The Cosmic Navel

As the navel is located in the middle of one’s body, so the Land of Israel is the navel of the world, as the verse states: “Who live at the center (tabur, literally “the navel”) of the world” [Ezekiel 38:12]. The Land of Israel is at the center of the world, Jerusalem is at the center of the Land of Israel, and the Temple is at the center of Jerusalem, the Sanctuary is at the center of the Temple, and the Ark is at the center of the Sanctuary, and the Foundation Stone, from which the world was founded, is before the Sanctuary.

                                   Midrash Tanḥuma, Parashat Kedoshim, 10

            Maharal [Be’er haGola 6:13] writes that the intention of the Midrash is not to provide “physical, tangible measurements,” rather, it is a statement of the essence of the Land and of its capital, and does not deal with the material level. (Based upon the enlightening comments of Rabbi Yehoshua David Hartman.) After all, the navel is not actually located in the middle of the human body based upon measurement of height, rather:

The navel is the center in the sense that it is between the upper and lower parts of the body; it divides the upper and lower parts of the body and is, as it were, the point of connection between the two parts. So too is the Land of Israel: she is the intermediate point between the lower world and the spiritual worlds, and in this sense she is the “center” of the world. And the “center” of the Land of Israel, the holiest place in the Land is the Holy of Holies (the Sanctuary).

            The “upper part of the body” is the intellectual – spiritual part, while the “lower part of the body” is its more material – tangible part. The navel is located between the two parts of the human body, and, symbolically, it connects them, and in a similar manner, the Land of Israel connects the material and spiritual worlds.

            In his commentary on the Song of Songs, Rabbi Sa'adya Gaon explains the metaphor of the navel: as a fetus in its mother’s womb receives its nurture through the navel, so too the bounty which descends to the entire earth comes through and because of God’s direct supervision of the Land of Israel, as our Sages taught/ [Babylonian Talmud, Ta’anit 10a]. 

As One Flesh

… except for his immediate relation (she’aro), who is near unto him - for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother. Leviticus 21:2

“She’ar” denotes his wife. Rashi (based upon Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 22b)

There are differing opinions as to the proper understanding of the word “she’ar.”

Midrash Lekaḥ Tov states: “the true meaning of ‘she’ar’ is flesh.” (Indeed, the blessing recited following brit mila includes the words: “[You] have marked the decree of circumcision in his flesh [she’aro].”)

Lekaḥ Tov continues and connects its definition of “she’ar” to a verse in Genesis:

The reason (the Sages) said she’aro refers to one’s wife is that she is as one flesh with him, as the verse states: “And they shall become one flesh.” [Genesis 2:24]

HaKetav v’haKabbala (1785-1865) understands “she’ar” to be related to “she’erit” (remnant), and writes:

In my opinion, a wife is called she’ar because she is responsible for the continuity of (man’s) existence by giving birth to children, which constitutes the existence and the survival of man, as the verse [Genesis 45:7] states “To provide a remnant (she’erit) in the land.”

This comment seems close to that of Rashi on the verse in the second chapter of Genesis:

“As one flesh” – the child is formed by both parents, who thereby become as one flesh.

However, Naḥmanides rejects Rashi’s comment, noting that the offspring of lower animals as well are formed by both parents, while the verse implies that becoming as one flesh is a trait unique to humans.           

Naḥmanides asserts that the phrase “they shall become as one flesh” must be understood in the context of the complete verse, which is:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Naḥmanides suggests that the difference between animals and human beings in the matter of sexual relations is that the male does not form an attachment to the female, but merely copulates with whichever female he encounters and then goes on his way. With humans, on the other hand, at least on the ideal and desired level, the attachment between the couple precedes sexual relations:

Scripture tells us that the (first) human female (Eve) was the flesh of man’s (Adam’s) flesh and the bone of his bones [Genesis 2:23] and man clung to her, and she was in his bosom as his own flesh, and he desired to always be with her. This trait was included in the nature of Adam’s descendants, namely that the males cling to their wives, leaving their parents and seeing their wives as if they are one flesh with them. Similarly, the verse states: “For he is our brother, our (own) flesh” [Genesis 37:27] and “his immediate relation, who is near unto him; that is: close relatives are called ‘she’ar of flesh.’” Thus a man leaves the closeness (she’ar) of his relation to his parents and sees his wife as being more closely related.

Indeed, Da’at Zekanim of the Tosafists comments: “They shall become one flesh” – there is no greater relation or closeness.

Rabbi Moshe Alshikh (1507-1593) comments:

“One’s wife is as himself (literally, ‘as his own body’)” [Babylonian Talmud, Berachot 24a] by virtue of the closeness of their souls, for the souls of a man and of his mate are considered as a single soul, they are as two bodies with a single soul.

Based upon Alshikh’s comment we would have expected the Sages to say: “a man’s wife is as his own soul.” However, Alshikh adds a comment which averts the question:

When the couple is of one soul, they become one flesh as well by giving birth to children, through whom they become as one flesh, as our Sages taught [Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 30b] “there are three partners in every human: the Holy One, blessed be He, the father and the mother.”

According to Alshikh’s exposition, the connection as one flesh comes as the result of the connection of souls. It seems that this comment of Alshikh is exactly that of Naḥmanides quoted above, that the spiritual closeness is what brings a couple to becoming as one flesh.

This matter, man’s uniqueness in being able to and needing to form a spiritual and physical connection with his mate, is a component of creation, as Malbim elucidates [Malachi 2:15]:

When God created humans, He did not create male and female separate from each other, as He did other animals, for initially Adam was created alone and Eve was one of his ribs and was originally part of the same body as him (as our Sages [Babylonian Talmud, Berachot 61a] taught: “God created Adam with two countenances” [and Eve was made of one]). This is what is meant in the verse: “And hasn’t He made (them) one (flesh) in order to have spiritual blood-relatives (she’ar)?” God created Adam as a single body with his wife; they were (physically) connected together at the time of creation. “Spiritual blood-relatives” – Adam and his mate, who was part of him, were of one spirit. Thus, Adam and Eve were created as a single body and a single spirit, unlike all other animals, which were created as two, separate in body and in spirit. And why did He do this, rather than creating man and his mate separately? It is to teach that man’s mate must be like him and able to unite with him both in flesh and in spirit.

Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch offers a different definition of “she’ar,” and writes:

The basic meaning of she’ar is “completion.” Here, “she’ar” denotes his wife, because it is she who “is the spiritual and moral complement of a man’s human existence.” [Commentary on Leviticus 21:2]

As long as man was alone, he was not yet “good,” and because once the division had been made, it was no longer at all possible for man to fulfill his calling by himself, because his wife was to be “a companion suitable for helping him.” [Genesis 2:18] Without her, he was only half a man, and only together with her did he feel himself a whole man. Therefore, a man leaves his father and mother and attaches himself to a wife, and they become one single body. Man and woman become one single body. But that can take place only if at the same time they become one mind, one heart, one soul. And this is possible only if they subordinate all their strength and efforts, all their thoughts and desires to the service of a Higher Will. [Commentary on Genesis 2:24]

Ḥizkuni preceded Rabbi Hirsch by six centuries, when he commented:

This creation (humans) is unlike the rest of creation, which was brought forth from soil and water. And why are humans unique? Because the Holy One, blessed be He intended that man leave his parents and cling to his wife, that they become as one flesh, that is, a complete body. Therefore, man pursues woman, since she comes from him. (Until a man finds his mate) it is as if he is missing a limb.

            Similarly, Rabbi Ovadya Sforno (1480-1550) writes: “They shall be as one flesh” – the intention is to achieve the completeness which was intended by the Creator.

Shela (Rabbi Yeshaya haLevi Horowitz [1558-1630]) adds his own dimension:

Humans are the epitome of creation and are made in the Divine image, and as God created them with two countenances, to demonstrate the absolute equality of the genders, so too their bodies and souls join together in sanctity. After the initial creation, woman was separated from man to become a companion suitable for helping him, and then they can truly be united as one flesh, and then Man achieves completion in the Divine image.

Based upon this definition of “she’ar” as well, there is a close connection between the spiritual and physical connection of spouses.

The verse in the second chapter of Genesis presents practical halachic lessons, as Tur writes in his introduction to Even haEzer:

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” – This means that it is fitting that she be special and particular to him and he to her. Therefore, it is appropriate that a man love his wife as he loves himself, and honor her more than he honors himself [Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 62b], to have compassion for her and protect her, as he would protect one of his limbs. The wife too is obligated to help her husband and love him as she loves herself, “because she was taken out of man.” [Genesis 2:23]

Therefore the Torah commanded: “He must not reduce the food, clothing, or marital rights of his wife.” [Exodus 21:10] Many other mitzvot are mandated in the matter of the connection between husband and wife for as long as they are together.

            In summary, we can quote Malbim’s commentary on Genesis 2:24:

Every man in his youth clings to his parents, and when he matures and becomes an adult, he leaves his mother and father and takes a wife, with whom he will build his own faithful home and cling to her, for she is his companion and a companion suitable for helping him, and they become as one flesh in order to have progeny and maintain the species.

In memory of my wife, Gloria, and with deep appreciation to the Creator for the privilege of being connected to her spiritually and physically for more than a generation.

 

Circumspect Mordechai

 

For if you persist in keeping quiet at a time like this, relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another place, while you and your father’s house will perish; and who knows whether it was for such a time that you attained the royal position? Esther 4:14

Undoubtedly, when we read (or hear) Megilat Esther, it is clear to us that indeed it was for such a time that Esther attained the royal position, and it is reasonable to assume that Mordechai, as well, believed that Esther was chosen queen of Persia and Media through the hand of God. Yet, Mordechai does not pretend to understand the ways of God, and he therefore takes great care in wording his comment. Despite his personal belief, Mordechai will not state as a categorical that he understands God’s secrets, and therefore merely suggests the possibility that it is God’s providence which brought Esther to the throne of Persia in order to save His chosen nation.

In his careful and circumspect choice of words, Mordechai teaches us a valuable lesson. In our times, there is no shortage of those who “know” that the scourge of traffic accidents is the result of desecrating Shabbat, and that rockets were fired into southern Israel because of breaches of modesty. Mordechai’s approach is restrained, and follows the statement of the Sage (quoted in Sefer Ikkarim by Rabbi Yosef Albo [1380–1444], and attributed by some to Maimonides) concerning the nature of God: “were I to understand Him, I would be Him.”

 

           

Nation Land and Creator

They will know that I, the Lord, am their God, Who brought them out of the land of Egypt in order that I may dwell in their midst; I am the Lord, their God.                                                Exodus 29:46

                Among our classical commentators, Naḥmanides, and following him, Rabbeinu Beḥayye, note that the implication of the verse is that having the Shechina manifest within the Nation of Israel serves not only the nation’s need, but that of God as well!

                One of the verses which Naḥmanides cites in support of his contention, contains the words of Joshua in the aftermath of the failed attempt to capture Ai:

When the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the Land hear about this, they will surround us and wipe out and cut off our name from the earth; and what will You do for Your great Name?        Joshua 7:9

                Indeed, the connection among the Nation of Israel, its Land and the Creator is so strong that the very presence of Israel outside its Land constitutes a desecration of God’s name. Ezekiel delivered God’s words:

But then when they entered the other nations, they defiled My holy name because it was said of them, "These are the Lord’s people, yet they left his Land."                                                36:20

While the simple meaning of the verse seems to be that it was the Israelites’ behavior in the diaspora which defiled God’s name, according to Midrash Eicha Rabba, the nations asked in astonishment “If you are indeed the Lord’s people, why have you left His Land?” It is possible to understand this comment to mean that God’s name was defiled by the very fact that His nation is to be found outside the Land.

                This being the case, the corollary is that Israel’s return to its Land rectifies the desecration of God’s name caused by their having left the Land. Indeed, Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik wrote “You have no idea how the Name of the Almighty was glorified and extolled, and His kingdom reestablished, by the establishment of the State of Israel.”

Tabernacle Sinai and Eden

            Yehuda Kiehl, in the introduction to his commentary on Genesis [Da’at Mikra] presents a most insightful analysis which sees the concept of the Tabernacle as if a golden thread which is woven into the fabric of Israel’s history, and even earlier, to Man’s first domicile on earth, the Garden of Eden.

            Kiehl quotes Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch’s comment that the Tabernacle is “a mobile Sinai.” Just as at Mount Sinai there were two distinct areas of sanctity, and the second more stringent than the first (only Moses was permitted to ascend the heights of Mount Sinai), so too the Tabernacle/Temple was divided into the holy and holy of holies. Additionally, just as Moses ascended into the “thick cloud” [Exodus 19:9] which enveloped Mount Sinai, so too the high priest entered the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur in the “cloud of incense” [Leviticus 16:13].

            Yet the ideal of the Tabernacle/Temple is much more ancient than the revelation at Sinai, and it is inherent within the creation of the world, since the very existence of the world is dependent upon this ideal.

            Our Sages [Babylonian Talmud, Pesaḥim 54a, Nedarim 39b, as well as a number of Midrashim] count the Temple and the Garden of Eden among seven things created prior to the creation of the world. The Talmudic sage Reish Lakish [Midrash Tanḥuma, Pekudei 40] notes that the Tabernacle is also called a garden, yet it is dearer to the Almighty than is the Garden of Eden, since the Tabernacle is called “My garden” [Song of Songs 5:1].

            Just as the cherubim guarded the “path to the tree of life” within the Garden of Eden [Genesis 3:24], so too the cherubim protected the Ark of Covenant within the Holy of Holies. Professor U. Cassuto suggested that the cherubim of the Tabernacle served as a reminder of mankind’s home within the Garden of Eden prior to his sin.

            Kiehl quotes our Sages’ understanding of the verse: “God took the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden to work it (the Hebrew can also be translated “to serve it”) and watch it” [Genesis 2:15] as referring to Divine service, the service of sacrifices, a service which was transferred to the Tabernacle/Temple.

            Rabbi Yitzḥak Levi notes that there are two approaches. The first approach sees the Tabernacle/Temple as a continuation of the existence of the Garden of Eden within the world. Just as the Garden of Eden brought blessing to the world, so to the Temple is intended to bring physical and spiritual blessing to the entire world, and in this sense, the Temple indeed perpetuates the Garden of Eden for the People of Israel and the entire world. The second approach sees the Temple as the rectification of the sin of Eve and Adam within Eden.  A number of contrasts between the Garden of Eden and the Temple demonstrate this point: the mission of the cherubim when God stationed them “east of Eden” [Genesis 3:24] was to prevent man from inappropriate closeness to God, while in the Temple they represent the greatest closeness to Him; Adam was clothed for the first time following his sin , while the clothes of the High Priest are intended to convey “dignity and beauty” [Exodus 28:2,40]; after sinning, Adam was unable to stand before the Divine voice [Genesis 3:10], while in contrast, Moses entered the Tabernacle to hear the call of the Divine voice.

            There is no contradiction between the two approaches, rather they are complementary. The Temple indeed carries with it both the aspects of continuity of Eden and of rectification of man’s sin. Ultimately, the parallel between the Temple and the Garden of Eden conveys hope and optimism for the world’s return to its pristine state of purity and completeness, with direct and unmediated closeness between Israel and God, and a renewal of direct dialogue between man and his Creator.

            Based upon the above comments, Rabbi Hirsch’s comment that the Tabernacle is a “rejuvenated temporary Eden” is easily understood.

 

 

 

Abraham Isaac and Israel

The haftara of Parshat Ki Tissa relates the dramatic confrontation between Elijah and the prophets of Ba’al [I Kings 18:19-39], and includes details of Elijah’s repair of the altar of God:

And Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom the word of God came, saying: “Israel shall be your name.” [I Kings 18:31]

Radak (Rabbi David Kimchi [1160-1235]) comments that Elijah’s choosing twelve stones teaches that all twelve tribes must be united. Based upon Radak’s comment, we can assume that the words “according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob” were spoken by Elijah himself.

The final phrase of the verse (which, apparently is a parenthetic comment, added by the prophet Jeremiah, who authored the Books of Kings, [Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 14b]) mentioning that God changed Jacob’s name to Israel, seems superfluous. Our Sages [Breishit Rabba 35:10] understood that this phrase conveys God’s approval of Elijah’s actions on Mount Carmel, despite the fact that once the Temple was dedicated by King Solomon, sacrifices may not be brought on any altar, save that of the Temple. (See Rashi on the verse.)

Perhaps the phrase also hints that the Kingdom of Israel will be reunited with the Kingdom of Judah, and implies that once again, all twelve tribes will offer their sacrifices upon the altar of the temple in Jerusalem.

It is clearly not by chance that Elijah himself referred to Israel rather than Jacob:

And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening offering, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said: “O God, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that You are God in Israel, and that I am Your servant, and that I have done all these things at Your word.” [I Kings 18:36]

As Yehuda Kiehl noted in Da’at Mikra on the verse, this is one of only four times in the entire Bible in which the names of the Forefathers include “Israel” rather than “Jacob.” Significantly, the first instance is in the parasha, when Moses completed his plea to God to save the Israelites after the sin of the golden calf:

Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them: “I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it forever.” [Exodus 32:13]

Our classical commentators (see, for example, Radak quoted above) note that the name Israel implies a higher level of power and authority than the name “Jacob,” since the Holy Land was conveyed to the nation in perpetuity in the name of Israel. Thus, echoing Moses, Elijah invoked the name “Israel” to imply to all the assembled citizens of the Kingdom of Israel that it is only through devotion to their own traditions and rejecting the false gods imposed upon them by the evil queen Jezebel that they can truly realize their national potential. [I Kings 18:21]

 

 

 

 

Purim and Napoleon

Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai was asked by his disciples, “Why were the enemies of Israel (a euphemism for Israel itself) in that generation deserving of extermination?” He said to them: “You yourselves provide the answer.” They said: “Because they enjoyed the feast of that wicked one.”                                Babylonian Talmud, Megilla 12a

            According to Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, the retribution of Haman resulted from the fact that the Jews benefitted from Ahasuerus’ feast.

            Pirḥei Levanon (quoted in MeOtzareinu haYashan) notes that bar Yoḥai did not attribute the retribution to the Jews having eaten at the feast, since they could have excused that due to having been forced to participate (others suggest that since, at the feast, “No one was forced,” [Esther 1:8] the Jews violated no halachot in participating in the feast), but attributes it to the fact that the Jews enjoyed the feast. Our Sages taught that at his feast Ahasuerus used vessels which had been taken from the Temple. [Babylonian Talmud, Megilla 11b] A nation which enjoys a feast whose host celebrates their national disaster and the destruction of their Temple, is worthy of annihilation.

            None other than Napoleon Bonaparte presented the opposite side:

            The story is told that one summer day, Napoleon, while walking through the streets of Paris, passed a synagogue and heard the sound of people praying and weeping inside. Turning to one of his aides, a Jewish officer, the emperor asked, “What is going on in there?” “Today is Tisha B’Av,” came the reply, “and the Jews are mourning the destruction of their holy Temple.” Napoleon asked “When was this temple destroyed?” and upon hearing the response “Over seventeen hundred years ago,” Napoleon commented “If the Jews are still crying after so many years, then I am certain their Temple will one day be rebuilt!”