Following ALL of Moshe's Teachings

Parshat Bechukotai

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The last verse of the Tokhacha (great Rebuke) of Chapter 26 says the following: “These are the decrees, laws and codes that God set between Himself and the Israelites at Mount Sinai through the hand of Moses.” (26:46)

Anyone who paid attention last week probably recalls that the opening verse of Parshat Behar noted that the teachings following that verse were all taught at Sinai. Rashi, quoting the Midrash, famously noted that just as the details of the Sabbatical year (Shmittah) were taught at Sinai, details of all Mitzvot were taught at Sinai.

One of the great commentaries, Chaim Ibn Attar (Or HaChaim) questioned why Rashi needed to make such a pronouncement, when the reality is that such a statement could have been made regarding any mitzvah! Why was Shmittah the one specifically isolated as the mitzvah whose details demonstrate for us that all details of mitzvoth were taught at Sinai. His answer focuses on the first half of the verse, which discusses what will happen when the people come to the land – a common theme in the book of Vayikra, to not live lives influenced by the current inhabitants of the land (Canaanites) or like their former masters, the Egyptians.

More pointedly, however, is the last verse in Chapter 26, as noted above, which seems to say the same thing as the opening verse in Behar, while being much more broad! Midrash Aggadah even makes the exact same comment as Rashi does in Behar, that the laws of the Torah, with all of its details, were taught at Sinai. As Or HaChaim noted, we don’t need to attach this sentiment to a specific mitzvah! It stands alone, and is perfectly fine remaining in generic territory!

Rashi’s grandson, Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir (Rashbam) connects the two ideas noting that the Tokhacha had a relatively heavy emphasis on Shmittah suggesting that exile, rebuke, curses, drought, are connected both to Shmittah and to Sinai.

Most fascinating to me is the insight of Rabbi Moshe Alshikh, who suggests that the verse in question (26:46) should really be the final verse in the Torah! Let it not be lost upon us that the method through which the Torah and its laws were given were “through (in) the hand of Moshe!” In other words, while most people are subject to forgetting, the Torah is indicating to us that the way Moshe received and absorbed the rules and laws of the Torah were through a kind of osmosis we can’t relate to. Even were others to forget, Moshe would not.

Thus the verse belongs here, at this time, while Moshe is very much alive, while Moshe is very much all of 80 or 81 years old, so the people can see and realize that he is available for the consultation, for the clarification, to teach another class, to elucidate, to give over more information, that he is at the ready to answer questions for those who seek to understand or be reminded of what they'd learned and forgotten.

We know that Moshe lives another 39 years or so, only because we have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, and we know the rest of the tale. But he was ready at that point to be the address where people could seek out true understanding.

I think it is worthy asking ourselves how seriously we take the role of Moshe in our day to day behaviors. I don’t just mean this in terms of considering the words of his warning to us in this parsha, though that is certainly important, but how we take the rest of the Torah, both what is written in the Torah itself, and what is given to us through the Oral Torah (Rashi on this verse notes how the verse refers to both the written and oral traditions).

In the Ani Maamin list, principles 6-9 reference the concept of prophesy and the Torah as being true for all time, while 7-8 specifically mention Moshe as the greatest of prophets and the giver of the Torah we currently have, in the format in which we have it. Do we care about all the mitzvoth? Do we pick and choose which ones work for us? Do we know the rules of Lashon Hora, for example, about which the Maharal of Prague, in his Teshuva drasha of 1684 said is the wort of all sins a Jew could commit?

One of my favorite teachings of the Chafetz Chaim is this: "The Rishonim have written that if these sins [of baseless hatred] had the power to cause a standing edifice to be destroyed, then certainly their continued presence [among the Jewish people] will prevent a new Temple from being built… To our misfortune, even those who have an understanding of Torah law do not accord these sins the severity of other sins.

"It is written that a single congregation which is meticulous in maintaining peace amongst itself can merit bringing the Messiah. Thus, the coming of Messiah is in our hands. It is well known that true peace is impossible without zealousness in avoiding sinas chinam (baseless hatred) and lashon hara (gossiping, slander, etc). Every person who will strive to correct these sins will have a share in the building of the Third Temple, for without such people the Temple would remain destroyed forever, heaven forbid."

Who was the greatest advocate of Jewish unity in the Torah? Unquestioningly, Moshe. (Pirkei Avot teaches of Aharon’s role in playing peacemaker between individuals) Whenever there was a question of possibly destroying the nation on account of the sins of the few, Moshe stood up to God and said “They are ALL my people.”

I am very fearful that in the disunity we are seeing in some areas of Jewish life, we are forgetting the most important lesson of Moshe Rabbenu, and we are guilty of what the Chafetz Chaim warned against – preventing the Temple from being rebuilt.

Shmittah = Trust in God

Parshat Behar 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

And God said to Moshe at Mt. Sinai, to say, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them that when you come to the land that I am giving you, the land will rest a Sabbath for God.”

Rashi famously asks “What connection exists between Sinai and the Sabbatical year [that merits their being mentioned next to each other]?”

The Kli Yakar notes the parallel between the 49 days leading up to the giving of the Torah on the 50th day and the 49 years which lead up to the Yovel/Jubilee, which is the 50th year. As the mountain was built up in stature and became forbidden from planting and any work on the day of Revelation, a day on which liberty and freedom from Egypt was finalized, and being under the wings of the Almighty was concretized, God told Moshe about how the same concept of holiness would exist for the land, 49 years leading to a 50th.

The air of Israel is like Sinai, its qualities bring wisdom to its inhabitants. In its own way, it needs to have built into its foundation a parallel to Sinai: 49+1, the sounding of a Shofar, proclamation of the oneness of God and the liberty the Israelites have from being under the divine wing.

Jumping on this foundation, Kli Yakar quotes others in asking the question: why is one of the punishments for not keeping Shmittah (Sabbatical year) seriously is being exiled from the land? Presumably, if the argument is oft-made that Shmittah is assumed to be good for the land, then let it be that not observing its laws would result in a consequence of nothing growing!

Exile would just mean the land would lay fallow altogether!

Kli Yakar explains that Shmittah is a means for establishing roots of “Emunah” (trust in God). God was concerned that people would come to the land and think that all the work they put into making things grow would result in their feeling “My strength and fortitude is what made all of this happen,” thus forgetting God.

In simple terms, Kli Yakar notes how the seven year cycle in Israel is different from how farmers elsewhere might take care of their land, so it could rest and strengthen for a new growing season. But the promise God gives for Shmittah is that if the land rests in the seventh year, the food which grows from the sixth year’s planting will last for the sixth, seventh, and eighth years. Whether it will continue to grow each year or will simply have a shelf life that is unprecedented is a debate among the authorities. But no matter how one looks at it, those three years of sustenance is simply miraculous.

“Through all of these wonders you see in the land you will come to know that the land is Mine. And through this your eyes will be raised towards God, as we see from the Manna, which fell daily, so the people would see that their sustenance came from God.”

I don’t think it advisable for people to live this way always – to expect that their daily bread comes from God alone. People must make efforts, have jobs, work, and do their part to make sure their daily bread can be placed on the table.

However, there is something rather enamoring in the idea that my six years of toil is rewarded with a God-given guarantee of food for the year I do not work, and for the year following that year of rest, when work resumes but we cannot rely on our daily bread from previous year’s work. Only God’s guarantee that everything will be alright sustains me.

Those who lived through such promises surely felt God’s presence much more closely. Were we to only merit to feel God’s presence in that way, how holy a nation we would truly be.

Chillul Hashem v Kiddush Hashem

Here is a different essay on the same subject - approached a little differently

Parshat Emor

by Rabbi Avi Billet

After introducing us to the concepts of not bringing an animal as an offering before it is eight days old, and after telling us that the animal and its parent (Rashi distinguishes between the animal’s mother and father) can not be slaughtered on the same day, the Torah tells us that we must keep God’s commandments. And – “You shall not desecrate My holy name, and I should be sanctified among the children of Israel.” (22:32)

In the Sefer HaChinukh, the author divides this verse into two commandments, one against desecrating God’s name (making a “Chillul Hashem”), and one promoting the sanctification of the same (making a “Kiddush Hashem”).

 He depicts the desecration of God’s name on three levels: the first involves violating a very serious commandment when enemies are pushing one to do so, the second involves violating a sin that is just meant to cause anger or angst (such as lying in court), and the third is simply not behaving in a way that gives people a good flavor for Jewish people and therefore for the God we claim to represent – such as promising to pay someone, and not following through with it quickly.

 Rabbenu Bachaye describes Chillul Hashem as being one of the most serious violations a Jew can commit. Even Yom Kippur doesn’t bring about atonement for the desecration of God’s name!

 However, Rabbenu Bachaye does give a way to atone for what one has desecrated, and that is the second half of our verse. Sanctify God’s name in a manner which is opposite the method and form of desecration, that overturns the desecration of God’s name. Proverbs 16:6 notes that with “kindness and truth sins can be atoned for…”

Bringing the example of Chananya, Mishael and Azarya from the book of Daniel, he notes, quoting the Sifra (9:4) that sanctification of God must come from a place where one is not expecting anything, but on the contrary, is ready to die for one’s beliefs. The reason Chananya, Mishael and Azarya are viewed in the way they are is because they were not expecting to be saved from a fiery furnace. They were ready to give up their lives rather than submit to the heresies to which they were being forced to participate.

 Rabbi Yaakov Kaminetzky asked an interesting question on this subject, as to how people in the Middle Ages who gave up their lives for God’s name justified taking the lives of their children as well? (Think Crusades, Inquisition, etc.) The children were not obligated to give up their lives at that age!

He answered that had the children been spared, they would have been taken by their enemies (assuming the enemies would not have killed them too!) and would have been raised in a manner equivalent to a forced conversion, which would have also turned into a desecration of God’s name, Jewish children being raised against the holy teachings of the Torah.

 It should never happen that we ought to be faced with such a difficult challenge that causes us to give up our lives for God’s name. But would we be prepared to do so?

Every time I see Jews fighting over some matter of ideology, politics, life-choices, I wonder if we have lost sight of the bigger picture. We are in this Jewish life together, we all have the same job to sanctify God’s name, and when we forget that, we cause fighting in our own ranks which is a bigger Chillul Hashem than the Chillul Hashem we think we are preventing. Let us remember that the enemies of the Jewish people think our very existence is a Chillul Hashem. They think the state of Israel is a Chillul Hashem. They think a chassid wearing Chassidic garb is a Chillul Hashem. They think a Jew owning a bank is a Chillul Hashem. They think a Jew asking for rent to be paid on time is a Chillul Hashem.

Obviously these kinds of thoughts from people who hate Jews no matter what are irrelevant to the discussion.

 Our job is to be good, honest people, to represent God honorably. If we are not doing that, then we are certainly desecrating God’s name in the eyes of those who may want to judge us favorably!

 We should always remember that those who hate us don’t need an excuse. We should go above and beyond our emotions to remember that internal strife and hatred towards our fellow Jews is the biggest Chillul Hashem we can commit because we give fodder to those who are looking for an excuse to see us as people not deserving of respect, and our God as not deserving respect. We owe it to ourselves and to God to rise above any and all internal strife towards our fellow Jews. Issues can be discussed, compromises can be reached. But hating another Jew is desecrating God’s name.

What Was Molekh?

Parshat Kedoshim

by Rabbi Avi Billet

One of the more strange rituals discussed in the Torah is Molekh. There is a debate as to what it was, what its purpose was, etc. But this is how the Torah begins the instructions concerning Molekh. “If any person, whether a [born] Israelite or a proselyte who joins Israel, gives any of his children to Molekh, he must be put to death. The local people must pelt him to death with stones. I will direct My anger against that person, and will cut him off [spiritually] from among his people, since he has given his children to Molekh, thus defiling that which is holy to Me and profaning My holy name.” (20:2-3) 

To give both sides: Targum Yonatan is of the view that the goal of Molekh was for the child to die. 

Noting that Molekh was discussed in last week’s parsha (18:21), Rabbenu Bachaye quotes Maimonides (Moreh Nvukhim 3:37), who writes, the following to explain what the Molekh ritual was all about.

The passage now presented is the Friedlander translation of the Guide to the Perplexed, p. 336 (can be found online here https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp173.htm)

It is not the place here to address Maimonides’ anachronistic thoughts regarding women’s frame-of-mind. There are certainly stereotypes about both women and men that might continue to be used as generalizations, but as there are a. many exceptions to whatever rules, and b. a very different reality in terms of education in general today, I intend to stick to the basic insights regarding Molekh and some superstitious practices, regardless of which parent might (or might not) buy into it. 

“We must also point out that originators of false, baseless, and useless principles scheme and plan for the firm establishment of their faith; and tell their fellow-men that a certain plague will befall those who will not perform the act by which that faith is supported and confirmed for ever; this plague may one day accidentally befall a person, who will then direct his attention to the performance of that act, and adopt idolatry. It being well known that people are naturally most in fear and dread of the loss of their property and their children, the worshippers of fire spread the tale, that if any one did not pass his son and daughter through the fire, he will lose his children by death. There is no doubt that on account of this absurd menace every one at once obeyed, out of pity and sympathy for the child; especially as it was a trifling and a light thing that was demanded, in passing the child over the fire. We must further take into account that the care of young children is intrusted (sic) to women, who are generally weak-minded, and ready to believe everything, as is well known. The Law makes, therefore, an earnest stand against this practice, and uses in reference to it stronger terms than in any other kind of idolatry; namely, "he defileth my sanctuary, and profaneth my holy name" (Lev. xx. 3). The true prophet then declares in the name of God that the very act which is performed for the purpose of keeping the child alive, will bring death upon him who performs it, and destruction upon his seed. Comp. "And I will set my face against that man and against his family," etc. (ibid. xx. 5). Know that traces of this practice have survived even to the present day, because it was widespread in the world. You can see how midwives take a young child wrapped in its swaddling-clothes, and after having placed incense of a disagreeable smell on the fire, swing the child in the smoke over that fire. This is certainly a kind of passing children through the fire, and we must not do it. Reflect on the evil cunning of the author of this doctrine; how people continued to adhere to this doctrine, and how, in spite of the opposition of the Law during thousands of years, its name is not blotted out, and its traces are still in existence.” 

Rabbenu Bachaye concludes his remarks noting, 

“I’ve already written about this in Vayikra 18:21, that some of the commentators believed that the child was burned when passed multiple times through the fire, until he died. This, however, was not the view of Maimonides, for he believed the child was not burned but was merely passed between fires (and survived!). According to his words, the verse (Devarim 12:31) ‘Do not worship God your Lord with such practices. In worshiping their gods, [these nations], committed all sorts of perversions hated by God. They would even burn their sons and daughters in fire as a means of worshiping their gods!’ refers to a different form of idolatry that is not Molekh.” 

In other words, Maimonides was of the view that there were two different rituals: a passing through to survival was Molekh, while the pass through to death was something else, a different kind of idolatry. 

The draw to Molekh was superstition and what we now know to be a false sense of security in response to fear mongering perpetrated by the Molekh idolators. 

If it’s just a superstition and it is meaningless and harmless, then why should God be upset about it? 

Because believing in the god that is Molekh in anyway is “thus defiling that which is holy to Me and profaning My holy name.” (Vayikra 20:3) 

Molekh thrives on fear. 

FDR famously said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Our decisions and choices should never be driven by fear. Instead, we should find the strength to believe and trust in God himself, and pray that He carries us through to the other side, to where we seek to be.

Distinguishing the Action From the Person

Parshat Acharei Mot 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Chapter 18 of the Book of Vayikra contains a number of negative mitzvot – things we are not supposed to do. Many of the negative actions are labeled “to’evot” – an interesting word which has many possible meanings.

Some possibilities: abomination, perversion, disgusting perversion, taboo.

In this chapter, the Torah lists a number of deeds which fit into this category of “to’evah,” but the Torah remains consistent in focusing on labeling the deed, not the person engaging in the act.

The comparison is made several times to the inhabitants of Egypt and Canaan, who were guilty of these things, while the deeds of the Canaanites were specifically utilized to prove why they were undeserving of remaining in the land bearing their name.

A warning is issued that those who follow the ways of these activities will be cut off from the Israelite nation (18:29).

Some of the commentaries (Ramban, Rabbenu Bachaye, etc) write of 3 types of “Karet” (excision from the nation).

The following is Ramban’s take:

There are three methods of Karet. The first is with respect to an individual. The second regards the souls of people. The third is regarding the soul of an individual. Quoting the Sifra, he concludes that “Karet” is from the word which means destruction.

The first type references someone who is generally righteous but who stumbled in giving way to a karet-inducing sin. He might die young, but his soul will remain intact. This person will have a share in the World to Come. 

The second type references someone who is sinful in life. This individual does not die young, but the soul is cut off from any next-world experience. 

The third type experiences karet on two different levels, in body and in soul. This aspect of karet is limited to one who commits idolatry or blasphemy. The Talmud in Shavuot extends this punishment to one who throws off the yoke of Heaven and speaks mockingly of the Torha. 

Ramban’s analysis continues and he speaks of the different ramifications for the soul and body, some of the other definitions of “karet,” and what kinds of repercussions a person can experience in this world and in the next.

While some definitions of karet do include an impact on the body, most focus solely on the experience of the soul, especially after death.

All of which leads me to a very simple conclusion. 

In Jewish life, there is a very specific realm and direction of behavior that warrants a person being unwelcome in the community. At the highest level, that of “karet,” the person’s sins need to be so grave, so beyond the pale, that the person might either die young at the hands of God (or in some instances, the hands of Beit Din), or the person’s soul is dealt with in the Heavenly Realm, by a divine creature – possibly God Himself – as opposed to His angel. 

There is no question that the “behaviors” described in this passage, Vayikra 18, are abhorrent or detestable to God in one way or another.

However, does committing these sins always warrant the person’s being judged by the community? Being ostracized by the community? What if a person doesn’t commit a sin at all, but doesn’t conform to a community’s standards?

I believe the Torah’s deliberate language choice is teaching us a dictum that was championed by Bruriah in the Talmud. Hate the sin, love the sinner. 

We don’t always have to agree with the things people do, or the way they choose to live their lives. But particularly when the choices people make are not criminal at all, and certainly not against the Torah’s rules, at most our right is to privately object, while publicly embracing the Jew.

Accepting the person while not condoning the behavior is an important distinction in Jewish communal living. The Torah gives us this instruction when it comes to facing the reality of our fellow Jews committing “Torah crimes” we might abhor or find detestable. At the very least, a similar standard should be held for those who look and live differently than we do, but who are nevertheless fellow Jews who have a different way.