If the Clothes Make the Man/Leader - It Needs Sponsorship! (Maybe)

Parshat Tetzaveh

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The opening instructions for the clothing of the Kohen Gadol focus on how the “Chachmei Lev” (the skilled artisans) are to take the donated materials and fashion the special garments of Kohanim. 

In his comments on the beginning of the Parsha, R Yosef B’Chor Shor makes two points of significance. 

1. When the Kohanim are standing in the service of God, they are to wear these special uniforms, and not to dress in “Bigdei Chol” (weekday clothes), which is not considered properly respectful. 

This point reminds us that when we are engaged in holy activities we should do our part to dress the part. This is why some people enhance their outfit for prayer, and certainly for the holy days of Shabbos and Yom Tov. It is also why people at least have in their mind "these are my wedding clothes," or similar thought processes, when it comes to certain articles of clothing in their closet. 

While it is not as common in my field, I personally reserve white-only shirts for Shabbos, Yom Tov, weddings, and sometimes funerals. When a person wears suits/jackets and ties daily, it is harder to set aside suits specifically for Shabbos - they get worn, they get cleaned, they get used for all purposes when appropriate. 

Those who wish to live up to this ideal that follows the model of the Kohanim and their garments might want to consider having specific garments set aside for Shabbos and Yom Tov and for special occasions. At the very least these garments should be a little nicer than those for weekdays - but as long as one knows "this is how I make Shabbos and Yom Tov different," with specific clothing items designated for those special times, one is certainly on the right path.

B'chor Shor's second idea:

 

2. The instruction is given to the people to assure Aharon has what he needs to best do his job of serving the people in his capacity as Kohen Gadol. They should not have it fall on Aharon to hire someone to make his clothes – it should come as an initiative of the people.

This is a dicey situation for us to consider, because in reality we don't have kohanim serving in the Mishkan/Mikdash today, leaving us to wonder if there is a parallel in our world.

There is a kollel that I support with consistent donations throughout the year, and the Rosh Kollel has told me that while the members of the kollel manage on minimal funds throughout the year - by choice - he does try to help them buy a "used suit" once a year. This suit becomes the Shabbos/Yom Tov suit, and the former Shabbos/Yom Tov suit becomes the kollel member's daily suit which he wears every weekday of the year until the suit is worn out. Then, per the cycle a new "used suit" is purchased again, becoming the Shabbos suit, when last year's "new suit" once again becomes the weekday one.

Personally having a sensitivity to clothing looking nice and presentable, I was recently talking to a rabbinical colleague (with whom I feel close enough to comment about these things) - he cares less about externalities - and I told him that as a Rov, he has a responsibility to look a little more put together. This is not about wearing expensive clothing! But it is about choosing a little better in terms of what he wears, for example, when serving in his capacity as Rabbi of his Kehillah, versus when he is on vacation and no one knows who he is. An unironed shirt, a white shirt that doesn't look white, an unkempt tie, a not-as-clean-as-it-could-be suit, etc., are unbefitting his role as a rabbi.

Having said that, it is understandable if he can't afford to maintain such a wardrobe, which may arguably put the onus of a minimal aspect of his wardrobe on his kehillah to maintain or sponsor. 

No, he is not a kohen or a Kohen Gadol. But in our world, a person in that position is our spiritual leader. While he does not have to be a clothing-model, in whatever capacity possible, a budget should be considered so that his clothing can help him look the part of the dignified spiritual representative he is to his congregation.

B'chor Shor noted that the clothing of the Kohanim were the responsibility of the community of the Jewish people, and was not meant to be placed on Aharon and sons as a burden they had to bear or sponsor.

The parallel is not exactly the same - but if it is, then whatever help can be given to those in these positions should be granted so our communities' representatives can adequately look the part we hope for them to fill.

The Testimony I Give You

Parshat Terumah

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

In the instructions for the Mishkan, Moshe is told (25:21), “And into the Ark you will place the testimony that I will give you.” On the surface, this seems a straightforward instruction for where the Luchot are to be placed. 

When one thinks of the timing of the instruction of the Mishkan, however, consideration must be given to the Ark mentioned in Parshat Eikev to make a wooden (temporary) Ark (Devarim 10:1-5) (see also here - a related exploration in Ki Sisa). And the following questions must be considered as well: was it always the intent for there to be 2 sets of Luchot? Did God plan for Moshe to break the first Tablets? Considering that the instruction for the making of the wooden Ark came at the same time Moshe was told to carve out two stones to replace the ones he had broken, were the first Luchot originally to be left without a home from the time Moshe received them until the Mishkan was built? If the instructions for the Mishkan came before Moshe came down from the mountain, then God referencing Luchot “that I will give you” makes sense. But that thwarts the theory that the Mishkan instructions were given after the Golden Calf to help the Bnei Yisrael achieve a “tikkun” – a corrective – for the events of the Golden Calf! But if the instructions were given in that order – after the events of the Golden Calf (following the line of thinking of Rashi that the Torah is not presented in chronological order), then Moshe had already been given the Luchot! What does God mean when He says “Into the Ark you will place the testimony that I will give you”? First – they were given, and already destroyed, and Second – the second set of Luchot were carved out by Moshe, given for God to inscribe (or engrave?), and then returned to him! Who is giving stones to whom? 

Ramban says Moshe wasn’t given this instruction for the first Luchot, because God knew the first ones would be broken. Or HaChaim argues they were so supernatural they would have stored themselves had they not been destroyed by Moshe. He further suggests that Moshe was instructed by God to make an Ark “for you” (meaning for Moshe – עשה לך ארון עץ) to indicate that the second Luchot were actually Moshe’s, for he had carved them out himself and now would need a place to store them, whereas the first Luchot were entirely of God’s design in both selection and engraving. A number of sources indicate that the pieces of the broken Luchot were gathered and put into the Ark along with the second Luchot (Baba Batra 14b, Yerushalmi: Shekalim 6:1, Sotah 8:3). 

 There is likely a crossover in terms of which Ark is being referenced in some of these sources – our tradition has it that when the Ark of the Mishkan was completed both sets of Luchot were placed in it, the complete second set and the broken first set. 

 But the question remains about the timing of the instruction and what Moshe was being told? Rashi enhances the question by wondering why the instruction is given twice (in 25:16 & 25:21). Rashi suggests (and Ibn Ezra echoes) that the instruction may be assigning a specific order for how things are to be placed in the Ark. Don’t ever put the cover on the Ark (even while constructing it) until you’ve placed the Luchot inside. 

Ramban disagrees, feeling that it is also called an Ark when the cover is on it, so the cover could be placed on it, completing it, and then removed so the Luchot can be placed inside. 

 Ramban argues that the placement of the cover, which has its Keruvim, above the Luchos is a way of giving God a “Kisei Kavod” – a throne of glory in this world, a place from which “I will have My presence rest in this world.” כי אני אועד לך שם ואשכין שכינתי עליהם 

Alshikh quotes the Midrash Rabba that the instruction for the Mishkan is a parable to a king who had a betrothed daughter. As long as she remained in her father’s house, her fiancée would visit her in her father’s home. Once she married, her father, the king, would visit her in her new palace. 

 Putting the Testimony in the Ark refers to the Torah “which I will give you,” I (God – the king in the parable) will make her home my destination since I will have to visit her to see her. Prior to her moving, she (the Torah) was in my domain, and you needed to come to Me to see her. 

 This is how Alshikh explains his own parable. 

 I believe we can take this to a next stage. If God is speaking of how “you are to place the testimony I will be giving you” into the Ark, that implies that the Testimony might not be completely in their hands and that God will still be giving it as time continues to pass. 

Testimony refers to the Luchos, and also refers to the Torah, both of which we have a tradition that they were placed in the Ark. On a simple level that is easy to understand if we are looking to point to physical objects as being defined as the עדות/testimony. 

But if we look at them as ideas, as Jewish knowledge which testify of God’s existence, then the עדות is continuing to be disseminated and given over to the Jewish people, for us to learn from, grow from, and see as part of our continued education, and more importantly, identification, even in our day, over 3300 years later!

 There are times in our liturgy when we serve as witnesses, testifying to God’s existence and the truth of His Torah. We do this in Kiddush, in the recitation of ויכלו on Friday nights, and when we say most of davening, including most significantly, the שמע. 

 God continues to exist for us, in our world, and we have the opportunity to see how the Testimony He provides for us is continually placed in the Ark, the symbol that houses the Torah – His gift to us of His existence, and of His desire for there to be a place on earth from which His presence can be felt. 

 That place is our synagogues. May we be blessed to feel His presence, and to see that we are still putting testimony into the Ark, testimony of our continued existence due to God’s benevolence, and our fealty to His teachings.

How Idolatry Could Destroy Shabbos and Yom Tov

Parshat Mishpatim 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

A few verses into Chapter 23, the Torah effortlessly transitions from speaking about the Shmittah year to speaking of Shabbos, and from there it goes into the other holidays. Before it speaks of the holidays, however, it slips in a small verse that seems out of place, in that it warns about observing all that God has instructed and not mentioning the names of other gods. 

שמות פרק כג

 (י) וְשֵׁ֥שׁ שָׁנִ֖ים תִּזְרַ֣ע אֶת־אַרְצֶ֑ךָ... (יא) וְהַשְּׁבִיעִ֞ת תִּשְׁמְטֶ֣נָּה וּנְטַשְׁתָּ֗הּ... (יב) שֵׁ֤שֶׁת יָמִים֙ תַּעֲשֶׂ֣ה מַעֲשֶׂ֔יךָ וּבַיּ֥וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֖י תִּשְׁבֹּ֑ת... (יג) וּבְכֹ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־אָמַ֥רְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶ֖ם תִּשָּׁמֵ֑רוּ וְשֵׁ֨ם אֱלֹהִ֤ים אֲחֵרִים֙ לֹ֣א תַזְכִּ֔ירוּ לֹ֥א יִשָּׁמַ֖ע עַל־פִּֽיךָ: (יד) שָׁלֹ֣שׁ רְגָלִ֔ים תָּחֹ֥ג לִ֖י בַּשָּׁנָֽה: (טו) אֶת־חַ֣ג הַמַּצּוֹת֘ תִּשְׁמֹר֒... 

Considering that the topic has genuinely changed to speaking of the Shabbos and holidays, this verse seems out of place. Further considering that most commentaries follow the same line of thinking, that this is a warning to not be a partner with idolators in business for they may force you to swear in the name of their god (or they might swear on account of you) – there doesn’t seem to be any connection to the holidays at all. 

Here is a sampling of some of the commentaries who think otherwise. We will regroup after reading their remarks. 

 Baal HaTurim: The reference to not mentioning other gods is connected to the 3 festivals to teach you that anyone who denigrates the festivals is considered as if serving foreign gods (based on Pesachim 118a). This idolatry is mentioned closest to the holiday of Pesach as if to suggest that “just as idolatry is forbidden from benefit in even the tiniest amount, so is Hametz forbidden on Pesach in even the tiniest amount.” (Pesachim 30a) 

Alshikh: “All that I told you” refers to the first two of the Ten Commandments – I am the Lord your God, and you shall not have any other gods before Me, not to make images or bow to/serve them – and now it is added that you shall not recall their names aloud. Through this you prevent the power of tumah from influencing the land. 

 Or HaChaim: The number of positive mitzvos is 248, and the number of negative ones are 365 (corresponding to the numbers of limbs and organs in the body). A person shouldn’t think that doing a certain number of mitzvos is sufficient to protect oneself from sin. Each mitzvah a person avoids (or sin one violates) has a negative impact on the organ/limb that it correspond to. As such, the number of fulfilled/guarded mitzvos helps guard oneself from idolatry, since rejecting idolatry is as if one agrees with all of the Torah. 

R Ramson Raphael Hirsch: This verse introduces us to the concept of a s’yag l’Torah – a fence protecting the Torah and its observance. 

In simple terms, then, this reference to avoiding speaking of idolatry being placed between a reference to Shabbos and all the other holidays may be coming to remind us of the distinction between Shabbos being described as 'כלו לה, and the holidays being considered as חצי לה' וחצי לכם. Shabbos is meant to be designated toward the service of God, while holidays are a time when we split our time – focusing halfways on God and the other half on our own enjoyment of the celebratory time. 

 It is entirely possible that if someone were to bring up an idol in the context of the resting time of a holiday that it may put a person on a bad path, or may take a person’s mind away from appreciating the Almighty favorably. 

The Torah is telling us, “Don’t go there.” The Torah is reminding us of the Ten Commandments. The Torah is presenting us with the importance of ALL the mitzvos. It is placing before us a protection for the land, so it is not invaded by foreign ideas, especially in a time when we are free to think and are not busied by our regular vocations and daily pursuits. 

Our challenge today is far less idolatry, but far more “distractions.” One could easily argue that our distractions, which are primarily technology and media, take us away from our spiritual pursuits, and would even take us away from our holiday observance if we are not careful. 

 Heaven knows that Alshich’s warning about tumah being brought in is most relevant. I remember as a child when one of the rebbeim came into our class and asked what we thought about allowing strangers into our living room conducting conversations that we don’t approve of, but allowing them to continue because we actually want to hear what they have to say, even if everything they say goes against our values? He told us that parable was what watching television was about (mostly referencing sitcoms and certain toxic talk shows).

 It may not always be true – sometimes it’s purely entertainment, informational, or educational. But can you imagine what our Shabbos and Yom Tov would look like if we hadn’t taken the bold move to say “this is not Shabbosdik” “We don’t use electricity in that way on Shabbos and Yom Tov.” “Though we could technically leave it on before Shabbos or Yom Tov, doing so would ruin the spirit of the day.” 

Let this verse forever serve as a reminder to us that even Shabbos and Yom Tov are targets for where idolatry can sneak its way in to destroy us. 

The Torah is telling us, DON’T TAKE THE BAIT. Remember who you are and don’t allow foreign influence to destroy that which you hold most precious and most dear. 

There is a time and place for almost everything. Shabbos and Yom Tov is about divesting from that which takes us away from holiness. The most unholy thing, the opposite of holiness, is idolatry and tumah. 

We should be blessed to keep ourselves as clean and pure as possible, especially when we are observing the holy days of Shabbos and Tom Tov.

Yisro: Adjudication and Compromise: Different Goals and Outcomes of Conflict Resolution

Parshat Yitro

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

In one of his essays on Parshas Yisro (“Justice or Peace?”) Rabbi Jonathan Sacks writes of the challenge Moshe’s father-in-law witnessed in the leader’s inability to process all of the people who came to him on the model day in question. In his suggestion to Moshe to delegate judgment responsibilities to others, Rabbi Sacks quotes Netziv’s analysis of methods a court can take, focusing on the Talmudic preference for pshara (compromise) through mediation. 

 This was an innovative solution because it went against Moshe’s innate ability to get to the core of an issue, and bring forth a ruling that saw through a case to its rights and wrongs. Moshe’s strength was justice, being able to discern a victor and one who must pay (or whatever the dispute concerned – who was in the right and who was less right or wrong). 

One of Yisro’s arguments was that Moshe was exhausted after a long day, and that if he would only delegate the responsibilities, the people would be able to get home sooner and go about their day. Rabbi Sacks rightly notes, the people weren’t exhausted! Only Moshe was! 

And why weren’t the people exhausted? Because they were coming to learn, to watch the process with others, to see Moshe’s greatness and to learn from it. 

In other words, Moshe delegating would thus be advantageous to him alone, giving him more free time, less cases to deal with. But insofar as the people go, they would have less of a connection to Moshe, they wouldn’t learn from him anymore… unless their particular dispute would make its way through the tiered system back to the man at the top of the chain. 

 How then, is this to their advantage? 

Because life is not only about seeing black and white – as Moshe did in judgment. Life is also about being able to come to a table, to realize that each side may have a valid claim, and that while one side might surely be more right, that doesn’t mean the side that is less right is totally in the wrong. In other words, sometimes compromise is better for everyone in the long run.

 Rabbi Sacks rightly notes “No one regarded Moshe as anything less than the greatest leader and prophet Israel has ever had. It is rather that no one individual can embody all the virtues necessary to sustain a people. A priest is not a prophet (with rare exception). A king needs different virtues than a saint. A military man is not a man of peace (though he can become one later in life).” 

In other words, we are not being critical of Moshe here. We are wondering if there are advantages to a different way, if Yisro’s suggestion has merit (and if so, how much) or if Moshe’s method is what is best for the people, even if it is quite taxing on Moshe. 

 Malbim notes on 18:13 that everyone stood around watching the proceedings because this was how they were engaged in “studying and learning of God’s laws.” This is irrespective of whether Yisro’s visit was before or after the giving of the Torah (as the debate goes) because even if the visit follows the chronology of the Torah (i.e. before the giving of the Torah), there were an unspecified number of laws and statutes that were given over in Marah. Surely some mitzvos were already made clear to the Bnei Yisrael, such as Shabbos, Bris Milah, Rosh Chodesh, Korban Pesach, as well as basics of living together no longer under Egyptian rule. 

In Malbim’s view, Moshe’s big concern was that no one (other than himself) had a handle on “the law” and their judgments, which would have to come about from their own logic and however they saw things, would not be accepted by the litigants. They would have to come Moshe anyway. 

Yisro, on the other hand, thought that Moshe was actually judging in that way himself! Yisro was unaware of a “law system” his son-in-law might be using, especially prior to Matan Torah! 

Malbim further notes that the verse describes the people as standing around Moshe, with the word עמד, while when Yisro questions him about it, Yisro describes their standing around him as נצב from morning until evening. The difference between the two words for standing, Malbim explains, is that עמד implies simply standing, the opposite of sitting. הצבה (the kind of action that is described as נצב) is how people stand in a situation that requires strengthening. The king’s guards, for example, are typically described as נצבים. His servants, on the other hand, are עמדים. Those who came to stand around are described by the Torah as עמדים, because they chose to stand in order to listen to Moshe’s teachings and rulings. Yisro looked at the people as נצבים because from his perspective each person really wanted to have his case heard and wanted to go home. In his mind, they needed strengthening to carry them through the day’s worth of proceedings. Yisro did not realize people were choosing to be there to bask in the light of Moshe’s illuminating teachings.

Moshe thus had to explain that people were coming for different possible reasons: 

1. To seek an answer from God, or to learn of the future 
2. Conflict resolution 
3. Remedial intervention – such as a person who knows he has damaged someone else’s property, might go to Moshe to find out what he owes
1. Sometimes both parties would go together                        
4. Sometimes people would come just to learn about the laws of God 

In verse 18:16 Moshe claims that he is not doing things based on his own facts and logic, but that he is works based on the חקי הא-לקים ואת תורותיו – God’s laws and teachings. 

 The Rabbis teach us how Moshe trained the judges who ultimately formed his tier system. We know nothing of how they operated as the Torah does not describe it beyond that Moshe hired people to fill these roles, a narrative which is presented a little differently in Devarim chapter 1:13-18. [Those differences are discussed by various commentators]

In an ideal world, this method that Moshe used should be one employed by all Jews today when it comes to conflict resolution. We should not be going to secular court. We should be going to Beit Din to settle disputes, or to a qualified rabbinic scholar who could judge a case on its merits, and bring about an equitable solution. Some cases might be black and white and clear. Most cases likely have an area of gray in them, lending themselves to some kind of compromise. [People like to go to secular court because they feel if they win they’ll get a much bigger payout, and it’s more enforceable than a Bet Din judgment/ruling.] 

The problem is that some Batei Din have a reputation for being corrupt. Some Batei Din have fees that prevent people from coming to them. And Batei Din are limited in their power in that they can issue hazmanot (invitations) to individuals, but they have no authority to enforce that a person show up. Even if they call someone a m’sarev l’din (someone who refuses to come to work out their difference with someone calling them to court), invariably that person will delegitimize the Bet Din and will use stronger social media tactics than the Bet Din is interested in engaging in. As such, the entire system is undermined by the flaws that are inherent in it. [Not to mention that sending several hazmanot and several warnings against being a m’sarev l’din can take several months.] There are certainly unscrupulous people who take advantage of others (these "others" would never go to secular court), but also feel that going to Bet Din is a waste of time and money. Which leaves conflict resolution as a matter remaining in limbo – some conflicts are thus never resolved, and two parties may have nothing to do with each other - for a long time or for the rest of their lives! - on account of this, because there is no resolution. 

I’ll conclude with a masterful story about Rabbi Meir Shapiro. When he was the new rabbi in Glina, two people who shared ownership of a certain road in the town each wanted the other to pay for the post-winter repairs of the road. After their dispute eventually involved most of the Jews in town, they decided to come to the new rabbi in town to test him in his ability to resolve their issue. 

When they presented their case to him, he saw right away that it wasn’t about the money, as each could afford to fix the road himself. It was about ego and about being right – each wanted the other guy to pay for it, each for his own reasons. 

 As his biographer Rav Yehoshua Baumol told it: 

“He ordered each of them to produce the full amount of money that it would cost to repair the road properly. He soon had in his hand twice the amount that was needed. Without another word, he gave the money to one of his trusted attendants with orders to deliver it to the managers of the Talmud Torah. The money, he explained, was his fee for trying the case, and it was to be used for the school’s upkeep. “Now,” he said, “I will decide your case. Did you ever study the Mishna?” They answered in the affirmative. “When you have a chance, take a look at the beginning of Shekalim. There you will find a plain ruling that on the 15th of Adar the roads and byways have to be repaired. Why on that day? By then spring has certainly come. The winter is over, with all the rain and snow that must have melted, which has quite certainly left the roads an impossible and impassable mess of misshapen mud dried hard. So the 15th of Adar is a fine time to get the pathways and byways properly fixed and made usable. 

“On whom, though, does the duty fall to get the job done? Like the other rulings in the Mishna there, it is obviously the obligation of the Bet Din. That means that the matter is no business of yours,” he said to the fellow on the right, “nor is it any business of yours,” to the fellow on the left, “but entirely my affair.” 

 And then he took the money out of his own purse, to give it to a trusted attendant 

 “Since today is the fast of Esther, that means today is the 13th and since today is Thursday, the 15th falls on Shabbos, and consequently, the work cannot be started till Sunday. But that is in a mere detail. On Sunday,” he ordered his attendant, “you bring all the laborers you need and set [them] to work.” 

The impression that this stunning decision made on the community was beyond words. Everyone realized that by this master stroke of his, the new Rav of Glina had hit the target perfectly. Resolved and gone was the long-standing conflict, which had begun to turn acrimonious, drawing in evermore members of the community to take sides, and make matters worse. Now peace and quiet could return to the Jewry of Glina .

Just as important was the fact that Rav Meir emerged, completely clean and unharmed, untouched, and uninvolved. Had his decision favored one of the two the other would likely have remained resentful, and perhaps would even turn into something of an enemy of the Rav. Now, both the antagonist, and the Rav, could all live in peace. Neither had won, neither had lost . [- “A Blaze in the Darkening Gloom”, p. 64-66]

 It also helps that Rav Meir had those kinds of resources, as he had wealthy in-laws who supported him in his early years. 

This story is unique in that money was not an issue to either litigant, and the “compromise” achieved actually cost both sides the amount of the repair. They saw their monies go to support Torah study, though, and therefore each felt his money went to a good cause, while neither ended up paying for the road repair. 

Moshe’s cases were different – he was judging for right and wrong. Yisro’s goals for outcomes were also different. He was looking for mediation and compromise. And the Bnei Yisrael’s goals were also different – they wanted to learn from their new Rebbe, Moshe Rabbenu. 

May we all have a similar desire to learn and grow. May we merit to see proper resolution of disputes, and may Bet Din find a way to be relevant and fair to all parties, so that disputes can be resolved in the proper halakhic way, with everyone emerging feeling heard and finding a path forward through compromise.