Divine "Changes"?

An outsider's (perhaps naive) commentary on some of the activism going on in Israel (and perhaps in the US as well). I have purposely chosen not to take a specific stand for either side here because the ultimate lesson the dvar Torah brings out is the point upon which I am focusing. If you'd like to have the dialogue, feel free to comment (or email me!), and we can have a conversation. For a slightly different perspective, see this thought quoted in the name of HaRav Yehuda Amital, Z"L, the founding Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Etzion

Parshat B'haalotkha

by Rabbi Avi Billet

In the first Nissan month following the Exodus, the Torah tells us that the Israelites observed Passover, bringing the Korban Pesach (Paschal lamb offering) at its proper time. (Chapter 9)

The tale that follows is of a group of people, who were unable to participate in the Korban Pesach on account of their being in a state of "tumah" (a spiritual state of impurity).

"But why should we lose out and not be able to present God's offering at the right time, along with the other Israelites?" they ask.

"Wait here," Moshe replied. "I will hear what orders God gives regarding your case."

He is told, "Speak to the Israelites, saying: If any person is tameh (ritually impure) from contact with the dead, or is on a distant journey, whether among you [now] or in future generations, he shall still have the opportunity to prepare God's Passover offering… He shall prepare it on the afternoon of the 14th of the second month and shall eat it with matzahs and bitter herbs." (9:7-14) This is the Torah's account of the mitzvah of "Pesach Sheni" – the makeup date for missing the Korban Pesach.

Rashi says, "These impure (tameh) people were privileged to have this mitzvah (of Pesach Sheni) be attributed to their question, as opposed to coming directly from Moshe, because we bring about something which is worthy through someone who is worthy." Three of the opinions as to their identity are those who carried Yosef's bones, Mishael andEltzafan – who took Nadav and Avihu out of the Mishkan after their tragic end, or people who buried others who had no family. All of these possibilities are people who are very worthy to perform the mitzvah were it not for the "tumah" factor holding them back.

In his exploration of Rashi's commentary, Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi notes that those who were tameh were tameh that day, but were to become tahor (pure) that evening. As such, they would have been fit and could have partaken of the Korban Pesach on time – not in the day of the 14th of Nissan, but in the evening of the 15th, during their "Seder," when the Paschal Lamb "is to be eaten and not leftover until morning."

Were their question not asked "that day" (9:6) when there was still time, we would be able to wonder who would have the audacity to suggest that despite missing the opportunity to do the mitzvah in its proper time, they should have a do-over! There is a halakhic principle that once a specific time for a mitzvah has passed (particularly a korban) – the opportunity is lost (avar zmano batel korbano).

Their circumstance was unique, their position, as Rashi notes, one of tremendous worthiness, and their opportunity, to have a previously undisclosed mitzvah be taught through their story, makes their situation most noteworthy.

Mizrachi quotes the Raavad who suggests they had actually tried to bring the Korban Pesach, before being sprinkled with the requisite blood (presumably of the Parah Adumah – Red Heifer), and immersing in water to complete their purification process, and the offering was rejected. Mizrachi wonders, according to this opinion, why they were not instructed to undergo the purifying process followed by an additional attempt at bringing the Korban Pesach? Beyond saying such a notion was not in the cards, since they were instructed to bring the Korban Pesach on Pesach Sheni (14 Iyar) one month in the future, he does not answer this question.

The people in this circumstance were creating history. And with the authentic leadership of Moshe and the connection to the Divine he provided, their question was not out of place. Their timeliness in asking – on the day they should have been bringing the Korban, along with the suggestion that they did actually bring one only to have it rejected, together indicate a Divine stamp of approval to their efforts. They merited to have a mitzvah taught in their story!

Can the same always be said about those who are opportunists, who pick a time to say "Why should we lose out?" in order to stoke coals and create controversy?

There is a difference between taking up a cause for social justice and taking up a cause in the name of religion. True social justice cases, in which people are either not participating in society or are being selectively discriminated against in society, deserve a public hearing and a demand for equal rights.

But taking up a cause in the name of religion requires a very different attitude. Religion is ancient, has traditions, values, and a way which has been for centuries. And those looking to represent it must be humble, and must come across as standing on the shoulders of precedent.

Sincerity is relative. The people who were looking to perform the Korban Pesach, who were held back by a technicality, were sincere. They got their makeup date, which was not a new idea, according to Mizrachi, but was only taught at this time because of their sincerity.

What really drives the people behind both sides of the latest demonstrations at the Kotel? What drives those involved on both sides of drafting the Charedim into the Israeli army?

While there is a time and place for everything, the reverse is not true: not everything belongs in every place at all times.

The issues are complicated, emotions run high, some people are sincere, while some are driven by an agenda that is far less than sincere. A Divine response would be most helpful in achieving peaceful solutions. But without it, humility is the key ingredient that could keep everyone grounded and help reach appropriate compromises.

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.