Gather Wood and Die?

Regarding the Identity of Tzlafchad see here (or listen here!). And regarding the Death Penalty For Shabbos Violations see here

Parshat Shlach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

 To the best of my counting (and happy to hear a correction!), the Torah mentions the concept of Shabbos once in Bereishis, six times in Shmos, four times in Vayikra, twice in Bamidbar (including our parsha) and only once in Devarim.

 Add to this at least 16 times it is referenced in the remaining 19 books of the Bible, and we have a significant day in the Jewish calendar.

 The story of the woodgatherer (m'koshesh eitzim) in 15:32-36, however, is one of the more disturbing references to the holy day in the Torah. And while it is Shmot 31:14 that is the pretext for the result meted out to the woodgatherer, it is nonetheless troubling to see someone put to death for "violating the Sabbath."

 The Talmud (Bava Batra 119a-b) suggests - somewhat approvingly - the violator did so on purpose to teach a lesson to the people.

 I have always found this Talmudic passage to be troubling. Since when is a person given approval for violating a capital offense in order to teach a lesson? The active principle in the Torah is that when a person is guilty of violating a capital crime, the punishment will be so public that "All of Israel will hear and fear [the punishment] and they will not continue to do such a heinous crime." (see Devarim 13:12, 21:21) There is no justification granted to those who purposely sin for the benefit of the masses! Their sins are not whitewashed in the Torah, and yet the Talmud does give the woodgathering sinner an air of justification.

 It happens that even this principle (capital punishment as a deterrent) is hard to fathom in the two cases in Devarim – the former being an individual who tries to get others to leave the fold and worship idolatry, while the latter is the case of the wayward son who has become a glutton and violates the fifth of the Aseres Hadibros (Ten Statements) through disrespecting his parents. For a different discussion. 

How do we reconcile a person doing a simple act of carrying wood on Shabbos and receiving the death penalty as a result?

 We can't. And this is why the Meshekh Chokhmah notes that "from the time the woodgatherer was stoned – though he had intended his act for the sake of heaven, to publicize the punishment so people would not take the prohibitions of Shabbos lightly – it had such an emotional impact on the people (note he uses the word הרגש - which can either mean as I've translated it, or that they were terrified about violating the shabbos.) that while they were in the mountains of Moav and going through the motions of the book of Devarim (and the review of many laws that it includes), Shabbos is not mentioned. The manna's regular cycle (double portion on Friday) was the eternal reminder of the existence of Shabbos. This is why it is otherwise only mentioned in the retelling of the Ten Statements, which is a reminder to people to keep the Shabbos [but says nothing about those who violate it]."

There is no other evidence (that I'm aware of) that the death penalty was invoked for a violation of Shabbos. [Note from January 2014: See the Midrash in the comments that suggests one of the reasons Achan was killed (in Yehoshua 6-7) was because of Chillul Shabbat]

According to the reading of the Meshekh Chokhmah that the people were emotionally impacted, one might be able to argue that the people were not interested in hearing about the death penalty for Shabbos violations. According to the other way of reading it, it was unnecessary to raise the discussion because the matter was closed. Everyone got the point and the message about not violating the Shabbos.

Maybe the book of Devarim avoids the topic because the repercussions for its violation are so emotionally wrenching.

 But what is the crime?

 The mitzvah to keep Shabbos is so essential to who we are as a people on account of its prominence in testifying to God's creating the world.*

 It is also how we attest to God's role in taking us out of Egypt, and creating the nation of Israel that was finalized with the giving of the Torah - which includes the mitzvah of Shabbos so prominently displayed on the first of the Two Tablets.

 The wood gatherer displayed his utter disregard for all of this. Perhaps in the aftermath of the spies incident he felt that God had forsaken the Jewish people. Maybe he felt that there was no hope for the future - he, along with his generation were fated to die in the desert. Maybe he lost heart. Maybe he gave up. Maybe he felt there was nothing to live for anyway.

 that is a fatalist attitude. We have been waiting for the Messiah to come for a long time. We wait for peace in Israel, even though despite the good intentions of politicians, it will continue to elude the region with the "peace partners" that are anything but sincere.

 Do we give up? No. We forge on. With our faith intact. We do not abandon God and suggest He no longer exists because we are angry with Him. We maintain an ever present hope for the future. 

Abandoning God and the Torah is for people who, like the wood gatherer, don't see the point in it all. A person can believe in God and not observe the Sabbath. But ignoring the rules of resting on the Sabbath is an indicator that God's role in creating the world and resting on the seventh day is irrelevant to the Holy Day.

 While there is thankfully no death penalty for those who violate Shabbos, we pray that Jews across the world will revisit Shabbos, tap into its beauty, and help bring the day the Messiah can come. (Talmud Shabbos 118b)

*

מדרש אגדה (בובר) במדבר פרשת שלח פרק טו סימן לד 

ולמה נסמכה פרשת חילול שבת אצל ע"ז, ללמדך כשם שהמודה בע"ז ככופר בכל התורה, כך כל המחלל שבת ככופר בכל התורה כולה וכן שקולה שבת ככל המצות, שנאמר ועל הר סיני ירדת (ודברת) [ודבר] עמהם [משמים וגו' ואת שבת קדשך הודעת להם] (נחמיה ט' י"ד) 

******************
ps. Check out Rabbi Shimon's response to Rabbi Eliezer!!

ספרי זוטא פרק טו פסוק לב

(לב). ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר, אמר ר' אליעזר בן יעקב נאמר כאן ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר ונאמר להלן אבינו מת במדבר (שם /במדבר/ כז ג) מה מדבר שנא' להלן צלפחד אף מדבר האמור כאן צלפחד. - אמר לו ר' שמעון אי אפשר לומר מקושש היה צלפחד מפני שהיה מקושש בשנה ראשונה בעשרים ואחד לחדש השני וכי אפשר שיהיו בנות צלפחד בנות מלכים נאות וכשרות הקטנה שבהן היתה יושבת ארבעים שנה עד שלא נשאת וכי באיזו שעה מת צלפחד בשעה שנ' וישמע הכנעני מלך ערד (שם /במדבר/ לג מ) באותה שעה מת צלפחד: וימצאו איש, איש אחד היה: 

מדרש אגדה (בובר) במדבר פרשת שלח פרק טו סימן לד

ולמה נסמכה פרשת חילול שבת אצל ע"ז, ללמדך כשם שהמודה בע"ז ככופר בכל התורה, כך כל המחלל שבת ככופר בכל התורה כולה וכן שקולה שבת ככל המצות, שנאמר ועל הר סיני ירדת (ודברת) [ודבר] עמהם [משמים וגו' ואת שבת קדשך הודעת להם] (נחמיה ט' י"ד). 

Divine "Changes"?

An outsider's (perhaps naive) commentary on some of the activism going on in Israel (and perhaps in the US as well). I have purposely chosen not to take a specific stand for either side here because the ultimate lesson the dvar Torah brings out is the point upon which I am focusing. If you'd like to have the dialogue, feel free to comment (or email me!), and we can have a conversation. For a slightly different perspective, see this thought quoted in the name of HaRav Yehuda Amital, Z"L, the founding Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Etzion

Parshat B'haalotkha

by Rabbi Avi Billet

In the first Nissan month following the Exodus, the Torah tells us that the Israelites observed Passover, bringing the Korban Pesach (Paschal lamb offering) at its proper time. (Chapter 9)

The tale that follows is of a group of people, who were unable to participate in the Korban Pesach on account of their being in a state of "tumah" (a spiritual state of impurity).

"But why should we lose out and not be able to present God's offering at the right time, along with the other Israelites?" they ask.

"Wait here," Moshe replied. "I will hear what orders God gives regarding your case."

He is told, "Speak to the Israelites, saying: If any person is tameh (ritually impure) from contact with the dead, or is on a distant journey, whether among you [now] or in future generations, he shall still have the opportunity to prepare God's Passover offering… He shall prepare it on the afternoon of the 14th of the second month and shall eat it with matzahs and bitter herbs." (9:7-14) This is the Torah's account of the mitzvah of "Pesach Sheni" – the makeup date for missing the Korban Pesach.

Rashi says, "These impure (tameh) people were privileged to have this mitzvah (of Pesach Sheni) be attributed to their question, as opposed to coming directly from Moshe, because we bring about something which is worthy through someone who is worthy." Three of the opinions as to their identity are those who carried Yosef's bones, Mishael andEltzafan – who took Nadav and Avihu out of the Mishkan after their tragic end, or people who buried others who had no family. All of these possibilities are people who are very worthy to perform the mitzvah were it not for the "tumah" factor holding them back.

In his exploration of Rashi's commentary, Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi notes that those who were tameh were tameh that day, but were to become tahor (pure) that evening. As such, they would have been fit and could have partaken of the Korban Pesach on time – not in the day of the 14th of Nissan, but in the evening of the 15th, during their "Seder," when the Paschal Lamb "is to be eaten and not leftover until morning."

Were their question not asked "that day" (9:6) when there was still time, we would be able to wonder who would have the audacity to suggest that despite missing the opportunity to do the mitzvah in its proper time, they should have a do-over! There is a halakhic principle that once a specific time for a mitzvah has passed (particularly a korban) – the opportunity is lost (avar zmano batel korbano).

Their circumstance was unique, their position, as Rashi notes, one of tremendous worthiness, and their opportunity, to have a previously undisclosed mitzvah be taught through their story, makes their situation most noteworthy.

Mizrachi quotes the Raavad who suggests they had actually tried to bring the Korban Pesach, before being sprinkled with the requisite blood (presumably of the Parah Adumah – Red Heifer), and immersing in water to complete their purification process, and the offering was rejected. Mizrachi wonders, according to this opinion, why they were not instructed to undergo the purifying process followed by an additional attempt at bringing the Korban Pesach? Beyond saying such a notion was not in the cards, since they were instructed to bring the Korban Pesach on Pesach Sheni (14 Iyar) one month in the future, he does not answer this question.

The people in this circumstance were creating history. And with the authentic leadership of Moshe and the connection to the Divine he provided, their question was not out of place. Their timeliness in asking – on the day they should have been bringing the Korban, along with the suggestion that they did actually bring one only to have it rejected, together indicate a Divine stamp of approval to their efforts. They merited to have a mitzvah taught in their story!

Can the same always be said about those who are opportunists, who pick a time to say "Why should we lose out?" in order to stoke coals and create controversy?

There is a difference between taking up a cause for social justice and taking up a cause in the name of religion. True social justice cases, in which people are either not participating in society or are being selectively discriminated against in society, deserve a public hearing and a demand for equal rights.

But taking up a cause in the name of religion requires a very different attitude. Religion is ancient, has traditions, values, and a way which has been for centuries. And those looking to represent it must be humble, and must come across as standing on the shoulders of precedent.

Sincerity is relative. The people who were looking to perform the Korban Pesach, who were held back by a technicality, were sincere. They got their makeup date, which was not a new idea, according to Mizrachi, but was only taught at this time because of their sincerity.

What really drives the people behind both sides of the latest demonstrations at the Kotel? What drives those involved on both sides of drafting the Charedim into the Israeli army?

While there is a time and place for everything, the reverse is not true: not everything belongs in every place at all times.

The issues are complicated, emotions run high, some people are sincere, while some are driven by an agenda that is far less than sincere. A Divine response would be most helpful in achieving peaceful solutions. But without it, humility is the key ingredient that could keep everyone grounded and help reach appropriate compromises.

Sotah-So-Good For Marriage?

Parshat Naso

by Rabbi Avi Billet

R. Shalom Isaac Mizrachi (Divrei Shalom Responsa YD 9) was asked a question: If a person slaughtered an animal but did not cover the blood, is the meat of the animal permitted to be eaten?

He begins his answer quoting the Shulchan Arukh, who says there is a mitzvah to cover the blood (based on Vayikra 17:13), and the Rama who says that mitzvah is separate from the valid slaughtering which is still good even if he deliberately did not cover the blood.

            

As in any good responsa where the Shulchan Arukh is the tip of the iceberg, he goes on for pages and pages. He distinguishes between this case and circumstances which arise in the Torah in which an antidote is prescribed for a problem.

            

A slaughtered animal is permitted to be eaten regardless of whether one followed or violated the mitzvah to cover the blood. However, a person would remain 'tameh' forever had we not had a mitzvah of the Parah Adumah (Red Heifer). He goes on to say that if we did not have the mitzvah of the Sotah drink (Bamidbar 5 – our parsha), peace would never be attainable for a husband and wife living under a cloud of suspicion and jealousy. The doubts of faithlessness would be enough to force a mandated separation.

            

As he develops the comparison between covering the blood of the slaughtered animal against the Parah Adumah equation and the Sotah, he further distinguishes between the former and the latter two cases. Without the covering of the blood, one can still derive benefit from the slaughtered animal. But it is only with the ashes of the Red Heifer that one derives the benefit of becoming 'tahor.' It is only with the Sotah drink that one derives the benefit of achieving the peace in the home that comes from the divine clarification that leads to a clear conscience.

            

In explaining how he derives these comparisons from the words of Rashi, the Divrei Shalom says, "Had we not been commanded about the Sotah drink (literally 'the dirt of Sotah' which is dissolved in the drink) there would not be peace between husband and wife."

            

This final formulation is a little different than before. Earlier he suggested that peace would not be attainable under the circumstance of suspicion, and now he is suggesting that peace would be impossible in general, were the mitzvah of Sotah not in the books.

            

Is he suggesting that the possibility of undergoing the Sotah embarrassment is meant to be a deterrent? That knowing that "a mere suspicion of faithlessness could be enough to possibly end a marriage" would cause people to be scrupulously attentive to their spouses and to behave in a manner that is, at all times, above suspicion?

Was Sotah, like the mitzvah of the rebellious son (Devarim 21:18-21), which the Talmud (Sanhedrin 71a) claims never happened, a ritual placed in the Torah as a warning and deterrent, simply for us to learn the lesson of how to and how not to behave?

Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai abolished the Sotah ritual (Sotah 47a) because, as the Talmud suggests, it did not serve very well as a deterrent during his time.

Nowadays, the idea of Sotah seems so anachronistic, on the one hand, and so chauvinistic on the other. And yet I wonder what such a deterrent would do for marriages today.

There are different ways people look at marriage. Some go into it and are committed to stick with it through thick and thin. Some have a very special relationship built on a mutual respect, a shared vision of a life, and the ability to communicate well with one another. Some view it as a commitment that will last as long as it feels right. Some might even assume that they will one day become a statistic.

We don't have the Sotah ritual, but we live in a world in which faithlessness can't hide forever, only to be exposed in some divine ritual. It eventually comes out. And the inevitable exposé doesn't stop those (men or women) who will not respect their marriages.

But maybe there is something to a deterrent of some kind. If Rabbi Mizrachi is correct that peace would be impossible for husbands and wives to achieve without the Sotah ritual being "out there," there are grounds to say that a good number of people will heed the "warning" and will view their marriage commitment as sacred. The "Shalom Bayit" – peace in the home – they will achieve will be elevated by their efforts to renew their love and kinship on a regular basis. They will see only one another, and will never even be tempted to see if there's someone better out there. And any attempt of the yetzer hara (Evil Inclination) will be scornfully turned aside, because "There is none more beautiful in my eyes, or more appropriate for me than the one to whom I am married."

May we merit to think of the Sotah ritual in this way, as an encouragement to find and bring out the best in our spouses so that our marriages can be elevated in the Bayit Neeman B'Yisrael we are all blessed at our weddings to build until we reach the age of 120.

Discrimination? Judgment v. Mercy

Parshat Bamidbar

by Rabbi Avi Billet

After the Torah describes the order and population of how the Israelites traveled in the desert, we are told of how the tribe of Levi was not counted with everyone else, nor did they travel amongst the people. Their camp was around the Mishkan, and their jobs focused on the breaking down, carrying and reconstructing the Mishkan as per the travels of the nation.

            

Verse 1:51 says: "When the Mishkan is moved, the Levites shall take it down, and when it is to remain in one place, they shall set it up. Any non-Levite who participates shall die." The instructions are pretty straightforward as to who may or may not participate in these efforts.

            

But the translation easily drops a hidden message embedded in this verse.

            

Rabbenu Bachaye points to eight words in the verse – two groups of four words – that happen to spell out God's name in their "roshei teivot" (acronym). Both times God's name appears backwards, with the "heh" (last letter of God's name) coming in the word "Ha'Leviim."

            

This is not Bible codes. This is not word jumps or counted spaces between letters. Compare the following to the translation given above: "When the Mishkan is moved it will be taken down by Ha'Leviim (Heh) U'vachanot (Vav) HaMishkan (Heh) Yakumu (Yud) [it will be set up by] Ha'Leviim (Heh). V'hazar (Vav) Hakarev (Heh) Yumat (Yud)."

            

(נא) ובנסוע המשכן יורידו אותו ה'לוים ו'בחנות ה'משכן י'קומו אותו ה'לוים ו'הזר ה'קרב י'ומת.

The Tetragrammaton appears in acronym form, twice backwards, in one verse, with no skips between the words that make the letters that spell God's name.

Says Rabbenu Bachaye: "Anytime you find God's name planted backwards in a four-word phrase teaches you about God's trait of judgment. Haman the wicked included God's name when he told his wife that all of the grandeur to which he was honored was meaningless as long as he saw Mordechai sitting in the king's courtyard. [zeh (Heh) einenu (Vav) shoveh (Heh) li (Yud)] Thus God's trait of judgment was unleashed upon him. The verse begins with the missing part of God's name (Vov and Heh – U'vinsoa Hamishkan) and concludes with God's trait of judgment pronounced on the stranger – the non-Levite – who comes close to participate in the service of the Levites. This judgment was demonstrated in the story of Uzah in Shmuel II chapter 6. Interestingly, the reference to God's name begins in both instances here on the word 'Ha'Leviim' because the character of Levi is similarly one of judgment."

            

The reference to Haman is interesting because a statement that Esther makes includes the name of God as well, but with the letters appearing the proper order: "Yavo HaMelekh V'Haman Hayo" – "May the King and Haman come today to the party I am making." The Shem MiShmuel, in his words on Purim from 5671 (1911), mentioned that "It is known that when God's name appears this way in the correct order that it refers to God's trait of Mercy."

            

The appearance of God's name backwards in our verse is not necessarily a bad thing. We know that God has different sides – Judgment and Mercy – both of which are essential for Him to have the impact we envision Him having in our lives.

            

Perhaps one can argue that His attribute of Judgment is what balances us, and His attribute of Mercy is what balances Him.

            

But a line is drawn in the role assigned to the Levites. And this line is essential in our understanding of our roles in Jewish life. Some will call it discrimination, but some will say, it helps me understand what my purpose in life is versus what it is not. The Levites served as judges for the people, and they served God in their roles in the Mishkan. Their roles were for them alone – not to be shared with non-Levites.

            

A non-Levite could have the greatest of intentions, he or she could want to come as close to God as allowable through participating in the breakdown and reconstruction of the Mishkan in the Israelite travels.

            

But God's attribute of Judgment says, "No. That's not your role. And don't even go there."

            

Foul! Unfair! Discrimination! Racism! Down with conservatism! Does God really care! What about equality! Egalitarianism! Fairness!

            

The devout don't cry in this manner, because the devout recognize the balance that God put into His world, and His demands of us. Every one of us has a role, and everyone of us has the opportunity to find a route that helps us connect to God. Sometimes we tap into His attribute of Judgment and come out on top because of our behavior. Sometimes we tap into His attribute of Mercy and come out on top because of His mercy.

            

And our behavior choices can also have us come out on the bottom in both cases.

            

Our challenge is to find and embraceour particular roles, and bring God into the equation as often as we can. Hopefully we're spelling His name properly and not backwards, because in this format we will more often come out on top as we tap into His mercy.

            

But even when His name is spelled backwards, we have a formula for a set of behaviors that help guide us in doing what's right so we can still shine – because we are prepared to be judged – in our everlasting efforts of serving God in the way that is best for each one of us.

God, Egypt, and Care for Our Fellow Man

Parshat Behar Bechukotai

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The Torah gives three examples of "Your brother becoming impoverished." (V'khi yamukh achikha). The first has to do with selling family property, and how it returns to the original owners at the Jubilee year.

            

The second and third examples deal with a case where he can not sustain himself and is relying on community assistance (25:35-38), or even needs to be sold into slavery to support himself (25:39-42), respectively.

            

At the end of each of the latter segments, a similar statement is made:

"I am God your Lord who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan, [and] to be a God for you," (25:38) and "This is because I brought [the Israelites] out of Egypt, and they are My slaves. They shall not be sold [in the market] as slaves." (25:42)

            

The idea of being slaves to God instead of slaves to men, or of God's intent to "be a God for you" would likely make for a great psychoanalytical study, were we not speaking of God.

            

But the truth is, it doesn't end there. The next section begins with a reference to the "brother becoming impoverished" (though with a different language) (25:47), and it concludes with instructions for when the Jubilee comes, and all slaves are freed, as God says, "[All this] is because the Israelites are [actually] My slaves. They are My slaves because I brought them out of Egypt. I am God your Lord." (25:55)

            

This last summary sentence actually brings together the notions set forth by the earlier verses – Israelites are slaves to their God, Who is their God because He took them out of Egypt. The focus on Egypt is so significant, not only because it reminds us of the other times in the year when we mention Egypt (ever evening Kiddush, during the Shema, and otherwise on a regular basis), but also because it is how we remind ourselves of which precise moment turned a group of slaves who happened to share a common ancestor, into a nation sharing a destiny forever.

            

Most significantly, the Exodus from Egypt is mentioned in the first sentence of the Decalogue as well [Shmot 20:2 – "I am God your Lord, who brought you out of Egypt, from the house of slavery"] – an obvious connection on account of the next two verses in the Torah here, which happen to be the last two verses of Parshat Behar, whose parallel to the Decalogue is unavoidable: "[Therefore,] do not make yourselves false gods. Do not raise up a stone idol or a sacred pillar for yourselves. Do not place a kneeling stone in your land so that you can prostrate yourselves on it. I am God your Lord. Keep My Sabbaths and revere My sanctuary, I am God." (26:1-2)

            

We can argue that it is hard to come to grips with the seeming obsession over our being God's servants or slaves.

            

But when we look at the setup of all the different examples of the "brother becoming impoverished," and how not to lose focus of who we really are and how we should really respond, it gives us a brand new look at what the Aseret HaDibrot (Decalogue) is meant to represent for us.

            

Many are familiar with the notion that the first five of the statements in the Decalogue refer to one's relationship with one's Creator, while the last five statements refer to relationships between men and fellow Man.

            

But in the Aseret HaDibrot, all the commandments between fellow Man are written in the negative. Don't murder, don't commit adultery, don't steal, don't swear falsely, don't covet. There are no instructions for how to positively relate to fellow Man.

So perhaps here, in Parshat Behar, we have the underlying unified message: Caring for another person means picking the other person up when he is down. It also means respecting the humanity of the "other," never blurring the lines between slaves of God and slaves of men, and being sure to help a brother in his hour of need.

Remembering Egypt and of our being "slaves to God" both serve as grounding principles for how we live out our Jewish lives with the proper foci.

We must know who we are and what values we espouse. We must continue to model what it means to look out for one another, to help others who are needy, and to look for positive ways to be of assistance – not just negative things to avoid, in staying out of people's way, but proactive care for our fellow Man.

And above all, remember Egypt. Remember what binds us to one another. Remember what binds us to our God, to our Torah and to our Land. Remember that being a slave to God is very different from being slaves to men. Particularly nowadays, in a free society, when people choose whether to be slaves to God, we appreciate our commitment and dedication to a "mitzvah-focused" life which grounds us and keeps us connected to our God who took us out of Egypt.