Parshat B'shalach
by Rabbi Avi Billet
When describing the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire that accompanied the Israelites out of Egypt, the Torah tells us that the pillar of cloud did not leave during the day and the pillar of fire did not leave at night from before the people.
The phrase the Torah uses to express the pillars never left is extremely uncommon – “Lo yamish” – which appears only one other time in the Torah in this format (Yehoshua never leaving the tent), once in the book of Yehoshua in a slightly different format – “lo yamush” - once in each format in Yeshayahu, and once in the book of Nachum in the form of “lo yamish.”
It always refers to something not leaving or departing. And yet I wonder if there’s a deeper meaning behind the word, as well as if there is a difference to be gleaned from the distinction between Yamish and Yamush.
The Tosefta in Sanhedrin compares the appearance of Yamish in Shmot 33:11, “God would speak to Moses face to face, just as a person speaks to a close friend. [Moses] would then return to the camp. But his aid, the young man, Joshua son of Nun, did not leave the tent,” to yamush of Yehoshua 1:8, “This book of the Torah shall not leave your mouth; you shall meditate therein day and night, in order that you observe to do all that is written in it, for then will you succeed in all your ways and then will you prosper.” And while the Tosefta doesn’t distinguish between the two formats, it does say that as Yehoshua never left Moshe’s tent, due to his dedication to the study of Torah, certainly the missive in the book of Yehoshua is most appropriate. After all, if “the Torah never leaves from your mouth,” isn’t that one of our long-term goals? Isn’t that the goal of paying all those tuition dollars?
What is fascinating is that the verse that describes Yehoshua’s not ever leaving the tent is preceded by Moshe’s clear communing with God (Who speaks to him through a cloud) at the entrance to his tent. The fact that Yehoshua was present and did not leave the tent indicated he had access to the very intimate conversations Moshe had with the Master of the world.
And it’s the same Yehoshua who is told by God, after the death of his teacher Moshe, that the Torah should never leave his mouth.
On the verse describing the movements of the pillars of clouds and fire, the commentaries mostly fall into three schools of explaining the meaning of the verse. One is that the Israelites were never left without protection – the cloud didn’t leave until the fire showed up, and the fire didn’t leave until the cloud returned (Pesikta, Mechilta, Rashi, Rabbenu Bachaye). This is the image Rabbi Yosef (a talmudic rabbi) used to explain to his wife the importance of lighting Shabbos candles before sunset – while the daytime clouds are still visible, the fire of Shabbos should be kindled!
A second school focuses on the grammatical differences between yamish and yamush. Funny enough, even those confident enough to chime in on the “dikduk” differ in understanding the tenses of yamish and yamush. Since I am not an expert in this field, I’ll leave it to you to look up Rashbam, Ibn Ezra (Peirush Ha’Arokh), and others.
The third school focuses on what the pillars did, or how they illuminated. Mechilta describes the cloud and fire as helping to illuminate “tumah” status. Netziv notes his own commentary in B’haalotkha, suggesting that the cloud illuminated like fire in the night time. (It’s unclear to me if he wonders whether there was fire at all).
Beyond this, it’s worthy to note two outlying comments. Ibn Ezra, in his “peirush hakatzar” claims the clouds were only present through the splitting of the sea. His proof is that there are other mentions of clouds appearing, both at Sinai and with the inauguration of the Mishkan. As a result, it seems the cloud had a very specific time-limited purpose.
We also have the Bal HaTurim, who jumps on the connection of “lo yamish” here and in chapter 33 showing how Yehoshua’s dedication to study, to never leaving the tent of Torah, imitating the pillars which protected the Israelites, is what merited him to be the next true “Shomer Yisrael.” If we think about it, through all rules of the world, by all rights Moshe’s own sons should have taken over for their father. But they never demonstrated the dedication that Yehoshua undertook. They were unworthy.
And I think that is the message. There is an essential connection between the “lo yamish” of the clouds and fire and the “lo yamish” of Yehoshua from the tent which goes to the heart and soul of who we are as a people, which is also reflected in the “lo yamush” through which Yehoshua undertook his final life-calling.
Do we put in the time and dedication that it takes to become a leader of tomorrow? Do we make sure not to close off one opportunity before the next opportunity is in place and ready? Do we not only talk the talk of valuing Torah, but make sure it is constantly on our lips, something we talk about, delve into, discuss, to further enhance our understanding of it and dedication to it?
Most importantly, do we allow it to illuminate the parts of our life which are unclear? Some will argue all answers can be found in the Torah. Some argue some aspects of worldliness can be learned and gleaned from other sources. Some argue that everything should and must be seen through the prism of Torah.
Whichever approach is correct, let us be able to live a life in which the “lo yamish” and the “lo yamush” has the right impact, where, like from the cloud and fire, we can see and understand God’s imprint in the world, and like Yehoshua’s dedication, we can also dedicate ourselves wholly to the holiest pursuits of our existence.
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
Thursday, January 18, 2018
Never Happened Before, Will NEVER Happen Again?!
Parshat Bo
by Rabbi Avi Billet
There are two phrases which the Torah uses several times to indicate a longer-range prediction or association of fact. One phrase is “ad hayom hazeh,” literally translated to mean “until this day” (can also appear without “hazeh”); the other phrase includes the word “kamohu” which means “like it,” and is usually a part of a sentence declaring that a particular phenomenon “like this one” had never happened before and, in two cases, will never happen again.
I remember the first time I learned the phrase “ad hayom.” I was in third grade, and we were learning Parshat Vayishlach, when the death of Rachel is described. Yaakov buries her, and the monument he places at her grave is described as being there “until today.” The rebbe told us “That’s talking about Kever Rachel (Rachel’s Tomb, just north of Bethlehem) which is still there today.”
I’ve since branched out of 3rd grade thinking and have learned two important differences that indicate the rebbe’s conclusions that day were quite misleading. Firstly, “Until today” means “until today when the Torah is written,” in other words, until the text of the Torah is sealed in the time of Moshe. Any stone marker that may have lasted from Yaakov’s time to Moshe’s time is not automatically around now 3300 years later.
Secondly, I’ve learned that Kever Rachel is not where Rachel our foremother is buried. This is not to say there isn’t a woman named Rachel buried there. And this is not to say that that site is not a holy place – after all, Jews have been praying there for generations. But the evidence suggesting Rachel is buried elsewhere (more north – in an ancient Bethlehem in the area of Binyamin) is much stronger than the evidence indicating she was buried there near Bethlehem in Judea.
To summarize the first point: “ad hayom hazeh” refers to until the day the Torah’s text was sealed and presented to the Jewish people.
However, the word “kamohu” is attached to the plagues of hail, locusts, and the cry following the death of the firstborn, indicating that natural phenomena of these natures had never happened before, and insofar as locusts and a great cry were concerned, would never happen again in Egypt on such a scale. Now that is a pretty bold claim.
What does that mean for us, beyond as Ibn Ezra notes, that this was written prophetically?
Some of the commentaries note how these declarations were meant to prove God’s power to the highest degree. The hail was a unique blend of fire and ice that the world had never seen (Rabbenu Bachaye) There was never any kind of hail such as this in Egypt, where it doesn’t rain. And certainly never happened there before Egypt became a nation (Ramban).
As far as the locusts were concern, a few things made them unique. They didn’t just damage the produce and move on. They stayed put for days until they had eaten everything (Midrash Sechel Tov).
There is a debate amongst the commentaries as to how many species of locusts came. Rashi notes a contradiction with the passage in Yoel 2:2 that describes the greatest locust storm of all time, in the land of Israel, which seemed to surpass the degree of swarm and damage of whatever took place in Egypt. There are a number of answers and responses to this. Rashi’s own answer is that in Egypt there was only one species, while in Israel there were many species at the same time. This makes the plague in Egypt greater when comparing numbers of specific species, while the one in Israel may have been altogether greater.
Ramban doesn’t accept Rashi’s view, based on the verses in Tehillim 78:46 and 105:34. Therefore he notes why the Egyptian locust swarm was more incredible in that locusts come during drought. But Egypt has moisture around the Nile, which is not an attraction for locusts. And yet they came. Their arrival was based on the declaration of a prophet, and along with Rabbenu Bachaye, that is the claim – that such a large locust storm does not come without a prophet (which is why Yoel’s could be bigger!), which explains why in Egypt there would never be a similar swarm. The last prophet to live in Egypt was soon to leave!
Some commentaries note that the declaration of a locust swarm never being like that again was limited to in Egypt. But it could happen elsewhere. (R Chaim Paltiel)
Daat Zekenim suggest Moshe’s was incredible because all the locusts came at once, while in Yoel’s time, the different species came one group after the other. In other words, each swarm in Israel was smaller, but because there were multiple swarms, it was overall bigger than what happened in Egypt. (Riv’a disagrees saying the locusts in Yoel’s time all came at the same time).
Regarding the plague of the firstborn, commentaries debate what the phrases “there never was” and “there will never be” refer to. There had never been a night like that, there will never be a cry like that again (Midrash Sechel Tov, Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni). There had never been a night like that with such a plague; there will never be a night like that with such a plague (Targum Yonatan).
Alshikh focuses on the cry that will never be again, either because all the firstborns died at once, so the cry was so widespread in the same instant, or the destroying force made its way through Egypt, hitting home after home, causing the cry to extend and extend through the length of the night.
In a completely different perspective, Malbim suggests the cry was not of mourning, but of rebellion against Pharaoh, of Egyptians coming to the king saying “Enough is enough!”
The message of all of this (the second point raised above) is quite simple, and it is the important message of Ramban in his last comment on our parsha. God, through Moshe, made His presence known in Egypt and to Egyptians, in a way that was unique to that time and place, but in a manner that was meant to serve as a lesson for all time of God’s role in the world.
The Torah’s very bold claims are easily disprovable, if such plagues of Biblical proportion did happen in Egypt again, and were proven to be worse than the first time.
But in the panorama of history, Who else could make such a claim, but the Master of the World Who knows what will be from the beginning of time to the end of time?
by Rabbi Avi Billet
There are two phrases which the Torah uses several times to indicate a longer-range prediction or association of fact. One phrase is “ad hayom hazeh,” literally translated to mean “until this day” (can also appear without “hazeh”); the other phrase includes the word “kamohu” which means “like it,” and is usually a part of a sentence declaring that a particular phenomenon “like this one” had never happened before and, in two cases, will never happen again.
I remember the first time I learned the phrase “ad hayom.” I was in third grade, and we were learning Parshat Vayishlach, when the death of Rachel is described. Yaakov buries her, and the monument he places at her grave is described as being there “until today.” The rebbe told us “That’s talking about Kever Rachel (Rachel’s Tomb, just north of Bethlehem) which is still there today.”
I’ve since branched out of 3rd grade thinking and have learned two important differences that indicate the rebbe’s conclusions that day were quite misleading. Firstly, “Until today” means “until today when the Torah is written,” in other words, until the text of the Torah is sealed in the time of Moshe. Any stone marker that may have lasted from Yaakov’s time to Moshe’s time is not automatically around now 3300 years later.
Secondly, I’ve learned that Kever Rachel is not where Rachel our foremother is buried. This is not to say there isn’t a woman named Rachel buried there. And this is not to say that that site is not a holy place – after all, Jews have been praying there for generations. But the evidence suggesting Rachel is buried elsewhere (more north – in an ancient Bethlehem in the area of Binyamin) is much stronger than the evidence indicating she was buried there near Bethlehem in Judea.
To summarize the first point: “ad hayom hazeh” refers to until the day the Torah’s text was sealed and presented to the Jewish people.
However, the word “kamohu” is attached to the plagues of hail, locusts, and the cry following the death of the firstborn, indicating that natural phenomena of these natures had never happened before, and insofar as locusts and a great cry were concerned, would never happen again in Egypt on such a scale. Now that is a pretty bold claim.
What does that mean for us, beyond as Ibn Ezra notes, that this was written prophetically?
Some of the commentaries note how these declarations were meant to prove God’s power to the highest degree. The hail was a unique blend of fire and ice that the world had never seen (Rabbenu Bachaye) There was never any kind of hail such as this in Egypt, where it doesn’t rain. And certainly never happened there before Egypt became a nation (Ramban).
As far as the locusts were concern, a few things made them unique. They didn’t just damage the produce and move on. They stayed put for days until they had eaten everything (Midrash Sechel Tov).
There is a debate amongst the commentaries as to how many species of locusts came. Rashi notes a contradiction with the passage in Yoel 2:2 that describes the greatest locust storm of all time, in the land of Israel, which seemed to surpass the degree of swarm and damage of whatever took place in Egypt. There are a number of answers and responses to this. Rashi’s own answer is that in Egypt there was only one species, while in Israel there were many species at the same time. This makes the plague in Egypt greater when comparing numbers of specific species, while the one in Israel may have been altogether greater.
Ramban doesn’t accept Rashi’s view, based on the verses in Tehillim 78:46 and 105:34. Therefore he notes why the Egyptian locust swarm was more incredible in that locusts come during drought. But Egypt has moisture around the Nile, which is not an attraction for locusts. And yet they came. Their arrival was based on the declaration of a prophet, and along with Rabbenu Bachaye, that is the claim – that such a large locust storm does not come without a prophet (which is why Yoel’s could be bigger!), which explains why in Egypt there would never be a similar swarm. The last prophet to live in Egypt was soon to leave!
Some commentaries note that the declaration of a locust swarm never being like that again was limited to in Egypt. But it could happen elsewhere. (R Chaim Paltiel)
Daat Zekenim suggest Moshe’s was incredible because all the locusts came at once, while in Yoel’s time, the different species came one group after the other. In other words, each swarm in Israel was smaller, but because there were multiple swarms, it was overall bigger than what happened in Egypt. (Riv’a disagrees saying the locusts in Yoel’s time all came at the same time).
Regarding the plague of the firstborn, commentaries debate what the phrases “there never was” and “there will never be” refer to. There had never been a night like that, there will never be a cry like that again (Midrash Sechel Tov, Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni). There had never been a night like that with such a plague; there will never be a night like that with such a plague (Targum Yonatan).
Alshikh focuses on the cry that will never be again, either because all the firstborns died at once, so the cry was so widespread in the same instant, or the destroying force made its way through Egypt, hitting home after home, causing the cry to extend and extend through the length of the night.
In a completely different perspective, Malbim suggests the cry was not of mourning, but of rebellion against Pharaoh, of Egyptians coming to the king saying “Enough is enough!”
The message of all of this (the second point raised above) is quite simple, and it is the important message of Ramban in his last comment on our parsha. God, through Moshe, made His presence known in Egypt and to Egyptians, in a way that was unique to that time and place, but in a manner that was meant to serve as a lesson for all time of God’s role in the world.
The Torah’s very bold claims are easily disprovable, if such plagues of Biblical proportion did happen in Egypt again, and were proven to be worse than the first time.
But in the panorama of history, Who else could make such a claim, but the Master of the World Who knows what will be from the beginning of time to the end of time?
Monday, January 8, 2018
When Leaders Support Each Other, Without Ego
Parshat Va'era
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Bear with me as I make a case here.
Shmot 4:14-16: After giving a number of excuses for why he should not be the Deliverer, including that he is uncomfortable with his own speech-abilities, God tells Moshe that his brother Aharon is one who can speak. “I will be with your mouth and with his mouth.” Aharon’s job will be to speak to the nation [of Israel] to convince them of Moshe’s divine assignment, as Aharon “will be your mouth, and you will be a God to him” because you will be telling him what to say.
Shmot 4:28-31 – Moshe tells Aharon all that God said, as well as of the signs that were to prove his divine mission. They went to the elders of Israel, to whom Aharon then spoke, and then ‘he’ [who?] did the signs before the people. The people accepted the words and signs as presented and believed God had sent a deliverer.
Shmot 5:1-4 – Moshe and Aharon came and ‘they’ spoke to Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave. Pharaoh refused, and then ‘they’ said they were called by God. Pharaoh said to ‘them,’ “Why, Moshe and Aharon, are you interrupting the people from their work?”
Shmot 5:19-22 – The people are upset at both Moshe and Aharon for causing their labor to be increased. Moshe turns to God and says, “Why did you send me? Since I came to Pharaoh to speak in your name, it has only been bad for this nation…”
Shmot 6:2-9 – God speaks to Moshe, and tells him of the plan for exodus. In verse 9, Moshe tells it to the Israelites, who do not listen to Moshe on account of their shortness of breath from their hard labor.
6:12 – Moshe notes that the Israelites don’t listen to him, how will Pharaoh?
6:13 – Moshe and Aharon are instructed [to take a new strategy?] to the Israelites and to Pharaoh in order to get the exodus process rolling.
After giving the lineage of the tribes of Reuven, Shimon and Levi to show us where Aharon and Moshe come from, we are told that Moshe and Aharon are the ones who speak to Pharaoh (6:26-28)
In 6:29 Moshe is told [alone] to speak to Pharaoh.
Shmot 7:1-7 – Moshe is to be a god to Pharaoh and Aharon will be Moshe’s prophet. “You [Moshe] will speak all I have commanded, and Aharon will speak to Pharaoh that he should send the Israelites out of his land… Pharaoh will not listen to [both of] you… Moshe and Aharon do as they are commanded. They are 83 and 80 when they speak with Pharaoh.
Shmot 7:8-11 – “When Pharaoh asks you to give a wonder, tell Aharon to toss his staff before Pharaoh and it will be a tannin.” Moshe and Aharon do it [do what?] and Aharon throws his staff before Pharaoh and company…
To whom is Aharon supposed to speak? For whom is Moshe supposed to be a ‘god’? (compare 7:1 to 4:16) What does that even mean? What signs are for Israel? Who is supposed to perform them? What is the difference between an ‘ot’ (sign) and a ‘mofet’ (wonder)? Do Moshe and Aharon BOTH speak before Pharaoh? Does one take more of a sideline role? Does Moshe feel that he was sent more than Aharon was sent? Meaning, why does he seem to ignore Aharon’s role in going to the king after the people are upset at both Moshe AND Aharon?
In the beginning of our parsha it is clearly Moshe, and Moshe alone, who is speaking to the people, and they do not listen to him. What happened to Aharon being his prophet? And then 3 verses later Aharon is again charged with going to Pharaoh (6:13)? And then 16 verses later only Moshe is to speak to Pharaoh?!
And why is Aharon’s staff thrown before Pharaoh if Pharaoh’s challenge was to trigger the staff trick? Pharaoh never says “Give a wonder”!
Space does not allow for all these questions to be answered, but hopefully most will be covered through the following information. At first an ‘ot’ (sign) is for people who want to believe – the Israelites. A ‘mofet’ (wonder) is for Pharaoh, who does not believe. This strategy changes over time, and Pharaoh is subjected to both Otot and Moftim, because at times he demonstrates a lack of belief in God, and at times he clearly believes in God, but is either stubborn about letting his slaves leave or doesn’t care about what happens to his people.
And to answer all of the Aharon/Moshe questions, there is a very simple solution. Aharon’s role is more complicated than Moshe’s. He is second fiddle to his brother, sometimes on the sidelines, but sometimes he is even more central than Moshe. At times he is the Prime Minister to the not-yet-impressive monarch, he is spokesman for the President, and sometimes he is Chief of Staff for the Commander in Chief.
To Moshe, Aharon is a confidante, trainer, confidence-builder, ready to step in when needed either to assist or to play his own role best. Moshe is a god to Aharon because he is God’s mouthpiece. But he is a god to Pharaoh, because he will dominate Pharaoh.
There are many layers to the tale of the exodus. But the layer that covers it is that no matter what roles are assigned to Moshe and Aharon in Egypt, they always demonstrate the utmost respect for each other. They are there for each other, despite the differences in role, and they support one another so that the job can get done.
Ego? Doesn’t exist. It’s about the destiny of the people, not the reputation of the leaders.
If only such a model would be followed today, redemption would surely be close at hand.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Bear with me as I make a case here.
Shmot 4:14-16: After giving a number of excuses for why he should not be the Deliverer, including that he is uncomfortable with his own speech-abilities, God tells Moshe that his brother Aharon is one who can speak. “I will be with your mouth and with his mouth.” Aharon’s job will be to speak to the nation [of Israel] to convince them of Moshe’s divine assignment, as Aharon “will be your mouth, and you will be a God to him” because you will be telling him what to say.
Shmot 4:28-31 – Moshe tells Aharon all that God said, as well as of the signs that were to prove his divine mission. They went to the elders of Israel, to whom Aharon then spoke, and then ‘he’ [who?] did the signs before the people. The people accepted the words and signs as presented and believed God had sent a deliverer.
Shmot 5:1-4 – Moshe and Aharon came and ‘they’ spoke to Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave. Pharaoh refused, and then ‘they’ said they were called by God. Pharaoh said to ‘them,’ “Why, Moshe and Aharon, are you interrupting the people from their work?”
Shmot 5:19-22 – The people are upset at both Moshe and Aharon for causing their labor to be increased. Moshe turns to God and says, “Why did you send me? Since I came to Pharaoh to speak in your name, it has only been bad for this nation…”
Shmot 6:2-9 – God speaks to Moshe, and tells him of the plan for exodus. In verse 9, Moshe tells it to the Israelites, who do not listen to Moshe on account of their shortness of breath from their hard labor.
6:12 – Moshe notes that the Israelites don’t listen to him, how will Pharaoh?
6:13 – Moshe and Aharon are instructed [to take a new strategy?] to the Israelites and to Pharaoh in order to get the exodus process rolling.
After giving the lineage of the tribes of Reuven, Shimon and Levi to show us where Aharon and Moshe come from, we are told that Moshe and Aharon are the ones who speak to Pharaoh (6:26-28)
In 6:29 Moshe is told [alone] to speak to Pharaoh.
Shmot 7:1-7 – Moshe is to be a god to Pharaoh and Aharon will be Moshe’s prophet. “You [Moshe] will speak all I have commanded, and Aharon will speak to Pharaoh that he should send the Israelites out of his land… Pharaoh will not listen to [both of] you… Moshe and Aharon do as they are commanded. They are 83 and 80 when they speak with Pharaoh.
Shmot 7:8-11 – “When Pharaoh asks you to give a wonder, tell Aharon to toss his staff before Pharaoh and it will be a tannin.” Moshe and Aharon do it [do what?] and Aharon throws his staff before Pharaoh and company…
To whom is Aharon supposed to speak? For whom is Moshe supposed to be a ‘god’? (compare 7:1 to 4:16) What does that even mean? What signs are for Israel? Who is supposed to perform them? What is the difference between an ‘ot’ (sign) and a ‘mofet’ (wonder)? Do Moshe and Aharon BOTH speak before Pharaoh? Does one take more of a sideline role? Does Moshe feel that he was sent more than Aharon was sent? Meaning, why does he seem to ignore Aharon’s role in going to the king after the people are upset at both Moshe AND Aharon?
In the beginning of our parsha it is clearly Moshe, and Moshe alone, who is speaking to the people, and they do not listen to him. What happened to Aharon being his prophet? And then 3 verses later Aharon is again charged with going to Pharaoh (6:13)? And then 16 verses later only Moshe is to speak to Pharaoh?!
And why is Aharon’s staff thrown before Pharaoh if Pharaoh’s challenge was to trigger the staff trick? Pharaoh never says “Give a wonder”!
Space does not allow for all these questions to be answered, but hopefully most will be covered through the following information. At first an ‘ot’ (sign) is for people who want to believe – the Israelites. A ‘mofet’ (wonder) is for Pharaoh, who does not believe. This strategy changes over time, and Pharaoh is subjected to both Otot and Moftim, because at times he demonstrates a lack of belief in God, and at times he clearly believes in God, but is either stubborn about letting his slaves leave or doesn’t care about what happens to his people.
And to answer all of the Aharon/Moshe questions, there is a very simple solution. Aharon’s role is more complicated than Moshe’s. He is second fiddle to his brother, sometimes on the sidelines, but sometimes he is even more central than Moshe. At times he is the Prime Minister to the not-yet-impressive monarch, he is spokesman for the President, and sometimes he is Chief of Staff for the Commander in Chief.
To Moshe, Aharon is a confidante, trainer, confidence-builder, ready to step in when needed either to assist or to play his own role best. Moshe is a god to Aharon because he is God’s mouthpiece. But he is a god to Pharaoh, because he will dominate Pharaoh.
There are many layers to the tale of the exodus. But the layer that covers it is that no matter what roles are assigned to Moshe and Aharon in Egypt, they always demonstrate the utmost respect for each other. They are there for each other, despite the differences in role, and they support one another so that the job can get done.
Ego? Doesn’t exist. It’s about the destiny of the people, not the reputation of the leaders.
If only such a model would be followed today, redemption would surely be close at hand.
Tuesday, January 2, 2018
The Staff That Points the Way to Honoring God
Parshat Shmot
by Rabbi Avi Billet
It is most reasonable to claim that the Torah is divided into two parts: narrative and law. In some cases, law is intertwined in the presentation of the narrative, and sometimes the narrative informs our understanding of law.
But sometimes the narrative is just that – a story enhancing the plotline of the Torah.
Could it really be that narrative is meant only to tell us history? Are we not to learn moral teachings, ethical values, and life lessons?
Most adherents of Torah as a book of values will say there is much to be learned from the stories. Admirers of the Torah will take many a moral lesson, sharing ideas and trying to live by them. But can this be said of every aspect of narrative? What about lineage listings? What about a particular detail of a story which is inconsequential beyond it just being part of the story? Does it matter, for example, what color clothing someone was wearing, or what they were holding in their hand? Do we care, for example, of the style of shoe or sandal Moshe was wearing at the burning bush?
An argument can be made that if the Torah gives the detail, it must be significant. But what of when the commentaries have nothing to say? Is it still relevant?
There is no question that Moshe’s staff plays an important role in the annals of the Torah. But when it is introduced to us, it isn’t given the kind of press time we might expect from such a symbolic and iconic item.
It first appears as God is about to give Moshe the signs to demonstrate for the Israelites of his being sent by God, as God says to him, “What is this in your hand?” Moshe says “Matteh (a staff).” (4:2) God then tells him to throw it to the ground whereupon it turns into a snake, and back into a staff when Moshe grabs the snake by the tail.
The staff appears again when God reminds Moshe to “take this matteh in your hand, that with it you will do the signs.”
The signs?
Only one sign concerned the staff. The other two had nothing to do with the staff!
3 verses later we are told that Moshe “took the Matteh Ha’elokim (the staff of God) in his hand.”
A staff, stick, scepter in the hands of a leader are a clear indicator of their position. This is demonstrated in numerous cases in the Bible, and in Moshe’s case has an added element of being a symbol of the Divine. We might not view Moshe’s staff as a magic stick, but there are certainly people in his time who did, which is why he needed to take extra care to demonstrate God’s power, and not his own.
Rabbi Isaac Caro, in his Toldot Yitzchak, has two concerns when it comes to Moshe’s staff. Why did God need to give him a staff – couldn’t the signs be performed without it? (Interesting that he assumes God “gave him” the staff, rather than that God assigned his staff to do the intended job) Why does God not tell Moshe to take the staff until verse 17? Why wait until after giving Moshe the signs AND the conversation of 4:10-16?
Moshe’s objection in 4:1 was that the Israelites “will not believe me or listen to me” that God sent me. To that he was given 3 signs, to help the people believe the claims of his assigned role.
But then Moshe says, “I am not a man of words… I have a heavy mouth and tongue” (4:10). God responds, and then Moshe essentially says, “Send someone else” (4:14). Rabbi Caro argues that had Moshe been told “Take the staff” before these unfortunate objections, the negativity created here would have been avoided.
And he further explains that to each of Moshe’s objections (Who am I? (3:11), they won’t believe me (4:1), I can’t speak (4:10)) God gave an answer Moshe didn’t fully accept, leading him to his real objection of “Send someone else.” God then gave him the stick to show him that just as a dry, dead piece of wood can become a force of power, you can certainly become a force of power representing Me.
So what is the lesson? We have the opportunity to raise our service of God to higher levels all the time. Sometimes we do it with accoutrements, and sometimes with items that help us perform mitzvos. A nice Kiddush cup, Menorah, mezuzah, Shabbos candlesticks, beautiful tefillin, tzitzis, etc.
And some of us have an opportunity to enhance a mitzvah through using a staff similar to Moshe’s which can become an extension of the hand. (I apologize to all for whom the following is not directly relevant)
People who read the Torah in shul have a tremendous dual responsibility: to represent the congregation through the mitzvah of reading the Torah, and to guide the person who gets the Aliyah through reading their assigned words properly. This latter responsibility is particularly important when the honoree doesn’t know the words or can’t easily follow the reading.
Which is why I cannot understand the readers who insist on not used a “yad” pointer when reading. I've seen this in many places. Are you such a perfect human being that your eye never wanders and you never lose the place? Is it beneath your dignity to help the person next to you? Do you feel that using a “yad” dishonors the reading in some way? Do you think it reflects poorly on your skills?
You are either unaware of the disservice you are performing for the person who has the Aliyah, or you are extremely arrogant. If the former, please consider yourself informed and take corrective action. If the latter, please also consider yourself informed and take corrective action here, and in every other area of your life as well.
Perhaps Moshe was told his staff was necessary for the plural signs, because there is more than one way for a staff to be used. It doesn’t only turn into a snake. Sometimes it shows people the proper way. If Moshe needed a stick so he could understand his role as God’s messenger better, how much effort does it really take for a “shaliach tzibbur” (representative of the congregation) to pick up a tiny stick and help people fulfill their mitzvah better?
by Rabbi Avi Billet
It is most reasonable to claim that the Torah is divided into two parts: narrative and law. In some cases, law is intertwined in the presentation of the narrative, and sometimes the narrative informs our understanding of law.
But sometimes the narrative is just that – a story enhancing the plotline of the Torah.
Could it really be that narrative is meant only to tell us history? Are we not to learn moral teachings, ethical values, and life lessons?
Most adherents of Torah as a book of values will say there is much to be learned from the stories. Admirers of the Torah will take many a moral lesson, sharing ideas and trying to live by them. But can this be said of every aspect of narrative? What about lineage listings? What about a particular detail of a story which is inconsequential beyond it just being part of the story? Does it matter, for example, what color clothing someone was wearing, or what they were holding in their hand? Do we care, for example, of the style of shoe or sandal Moshe was wearing at the burning bush?
An argument can be made that if the Torah gives the detail, it must be significant. But what of when the commentaries have nothing to say? Is it still relevant?
There is no question that Moshe’s staff plays an important role in the annals of the Torah. But when it is introduced to us, it isn’t given the kind of press time we might expect from such a symbolic and iconic item.
It first appears as God is about to give Moshe the signs to demonstrate for the Israelites of his being sent by God, as God says to him, “What is this in your hand?” Moshe says “Matteh (a staff).” (4:2) God then tells him to throw it to the ground whereupon it turns into a snake, and back into a staff when Moshe grabs the snake by the tail.
The staff appears again when God reminds Moshe to “take this matteh in your hand, that with it you will do the signs.”
The signs?
Only one sign concerned the staff. The other two had nothing to do with the staff!
3 verses later we are told that Moshe “took the Matteh Ha’elokim (the staff of God) in his hand.”
A staff, stick, scepter in the hands of a leader are a clear indicator of their position. This is demonstrated in numerous cases in the Bible, and in Moshe’s case has an added element of being a symbol of the Divine. We might not view Moshe’s staff as a magic stick, but there are certainly people in his time who did, which is why he needed to take extra care to demonstrate God’s power, and not his own.
Rabbi Isaac Caro, in his Toldot Yitzchak, has two concerns when it comes to Moshe’s staff. Why did God need to give him a staff – couldn’t the signs be performed without it? (Interesting that he assumes God “gave him” the staff, rather than that God assigned his staff to do the intended job) Why does God not tell Moshe to take the staff until verse 17? Why wait until after giving Moshe the signs AND the conversation of 4:10-16?
Moshe’s objection in 4:1 was that the Israelites “will not believe me or listen to me” that God sent me. To that he was given 3 signs, to help the people believe the claims of his assigned role.
But then Moshe says, “I am not a man of words… I have a heavy mouth and tongue” (4:10). God responds, and then Moshe essentially says, “Send someone else” (4:14). Rabbi Caro argues that had Moshe been told “Take the staff” before these unfortunate objections, the negativity created here would have been avoided.
And he further explains that to each of Moshe’s objections (Who am I? (3:11), they won’t believe me (4:1), I can’t speak (4:10)) God gave an answer Moshe didn’t fully accept, leading him to his real objection of “Send someone else.” God then gave him the stick to show him that just as a dry, dead piece of wood can become a force of power, you can certainly become a force of power representing Me.
So what is the lesson? We have the opportunity to raise our service of God to higher levels all the time. Sometimes we do it with accoutrements, and sometimes with items that help us perform mitzvos. A nice Kiddush cup, Menorah, mezuzah, Shabbos candlesticks, beautiful tefillin, tzitzis, etc.
And some of us have an opportunity to enhance a mitzvah through using a staff similar to Moshe’s which can become an extension of the hand. (I apologize to all for whom the following is not directly relevant)
People who read the Torah in shul have a tremendous dual responsibility: to represent the congregation through the mitzvah of reading the Torah, and to guide the person who gets the Aliyah through reading their assigned words properly. This latter responsibility is particularly important when the honoree doesn’t know the words or can’t easily follow the reading.
Which is why I cannot understand the readers who insist on not used a “yad” pointer when reading. I've seen this in many places. Are you such a perfect human being that your eye never wanders and you never lose the place? Is it beneath your dignity to help the person next to you? Do you feel that using a “yad” dishonors the reading in some way? Do you think it reflects poorly on your skills?
You are either unaware of the disservice you are performing for the person who has the Aliyah, or you are extremely arrogant. If the former, please consider yourself informed and take corrective action. If the latter, please also consider yourself informed and take corrective action here, and in every other area of your life as well.
Perhaps Moshe was told his staff was necessary for the plural signs, because there is more than one way for a staff to be used. It doesn’t only turn into a snake. Sometimes it shows people the proper way. If Moshe needed a stick so he could understand his role as God’s messenger better, how much effort does it really take for a “shaliach tzibbur” (representative of the congregation) to pick up a tiny stick and help people fulfill their mitzvah better?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)