From Aleph to Tav (A to Z)

If (im) you follow My statutes and observe My commandments and perform them, I will give your rains in their time, the Land will yield its produce, and the tree of the field will give forth its fruit.                                                Leviticus 26:3-4

            Parashat Beḥukotai, the parasha of the rebuke (tochaḥa) commences with the blessings Israel will receive when the nation observes God’s mitzvot. The blessings presented prior to the tochaḥa end with verse 13:

I am the Lord, your God, Who took you out of the land of Egypt from being slaves to them; and I broke the pegs of your yoke and led you upright (komemiyut).

            Midrash Eicha Rabba notes that the blessings commence with the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, aleph, and conclude with the final letter, tav, commenting:

(God said) “I shall bless them from aleph to tav, as is written ‘If (im) you follow My statutes …’ through ‘komemiyut’ (the final letter of which is tav.)”

That is, the blessings are all-encompassing. “from a to z.”

            Toledot Yitzḥak (Rabbi Yitzḥak Karo [1458 – 1518], uncle of Rabbi Yosef Karo, author of the Shulḥan Aruch]) suggests the practical implication of the comment of Eicha Rabba:

In the blessing, He began with aleph and concluded them with tav to indicate that Israel will be blessed only when it fulfills Torah from aleph to tav.

The, realization of God’s blessings, which are from aleph to tav, is dependent upon strict observance of God’s Torah, from aleph to tav.

            Based upon Eicha Rabba’s comment, we may note that since the tochaḥa itself is not from aleph to tav, it is limited. Indeed, the concluding verses of the tochaḥa are:

But despite all this, while they are in the land of their enemies, I will not despise them nor will I reject them to annihilate them, thereby breaking My covenant that is with them, for I am the Lord their God. I will remember for them the covenant [made with] the ancestors, whom I took out from the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations, to be a God to them. I am the Lord. [44-45]

 

Draft Age

From twenty years old and upwards, all who are fit to go out to the army in Israel, you shall count them by their legions, you and Aaron.                                                  Numbers 1:3

            Kli Yakar suggests a fascinating reason for the Torah setting draft age at twenty years old. “After all, at times, there are valorous fighters who are younger than twenty.” And indeed, draft age for the I.D.F. is eighteen. “God does not desire the valor of men.” (Based upon Psalms 147:10) Rather, for Israel, military service is based upon the warrior’s merits and his righteousness. Our Sages taught that prior to age twenty, the Heavenly Court does not mete out punishments. [Jerusalem Talmud, Bikurim 2:1] Therefore, one who reaches the age of twenty is “more stringent in his behavior,” knowing that he will have to give an accounting in the Heavenly Court. This being the case, it is reasonable to assume that a twenty year old has accrued more merits than those who are younger, “who, presumably is less stringent in his behavior, and therefore has fewer virtues to overcome his liabilities.” It is these additional merits of the twenty year old which will protect him in war.

Ruth and Rahab

            Rabbi Tanḥuma commences his elucidation of the Book of Ruth with a comparison of Ruth and Rahab the prostitute:

Rabbi Tanḥuma commenced, "I was sought by those who did not ask; I was found by those who did not seek Me” [Isaiah 65:1] – “I was sought by those who did not ask” refers to Rahab the prostitute; “I was found by those who did not seek Me” refers to Ruth the Moabite.                         Midrash Rut Zuta 1:1

            Apparently, Rabbi Tanḥuma detached the first verse of the penultimate chapter of Isaiah from its simple meaning (p’shat), which is a rebuke of Israel for ignoring the prophets whom God sent to the nation, as Metzudat David writes:

Have I not made Myself available for you to seek Me in times of distress, but to no avail, for it was to a nation which did not ask to seek Me.

            Rabbi Tanḥuma’s comment clearly relates to our Sages’ tradition that Rahab converted to Judaism and married none other than Joshua, [Babylonian Talmud, Megila 14b] and on the simplest level, the common denominator between the two women of the Bible is the fact that they were both converts. However, Rabbi Tanḥuma’s comment carries much deeper levels of significance.

            In my opinion, the true and essential common denominator between the two converts to Judaism is hessed (kindness.)

            Rabbi Zeira (late third - early fourth centuries C.E.) expresses his opinion that the reason the Book of Ruth was written and canonized is “to teach the reward of those who do kindness.” [Yalkut Shimoni, Rut 601] Indeed, Ruth’s primary quality is hessed, as both Naomi [1:8] and Boaz [3:10] comment to her.

            Rahab too did hessed with the spies who came to her home, as she herself said: “And now, swear to me by the Lord, since I have showed you kindness (hessed), that you will also show kindness (hessed) to my father's house, and give me a true token.” [Joshua 2:12]

            Ḥessed is the direct link between the story of Rahab and that of Ruth. The word hessed appears three times in three consecutive verses, twice uttered by Rahab and the third time in the spies’ response to her:

And the men answered her, “Our life for yours, if you will not tell this our discussion. And it shall be, when the Lord gives us the Land, that we will deal with you with kindness (hessed) and truth.” [Ibid. v. 14]

Significantly, the word hessed also appears in the Book of Ruth three times.

            By virtue of her hessed, Ruth is privileged to be the “mother of monarchy” [Rut Zuta 1:1], while Rahab was privileged to be the ancestress of eight kohanim and prophets. [Midrash Sifrei, Beha’alothcha 78]. Thus, the two converts, Ruth and Rahab, were partners in establishing the three institutions crucial for the Nation of Israel: monarchy, priesthood and prophecy.

            There is an additional level of commonality between Ruth and Rahab. The Book of Ruth opens with the declaration “And it was in the days of the judges.” The unique aspect of the days of the judges was the fact that “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did whatever he wanted.” [Judges 17:6;21:25] In that period Israel was in a state of anarchy, which included failure to do hessed. Our Sages taught that Elimelech was the leader of his generation and the “caretaker of the generation” [Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 91a] and that he was sufficiently wealthy that he could provide food for the “entire country” for a decade. Yet, instead of doing hessed with his neighbors and members of his tribe, Elimelech ran away to the fields of Moab. In contrast, the person who does true hessed is Ruth herself. It is Ruth who performs hessed, while a leader of the Hebrew nation, who has the ability to do hessed thinks only of himself and his family and abandons Israel. Thus, the Book of Ruth can be seen as pointing an accusing finger: it is not the “caretaker of the generation,” who is expected to do hessed who actually does so, but the daughter of a nation which was ungrateful to the father of the Israelites [Midrash Aggada, Deuteronomy 25:3] who practices hessed. Indeed, “in those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what he wanted.”

            The story of Rahab as well, can be seen as pointing an accusing finger at Israel. Alshikh, in his comments on the verse from Isaiah quoted by Rabbi Tanḥuma, writes:

The intention of the verse is to reprimand Israel, saying “Look and understand how I have made Myself accessible to those who call on Me; to Rahab and Ruth, who came to find shelter under My wings I granted more than what they requested, and if you (Israel) call on Me, (you will be granted) double.”

            The two converts were able to achieve closeness to God, while the Nation of Israel failed to understand that if they but call on God, He will answer them.

            Likely, the major lesson of the comparison between Ruth and Rahab is the great power of repentance (and entering under the wings of the Shechina) to rectify even the greatest evils. Through her hessed, Ruth became the mother of monarchy, and as such the ancestress of Messiah, thereby rectifying the sin of her primal ancestors, Lot and his older daughter [Genesis 19:30ff.]. Our Sages’ tradition is that Rahab’s career as a prostitute lasted forty years, from the time Israel left Egypt until Joshua’s spies arrived at her home, and when she repented, asking God to forgive her [Babylonian Talmud, Zevaḥim 115b] God brought her near to Him [Sifrei, ibid.]

            Indeed, Rabbi Tanḥuma’s comparison of Ruth and Rahab teaches truly significant lessons.

The Temple Orchestra

 

From the age of thirty years and upward until the age of fifty years, who are fit to perform the service for the service and the work of carrying, in the Tent of Meeting.                                            Numbers 4:47

“The service of the service” – this refers to the music with cymbals and harps, which is service for another service (the sacrifices). Rashi, based upon the Babylonian Talmud, Arachin 11a

            haK’tav v’haKabala adds an enlightening comment:

Just as performing the mitzva is service of God, so too, rejoicing in the mitzva is considered service. As the verse states “Because you did not serve the Lord, your God, with joy and with gladness of heart.” [Deuteronomy 28:47] Indeed, rejoicing is the perfection of (Divine) service; therefore the songs which the Levites sang were to arouse rejoicing in the mitzva of offering sacrifices, that it be performed joyously, and they are aptly called “The service of the service.”

            One who reads the street signs of the Jewish Quarter will be treated to an excursion through our traditional sources. The names of the majority of the alleyways of the Quarter were chosen to reflect the glorious past of Jerusalem, and in particular, the peak of its glory, the period when the Temple stood within the Holy City.

            Levites had two major jobs in the Temple, to provide musical accompaniment when the public sacrifices were offered and to guard the Temple and lock its gates. Thus writes Maimonides in his Book of the Mitzvot [positive mitzva 23]:

The Levites exclusively were commanded to perform specified tasks in the Temple, such as locking the gates and singing when the public sacrifices were offered. This is what is written “The Levites shall perform the service of the Tent of Meeting” [Numbers 18:23].

            In the Laws of the Temple Vessels [3:2], Maimonides writes:

Their (the Levites’) service was to guard the Temple. Among them there were gate-keepers, who would open the gates of the Temple and close its doors, and there were singers who would accompany the sacrifices with song each day.

            There are parallel alleyways in the Jewish Quarter named for the jobs of the Levites; “Meshorarim” (the musicians) and “Shoarim” (the gatekeepers).

            Based upon Rashi’s comment, we will focus on the alleys of the Jewish Quarter which are connected to the Levites’ musical activities.

            The Sages of the Talmud differed in their opinions on two fundamental questions:

1. Is the essence of “song” vocal or instrumental? – on this matter Maimonides [Laws of the Temple Vessels 3:3] determined that the halacha is that vocal music is the essential form of the Levites’ function.

2. Does the lack of musical accompaniment invalidate the sacrifices? – surprisingly, Maimonides offers no halachic decision on this point; however, Aruch haShulḥan heAtid [Laws of the Temple Vessels 20:7] notes the opinion of the rabbis is that lack of song does not invalidate the sacrifices, and comments that since the general rule is that the halacha follows the majority opinion, seemingly, the halachic decision is that lack of song does not invalidate the sacrifices.

            Even though the essence of “song” is vocal, nonetheless, the Levites’ songs were accompanied by an “orchestra,” composed of no fewer than one dozen instruments” a minimum of nine kinorot (“lyre” in modern Hebrew “violin”), with no maximum number; at least two and no more than three nevelim (“harp” in most translations and in modern Hebrew)` a single set of metziltayim (“cymbals” in translation and in modern Hebrew). [Babylonian Talmud, Arachin 10a]

            Each of these instruments has given its name to an alleyway of the Jewish Quarter.

            “Kinor” is the musical instrument mentioned most frequently in the Bible (forty-two times), and the verses provide us with an unusual amount of information concerning it, including the name of its “inventor,” Yuval, a member of the eighth generation of mankind, who is described as “the father of all those who handle the kinor and ugav (“organ”). [Genesis 4:21] We are also informed of a kinor virtuoso, who was the first music therapist in history, David of Bethlehem. [I Samuel 16:17-23] The verses even tell us of the “Stradivarius” of kinorot (and nevelim), which King Solomon made for his musicians out of almog wood imported along with gold from Ofir. [I Kings 10:11-12]

            Nevel, along with kinor, is presumed to be a stringed instrument; though based upon the fact that the Biblical word can also mean a water-skin, some suggest that it was a wind instrument made of leather, making it akin to bagpipes.  The ancient historian Josephus defined both kinor and nevel as string instruments, and stated the following differences between them: nevel had thicker strings, hence a deeper sound; it was played by hand, while kinor was played with a pick; nevel was twelve-stringed, kinor ten-stringed.

            The majority of times that nevel is mentioned in the Bible (eighteen of twenty-seven), it is mentioned in connection with kinor. For this reason, the two instruments not only gave their names to alleyways of the Jewish Quarter, but in effect, “Nevel Street” is the continuation of “Kinor Street.”

            The percussion section of the Temple orchestra, metziltayim, also has an alley named for it. Metzudat Zion [I Chronicles 13:8] defines metzilayim as “Two copper instruments which were struck together to produce a loud sound,” indeed, what we now calls cymbals.

            Aruch haShulḥan heAtid [Laws of the Temple Vessels 20:12] adds an explanation of the composition of the Temple orchestra: “the prime skill of playing music is with kinor, nevel and metziltayim.” Further, the decision that there is no limit to the number of kinorot, while the maximum number of nevelim is six reflects the fact that “the greater the number of kinorot, the more beautiful the music is, while more than six nevelim would interfere with the balance of the music.” The restriction of the percussion section to a single set of cymbals also reflects a musicological consideration, the need to maintain the proper balance.

            Perhaps those whose ears are sharp and attentive will be able to hear the echoes of the music of the Levites while walking through the alleyways of the Jewish Quarter.

            May it be God’s will that we be privileged to hear the songs and music of the Levites with the rebuilding of the Temple, speedily in our days. Amen