Moshe Earns His Stripes

Parshat Ki Tisa

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Through much of the story of the Golden Calf, the focus is often Aharon. What was he thinking? What was his plan? How could he do what he did? Was he ever blamed for his role? Was he justified or vindicated in the end? 

While that is certainly an important discussion, those questions have been addressed in this column in the past. (Linked above and below) However, the same questions can also be applied to Moshe.

Think about it. He was on the mountain, oblivious of any tumult down below. He is informed by God, at a peak in his “chavrusa” (personal study session) with God, “Go down, for the people whom you brought out of Egypt have become corrupt.”

Moshe chooses to listen to everything God has to say before deciding if he’s actually going to go down to watch his people face the music. However, he also makes the choice to stay and talk to God about His plan to destroy the nation, creating a new nation of the Children of Moses. He talks to God, seems to convince God to change His mind, but also even His Middot (character traits, how He operates), to the point that God no longer intends to destroy the people.

And then Moshe emerges, and in his own anger, he destroys the Luchot (tablets) and orders the killing of the worst offenders, which end up being around 3000 people. Leaving everything else aside, there is a certain irony in that the same man who petitioned that God spare and not destroy the nation is the one who presided over the deaths of half of a percent of the male population.

What led Moshe to think that he could stay and converse with God, after God told him to “Go down” in 32:7?

A very simple reading shows us that God spoke to Moshe in 32:7 using the verb “Vay’daber” (and He spoke) and continued speaking to him in 32:9 using the word “Va’yomer” (and He said). Since there was no interruption from Moshe in between these two introductory verbs, it stands to reason God had a change in attitude between 32:8, the conclusion of the “Vay’daber” portion, and 32:9, when we are told “va’yomer.”

This subtlety is similarly apparent in Shmot 6:2 when we see "Vay’daber" and "Va’yomer" both making an appearance, and the teaching that the former verb indicates God speaking harshly while the latter verb impresses us with God’s mercy is raised by several commentators. In other words, when God said, “Go down, for the people whom you brought out of Egypt have become corrupt. They have turned away from the way I have commanded them by making a golden mask,” God was really angry. But, when He saw that Moshe did not leave right away, and that Moshe was considering how to play his own hand, God saw a leader trying to figure out the best way to save his people. And so He switched gears, speaking to Moshe with “Vayomer,” indicating a compassionate attitude.

God says, “I have observed the people, and they are an unbending group. Now do not try to stop Me when I unleash my wrath against them to destroy them. I will then make you into a great nation.” (32:9-10)

I think what is going on here is quite clear. When God says, using language of compassion, “Do not try to stop Me,” what He is really saying is, “Now is your opportunity to stop Me. Give it your best shot.” And of course, Moshe comes up with a 3-part argument that removes the immediate danger to the nation: a. they are actually Your people whom You took out of Egypt, b. why should Egypt be given fuel to desecrate Your name with a claim that this was Your plan all along, to annihilate Israel in the wilderness?, and c. what ever happened to Your promise to the forefathers?

Let us be clear – the people were guilty of desecrating God’s name in the most egregious of ways. A punishment was in order. But in this particular case, the punishment through the hands of man was going to be far less encompassing and devastating than that which God might have otherwise wrought. (Compare the irony to David's decision in Samuel II 24:14)

Neither Moshe's breaking the tablets or ordering the deaths of thousands seem to weigh against him in the future. In fact the Rabbis taught that God was pleased with the choice Moshe made in smashing the Luchot. He gets overwhelmingly passing grades in this story, despite some of the eyebrow-raising details in his not listening to God, on the one hand, and in his wrath which unfolds against the people, on the other hand.

In terms of Aharon's role, he too is vindicated in his legacy. He certainly does not lose his high priest status, and to this day he continues to be revered as a lover of and pursuer of peace. However in Devarim 9:20 – Moshe tells the people that God got angry at Aharon, and Abravanel maintains the view that Aharon lost any rights to enter the land on account of his role in this story.

Perhaps the difference between the two brothers is that each one had a very different leadership role in relating to the people here. Vis-à-vis God, Aharon never lost his focus. As God sees to the heart, Aharon retained his status as high priest forever. But as a leader to the people, he seems to have given in to their whims a little too much.

Moshe, on the other hand, earned his best stripes here. He showed God how good of a shepherd he could be to his people, and he showed the people that sometimes a father has a right to get angry at his children. It is surely a difficult balance, to be a loving and caring shepherd while also being the disciplinarian father who must take a stand and defend everything that is holy.

But every indication in the story, especially at the end when Moshe's face is shining, demonstrates that Moshe did everything right here. His choices, his decisions, and his actions are all vindicated as he is elevated to the highest status a mortal could achieve.

May we be so lucky that our choices and decisions and actions always turn out to be the right ones.

Where are the Pants (and the Tzitz)?

Parshat Tetzaveh

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Prior to describing each of the garments of the priests, the Torah tells us “These are the vestments that they shall make: a breastplate, an ephod, a robe, a knitted tunic, a turban, and a sash. Make them sacred vestments for Aaron and his sons so that they will be able to be priests to Me.” (28:4)

 Every Jew who went to day school or yeshiva, or who simply studies the parsha, knows that a regular Kohen wears 4 garments, and the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) wears 4 additional garments for a total of eight garments. And yet, this preview summary only mentions 6 garments, leaving out the pants and the “tzitz” (forehead plate).

 And so, the obvious question: why are the pants and tzitz left out? [Almost seems like a bad gag from the Lego Movie]

 One could suggest that the pants are obvious. How they are made is not described in this chapter, as the verse simply says “Also make linen pants to cover their nakedness, reaching from their waists to their thighs.” (28:42) Even in their placement in the instructions, they seem an afterthought after “Place these [vestments] on Aaron and his sons. Then anoint them, and install them, sanctifying them to be priests to Me.” (28:41) 

However, one can wonder about the simplicity of the tunic, turban and sash, which are included in the list of the magnificent-six even though their instructions are all in one verse! “Knit the tunic out of linen. [Also] make the turban out of linen and an embroidered sash.” (28:39) The instruction to make them precedes that seemingly final command for placing the vestments on the kohanim, which indicates they are not an afterthought. Clearly, leaving out the pants is not because of their simplicity in design and instruction.

The tzitz, on the other hand, has three verses dedicated to its instruction (28:36-38). It is certainly not an afterthought. And yet, why not mention in the magnificent-six verse?

Ibn Ezra notes simply that the pants are not mentioned because they are obvious, as everyone wears undergarments. The tzitz is left out of the garment list because even though it is part of the count of the Kohen Gadol’s vestments, it is not really a "garment."

More practically, Chizkuni suggests that the pants and the tzitz are included in the words “Make them sacred vestments” from 28:4, while he also notes that the pants don’t go in a “makom kavod,” in a place of honor/respect on the body. Baal haTurim combines these teachings of Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni, while Or haChaim says the six vestments listed are all of equal holiness, while the tzitz is higher than all, on account of it being made out of gold and having God’s name on it, while the pants, owing to their placement, is on a lower level than the other garments. (no pun intended)

In fact, Rabbenu Bachaye notes that the pants are the only garments for which the Kohen did not get assistance in putting on (28:41, 29:5) because the pants are a private matter, while the other garments are what the people are instructed to place on the kohanim.

The Talmud notes in Arachin 16a that each vestment of the priests helps bring atonement for sins related to either where it is placed on the body, or some other sin thematically related to it in the Bible.

Utilizing the direction set in motion by the Talmud, we’ll conclude with a teaching from Kli Yakar, to hopefully understand a little more clearly.

According to the Talmud, the Tzitz brings atonement for brazenness, while the pants provide atonement for sins of a sexual nature.

Kli Yakar argues that the Tzitz provides atonement for the sins of a sexual nature as well. The pants, which are private and not seen, atone for the private sins of individuals. The Tzitz, on the other hand, must bring atonement for the brazen nature of sexual sins done in public. He notes that the Talmud may be referring to a basic sin of brazenness, but he thinks the connection made between the pants and Tzitz is too much to be overlooked, and not appreciated for this deeper message.

Perhaps the lesson for the kohanim is also for the people. Of course, a Kohen who represents the people in their service of God is advised to remember the significance attached to his undergarments, as per the Talmudic message to him, as well is the Kohen Gadol to recall on an even higher level what his responsibility is - not only to his Kohen brethren but to all of the nation of Israel which he serves - to be exceedingly humble and cognizant of the role he plays as the messenger of the people.

But the pants and Tzitz being grouped together might also be a reminder of the message associated with the other “tzitz” of the Torah – the “tzitzit.” The Torah tells us in the paragraph of tzitzit, that seeing them will remind “You to not stray after your heart and eyes, which [in the past] have led you to immorality” (Bamidbar 15:39) Maybe, at least for men who wear tzitzit, the tzitzit, which are seen when put on, and are otherwise often tucked into the pants, can play that role of the tzitz and the pants of the kohanim, to help us overcome sins of brazenness and immorality, whether committed in public – through the things we see on the street, or committed in private – in whatever that means to people, as our hearts and eyes are trained to use the tzitzit as guides to proper service of God.

Symbolism in the Menorah's Branches

For more on the Menorah (and not just its branches) click here

Parshat Terumah

by Rabbi Avi Billet

As the Torah depicts the instructions for the vessels of the Mishkan, each item has very detailed instruction pertaining to its particular structure. The Ark, for example, is relatively easy to understand. The Menorah, being more artistic, is more complicated in its design, and therefore in the details of its instruction.

And yet, some elements of instruction seem nonetheless out of place. The Menorah, being a symmetrical edifice, has a middle branch and two sides of three branches each, which mirror one another exactly. Armed with this knowledge, we might expect that the manner in which 25:33 depicts the design on each branch would be the standard for all of the Menorah. “There shall be three embossed cups, as well as a sphere and a flower on each and every one of the branches. All six branches extending from the menorah's [stem] must be the same in this respect.”

Note how the verse does not give the exact same description for each branch – it just says that all six should be identical in the manner of the cups, sphere and flower. But then it says in 25:35, “A sphere shall serve as a base below two branches, a sphere shall serve as a base below two branches, and a sphere shall serve as a base below two branches for the six branches of the Menorah.” Even Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan noted the oddity and chose to translate the verse in summary fashion, “A sphere shall serve as a base for each pair of branches extending from [the shaft]…” covering the repetition through the phrase “for each pair of branches!”

Rashbam focuses on the word “Kein” – meaning “so it was” for all branches, which appears in 25:33, but does not appear in 25:35. He notes that the word “kein” doesn’t appear in the verse which repeats where the sphere was at each connection of branches because the verse covers all the spheres in this part of the menorah! In the earlier verse, when it says “kein” it was for all the branches, the Torah only gives us two examples of the six branches, before essentially saying “etcetera.”

Fair enough. But is there a deeper lesson to be learned from the repetition of the word “Kaftor” (sphere) and its placement between the two branches at every connection of the branches to the center stem, which is the Menorah?

Most commentaries on the Mishkan parshas take to the world of symbolism in explaining the Mishkan to Torah-readers. The Alshikh does exactly this in explaining the repetition of the need for each Kaftor.

He says there are parts of the body, similar in design to a Kaftor, which, in each case has a covering. That body part has the opportunity to complete that which the branches begin, if it is utilized properly, and the message of the branches is understood.

The first branches are the ears. Everything a person hears from teachers is than transmitted to others through the “Kaftor” that is the tongue. The tongue is covered by the mouth. The ears hear, and the tongue impacts others’ ears.

The second set of branches are the eyes, and the “Kaftor” beneath them is the heart, which is drawn by the things the eyes see. The heart is covered by the body. What the heart wants it desires

The third set of branches are the hands, and the “Kaftor” beneath them, is only on men, and is covered by garments. Both the branches and the “kaftor,” explain the Alshikh are governed by the sense of touch. He notes the practice of Rebbe (Shabbos 118b) to not lower his hands below his navel.

The branches each have the opportunity to serve God: the ears hear, leading the tongue to share words of Torah. If the eyes don’t see bad, they won’t be enticed to draw the heart to bad. If hands are trained to do good things, they can be associated with mitzvah fulfillment and deeds which benefit others – carrying things, driving, fixing, etc. And certainly this is the case for a man’s “kaftor.”

Perhaps it’s not too farfetched to suggest that the ears have lobes, the eyes have lids, and the hands have the ability to clench, so these “branches” can prevent themselves from being utilized improperly.

Using the kaftorim for mitzvos, and training the branches – the ears, eyes and arms – in the service of God, is good for everyone, whereas misappropriating any of these parts of the body for sin makes for a wasteful existence.

Just as the Menorah was “Kulah Mikshah Achas Zahav Tahor,” entirely made out of a solid piece of gold, concludes the Alshikh, so should each person merit that his (or her) entire body, not just parts of it, be models of good and proper behavior, ideally in the service of God and as a person who does chesed (acts of kindness) towards other people.

Once we understand the Torah's imagery on a symbolic level, referring to the body, the reason why each set of branches is singled out becomes clear. We are faced with different kinds of behavior choices, distinguished by the differences in our branches and kaftorim. May we merit to fulfill the blessing of the Alshikh, that our externals and internals should be an honest reflection of one another in our constant effort to be complete people, made of one solid stock that is flawless in its construction and implementation of doing God's will.

The Witch Shall Not Live

Parshat Mishpatim

 by Rabbi Avi Billet 

After her blatant anti-Semitism was exposed to the world, Helen Thomas became a persona non grata in much of the Jewish community, so much so that when she passed away, some Facebooks feeds were lit up with the verse from Mishpatim of “Mechashefah lo t’chayeh.” (22:17)

Of course the reference to Ms. Thomas was a pitiful joke at the expense of the woman’s natural death. No one was accusing her of witchcraft, nor did anyone have the right to actually impose the death penalty upon her.

This mitzvah is one of the more clear statements in the Torah that is nonetheless difficult to understand in its literal sense. My daughter loves the Harry Potter books, and the first time she read this verse, I had to explain to her that as Hermione Granger is a fictional character (hard to believe, I know), the verse does not apply to her. (Phew!)

 Is the Torah of the view that witchcraft is real – after all, the verse means “A witch shall not live”? [See Rabbenu Bachaye who records both views in the words of our Sages]

So how are we to understand the verse? Many commentators note that the verse, though written in the feminine, refers to male “witches” (warlocks? Wizards? Look out, Harry Potter!) as well. They debate over which form of death punishment would have to be applied to the offenders. At the same time, they also agree to two things: a. the Torah’s terminology is in the feminine form because “women are more apt to be involved in witchcraft,” and b. that the Torah leaves the form of punishment vague as a means to leave open the possibility of actually imposing the capital punishment upon the offending necromancer, for, as Rabbi Chaim Paltiel notes, were the witch to know of the potential punishment, he or she could take measures against that particular death affecting them.

 But some commentators also look at the context in which this prohibition appears, explaining the warning and the violation in terms that we can actually appreciate. The commandment before this one relates to the repercussions that come upon a man who seduces a virgin. The commandment after it lays out the prohibition against bestiality.

 Chizkuni notes that some who desire to seduce virgins will resort to witchcraft in order to achieve their goals. One need not look too far to understand this in contemporary terms, considering high profile individuals whose names are Bill C. who have been accused of using modern withcraft – power and/or drugs – to “seduce” women. Crimes of this nature, getting women to agree to something they might not otherwise were they not under the influence of the man’s power, is arguably a form of witchcraft.

This is one of the reasons why, although the language of the Torah reflects how women were more often involved in “witchcraft,” men could be equally guilty of the deed and act, which does not preclude women doing the same in their desire for certain men who might morally be opposed to committing such an act. In more concrete terms, Rabbi Chaim Paltiel noted that witches would cause men to become guilty of “seduction” because witchcraft targets and ensnares potential adulterers.

Baal HaTurim claims that bestiality follows this rule regarding witches because most immoral behavior stems from witchcraft. Further, he quotes the Talmud about Bilaam, perhaps the most famous of Biblical necromancers, who committed bestiality with his donkey.

If the magic described in the Bible was real, the idea that people could channel hidden powers and change the natural order of the world is anathema to God’s role in the universe as the Creator and Master of the World. The death penalty would be in order, one might argue, because a human who can play “God” is dangerous to society.

To the rationalist mind, “real” magic does not exist. All the magic in the Bible is sleight of hand and tricks that were perceived as real, because the magicians behind them were as good as it gets. Perhaps a more naïve and superstitious audience contributed to their success. A death penalty would be harder to justify for individuals who are simply very good at mystifying.

 And yet, the death penalty is phrased in such a way that it seems there would not even be a trial – as soon as the discovery is made, the witch is to be put to death (R’ Chaim Paltiel)! (Rashi and Sefer haChinukh says a Bet Din of 23 judges is required to impose the death penalty)

How could such behavior ever be justified? People will commit murder all the time, justifying their behavior through claiming that the now-deceased was a witch!

Clearly the Bet Din approach removes any justification for vigilantism. And even if R’ Paltiel’s approach is correct, presumably a person would have to justify the death all the same.

But how could this mitzvah speak to us today? I think it is a warning to people to live life as “straight as an arrow.” There are certain character traits which are described as tricky, deceitful, around-the-back, under-the-table, underhanded (not in the softball-pitching meaning), and just plain sleazy, which are often attributed to dishonest business people, or wheeler-dealers who think that life is all about beating the system. Certainly there are times when a system is flawed. And in a democratic culture, systems can hopefully be changed and improved through honest methods.

But maybe the meaning of the mitzvah is that the trickster “should not live” – not in the death sense, but in the sense that s/he should not be permitted to engage in the lives of others, and should rather be isolated (and certainly not elected to public office!), because they ruin the game of life for everyone they encounter. Anyone who has been a victim of a shady character, in business, in contract work, in wrongful lawsuits, etc. knows what kind of ruination of society can be brought about by the unscrupulous.

As we don’t have witches today (sorry, Harry Potter fans!), we certainly aren’t imposing any death penalties. And maybe the unscrupulous have a chance the witches never had, to actually do teshuvah and change their ways. But let this be a warning to all those who are dishonest cheats. Your ways are not welcome in a civil society.