidden them.

Both in the case of Haman and that of Adam and Eve, the failure to appreciate the good and the positive had far reaching effects.

No Longer Servants of Ahasuerus

Those of us privileged to live in Jerusalem celebrate Shushan Purim, on the fifteenth of Adar, a day later than most places. In fact, any city that was walled at the time of the conquest of Israel by Joshua and the Tribes of Israel celebrates Shushan Purim.

Rabbi Kook commented that those who recognize the criterion of the days of Joshua cannot remain servants of Ahasuerus.

Rabbi Uzi Kalcheim explained Rabbi Kook’s comment: The Jerusalem Talmud teaches us that the criterion of the days of Joshua (while the logical criterion should be any city walled at the time of Esther and Mordechai) was chosen to honor the Land of Israel. Those, who at the peak of their success in the Diaspora, remember the Holy Land and “raise it above their chiefest joy” [Psalms 137:6] cannot remain servants of Ahasuerus, they will not accept their temporary success in exile, but will continually pray from the depths of their hearts for the return to Zion, for the “sons to return to their borders.” [Jeremiah 31:16]

The Fragrance of Purim

And Your nation are all righteous …                                                 Isaiah 60:21 Even the empty ones among you are as full of mitzvot as a pomegranate is full of seeds.                   Midrash Shir haShirim Rabba 4:3

Rabbi Yehonatan Eibeshutz explains that the above comments apply when the People of Israel are united, which he illustrates by analogy to one who buys sheep. If the purchase is of an entire large flock, the buyer does not inspect each individual sheep, which he would do if purchasing a small number of sheep. Thus, when Israel is united, God, as it were, overlooks the shortcomings of those who are less than righteous.

The Purim story began with Haman telling King Ahasuerus “there is a people scattered and dispersed.” [Esther 3:8] Rabbi Yehonatan explains that, in effect, Haman said “since the Jews are disunited, perhaps God will not listen to their prayers.”

The turning point, and beginning of the Jews’ salvation, was when Esther instructed Mordechai: “Go assemble all the Jews to be found in Shushan.”  Mordechai indeed gathered all the Jews of Shushan, including those who had (willingly) participated in Ahasuerus’ party.

When the Talmud [Ḥullin 139b] asks ‘’where is Mordechai alluded to in the Torah?” the intention, according to Rabbi Yehonatan, is questioning Mordechai’s Biblical source for including the non-righteous Jews. The Talmud finds the allusion in the verse:

Take the chief spices, of flowing myrrh (mor d’ror, a play on words on Mordechai’s name)…                                                 Exodus 30:22

Our Sages answered their question by referring to the incense. Among the eleven spices of which the incense was made is ḥelbena, which by itself is foul-smelling. Yet if the ḥelbena is left out of the mixture, the incense is invalid. Our Sages stress the lesson of the incense: ḥelbena represents the sinners among Israel, but they may not be cast away, they too are part of the Jewish People. Thus, Mordechai was correct in gathering all the Jews and not excluding the sinners among them. Indeed, it was not Mordechai’s right, but his obligation to include even the sinners of Israel.

Ultimately, Purim teaches the lesson of the supreme importance of the unity of all Jews. 

Esther Morningstar

For the conductor; upon the morning star (Ayelet ha-Shahar), a Psalm of David.                    Psalms 22:1

Our Sages [Babylonian Talmud Yoma 29a] understood “Ayelet haShahar” as a reference to Queen Esther:

Said Rabbi Assi: why is Esther compared to the morning star? To tell you that just as the morning star is the end of the entire night, so too Esther is the end of all miracles.

[Indeed, based upon the Talmud’s association of Esther with “Ayelet haShahar,” the tradition of the Gaon of Vilna is that this chapter is recited as the daily Psalm on Purim.]

Perhaps we can understand Rabbi Assi’s comment to refer not to the temporal end of miracles, but rather to the purposeful end. That is, Esther is the end, the goal of all miracles. The miracle of Purim is a miracle through nature, involving no overt Divine intervention.

The late Lubavitcher Rebbi comments: “An open miracle is somewhat of a disappointment for God. Once all is said and done, He got His way only by ignoring the norms of our lower world, by breaking His own rules.  If He can perform miracles only by bullying Nature, He may as well concede that our world is a place the Infinite Light does not belong. So He also makes another sort of miracle-the sort that blends seamlessly into the order of things below. These are impossible miracles: They break no rules, but change everything. In truth, they are the most awesome of miracles-these that reveal the Infinite unrestrained within the nature of everyday things.”

In this sense, Esther indeed represents the purpose of miracles.

In truth, miracles did not end with Esther, as the Talmud itself queries: “what about Hanukka?

In fact, we live in times of miracles as well. No less a person than David ben Gurion (who could not be considered a traditionally observant Jew) commented that in Israel, one who does not believe in miracles is not a realist. My father wrote numerous times that he believes that the miracles to which his generation (and ours) are witness are as great as or even greater than the miracles our ancestors experienced.

Purim and Yom Kippurim

Our Sages compare Purim to Yom Kippur, commenting, in a play on words that Yom Kippurim means “Yom K’Purim” (a day like Purim).

At first glance, the comment may seem like “Purim Torah”, however, in fact, our Sages convey a deep message.

Zohar comments that on Purim we achieve tikun (rectification) through enjoyment, while on Yom Kippur it is achieved through affliction.

Sfat Emet elaborates on Zohar’s comment and writes that on Yom Kippur, we have the ability to rise above nature and reach atonement through denial of our physical needs (eating and drinking) and afflicting ourselves. On Purim, we have the ability to achieve the same level through our use of feasting and merriment.

The Gaon of Vilna remarks that our Sages taught [Babylonian Talmud Beitza 15b; (Mishna Berura 529:1)] that the holidays are to be divided “half for you and half for God,” while Yom Kippur is to be devoted entirely to God. Purim, as a day of “feasting and joy” [Esther 9:17] is devoted entirely to us. As such, the Gaon suggests that Purim complements Yom Kippur.

Rabbi Kook noted that the approach represented by Purim, that is, using sensual factors to achieve a spiritual end, is the greater level. This perhaps is the reason Yom Kippur is compared to Purim and not vice versa. 

The Two Days of Purim

Among Israel’s holidays and festivals, Purim is unique in the fact that it is celebrated on two separate days, depending upon the type of city. A city enclosed in walls at the time of Joshua celebrates Shushan Purim, a day after the celebration in the rest of the world.

It is surprising that the celebration of Purim is not uniform throughout the world, especially in light of the centrality of Jewish unity in the Purim saga (the Purim story began with Haman telling King Ahasuerus “there is a people scattered and dispersed [m’forad, which traditional commentaries understand to mean internally disunited].” [Esther 3:8] The turning point, and beginning of the Jews’ salvation, was when Esther instructed Mordechai [4:16]: “Go assemble all the Jews to be found in Shushan.”). 

Rabbi Yosef Zvi Rimon suggests that there is a very significant lesson: even in a situation of unity, there need not be uniformity. Unity does not require suppressing individuality; on the contrary, the fact that each individual is free to express his own personality is the factor which gives meaning to unity.

My father expressed the concept in a more forceful manner: not only is there no need for uniformity, but a united society must be built on unity, not on uniformity. Thus, the Almighty chose the rainbow as the sign of His covenant with Noah to teach that diversity is consistent with unity.

The Torah presents this approach as well in the prohibition of erecting a matzeiva (sacred pillar). [Deuteronomy 16:22] A matzeiva is a single stone, a monolith, in which there is no unity. Rather, the entire stone is identical. Once Israel entered its Land, the use of a matzeiva in God’s service was replaced by the use of the mizbeaḥ (altar). The mizbeaḥ is a symbol of the unity of the Tribes of Israel, so much so, that our Sages [Babylonian Talmud Gittin 90b] taught that when a Jewish couple is divorced, the mizbeaḥ weeps because part of the nation is disunited. The mizbeaḥ is composed of many stones, which, when united, serve as the means of achieving closeness to the Almighty (based upon Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch’s understanding of korbanot [sacrifices]), symbolizing the importance of maintaining one’s individuality within the framework of unity. The ideal of Judaism is not to have a single mindset, but to have each member bring his/her own thoughts and qualities to the service of God.

Indeed, Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe writes that one who has no individual personality, but feels entirely and exclusively part of the community, not only does not contribute to the community, but has nothing to contribute.

The Halacha expresses the aspects of both the individual and the community. On one hand, Jews living in walled cities celebrate Purim on a different day than those living in unwalled cities, yet each notes the day on which the other celebrates, as the Halacha teaches that the penitential prayers (taḥanun) are not said on either day of Purim. Further, Rama [Oraḥ Ḥayyim 695:2] writes: “all are obligated in some measure of celebration on both days (of Purim), the 14^th and the 15^th.”

The unique law of two days of Purim conveys the concept that true unity requires maintaining individuality within the framework of the community, and not suppression of the individual within the community.

Remembering Shabbat and Amalek

The Shabbat before Purim is called Shabbat Zachor (“remember”), because our Sages instituted the reading of the mitzva to remember Amalek specifically on this Shabbat, since Haman was a descendant of Amalek.  This annual reading actually fulfills the obligation to remember Amalek.

The Midrash connects the mitzva of remembering Amalek and Shabbat, noting that in each instance the Torah uses the word zachor.

Sfat Emet explains that the Midrash goes beyond the simple fact of finding the same word used in both mitzvot to pointing out a deep connection between Shabbat and remembering Amalek. Amalek attacked Israel before the Torah was given, in an attempt to prevent us from accepting the Torah. The essence of accepting Torah is reuniting with our spiritual roots, explains Sfat Emet. Shabbat, as the day of spiritual rest, allows us to retreat from the distractions of the workweek and focus on this reunion with our spiritual roots. Thus, the zachor of Shabbat is indeed connected to the zachor of Amalek, and the two remembrances are interrelated. Each Shabbat carries with it a small portion of wiping out Amalek, which is proportional to the extent of Shabbat observance among the People of Israel.

There is an additional aspect which Sfat Emet points out. Amalek was able to attack Israel because of its lack of unity. Amalek attacked the Israelites at Rephidim, which our Sages understood symbolically as meaning disunited. When Israel is united, it is not vulnerable to the power of Amalek. Shabbat (ideally) provides the unity which protects Israel from Amalek.