Parshat Tetzaveh 5778 - G-d’s Ambassadors

Parsha Paragraphs

Rabbi Naftali Kassorla

Parshat Tetzaveh 5778

G-d’s Ambassadors

The D’var Torah for this week is dedicated in memory of my wife’s grandmother:

לאה משא בת הרב נפתלי ז״ל

If you are interested in sponsoring a D’var Torah in honor or in memory of someone, or for any occasion, please email: ParshaParagraphs@gmail.com

This week’s parsha comes off the heels of last week’s recounting of the building of the Mishkan, and features the making of the Bigdei Kehuna – the Priestly Vestments. The Torah goes to great lengths to explain in detail the processing of each vestment, for they shall serve “for glory and for splendor” (Shemot 28:2). No changes in the garments are allowed. They are set aside specially for Aharon and his offspring.

For years I pondered the following question: we find many passages in the Torah where most, if not all the laws are only applicable to Kohanim. Some aspects are not only inapplicable to a זר (non-Kohen), but are even prohibited to them. In light of this, why did Hashem include these laws in the Torah for all of Klal Yisrael? Why didn’t He instead just give these laws separately to the Kohanim? Or perhaps G-d could have decreed a special mitzvah for only Kohanim to study these particular sections. Yet all Jews are required to delve into the intricacies of these laws. Why is it that those of us who are not Kohanim have no less of a commandment to study these parshiot than do the Kohanim?

The Gemara in Nedarim (35b) features an intriguing discussion based on the following difficulty: if one makes an oath that he will not derive any benefit from a specific Kohen, can that same Kohen offer a Korban on behalf of the oath-maker? In other words, is having the Kohen bring a sacrifice for him considered “benefitting” from this particular Kohen? To resolve the difficulty the Gemara asks a fascinating question. What are Kohanim? – i.e. on whose behalf do they act? Are they שלוחי דידן – the people’s emissaries, or שלוחי דשמיא – emissaries of Heaven. The answer to this provides a resolution to our previous question. If a Kohen is the people’s emissary, then it is considered as if he is bringing benefit to the one who made the oath. However, if the Kohen is Heaven's emissary, then the act of bringing the sacrifice is not considered as being done for the benefit of the owner of the animal. Rather, it is for Hashem, and therefore not a violation of the original oath. In conclusion, the Gemara states that a Kohen is an emissary of Heaven.

The question of the Gemara is fascinating, because it goes straight to the core definition of a Kohen. The Kohen is, in a sense, a physical representation of the concept of G-d’s holiness in this world. Just As G-d is holy and pure, so too a Kohen is commanded to remain holy and pure his entire life. He is charged with the obligation not to become defiled from impurity and to devote his life to service in the Beit Hamikdash. This is the purpose of the Kohen – to be an emissary of Hashem to the Jewish people.

Why are the rest of the people are expected to learn laws which only seem applicable to Kohanim? Although the Kohanim are a separate, distinct group within the nation, their main purpose is to be a physical representation of holiness to the people. We are meant to learn and observe their ways and to apply what we see to our own lives. Therefore, we have no less of an obligation to understand the principles that guide the Kohen towards a life of holiness.

Furthermore, the concept of being a shaliach of G-d is not exclusive to Kohanim; it can be actualized by the rest of the Nation as well. G-d has designated us as His עם הנבחר – the Chosen people – and we too are representatives and ambassadors for Him in this world. We are all charged with being aware of the obligation to retain our purity and holiness. We are a ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש – “kingdom of ministers and a holy nation” (ibid. 19:6) and we are tasked with being that holy nation which brings honor to His name. This is the underlying idea behind making a קידוש השם, where our very actions bring honor to His name, because they are a reflection of G-d Himself. It is a great responsibility, one which we should take seriously and merit to be able to do properly.

Shabbat Shalom

Parshat Terumah 5778 - To Dwell Among Us

Parsha Paragraphs

Rabbi Naftali Kassorla

Parshat Terumah 5778

To Dwell Among Us

The D’var Torah for this week is dedicated by R’ Reuven & Shera Gaisin: לעילוי נשמת Reuven's maternal aunt אביגיל בת לייב איתן ז״ל

If you are interested in sponsoring a D’var Torah in honor or in memory of someone, or for any occasion, please email: ParshaParagraphs@gmail.com

In this week’s parsha, God commands the nation: ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם - “Make for Me a Sanctuary – so that I may dwell among them” (Shemot 25:8). The people are inspired and contribute to the construction.

The Psikta recounts an amazing occurrence. When the decree came to Moshe for the Nation to build a sanctuary, Moshe literally shook and exclaimed, “How can man make a house for G-d?!” And God answered, “Not according to My capabilities do I ask, rather according to your own capabilities.” The Chofetz Chaim concludes from this Midrash that G-d does not unfairly critique man for his shortcomings; rather He asks only that we try, to the best of our abilities.

I would like to focus on this intriguing back-and-forth between Hakadosh Baruch Hu and Moshe. Firstly, why is Moshe “shaken”? What is so shocking about Hashem’s request to build a Mishkan? Perhaps Moshe’s great astonishment was that he found it difficult to fathom that G-d could manifest Himself in this world. If so, we can still ask: why is Moshe shocked only now? Didn't the Shechina previously come down at Har Sinai (Ibid. 19:20)? Furthermore, what did Hashem respond to Moshe which then resolved his question? And finally a third question: what can we glean practically for ourselves from G-d’s response?

I would like to suggest that Moshe's shock was rooted in a deep and fundamental difficulty pertaining to the essence of G-d. The Greek and Roman philosophers, l’havdil, wrestled with a question: How can G-d, Who is יושב במרום (dwells in the supernal realms), be “concerned” with the menial ways of man?¹ Man is inherently physically limited, debased with desires and selfish needs.

Different philosophers arrived at two separate and distinct responses. 

Some said that G-d is in fact so holy that He is removed from this world entirely. Aristotle, the “father of western philosophy,” explained his concept of G-d – “The Unmoved Mover”– as that of an unfeeling, removed Power Who is involved in deep Self-contemplation (The Middle Platonism by John Dillon - Cornell University Press 1977). Meaning that G-d’s “interests” are above and beyond the base thoughts of man.

Alternatively, they explained that G-d (or gods by their perception) were made in the image of man, and were just as debased, selfish and petty as man could be; this is evidenced by the Greek mythologies of rampant licentiousness and jealousy on the part of their deities.

However, Judaism has a wholly different philosophy on the essence of G-d, and we can see this totally divergent idea from the Psikta quoted above. In responding to Moshe, G-d says: “Not according to My capabilities do I ask, rather according to man’s capabilities.” G-d was in essence telling Moshe that not only is He interested in our actions, but He desires to dwell among us too! This, I believe, is the depth and beauty of G-d’s call to man “Make me a sanctuary.” The Torah’s concept of G-d is the synthesis of these two, seemingly, divergent philosophies: the loftiness of G-d’s essence, coupled with His deep desire to connect with us.

This idea can perhaps elucidate for us another issue once raised by a student of mine. Human civilizations has for millennia been engaged in building centers of worship, altars, and great monuments to their idols. Some archeological digs have even unearthed ruins that have had a similar floor plan to the Mishkan. The student was bothered by this, wondering: what makes the endeavor of the Jewish people to build the Mishkan so unique? Perhaps the Jews in the desert were just like any other developing nomadic tribe that felt strengthening of tribal bonds through building a communal altar to worship, similar to Stonehenge in England, the Ziggurats in Mesopotamia and other similar feats of architecture. What made the Mishkan, and by proxy the Jewish people, any different?

To answer this question, I heard from the Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yechiel Perr Shlit”a the following idea that I believe provides the proper approach: Human history is rife with man’s desire to reach out to G-d. However, the building of the Mishkan marked the first time in recorded human history that the building of a monument was preceded by G-d reaching out to man to “Make me a sanctuary.”

This made the Mishkan a different structure entirely – at its core. For while the building is built from man’s actions, it is initiated by G-d’s directive. The call to build G-d a sanctuary infuses its every vessel with sanctity. Now it has become elevated to a G-dly level. So while it may look the same as other “sanctuaries,” its essence was not anything of this world.²

This is an important lesson for us, as we should know and strengthen this idea that G-d is not only interested in our lives, but wishes to “dwell” within them. He infuses all of our “menial” actions with holiness and meaning, when we answer His call.

Thus, it is fitting to end with the famous quote attributed to the Alshich:

ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם: בכל אחד ואחד

G-d desires to dwell within every individual 

We would be wise to open the door to let Him in.

Shabbat Shalom

1 See Rashi in Bamidbar (24:3) regarding Bilaam. G-d made Bilaam blind because he found preposterous the idea that G-d would be interested in the “lowly ways of man”: ורבותינו אמרו (נדה לא.) לפי שאמר (במדבר כ״ג:י) ומספר את רובע ישראל שהקב"ה יושב ומונה רביעותיהן של ישראל מתי תבא טפה שנולד הצדיק ממנה. אמר בלבו מי שהוא קדוש ומשרתיו קדושים יסתכל בדברים הללו ועל דבר זה נסמית עינו של בלעם. Thanks to Rav Chaim Pollock Shlit”a for directing me to this source.

2 There is a very interesting Sicha from the The Lubavitcher Rebbe, where he explains the difference between the Kiyum Mitzvot prior to Matan Torah and after. Basing this on a Midrash, He explains that before Matan Torah, Mitzvot that were performed by a person did not bestow upon an object a kedusha, for how can man endow a cheftza with kedusha? This is something that only G-d can do! But after Matan Torah the cheftza has kedusha because of the direct commandment. This is in line with Rav Perr’s idea, but more globally – that physical objects are infused with a special level of holiness through G-d commanding it. Many thanks to Rav Ally Ehrman Shlit”a for showing me this sicha.

Parshat Mishpatim 5778: A Balanced Perspective

Parsha Paragraphs

Rabbi Naftali Kassorla

Parshat Mishpatim 5778

A Balanced Perspective

The D’var Torah for this week is dedicated in memory of: ר׳ אלחנן יעקב ז״ל בן מורי וחמי ר׳ שמואל פנחס

If you are interested in sponsoring a D’var Torah in honor or in memory of someone, or for any occasion, please email: ParshaParagraphs@gmail.com

In this week’s Parsha, after the awesome moment in history when God reveals Himself through the giving of the Torah, the laws of the Torah are delineated, to be the cornerstone of a just society. These laws would not only guide the Jewish nation, but would also be the bedrock of morality for the entire western civilization.

Included among the societal laws such as open pits in the public thoroughfare, bodily damages, and bearing false witness, we are told of another law: כי תראה חמור שנאך רבץ תחת משאו - “If you see the donkey of someone you hate crouching under its burden, would you refrain from helping him? You shall help repeatedly with him” (Shemot 23:5). The Torah commands us to relieve the burden of an animal, despite the fact that it’s owner is your enemy.

Who is this “someone you hate”? Surely it is forbidden to hate a fellow Jew? Rather, Chazal in the Gemara Pesachim (113b) explains that this refers to someone who one is in fact permitted (possibly even obligated) to hate; a רשע, meaning someone who sins consistently, despite protestations and warnings, and is therefore no longer considered part of the Jewish people. Yet even so, the Torah demands that we help him with the animal’s burden. Why? Is this not still considered showing love for a wicked person, by lending a helping hand?

I would like to suggest a reason for why this is so. 

The Gemara in Bava Metzia (32b), in discussing whether the prohibition of צער בעלי חיים  (causing pain to animals) is Biblical or Rabbinic in origin, cites our parsha’s verse as the source that it is really a Torah prohibition (and so rules the majority of the Rishonim). From this we see that despite the fact that the owner is wicked and is not considered part of the nation, nonetheless we still help with the burden. For although it may be a mitzvah to hate this wilful sinner, it is not a mitzvah to cause pain to the animal – it is prohibited.

We can learn a tremendous lesson from this: the importance of understanding where and when to apply our principles. Though it is a mitzvah to despise this particular person, that mitzvah is not a carte blanche allowance to ignore the pain of the animal. Principles should not lead to “tunnel vision” whereby one does not take heed of other issues as well. If certain principles override other aspects of civility, it is a reflection of the quality (or lack-thereof) of that principle within us. And it demands of us a re-examining of our values.

I recall hearing from the Rosh Yeshiva Rav Yechiel Perr שליט״א in the name of the Vilna Gaon, that in order to determine if one’s actions are in fact good, he must examine the after-effects. This, explains the Gaon, is the meaning of the Mishna in Avot (4:2): מצוה גוררת מצוה – one mitzvah leads to another mitzvah. If the consequence of one’s “mitzvah” is negative, it is usually a sign it is not the right path. And if the fruits of one’s actions are clearly positive, one may rest assured knowing it was indeed a mitzvah. 

So too here, when the person is applying the principle of hating this wicked man, he must apply it with a wide scope, utilizing heavy doses of שיקול הדעת and a keen eye for the possible repercussions. With that eye he can determine if it is in fact a mitzvah to demonstrate hate at that time, or not.

The ability to apply a principle appropriately can only come when one has clarity of perspective, and can take in the whole of the scenario and is able to correctly prioritize competing values. He must be able to approach each case in a nuanced way. Thus, when one is faced with “someone you hate,” rather than be a proverbial bull in a china shop and rigidly push away any thought of helping, or not even stop to notice the animal’s pain, one must leave open a space in his mind and heart to recognize the suffering of the animal as well. For he should know intuitively that his “mitzvah” cannot come at the expense of the animal. 

This explanation could perhaps illuminate another part of the Parsha. After the law of relieving the burden of your enemy’s animal, the very next verse is a call to Judges: לא תטה משפט -  “You shall not pervert the judgement of your destitute person in his dispute” (ibid. 6).

The S’forno explains: “You [the Judge] shall not be soft with this one, and difficult with this one during the court proceedings when each side presents their cases.” The question is though: why not? This person is destitute, and perhaps ruling against the poor man may be devastating for him financially! Furthermore, perhaps the other side is rich! Can he not spare a few dollars to help this poor man? The Mechilta (ibid.) even says that this verse refers a situation to where one litigant is wicked and the other is righteous. Would it not be appropriate to rule in favor of the righteous individual? Is this not justice? Isn’t this what G-d would want? No! The Torah calls this way of thinking a perversion of justice. By taking these foreign factors into account when rendering the Halacha, the Judge is perverting the system of law. Nothing other than the facts of the case, regardless of the economic or social status of the baalei dinim, may be taken into account. Renowned economist Thomas Sowell calls this attitude of intervention and consideration of these elements as “The Quest for Cosmic Justice” something which only G-d himself can even attempt to fix.

The ability to judge each person equally can only come when the Judge has fashioned his mind and שכל to ignore outside factors which may cloud his judgment, and instead is able to focus on the issue at hand. Whether one side is destitute, a widower, or an orphan, this skill will allow him to filter out and properly weigh the factors that are needed to render a דין אמת.

Both of these instances – one who helps the burden of an animal, by ignoring his hate for the owner, and a judge who rules against the poor man, by ignoring his social status – result in a fair, just and kind society that is in tune with the needs of the people, yet at the same time creates the environment and enforcement of an equal system for justice. 

This is the result of a God-centered society: fairness, sensitivity for all of G-d’s creatures, and a proper application of morals and values. May we merit to implement these ideas and see this in our own society.

Shabbat Shalom

Parshat Yitro 5778 - Enduring Inspiration

Parsha Paragraphs

Rabbi Naftali Moshe Kassorla

Parshat Yitro 5778

Enduring Inspiration

The D’var Torah for this week is dedicated in memory of: ר׳ אלחנן יעקב ז״ל בן מורי וחמי ר׳ שמואל פנחס

If you are interested in sponsoring a D’var Torah in honor or in memory of someone, or for any occasion, please email: ParshaParagraphs@gmail.com

In this week’s parsha, the Jews, as G-d’s chosen people, are officially established as a fearsome force among the nations. After decimating Egypt and defeating Amalek, they begin their journey through the desert. The Torah tells us of Yitro, the father-in-law of Moshe: וישמע יתרו - “And Yitro, Priest of Midian, Moshe's father-in-law, heard about all that Hashem had done for Moshe and for His people Israel, when Hashem brought Israel out of Egypt” (Shemot 18:1). “Yitro came to Moshe with his sons and wife, to the Wilderness where he was encamped, by the Mountain of G-d” (ibid. 5).

Interestingly, the Torah finds it necessary to inform us that the Jews were encamped in the wilderness; don’t we already know this? Rashi, of course, notes this and quotes the Mechilta which explains that the Torah, by adding this detail intends to praise Yitro, for he Yitro was living amidst worldwide honor, yet “his heart inspired him” - ונדבה לבו, to go out into the wilderness, a desolate place (מקום תהו), for the purpose of hearing words of Torah.”

Yitro, as Rashi explains, was overcome with so much emotion from hearing all the miracles that Hashem performed for the Nation, that although he was one of the most respected members of the world, he abandoned his life of luxury to go to a place of desolation, a “מקום תהו”. To get an image of the concept of “תהו,” we find in Bereishit that the same term is used to explain what the world was like before creation:  “תוהו ובהו” – “unformed and desolate.” From this we see the extent to which the word can connote literally nothing, and yet still Yitro was willing to go there to hear words of Torah. This was the power of his inspiration; it allowed him to look past the impediments of the desert. It drove him out of a life of security and comfort to join the Jewish people in the wilderness, a place fraught with danger and discomfort. All this to take part in Hashem’s chosen Nation.

However, further on in the parsha we are struck with a tremendous difficulty. When Yitro reaches the encampment of the Nation, Moshe comes to greet him. ויספר משה - Moshe recounts all the miracles that Hashem performed for Klal Yisrael. Rashi (ibid. 8) quotes the Mechilta to explain why Moshe felt it important relate this to Yitro, as we already know that Yitro had heard of the miracles G-d did in Egypt for the nation (that is what brought him there). Moshe intended not to inform Yitro, but rather: למשוך את לבו לקרבו לתורה -  “In order to draw his [Yitro’s] heart to bring him closer to the Torah.”

Why must Moshe draw him closer to Torah? We were not just told that Yitro gave up everything he had and came to the desert to learn Torah and join the ranks of the Jewish people! What is Moshe trying to accomplish here?

The Mechilta describes the emotion which overcame Yitro as “ונדבו לבו – Inspiration of the Heart.” As we saw earlier, this inspiration was so powerful that it caused Yitro to change his entire life. To sacrifice wealth, honor and comfort in order to become part of the Jewish people. Clearly this was a powerful feeling. However, we are all familiar with the notion that even the strongest emotions can dissipate over time, and once the emotion is lost, we can be found bereft of motivation and direction.

Moshe understood this, and in “bringing Yitro’s heart closer to Torah” once again by repeating the miracles that Yitro had already known, he wanted to teach Yitro the importance of capitalizing on his feelings of inspiration, by thrusting them into something concrete. As is known, Yitro was coming from a lifestyle of Avodah Zarah and according to the Mechilta (ibid. 11), he had practiced every religion known to man; he moved from one form of worship to the next, never finding lasting satisfaction. He may have experienced exultation and intense inspiration, but once it dissipated, Yitro moved on to the next religion in search of lasting and fulfilling devotion. This is perhaps what brought him to the recognition of G-d. However, Moshe knew that the intense feelings Yitro experienced when finally finding Judaism were not enough, thus necessitating drawing him closer to Torah. 

Judaism does not profess to be a “feel-good” religion offering ecstasy and ascendant euphoria. If one commits, thinking that he will feel constant elation, he may be sorely disappointed. Rather, he will find within it a perfect blend of dedication of mind and heart, a structure built for the ups and downs of everyday life. A commitment to Torah must be independent; it is obligatory even when we lose our original inspiration. 

Perhaps this is the explanation of the Mechilta: “In order to draw his heart to bring him closer to the Torah.” Not just the heart, but the person himself, so at that inevitable time when the initial inspiration leaves, the true whole person, with his commitment to Torah, will remain. By bringing Yitro closer, Moshe was ensuring that he would continue his upward progress and dedication to Hashem's Torah.

According to this explanation, we can now understand another difficulty: After Moshe retells of all the miracles in Egypt, the Midrash says that Yitro responded: “I was aware of Him in the past but, now, all the more so.” The question is: why now? Didn't Yitro come out to the wilderness with the recognition of Hashem already in mind? In light of what we have said above, while it is true that Yitro already came to the desert with belief in Hashem, his belief was rooted in that initial “fleeting” emotion. Although this inspired him to change his whole life around, it would not be enough to carry him through the long journey ahead. Now that Yitro has firmly established his belief, he can say that he is honestly “more aware of Hashem.”

This idea fits beautifully with an explanation I heard from HaRav Yecheskel Weinfeld Shlit”a of Jerusalem. As Moshe says “all that Hashem had done for them,” he also recounts “all the troubles that had befallen them until now – and that Hashem had refused them” (ibid. 9). Why does Moshe offer this as well? What is he trying to accomplish? Rav Weinfeld explains that Moshe did this in order to fulfill the injunction in Halacha to dissuade the Gentile from converting. The Gemara (Yevamot 47a-b) says, “Our Rabbis taught: If a [prospective] convert comes to convert nowadays, we say to him/her: ‘Why do you desire to convert? Do you not know that Israel at the present time is persecuted and oppressed, despised, harassed and overcome by afflictions?’” Thus, by telling Yitro of the troubles that the Nation travailed, Moshe was testing his commitment to G-d, to ingrain in him that even when things will become difficult he will be prepared to remain.

We see from Yitro the importance of taking our moments of inspiration and making them into a concrete reality in our lives. Motivation towards full belief in G-d may begin as a feeling, but unless one builds upon it to come to a consistent plateau, it will not carry him through life. Only once he does this essential work can he proclaim a deep and real belief in Hashem and His Torah.

Shabbat Shalom