Appropriately, at the apex of our history as a religion, Moshe, our greatest teacher, also rose to the zenith of the mountain top – Sinai. There we waited hopefully and expectantly. Yet, as time passed, we grew despondent. Where had our leader gone? Where was the iconoclast who fought against the doubts of Pharaoh and of his own people, who raised them from the dirges of slavery into the fullness of Freedom – where had he gone? Yet, rather then cry, rather then bemoan their fate, the people celebrate ecstatically with the creation of idols. What could possibly have motivated this polarization between extremes?
Erich Fromm, a Jewish psychoanalyst and philosopher of the early 20th century, describes an unceasing aspect of the human condition:
“Man – of all ages and cultures – is confronted with the solution of one and the same question: the question of how to overcome separateness, how to achieve union, how to transcend one's own individual life and find at-onement.” [1]
Fromm discusses the various ways in which Man over the ages has tried to deal with this dilemma:
“One way of achieving this aim lies in all kinds of Orgiastic States . . . As long as these orgiastic states are a matter of common practice in a tribe, they do not produce anxiety or guilt. To act in this way is right, and even virtuous, because it is a way shared by all . . .”
“Also in contemporary Western Society the union with the groups is the prevalent way of overcoming separateness. It is a union in which the individual self disappears to a large extent and where the aim is to belong to the herd.”
Rav Soloveitchik echoes similar sentiments:
“Pragmatic expositions of the essence of the religious act . . . behold in religion a refuge of repose for man, who is shattered b the numerous, discordant forces of the secular world; religion offers happiness and comfort. In such a spirit William James speaks of the religion of the happy-minded” that serves him as a model of the religious attitude.” [2]
Man turns to religion to avoid the “discordant forces” and to be comforted instead.
Bnei Yisrael became reliant on Moshe not for the sake of his message, but for the comfort he provided them. His absence allowed the discordant forces to rise up from where they were concealed. Thus, the people immediately turned to any other source to fill this void.
Yet this is an egregious outlook of the religious orientation. As Rabbi Soloveitchik says:
“The religious experience, however, is beyond granting man a hedonic status or spiritual complacency. To the contrary, the religious experience is fraught with pitfalls and continual challenges. God, if man finds Him, does not relieve the God-seeker of his imperatives but imposes new ones.”
Man strives not for comfort, but for following the true course. The people who had such a utilitarian approach to religion could not be given the law, the Luchot, under such auspices, as it would be a complete misrepresentation of the Law. The Law is followed for its own sake, for the righteous way of life it provides, and not for a hedonic utilitarian purpose. Moshe now climbs to the peak of the mountain again, this time to retrieve the Law with the proper mindset.
[1] The Art of Loving, pp. 8-12
[2] Shiurei HaRav, pp. 4-5
Showing posts with label Simcha Gross. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Simcha Gross. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Shemot - A sequel to Bereishit
The beginnings of Sefer Shemot and Sefer Bereishit share a number of interesting parallels. We will identify them and then attempt to understand their meaning.
Shemot begins with a summary of Bereishit's end, establishing continuity between the two books. The first five Pasukim list off the seventy people who traveled to Mitzrayim with Yaakov, a list previously mentioned in Bereishit 46. The text then describes the exponential growth that the nation undergoes, using very familiar terminology:
ז וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, פָּרוּ וַיִּשְׁרְצוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ וַיַּעַצְמוּ--בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד; וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ, אֹתָם
But the Isrealites were fertile and prolific; they multiplied and increased very greatly, so that the land was filled with them. (Shemot 1:7)
This is very reminiscent of Creation's famous language:
כח וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם, אֱלֹהִים, וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, וְכִבְשֻׁהָ
God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it … (Bereishit 1:28)
As well as the conclusion of the Deluge narrative:
א וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-נֹחַ וְאֶת-בָּנָיו; וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ, וּמִלְאוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ
Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee . . . that they may swarm in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.' (Bereishit 9:1)
A second connection appears with the birth of Moshe. As soon as he enters the world, one detail is immediately apparent:
ב וַתַּהַר הָאִשָּׁה, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן; וַתֵּרֶא אֹתוֹ כִּי-טוֹב הוּא, וַתִּצְפְּנֵהוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה יְרָחִים.
And the woman conceived, and bore a son; she saw him that he was good and she hid him three months. (Shemot 2:2)
His mother sees that "Ki Tov Hu." Indeed, these are the well-known words that conclude every day of Creation. You may remember that the Midrash interprets the phrase to mean that the room lit up with Moshe's presence. The Midrash is just following the obvious parallel to Bereishit's initial use of the term – God's creation of light.
A few months later, Moshe's life includes another Bereishit connection. No longer able to hide him, Moshe's mother hatches a desperate, almost far-fetched plan. The connection is clear: as she lays the basket upon the
There is one more pecularity in this section. "Elohim" is the only name of God used in the beginning of Shemot, the same "natural" name of God employed throughought the opening narratives of Bereishit.
So what does this tell us? What themes do these textual clues point to?
The opening chapters of Bereishit emphasize God's total control of world events and, in the end, his total dedication to the human race. In the opening chapters of Am Yisrael's history, Chumash stresses God's total involvement and commitment to His newest creation, the Jewish people. We begin with Pharaoh's three attempts to destroy Am Yisrael, which are met by the Jew's uncanny ability to thrive in the face of persecution. After Pharaoh's first attempt, the Torah pronounces this theme explicitly:
"But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad." No matter what challenges were set before them, Bnei Yisrael somehow continue to exponentially reproduce. Pharaoh then contacts the midwives who famously disobey his orders. Finally, Pharaoh decrees that all male children must be mercilessly tossed into the
But there is more to this multifaceted connection, for the Jewish people are not meant to be just any other nation. To a certain degree, we represent a "new creation," unlike the nations presented in the beginning of Bereishit. They form themselves around their own individualized mission statements, while Bnei Yisrael is established by God and devoted to His Divine mission. The message may be taken one step further: Bnei Yisrael's formation and assignment are the next step in a single, ongoing creation. Our existence helps complete this world, helps guide the world towards the purpose for which it was created. This theme is the perfect way to start the Sefer – it is not a local, narrow glance at a specific nation, an anticlimactic change of focus from universalistic humanism to particularistic tribalism. Rather, it represents the continuation of the mission God put forth for all mankind, the mission that began in those famous Perekim that open Sefer Bereishit. The Bereishit narrative ends anticlimactically, lacking the declarative "Ki Tov Hu" - yet with Moshe's - and Bnei Yisrael's – birth, the maternal "Ki Tov Hu" completes the creation narrative and begins a new chapter in world history.
QuickNotes for the Shabbos Table
--The beginning of Shemot uses some of the most famous phrases from the story of creation.
--Bnei Yisrael is "paru u'rvu", Moshe is seen to be "Ki Tov", Shem Elohim is dominant, and Moshe stays alive on a floating ark.
--The Jewish people represent a "new creation." But what does this mean? Is our special role a privilege or a responsibility? Was the world created for the Jewish people, or was the Jewish people created for the world?
--Bnei Yisrael is "paru u'rvu", Moshe is seen to be "Ki Tov", Shem Elohim is dominant, and Moshe stays alive on a floating ark.
--The Jewish people represent a "new creation." But what does this mean? Is our special role a privilege or a responsibility? Was the world created for the Jewish people, or was the Jewish people created for the world?
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Mikeitz
Mikeitz contains a noteworthy use of a classic Torah tool: contrast and foil. Three times Reuven and Yehuda are confronted with similar situations yet respond from very different perspectives.
1. Mechirat Yosef: Reuven recommends leaving Yosef to passively die, so as to not be guilty of his murder. Yehuda is against any form of murder and advises that Yosef merely be sold.
2. Bringing Binyamin to Mitzraim: For compensation in case Binyamin is harmed, Reuven pledges to kill his own two son's, while Yehuda makes himself – and only himself – completely responsible if something goes awry.
3. Trouble in Egypt: When the brothers connect their problems in Egypt to their guilt for selling Yosef, Reuven distances himself from the group, blaming everyone but himself. Yehuda likewise separates himself from his brothers, but in leading the way out of their troubles.
At first glance, the contrast is clear: Yehuda's altruism versus Reuven's self-interest. In each case of crisis, Reuven sacrifices others in order to clear his own name, while Yehuda focuses on actually aiding those in danger. Even if Reuven secretly plans on saving Yosef from the pit ("but lay no hand upon him") we suspect him of doing it for his own glory ("that he might deliver him out of their hand, to restore him to his father").
It's possible, however, to see something deeper than simple self-absorption. It's possible to see a motivating force that touches upon one of Sefer Breishit's most prominent themes.
Names in Tanach often communicate important messages about their owner, to the point that it is often difficult to distinguish between actual name and descriptive moniker. (See Rashi on Malachi 1:1) Reuven is a case in point:
From his very conception, Reuven is constructed as a tool to win for Leah Yaakov's love and preference. In many ways, Reuven’s life shadows this burning desire. In fact, within this very birth narrative, we get our first glimpse of Reuven:
16 And Jacob came from the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said: 'Thou must come in unto me; for I have surely hired thee with my son's mandrakes.' And he lay with her that night.
Reuven's help allows Leah to get ‘one up’ on Rachel. Leah trades the mandrakes for Rachel’s time with Yaacov. It's important to note that this represents more than just Leah’s wish to conceive, but a symbolic attempt to usurp Rachel’s place by Yaacov’s side. Through Reuven's handiwork, using “Reuven's mandrakes” (15,16), she acquires Yaakov's time and seed from Rachel.
Even after Rachel's death, Reuven's participation in the rivalry continues- in fact, with Yaakov's old favorite lost forever, Reuven's advocacy reaches its peak. Reuben’s licentious act with Bilhah occurs immediately after Rachel's passing, within the very same Parsha (paragraph):
21 And Israel journeyed, and spread his tent beyond Migdal-eder.
22 And it came to pass, while Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine; and Israel heard of it.
The proximity of the two stories can not be ignored. With Rachel out of the way, Bilha is the only threat standing between Leah and Yaakov. Reuben’s disreputable actions with her insure that Bilha will never be Yaakov's preferred mate.
What comes out is a Reuven completely rooted in the mindset of Bechira (selection). From his point of view, the pattern of a selected and rejected son still applies. Looking back at Yitzkhak-Yishmael and Esav-Yaakov there is no reason to assume that the patter of sons battling for succession is over. One son – or group of sons – shall continue Yaakov's line, while the others will fall into perpetual other-dom. Reuven follows a consistent pattern: trying to win selection for Leah and himself:
1. He attempts a secret, heroic rescue of Yosef to gain favor in his father's eyes.
2.He attempts to shift blame for Mekhirat Yosef onto the other brothers.
3.In trying to persuade Yaakov to intrust him with Binyamin's safety, he offers the best possible collateral: the death of his two sons will leave Reuven childless and physically incapable of continuing Yaakov's heritage. Someone else will be selected.
1. Mechirat Yosef: Reuven recommends leaving Yosef to passively die, so as to not be guilty of his murder. Yehuda is against any form of murder and advises that Yosef merely be sold.
2. Bringing Binyamin to Mitzraim: For compensation in case Binyamin is harmed, Reuven pledges to kill his own two son's, while Yehuda makes himself – and only himself – completely responsible if something goes awry.
3. Trouble in Egypt: When the brothers connect their problems in Egypt to their guilt for selling Yosef, Reuven distances himself from the group, blaming everyone but himself. Yehuda likewise separates himself from his brothers, but in leading the way out of their troubles.
At first glance, the contrast is clear: Yehuda's altruism versus Reuven's self-interest. In each case of crisis, Reuven sacrifices others in order to clear his own name, while Yehuda focuses on actually aiding those in danger. Even if Reuven secretly plans on saving Yosef from the pit ("but lay no hand upon him") we suspect him of doing it for his own glory ("that he might deliver him out of their hand, to restore him to his father").
It's possible, however, to see something deeper than simple self-absorption. It's possible to see a motivating force that touches upon one of Sefer Breishit's most prominent themes.
Names in Tanach often communicate important messages about their owner, to the point that it is often difficult to distinguish between actual name and descriptive moniker. (See Rashi on Malachi 1:1) Reuven is a case in point:
לב וַתַּהַר לֵאָה וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן, וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ רְאוּבֵן: כִּי אָמְרָה, כִּי-רָאָה יְהוָה בְּעָנְיִי--כִּי עַתָּה, יֶאֱהָבַנִי אִישִׁי.
32 And Leah conceived, and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben; for she said: 'Because the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; for now my husband will love me.' From his very conception, Reuven is constructed as a tool to win for Leah Yaakov's love and preference. In many ways, Reuven’s life shadows this burning desire. In fact, within this very birth narrative, we get our first glimpse of Reuven:
יד וַיֵּלֶךְ רְאוּבֵן בִּימֵי קְצִיר-חִטִּים, וַיִּמְצָא דוּדָאִים בַּשָּׂדֶה, וַיָּבֵא אֹתָם, אֶל-לֵאָה אִמּוֹ; וַתֹּאמֶר רָחֵל, אֶל-לֵאָה, תְּנִי-נָא לִי, מִדּוּדָאֵי בְּנֵךְ. טז וַיָּבֹא יַעֲקֹב מִן-הַשָּׂדֶה, בָּעֶרֶב, וַתֵּצֵא לֵאָה לִקְרָאתוֹ וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלַי תָּבוֹא, כִּי שָׂכֹר שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ בְּדוּדָאֵי בְּנִי; וַיִּשְׁכַּב עִמָּהּ, בַּלַּיְלָה הוּא.
14 And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them unto his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah: 'Give me, I pray thee, of thy son's mandrakes.'16 And Jacob came from the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said: 'Thou must come in unto me; for I have surely hired thee with my son's mandrakes.' And he lay with her that night.
Reuven's help allows Leah to get ‘one up’ on Rachel. Leah trades the mandrakes for Rachel’s time with Yaacov. It's important to note that this represents more than just Leah’s wish to conceive, but a symbolic attempt to usurp Rachel’s place by Yaacov’s side. Through Reuven's handiwork, using “Reuven's mandrakes” (15,16), she acquires Yaakov's time and seed from Rachel.
Even after Rachel's death, Reuven's participation in the rivalry continues- in fact, with Yaakov's old favorite lost forever, Reuven's advocacy reaches its peak. Reuben’s licentious act with Bilhah occurs immediately after Rachel's passing, within the very same Parsha (paragraph):
כ וַיַּצֵּב יַעֲקֹב מַצֵּבָה, עַל-קְבֻרָתָהּ--הִוא מַצֶּבֶת קְבֻרַת-רָחֵל, עַד-הַיּוֹם.
כא וַיִּסַּע, יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיֵּט אָהֳלֹה, מֵהָלְאָה לְמִגְדַּל-עֵדֶר.
כב וַיְהִי, בִּשְׁכֹּן יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּאָרֶץ הַהִוא, וַיֵּלֶךְ רְאוּבֵן וַיִּשְׁכַּב אֶת-בִּלְהָה פִּילֶגֶשׁ אָבִיו, וַיִּשְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל
20 And Jacob set up a pillar upon her grave; the same is the pillar of Rachel's grave unto this day. כא וַיִּסַּע, יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיֵּט אָהֳלֹה, מֵהָלְאָה לְמִגְדַּל-עֵדֶר.
כב וַיְהִי, בִּשְׁכֹּן יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּאָרֶץ הַהִוא, וַיֵּלֶךְ רְאוּבֵן וַיִּשְׁכַּב אֶת-בִּלְהָה פִּילֶגֶשׁ אָבִיו, וַיִּשְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל
21 And Israel journeyed, and spread his tent beyond Migdal-eder.
22 And it came to pass, while Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine; and Israel heard of it.
The proximity of the two stories can not be ignored. With Rachel out of the way, Bilha is the only threat standing between Leah and Yaakov. Reuben’s disreputable actions with her insure that Bilha will never be Yaakov's preferred mate.
What comes out is a Reuven completely rooted in the mindset of Bechira (selection). From his point of view, the pattern of a selected and rejected son still applies. Looking back at Yitzkhak-Yishmael and Esav-Yaakov there is no reason to assume that the patter of sons battling for succession is over. One son – or group of sons – shall continue Yaakov's line, while the others will fall into perpetual other-dom. Reuven follows a consistent pattern: trying to win selection for Leah and himself:
1. He attempts a secret, heroic rescue of Yosef to gain favor in his father's eyes.
2.He attempts to shift blame for Mekhirat Yosef onto the other brothers.
3.In trying to persuade Yaakov to intrust him with Binyamin's safety, he offers the best possible collateral: the death of his two sons will leave Reuven childless and physically incapable of continuing Yaakov's heritage. Someone else will be selected.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Vayeshev
When mapping out the Yosef story, clothing is Chumash’s language of choice. Yosef exchanges attire no less than six times and each example marks a new stage in his development.
To understand the significance of Yosef’s garb, we have to comprehend how Sefer Breishit employs clothing. We have four explicit examples: Adam and Hava conceal their nakedness (3:21), Rivka covers her face from her fiance(24:65), Yaakov hides his identity in Esau’s dress (27:15), and Tamar shrouds herself in the clothes of a harlot (38:14). In all four cases, clothing is a means of concealing. Be it flesh or identity, clothing serves primarily to restrain something troubling which lies within.
Yosef breaks the mold. The Ketonet Pasim, or "many colored coat," can be summarized in one word: loud. It’s a vivid symbol of pride, a constant expression of Yosef’s preferred status. Understandably, this offends the brothers, and their response strikes right on target: Yosef the body survives their attack, while Yosef the garment – the narcissistic and intolerable personality traits - lies torn, bloodied, . . . assassinated.
Does Yosef take the message to heart? He regains preferential treatment, this time in the house of Potiphar, which accords him both honor and privilege. For a man of entitlement and self-absorption, Eishet Potiphar sets a perfect trap. Faced with a choice between exercising his power – “Do I not deserve her?” – and the will of a moral God, Yosef conquers his ego and refuses her.
In portraying Eishet Potiphar's futile attempt, the Torah sets up a truly fantastic parallel:
Just as the brother's tear away Yosef's cloak, Potiphar's wife rips off his clothes. Whereas the first gash signaled the beginning of Yosef's great fall, the second ushers in a noble return.
After twelve years of incarceration, he changes out of his prison clothes (41:14) and presents himself to Pharoah. Once more, Yosef wins preferential treatment, this time in the eyes of Pharoah himself.
Yosef's most challenging moment soon follows. Yet again, Yosef stands before his brothers in exceptional clothes and a position of power. The very siblings who destroyed his colored coat appear before a Yosef re-dressed. This time, however, Yosef does not flaunt his garments or the status they represent; he reverts to classic Breishit model, concealing his identity with his clothing (see 42:7). Indeed, he moves past that precedent. In the ultimate act of Tshuva, he provides the brothers with a highly symbolic reconciliation gift:
Ultimately, Yosef uses his power not to set himself apart, but to weave each member of Bnei Yisrael their own Kitonet Pasim.
-A change of clothing consistently means a gain in status, losing his clothing means a step down
-The Ketonet Pasim symbolizes his early flaws; the brothers tear and reject that part of him.
-Chumash contrasts the brother’s removal of his clothing with Eishet Potiphar’s tearing of his cloak: this time he makes the right set of choices
-When his brothers appear in Egypt, it's a Ketonet Pasim story all over again: this time instead oflaunting his power, he conceals himelf.
-In fact he learns to use his status for good, when he provides his brothers with their own sets of fine garments.
-Potential Message: How to deal with the special talents and abilities each of us have. Are they for our own self-aggrandizement, or should we realize the added responsibilities they confer on us? Should we use them to set ourselves apart, or to raise everyone up with us? Note the fine line between tzaddik and rasha: both have the exact same skills, its just a question of how we use them.
To understand the significance of Yosef’s garb, we have to comprehend how Sefer Breishit employs clothing. We have four explicit examples: Adam and Hava conceal their nakedness (3:21), Rivka covers her face from her fiance(24:65), Yaakov hides his identity in Esau’s dress (27:15), and Tamar shrouds herself in the clothes of a harlot (38:14). In all four cases, clothing is a means of concealing. Be it flesh or identity, clothing serves primarily to restrain something troubling which lies within.
Yosef breaks the mold. The Ketonet Pasim, or "many colored coat," can be summarized in one word: loud. It’s a vivid symbol of pride, a constant expression of Yosef’s preferred status. Understandably, this offends the brothers, and their response strikes right on target: Yosef the body survives their attack, while Yosef the garment – the narcissistic and intolerable personality traits - lies torn, bloodied, . . . assassinated.
Does Yosef take the message to heart? He regains preferential treatment, this time in the house of Potiphar, which accords him both honor and privilege. For a man of entitlement and self-absorption, Eishet Potiphar sets a perfect trap. Faced with a choice between exercising his power – “Do I not deserve her?” – and the will of a moral God, Yosef conquers his ego and refuses her.
In portraying Eishet Potiphar's futile attempt, the Torah sets up a truly fantastic parallel:
Just as the brother's tear away Yosef's cloak, Potiphar's wife rips off his clothes. Whereas the first gash signaled the beginning of Yosef's great fall, the second ushers in a noble return.
After twelve years of incarceration, he changes out of his prison clothes (41:14) and presents himself to Pharoah. Once more, Yosef wins preferential treatment, this time in the eyes of Pharoah himself.
Yosef's most challenging moment soon follows. Yet again, Yosef stands before his brothers in exceptional clothes and a position of power. The very siblings who destroyed his colored coat appear before a Yosef re-dressed. This time, however, Yosef does not flaunt his garments or the status they represent; he reverts to classic Breishit model, concealing his identity with his clothing (see 42:7). Indeed, he moves past that precedent. In the ultimate act of Tshuva, he provides the brothers with a highly symbolic reconciliation gift:
| כב לְכֻלָּם נָתַן לָאִישׁ, חֲלִפוֹת שְׂמָלֹת. | 22 To all of them he gave each man changes of raiment |
Ultimately, Yosef uses his power not to set himself apart, but to weave each member of Bnei Yisrael their own Kitonet Pasim.
QuickNotes for the Shabbos Table
-Clothing is a major theme in the Yosef stories-A change of clothing consistently means a gain in status, losing his clothing means a step down
-The Ketonet Pasim symbolizes his early flaws; the brothers tear and reject that part of him.
-Chumash contrasts the brother’s removal of his clothing with Eishet Potiphar’s tearing of his cloak: this time he makes the right set of choices
-When his brothers appear in Egypt, it's a Ketonet Pasim story all over again: this time instead oflaunting his power, he conceals himelf.
-In fact he learns to use his status for good, when he provides his brothers with their own sets of fine garments.
-Potential Message: How to deal with the special talents and abilities each of us have. Are they for our own self-aggrandizement, or should we realize the added responsibilities they confer on us? Should we use them to set ourselves apart, or to raise everyone up with us? Note the fine line between tzaddik and rasha: both have the exact same skills, its just a question of how we use them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
