Two Types of Enemies

Moses instructed Koraḥ’s 250 co-conspirators to prepare incense. [Numbers 16:16-17] After the conspirators were killed by fire [16:34], God instructed that the incense pans of “these sinners” (ḥata’im) be beaten into a cover for the altar. [17:3]

Ba’al haTurim notes that the word ḥata’im appears in connection with Amalek as well. [I Samuel 15:18]

My father explained that Amalek and Koraḥ represent two types of enemies of Israel. Amalek is an external enemy, who, driven by hatred of Israel’s spirituality, in tried to destroy that spirituality by destroying Israel physically. Koraḥ and his congregation symbolize the internal enemy, disunity of the Children of Israel. As Israel can fight against its external enemies through unity, Koraḥ and his congregation represent the greater threat to Israel.

The importance of Israel’s unity is seen as well in the aftermath of the punishment of Koraḥ’s co-conspirators. After the conspirators were killed, the people accuse Moses and Aaron of killing “the nation of God” [17:6], and God punished the people with a plague. Moses instructed Aaron to take incense in order to stop the plague. [v.11] Rashi, quoting Mechilta, comments that the people complained that the incense is connected to death, having brought about the deaths of Aaron’s sons Nadav and Avihu as well as the 250 people of Koraḥ’s congregation. Therefore, the incense was used to stop the plague, in order to demonstrate that it was not associated with death.

My father noted that among the eleven ingredients of the incense was ḥelbana, which taken alone was foul smelling, yet when mixed with the other ingredients, helped create the beautiful fragrance of the incense. As our Sages teach us, the symbolism of ḥelbana is the unity of all Israel, even those who are not righteous. Therefore, the use of incense to stop the plague teaches that it is the unity of Israel which will protect God’s people from all plagues and troubles. When Israel is united, it need fear no plague.

Incense as a Symbol of Leadership

The argument between Koraḥ and Moses was based upon differing approaches to leadership. Koraḥ saw leadership from the perspective of privilege, Moses from that of obligation.

Koraḥ asked Moses “why do you raise yourself above the congregation of God?” (Numbers 16:3) In doing so, Koraḥ was projecting his approach to leadership, saying in effect, “Were I the leader, I would raise myself above the congregation.”

Moses instructed Koraḥ’s rebels to bring incense. As my father explained, the incense serves as a symbol of true leadership. The incense was so fragrant that our Sages tell us that when the Temple stood, a bride in Jerusalem never required perfume. Yet of the eleven spices of which the incense was composed, one, ḥelbana, was by itself foul smelling. When mixed with the other eleven spices, ḥelbana lost its foul smell and contributed to the beautiful aroma of the incense. As our Sages explain, the lesson of ḥelbana is the importance of including all Jews as part of the congregation, even those who seem “foul smelling.” My father explained the lesson for leadership: rather than lowering the standards to accommodate those who are on a low level, a leader must raise the weaker members of the community to a higher level. A true leader is one who serves the people, not his own ego. A leader serves his people by elevating them to the highest level possible.

A true leader does not raise himself above the people, but rather raises the people with him.

Moses, in choosing incense as his symbol, also stressed the ultimate importance of unity. The eleven spices of the incense, including the ḥelbana, are ground into a single entity.

Aaron's Lesson of Leadership

Koraḥ and his co-conspirators accused Moses and Aaron of “lifting themselves above the assembly of the Lord”. [Numbers 16:3] However, as we noted in a previous Dvar Torah, Koraḥ’s accusation in reality was a projection of his approach to leadership.

Ironically, our Sages taught that it was precisely because he did not “lift himself above” his younger brother that Aaron merited priesthood:

Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai says: the heart which rejoiced with the greatness of his brother [Exodus 4:14] will wear the urim and tumim, as the verse says: and you shall put the urim and tumim in the breastplate of judgment that it may be on Aaron’s heart. [Exodus 28:30]                           Midrash Tanḥuma, Shemot 27

It was Aaron’s ability to forego his own prestige and accept that his younger brother was the most suitable leader for the Children of Israel that qualified him for priesthood. Because his approach was diametrically opposed to that of Koraḥ, who was motivated by a perceived slight to his prestige, the lesson learnt from Aaron is that a true leader places the people’s needs above his own.

Choice of Symbols

Rashi quotes our Sages’ tradition that Koraḥ dressed his men in tallitot made entirely of t’chelet (the special blue dye) and asked: “is such a tallit obligated in zizit?”  When Moses responded in the affirmative, Koraḥ and his men mocked him, saying “if a single string of t’chelet fulfills the halachic obligation, all the more so a garment which is entirely t’cheklet  should exempt itself.”

Truthfully, Koraḥ’s question is a non-starter. The law of zizit is a divine decree, and thus not open to question.

However, the question does make sense from the perspective of Koraḥ himself. Koraḥ’s claim was that Moses acted on his own. Moses appointed himself leader, chose his older brother as high priest and passed over Koraḥ to appoint Elizaphan as head of the tribe of Levi. What Koraḥ refused to accept is that Moses acted in accordance with God’s will. 

If there is no divine element, then Koraḥ’s question is an excellent question: how is it possible that a single string of t’chelet will fulfill the requirement of zizit, while a garment entirely of t’chelet will not fulfill the requirement.

Koraḥ failed to distinguish between the garment and the zizit. The garment is that which man brings, the zizit are added in accordance with God’s command. In his claims against Moses, Koraḥ symbolically failed to distinguish between the garment and the zizit.  

Koraḥ chose t’chelet as his symbol. In his response, Moses chose the incense as his symbol.

            Koraḥ, self-righteously said to Moses “the entire congregation is holy and why do you (and Aaron) raise yourselves above the congregation of God” [Numbers 16:3]. As Rashi notes, Koraḥ’s true complaint was based upon his jealousy of Moses and Aaron and his feeling of personal slight in having been passed over for the position of head of the tribe of Levi.

Zizit are composed of strings of white and t’chelet. The t’chelet is wrapped around the white strings and is what holds them together. T’chelet thus symbolizes leadership. It is a leader’s job to unite his people. Koraḥ, in effect said to Moses: if a leader who is on the level of a single string of t’chelet is a good leader, then one who is entirely t’chelet, who raises himself above the people, is even better. Koraḥ saw himself as that “garment which is entirely t’chelet”. It is likely that Koraḥ’s claim that Moses raised himself above the congregation was a projection of what he would do if he were in a leadership position.

Moses responded with the incense. The incense is composed of eleven spices which are mixed together in such a way that none remains independently recognizable. This is Moses’ response to Koraḥ: true, a leader’s job is to unite his people, however, a real leader does not see himself as being separate from his congregation. An authentic leader sees himself as an inseparable part of his congregation (as the Halacha says “if the preparer of the incense omits even a single spice, he is punished by death”).

Through the incense, Moses countered Koraḥ’s false accusation by saying that he has not raised himself above the congregation, but rather has remained part of the congregation, which is the true approach to leadership.

In the end, Koraḥ sees leadership as privilege, while Moses sees it as obligation. 

King Moses

Moses took the initiative, and followed by the elders of Israel, went over to Dathan and Abiram.                                                                     Numbers 16:25

 Resh Lakish said: This teaches that one must not be stubborn in a matter of dissension.                                                     Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 110a

            Moses demonstrated his greatness by approaching those who were his juniors, rather than insisting on his own honor. However, Moses was considered a king [Midrash Tannaim, Deuteronomy 33:5] and the Halacha declares that a king may not forego his honor. [Maimonides Laws of Kings 2:3] Thus, we can question Moses’ decision to approach his antagonists.

            The reason a king may not waive his honor is the fact that it is not his personal honor, rather that of the nation. Preventing dissension within the nation certainly qualifies as national honor. Therefore, Moses taught that to prevent dissension, a king may forego his personal honor. Or perhaps the lesson can be phrased that preventing national dissension itself is the king’s honor.

Proper Motivation

God said to Moses, “Put Aaron's staff back there before the (Ark of) Testimony as a keepsake. Let it be a sign for anyone who wants to rebel. This should put an end to their complaints to Me, and then they will not die.” Moses did exactly as God had instructed him, thus did Moses.                          Numbers 17:25-26

            The wording of verse 25: “Moses did exactly as God had instructed him, thus did Moses” seems redundant. Apparently, it would have sufficed for the Torah to write either “Moses did exactly as God had instructed him” or “thus did Moses.”

            My saintly teacher, Rabbi Mordechai Rogov, explained that with the extra phrase, the Torah teaches the greatness of Moses. Returning Aaron’s staff to the Tabernacle indicated that Moses had acted exclusively on God’s command, and that “Moses is true and his Torah is true.” [Midrash Tanḥuma, Koraḥ 11] Thus, Moses had a personal interest in performing God’s bidding in this matter. Therefore, the Torah stresses that Moses acted solely in accordance with the Divine instruction, without any concern for the personal aspect. The wording of the verse declares that in the controversy of Korah, Moses, the Master of all prophets acted with no personal motivation whatsoever, but exclusively on behalf of the nation of Israel, in accordance with God’s word.

Speaking of the Land

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Why did that evil man (Sennacherib) merit the title of the great and noble Asenapper? [Ezra 4:10] Because he did not speak disparagingly of the Land of Israel, as it is written [II Kings 18:32], "Until I come and take you away to a land like your own land..." But Israel spoke with contempt about the Land of Israel.                           Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 94a

Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches that despite his being an evil person, Sennacherib (the Assyrian king who captured all of the Kingdom of Judah except Jerusalem [II Kings 18:13ff]) merited the tremendous respect of the Bible calling him “great and noble” as reward for refraining from speaking ill of the Holy Land. In this way, Sennacherib stands in stark contrast to the generation of the Exodus, which accepted the negative report of the ten spies.

Indeed, the Talmud contrasts Sennacherib and the Israelites, who “spoke with contempt about the Land of Israel” (though the Talmud refers to the ten lost tribes, not to the sin of the spies, nonetheless, the generation of the Exodus too spoke ill of the Land).

Rashi [Sanhedrin 110b] suggests that speaking ill of the Land is the reason the ten tribes lost their share of the World to Come.

Netziv comments that the spies did not lie, and their entire report was factual, yet speaking ill of the Land is forbidden absolutely, even when truth is spoken!

Based upon the Talmudic comment quoted above, Rabbi Simcha BenZion Rabinowitz writes, as a practical halacha:

It is forbidden denigrate the Land of Israel, even concerning its trees and stones, and it is forbidden to say of any other land that it is better than the Land of Israel. [Piskei Teshuvot 156:23:10]

Rabbi Moshe Zuriel [Drishat Ẓiyyon, pp.90-91] notes that the verse quoted by the Talmud seems to indicate that the ten tribes did not assert that other lands are better than the Holy Land, merely that there are lands which are its equal. As such, it seems strange that Sennacherib was rewarded for such comments while the ten tribes were severely punished.

Rabbi Zuriel explains the difference: as Jews, the ten tribes may not consider any other land to be the equal of the Holy Land, but must accept that all other lands are inferior. Based upon his analysis, Rabbi Zuriel adds two points to Rabbi Rabinowitz’ comments (albeit, not as a halachic decision):

¬ it is a mitzva to speak in praise of the Land

¬ one may not consider any other land to be the equal of our Land, all the more so, one may not praise any other land as being better.

One Land, Two Names

… the Land of Canaan, which I give to the Children of Israel …                                              Numbers 13:2

            The verse hints that the spies must discern between “the land of Canaan” and the Land of Israel. My father noted that the two names of the same land indicate opposite extremes: the Canaanites defiled the Land, while it is Israel’s charge to turn the Land in practice into the Holy Land, and bring forth the sanctity which is inherent within her.

            Many commentators question how the Holy Land, the most blessed place on earth, can be named for Canaan the accursed [Genesis 9:25]. Zohar’s answer is:

When Israel is worthy, the Land is named for them; when Israel is not worthy, the Land is named for others, the land of Canaan.

            Indeed, it is the nation of Israel’s challenge and responsibility to turn the land of Canaan into the Holy Land in practice.

According to Your Attitude

Send you (literally: “send for yourself”) to spy out the Land of Canaan, which I give to the Children of Israel…           Numbers 13:2 Send you: according to your view (“l’da’atcha” i.e. God allowed, not commanded, Moses to send the spies).                                              Rashi

      My father noted that “l’da’atcha” can be understood as well to mean in accordance with your attitude, that is, God told Moses that it was necessary to send men, similar to Moses himself, who are not motivated by personal gain, but are concerned only for the welfare of the nation, and who seek only truth.

      Indeed, many classical commentaries suggest that the motivation of the ten spies who presented the negative report was the fear that upon entering the Promised Land, they would be replaced by a new leadership. Rather than being true leaders, the ten spies put their personal interest above the national interest and needs, bringing calamitous results to Israel throughout the generations.

Spying With Wisdom

Send men to spy out (latur) the Land of Canaan which I give to the Children of Israel ...              Numbers 13:2

The root word “latur” (translated here “to spy out”) appears also in the first chapter of Ecclesiastes [v. 13]: “And I applied my heart to seek and to search out (latur) by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven …”, upon which the Midrash comments “‘to search out by wisdom’ as the verse says ‘spy out the Land of Canaan.’” Our Sages teach that for one to truly see the Land requires deep wisdom, one must not be influenced by what is seen on the superficial level, but to delve beyond this and understand how truly good the Land is.

My father explained the Sages’ intention is that for one to truly “search out” and “see” the Land of Israel, it is necessary to employ wisdom. It is insufficient to see the Land only on a superficial level. One must apply wisdom and delve deeply into the meaning and significance of the Land of Israel to the People of Israel, in the future as well as in the past. Then one will reach the conclusion reported by Joshua and Caleb: “the Land is exceedingly good.” [Numbers 14:7]

Exceedingly Good

And they spoke to all the congregation of the Children of Israel, saying: “The Land which we passed through to search it, is an exceedingly good land.” (tova haAretz me’od me’od)                                         Numbers 14:7

We find the phrase “tov me’od” in at the end of the description of God’s creation of the world [Genesis 1:31]:

And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good (tov me’od).

In explaining the emphatic “me’od” (very), Netziv notes that it is possible to have constituent parts which are good individually, yet do not mesh well together. The meaning of “tov me’od”, explains Netziv, is that not only were the individual components of creation good, but they also combined well in their totality, each part complementing the others.

Perhaps we can apply Netziv’s insight to our verse. The doubly emphatic repetition of “me’od” suggests not only that the Land itself is good, but the combination of the Land, the People of Israel and Torah complement each other to achieve the highest level possible.

Fatherly Forgiveness

God said, 'I will grant forgiveness as you have requested.’

                                                                    Numbers 14:20

            Thanks to my grandson, who was then seven and a half years old, I understood the greatness of God’s declaration “I will grant forgiveness as you have requested.” Tzur did something and I asked him not to do it again. A minute or two later, Tzur repeated the behavior, to which I responded “I am angry at you.” A few minutes later, Tzur came back to me and apologized, to which I replied “I grant forgiveness as you have requested.”

            Immediately, I began to reflect, realizing that with a child other than my grandchild, I would not have so easily or so thoroughly forgiven the infraction.

            God instructs us to behave in specific ways and to refrain from specific behaviors. We do not always follow God’s commands, yet we turn to God and ask His forgiveness. It is not to be taken for granted that God forgives us. When the Holy One, blessed be He, declares “I will grant forgiveness as you have requested” it is a tremendous expression of His fatherly love for His nation Israel.

            (Since this episode, I have hoped to find a Midrash which  compares God’s love of Israel to the love between a grandparent and a grandchild.)

            When Rabbi Ḥayyim Shmuelevitz (1902-1979, Rosh Yeshiva of the Mir Yeshiva) overlooked the traditional monument of Absalom, he would lift his eyes in prayer and say “Master of the universe: when a person tells his fellow “I forgive you,” it is merely words. Only a father intends such words sincerely. Behold! Though King David’s son rebelled against him and caused him untold suffering, still, as a father, he forgave Absalom. Master of the universe: You are our father and Your forgiveness is sincere, I beseech You, utter the words “I forgive.”

True Humility

Moses, however, was very humble, more so than any man on the face of the earth.                       Numbers 12:3

            At first glance, the verse seems strange, since it was written by Moses himself, and writing of himself that he is the humblest of men hardly conveys humility.

            Of course, our question is a non-starter, since Moses did not author the verse, but merely wrote what God dictated to him.

            Nonetheless, there is a practical lesson to be learnt from Moses writing of his own humility. Moses could have argued with God and expressed his reluctance to describe himself as the humblest of men, yet we find no such description in the rabbinic literature. The practical message is that humility does not require denying the truth. While it would be unseemly for a person to brag about his own positive attributes, it is equally unseemly to deny them.

            Rabbi Yeruḥam Levovitz (1873 – 1936), the mashgiaḥ of the Mir yeshiva takes the point a step further, when he writes: “It is totally inappropriate when a person does not recognize his own shortcomings, for then he has no idea of what (spiritual) work is required of him, but even worse is one who does not recognize his own virtues, for then he has nothing with which to work.”

            Rabbi Levovitz added that the proof of Moses’ humility is the fact that even after writing the words “Moses, however, was very humble, more so than any man on the face of the earth,” he in fact remained the same humble person as he had been.

The Menorah: Seven Wisdoms

And God spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to Aaron and say to him: when you light the lamps, the seven lamps shall give light towards the body of the menora.               Numbers 8:1-2

          The wicks of the six branches of the menora were inclined towards the central branch. Further, our Sages tell us that the seven cups of the menora were filled with equal amounts of oil, yet the central lamp always remained lit even after the other six burned out. Indeed, it was the central light of the menora which was the ner tamid, the eternal light.

          My father commented that the menora is the symbol of Torah, of the light that comes to us from the study knowledge and practice of Torah. Torah is the flame which illuminates our path in life. Without Torah, man gropes in darkness. Our existence and survival depend upon Torah, and Mankind’s progress was made possible through Torah. However, there are other sources of light and knowledge which guide Mankind and which are important to civilization. The various disciplines of science have made vital contributions to human progress.  Rather than belittling the sciences, our Sages speak of the branches of the menora representing the “seven wisdoms”.

          The lesson of the menora is that science is a blessing only when it is bent towards Torah. Without fear of God, science can become a most destructive force. It is when the other “wisdoms” are inclined towards Torah that they achieve their constructive purpose. The purpose of Torah is to shape and mold us to become better human beings, to be concerned with the destiny and fate of other people. With Torah as a guide, we will be able to achieve the benefit of science.

Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. If we continue to develop our technology without wisdom or prudence, our servant may prove to be our executioner.                                  General Omar Bradley

The Two Sounds of the Trumpet

Like the shofar, the hatzotzra (silver trumpet) has two basic sounds: t’ki’a and teru’ah. T’ki’a is the sound of rejoicing, as the verse (10:10) states:

          And on the day of your joy and on your festivals, you shall blow (t’ki’a) with the trumpets .

            Teru’ah, on the other hand, is translated by Onkelos as yebaba, sighing. The teru’ah expresses uneasiness and perhaps even distress.

The call for the camp of Israel to journey was teru’ah (10:5). However, based upon the exact wording of the verse, our Sages teach that the teru’ah was preceded and followed by t’kiot.

            This order conveys a significant lesson. The journeys of the Children of Israel should be times of joy. This feeling is conveyed by the prefatory t’ki’a.  After all, the camp was moving closer to the Promised Land.  However, the journey can arouse feelings of wariness and anxiety, over the need to leave a familiar, comfortable place for the unknown. Thus, the actual call to begin the journey is teru’ah. Yet the teru’ah was followed by a t’ki’a, teaching that since the journeys are “by the word of God” (9:18;20;23), we are guaranteed that in the end the journey will be a positive and joyful experience. Thus the call to the journey ends with t’ki’a.

The Menorah and Israel's Unity

And this was the work of the menorah, made of a single piece of beaten gold. Everything from its base to its blossom consisted of a single piece of beaten metal. The menorah was thus made exactly according to the vision that God showed Moses.     Numbers 8:4

                We can ask why the Torah again describes the “work of the menorah” which has already been detailed in Parashat Terumah?

         Tzror haMor writes that it is possible to light the menorah (literally: to cause the light of the menorah to rise, a literal translation of verse 2) and cause it to shine for the Children of Israel only through the complete unity of the nation. The base of the menorah represents the ordinary Israelites while the blossom symbolizes the nation’s elite. The verse teaches that all Israel, from the simplest person to the greatest leader must be “made of a single piece.” The nation is not composed of disparate parts which have been combined, but is a single united entity, with no distinctions whatsoever.

         Beyond this, “the seven lamps shall illuminate the menorah” [8:2] stresses the unity of Israel and teaches that “all the lamps are inclined upwards in unity.” When Aaron (and subsequently, his descendants) lit the menorah, he had to do so with intent of the unity of Israel. Thus, in order to underscore the fact that the making of the menorah and its lighting are focused on the same concept, the Torah adds the description of making the menorah, despite its already having been stated. “The Torah teaches that what is now stated in connection with lighting the menorah corresponds exactly to the making of the menorah.”

Shavuot Ruth and the Land

            Megilat Ruth certainly presents a positive attitude towards the Holy Land, so much so that the Talmudic Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai expresses his opinion that Elimelech and his sons were punished by death for having left Israel.

            Perhaps one of the reasons our Sages instituted the reading of Ruth on Shavuot is to connect Torah and the Land. While it is true that Torah was given outside the Holy Land, the Divine intent was to present the Nation of Israel with its constitution before entering its Land. (See, for example, Netziv’s comment [Leviticus 26:5]: God’s will is that the nation always dwell in its Land and serve Him.)

            The fact that so many mitzvot can be fulfilled only in the Land stresses the prominence of the Holy Land in connection with Torah and mitzvot, a point which is made as well, (even if only by implication) by Megilat Ruth.

The Priestly Blessing: Loving and Being Loved

          Birkat Kohanim (the priestly blessing), as used in prayer today is taken directly from the verses in our Parasha [6:22-27]. Immediately prior to delivering the blessing, the Kohanim recite their own blessing, Birkat haMitzva (a blessing recited before performing a mitzva): “Blessed are You our God, King of the Universe, who has sanctified us with the sanctity of Aaron, and commanded us to bless His people Israel with love”.

          Ba’er Heitev (Oraḥ Ḥayyim 128:11), quoting Magen Avraham,  comments that the blessing ends with the words “with love” because our Sages teach us that any kohen  who does not love the people or who is not loved by the people should not bless them.

          Quite clearly, the kohanim are only God’s agents for conveying His blessing to the people. This is stated explicitly in the final verse presenting the Birkat Kohanim: “… and I shall bless them”. Yet in order to convey God’s blessing, the Kohanim must be accepted by the Israelites and accepting of them as well.

          We can understand the three verses of the Birkat Kohanim itself as being arranged in ascending order. Rashi explains the content of the blessing.  Verse 24 conveys a blessing of property and wealth. Verse 25, invokes a blessing of a “smiling Divine countenance”. The ultimate blessing is Shalom, peace (verse 26). On the simplest level, Shalom refers to interpersonal relations. It refers first to relations between a Jew and his fellow Jews. Only once internal peace has been achieved can peace between Israel and other nations be reached.

          It is the blessing of peace which requires the Kohanim to love and be loved by the people. Failure to reach the level of mutual love would render the blessing of Shalom hypocritical and invalidate the Kohanim from serving as the messenger to deliver God’s blessing. 

The Priestly Blessing and the Land

          The prevailing Halachic opinion is that the mitzva for Kohanim to bless the congregation, as contained in our parasha, is in force today [Sefer haḤinuch 367; and subsequent Halachic authorities].

          In practice, the custom in Jerusalem and most places in Israel (except the Galilee) is for Kohanim to bless the congregation daily (and twice on Shabbat). Outside Israel, typically Kohanim bless the congregation only on Shalosh Regalim (the three pilgrimage holidays) and Yom Kippur [Rama, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 128:44; this, at least is the Ashkenazi custom].

          Rama himself suggests that outside Israel, the requisite level of joy required for the Priestly Blessing is achieved only on the holidays. My cousin Aytan haKohen Himelstein noted that in many sAynagogues in Israel, the custom is for Kohanim to bless the congregation at Minḥa of Tisha b’Av, indicating that the level of joy in Eretz Yisrael at Minḥa of Tisha b’Av exceeds the level of joy on Shabbat in the Diaspora! 

          Among the later Halachic authorities, including contemporary authorities, there is an apparent discomfort with the custom as noted by the Rama, and an attempt to offer a reasonable explanation for the failure to fulfill the mitzva outside Israel.

          The Shela haKadosh (1558 - 1628) writes that Jews outside Israel are blessed through the priestly blessing given in Israel.

          There are contemporary Halachic authorities who suggest that it is appropriate for Jews outside Israel to specifically request of a Kohain in Israel to have them in mind when delivering the priestly blessing. Rabbi Moshe Shternbuch did so in the years that he served as a rabbi in South Africa.

          In this mitzva we have another example not only of the primacy of Eretz Yisrael, but also of its influence on Jewish communities of the Diaspora as well.

Hakarat haTov on All Levels

          The parasha ends with a twelve-fold repetition of the offerings of the tribal leaders at the dedication of the Tabernacle.

          The classical commentators are concerned by the apparent waste of words. Don Yitzhak Abravanel (15^th century) phrased the question: “why do the verses mention the offering of each tribal prince in detail, in light of the fact that each of the offerings was identical? It seems an exaggerated repetition and indeed is very strange.”

          Naḥmanides explains that the Torah teaches us that “God honors those who fear him”. If the Torah had detailed the offering of Naḥshon, prince of Judah, on the first day and then stated that each of the remaining eleven tribal princes brought the same offering, it would be a slight to the remaining princes.  In order to demonstrate that each of the princes’ offering is equally important to God, the Torah presents things with an unparsimonious use of words.

          Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe explains Naḥmanides’ comment in terms of hakarat haTov (expressing appreciation). The repetition of virtually the same words to describe the offerings of each of the twelve princes individually is intended to demonstrate that God, as it were, appreciates each individual offering equally. It is a lesson in the importance of hakarat haTov. Hakarat haTov applies between man and God, with the need to appreciate what God has done for each of us. Equally, hakarat haTov applies between man and fellow man. Our verses teach that hakarat haTov applies as well between God and man. While God does not need the offerings brought by human beings, He expresses His appreciation so we may learn the value of hakarat haTov.

Society's Culpability in the Individual's Sin

Speak unto the Children of Israel: when a man or woman shall do any of the sins against man, to practice treachery against God, and that person has incurred guilt; then they shall confess their sin which they have committed …                                         Numbers 5:6-7

Our verses switch from the singular (a man or woman) to the plural (they shall confess).

My father suggested that this apparent linguistic quirk teaches us a most important lesson: that on some level, society as a whole bears a measure of responsibility for the deeds of its individual members. Were society to achieve the ideal level of education, no one would sin against his fellow man. Further, there is a reciprocal interaction, as the sin of the individual has a negative impact on society as a whole. Thus, “they must confess their sin,” the society must recognize and correct its culpability in the individual’s sin.

The Blessings of the Priests and of the Fathers

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying:  Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying thus (koh) shall you bless the children of Israel you shall say to them…  Numbers 6:22-23

          This verse introduces the priestly blessing. Ba’al haTurim notes the use of the word koh and comments: (the priestly blessing) invokes the merit of our forefathers, as the verse (concerning the binding of Isaac) states: “And the lad and I will go yonder (koh)” (Genesis 22:5), and as the verse (God’s promise to Abraham) says “So (koh) shall your seed be” (Genesis 15:5).

          My father noted an additional significance of the use of the word koh in these three verses. The ultimate blessing is when father and son walk together (as Abraham and Isaac did on their way to Mount Moriah), when there is no generation gap and all generations of Israel are united.

          This concept relates as well to the final verse of the priestly blessing, which we can assume to be its highest level: “and may He give you peace” (Numbers 6:26). This verse is followed immediately by the description of the dedication of the Tabernacle. Peace, on the simplest level refers to harmony between man and fellow man. It is this harmony which allows the Tabernacle/Temple to be built and maintained among us.

Gershon and Kohath

Take also the sum of the sons of Gershon according to their fathers’ house, by their families. From thirty years old upward until fifty years old shall you number them …                                                Numbers 4:22-23

In the census of Levites from the age of thirty days, the sons of Gershon, the eldest son of Levi, were counted before the sons of Kohath [Numbers 3:14ff], while in the census of adults between the ages of thirty and fifty, Kohath preceded Gershon.

Because the count from thirty days expresses potential, at that age each member of the Tribe of Levi has an equal opportunity to develop and advance in the study of Torah. Therefore, Gershon, the first born, is given precedence in this enumeration. However, at the age of thirty years, in adulthood, the sons of Kohath are given primacy, since they are the ones whose job it is to carry the ark, to carry the Torah on their shoulders.

“Take also”: only after the sons of Kohath, who carry the ark, have been counted, is it time to also count the remaining families of the Tribe of Levi, who support Torah by transporting and building the Tabernacle. Though the functions of the families of Gershon and Merari are essentially support for the job of the sons of Kohath, the Torah teaches that they are vital and equally important, since Torah cannot exist in a vacuum. Those who provide shelter and a place for the study of Torah share with those who pursue the study of Torah. Yet it is those who directly carry the Torah who have primacy.

Peace: Pure and Simple

And it came to pass on the day that Moses completed setting up the tabernacle …                    Numbers 7:1

Our verse follows immediately after the priestly blessing, which ends with “The Lord lift His countenance upon you and give you peace,” teaching that peace is the necessary condition for setting up and sanctifying the tabernacle.  

On the simplest (and truest) level, peace refers to interpersonal relations. As such, the juxtaposition of our verses hints at our Sages’ teaching that the Second Temple was destroyed because of baseless hatred (sin’at ḥinam)  among the Jews: without the unity of God’s chosen nation, the Temple cannot survive.

Sota and Nazir: the Lesson of Moderation

The following is taken from my father’s writings.

            Following the census of the Levi’im, the Parasha presents two seemingly unrelated laws. One is the law of Sota, the wife suspected by her husband of being unfaithful. Immediately following , the Torah presents the laws of the Nazir.  If one takes Nazirite vows, he must abstain from drinking wine, eating any grape products or becoming ritually impure by a corpse during the period of the vow.

          These two laws seem totally unrelated. The Sota laws deal with suspicion of adultery, one of the gravest sins. On the other hand, the Nazir is referred to as holy.

         Yet the Rabbis tell us that these two laws are closely connected. Our Sages tell us that the reason one chooses to take the Nazirite vows is seeing the results of drinking. The Sota likely participated in drinking parties and while drunk, she may have committed adultery. The individual who took the vows of a Nazir did so because he realized the evils of getting drunk. Therefore, he went to the other extreme, making a vow to completely abstain from drinking. In one case, the individual went to the extreme of sin, in the other the person chooses the opposite extreme and prohibits upon himself something the Torah permits.

         Although the Torah refers to the Nazir as holy, the Rabbis tell us that he sinned by prohibiting wine to himself.

         What the Rabbis want to tell us is that extremism is not the way of Torah. There is no mitzva to drink wine (kiddush can be recited over bread as well), yet it is not proper to completely prohibit the use of wine. Everything that God created is for man’s benefit. Things must be used in moderation and one must know the limitations. As Maimonides taught, one must always seek the “golden path” of moderation. Going to extremes, either to the right or to the left, can be a great curse for society.

         The laws of Nazir are followed immediately by the Priestly blessing, which concludes with the ultimate blessing of peace. When people avoid extremes, they will try to understand one another, to accept that others are entitled to their own point of view, even when it differs. Then the blessings of peace will come forth. 

The Three Longest

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Take the sum of the sons (Naso et rosh) of Gershon also, by their father’s houses, by their families.       Numbers 4:21-22

 Naso, with 176 verses is the longest parasha in the Torah. The longest chapter of the Bible is Psalms 119, entitled “Happy are they who are upright in the way,” which also has 176 verses. As well, the longest tractate of the Talmud, Bava Batra, has 176 pages.

My father suggested that this apparent coincidence is quite meaningful. The literal translation of “Naso et rosh” is “raise the heads of.” The people will be raised by “being upright in their ways,” through exercising care in monetary relations between neighbors (the subject matter of Bava Batra), as our Sages taught, “one who wants to be pious must be careful in monetary matters.”

Anomalies of Shavuot

            Among the Shalosh Regalim, the three pilgrimage holidays of the Torah, Shavuot is unique in that it is the only one of the holidays which does not have its own special mitzva (Pesaḥ has matza and Sukkot has both the Sukka and the four species).

            In addition, although the names of the other holidays, Pesaḥ and Sukkot, express the essence of the holiday, Shavuot, which literally means “weeks,” indicates only its temporal connection to Pesaḥ, which it follows by seven weeks.

            My father explained that each of these apparent anomalies, in fact, conveys part of the essence of Shavuot. The purpose and meaning of Shavuot cannot be conveyed through a single mitzva unique to the day. The entire purpose of giving the Torah was to imbue our daily lives and every action with the sanctity of mitzvot. Thus, while we do commemorate the anniversary of receiving the Torah, the impact of the day must be felt on a daily basis throughout the year.

            As far as the name, Shavuot, connecting back to the holiday of freedom conveys the lesson that the purpose of the Exodus was not merely to free the Israelites from Egypt, but rather to complete that freedom through giving the Torah. The Exodus was only the beginning of the process of achieving freedom. This process was completed when we stood at Mount Sinai and accepted the Torah. As our Sages taught, “none is free, save he who deals with Torah.” True freedom requires obligations and commitment; otherwise it is not freedom but anarchy.

            Most people are familiar with Moses’ demand of Pharaoh, in God’s name: “let My people go”, yet they forget the continuation of the verse “that they may worship Me”. This message is even more important to the Jews than it was to Pharaoh, because it emphasizes the spiritual nature of their journey from slavery to freedom.

The True Message of Sinai

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.                        Exodus 20:2

            Thus God introduced the Ten Commandments. The greatest revelation of all time did not begin with God proclaiming Himself as Creator of the Universe, the Omnipotent, though He certainly is all of these things. Rather, God presented Himself as the Redeemer, as One who takes an active interest in the welfare of human beings and in their freedom. He is a personal God, concerned with the fate of every one of His human creations.

            The first commandment teaches us not only to believe in God, but that there is a close relationship between man and God. This concept is the basis of all the commandments.          

            As our Sages tell us, we are to imitate divine attributes. Just as God is kind and merciful, so too, we are to be kind and merciful to fellow men.

            This indeed is the true message of Sinai. 

Sinai and "Sin’a"

Our Sages, in a play on words, explain that the name Sinai is derived from the word sin’a (hatred), for it is because of Mount Sinai that the Jews are hated. The Sages wish to convey that the Jews are hated because we accepted the word of God, which other nations rejected. My father explained that, in some sense, because we accepted Torah, we became the conscience of the world, and one does not always appreciate his/her conscience.

While it is true that Sinai brought hatred upon the Jews, it is also true that it was Sinai which endowed us with the power of survival. We have outlived great empires which crumbled into dust because of our acceptance of Torah at Sinai.

This, my father explained, is the meaning of our Sages’ comment: “The ark carried those who carried it.” We carry the Torah and Torah carries us. 

The Order of Servitude

           The first words spoken by God to the Children of Israel as they stood at Mount Sinai were: ”I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of servitude.” [Exodus 20:2]

          Our Sages explain that the purpose of Israel’s redemption from Egypt was to reach Sinai, to accept God’s mastery over them and to serve Him. In essence, Israel’s servitude to Pharaoh and the Egyptians was replaced by their servitude to the Almighty. In place of physical servitude to other men, Israel accepted spiritual servitude to the divine will, and in so doing, completed their freedom, as our Sages taught: “None is free, save he who deals with Torah.” Israel’s acceptance of Torah at Mount Sinai guaranteed that the exodus resulted in freedom, rather than anarchy.

          The great Or haḤayyim (Rabbi Ḥayyim ben Attar, 1696 – 1743) signed the introduction to his commentary on Ḥumash:  “servant of God, servant of Torah, servant of Israel.” Or haḤayyim’s order is significant: first and foremost, he is a servant of God, and that servitude is defined by his servitude to Torah, the expression of God’s will. In turn, the commitment to Torah makes one a servant to Israel, since the Torah regulates man’s relations with his fellow man as well as his relations with the Creator.

Shavuot: A Contemporary Experience

            Shavuot, the holiday of revelation, is not merely a celebration of a historical event which took place more than eighty generations ago, rather it must also be a contemporary day of dedication as our Sages teach:

Every day the mitzvot should be new to you, as though you had received them that day.   Midrash Tanḥuma Deuteronomy 26:16 ]also Sifrei Deuteronomy 11:13]

            Just as our ancestors said “na’aseh v’nishma” (we will do and listen), so too we must accept Torah upon ourselves.

            Seven weeks before Shavuot, we recited our Sages’ admonition: “in every generation, one must see himself as if he left Egypt.” Just as one must see himself as having been redeemed from Egypt, so too, every Jew must see himself as having received the Torah at Sinai.

            The exodus from Egypt was the means for Israel’s arrival at Sinai to receive the Torah. Thus, exodus and acceptance of Torah are two parts of the same process, and it is not surprising that our Sages enjoin us to have the feeling of contemporary experience concerning each.

            Our generation has the advantage of being able to telescope the two experiences, rather than having to wait the fifty days between the exodus and Sinai, we can/must be able simultaneously to appreciate both events as active participants.

            Shavuot celebrates not only the historic event of the divine revelation at Sinai, but the continuity of the People of Israel as well. It is Israel’s acceptance of Torah which guarantees its survival.