The Desecration of the Tell-All Essay

Parshat Emor

by Rabbi Avi Billet

According to Rambam (Maimonides) in his Sefer Hamitzvot (book of Commandments), there are two mitzvot to be gleaned from the verse: “Do not desecrate My holy name. I must be sanctified among the Israelites. I am God [and] I am making you holy.” (Vayikra 22:32 )

 The first is a negative commandment not to do anything to give God or His Torah a bad name (Negative Commandments #63), and the second is the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem, to enhance the reputation of God and His Torah (Positive Commandment #9).

 In his depiction of the positive commandment, Rambam brings examples from history that the ideal way to sanctify God’s name is to be willing and ready to die for the sake of His Name. Utilizing a lesson taught by the prophet Isaiah, Rambam writes, while referring to a period when enemies have dominance over the Jewish people and are murdering men, women and children that “[even] children should not fear death and should give up their lives, and publicize and strengthen their faith, and sanctify The Name before the masses.” I'll add that to get to such a level requires a very high level of education and connection to our faith that must be modeled for our children and lived by example day in and day out. Perhaps what we might call "living al Kiddush Hashem."

The commandment to avoid desecrating God’s name is what Rambam calls “the opposite of sanctifying God’s Name.” And it carries three possible forms of violation. First, that whoever is put into a position, under duress of an enemy nation, to violate any mitzvah in the Torah, or in times of peace to violate either the laws of murder, immorality and idolatry, must not succumb to the pressure to violate the law (this is the reverse of Positive Command #9).

 This kind of violation (meaning if one does the sin anyway), however, is the most lenient, as it involves coercion or force. The person is not sinning out of desire to sin, but out of desire to stay alive.

 The second kind of violation also does not come from desire to do the sin or the forbidden act. Rather it is an act of rebelliousness and the removal of the Heavenly yoke of responsibility. It’s not the sin itself which is the intent, but the motivation for the sin, such as perhaps to “spite God,” is a key factor.

 The third type of violation is on a personal level, when an individual who has a stellar reputation does even a single act which is viewed by the masses as an “Aveirah” (sin), as an act which is not worthy of being respected. Even if the act turns out to be permissible, God’s Name could still be disgraced through the deed in question. An example cited by the Talmud is of a rabbi who takes a nice piece of meat from the butcher, but does not pay for it right away (this would not apply in a credit-card society). Another example: Cutting a line might not be illegal or a Torah prohibition, but it could very well be a chillul Hashem.

 While we can all write essays about those that fall into the third category, it is the second category that is becoming more and more apparent in our “I have a blog world,” where every week (if not every day) another person comes out with an essay or a book on “why I left Orthodoxy.” Inevitably the person will write about certain things s/he loves about Orthodox Judaism, but how “I still can’t get over the contradictions.” The loudest ones are often ex-Hassidim who could not find another option under the tent of Orthodoxy (maybe they were always told that Modern Orthodoxy is not Jewish).

 Most humorously, a person will make a claim such as “I went through 12 years of day school education, so I know all I need to know.” Or “For a long time I enjoyed the davening in our shul because it’s spiritual. But now it’s empty to me.”

 With all respect to our yeshiva and day school system, products of it do not “know everything they need to know.” And davening in shul is not meant to be “spiritual because there is singing.”

 We can all name Torah giants who passed away in the last few years. Rabbis Yosef S. Elyashiv, Ovadia Yosef, and more recently Shmuel Wozner and Aharon Lichtenstein. These leaders knew all there is to know, and they never stopped learning.

 Prayer is not supposed to be spiritual because there is singing. It is the individual’s responsibility to tap into the words one is saying, have them enter the heart, and impact one’s soul.

 More importantly, as Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein was famous for saying, it is OK to live with questions. We don’t have all the answers, and maybe we never will have all the answers. But just because a couple of things bother someone does not mean it is OK to air your personal dirty laundry on the Huffington Post.

 “My story must be heard!” Actually, it need not be heard. Your story and your personal “crisis of faith” (which is not really a crisis, but is just your own baggage) is only a chillul Hashem, a desecration of God’s name.

 Let us all become more knowledgable and more in touch with our faith so we can always be a source of Kiddush Hashem, of sanctifying God’s Holy Name. And then, we will happily read your tale of triumph over adversity in the Huffington Post.

The Unified Commitment

Parshat Yitro

by Rabbi Avi Billet

It is quite uncommon for the entirety of the Jewish people to agree about something. I would venture to bet that all of the Jews agree to the historical and national significance of the Land of Israel, but not all Jews agree as to the validity of the State of Israel (this disagreement is a shame).

All Jews agree that Hebrew is a Jewish language. But not all agree that it's "the" Jewish language. (ditto)

Moshe tells God's words to the people, "And the entire nation responded, united, and they said, 'All that God has spoken we will do!' And Moshe returned the words of the people to God." (19:8)

The Midrash (Pesikta) notes that "they did not answer thus in adulation or with flattery, one answering for the other. Rather they answered united with one heart. Even though we have not heard all of the things (all that He has commanded us – Midrash Sechel Tov adds) – we will do them."

A very rare unified voice!

Were they really unified?

The Alshich explains that there are two schools of thought in understanding their collective declaration. Either they believed Moshe's words because God had spoken them – everything that you have said in God's name we will do. Or, all that God has surely ('vadai') said we will do – as long as we know it's from Him, to the exclusion of what you have said of your own accord. In other words – we want to hear it specifically from Him.

The Alshich notes that Moshe understood them to mean the first interpretation (unified with Moshe), while God understood they had in mind the second interpretation (unified in not wanting to hear from Moshe). God's response, therefore, was "to come down in a cloud" (19:9), because they don't believe you, Moshe, and I want them to believe you. My coming in the cloud is so they can hear Me speaking to you.

The whole premise of these "possibilities" is disturbing, particularly in light of the verse right before the Az Yashir song, "And they believed in God and in Moshe his servant." (14:31)

Perhaps it goes back to the question made famous by the Marx Brothers, "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own eyes?" They believed in Moshe at the Sea. But they still didn't believe him at Sinai. Until, apparently, the cloud came down on the mountain.

Rabbenu Bachaye notes the Talmudic tale of God lifting the mountain over them (Shabbos 88a) explaining that the pressure was to accept the Oral Law. But the Written Law was accepted willingly, with a great desire, with joy and gladdened hearts.

It is known, however that despite all these acceptances and promises, it is literally impossible for any person to fulfill all of the mitzvot of the Torah. Some are only for men, some for women, some for Kohanim, some for Leviim, some only for Yisraelim. [To bring one simple example: Many people never get divorced and thus never write a get.] The Meshech Hokhmah notes that the acceptance here is to do the mitzvot which are relevant to each individual's circumstance. Otherwise, the acceptance is to learn about and understand the details of the commandments one can not fulfill.

What is included in "all that God has spoken?" Is it everything that was said until that point? Was it a commitment to what will soon be spoken, exchanged between Moshe and God, and subsequently heard by the people? Did it include all that would be recorded in the Tanakh (24 books of the Bible)?

According to the Talmud (Berakhot 5a), all of the ideas recorded in the Bible were given over at Sinai to be recorded in written form later on. This idea is elaborated upon in the Machzor Vitri (Chapter 424).

One of the important teachings of the Torah is "not to desecrate My name" (Vayikra 22:32). One of the important teachings recorded in the Prophets is, "He has told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord demands of you; but to do justice, to love loving-kindness, and to walk discreetly/humbly with your God" (Micha 6:8)

With the "yeshiva break" behind us, as life returns to its normal routine, it is incumbent upon us to ask ourselves if in our travels we demonstrated our commitment to "Do all that God said," "not to desecrate God's name," and "to walk humbly with our God."

When away from home, some people tend to let the "doing all God said" part of our lives slide a bit, some tend to be loud and obtrusive, to call attention to themselves, or forget that when not in one's usual environment, one does not blend in and go unnoticed. On the contrary, we are more scrutinized than in our home environments because we are clearly visitors. (Your choice to believe me or your own eyes!)

If we are truly committed to doing all God said, we must take a very careful "cheshbon hanefesh" (reflection) and resolve to be models of "Kiddush Hashem" behavior, wherever future journeys may take us.

Following the thought of the Meshech Hokhmah, these are commitments we can all relate to, as they are incumbent upon all of us. Hopefully, united, we can all agree on this one!

Moshe's Bumper Sticker

Parshat Korach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

An unofficial theme of the book of Bamidbar is that the string of narratives are connected thematically. The most quoted example of this is the first critique given to the spies of Parshat Shlach, who did not learn from the episode of Miriam's tale-bearing punishment. After seeing what happened to her for speaking about Moshe, they did not check themselves before speaking ill of the land they had scouted.

I think a similar lesson can be applied to the Korach narrative – from the perspective of the leadership.

Throughout the Torah, whenever people did something wrong or complained and triggered God's anger, Moshe was always the stalwart defender, telling God a thing or two about the leadership role he has accepted (to bring these people as far as he can) versus the one he has not accepted (to watch them all die as a new nation is created from Moshe).

Through it all, Moshe has averted a few disasters and has saved countless lives. This is why it is decidedly odd that Moshe says the second half of his final challenge to Korach and company. "If you die a natural death, God did not send me. But if a creation is created and the ground opens up and swallows them up and they go down, alive, to Sheol, then you know they have challenged God."

How could Moshe offer two options for death – natural or supernatural? Is there no room for teshuvah (repentance)? What happened to the ultimate defender, who views life as the most precious gift? Could it be, perhaps, that Moshe is taking Korach's challenges as a personal affront (as well he should!) and he is taking revenge in the most spiteful we he could? היתכן - Is this possible?

If we look back at the two most recent narratives in the Torah – the spies and the wood gatherer – we see people being punished with death on account of their actions. And, in both cases, the view from the top is the same.

Rabbenu Bachaye posits that Moshe took the stance against God in defense of the people when he said, "Egypt will hear that you took the nation out of their land, but were unable to defeat the Gods of Canaan" because Moshe was concerned for the desecration of God's name. Why give Egypt the opportunity to speak ill of You?

Similarly, Rabbenu Bachaye addresses the wood-gatherer story using a literal interpretation of the word used to describe his action, "M'koshesh," (מקושש) as opposed to "M'laket" (מלקט) (which mean the same thing, but the former is normally used to describe a gathering of straw, while the latter is normally used to describe the gathering of wood), to suggest that in his Shabbat-desecrating activities the wood-gatherer was denying God and the Six Days of Creation and was thus desecrating God's name in the worst possible way.

If we can say about Moshe that his personal bumper sticker was "Desecrating God's Name Stops Here!" then we can begin to understand why Korach was doomed (as were Datan and Aviram) once the challenge to Moshe and Aharon is understood for what it really was: a challenge to God, and a desecration of God's Name. In 16:5-11 and 16:28-30, Moshe makes it clear that this is not about him. This is all about God. It is only about God.

The Kli Yakar points out the use of the words "Briah yivra" – if a creation is created, which is reminiscent of the account of Creation in the Torah. Stringing together two thoughts which appear in Pirkei Avot, he suggests that they were denying God's role in the world. Firstly, the mouth of the earth was created in the final hours of the Six Days of Creation (Avot 5:6) – a denial of this is a denial of Creation. Secondly, they did not want any leader, for they thought “all of the people are holy, and God is among them – so why should you raise yourself over God’s people?” The anarchist's view contradicts the mishnah (Avot 3:2) that says "Were it not for fear (of a king), men would swallow their friends alive."

The different denials of God and His ways served as indicators to Moshe that the people in question were following the same lines of perverted logic that brought down the spies and the wood-gatherer. As such, the precedent set by their respective punishments helped Moshe come to the easy and unfortunate realization (for Korach and co., that is) that their immediate death was pending.

For Moshe, the writing was so clearly on the wall that he did not need to do much. He had learned the lesson of the previous stories, and Korach and all the followers received the punishment that followed the recently confirmed precedents – the "measure for measure" for anarchists is that the ground swallowed them alive.

The relevant lesson for us is threefold: 

• Remember, as always, that the most regular affirmation of our appreciation of Creation comes from a commitment to Shabbos. 
• We must defend against the desecration of God's name as best we can. 
• We must strive to sanctify God's name in all that we do.