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

Grasshoppers and Ants

... and we were in our own eyes as grasshoppers

and so we were in their eyes.      Numbers 13:33

          Midrash Aggada wonders how the ten spies knew how the Canaanites perceived them. There is psychological truth in the ten spies’ report: since their self-image was as grasshoppers, they were so perceived by the inhabitants of the Land.

            Rashi comments that the spies said:

‘We heard the Canaanites say ‘there are ants walking through the vineyards.’”

            There are those who edit Rashi’s comment, replacing the words “ants” with “grasshoppers,” the word used in the verse. However, my father suggested that Rashi takes the psychological point one step further: due to their low self image, the spies were perceived as being even less than they perceived themselves. They were not even grasshoppers, but mere ants in the eyes of the Canaanites.

            Beyond their awful sin of speaking ill of the Land, the ten spies were guilty of a gross distortion of the proper self concept of an Israelite in relation to the Promised Land. In Parashat Beḥukotai, God says to His nation Israel:

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, so that you would not be their slaves. I broke the bars of your yoke, so that you can walk upright (komemiut).                    Leviticus 26:13

                                     

The Midrash [Breishit Rabba 20:5; Bemidbar Rabba 13:12] explains the simple meaning (p’shat) of the word “komemiut:” “With erect stature and fearing no creature.”

            Based upon this, we can understand that it is not sufficient for the Nation of Israel simply to enter its Land, but we must enter with upright stature and fearing no one. In this, the ten spies failed miserably.

            Rabbi Menaḥem Kasher, in the notes to his work Torah Shleima, adds an explanation of the Midrashic comment:

The Israelites must appreciate their status as the sons of the Living God and may not be meek … nor may they fear any creature.

            Based upon Rabbi Kasher’s comment, “komemiut” takes on an aspect of faith as well: we must enter the Land fully aware that we are the nation chosen by God, to whom He gave the Land. In essence, Israel’s failure to express “komemiut” represents a failure in our belief in God.

            It is therefore likely that the sin of speaking ill of the Land is intimately related to the ten spies’ low self image. Had the spies entered the Land in a state of “komemiut,” they would have understood what Joshua and Caleb understood, “for God is with us.” [Numbers 14:9]

            Indeed, Joshua and Caleb made it clear that the basis of the difference between their minority report and the majority report of the ten spies is the dimension of faith, as they said “Do not rebel against the Lord.” [ibid.]

            The fact that the ten spies entered the Land as grasshoppers is the source of “weeping for generations.” [The language of the Talmud, Ta’anit 29a]

Jerusalem Double

In Hebrew, the suffix “ayim” denotes double (as in eynayim = eyes; raglayim = legs, etc.) The form of the name Yerushalayim, therefore implies two Yerushalayims. Indeed, the 13^th century Biblical commentator, Rabbenu Behayye, explains the name to refer to the heavenly and earthly Jerusalems. The Holy City’s name itself perhaps teaches that it is incumbent upon us to strive to unite the two Jerusalems, to endow the earthly city with a spiritual aspect as well.

While it is our job to unite the two Jerusalems, Jerusalem itself is involved in uniting the Jewish People. Our Sages consistently make it clear that this is Jerusalem’s role in history, its goal and destiny, are to unite the People of Israel, telling us:

It is Jerusalem which connects [literally “makes friends”] Israel one to another.                   Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kama 7:7

Further, it is Jerusalem which unites all of Jewish history. Rabbi Akiva commented:

Eternity [v’hanetzach, I Chronicles 29:11], this is Jerusalem.                                 Babylonian Talmud, Berachot 58a

Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveichik explained that the definition of eternity is the convergence of all time, when past, present and future exist simultaneously. This, Rabbi Akiva taught us, refers to Jerusalem. It is in Jerusalem, and in my humble opinion, only in her, that the Jewish past, present and future will meet.

 

Ascent: Means and End

I am God, and I brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God. Therefore, since I am holy, you must (also) remain holy.  Leviticus 11:45   I, God, have brought you up from Egypt on condition that you accept the yoke of mitzvot.                                                                  Torat Kohanim

 

            Sefat Emet explains that the phrase “brought you up from the land of Egypt” conveys a higher level than “took you out of Egypt,” which we find in other verses [Leviticus 22:33; Deuteronomy 13:6]. In essence, the exodus was a means, not an end, and its purpose was to elevate the nation of Israel from the degradation of enslavement in Egypt to the level of freedom, which as our Sages taught, requires acceptance of Torah and mitzvot.

            Maharal of Prague [Gevurot haShem, chap. 45] phrases Sefat Emet’s point somewhat differently: God says: “I have taken you out of Egypt for the purpose of elevating you.”

            Israel’s ascent from Egypt was completed only upon the nation’s entrance into its Land, as we read “We are the ones He brought out of there, to bring us to the Land He promised our fathers, and give it to us.” [Deuteronomy 6:23] There is a progressive process, from exodus to acceptance of Torah at Mount Sinai to entering the Land, which is the ideal place for fulfillment of mitzvot.

            Seen from this perspective, it is not at all surprising that the Holy Tongue refers to coming into the Land as “aliya” (ascent, the root word used in our verse).

 

Heroes of Holiness

In the Dvar Torah I sent two years ago in commemoration of Memorial Day for our fallen soldiers, I demonstrated that the approach of the Israel Defense Force (I.D.F.) is an application of the traditional approach of the heroes of the Bible. This year, I present some of Rabbi Kook’s enlightening insights in this matter, based upon his “Orot - Milḥama” [Chapter 2) and the English translation and commentary of Rabbi David Samson and Tzvi Fishman [War and Peace].

The underlying principle of Rabbi Kook’s approach is that Israel’s wars are God’s wars and its army is the army of God on earth. “Their war of survival, the survival of the nation, was a battle of God.”

Rabbi Kook focuses our attention on the fact that the Biblical heroes, who fought the wars of God and His nation, are not merely military heroes, but also, and primarily, “heroes of holiness.” “The men of these times are the same great figures whom we cherish for their holy stature.” Our Father Abraham, who had the courage to stand against the rest of the world in his belief in a single omnipotent God, did not hesitate to pursue the army which had just won the “First World War” in order to rescue his nephew, who had been taken captive. Moses, the greatest spiritual figure in history, who brought Torah down to us from Mount Sinai and taught it to us, fought Israel’s wars against the kings of eastern Eretz Yisrael, himself killing Sichon, King of the Amorites and Og, king of the Bashan. [Based upon Bemidbar Rabba 101] Joshua, who “Did not depart from the tent” of Moses and of Torah [Exodus 33:11] led the Israelites’ battle against Amalek as well as their battles to capture the Promised Land. King David, the “sweet singer of Israel” [II Samuel 23:1], was one of the greatest generals in Israel’s history, and through his wars established the largest empire ever ruled by a Jewish monarch.

When we yearn for the heroes of our past, learn from them and attempt to emulate them, their holy valor becomes a part of our lives, and our identification with them, gives us the power to realize our own inner potential:

When we reflect on them, we are, in all of the spiritual revelation which we are so eagerly yearning for, longing to emulate their bravery, their fully formed and sculptured life force, so solid and strong inside them; from this great yearning our spiritual power is charged, and our valor is refined.

And beyond this, “those same powerful souls return to our midst as in the days of old.” That is, by adopting the ways of our ancient heroes, the I.D.F.’s soldiers have the power to resurrect them within our midst!

The necessity to deal with war presents a difficult challenge. By its nature, war requires killing and includes acts of cruelty. Therefore a Jewish soldier must have strength and courage and in two realms: strength for the physical battle, and strength to battle the ugly emotions and passions which are incited by war. Our Biblical heroes succeeded in this challenge, “They were bold in spirit, and they knew in the depths of darkness to choose good and deviate from evil.” (Emphasis mine) “Their holiness, even in battle, is what makes them legendary heroes to all of the world.” These twin strengths must be the aspiration of our soldiers. There is no doubt that the I.D.F. is the most moral army in the world.

            Maimonides sets a very high standard for the Jewish soldier:

Once a soldier enters battle, he should rely on the Hope of Israel and their Savior. He should know that he is fighting for the sake of the unity of God’s name, and he should place his soul in his hand and not show fear or fright. He should not worry about his wife or children, but erase their memory from his heart, removing all thoughts from his mind except for the war. Laws of Kings 7:15

The ability to focus on the war with no thoughts of family intruding arises from faith in “the Hope of Israel and their Savior,” the belief that God fights on behalf of His nation. Faith in God has an additional effect during times of war, in protecting soldiers from the negative effects of war.

Indeed, such faith is one of the lessons we must learn from our ancient heroes.

An example of this faith is the courage of David, the shepherd, who apparently was a teenager, to battle the Philistine giant, Goliath, as David himself said:

David said to the Philistine: “You come against me with your sword, javelin and spear; but I come against you in the name of the Lord of Host, the God of Israel’s army, Whom you have taunted.” I Samuel 17:45

            May it be God’s will to “make the enemies who rise against us be struck down before the soldiers of the I.D.F., and our enemies subdued under them and crown them with deliverance and victory.” [Based upon the Prayer for the I.D.F.]

 

Double Up on Pesaḥ

 

The Sages taught: Once, King Agrippa wished to know the multitudes of Israel (i.e. to know the population) He said to the High Priest: “Set your eyes on the Paschal lambs (count the number brought in order to approximate the population). (The High Priest) took a kidney from each, and six hundred thousand pairs of kidneys were found there, double (the number) of those who left Egypt. (This did not reflect the sum total of the Jewish population, since it) excluded those who were ritually impure or at a great distance (from the Temple, and hence did not offer the Paschal sacrifice). (Furthermore) there was not a single lamb that did not have more than ten people registered for it.                                            Babylonian Talmud, Pesaḥim 64b

            Based on the Talmud’s story, during the time of King Agripas (who reigned between 41 – 44 C.E.) 1,200,000 paschal lambs were slaughtered and offered on the altar, and since each lamb was brought by a group of no fewer than ten, more than 12,000,000 Jews ascended to the Temple.

            Anaf Yosef (commentary on the Talmudic aggadot) suggests that the Talmudic story is an exaggeration, a suggestion which seems necessary, based on at least two considerations:

            P It is physically impossible to deal with such a huge number of sacrifices within the limited time available for offering the Paschal lamb (approximately four and a half hours, see Maimonides’ Laws of the Paschal Sacrifice 1:4]

            P Historians estimate that at the time of Agrippa, the Jewish population of the world numbered approximately 7,000,000

            Immediately before quoting the episode of counting the kidneys of the Paschal lambs, the Talmud presents a difference of opinion between Abayye and Rava concerning the correct reading of the Mishna’s description of offering the Paschal sacrifice. Abayye posits that the proper reading is “the doors (of the Temple courtyard) were closed (implying automatically, and miraculously),” while Rava maintains that the reading is “they (humans) closed the doors.”

The Talmud explains that the source of the disagreement is the question of whether or not we are to rely on miracles.

            While the debate between the two Talmudic giants apparently is not on a halachic issue, nonetheless, it would seem that Rava’s position is to be preferred, since in all halachic debates between the two the halacha is decided in accordance with Rava’s approach (save six times).

            Indeed, Maimonides, in describing the service of the Paschal lamb, quotes Rava’s position:

The first group (to offer the Paschal lamb) entered (the Temple courtyard) until it was filled, and then they closed the doors of the courtyard and began to sacrifice the Paschal lambs.

                                                    Laws of the Paschal Offering 1:11

            This preamble to the episode of Agrippa’s’ “census,” accepting that we do not rely on miracles, is perhaps intended to inform us that the following story is not to be believed literally.

            Moreover, the source of the Agrippa episode is the Tosefta; however, the Talmud deletes the phrase from the original source “and the (courtyard) could not contain them all.” [Tosefta, Pesaḥim 4:15] According to the Tosefta, there was not enough room in the Temple courtyard for all of the pilgrims who ascended to Jerusalem. The missing phrase too indicates that our Sages exaggerated and the story is not to be believed literally. If the story reflects a miracle that the natural limitation of space was overcome, it matters not to God, who performs the miracle whether there were 12,000,000 or 12,000,000,000 in the courtyard.

            The number which our Sages use, “six hundred thousand” (in a more exact translation: “sixty myriads”) is what scholars refer to as a “typological number,” that is, a number which conveys a symbolic, rather than exact meaning.

            We may suggest that in stating that the number of Paschal lambs brought to the altar was “double (the number) of those who left Egypt,” our Sages express the thought that the experience of offering the Paschal sacrifice is greater than the experience of leaving Egypt. The reason for this is that the exodus was not a goal, but a means. The goal of the exodus was to bring the nation of Israel into its Land, and to fulfill God’s mitzvot within her. When Jews offered the Paschal sacrifice during the Second Temple period (and, equally, during the First Temple period) they realized the purpose of the exodus, and thus their experience was greater than that of leaving Egypt.