The Reality Check of the Staff Test

Parshat Korach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

It is hard to understand how the people of Metropolis can not see that the only difference between Clark Kent and Superman is a pair of glasses. Then again, Superman is a comic book superhero.

It is similarly hard to understand how the people who participate in the test that "proves" that Aharon and the tribe of Levi were respectively chosen by God can not see that the entire sequence is a contrived setup! And here, it comes directly from God's instruction

In 17:17-18, Moshe is instructed to tell leaders of twelve tribes, each to place his name on his staff. Aharon's name is to appear on the tribe of Levi's staff.

Is Levi's staff in addition to twelve others, or is Levi one of the twelve? Yaakov had twelve sons, but usually Yosef's progeny is divided into two tribes, Efraim and Menashe, and Levi is out of the count.

If the tribe of Levi, as represented by Aharon, are in addition to the twelve tribes, why doesn't the Torah instruct there to be thirteen staffs? And if Levi is to be counted as part of the twelve, then Efraim and Menashe will not have specific representation. Will the person who represents Yosef be from Efraim or Menashe?  How could this be a fair test if Levi participates and either Menashe or Efraim is left out?

In the instructions to Moshe, Levi seems to be included as an afterthought. At the same time, Levi's ultimate triumph looks like a foregone conclusion. "Take the twelve, and make sure Aharon's staff is included in the bunch."

Apart from God's instruction, it seems strange that anyone would participate in the rouse, unless we suggest no one really cared about the outcome. This is how the e end of the story plays out. After Aharon's staff blossomed, "They saw and they took – each man his staff." (17:24) Apparently, the results were not a surprise. Maybe the whole arrangement was just a perfunctory motion to prove once and for all that Aharon and the Levites had been chosen.

This is still problematic, however, because in the end the stick test proves something no one disagreed with. Korach and his followers, all of whom were of the tribe of Levi, claimed only that others of their tribe should be allowed to serve as kohanim as well (16:6-11). Datan and Aviram and their gang – all from different tribes - challenged Moshe's leadership. They had no concerns about the role of the tribe of Levi and who should serve as kohanim.

Ramban claims there are only twelve tribes included in the test because the Torah does not rise above a hard number twelve when counting the tribes. (See his commentary on Devarim 33:6.) I would argue the possibility that the Torah can be in a manner suggesting thirteen staffs were included in the test: twelve plus Aharon's.

In the verses quoted above, twelve staffs are mentioned followed by Aharon's staff.  17:21 says, "Moshe told the Israelites to have their princes each give their staffs, one per tribe to make twelve staffs; and Aharon's staff is among their staffs." Perhaps, in addition to their staffs.

When Moshe places the staffs in the tent of the testimony, it says "He placed the staffs there," without specifying how many he carried in.

It could be everyone knew Levi would "win," and it could also be that everyone knew the test was a rouse to satisfy those of little faith. But every tribe needed to have a representative to give an image of a fighting chance to be chosen.

Human leadership does not exist in a vacuum. Yehoshua is clearly from Efraim, not from Yosef. Some of the kings in the book of Kings are clearly from Menashe, not from Yosef.

Here too, while not diminishing from the magic number twelve, we ought to consider the possibility that each tribe – including Efraim and Menashe – were aptly represented. Aharon's leadership – especially after the k'toret incident – may or may not have been contested once Korach and Co. were gone. Levi's place in the nation may have also been quite clear.

The roles we experience in our lives are either of the type we inherit, fall into, acquire or are appointed to. In some cases they are changeable, while in others they are not. The challenge is to make the best of our circumstances, and when possible, to advocate a change that is in the realm of the possible.

There is always room for civil conversation and civil debate. And, when necessary, every side should have a representative. But like Aharon and the Levites, there are sometimes when the conclusions are apparent even before the conversation begins. Somehow, we must learn to live with and grow to accept such realities.

Moshe's Teachable Moment – Commitment to a Long Term Goal

Parshat Shlach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Every time we consider a conversation between God and Moshe, the absurdity of the concept of Moshe "teaching" God something becomes apparent.

There is no question that God exhibits a sense of concern for His name. He does not like when people disgrace His name, misrepresent Him, or behave in a manner that is ungodly. There are a number of times in the Torah when the people act so poorly and with such disregard for God, His kindness, and all the things He has done for them, one wonders how their heads concoct some of the shenanigans and complaints they come up with and act upon.

But the strangest part is not as much when Moshe comes to their defense. He is, after all, their shepherd. It is, after all, his job to defend and protect them. The difficulty is that his logical arguments on their behalf seem so obvious. One wonders why he needed to tell them to God. And why God, seemingly, did not come up with them on His own.

The whole premise of this suggestion is heretical. If God is the Almighty, the all-seeing and the all-knowing, then God knows the past and the future. Nothing is hidden from Him. Rabbi Akiva says in Avot chapter 3, "Everything is foreseen, but free will is given." Humans have free will, but only God knows what will happen.

This is why the middle of Bamidbar chapter 14 is so confusing. It really looks like Moshe is playing the role of the psychologist and chief advisor to God. "Moshe replied to God, 'And what will happen when the Egyptians hear about it? You have brought this nation out from among them with Your great power! And what if they tell the people who live in this land? They have heard that You, God, have been with this nation [Israel]. You, God, have revealed Yourself to them face to face, and Your cloud stands over them. You go before them in a pillar of cloud by day, and a pillar of fire at night. Now you want to kill this [entire] nation like a single man! The nations who hear this news about You will say that 'God was not able to bring this nation to the land that He swore to them, so He slaughtered them in the desert.' Now, O God, is the time for You to exercise even more restraint'…" (14:13-17)

Rashi says Moshe was suggesting everyone will think God had the power over the Egyptians, but He could not defeat the Canaanites.

Ramban and others focus on the perspective that others will perceive that God could only defeat Egyptian gods but was no match for Canaanite gods.

I would like to suggest that Moshe is not teaching God a lesson, or causing God to consider a different perspective. God is well aware of all the permutations and possibilities of how Man thinks. Moshe, who grew up in the house of Pharaoh, is well aware of the Egyptian mindset. His prayer comes on account of his personal lament over the folly of trying to pick up the pieces after God decimates the Israelite nation.

This is not about God. This is about Moshe.

When a person dedicates one's life to a project, with a very clear goal, the thing that keeps the person going is that goal, and the need to see it through to the end. These people, obstinate and stiff-necked and difficult as they may be, are Moshe's people. He loves them and cares for them.

This God, Who chose Moshe, has the most incredible reputation, and inspires awe and fear among nations. In Moshe's mind's eye, there is no sense in working for a God whose reputation has been diminished.

Moshe is saying, "I know how the Egyptians think. I know what they'll say – about You and about us. And I don't want any part of that! My job was to take care of these people, and once they are all dead my job will end."

This is the ultimate lesson in what it takes to be committed to a cause, and what it takes to stand for your principles. God doesn't change His mind because Moshe convinced Him to. God "changed His mind" because He wasn't ready for Moshe to hang up his gloves forever.

Moshe could not accept the notion that a new world would be created when he saw the beauty, strength, power and possibility that existed in the one he knew. And he could not bear the thought that Egypt might have the last laugh, were the Israelites to be destroyed. His appeal to God, therefore, was not about saving face for God, as much as it was to allow his life to continue to have a purpose – to bring his people closer to the promised land.

God's possible destruction of that goal, which would either affect Moshe's life directly, or indirectly through the media channels of the day which would criticize God, were enough to warrant Moshe's objection. Moshe's objection was not to convince God to behave otherwise, as much as it was to show Moshe's dedication to the people and his readiness to lead them through thick and thin – even 40 years of wandering in the wilderness.

Razors to Raise Them

Parshat B'ha'alotkha

The Levites are consecrated, once and for all, in the opening passages of our parsha. Mazal tov!

Hold your horses. Did you read what they have to go through to experience this monumental achievement?

"Take the Levites from among the Israelites and purify them. This is how you purify them: sprinkle on them 'sin waters' and pass a razor over their entire bodies (ie. shave their hair), then they'll wash their clothes and they'll thus be purified." (8:6-7)

The Midrash takes the entire procedure and places it into Korach's mouth as one of his arguments against Moshe's sanity and moral leadership. With (arguably) good reason! It sounds like they're going through a delousing formula before entering prison!

Rashi is so disturbed by this depiction that he quotes a "nice idea" that he heard from Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan, the master of Biblical exegesis, to try to explain why the Levites would go through such an ordeal. Such a homiletical interpretation suggests a lesson to be learned, but also an explanation that may not be entirely accurate.

Their body hair seems to be shaved, he explains, "Since they brought about the forgiveness for the firstborns who had worshiped idols (through killing those who worshiped the Golden Calf), and idolatry is considered 'the offerings of the dead,' and a person afflicted with tzara'at is called 'dead,' they were required to have the same kind of haircut as those afflicted with tzara'at."

So, if one is looking to achieve a spiritual connection to God, the last step before bringing a korban or dunking in the mikveh is to take a full-body-shave?

I understand the concept of shaving to achieve "cleanliness." But to compare the journey of the metzora cleansing himself to that of a Levite who carried out capital punishment on idolators is like comparing apples to oranges. Technically they're both fruit – but through two very different processes.

The biggest irony comes from the fact that the only other time the word for razor (ta'ar) appears in the Torah is in the context of a nazir commencing his vow period of not drinking wine or cutting his hair (Bamidbar 6:5). While the metzora does shave all his (or her) hair (Vayikra 14:8-9), there is no mention of the use of a razor.

The Talmud (Nazir 40) addresses the question of how we know the metzora's shaving is done by razor, concluding that the Rabbis interpreted thus from comparing their shaving to the shavings of the Levites and Nazirs which were done with a razor.

More importantly, what does it mean to have the body-hair shaved? And why do the Levites have to go through such a procedure?

Commentaries address how much hair must be removed. Ibn Ezra quotes the "copiers" who said the beard should be shaved, but not the "pe'ah," the area that is Biblically forbidden to cut (Vayikra 19:27). Rabbenu Bachaya says the "pe'ah" is included in what may be cut. The Midrash, however, says the only hair that may not be cut grows in hidden areas.

The Torah Temimah defines these "hidden areas" as armpits and the pubic region, and he learns this from a passage in Kiddushin 25a that says we only count generally seen organs. Organs that are not normally seen need not be shaved in the "full-body" shave.

No matter how much of the body is shaved, the question remains of why the "cleansing process" of shaving is applied to the Levites. One marked distinction between the shavings is that of the Sefer HaChinukh (Mitzvah 377), who says the Levite circumstance was a one-time purification process that only the first group of Levites went through, while nazirs and metzoras would forever have to go through such a process.

The Siftei Cohen (Shakh) puts it best when he describes the symbolism of this one-time act as one which helps the Levites get past a few dark spots in their familial history.

While it says "they will pass a razor on their flesh" the Torah does not go into detail as to what they'll actually shave, because it is the act of the moving of the razor that is symbolic, not the removal of the hair (as it is in the case of the metzora). The Levites had an appetite for the sword, as was originally demonstrated by their ancestor's actions in wiping out the city of Shechem. They took the same sword to punish those who had sinned at the Golden Calf (compare Bereshit 34:25 to Shmot 32:27). The razor needed to be passed over the body as a 'kapparah' for their distasteful act, inspired by the bad angel Sama'el, of using the sword to carry out justice.

Therefore, the razor, and not the actual hair removal is what becomes the focus. Even though capital punishment is sometimes necessary, those who rush to carry it out are still held culpable for their participation in the act, minimally mandated to have a spiritual cleansing.

The one-time act was meant to purge forever Levitical characteristics that would no longer be useful in those designated for Temple service.

The Kohanim Who Bless

Parshat Naso

With the holiday of Shavuot almost upon us, we have the opportunity to explore a subject of importance to those who experience Birkat Kohanim only on holidays. What qualifications must a kohen have to participate in the blessing ritual? What might disqualify a kohen from duchening?

The Torah (6:23-27) provides a very unique mitzvah to the kohanim – the ability to be the instrument through which the people of Israel will be blessed.

It is such a unique kind of mitzvah that, with some exceptions of course, even a kohen who is a known sinner may still bless the people. It is his status as a kohen that carries the day, and pushes aside the choices he may make in his life that don’t model the best effort of maintaining a life of observance of mitzvot. This ruling is so clearly in the kohen's favor that the Shulchan Arukh suggests that a kohen who should be blessing the people who opts out (chooses to shirk his responsibility) at the moment the kohanim are called is considered in violation of three positive commandments (Orach Chaim 128:2).

Maimonides (Laws of Prayer Chapter 15) lists six qualities that would render a kohen ill-fit to bless the people. The following is a summary of the disqualifying qualities – with exceptions to these rules – as presented in Maimonides and the Shulchan Arukh.

Reading and Diction: If he cannot recite the words properly, if he confuses letters (such as alef and ayin, shin and sin), or if he has a 'heavy tongue' that prevents words from coming out.

A 'Baal Mum': If he has a blemish, either temporary or permanent. If he has a deformity in his face, hands or feet, or if spittle drips from his mouth when he talks. A person who is blind in one eye may not bless the people (though the Shulchan Arukh says even a person who is completely blind may bless the people if everyone is familiar with the person). A person afflicted with the blindness or spittle issues may bless the people in their own city, when everyone knows them and is comfortable with their nonstandard qualities. At the time he has a broken limb, he should not bless the people.

A Sinner: If he killed someone, worshiped idolatry, or became an apostate (even if he did teshuvah in the latter case). The Rama (128:35) allows a kohen who killed someone by accident (such as in a car-crash) to bless the people again after he has done teshuvah. The Mishnah Brurah even allows teshuvah to let a non-accidental murderer bless the people again. [I don't believe killing someone in war counts as a disqualifier.]

The Shulchan Arukh adds that if he has married a divorcee he may not bless the people, even if he divorces her or she dies, until he makes a vow not to associate in an intimate way with the women a kohen is forbidden to marry.

A kohen who is otherwise not careful about observance (such as one who violates the Sabbath) may bless the people. Mishnah Brurah 128:146 reminds us that just because he is a sinner does not mean we have the right to take away a mitzvah that is uniquely for him. Every person can use all the mitzvah "points" they can get, and a sinning kohen certainly can use every mitzvah given to him.

Years: Some say he needs to have facial hair, but the Shulchan Arukh says (128:34) if he is bar mitzvah, it is as if he has facial hair. A minor may participate to learn the ropes, as long as there are others present who are over the age of 13.

Wine: One who has consumed a "r'viis" (between 3 and 5 ounces) of wine in one straight shot, or more than a r'viis of wine in any number of shots, may only bless the people after the effect of the wine has passed. (Higher percentages of alcohol drinks would apply as well.) If the r'viis was consumed in two shots, or the wine was diluted, he may bless the people.

Tumah: If he did not wash his hands, he may not bless the people. Shulchan Arukh adds that if he became tameh to a person who is not one of his seven close relatives (mother, father, wife, sister, brother, son, daughter), he may not bless the people.

The law states (Sotah 38a) that the blessing has to be said in Hebrew. Rabbi Mordechai HaKohen asks why is this so. Couldn't the blessings be performed in whatever language the kohen understands?

He answers that the last words of the blessing are "And He shall place for you Shalom." The word 'Shalom' contains within it all kinds of important connotations, feelings, thoughts, and ideas. As it cannot be adequately translated from Hebrew, it must be stated in Hebrew.

Rashi explains that through blessing the people the Kohen also receives the same blessings from God. Indeed the Rambam explains that the Kohen is merely the instrument through which every Jew receives the blessing from God. This is why his personal righteousness is lest important than his pedigree.

May we always find a way to be accepting of the kohanim who come to bless us, who fit the qualifications as described here. May kohanim merit to live their lives in such a manner that the congregation will be pleased to be blessed by and through them. May they also work on the qualities they can control (tumah, pronunciation, wine, etc) such that they will always be ready to fulfill their mitzvah.

Hopefully, as a result, we can all be blessed with the most beneficial blessing: the blessing of Shalom.

Shavuot - Not a Date for Celebrating the Torah

What significant moment from Jewish history is celebrated on Shavuot?

The giving of the Torah. Right?

Wrong.

Unlike other holidays such as Pesach and Sukkot, the Torah does not assign a historical significance to Shavuot. In Pesach’s case the Torah tells us “On this day I took you out of Egypt.” (Shmot 12:17) In Sukkot’s case, the Torah tells us we dwell in Sukkot “because I had the Israelites dwell in booths when I took them out of Egypt.” (Vayikra 23:43)

Rabbi Joshua ibn Shu’ib pointedly reminds us that the Torah never says “Celebrate a holiday of Shavuot for on that day I gave you the Torah.” We know that Rosh Hashana is a “day of truah” (sounding the shofar), and Yom Kippur is a “day of forgiveness,” but Shavuot is considered “zman matan torateinu” – the general timeframe of the giving of the Torah, but not “yom matan torateinu” – the day of the giving of the Torah.

One can argue that Pesach and Sukkot are also called “zman” something, such as the time of our freedom (Pesach) and the time of our rejoicing (sukkot). They also are not called “Yom” – the “day” of these celebrations! But the difference between these two holidays and Shavuot is that they are each spread over a seven-day period, which by default can not be defined as a single "day of” our freedom or rejoicing.

One reason why Shavuot can never be called the “day of” anything is because Shavuot does not celebrate a historical event. In the Torah it is depicted only as an agricultural holiday. In Shmot 23:16 it is called “Chag Hakatzir” – the holiday of harvest. In Shmot 34:22 it is called “Shavuot” as the acts of harvest and bringing first fruits are mentioned. In Vayikra 23 the holiday isn’t even called by name, but is set in the context of counting sefirah, in that the fiftieth day, also known as the day after the completion of seven full weeks, is the day of the holiday. (Devarim 16 has a similar context, as it calls the holiday Shavuot as well). Finally, in Bamidbar 28:26 the holiday is called “Yom Habikkurim” – the day of the first fruits.

So why is the connection to the giving of the Torah so ensconced in our heads? Obviously we do not live in an agricultural society, nor do we live in Israel, so perhaps we needed to develop an additional significance to this holiday. If not for some deeper symbolism, that is, in our own hearts we would have difficulty understanding the need for this holiday at all.

There are two Talmudic passages that can shed light on our quandary. Rosh Hashana 6b points out that before there was a set calendar, any month on the Hebrew calendar could potentially be 29 or 30 days. If Nissan and Iyar were both 30 days, Shavuot would be on the 5th of Sivan. If Nissan and Iyar were both 29 days, Shavuot would be on the 7th of Sivan. If one was 30 and the other was 29, Shavuot would be on the 6th of Sivan.

In Shabbat 86b-88, the Talmud goes through painstaking detail and argument over the date of the giving of the Torah. It boils down to two opinions: the 6th or 7th of Sivan. The back and forth is not relevant to our discussion, but the fact that the date of the giving of the Torah is uncertain is highly relevant. In the previous paragraph the possibility of a 5th of Sivan Shavuot was raised as a very real possibility. Such a Shavuot would be completely disconnected from any commemoration of the date of the giving of the Torah. As well it should be, for the event of the holiday and the event of receiving the Torah are unconnected.

But there is some connection. It is the same season. In some cases Shavuot will fall out on the day of the giving of the Torah.

The Minchat Yitzchak notes how the 7 weeks of sefirah parallel the seven preparatory days a woman takes before going to the mikvah. We count as she counts, and like the bride awaiting her chupah, the Jewish people prepared to bind themselves to God forever at Sinai. These connections, plus the coincidence of the calendar put Shavuot and a celebration of the receiving of the Torah into the same ballpark.

So why doesn’t the Torah give us the date of “matan Torah”?

Rashi says in Shmot 19:1 “Because the Torah should be new to us every day, as if it were given today.” We can not limit our celebration of the Torah to one night/day of the year. It is a constant gift, with no time limits and no set dates.