Time, and a Plan, Make All the Difference

Parshat Chukat

by Rabbi Avi Billet

It’s incredible what time can do to a person’s maturation process, in how a person deals with adversity. O – and how having a strategy can also help a person cope with the curveballs of life.

Of course, not having a strategy is what separates the proverbial “men from the boys” in seeing how people deal with life-challenges “in the moment," when a plan can’t be put into effect because no plan exists.

In Bamidbar 20, we see a situation that we’ve seen before: the people complain because they have no water to drink. In the past, we’ve seen Moshe’s response to this kind of complaining has spanned from crying out to God (Shmot 15:25) to getting into a fight with the people (Shmot 17:2) to thinking he was going to be killed (Shmot 17:4). And after the infamous rock incident in this chapter (20), we’ll see Moshe ignore the people completely in 21:5-6 when they complain about lack of water again.

So what is the strategy that is so helpful to Moshe in Bamidbar 20? The strategy is what we saw in two places in last week’s Torah portion. The first was in 17:3-5 when Elazar was instructed to hammer out the copper fire pans and attach them to the altar “as a sign and remembrance” to people who are not Kohanim not to encroach into places they do not belong. The second was Aharon’s blossomed staff that was "to be placed near the Ark to serve as a testimony to those who rebel." (17:25-26)

We do not see challenges to Aharon’s role in the Torah, nor do we see challenges to Moshe’s role, on par with Korach’s rebellion. But we do see similar affronts to Moshe’s leadership when there is no water. And here, unlike at the last episode in Shmot 17, we watch as the water dispute does not lead to a fight between Moshe and the people.

Instead of taking the complaint personally, as he did in the past, Moshe knows all he needs to do is produce Aharon’s blossomed staff, the symbol that is meant to put down insurrection and stop rebellion, and the people will remember what happened with Korach, and they will back down.

And that’s exactly what happened. God tells Moshe to take out the staff, which turns out to be the one that was “before God as God had commanded him” (20:9)

And the strategy would have worked, had Moshe not felt the need to say what he said in 20:10. Because all that was needed was the sign/symbol and the people would have looked, seen the staff, and remembered to back down. This should have been the result of Moshe's having grown on the job, having had the experience of time lead him in the direction of non-confrontation, as well as God's plan to rule the day.

So what went wrong here?

Moshe followed God’s instruction, but he let his emotions get the better of him. Even the best-laid strategies can’t cover for every contingency plan.

One major difference here is that while the people fought with Moshe in Shmot, it is clear here that they are fighting with God (20:13) (this may help us understand why the complaint in Chapter 21 goes in the direction it goes, with the snakes unleashing God’s wrath against complainers).

There is no question that had Moshe followed the plan of bringing the staff out and showing it, waiting for the people to process what they were to glean from seeing it, this story would have panned out differently. But when Moshe chastised the people as well, with all the implications his words included, his fate was somehow sealed.

We need to have plans for the challenges life will present, hopefully with the ability to anticipate the twists of any circumstance. People who have aging parents, or parents with declining health need to have a plan. While it is not easy to decide where a person wants to be buried, making such decisions (and paying for them in advance) eases a tremendous burden off of loved ones. What happens in the case of an unanticipated accident – where do the children go? How are they to be raised? Who will take responsibility?

Can each spouse manage alone – because inevitably one person will be widowed? Is there a plan for how to cope, how to deal with the loneliness? Will children be involved in keeping the widowed parent occupied and looked after when that time comes?

Part of the problem Moshe and Aharon faced in this story is that they seemed unprepared for the death of their sister. Remember that she died immediately before this story, and Alshikh notes the devastation they were dealing with at the time that the people came to complain about lack of water. 

Even the most exceptional human beings have weak spots. Moshe’s planning did not anticipate his weak points – the loneliness that came from the loss of his sister, the inability to let God’s strategy of showing the staff work itself out, and the inability to restrain himself from giving a rebuke at the same time as he was giving water to the people.

May our lot be to create strategies for challenging times and to implement them in the most effective ways.

Amram and Yocheved - A Forbidden Relationship?

Parshat Va'era

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Shmot Chapter 6 contains within it a family tree that seems to quickly plow through the families of Reuven and Shimon to get to the great detail which describes the family of Levi. It is important to know, for example, that Moshe is a human being, born of human parents, and to see his “yichus” (genealogy) in the context of seeing how he descended from Yaakov. 

But there is one verse which stands out because it is a little odd.

 "And Amram took Yocheved, his aunt, to be his wife." (6:20)

 Considering a later verse in the Torah that Moshe would eventually teach to the Jewish people, how could Moshe record this little fact (which was also mentioned – though not as clearly – in 2:1) in the same Torah in which he’d declare “Do not commit incest with your father's sister, since she is your father's blood relative.” (Vayikra 18:12)? 

Pharaoh as a Human Being? - Human Consideration of Egypt's Plight

Parshat Shmot 

 by Rabbi Avi Billet 

 After Moshe and Aharon are reunited and they convince the nation of Israel that they were sent by God to redeem them (4:30-31), they come and declare before Pharoah, “Send My nation to celebrate for me in the wilderness!” Pharaoh refuses, denying God’s divinity and existence, causing Moshe and Aharon to say, “The God of the Hebrews has called upon us, so let us go on a three day journey to bring offerings to our God, lest we be smitten by a plague or by the sword.”  (5:1-3)

 The two verses which follow this show Pharaoh’s response, but they are introduced with a subtle difference. And, while similar, have 3 other distinct differences.  

The King of Egypt said to them, “Moshe and Aharon, why are you distracting the people (עם) from their work? Get back to your own business!' (5:4)

 Pharaoh said, “The peasants (עם הארץ) are becoming more numerous, and you want them to take a vacation from their labors!” (5:5)

 First the King of Egypt, then Pharaoh. Each one says something different. It would not be farfetched for the "king of Egypt" to say two different statements. But why does he need to be introduced twice, and each time a different way? There is particularly no need for a reintroduction since Moshe and Aharon do not respond to the things he says in verse 4.

Let us look at three different ways of understanding these noted differences.

 Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch says verse 4 was the king speaking to Moshe and Aharon personally but publicly. You’re using this ‘God-talk’ to just disturb people. The king is having a premonition to the famous line uttered by Wesley at his capture in “The Princess Bride” – “We are men of action, lies do not become us.” Don’t bring some ridiculous unheard of God into any conversation of whom to worship. This is the king talking to those who have taken the role of leaders – this is a political conversation between the top diplomats of each nation.

As Pharaoh, on the other hand, he speaks to them confidentially, using the term “Am Haaretz” (which we defined above as ‘peasants’) to describe his own nation of Egyptians that has multiplied, forcing an economy that can only survive only if each subject works diligently at his occupation. You, Moshe and Aharon, are asking for the Hebrew slaves to get a week off (3 days journey, 1 day of worship, 3 days return journey). Were the slaves to get a week off, you can only imagine what kinds of vacation the Egyptian population would demand. Everyone needs to make their contribution to society! If they walk off the jobs, the economy would collapse!

The Alshikh views these verses similarly, though he reverses the interpretation, suggesting verse 4 describes the Egyptians, while verse 5 describes the Israelites.

 Alshikh describes the scene in very plain terms, that Moshe and Aharon approaching the palace would cause a stir amongst the Egyptian population, many of whom would follow Moshe and Aharon to witness their impertinence in asking the king for favors, thereby abandoning their own tasks and jobs for the day. The king of the Egyptians is therefore blaming Moshe and Aharon for causing Egyptians to take a day off through distracting them.

 As Pharaoh, who has caused the Israelites to be enslaved, he notes the impossibility of letting the Israelites take a day off, as they have increased manifold. Noting their increased numbers, Pharaoh then takes steps, in verses 6-9, to increase their labor, making it more difficult for them to rebel because their responsibilities – getting their own straw for the bricks instead of being supplied with it – make their brick tally so much more difficult to achieve.

 Malbim notes the distinction between “Why are you distracting the people (ha’am) from their ‘work’ (‘ma’asav’ in Hebrew)?” (verse 4) and “you want the ‘am ha’aretz’ to take a vacation from their labors (‘mi’sivlotam’ in Hebrew)?” (verse 5)

 ‘Am’ refers to the tribe of Levi, who were exempt from labor, while ‘Am Ha’aretz’ are the poorest and lowliest of the nation, those whose labors are ‘sivlot.’ The ‘maasim’ of the Tribe of Levi refers to commerce, and work in the house and the field. ‘Sivlot’ is the back-breaking slave labor of the rest of the nation.

 Being distracted (verse 4) is also different than taking a vacation (verse 5). A distraction is temporary, which is followed by the distracted person going back to work. But a vacation breaks the rhythm of never-ending labor, a rhythm which, once broken, is very difficult to return to.

 Malbim argues that when Moshe came to speak to the people (in 4:30) to convince them of his being sent by God, there is no way he was able to communicate with the back-broken laborers, because they had no rest or respite from their slavery. He must have been speaking to his fellow tribesmen, Levi, who were not so consistently needed at their tasks, as they did not participate in the slave labor.

 The king saying at the end of verse 4, “Go to your labors (l'sivloteicheim)!” was his way of saying, “You’re looking to get your otherwise excused tribe of Levi (the 'am') involved in slave labor? Watch yourself!” And then Pharaoh (verse 5) checked himself thinking, “If I employ the tribe of Levi and the elders, it will get the rest of the nation ('am ha'aretz'), who are many, to relax from their labors – either in protest, or because they’ll see an expansion of laborers which will cause them to take less responsibility for their own tasks.” In other words, the statement of Pharaoh (verse 5) was checking the hasty statement made by himself in his role as king (verse 4), essentially negating it so the labor will continue.

 These perspectives show that there were political considerations beyond just pure evil ascribed to the king. This does not excuse how Pharaoh viewed his role, nor how Egypt as a whole enslaved the Israelites. But it is interesting to think that the people we read of were real, and were looking at a world that was not just black and white.

 Every situation on a world stage is complicated. Evil can be viewed in black and white terms, but until people on different sides are able to talk to one another, understand the other perspective, and come to a table in which real agreements can be made (with each side needing to bend a bit), negotiations between opposing sides will remain difficult, if not impossibly insurmountable.

How Moshe's Punishment Has Very Little to Do With a Rock

There is very compelling evidence that Moshe was never supposed to go into the land. So why does the Torah keep harping on the incident of Mei Merivah (Bamidbar 20)?

Parshat Ha'azinu

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The song of Haazinu is troubling because it seems to describe actions and behaviors of the nation of Israel that we have never seen before in the Torah. The punishments God declares He has given and will give seem unequal to the violations committed.

 Equally disturbing is how the punishment to Moshe is described in our parsha – because it is not an accurate reflection of what happened in Bamidbar 20. In 32:50 Moshe is told he will die as his brother Aharon had died (see Bamaidbar 20:22-28). In 32:51, the reason is given: “because you broke faith with me (‘m’altem bi’) in the midst of the Israelites at the Waters of Dispute at Kadesh in the Tzin Desert, and because you did not sanctify Me (‘lo kidashtem oti’) among the Israelites.”

 While it is true that the event described took place, the way it is described in Bamidbar is quite different from how it is presented here.

 In Bamidbar 20:12-13 the Torah tells us “God said to Moses and Aaron, 'You did not cause there to be enough faith in Me (lo he’emantem’) to cause Me to be sanctified (‘l’hakdisheini’) in the presence of the Israelites! Therefore, you shall not bring this assembly to the land that I have given you.' These are the Waters of Dispute (Mey Meribhah) where the Israelites disputed with God, and where He was [nevertheless] sanctified (‘va’y’kadesh bam’).” Eleven verses later we are told that “'Aaron will [now die and] be gathered up to his people. He will not come to the land that I am giving the Israelites because you rebelled against My word (‘asher m’ritem et pi’) at the Waters of Dispute.”

 It is important to note that when referring to this incident in Bamidbar 27:14, Moshe is also told “m’ritem pi” and that you failed “l’hakdisheini.”

 Strangely, some of these formulations appear once more in the Torah, in Devarim 9:23, when Moshe recounts the events surrounding the Golden Calf, and he describes the guilt of the people as “but you rebelled against the word (“vatamru et pi”) of God your Lord, and did not have faith in Him (“lo he’emantem lo”) or obey Him.

 To summarize, using the Hebrew verbs describing Moshe’s and Aharon’s guilt:
At the incident with the rock - lo he’emantem and l’hakdisheini, though the latter seems to be countered by v’y’kadesh bam 
Aharon’s death – m’ritem et pi 
Moshe’s first direct accusation of non-compliance other than the actual event, when he was told he could not bring the nation into the land – m’ritem pi and l’hakdisheini 
Moshe reminding the people of their sin at Golden Calf – vatamru and lo he’emantem 
Our parsha – m’altem bi and lo kidashtem oti

 It is also noteworthy that until now Moshe has been told he will not bring the people to the land (Bamidbar 20:12), and that he will see the land and then die (Bamidbar 27:13). Both options leave open the possibility that he will enter the land as a private citizen (leader emeritus, perhaps) and that he can die shortly after he sees the land for himself, even from the inside. Only in our parsha, Devarim 32:52, is Moshe finally told point-blank, you will not be going into the land (in Devarim 1:37, Moshe says he was told he will not enter the land, but we never saw God actually tell him that). In Devarim 3:27, Moshe reported that God said “you will not be crossing the Jordan” – but Moshe still had hopes that he while he might not enter the Land alive, he would be buried in the Land. The idea of seeing the land from a distance and being buried outside the land is clarified for Moshe immediately before he dies, in Devarim 34:4.

 So what is going on? Why do the reasons for not entering the land differ from explanation to explanation, and from person to person?

 Abravanel’s approach to the punishment meted to Aharon and Moshe pins their non-entry status on the Golden Calf and the Spies incidents, respectively. He explains God’s constant reference to the Rock incident as a cover for the real reasons, to avoid embarrassment. But the Rock episode was very mild in comparison to those other nation-shattering events. [He compares this to the mystery surrounding the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. The Torah gives us very sketchy information, while the rabbis heap a slew of accusations upon the lads, indicating the real reason for their deaths was hidden by the Torah, as it was pinned on a minor violation.]

Considering that the verse tells us in Bamidbar 20:13 (Rock incident) that God was nonetheless sanctified, it is hard to imagine that they failed to cause the people to have faith in God there. Therefore the “lo heemantem” must be linked to the other time it appears, Devarim 9:23, referring to the Sin of the Golden Calf, when the people indeed lost their faith in God. Interestingly, Moshe reports about Aharon’s death there in 10:6, after recounting how he brought down the second Tablets, even though Aharon’s death occurred 40 years later.

 The act of “Me’i’lah,” of which Moshe is accused in our parsha, refers to using something holy for a mundane act. Reading Devarim 1:19-38, it is clear that the holiness of the Land was rejected for mundane reasons by the people. Additionally, they are accused of “vatamru et pi Hashem” (rebelling against God) in Devarim 1:26, smack in the middle of the description of the Spies story. And, most obviously, Moshe attaches his non-entry to the land to this incident (1:37)

 There are certainly eyebrow raising details in the Rock story of Bamidbar 20. But all told, God’s name IS sanctified there – as the verse plainly states – and the rebellion of Moshe and Aharon, the misuse of something holy, and the causing a lack of faith are simply not present. Those accusations refer to these other incidents of the Spies and Golden Calf.

 Referring specifically to our Parsha, Abravanel says the following, as he utilizes a creative reading to understand the text: “There are two reasons attached to the deaths of Moshe and Aharon. An impersonal one – Mei Meribah (the Rock incident), and a personal one, their earlier sins [of Golden Calf and Spies]. For both of those they are accused of “Me’i’lah,” (using holy for mundane purposes), not sanctifying, rebelling, etc… Aharon had the opportunity to sanctify God’s Name through giving up his life in place of succumbing to making the Golden Calf. This is his special mitzvah, (Vayikra 22:32) to sanctify God’s Name and not desecrate it…. Moshe rebelled and caused lack of faith first when he added to questions for what the spies should be looking for, all of which caused the people not to have faith that the Land to which they were going was a good land.”

 We now understand why the accusation hurled at Moshe in our parsha does not reflect what happened in Bamidbar 20. The Rock incident was minor and was a cover to shield Moshe and Aharon from more embarrassing episodes in their lives.

 Even at the final hour, when there’s nothing to lose from getting everything out on the table, God still chooses to go the route of not embarrassing His most beloved Moshe. What a lesson in piety and respect in seeing that a person’s worth and dignity is worth preserving through death!

Tzaraat or Death? Disastrous Results of Haughtiness and Denying God

Parshat Korach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

 After the Korach episode, Moshe is told by God to tell his nephew Elazar to take the fire pans of those who perished bringing the k’toret, and hammer them out in order for them to become covers for the miz’be’ach.

 “And Elazar the Kohen took the copper pans that were offered by those who were burned, and he hammered them into covers for the miz’be’ach. [It was to serve as] a reminder to the Children of Israel, in order that no stranger – who is not of the seed of Aharon – will come close to burn the k’toret before God. And he will not be like Korach and like his cohorts, as God spoke, in the hand of Moshe, to him.” (17:4-5) 

Many commentaries note that the last phrase, “as God spoke, in the hand of Moshe, to him,” seems out of place. Some, such as the Da’at Zekenim, suggest that though these words appear at the end of 17:5, they refer directly to Elazar’s actions of 17:4.

 The phrase “And he will not be like Korach and like his cohorts” is also enigmatic. It could refer to Elazar who, unlike Korach, will be doing exactly what God instructed; it could refer to the non-Kohen who, unlike Korach, avoids bringing k’toret; it could refer to the punishment itself (as opposed to the behavior), that no perpetrator will be swallowed by the ground!

 Rashi (and many others) focuses on the strange phrase “B’yad Moshe” (in the hand of Moshe), suggesting that the verse is teaching us that those who argue over Kohanic rights will be punished with Tzara’at, just as Moshe was punished “in his hand” with tzara’at in Shmot 4:6. This suggests that being swallowed by the ground or consumed by a fire is not a punishment which will be assigned to any future k'toret burners.

 Rashi supports this teaching using the example of King Uzziah (Divrei Hayamim II:26:19) who was afflicted with tzara’at for the rest of his life after he approached the Temple to burn k’toret, despite not being a Kohen.

 But there are problems with Rashi’s teaching. The phrase “B’yad Moshe” appears over 15 times in the Torah. It usually refers to how Moshe presented the law, which descended from the mountain “in Moshe’s hand,” and it doesn’t seem to ever refer to the “punishment” Moshe received at the burning bush. One could even argue that the tzara’at that Moshe received at the burning bush wasn’t even a punishment, as it only lasted for 5 seconds, and was meant to be a sign that God had sent him! Furthermore, where at the burning bush does Moshe burn k’toret or covet the Priesthood?

 Rashi is likely referring to the passage in the Talmud Sanhedrin 110a that says

“someone who hangs on to ‘machloket’ (the need to maintain a fight) violates the rule to not be like Korach and his cohorts. Rav Ashi says, he deserves to get tzara’at – because in this case it refers to [a punishment literally] in the hand of Moshe, and in Shmot Moshe was told to bring his hand into his shirt [in order to receive the tzara’at].”

 How is one parallel to the other? Even if Moshe was punished, how is his circumstance similar to Korach’s?

The Kli Yakar advances this question further, suggesting that if we’re going to try to learn a punishment of tzara’at for challenging authority, we’d be better off learning it from Miriam’s story, when she spoke about her brother’s leadership, claiming similar strengths as a prophetess, and got tzara’at as a result!

 We know that tzara’at was a punishment for seven sins: lashon hora, murder, swearing in vain, immorality, haughtiness, theft and stinginess. (Arakhin 16a) Note that wanting the Priesthood is not on the list.

 Kli Yakar notes that God’s worldview of punishment is “measure for measure.” The Talmud (Shabbat 97a) says, we learn from Moshe that one who suspects others unjustly is punished on his body. Moshe suspected that the Israelites would not believe he was sent by God (Shmot 4:1), assuming he had made everything up. This is exactly what Korach accused Moshe of – fabricating a law that serves his own purposes and makes him (and Aharon) important, without any real Divine instruction.

 Were Moshe’s accusation at the burning bush true, the people would have been subject to tzara’at. Since it was not true, that punishment was put on Moshe, measure for measure. The Kli Yakar explains that this sort of pronouncement fits in with the sins of lashon hora and haughtiness, which the Israelites would have been displaying had they indeed not believed that Moshe was sent by God.

 The reason why Korach and his cohorts met the end that they met was because in addition to bringing k’toret, they denied God completely. They were culpable for two punishments, (tzaraa'at and death) and they received the greater one (death) following the principle of “Kim leh b’d’raba mineh.”

 The strange conclusion of our verse, therefore is teaching the following: the flattened out pans are meant to serve as a reminder for all non-Kohanim not to bring k’toret, because while we are confident they will not be like Korach and his cohorts who denied God’s law and were guilty of all kinds of sins, they are still challenging Moshe’s prophesy that the Priesthood belongs to the family of Aharon alone, as they are thinking their worthiness trumps the priestly bloodline. This is a sin of haughtiness which is punishable with tzara’at. 

Elazar’s role, therefore, is significant only in that he is a Kohen who is representing that Moshe’s prophesy of the Divine assignment of the priesthood is true.

 For everyone else, the lesson is clear. There are different ways of challenging authority. Asking legitimate questions in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding is not only valid. It is significantly important. And if there is something wrong with the authority, it is imperative to find the truth and to bring it out.

 On the other hand, saying Moshe or Aharon are unworthy because “I am more worthy” or because “I deny God’s role in appointing you,” is an offense that is beyond the pale. It is not only arrogance which drives such an approach, but it comes from a place that is far deeper and darker than a respectable desire to understand.

 There are no Moshes and Aharons today. No one is given Divine Authority for any position. When we need to challenge leadership, we must always come from the first approach – a genuine pursuit of truth aimed towards understanding, in order to know how to proceed.

 Korach and his cohorts wanted to bring Moshe and Aharon down simply because they didn’t like them. We dare not look to destroy anyone’s life on account of any hateful vendetta.

Doing What We Are Commanded to Do*

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

Parshat Tetzaveh

by Rabbi Avi Billet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ספר אבודרהם ברכת המצות ומשפטיהם

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

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

The Uncle of Aharon

Parshat Shmini

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Tragedy has struck. Aharon's two older sons are dead, victims of their own efforts in bringing a 'strange fire' into the Mishkan. Now their corpses must be removed from a room only their father and brothers may enter, yet these very people are the ones who are prevented from entering because they have a job to do, and responsibilities which can not fall by the wayside – the inevitable outcome of their becoming "tameh" through contact with the deceased.

            

And so Mishael and Eltzafan are called in. They are described to us as "The sons of Uziel, uncle of Aharon."

            

Being students of the Torah, we know the relationship of all these people from Shmot 6:18 and 6:22.

            

So why does the Torah add the unnecessary words, "Uncle of Aharon?"

            

Rashi tells us nothing new when he explains that "Uziel was the brother of Amram." Rabbenu Bachaye even wonders why Rashi bothered to tell us this – we know it from Shmot 6. Rabbenu Bachaye explains what he believes was Rashi's line of thinking based in a Midrashic idea (Midrash Agadah, Yalkut Shimoni, etc) that the Torah is coming to teach us how Aharon had inherited his qualities of being a "lover and pursuer of peace" from his Uncle Uziel. Malbim similarly explains that he was his beloved uncle who had similar qualities in general, and that there is a unique kind of filial attachment that relatives who are very similar have for one another.

            

I find this difficult to accept as an answer – because it doesn't explain Rashi very well. If the meaning was to suggest that Aharon was more like his uncle than his father, why didn't Rashi just say that? Perhaps Rashi was simply noting that this verse supports information we had been given earlier.

Rabbi Ovadiah MiBartenura suggests that one might mistakenly think that Aharon's Uncle Uziel was a different Uziel married to a sister of Amram. In this manner, it is being made clear that Mishael and Eltzafan, sons of the brother of Amram, are Levites. The rule is made clear that if no Kohanim are available to remove the corpses, Levites could enter the Mishkan, but not regular Israelites.

Furthermore, the Sha"kh explains, their connection to Aharon through their father is significant for other reasons. "There is no one other than you two who can get them; they were sgan-kohanim and you are sgan-levites (sgan = Vice). You were both at the same level in your field. Eltzafan was to be the prince of the Levites (Bamidbar 3:30). Just as Aharon and Uziel were equated, so were their respective sons equated (even though Mishael and Eltzafan were Aharon's first cousins and of his generation, it is the father-son equation which parallels them with Nadav and Avihu)."

            

The Netziv adds that Mishael and Eltzafan were modest and humble in their own way. The special kinship between Aharon and Uziel allowed for this branch of the family to take care of the tragic unfoldings on Aharon's behalf. There were, after all, some members of the family who were jealous of Aharon (think Korach), and might have viewed his tragedy as their opportunity to one-up him, to gloat in his loss. But this was not the way, nor the concern of the family of Uziel, who were family-people through and through.

            

It is important to note that Aharon is often used in the Torah as a family connection. When Miriam dances after the splitting of the sea, she is described as "the sister of Aharon." Pinchas is described a number of times as "Pinchas son of Elazar, son of Aharon."

            

There are three approaches as to why Miriam is described as "the sister of Aharon": either because she prophesied first of all her siblings – even before Aharon (Otzar  Midrashim), she prophesied when she was only the sister of Aharon – about the birth of Moshe (Talmud Megillah 14a), or because he gave his life for her (Midrash Sechel Tov Beshalach 15).

            

Being connected to Aharon, whose reputation is so outstanding, is a tribute to Miriam, a tribute to Pinchas, a tribute to Elazar (when he is Kohen Gadol), and continues to be a tribute to all the Kohanim, whom we continue to call Bnei Aharon.

In short, Uziel's being called Aharon's uncle is a tremendous credit to a man about whom we otherwise know very little. The role his sons play, and the fact of their being chosen to take the deceased out of the Mishkan speaks volumes of who each of them was on a personal level, not to mention (or specifically to mention) the stock from which they came.

            

May all parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts merit to have children, grandchildren or nieces and nephews about whom we are proud to say, "I am the parent/ grandparent/ aunt/ uncle of So-and-so. And I am proud of it." Especially if you see a little bit of yourself in the next generation.

            

Because this kind of pride, unencumbered by jealousy, is what makes a family unit strongest, as it demonstrates who among us models the behavior we most proudly affirm.

In Defense of Aharon

See also this attempt at understanding Aharon

Defending His Role in Golden Calf Story (A portion of a sermon on Ki Sisa)

When we look at the story of the Golden Calf, the hero of the story is Moshe.

He destroys the luchos (see the Gemara (Yevamos 62, BB 14, Menachos 99) יישר כחך ששברת), destroys the Eigel and makes the people drink its dust, tells God that destroying the Jewish people is unacceptable, beseeches God to consider the repercussions of such an action visavis God's reputation amongst the nations of the world, and threatens to have himself removed from the Torah if his "demands" are not met.

In contrast, we have Aharon, who should have been the hero of the story.

They came to him seeking advice, looking for help; he should have said more forcefully that MOSHE WILL RETURN; he should not have given into the demands of the people; he should have taken a stronger stand.

As a result, Aharon seems to be the goat of the story on account of the things he does:

• He's the one who suggests they bring the gold earrings.
• He is credited with fashioning the calf with an engraving tool.
• He builds the Mizbeach, and then says, חג לה' מחר – Tomorrow will be a festival to God
• He is yelled at by his brother Moshe "What did the people do to you that caused you to bring this great sin upon them?" You were weak, and this seems to be your fault. 

Malbim suggests that when Moshe destroyed the Eigel and was not harmed by the people, this was the real moment when Aharon was deemed weakest, because it proved that had Aharon done the same thing, they would have listened to him. [Of course, we can argue that Moshe did not yet know that Hur had been killed, and as the Eigel was meant to replace Moshe, his presence proved no need for the Eigel – which Aharon's presence clearly did not serve to remind the Israelites.]

Nominated for Best Supporting Role

Parshat Va'era

by Rabbi Avi Billet

I have a hard time understanding the role of Aharon, Moshe's brother, in the exodus story.

When he is first appointed to be the leader/redeemer of Israel, Moshe presents a number of arguments as to why he is not the best man for the job. He may even hint to the idea that Aharon would be a more worthy choice.

God's response in 4:14 is a display of anger, followed by "Is not Aharon the Levite your brother? I know that he knows how to speak! He is setting out to meet you, and when he sees you, his heart will be glad."

In other words, if you Moshe are nervous about speaking to Pharaoh, Aharon will take care of this for you. In fact, the first time we see Aharon speaking on Moshe's behalf is in 4:30, when he addresses the nation of Israel, convincing them that Moshe was sent by God: "Aaron related all the words that God had told Moses, and he demonstrated the miraculous proofs before the people."

When they came to Pharaoh in chapter 5, we were told "Moshe and Aharon then went to Pharaoh and said, 'This is what Hashem, God of the Hebrews, declares: 'Let My people leave, so they can sacrifice to Me in the desert.''" In this instance, the indications point to Aharon and Moshe sharing the limelight.

But after this, the narrative presents a different story.

In our parsha, "Moshe related this to the Israelites, but because of their disappointment and hard work, they would no longer listen to him." (6:9) Note how Moshe is the speaker.

A little while later, after twice claiming his unease with the prospect of speaking to Pharaoh after having being denied by his own people, we see "God said to Moses, 'Observe! I will be making you like a god to Pharaoh, and your brother Aharon will be your prophet. You must announce all that I order you to, and your brother Aharon will relate it to Pharaoh. He will then let the Israelites leave his land."

As clear as it seems that Aharon is going to be Moshe's mouthpiece, we don't really see that coming to fruition. Certainly not in the times they relate to Pharaoh.

So why all the hype about Aharon? Moshe is very clearly the leader, and while Aharon does speak once or twice in Moshe's place, Moshe seems very capable of holding his own – with the people and with Pharaoh. Why are they, in many respects, viewed as equals?

Because Moshe needed to grow into his role. That he was chosen by God on account of the character and qualities he possessed is clear. But, like any human leader, the fact of being chosen (or elected) does not mean the person is completely ready for the job. A President or Prime Minister might be a great leader, but it does not mean the person is prepared for all the intricacies of the job, or is even a great public speaker. This is why people like a press secretary and a public relations representative have jobs. Obviously a public speaking ability is a tremendous asset. But sometimes a person needs to grow into that comfort zone.

Moshe cared for the underdogs in every fight he ever encountered. And Egyptian bondage, in that sense, was perfect for him to battle head-on. No one is as needy for an advocate as are slaves.

But it's a little different when one does his own private vigilantism versus when one has to play political hardball, and stand up against a despot in an arena that is not only very real, but carries the safety and future of an entire nation on its shoulders.

Having lived in Egypt his whole life, and having been in the trenches with the people, Aharon was a great supporting character to wean Moshe into his new role.

But Moshe adapted quickly (there are plenty of commentaries who explain that he did not have a speech impediment, but was very nervous about his assignment) and was quickly able to say, "Thanks for offering Aharon as my support staff. He will be a tremendous help in other ways. But I no longer need him to be my mouthpiece."

May we all be blessed to have such loyal mentors in our lives. Moshe was able to fill his roll with such ease and so quickly because he had his brother Aharon guiding him, with class, dignity, and with a sense of support which said, "I'm there if you need me, but I look forward to cutting the strings and removing the training wheels so you will be able to fly on your own."

Precautionary Measures

Parshat Emor

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The description of the lighting of the Menorah appears three times in the Torah: in Parshat Tetzaveh (Shmot 27:20-21), in our parsha (24:2-3), and at the beginning of Parshat B'haalotkha (Bamidbar 8:2-4). The contexts are different – the creation of the priestly clothing, one of the Torah's presentations of the holidays, and as a precdent to the purification process of the Levites, respectively.

The B'haalotkha passage is different in that it describes how Aharon will conduct himself "when lighting the candles." The other two passages are very similar to one another, containing a few subtle differences that might even be missed at first glance.

In reference to the candles, Parshat Tetzaveh begins with Moshe being told that "Aharon and his sons will set it up," while in Emor, Moshe is told that "Aharon will set it up." Two questions emerge: Why does God refer to the candles in the singular ("it"), when seven candles need to be set up? Why are Aharon's sons left out in our parsha's instruction?

Regarding the singular form of "setting it up" the Torah Temimah implies from a midrashic passage that it could come to pass that different kohanim could be responsible for different candles. The seven candles could even be lit individually before being inserted into the menorah. As such, Aharon's family were responsible for the set-up of one of the seven candles.

Incredibly, a seemingly inconsequential word presented in the singular form ("אותו - oto") teaches us that for some religious rites, they need not be confined to a single person. There is much room in Jewish life for shared responsibility. For example, no job that is filled by volunteers in a synagogue should be held exclusively by any individual for any lengthy period of time (salaried individuals are a different story). Gabbais, baalei tefillah, Torah readers should be changed around on a regular basis. This is a context where "spreading the wealth" is a good thing. The more that people feel this sense of responsibility, the more they feel involved and significant, the less they will come to despise those who "hog" all the honors.

This seems to contradict our second question. Why are Aharon's sons included in Tetzaveh, but left out of setting up the candles in Parshat Emor? If we're sharing the wealth of serving God, Aharon's sons should certainly be included!

The Meshekh Chokhmah looks at the context of Emor and says that once we're talking about the holidays, which was a special time for the kohen gadol (based on Yerushalmi Chagiga 2:4), it is appropriate to mention the kohen gadol's exclusive role with respect to setting up the menorah.

I think, however, that there is a practical reason Aharon's sons were removed from the clearance list of setting up the menorah. Since the advent of Parshat Tetzaveh, two of Aharon's sons have entered an arena which was actually exclusive to their father, and they paid heavily for their impertinence, losing their lives in the process.

The Baal Haturim suggests (24:3) that Aharon would not allow Elazar or Itamar to enter the sanctuary alone, out of his concern that they would meet a similar fate to their deceased brothers. Once he was there with them, he would obviously have first rights in setting up the menorah.

There is a time and place for everything. Two of Aharon's sons had taken advantage of their right to enter the sanctuary, and applied it to an activity that was out of the confines of the services they could perform: the burning of ketoret. Collective punishment is not always a good idea, but when lives are at stake, as was the case with Aharon's sons, it is sometimes a necessity.

Life consists of peaks, valleys and stops everywhere in between. Sometimes we learn from mistakes to never repeat them, and sometimes precautions are put into place to avoid the problem altogether in the future. Sometimes, out of context, the precautions may even seem silly. Think kitniyos on Pesach, some elements of muktzeh, certain strictures in kashrus supervision, and even some of the laws of yichud.

The people who put these rules in place were not dummies – they knew exactly what they were doing. And we need to understand the rules in context, to realize how much insight into human nature and human psychology they really had. The precautionary rules were put into place to prevent us from violating laws that, from a Torah perspective, should be inviolable.

The Lessons We Learn

Parshat Shmini

by Rabbi Avi Billet

In the aftermath of the massacre of the Fogel family in Itamar, Parshat Shmini couldn't be more timely in its arrival. While the impetus for the deaths of Aharon's sons, Nadav and Avihu, is obviously not comparable to the heinous crime committed in Israel, it is the aftermath of their demise which is most instructive.


What brought about the deaths of Aharon's older sons? Most discussions analyze the specific nature of the particular service they were performing. Were they drunk? Were they wearing the proper clothing? Did they enter an area prohibited to them? Did they perform a service reserved for their father alone? Did they merely bring a strange fire?

The different approaches curtail our ability to know exactly what triggered their deaths. A thorough analysis, however, helps paint entirely different pictures, suggesting that, perhaps, Aharon's sons died for other reasons.

Picture #1: Shmot 29:43 says that when the Mishkan will be dedicated, "It is there that I will commune with the Israelites, and [the tabernacle] will thus be sanctified with My glory." In other words, something grand will happen which will demonstrate God's awesome power. A sacrifice of some kind will be offered, which will consecrate the Tabernacle. It may or may not relate to the actions of individuals.

Picture #2: Shmot 19:22 says, "The priests, who [usually] come near the Divine must also sanctify themselves, or else God will send destruction among them." This verse leads us to believe that somehow, Nadav and Avihu did not properly sanctify themselves.

Picture #3: Shmot 24:9-11 presents a strange narrative of the actions of some of the leading figures of Israel. "Moses then went up, along with Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy of Israel's elders. They saw a vision of the God of Israel, and under His feet was something like a sapphire brick, like the essence of a clear [blue] sky. [God] did not unleash His power against the leaders of the Israelites." Targum Yonatan explains that God saved his punishment for them until the Yom HaShmini, 'the eighth day' of our parsha, while Rashi explains that they deserved to be killed at that time, based on the verse "And [God] said you may not see My face, for a human can not see me and live." (Shmot 33:20)

Picture #4: When describing why Elazar and Itamar are described by the Torah as "the remaining, or spared sons", Rashi on Vayikra 10:12 says "Those spared – from death. It teaches us that the death was also decreed upon [Elazar and Itamar] over the sin of the Golden Calf as it says 'And God was angry enough with Aharon to destroy him.' 'Destruction' refers to the deaths of his sons, as it says (Amos 2) 'I destroyed his fruits from above.' Moshe’s prayer canceled half of the decree as it says 'And I prayed on Aharon’s behalf at that time.'"

In other words, all of Aharon's sons should have died as punishment for his behavior in the Golden Calf story, but on account of Moshe, Aharon's punishment was reduced. He only lost two sons instead of all four. [This is not the forum to discuss the theological or philosophical implications of a punishment in which the father loses his children, or in which children have to die on account of the sins of the father.]

The point of the analysis is that we have no idea why things happen, or what truly constitutes God's Master Plan. And it is obvious that in many cases, it is impossible for us to understand.

The possible reasons for Aharon's son's deaths, as presented, have nothing to do with the story in Itamar. The parallel of half of Aharon's sons is coincidental to the fact of half of the family's children being lost. The fact remains - there is no comparison. Nadav and Avihu were taken by God, while the five Fogels were taken by monsters disguised as human beings.

The brutal nature of the murders of the Fogel family has all of the Jewish people shuddering with revulsion at the abhorrent nature of the crime. How divorced from humanity does one need to be to see any shred of justification in such a despicable act?

In Aharon's case, he carries on. The lesson is learned. He must find solace in his other children, and do all he can to protect them. He must make sure they follow the laws, and adhere to the instructions outlined for them by God. And they grow, in time, to become great men. In Elazar's case, he fills his father's shoes more than adequately.

In the case of the Fogel family, as for all of Israel, the lesson must be learned as well. Security must be a top priority. The care of the remaining children, of this and all attacks, are the responsibility of all the Jewish people. One supermarket owner, Rami Levy, has apparently committed to keep the family's pantry stocked with food until the youngest Fogel child turns 18. This form of generosity knows no bounds.

Israel must have a more forceful response than "they kill, we build" to send the message that the blood of its citizens, on all sides of the Green Line, is not cheap. We want all of our people to have the opportunity to grow up, and like Aharon's surviving sons, to have the chance to become great people.

His Finest Hour...? Not Really (and yet...)

See also this attempt at defending Aharon

Parshat Ki Tisa

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Looking objectively at the depiction of the creation of the Golden Calf, it is quite hard to understand the role Aharon plays. Is he guilty of something really really bad? Is he a manipulated victim? Was he coerced? Was he just in the wrong place at the wrong time?

What is clear is that on account of Moshe's delayed return, Aharon is approached and told to make "something" to replace Moshe as leader. Aharon instructs the people to get the earrings of their family members – children and wives – and with the earrings the men bring back (which seem to be their own earrings), he has a mold or model golden calf fashioned. Either he does it personally, or he has someone else do it. Upon seeing how some of the people related to the calf, Aharon builds a mizbe'ach and announces "There will be a festival to God tomorrow!" – God, of course, being the Tetragrammaton – God's four letter name of יקוק.

What is also clear is that Aharon never referred to this calf as a God, and he certainly never participated in any festivities or worshipping of the calf.

What, then, was his role? Why does Moshe become so upset with him?

Ralbag posits that Aharon was doing only one thing: stalling.

He asked for the jewels of family members, assuming they would not give their jewelry up easily. He began to mold a model of the calf to delay the actual building of what the people were asking for.

When Moshe still did not show, Aharon began building a mizbe'ach. This takes time. And when it was finished, instead of inaugurating it right away as is commonly done, Aharon had the brilliant idea to buy more time through delaying until "tomorrow." That the people took the initiative on their own the following morning, when they saw Aharon was not leading any festivities, is their problem. Aharon could no longer fight off the mob mentality that had overtaken the minds of those who were smitten by the perception of what the Golden Calf would do for them.

Abravanel observes that we really do not know when the people first approached Aharon. At the end of Mishpatim Moshe went up, with no provisions and no foreseeable means of nutrition, to be on the mountain for an undetermined amount of time. Up until then, every time he went up he came down the same day. (See his ups and downs in Shmot 19).

Did they approach Aharon after 3 days? A week? Two weeks? Just because the tale of the creation of the Golden Calf pans out in six verses does not mean it did not take two weeks of negotiating and staying the crowd! That the Torah told us Moshe went up for 40 days and nights (24:18) does not indicate the people, or even Moshe, were aware he'd be away that long, or for any specific amount of time. It is possible Moshe might have stayed longer, had he not been sent packing on account of the wayward actions of the people down below.

And if Hur had been killed (24:14 indicates he and Aharon were in charge and as Hur does not appear in our tale, the Rabbis said he had been killed by the mob), Aharon has real cause to respond to their requests, to indicate he is working with them, before he is taken down as well. Ibn Ezra raises one person's opinion (he does not quote from whom) that Aharon felt the need to avoid losing his life in order to save as many people as possible. Were he to die, things would go out of control quickly, and many more people would succumb to the peer-pressure and join the ranks of the Golden-Calf-ers – 3,000 of whom were killed in its aftermath.

Therefore the Abravanel spells out in great details how Aharon was delaying. He took the time to fashion a small model of a golden calf (the choice of calf versus lamb has to do with the lamb being Aries, the god of Egypt, and the calf being Taurus, the next Zodiac sign, as the god of Egypt had been defeated by the God of Israel). In turn, the model would be copied in a much larger version, which would take a day or two to fashion. And, frankly, Aharon indicated that such an "important" item could not be completed without the stamp of Moshe! This would further cause them to wait.

That he wanted everything to be done right would also play into why he insisted on building the mizbe'ach himself! He was hoping that in all the delayed efforts, the people would take a step back and realize they were pursuing a worthless goal of a meaningless symbol to replace Moshe as the leader.

He said the "Festival would be for Hashem tomorrow" hoping A. that God would hear and tell Moshe to scoot on down to nip the rebellion in the bud; and B. that the masses would understand that anything they were doing was for the sake of Hashem in Heaven. Unfortunately, neither plan worked and Moshe was only told to leave after the party had started, on account of the boors who did not understand Aharon's intent when utilizing God's name in anticipation of any celebration.

When Moshe emerges he becomes so upset with his brother because Aharon played a role in bringing about the sin the people committed. It could be Aharon's intentions were honorable: play the role, cater to them in a way they think you're on their side while you delay as much as you can, hope and pray that Moshe will come down and set everything right. But honorable intentions don't always bring about positive results. Just think about Lot's daughters.

Are we to understand that delay tactics don't work, and a person must take a stand to do what's right at the outset, even at the cost of one's life? Not at all. Sometimes delaying a little while allows a sensible solution to play itself out. (Sometimes it doesn't – see Samuel I 13:6-14) From Moshe's perspective, however, the stakes were too high and his brother faltered at what could have been his finest hour.

In an immediate and direct sense, it does not seem Aharon is punished for any idolatry component of the Golden Calf. He does not lose his life and he does not lose the right to be the High Priest who brings about forgiveness for the people on Yom Kippur. Therefore I do not think it is our place to be too critical of Aharon.

What might any one of us have done were we in his place? It is very hard to say.

A Time to... Bless (Shmini)

This can be seen in the Jewish Star

A Blessing on Your Head

Most blessings in the Torah are directed from either G-d to man or from man to G-d. There are a few exceptions, of course, when humans bless one another, but they generally follow a similar pattern in which the “blesser” blesses the “blessee” either immediately before one of them departs company, or before said “blesser” dies.

Examples of people parting company include Malkitzedek to Avram (Bereishit 14), Rivkah’s mother and brother to Rivkah (Bereishit 24), Yitzchak to Yaakov (Bereishit 28), Lavan to his daughters and grandchildren (Bereishit 32), the angel to Yaakov (Bereishit 32), Paroh asks for a blessing after he grants freedom (Shmot 12).

Those who give blessings before they die include Yitzchak — who thought he was about to die — to Eisav (Bereishit 27), Yaakov to his grandsons and then sons (Bereishit 48-49), Yosef to his brothers (Bereishit 50), and Moshe to the Israelites in the last chapters of the Torah.

And still there are those who give blessings at the onset of a relationship, or when they will be together for a while. When he arrives in Egypt, Yaakov blesses Paroh in Bereishit 47 before living in his country for 17 years. And there are two times in the Torah when we find the kohanim blessing the children of Israel. The latter instance is in Bamidbar 6; the verses commonly referred to as “birkat kohanim.” The first of these is in our parsha (9:22) after the dedication of the Mishkan.

It seems like such an odd dedication ceremony. Aharon is essentially spending the day on the altar, dividing his time between slaughtering animals and burning them, and when he is finished for the day, he blesses the people. Wouldn’t it be more prudent to bless the people before the day’s work, as opposed to at the end? “You should all be blessed that our work today on your behalf be seen and recognized by G-d.”

The third Mishnah in the last chapter of Brachot (54a) speaks against the prayers of one who wishes for the outcome of events that have already transpired to turn out the way he wants. By extension, perhaps we can suggest that the blessing here is out of place — particularly if it follows the offerings that have just been brought. Who is to say the sacrifices were accepted by G-d?

Targum Yonatan says the blessing of Moshe and Aharon in the following verse (9:23) was meant to counter that very concern. He writes, “Once the offerings were completed and G-d’s presence was not revealed, Aharon was very concerned and expressed his worry that G-d was not accepting his handiwork. So Moshe and Aharon then went to the Tent of Meeting and prayed on behalf of the people, then exited and blessed the people saying ‘May G-d accept the offering and forgive your sins…’”

The Shakh follows this explanation saying the Moshe-Aharon tag-team was more of a prayer than a blessing. Which makes sense, considering that Aharon had already blessed the people.

What blessing did Aharon give the people? Was it a formal blessing, or a personal blessing? Did he follow a text, or was it an ad-lib? Many commentaries follow the reasoning of the Talmud (Megillah 18a) that the blessing Aharon is saying here is, in fact, the birkat kohanim of Bamidbar 6.

The Talmud also asks why the blessing was given at the end of the service, and concludes that blessings and thanksgiving go together, at the end.

Nonetheless, in light of the individual forms of blessing highlighted above, perhaps we can suggest that whether Aharon used the Torah’s “script” for the blessing or created his own, he knew quite well that some blessings take place before a departure, and some take place before the death of the one giving the blessing.

Perhaps Aharon was giving the blessing at the end of the service because everyone was now going to return home. On the opposite extreme, in light of Targum Yonatan’s comment, perhaps Aharon was giving the blessing because he feared the service did not go well and did not know if he’d be around to perform it the next time. This premonition was not far off, because not five verses later, his two older sons die from performing the service incorrectly or inappropriately.

But maybe Aharon wanted to break the mold. Maybe Aharon knew that blessings are good all the time. And he also knew that the kohanim who bless others would be blessed by G-d (Bamidbar 6:27).

We can all appreciate and benefit from the blessings we give to one another. If we can expand our horizons, hopefully the blessings will come not just when we depart on a journey or from this world, but at times when we will continue to live together for many years.