Moshe's Blessing

Parshat Fekudei

 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

 

“Moshe saw all the work, and behold they had done it. Just as God commanded, so they did. And Moshe blessed them.” (39:43)

The second to last chapter of the book of Shmot ends with an odd statement, essentially repeating that the people did as they were supposed to. On the one hand, they completed the work (which had obviously been put in motion because God commanded it). On the other hand, they did it just as God commanded. And they were blessed for it. Or HaChaim notes that plain blessings exchanged between people do not normally get mention in the Torah, but this blessing, because it is coming from Moshe, is clearly deserving of honorable mention.

What was the blessing?

The Zror HaMor suggests it was simply a hearty “Yasher Koiach” – amazing job sentiment.

Most commentaries raise one of two related possibilities. Firstly, “The Shechinah should rest in the product of your handiwork.” (Midrash Aggadah). Rashi’s elaboration of this is the second most popular "blessing possibility," that Moshe declared one of the 11 “songs” of Tehillim 90, specifically verse 17, “And may the pleasantness of the Lord our God be upon us, and the work of our hands establish for us, and the work of our hands establish it.” (The “Vihi Noam” verse). These approaches will be explained further after we explore other possibilities of what Moshe’s blessing was.

Midrash Aggadah raises a different possibility, “That the Ayin Hara (Evil Eye) should not have any dominion over you, and should not be an enemy to your handiwork.” The Midrash here notes that this was also a blessing for the future treatment of the Mishkan when it would be stored away in the tunnels of the Temple after it will have been retired.

Utilizing the formulation of Rabbenu Bachaye, the Kli Yakar postulates that the double usage of language of completed work, Avodah (39:42) and Melacha (39:43), is meant to reflect similar language as utilized in the depiction of Maaseh Bereshit (the account of Creation in Bereshit 1-2). In this sense, when Moshe is looking over what they’ve accomplished, he sees how they have completed the model of the Mishkan, which is a reflection of Creation. Perhaps his blessing them after the work is done, echoes God’s blessing the Sabbath when He finished  His work of the 6-days of creation. This would indicate a blessing supporting their efforts, and a sanctification of what they've done in the parallel to Shabbat.

Rabbi Pinchas Horowitz (Panim Yafos) notes that Moshe looked out upon the people, who somehow fit in the courtyard of the Mishkan, and utilizing mathematics of such a miraculous impossibility, he quotes Rabbi Yosi (ala the Yalkut Shimoni) who says the blessing was “May the Lord God of your forefathers add to you a thousandfold as many as you are, and may He bless you, as He spoke concerning you!”  (Devarim 1:11)

The Alshich begins with a unique possibility, that Moshe blessed both God and Israel. To God: “You should continue Your abundant blessings to Your people below.” To the people: he blessed them for their efforts.

In his view, the two verses that started the command for making the Mishkan (25:8-9) were in fact a two-part blessing. God had said, “They shall make for me a sanctuary” and “And I will dwell amongst them.” God’s blessing, as it were, was that they people should merit to be so righteous, to be worthy of such a blessing of having His presence be amongst them. The verse which follows is the instructions for how to achieve the two-sided blessing. Do “As all that I will show you” [make the sanctuary] and “So should you do” [Have Me dwell amongst you.]

“Moshe saw they had done it and behold they did it” (39:43), namely that they made the Sanctuary and merited to have God’s presence descend to the Mishkan, but it was only Moshe who saw this because he was blessed with the Divine spirit (Ruach Hakodesh). This is why Moshe knew they were worthy of being blessed.

Alshich goes on to analyze how “Vihi Noam” was the blessing. (See Rashi as noted above) Moshe emphasized “Maaseh Yadeinu” (the work of our hands) because the Israelites were afraid that God’s Shechina would not make an appearance on account of the aftermath of the Eigel (Golden Calf). The Shechinah (as it were) did not appear in the 7 Inauguration Days. So perhaps Moshe was intimating that since the Eigel emerged from the fire on its own (32:24) – and since it wasn’t “us” but “them” (ie the Erev Rav) who made it – the Mishkan should bring the Shechinah. In every sense the Mishkan is the antithesis of the Eigel. We “made it” (it didn’t emerge). And “we” made it (not the Erev Rav).

Jumping on this band wagon, The Chasam Sofer notes that the blessing came because their work had all been done “l’shem shamayim” – with the proper intentions, untainted by ulterior motives or thoughts. Netziv adds, “You did this all out of your love for God.”

Moshe was blessing the people that God should look at what this is, in comparison to what it is not (Eigel), and He should “Establish it.”

Perhaps all of this blessing of the people really inspired Moshe, as he noted their dual behavior which – in his view – clearly warranted a blessing. Their having built the Mishkan, and their having brought God’s presence was so noteworthy, that “Moshe did all that God commanded him. So he did.” (40:16)

When it comes down to being inspired, imitation is the best form of flattery. Moshe clearly noted that the behavior of the Bnei Yisrael in making the Mishkan was something he admired. When it was his turn to put together the Mishkan, he too wanted to behave in a manner which, in his mind, was clearly worthy of a blessing.

We should all be similarly inspired to imitate those whose behavior and whose service of God is worthy of blessings.

The Model, Righteous Women

Parshat Vayakhel

by Rabbi Avi Billet

“The washbasin and its stand was made of copper of the mirrors of the dedicated women who congregated at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” (Shmot 28:8)

There is much credit given to the women who donated their mirrors for the sake of the creation of the Kiyor/washbasin. Who were these women? Why were they so special to the point of their being enumerated in such a fashion?

According to Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s well-researched commentary, the word “Tzavu,” which is translated above as “congregated,” can also be translated as “to worship,” “celebrated,” “exiled themselves,” or who worked as “craftswomen.”

The Ibn Ezra, in his “Peirush Hakatzar,” brings another possibility that the women who donated their mirrors “came regularly (‘tamid’) to the place of the tent to pray, and they rejected all worldy desires. This is why they donated their mirrors! Because (generally) all that women do is beautify their faces.” These women broke that mold.

Before we get all hung up on the Ibn Ezra’s sexism, let us recall first that he was writing in the 12^th century. Adidtionally, he was certainly reflecting one of the Talmudic sentiments recorded in Taanit 31a about womens’ purpose – all of which were purportedly stated by different women describing themselves to potential suitors. More importantly, we must focus on how Ibn Ezra is crediting these uniquely spiritual women who dedicated so much of their time to regularly (always?) pray, to the point that they had no need for their mirrors.

Ramban adds that not only did they come to pray, but they wanted to hear all about the mitzvot – in other words, they came to learn Torah as well. Their donations were completely pure. The copper of their mirrors was particularly burnished, making it extremely high quality. This is why, Ramban claims, Moshe dedicated their copper for this specific vessel – which is meant to help the kohanim achieve purity.

Ramban concludes, however, suggesting the truth to the notion that they also had in mind the Sotah waters, which were gathered from this very same washbasin.

It seems, that as much as there are some women who are very devout and extremely dedicated and God-fearing, these same women were aware that the possibility of the Sotah, the adulteress woman, existed. Maybe they felt that the Sotah waters would always declare the innocence of the accused. Surely they understood that it is not only innocent people who are accused of crimes.

Every group of people, no matter how divided, has its share of stellar, wonderful, model citizens as well as its share of bad apples. There are people who are sincere, humble and dedicated, while some of the similarly dedicated people are arrogant egotists.

There are groups of philanthropists who are magnanimous in their gifting and in their personalities. And there are those who gift and let the whole world know about it.

There are men who are absolute givers, who donate their time, their experience, their advice, their money, their mentoring qualities to those who are lower on the totem pole, to those who need to pay their proverbial dues to climb the ladder. And there are those who look down upon any underling, treat them like trash and make them feel like nobodies on account of their youth, inexperience, naivete, etc.

There are women who are sincere about their dedication to God and holiness. There are also  women who prefer to make sure that they look not just good, but super amazing when they walk away from a mirror in front of which they’ve been looking for hours.

Some care about their Torah knowledge and mitzvah observance. Some focus on their being up to date with the latest fashion trends in all manners of clothing, gear, and sheitels.

Which were the ones whose donations were accepted? According to Ibn Ezra and Ramban, it was the former. And only the former.

We can all learn from these dedicated women – in the times of the Israelites’ journey through the desert, as well as today – to maintain a proper focus of what is most important.

No one is perfect. No one gets it right every time. But what drives us is the real question. Are we God-fearing people, humble before God? Or are we insincere people, focusing on mundane issues which only get in the way of our properly serving the Master of the World?

The righteous women who donated their mirrors to make the Washbasin had pure clarity. May their example serve as a model for all men and women for how to serve God.

Two Sets of Tablets (and 2 Arks)

Parshat Ki Tisa

By Rabbi Avi Billet

After Moshe breaks the Luchot (first set of Tablets), he is graced with a unique aura that raises his status in the eyes of the people. First he is forced to take his tent some distance outside of the camp (2000 cubits – see Targum Yonatan) because God’s presence leaves from amongst the people. (33:7-11)

At the end of the parsha, when he descends with the second set of Luchot (34:29-35) his face is shining to the point that no one can look at him. He must wear a mask in order for people to be in his presence because they cannot perceive his face, a face which has seen the Divine.

Beyond an effort to seek and provide a neutral ground for the devout who honestly seek the presence of God (Targum Yonatan and others), what is the significance of Moshe’s tent, which is now called an “Ohel Moed” (Tent of Meeting)? Did the original storage of the Luchot (broken and replacement) contribute to the formulation of this “Ohel Moed”? Did this episode redefine, in any way, the purpose of the Mishkan?

The episode indicates that Moshe’s tent was literally a spiritual center, a place of inspiration, where a cloud descended to demonstrate the presence of the Divine which was no longer entering the camp (Ramban). That Moshe conversed with the Divine “face to face” and that Yehoshua never left the tent, indicates that these leaders are uniquely endowed spiritually, and that their “hangout” is a preview of the Mishkan that will soon be built. More than a preview, perhaps it is actually the Mishkan 1.0 (see Ibn Ezra HaArokh), while the model which will be made by Betzalel will be Mishkan 2.0.

We can infer from Moshe's depiction of what happened to the Luchot after he brought them down from the mountain that Moshe’s tent became the first Mishkan (Devarim 10:1-5). He explains that he had been instructed to make an ark out of wood and to place the Luchot in them. Where was this ark stored? Most likely it was stored in Moshe’s tent. So if the cloud descended on the tent, Moshe communicated with God, and the Ark with its Luchot was there, Moshe’s tent now seems to be a functioning Mishkan. (See Shmot 25:22, Bamidbar 7:89, Shmot 24:15-18 and Shmot 40:31).

Most of the commentaries agree that the ark in this discussion was a different ark from the one which would eventually adorn the mishkan. This is especially true, as Rashi in Devarim 10:1 points out, because work on Betzalel’s Mishkan only began after Yom Kippur (when Moshe came down with Luchot II), and the Mishkan parts themselves, the actual physical structure of the building, were constructed before the golden Ark was made. In other words, a longer-term storage solution for the Luchot (as in, for several months) was necessary until the Mishkan could be finalized.

Enter the ark mentioned in Devarim 10 which was unique because it was made only of wood, without gold. And while Ramban in Devarim 10:1 indicates it had a cover, he also posits that this ark was made only for the second Luchot. The first Luchot never had a box made directly for them because they were not meant to last – God “knew all along” that they would be broken. Furthermore, assuming for a moment that the first Luchot were not supposed to break, they would still not need a box to store them, as they can be credited with storing themselves. (Or haChaim)

The fate of Moshe’s special Ark seemed to be that it was buried some time after the Mishkan’s ark was created to replace it, to hold the Luchot and the broken Luchot. There is a debate as to whether it was taken out to war, or if it was captured during the time of Eli the High Priest. But it was not meant to be a long-lasting solution. It was never meant to be more than a temporary solution, a short-term storage box (in the grander scheme of history) for God’s gift to the Israelites, the gift of the Luchot.

We can make the argument that the post-Golden Calf era was so tainted by the Golden Calf episode, to the point that the original Mishkan commandments became obsolete. Maybe Moshe’s moving his tent, which became the interim Mishkan, outside the camp, symbolically indicated God’s disappointment and the need for the people to see that spirituality in a vacuum, when defined by the feelings of the people and not by what God intended, can only lead to a spiritual center in which everything but the rawest basics needs to be stripped away and removed lest people think that the gold and the vestments and the animals are what service of God is all about.

Service of God can be achieved through the most simple of methods, without show and fanfare, when we understand that “All who sought God could go out to the Tent of Meeting that was outside of the camp.” (33:7)

Service of God, in its basic form, is never about bells and whistles and all the trimmings of religious political activism. It is about me having a relationship with The Creator, or about you having a relationship with The Creator. It is about creating a home where the broken Luchot and the replacement Luchot share a space, even if it is a simple wooden box unadorned by any precious metals, because both covenants – as represented by each set of Luchot – speak to God’s changing patience and to the frailties of humans who may mistakenly think they know what God wants and what is the best way to serve Him.

Our task is to look to His book as a guide and to do our best, with the utmost unbridled sincerity, untainted by agenda driven practices, to get close to Him. Because if it doesn’t pass the simple smell-test of historical genuineness, it might be an aberration as damaging as the Golden Calf, which set the people back to the basics of Mishkan building - with an edifice as simple as Moshe's tent converted to become a Mishkan. Through this the people could now understand that all the gold, silver and copper was meaningless in the service of God if the people using it were misguided in how to properly use the precious materials to achieve such an end.

Betzalel’s Mishkan, as it were, was then constructed with one phrase repeated over and over: with everything being made and done (and therefore utilized) “Exactly as God had commanded Moshe.” Not changing anything because the times demanded it. But doing it exactly right because that is what God intended.

Doing What We Are Commanded to Do*

Here are two more blog posts about the "tefillin scandal" referenced below.
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2014/02/women-and-tefillin-online-saga.html
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2016/01/chiddush-about-women-and-tefillin.html
Of course the real tefillin scandal is this - how lost tefillin ended up in Alabama: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mitzvah-rabbi-finds-returns-pairs-tefillin-article-1.1854447

Parshat Tetzaveh

by Rabbi Avi Billet

This week we will devote our attention to two of the many Midrashic passages on our parsha. After describing the clothes of the Kohanim , the Torah tells us, "V'zeh Hadavar – and this is what you should do for them, to sanctify them to be kohanim for Me," bring certain requisite animals as sacrifices. (29:1)

The Midrash Rabba (38:2) quotes a verse in Habbakuk (1:12) - "Are you not from everlasting (mikedem), O Lord, my God, my Holy One? We shall not die…" In other words – You, God, are immortal – why aren't humans? The Midrash suggests that until Adam ate from the forbidden tree he was supposed to be immortal. Death was brought to the world, however, once he did what he was commanded to not-do.

The argument the Midrash advances is, "God, if you want us to be holy and sanctified and separate, then remove death from among us – as You said in Habakkuk." Give us a chance! Life is too short! The answer is given in the same verse "Lamishpat samto" – they have been ordained for judgment – in other words, they will nonetheless die. (Interestingly, the word "samto" can be read "she'metoo" – that they die.) Do your best with your limited time. But perhaps learn from the example of Adam – you have mitzvot you are given and mitzvot you are not given (or ones you are told "not" to do). Embrace your role.

On the same verse from the parsha (29:1), the Midrash (38:8) asks, "With what merit was Aharon able to enter the Holy of Holies?... the merit of circumcision. It says "B'zot" Aharon enters (Vayikra 16:3), and it says "Zot" my covenant (Bereshit 17:10). And as Malachi (2:5) notes "My covenant was with him, of life and peace." (The Midrash has another interpretation that the word "Zeh" (this) has a numerical value of 12, and perhaps he carried the merit of the 12 tribes with him.)

Most women I know are quite pleased that bris milah is something relegated to males only (except for a female Reform rabbi I once conversed with – she felt the women were getting the raw end of the deal on that one. I don't think she understood that all Jews are part of the Covenant. It's just that the males bear the mark of the Covenant in their flesh). With this in mind, however, the notion of the merit of circumcision protecting Aharon could certainly stand as one of the reasons why a woman could never serve as Kohen Gadol.

It should be noted that though most Jewish males are, in fact, circumcised, there are many other barriers preventing us (I include myself) from ever being a High Priest – such as not being a kohen. We are fine with this (as was the convert in Shabbat 31a who learned he could not be the Kohen Gadol.)

A lot of time and energy has been expended in the wake of the "tefillin scandal" involving a couple of Orthodox Jewish High Schools in New York City. One of the rabbis involved with the issue delivered a sermon which was disseminated on the internet entitled, "Much Ado About Something."

I respectfully disagree with the message conveyed by the title, simply because I don't see Orthodox girls banging down doors to wear tefillin.

Rabbi Marc Angel wrote about this issue in his weekly blog (jewishideas.org) this week, stating, "If for whatever reasons halakha has exempted women from the commandment of tefillin, should women feel that their spirituality is thereby diminished?... Prayer is an inner spiritual experience, dependent on one’s spiritual frame of mind. Wearing tefillin does not make one pray better; not wearing tefillin does not prevent one from meaningful prayer."

Before concluding with an important reminder to the community about prayers and spirituality in general, Rabbi Angel posed this reflection: The question might be reframed from "Why shouldn’t females also be allowed to don tefillin?" to "why should females feel the need to don tefillin during prayer services if they are exempt from the mitzvah of tefillin?"

Of course the argument can be made that women are exempt from most "mitzvot she'hazman gerama" – time-bound commandments (other than Shabbos, eating Matzah on Pesach and Hakhel – gathering once every seven years in Jerusalem), but they nonetheless participate in Shofar, Sukkah, Lulav, counting Omer and saying Shema twice daily.

It is worthy to note that Maimonides claims (Laws of Tzitzis 3:9) that for all of these mitzvot, women should not say the blessing (when there is one) – which would stand to indicate that while the mitzvah performances are at best optional, they are not commanded (Hagahot Maimaniyot takes Rabbenu Tam to task for suggesting women could say the blessings when participating in these mitzvot).

And this is really the crux of the issue. Is tefillin a mitzvah that women accepted upon themselves through the millennia? It seems the answer is "No." It is very different from Shofar and Sukkah and Lulav which are basically "one-time" events on holidays that boil down to "you either show up or you miss it." They blow Shofar in shul anyway. The family is eating a meal in a sukkah anyway. So why not?

Sefirat Ha'Omer is hit or miss. I would bet that most women who do not go to shul have a smaller chance of counting the full 49 days, without missing one, each year.

Along similar lines to sefirah – except that it is all year – tefillin, the way the mitzvah is fulfilled today (in shul, daily) is a very different kind of commitment that women never accepted. So while all of the others are mitzvot in which women participate, they are different kinds of mitzvot. And their obligation, acceptance and responsibility is not one women need to bear except that it is convenient to do so in the context of what the community is doing anyway. Stand and hear shofar. Sit and eat in the sukkah.

Not to bring the following argument to its full obvious conclusion (which kind of relates to the Midrash quoted at the outset – I am not suggesting a death punishment for anyone!), but Nadav and Avihu tried to fulfill a mitzvah they weren't supposed to fulfill. When the dust settled, their father didn't cry out, "What, God? Are you denying my children the chance to fulfill a mitzvah?" Aharon was silent. Because he knew that they had brought "a strange fire, that they had not been commanded to bring." (Vayikra 10:1)

We should all be blessed to become experts at the mitzvot relegated to us before we expand our horizons into the "uncommanded" realm. Most people never become experts at their own responsibilities. We all have the responsibility to put our own houses in order before we venture into houses that were not assigned to us.

* by "commanded" and "uncommanded" I mean that there are mitzvot from which women are exempt, even though the commandments were given to all of the Jewish People. In some cases the tradition was that women fulfilled them anyway. However, particularly with tallis and tefillin, these practices were not taken on by women - with very few exceptions in thousands of years (only one mentioned in the Talmud) - until the Conservative movement introduced Tefillin to women in the 20th century.

There are a number of circumstances in which men are exempted from performing certain mitzvot as well: 

ספר אבודרהם ברכת המצות ומשפטיהם

ויש שהן פטורין לעולם בכל המצות כגון חרש שוטה וקטן (מכילתא תשא) ויש שהן פטורין לפי שעה כגון החולה והעוסק במצות והסומא. החולה שאינו יכול לכוון את דעתו פטור מן המצות הצריכות כונה. ואם הכביד עליו חוליו לפי כובד חוליו יהיה פטורו. ותנן (סוכה כה) חולין ומשמשיהן פטורין מן הסוכה. והעוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה ותנן (ברכות טו, ב) חתן פטור מק"ש בלילה הראשון ותניא (סוכה כו', א) ר' יעקב אומר כותבי ספרים תפילין ומזוזות ותגריהן ותגרי תגריהן וכל העוסקים במלאכת שמים לאתויי מוכרי תכלת פטורין מק"ש ומן התפלה ומן התפילין ומכל מצות האמורות בתורה וכן מי שמתו מוטל לפניו והשומר את המת והסומא תניא בבבא קמא בפרק החובל (פז, א) ר' יהודה אומר סומא אין לו בושה וכן היה ר' יהודה פטרו מכל מצות שבתורה.

READ MORE ABOUT THE TEFILLIN SAGA (including links to the articles referred to above) HERE

Significance of Naaseh V'Nishma - נעשה ונשמע

When we read that the nation of Israel declared "Naaseh V'Nishma" - simply translated as "We will do and we will hear/listen," we may wonder why such a declaration has been considered meritorious a. for generations, and b. to the point that the Talmud claims angels descended and placed crowns on the heads of the all the people of Israel?

Here are a number of possibilities - presented here for the benefit of those who may find one or two which speak to you.

Simple - "Pshat" approaches:

Pesikta, which is echoed by Rashbam:
Naaseh all that has been said, and Nishma all that will be said, and we will fulfill it as well. The Chizkuni adds the caveat that we will listen "in the event that there is more instruction in the future."

Targum Yonatan: 
Naaseh = we will do, and Nishma = we will accept it

Ibn Ezra records a number of possibilities:

¨   Naaseh all that it is written, and we will Nishma (review?) them always so as to not forget.

¨   Naaseh the positive commandments. Nishma the negative commandments.

More specific
Rabbi Chaim Paltiel records two possibilities:

1.    Naaseh what is in the Dibros. But we will only Nishma the 613 so we can first take it in [before we commit to Naaseh on them too]. [This may explain the need for the "mountain being overturned above them"]

2.    Naaseh what was commanded in Marah and Nishma what comes from now on – [this approach assumes much less was accepted with Naaseh.]

Rav Hirsch notes that Naaseh the obvious – ie, the written text, while Nishma refers to the Mesorah, the Torah She'baal Peh.

Deeper and more profound
Seforno suggested

Naaseh – like the angels – who serve not in order to receive a reward.

We will do, for the purpose that we will then hear his voice – like servants who serve just because (Tehillim 103:20) In other words, all they wanted to do was get closer and closer to God. Hearing Him was part of their goal and perhaps their ulterior motive.

Panim Yafot:
He focuses on how Naaseh refers to action, deed, doing. While hearing, refers to understanding the why.

          We need to be like Avraham, who fulfills God's will because God said so, without needing to understand the reasoning. But this action, he argues, leads a person to merit to understand its basis and its reason. And this action, in turn leads to learning.

Learning is essential in order to know what to do. But the rabbis taught (BK 17a) that learning is good because it brings one to act, and (Avot 4:5) "One who learns in order to do is given the ability to do…" BECAUSE THE ACTION IS THE IKAR (Avos 1:17).

But doing leads to getting closer to God, and this, he argues, causes God to grace the persons with Sechel to understand the reasoning.

And yet, he points out that in the Aserest HaDibros in Va'eschanan, the people went down a level when they said to Moshe (Devarim 5:24) "You speak to us, and we will hear and do ושמענו ועשינו"

In this instance they did not desire the "light of true Sechel" which comes from just doing. Even though that is the true purpose of Involving oneself in Torah and Mitzvos Lishmah…

All this relates to Mitokh Shelo Lishmah Ba Lishmah… (Pesachim 50b) Maybe V'shamanu V'asinu is good sometimes. But what is the goal? Certainly that things be done Lishmah!

The Beis HaLevi adds that there are two aspects to what was accepted here. Ol Mitzvos, and the mitzvah to learn torah.

          Had everything been reversed – "We will listen and we will do" – the whole acceptance would be to "Ol Mitzvos" alone. The whole purpose would only be Naaseh, with Nishma being a means to getting there. But when you say Naaseh first, obviously a person needs to learn it first to know what to do. But Nishma also becomes an end goal.

Therefore "When they put Naaseh before Nishma" earned them crowns because they were demonstrated two acceptances: Responsibility to Mitzvos, and Responsibility to Torah.

Not too many things are like the Torah, in which study, in and of itself, is an end-game. Everything else has an identified purpose. And if you don't buy into the purpose, you don't engage in the activity.

The lesson of Naaseh V'Nishma – is that the Torah in and of itself is a purpose.

And that is our task. To remember that our Jewish lives are not just about the things we do – though we all know they are important. But we must complement our action with another major responsibility we have as the Jewish people – to study, to learn, to understand, and to constantly engage in the mind exercises that make us who we are.

A people who serve a master not to get reward, but because serving the master is the reward itself.

Women and Tefillin - the Online Saga

Ever since mid-January, a small window of the Internet and Jewish blogosphere has been lit up by the "women and tefillin" conversation.

By all respects it is fascinating. From what I gather, two girls who identify with the Conservative movement (it seems) who attend what identifies as an Orthodox co-ed high school (SAR) were given permission to wear tefillin at the school's morning services. Another school (RaMaZ) was called to comment on how they'd respond to a similar situation, and they more or less said they'd do the same thing.

From the resulting responses that I have included below, a number of things become clear.

Some people have a handle on halakha, and some think they have a handle on halakha. Some make serious unprecedented jumps that open the door to conclusions that are more far reaching than an individual's choice to either follow halakha, not follow halakha, or think one is following halakha. [This is why I think the argument is not as much about tefillin – that is what Alfred Hitchcock would call the MacGuffin. The argument is about women's role in Orthodoxy... Tefillin is just a distraction to the "real elephant in the room"]

Some have a handle on emotions and sensitivity, and some do not. (Men telling women what their place is is kind of silly. But one author writes what I've been saying for a while as well – that all classes about "women in the bible" and "women in the Talmud" are overdone and insulting to women. Enough already. Just teach Torah and teach what halakha says about gender, without saying things like "a woman's place is in the kitchen." Really - can we move past that?)

Some will try to be defenders of tradition and truth, and some will do a poor job of it. Of course, what that even means is subject to debate. [Though I do have one complaint to the women who wear tefillin. If you're going to wear them, at least wear them properly (ie in the right position)! (see the photo here - way too low on the forehead!)]

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/heart-of-stone-liberating-the-wall-for-women/

[For the record, at least 50% of the men I see also wear them incorrectly (see first comment in article for specifics) - sigh!]

Some will rank on people with whom they disagree. Some are decidedly more civil.

Some think that emotions rule the day in Judaism. Others think nothing could be further from the truth.

And the most sensible people (IMHO) are choosing to let it ride its course, because, bottom line, this is really not a big issue in the world of practical Jewish practice. Orthodox women are not scrambling to wear tefillin. And other Jewish women who do wear tefillin either do on a regular basis, or do not. Even those who start out at bat mitzvah (at age 13?!) don't often continue past a certain amount of schooling.

I suppose this debate will continue to ravage on. Suffice it to say, the discussion is about a lot more than whether women should be or should not be allowed to wear tefillin, and if yes, where. The discussion is about how the role of women in an ever-increasingly progressive and egalitarian world ought to be defined in Judaism.

I believe tefillin is the straw man for this conversation. And of all the things I've read here, I like Avital Chizhik's the best, because I think it addresses that question and issue most directly and from a very sensible and articulate perspective.  [While I won't address most of these issues directly, my dvar torah this week offers one perspective on where I think we ought to focus…]

I spent a little bit of time gathering the information, and have divided the links I present below into the following sections (in the following order):

* The news stories that broke

* Several responses – about why women do/do not wear tefillin, and the propriety/impropriety of such a practice – generally from a somewhat objective perspective. (Yes, I said "somewhat"). There are also responses from some of the rabbis involved most directly in the story

* Blogging rabbis weigh in

* Responses to those rabbis

* Blogging women (on left, right and center)

* Blogging men (on left, right and center)

Except for in one section, all rabbis are listed here without titles. And in a couple of places I added a small comment of introduction. This is merely presenting, without opining. I look forward to the conversation in the comments, or on Facebook. 

News articles

http://thesarbuzz.eu.pn/rabbi-harcsztark-allows-two-girls-to-lay-tefillin-at-sar/

http://forward.com/articles/191256/modern-orthodox-high-school-in-new-york-allows-gir/

http://www.timesofisrael.com/modern-orthodox-girls-fight-for-the-right-to-don-tefillin/

Several responses

An explanation of some of the issues: http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Personal-Notes/Why-do-Orthodox-women-not-wear-tefillin-or-tallit

[And perhaps an important aside when discussing the issue:

http://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_rashis_daughters/ (Ari Zivotofsky)]

An educator group list discusses:

http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,22142,22165,quote=1

[And a much older, related conversation: http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v19/mj_v19i30.html]

A principal defends: http://www.jewocity.com/blog/letter-from-head-of-ramaz-school/11367 (Paul Shaviv)

A rabbi/dean addresses in a sermon: http://www.ckj.org/docs/Sermon%20Much%20Ado%20About%20Something.pdf (Haskel Lookstein)

A Rosh Yeshiva talks about… (translated by Google)

http://www.maalegilboa.org/index.php?Itemid=45&catid=51%3Avezot-leyehuda-vol2-&id=442%3Aa-conversation-with-rabbi-moshe-lichtenstein&option=com_content&view=article (Mosheh Lichtenstein)

Fascinating - Rabbi Norman Lamm made a comment about this in 1972
http://brussels.mc.yu.edu/gsdl/collect/lammserm/index/assoc/HASH5498.dir/doc.pdf

Explanations from family members as to why he said what he said
http://www.torahmusings.com/2014/04/rabbi-lamm-on-women-and-tefillin-2/

And another commentary on it
http://moderntoraleadership.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/rabbi-lamm-on-woman-and-tefillin/

Some prominent blogging rabbis weigh in

Gil Student #1 and #2

http://www.torahmusings.com/2014/01/why-no-tefillin-2/?fb_action_ids=10152210120518738&fb_action_types=news.publishes&fb_ref=pub-standard&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

http://www.torahmusings.com/2014/01/the-real-discussion-gender-roles/?fb_action_ids=10152219870353738&fb_action_types=news.publishes&fb_ref=pub-standard&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

Eliyahu Fink #1 and #2

http://finkorswim.com/2014/01/22/women-wearing-tefillin-is-really-not-such-a-big-deal/ (Eliyahu Fink)

http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/fink-or-swim/defenders-and-benders-of-roles-for-genders/2014/02/03/0/ (Follow up to previous, I guess)

Avi Shafran

http://forward.com/articles/191550/the-benefits-of-a-womans-place/ (Avi Shafran)

Efrem Goldberg

http://rabbisblog.brsonline.org/avoiding-religious-hubris/ (this one got a lengthy response and counter response – see below)

Marc Angel

http://www.jewishideas.org/blog/women-and-tefillin-blog-rabbi-marc-d-angel

Stephen Pruzansky

http://rabbipruzansky.com/2014/01/26/the-real-story/

Mordechai Torczyner
http://rechovot.blogspot.com/2014/02/of-daughters-and-tefillin.html

Responses to some of the above

To Rabbi Goldberg:

https://lettertorabbigoldberg.wordpress.com/ (Joshua Zvi Stadlan  - was even inspired to make a whole blog name in response!)

[And maybe this?: http://i.imgur.com/j0Qh5OP.jpg]

And Rabbi Goldberg's response

http://rabbisblog.brsonline.org/response-open-letter-josh-stadlan/

To Rabbi Pruzansky

http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2014/01/not-having-any-proof-wont-stop-stephen.html - not having a real name won't stop dovbear from being malicious

And of course, Rabbi Pruzansky's response

[get it?]

To both as well as to Avi Shafran

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/educating-our-daughters-out-the-door/  (Shoshanna Jaskoll)

Blogs by women (on right, left and in between)

(as just mentioned…)

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/educating-our-daughters-out-the-door/ (Shoshanna Jaskoll)

**BEST ONE http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-features/.premium-1.572170 (Avital Chizhik) **

[And, shockingly (IMO), a response to Avital's article: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/02/04/laying_tefillin_while_female_modern_orthodox_judaism_will_not_survive_if.html]

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/reigniting-prayers-passion/ (Atira Ote)

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/if-you-cant-beat-em-join-em-or-at-least-the-discussion/ (Shira Lichtman)

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/please-stop/ (Rachel Rosenthal)

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/wrapped-up-in-tradition/ (Shira Harris)

http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/961107/jewish/Why-I-Dont-Put-On-Tefillin.htm (Ahuva Gamliel)

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/blog/the-torch/2014/01/22/women-tefillin-and-double-standards/ (Avigayil Halpern)

Blogs by men (on the right, left, and in between)

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/dignity-and-difference-a-jewish-educators-views-on-women-wearing-tefillin/ (Pesach Sommer)

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/sar-tefillin-policy-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-for-orthodox-women/ (Uriel Heilman)

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jewish-female-wrap-tefillin-and-the-history-of-the-role-of-women-in-public-aspects-of-communal-worship/ (Tuvia Book)

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/thou-shalt-not-place-a-burden-between-the-eyes/ (Eric Kotkin)

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/women-must-be-agents-not-objects-in-modern-orthodoxy/ (Avraham Bronstein)

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-internet-of-really-important-things/ (Mark Korman – discusses a bunch of things. I think I get his point, though the style is a little "in your face" and the language… eh…)

http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/191430/why-women-can-and-must-lay-tefillin/ (Will Friedman)

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/gender-and-tefillin-possibilities-and-consequences/ (Ethan Tucker)

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/gender-and-tefillin-a-reply-to-rabbi-ethan-tucker-2/ (Shlomo Brody - reply to previous piece by Ethan Tucker)

And THIS VERY Comprehensive, and, I think, BALANCED and COMPREHENSIVE, article, also by Shlomo Brody: http://www.torahmusings.com/2014/02/women-tefillin-and-the-halakhic-process/
[Best quote from this article is the paragraph that begins with this:
Jewish law, as liberal Orthodox figures certainly contend, can and does evolve. In this case, it evolved to almost universally ban women from donning tefillin.]

which inspired this chiddush - a little self-promotion in my own blog is justifiable: http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2016/01/chiddush-about-women-and-tefillin.html

http://www.torahleadership.org/categories/7aageneral.pdf (Aryeh Klapper - also a response to Ethan Tucker)

http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2014/01/why-i-ignore-women-in-tefillin-and.html (Don't know the author, but probably the most sensible response to ALL of this)

http://haemtza.blogspot.com/2014/01/women-tefillin-and-burkas.html (Harry Maryles, coming to similar conclusions)

http://web.archive.org/web/20041207101038/www.rabbinicalassembly.org/cjmag/97fa/womtef.html (David Golinkin, Conservative scholar - a paper written in 1997)

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

Two pieces by Rabbi Shaul Robinson of the Lincoln Square Synagogue
Cherubim and Community
Women and Tefillin

Rabbi Herschel Schachter - Hashkafic comments on how Psak is rendered
(Same article translated to English on yeshivaworld.com)
Rabbi Joshua Yuter responds
Pesach Sommer's response to JY
Josh Waxman's response to JY
HaTzv"i Yissochar Katz response to RHS
Rabbi Mordechai Torzczyner responds to JY
Rabbi Mayer Twersky spells out the issues

(On a related topic, see Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein addressing a similar issue in a book critique - starting about half way down, the paragraph that begins with "The second primary object..."