Bamidbar - The Lesson of the Degalim

The second chapter of Parshas Bamidbar discusses the division of the Jewish population in the wilderness into four camps, each containing three tribes, surrounding the camp of the Levites,  with the Tabernacle in the center. Each of these four camps was to have a degel - banner - that symbolically represented the tribes within that camp (and, according to many sources, each tribe had its own banner as well).

The midrashim and commentaries discuss the symbolism and significance of these degalim (banners), and the division of the nation into camps, at great length. However, after all the discussion, we still need to understand what purpose there was in dividing up the nation in this manner and assigning each tribe its own symbol.

Many commentaries note that this system, with the regulated division of forces and the assignment of banners and symbols, closely resembles that of a military organization. Some understand this in the simple manner that this was intended to prepare the Jewish nation for military operations upon entering the land of Israel. Nevertheless, it seems self-evident that this was much more than simply a practical arrangement for pragmatic purposes. The midrashim clearly see in this division - "each man by his banner" - a spiritual lesson of profound significance. Indeed, the Medrash Tanchuma (Bamidbar 14) states that our future redemption will be in the merit of the banners (בזכות הדגלים אני גואל אתכם)!

It would seem that the basic message of the degalim was twofold. The first message of the degalim was to symbolize the unique status of the Jewish people as separate and distinct from all the other nations of the world. Thus, just like a military force moves and camps with banners, so that all who see them will know they exist to serve their king and nation, so too the Jewish people moved and camped with banners to declare that they exist to serve God. Thus, the most basic message of the degalim was that we must recognize that, like soldiers, we live to serve God and to obey His every command. It is this which sets us apart from all the other nations of the world. While every human being is obligated to serve God, just as every citizen is obligated to serve his king and nation, a Jew exists only to serve God, and every aspect of his life must be directed to that purpose.

By contrast, the second message of the degalim is that the fact that we all - as Jews - exist for the single purpose of serving God does not mean that we all are expected to serve God in exactly the same way. On the contrary, we see from the degalim that God not only acknowledges the diversity of the Jewish people but actually celebrates it. Every tribe had its own unique strengths and virtues that enabled it to serve God in its own unique fashion. Thus, the tribes camped separately, but were held together by the central camp of the Tabernacle, symbolizing the Torah, which must always remain our exclusive focus. (See my previous post: Noach - The Value of Diversity.)

When, as a nation, we truly internalize the lessons of the degalim, that we all must devote our lives to the service of God - each in our own way - then we will truly merit the coming of the redemption.

---

Acharei Mos-Kedoshim - The Laws of Sexual Morality: When a Mishpat Appears to be a Chok

The latter portion of parshas Acharei Mos is a list of the various sexual prohibitions. Before it begins the list, the Torah provides an introductory paragraph (Leviticus 18:1-5), which, in five brief sentences, covers several significant themes:

וידבר ה' אל משה לאמר: דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אלהם אני ה' אלקיכם: כמעשה ארץ מצרים אשר ישבתם בה לא תעשו וכמעשה ארץ כנען אשר אני מביא אתכם שמה לא תעשו ובחקתיהם לא תלכו: את משפטי תעשו ואת חקתי תשמרו ללכת בהם אני ה' אלקיכם: ושמרתם את חקתי ואת משפטי אשר יעשה אתם האדם וחי בהם אני ה':

And God spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: I am Hashem your God. You shall not do the actions of the land of Egypt, in which you lived, and you shall not do the actions of the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you, and you shall not walk in their ways. My laws (mishpatim) you shall do, and My decrees (chukim) you shall keep, to walk in them; I am Hashem your God. You shall keep My decrees and My laws, for a man shall do them and live by them, I am God.

While we can readily understand why the Torah would stress the importance of not imitating the ways of the Egyptians and Canaanite nations in its introduction to the sexual prohibitions, there are a number of less obvious themes stressed in this paragraph which require explanation.

Perhaps the most obvious is the repeated emphasis on the identity of God as the Commander of these laws. This, of course, is one of the most basic themes of the entire Torah, but why would it require special emphasis at this point?

Another theme that is strongly emphasized is the division of mitzvos into the categories of mishpatim and chukim - i.e. laws that, even if God had not commanded them, we would have needed to establish on our own, and laws which we only know by virtue of Divine revelation. According to the Sages (Yoma 67b and Sifra here), the laws of sexual morality are counted among the mishpatim - the laws accessible to reason - and there doesn't appear to be any obvious reason why the Torah should specifically emphasize this theme at this particular point.

I believe the Torah is actually making an extremely important point in this passage, and one that is of particular relevance to us today. The ultimate authority of all the mitzvos is the fact that they are commanded to us by God. Even though we are often able to recognize the necessity of a given mitzva based on our own understanding, we must never lose sight of the fact that the authority of the mitzvos does not depend on our comprehension of their purpose.

The categories of mishpatim and chukim are categories that exist only from a human perspective. Those laws which we are capable of comprehending are mishpatim, and those laws which we are not capable of comprehending are chukim. From God's perspective, however, there is obviously no such division.

Of course, as with all things, the ability to comprehend the mitzvos will vary from person to person. A mitzva that might be self-evident to one person may well be a total mystery to another. Perhaps even more importantly, mitzvos that might seem self-evident in one culture may be utterly incomprehensible in another.

While this can be seen in many areas, in no area is this more clear than when it comes to sexual morality. As we all know, different cultures often have radically different views on this subject. Moreover, as we have seen in the last century, even within a specific culture attitudes towards sexual morality can undergo radical change in a remarkably short period of time.

The Torah therefore goes out of its way to emphasize, in introducing these laws, that we must never forget Who gave us these laws, and that His laws are not dependent on our comprehension, and they do not change depending on the norms of the people around us. Whether we see these laws - or any specific aspect of these laws - as a mishpat or as a chok, we remain fully obligated to obey them.

To take this a step further, I believe there is an even deeper message in these passages. In the fourth verse of the introduction, the Torah tells us, "את משפטי תעשו ואת חקתי תשמרו ללכת בהם" - "My laws you shall do, and My decrees you shall keep, to walk in them." The words, "to walk in them," appear to be unnecessary and superfluous. The Sages (Sifra here, also cited by Rashi) explain that these words are actually referring to Torah study:

ללכת בהם עשם עיקר ואל תעשם טפלה. ללכת בהם שלא יהא משאך ומתנך אלא בהם שלא תערב בהם דברים אחרים בעולם. שלא תאמר למדתי חכמת ישראל אלמוד חכמת אומות העולם תלמוד לומר ללכת בהם אינך ראשי ליפטר מתוכן

"To walk in them" - Make them primary and not secondary.

"To walk in them" - Your discourse should be exclusively in them and you shall not intermingle other worldly matters with them.

A person should not say, "I have studied the wisdom of Israel, [and now] I shall study the wisdom of the nations of the world," for the Torah says, "To walk in them" - you are not authorized to take leave from them.

The Sages understand these words to be teaching us of the importance and primacy of Torah study, and, in particular, of the importance of not intermingling and equating the study of worldly knowledge or foreign wisdom with the Torah. While this is certainly an important basic concept, once again we have to explain why the Torah chose to stress this topic at this particular point.

To answer this question, I believe we need to return to our previous discussion on the categories of chok and mishpat. Based on what we said above - that the categories of mishpatim and chukim only exist from a human perspective, and that different people will often have very different perspectives on whether a given law is a mishpat or a chok - one might come to the conclusion that the distinction between mishpatim and chukim is entirely subjective. After all, as we just pointed out, there is no real difference between a chok and a mishpat. In either case, our obligation is the same. (Although there may be a difference with regards to perfecting our character, as Maimonides explains in chapter six of his Shemoneh Perakim.)

Nevertheless, the Torah strongly implies that these are actually objective categories. The Torah specifically refers to certain laws as mishpatim and others as chukim. Similarly, the Sages list specific commandments in each category (although there is no comprehensive list categorizing all of the mitzvos). This tells us that mishpatim are not simply those mitzvos that we happen to understand, but those mitzvos that a properly thinking human being will recognize as necessary. If the Torah and Sages categorize a given mitzva as a mishpat, then it is an error to categorize as as a chok, even if we find it incomprehensible. The fact that we find the mitzva incomprehensible, even though the Torah and the Sages say that it is a mishpat, indicates that, on some level, we are not thinking properly.

The failure to be able to properly recognize a mishpat as a mishpat is therefore indicative of a more basic flaw in our mental and spiritual state. As a general rule, the primary cause of such a flaw is the influence of our surrounding environment. As Maimondes writes (Hil. Deos 6:1), "it is the way of human nature for a person to be drawn, in his thoughts and deeds, after his neighbors and friends, and to behave in the manner of the people of his country."

It is for this reason that, specifically with regard to this topic, where the influence of the surrounding culture is particularly powerful, that the Torah emphasizes the importance of studying Torah - pure Torah - for it is only in this way that we can hope to overcome the influence of the surrounding culture so that we can recognize the self-evident immorality of behavior that, in the surrounding society, is seen as perfectly innocuous or even virtuous.

From this we can see that, as important as Torah study always is, to the degree that the surrounding environment becomes morally corrupt, especially with regard to sexual immorality, the more important it is for a Jew to focus on studying Torah with exclusive focus. I once heard in the name of Rav Yitzchak Hutner that in previous generations, a yeshiva was like the mishkan (Tabernacle) in the Jewish camp in the wilderness, for the entire community was a place of holiness and fear of God, and the yeshiva was simply a place of exceptional holiness. In our generation, however, Rav Hutner said that the yeshiva is like Noah's ark, for the outside world is flooded with explicit immorality, and the only place of shelter is within the walls of the yeshiva.

We live today in a time of extraordinary challenge for a Jew, in which the outside world appears to beckon welcomingly, but in which even our most basic morals and beliefs are often viewed with disdain and even condemnation. It can be extraordinarily difficult to avoid adopting many of the basic attitudes of the surrounding culture. It is all too common to find that even Jews who are fully observant have nevertheless internalized many of these basic attitudes, and often feel subtly embarrassed or ashamed of the teachings of the Torah. It is precisely for this reason that, in our generation, it is particularly important for us to stress and support Torah study.

---

UPDATE: I address some of these topics further in a follow-up post: The Sexual Prohibitions: Chukim or Mishpatim?

---

The Message of the Ten Plagues

The Sefas Emes, R' Yehuda Aryeh Leib of Gur, d.1905, taught in the name of his grandfather, the Chiddushei HaRim:

כי עשר מכות נגד עשרה מאמרות ועל ידי זה באו אחר כך לעשרת הדברות

“The Ten Plagues parallel the Ten Utterances [with which the world was created] and through this they came afterwards to the Ten Commandments.”

The Ten Plagues enabled the Jewish people to make the transition from the Ten Utterances of Creation to the Ten Commandments at Mt. Sinai. What was this transition and how did the Plagues make it possible?

Rav Yosef Albo (d.1444), in his Sefer HaIkkarim, writes (1:4):

העקרים הכוללים והכרחיים לדת האלקית הם שלשה, והם: מציאות השם, וההשגחה לשכר ולענש, ותורה מן השמים.

“The basic and essential principles for a Divine religion are three, (1) the existence of God, (2) supervision for reward and punishment, and (3) Torah from Heaven.”

The concept of the עשרה מאמרות  - Ten Utterances of Creation - refers to the basic principle that God is the Creator of the Universe. However, in order to accept the Torah and its commandments we need to recognize that not only did God create the universe, but that He watches over the behavior of every individual human beings and that He cares about what we do. This is the concept of “השגחה לשכר ולענש” – “supervision for reward and punishment” – and it is an essential prerequisite for accepting the Torah. This principle was taught to the Jewish people by the precise מדה כנגד נדה (“measure for measure”) punishments with which God struck the Egyptians in the Ten Plagues.

Thus, the עשרה מאמרות (Ten Utterances of Creation) teach us מציאות השם (the existence of God) and the עשר מכות (Ten Plagues) teach us the principle of השגחה לשכר ולענש (supervision for reward and punishment) bringing us to the עשרת הדברות (Ten Commandments) which are the essence of תורה מן השמים (Torah from Heaven).

---

Yisro - Torah as the Measure of a Jew

What does it mean to be a Jew? When I describe myself as a Jew, what does that really mean?

It is readily apparent that none of the normal categories for group identification (e.g. ethnicity, race, nationality) really fit the Jewish people. It might be tempting to define a “Jew” as an adherent to the religion known as “Judaism”, but, while religion is certainly an important aspect of Jewish identity, such a definition doesn’t really work either.

This question is not simply theoretical. A Jew has an obligation to identify with the Jewish people. As we have discussed previously, the Sages tell us that there were "wicked" and "sinful" Jews who died during the plague of darkness. What was so wicked and sinful about these Jews? We are told only this: That they were comfortable in Egypt and did not wish to leave. Their sin was that they had separated themselves from the community, and did not see themselves as an inseparable part of the Jewish people.

This raises an obvious and critical question. What does it actually mean, in practical terms, to be part of the Jewish people? As we see from the fate of these Egyptian Jews, a large part of it is that we are required to identify with other Jews and to see our fates as inextricably intertwined, so that what is "good for the Jews" is good for us, and what is "bad for the Jews" is bad for us. Thus, Chazal teach us, "אל תפרוש מן הצבור" - "Do not separate from the community,” which means that when the community is suffering, you have an obligation to bear the burden and suffer together with the community, even if the problem does not directly affect you. Indeed, we are taught that one who separates from the community when it is suffering will not merit to see the community's deliverance.

However, while it is clear that a Jew is obligated to identify with the Jewish people, and to bear the burdens of the community, this alone does not really answer our question. After all, people can disagree on what is and what is not "good for the Jews." We can be sure that many of the Jews that wished to remain in Egypt honestly believed that remaining in Egypt was "good for the Jews." Instead of just giving up on Egypt, they believed that the Jewish people should be using the opportunity provided by the plagues to fight for full civil rights as Egyptian citizens. To these people, remaining in Egypt – the center of civilization – was "good for the Jews", while running off to conquer some insignificant backwater was obviously "bad for the Jews."

Even if we think they were wrong, why did simply having this opinion make them "wicked" and "sinful"? These Jews didn't see themselves as turning their back on their people. On the contrary, they sincerely believed that their approach was in the best interests of the Jewish people. What made their opinion so invalid that not only was it wrong, but it essentially cut them off from the Jewish nation?

The root of the problem was that Moses, the prophet of God, had made it very clear that the God wanted the Jewish people out of Egypt. That should have been the end of the debate. If God wants us out, then clearly that is what is "good for the Jews." So, regardless of their intent, their opinion was one that was in conflict with God’s vision of the purpose of the Jewish people.

Identifying with the Jewish people cannot be separated from the recognition that the Jewish people are the chosen people of God to whom He has revealed His intent through His Torah and His prophets. The Jewish people are not a nation like other nations; rather we are a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation." We are the "children of God", His "first-born son", and any identification with the Jewish people that fails to include these factors is as false as it would be for a brother to insist on his familial relationship with his siblings while denying his connection to their father.

Rav Saadia Gaon famously wrote (Emunos v’Deos 3:7), אומותינו איננה אומה כי אם בתורותיה – “Our nation is only a nation through its Torah.” The Torah is what truly binds us together and it is the reason for our existence as a nation. We express this recognition every morning when we recite the Birchos HaTorah (Blessings on the Torah) in which we declare:

ברוך אתה ה' אלקינו מלך העולם אשר בחר בנו מכל העמים ונתן לנו את תורתו. ברוך אתה ה' נותן התורה

Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, Who chose us from among all the nations and gave us His Torah. Blessed are You, Hashem, Who gives the Torah.

R’ Samson Raphael Hirsch explains (Siddur, p.9):

From the very beginning, His purpose in electing us was to give us His Torah, to make us its bearers, students, and executors (Exodus 3:12). Our entire historical significance among the nations stands and falls by the manner in which we cultivate and cherish the Torah in our midst. Should we ever cease to know the Torah, or to fulfill it, we should also cease to have a place among mankind.

The Torah is the core of all true Jewish identity. To truly identify as a Jew means to recognize the Torah as the purpose of our existence and, as in R’ Hirsch’s words, to "cultivate and cherish the Torah in our midst." It is this that is the true measure of one’s identity as a Jew.

R' Elchonon Wasserman

R’ Elchonon Wasserman once wrote (Daas Torah):

דער ריכטיגער באַראָמעטער אין אידישקייט, וויפיעל גראַד אידישקייט יעדער האָט, זאָל באַטראַכטען ווי איז זיין באַציהונג צו תורה: צו ער לערענט אַליין, צו ער גיט זיינע קינדער צום לערנען, און צו ער איז מחזיק תורה.

The true barometer of Judaism with which to measure a person’s level of Jewishness is a person’s relationship with the Torah: Does he study Torah himself? Does he send his children to study? And does he support Torah study?

To identify as a Jew requires much more than simply the mere assertion of such an identity, no matter how strongly felt. It requires a genuine commitment to what the Jewish nation actually is: God’s kingdom of priests, who heard the voice of God at Mt. Sinai and received His Torah.

---

Vayechi - The Merit of Zevulun

In Parshas Vayechi we read of Jacob’s blessings to his sons before his passing. After blessing the four eldest sons of Leah, Jacob then blessed Leah’s two youngest sons, Yissachar and Zevulun. However, in this case, Jacob blessed Zevulun before his elder brother, Yissachar, saying (Genesis 49:13):

זבולן לחוף ימים ישכן והוא לחוף אנית וירכתו על צידן

Zevulun shall dwell by the seashores; he shall be a port for ships, and his border shall reach until Sidon.

Many commentaries note this change in order. The Midrash Tanchuma (Vayechi 11) explains:

קדם זבולן ליששכר, ולמה? שזבולן עוסק בפרקמטיא, ויששכר עוסק בתורה. עשו שותפות ביניהם שיהא פרקמטיא של זבולן ליששכר, שכן משה ברכן, "שמח זבולן בצאתך ויששכר באהליך", שמח זבולן בצאתך לפרקמטיא משום דיששכר באהליך עוסק בתורה. למה? "עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה." לפיכך הקדים זבולן ליששכר, שאלמלא זבולן לא עסק יששכר בתורה. ומתוך שנתיחד יששכר בתורה ולא עסק בפרקמטיא ולא היה לו עמל בדבר אחר לפיכך כתוב בו, "מבני יששכר יודעי בינה לעתים."

Why did he put Zevulun before Yissachar? For Zevulun was occupied in trade and Yissachar was occupied in Torah study. They made a partnership with each other, so that Yissachar would be supported by Zevulun’s trade. For thus were they they blessed by Moses (Deuteronomy 33:18), “Rejoice, Zevulun, in your going out, and Yissachar in your tents.” [Meaning,] “Rejoice, Zevulun, in your going out” for trade, because “Yissachar is in your tents” studying Torah. Why [should he rejoice]? “For it (i.e. the Torah) is a tree of life to those who support it.” (Proverbs 3:18). For this reason he gave priority to Zevulun over Yissachar, for if it were not for Zevulun, Yissachar would not be occupied with Torah. And from the fact that Yissachar was devoted exclusively to Torah, and was not involved with trade and did not have to labor in any other area, therefore it was said of him (1 Chronicles 12:33), “And from the children of Yissachar came men that had understanding of the times.”

The medrash tells us that Zevulun was given priority over Yissachar because he supported Yissachar in his Torah studies. The medrash adds that thanks to Zevulun’s support, Yissachar was able to devote himself purely to Torah study and thereby produced many important Torah scholars who served as leaders of the Jewish people.

The Seforno (R’ Ovadia Seforno, d.1550) expands on this teaching in his commentary:

והקדים זבולון העוסק בפרקמטיא ליששכר העוסק בתורה, וכן משה רבינו בברכתו, באמרו, "שמח זבולון בצאתך, ויששכר באהליך", כי אמנם אי אפשר לעסוק בתורה מבלי שישיג האדם קודם די מחסורו, כאמרם, "אם אין קמח, אין תורה." וכשיסייע האחד את חבירו להמציאו די מחסורו כדי שיעסוק בתורה, כמו שאמרו בזבולון, הנה עבודת הא-ל ית' בהשתדלות העוסק בתורה תהיה מיוחדת לשניהם.
וזאת היתה כונת התורה במתנות כהונה ולויה, שיסייע כל העם לתופשי התורה, שהם הכהנים והלויים, כאמרו "יורו משפטיך ליעקב," ויזכו כולם לחיי עולם, כאמרם, "כל ישראל יש להם חלק לעולם הבא."

He placed Zevulun, who is involved in trade, before Yissachar, who is involved in Torah study (as did our teacher, Moses, when he said (Deuteronomy 33:18), “Rejoice, Zevulun, in your going out, and Yissachar in your tents”) because it is not possible for a person to devote himself to Torah study unless he first is able to supply his basic needs, as the Sages taught (Avos 3:17), “If there is no flour, there is no Torah.” So, when a person helps provide his fellow with his basic needs so that he can devote himself to Torah study, as we are taught about Zevulun, the service of God that is achieved through the efforts of the one who is devoted to Torah study is attributed to both of them.

This is also the intent of the Torah with regard to the various gifts given to the Kohanim and Leviim, so that the entire nation should thereby provide support for the Torah scholars, who are the Kohanim and Leviim (as it says (Deuteronomy 33:10), “They shall teach Your law to Jacob”), and through this they will all merit eternal life, as the Sages say (Sanhedrin 90a), “Every Jew has a share in the world to come.”

The Seforno tells us that the underlying principle of the Yissachar and Zevulun arrangement, i.e. that by enabling others to study Torah we share in the merit earned through that Torah, is the basis for the relationship between the priestly tribe of Levi and the rest of the Jewish people. Moreover, the Seforno indicates that it is precisely this principle that makes it possible for the entire Jewish people to merit a share in the world-to-come.

So we find that Zevulun was blessed before Yissachar in order to teach us that Zevulun’s merit is equal to that of Yissachar (contrary to what we would otherwise have assumed), and they are equal partners in the merit of Yissachar’s Torah study.

However, this leaves us with a difficulty because, when all is said and done, Yissachar seems to be getting the far better end of the deal. Granted that, in the end, both Yissachar and Zevulun will share the merit equally, but in the meantime, while Zevulun is stuck working as a merchant, Yissachar actually gets to study Torah! (Of course, even with his support of Yissachar, Zevulun is still subject to the obligation to study Torah, just like any other Jew. However, the nature of the arrangement is such that Yissachar is able to devote himself to Torah to a far greater degree than Zevulun.)

We are all familiar with many famous verses and sayings that stress the great benefit and pleasure of Torah study in of itself, which stands entirely independent from the reward that it earns. As we say to God every evening in our prayers:

אהבת עולם בית ישראל עמך אהבת, תורה ומצות, חוקים ומשפטים, אותנו למדת. על כן ה' אלקינו, בשכבינו ובקומינו נשיח בחקיך, ונשמח בדברי תורתך ובמצותיך לעולם ועד, כי הם חיינו וארך ימינו ובהם נהגה יומם ולילה.

You have loved Your people, the House of Israel, with an eternal love, and You have taught us Torah and commandments, decrees and laws. Therefore, Hashem, our God, when we lay down and when we arise, we shall speak of Your decrees, and we shall rejoice in the words of Your Torah and in Your commandments for all eternity, for they are our life and the length of our days, and in them we shall meditate day and night!

The partnership between Yissachar and Zevulun would therefore seem to be grossly imbalanced in favor of Yissachar. Why would Zevulun be satisfied with such an arrangement, in which Yissachar gets both the pleasure and the merit of studying Torah, while Zevulun only gets to share in the merit? What is Zevulun’s compensation for accepting this role in the first place?

To add a slightly more esoteric element to our question, the Zohar HaKadosh (1:242a) also discusses the blessing of Zevulun:

אמאי אקדים בברכאן זבולון ליששכר תדיר? והא יששכר אשתדלותיה באורייתא, ואורייתא אקדים בכל אתר. אמאי אקדים ליה זבולון בברכאן? אבוי אקדים ליה, משה אקדים ליה. אלא זבולן זכה על דאפיק פתא מפומיה ויהב לפומיה דיששכר. בגיני כך אקדים ליה בברכאן. מהכא אוליפנא מאן דסעיד למריה דאורייתא נטיל ברכאן מעילא ותתא. ולא עוד אלא דזכי לתרי פתורי, מה דלא זכי בר נש אחרא. זכי לעותרא דיתברך בהאי עלמא וזכי למהוי ליה חולקא בעלמא דאתי.

Why is Zevulun always placed before [his elder brother] Yissachar in the blessings? [Especially,] being that Yissachar was devoted to Torah study, and the Torah is always given priority, why is Zevulun first in the blessings? [For we find that both] their father put him first and Moses put him first?
Zevulun merited because he took bread from his own mouth and gave it into the mouth of Yissachar. This is why he is before [Yissachar] in the blessings.
From here we learn that one who supports a Torah scholar receives blessing from above and below. And not only that, but he merits to two tables, that which no other person merits. He merits blessed wealth in this world, and he merits a share in the world-to-come.

From the Zohar we see that in addition to receiving reward both in this world and the next, Zevulun also receives “blessing from above and below.” What does that mean?

The Arugas HaBosem (commentary on the Torah by R’ Moshe Greenwald of Chust, d.1910) discusses the question of the apparent unfairness of the tribal blessings in relegating Zevulun to the mundane role of a merchant, in order to enable Yissachar to exclusively study Torah.

He compares this apparent injustice to a medrash (cited in Rashi on Leviticus 2:13) that says that on the second day of Creation, when God created the firmament to separate the “upper” and “lower” waters (Genesis 1:6-7), the lower waters complained of being separated from God. God appeased the lower waters by promising that they would be used in the Temple service, in the form of the salt added to every offering, and the nisuch hamayim – the water libation – of Sukkos.

Similarly, it would seem that the tribe of Zevulun would have been justified in complaining of their being “separated” from God, and being given the mundane task of earning money, while Yissachar is able to engage exclusively in Torah study. However, this is not so, for in reality Zevulun has been given a spiritual task that, in certain respects, is superior to that of Yissachar.

At the end of the book of Proverbs we read the famous poem, Eishes Chayil – “A Woman of Valor”. The commentaries tell us that, in addition to its simple meaning, this poem is also an allegory for the Torah. In the poem we read (Proverbs 31:14):

היתה כאניות סוחר ממרחק תביא לחמה:

She is like a trader’s ships, bringing her bread from afar.

A sea-merchant’s trade is based on the idea of buying merchandise in a location where it is plentiful and cheap, and then transporting the merchandise for sale in a location where it is rare and valuable. Generally speaking, the further the merchandise travels, the more valuable it becomes because of its rarity in its new location.

The Arugas HaBosem explains that just as a sea-trader’s merchandise is of great value because it comes from far away, in a similar sense, the Torah enables us to transport into this world a holiness that comes from highest spiritual realms, and also gives us the ability to lift our physical actions up to those same spiritual heights. Just as merchandise from far distant lands is precious, so too are our physical acts of avodas Hashem (service of God) of immense value in the Heavenly realms.

From this we can understand why the service of Zevulun, who works to earn money in order to support Torah study, is in certain respects even more precious than the service of Yissachar, who devotes himself purely to Torah study. For Zevulun takes the most mundane of activities and lifts it up to the highest spiritual heights by using his earnings to support Yissachar’s Torah study.

Zevulun, therefore, truly has no grounds for complaint, for his spiritual task is indeed equal, if not superior, to that of Yissachar. The Arugas HaBosem sees this idea as hinted to in the blessing, in the words, “זבולן לחוף ימים” – literally, “Zevulun dwells by the shores of the seas.” The verse ought to have said, “לחוף ים” – “by the shores of the sea” – in the singular. The use of the plural, “seas”, is an allusion to the “upper” and “lower” waters, and is telling us that we should not think that Zevulun's apparently mundane role has relegated him to the lower realm, but that, in reality, Zevulun dwells on the “shores of the seas” of both the lower and higher realms.

With this understanding, we can perhaps also explain the statement of the Zohar that Zevulun receives blessing “from above and below”. By supporting Yissachar, not only does Zevulun receive reward in this world and the next, but he also experiences the immediate blessing of spiritually unifying the highest and lowest realms.

Zevulun’s role as a supporter of Torah study is clearly far more significant that it might appear at first glance. While Yissachar represents the deveikus – spiritual connection with God – that is achieved through Torah study, Zevulun represents the deveikus that is achieved by fulfilling the concept taught by the Sages (Talmud, Brachos 63a):

איזוהי פרשה קטנה שכל גופי תורה תלוין בה? "בכל דרכיך דעהו"

What is a small verse upon which all the basics of Torah depend? “In all your ways know Him.” (Proverbs 3:6)

In his Asara Maamaros, the Shelah HaKadosh (R’ Isaiah Horowitz, d.1630) devotes the entire eighth maamar to this concept, which he describes as "דביקות הלב בכל הדרכים לעבודת ה' יתברך" – “Connecting the heart in every way to the service of God.” Towards the end of the maamar, the Shelah HaKadosh uses this idea to explain an otherwise difficult medrash on the verse in Psalms (119:59):

חשבתי דרכי ואשיבה רגלי אל עדתיך:

I considered my ways, and I turned my feet to your testimonies.

The medrash (Vayikra Raba 35:1) states:

אמ' דוד לפני הקב"ה, רבון העולמים בכל יום ויום הייתי מחשב ואומר למקום פלוני אני הולך , לבית דירה פלונית אני הולך, והיו רגליי מביאות אותי לבתי כניסיות ולבתי מדרשות, הה"ד ואשיבה רגלי אל עדותיך.

David said to the Holy One, blessed is He, “Master of the Worlds! Every day I plan and say, ‘I will go to such-and-such location,’ ‘I will go to the home of so-and-so,’ and my legs bring me to the synagogues and the batei medrash (houses of study).”

At first glance, this medrash seems to be saying that every day King David would plan out his day, yet despite his plans otherwise, he would always end up at the shuls and batei medrash! However, the Shelah HaKadosh rejects this understanding for several reasons, including the fact that this would imply that in some sense, King David’s free will had been compromised, which would make his good deeds meaningless.

Instead, the Shelah haKadosh explains that in reality, King David indeed made plans every day to take care of his many responsibilities as a king, and he did exactly what he planned to do. He went here, he visited there, and he met with whomever. However, King David is saying in this medrash that everything he did, throughout the day, as mundane and workaday as it seemed, was all for the purpose of maintaining the synagogues and study halls of the Jewish people. Thus, even though he was going here and there, from a spiritual perspective it was as if he was going to the synagogues and study halls himself!

While their techniques are different, both Yissachar and Zevulun are fulfilling the purpose of this world by spiritually lifting this physical world up to the highest spiritual realms. Each one makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution. This is the reason God made the world in such a manner, in which different people find themselves serving Hashem in different ways.

The Chofetz Chaim taught (ח"ח עה"ת) that God has never expected the entire Jewish people to be exclusively involved in Torah study. From the beginning of the establishment of the Jewish people, God gave different roles to different tribes, and He distinguished Yissachar as a tribe that was uniquely suited for exclusive Torah study and Zevulun as a tribe that was uniquely suited to the role of supporting Torah study. Together, the two tribes are the “pillars of the world”, for their combined efforts uphold God’s creation, which only exists through the merit of Torah study.

Today we no longer have the clear-cut roles that once existed for the tribes. Nevertheless, every one of us can still choose to be a pillar of the world if we truly devote ourselves to the study of Torah, whether through study or by supporting those who study, or, ideally, both!

---

Mikeitz - The Error of Desperation

At the end of last week's parsha, after Joseph intepreted the dream of Pharaoh's wine steward and told him that he would be freed from prison, he asked the wine steward to intercede on his behalf with Pharaoh. Yet, upon being freed, the wine steward immediately forgot Joseph and did nothing for him.

Parshas Mikeitz begins exactly two years later, when Pharaoh is himself experiencing a dreams that no one is able to explain. Suddenly the wine bearer remembers Joseph, the man who had interpreted his own dreams while he had been in prison.

The Midrash Raba (פט:ג) states that there was a reason for this two year delay:

ע"י שאמר לשר המשקים זכרתני והזכרתני ניתוסף לו שתי שנים

Because he said to the wine steward “remember me… and mention me” two years were added [to his time in prison].”

The Midrash seems to indicate that by asking the steward for help, Joseph demonstrated insufficient bitachon – trust in God. This is extremely puzzling, as we know that it is permitted, even required, to make normal efforts to solve our problems. We are not supposed to simply sit back and wait for God to miraculously help us. So what was wrong with what Joseph did?

The Chazon Ish

The Chazon Ish, Rav Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz (d.1953), in his work אמונה ובטחון, explains that the true essence of bitachon is an absolute certainty that God is always in control of events. A person who genuinely believes this will therefore never give up hope or act out of desperation, because he knows that even if he is not able to do anything himself, God is still in control.

When a person who feels a sense of desperation, i.e. that he has a problem for which he can find no reasonable solution, he will often attempt to solve his problem through methods that are extremely unlikely to succeed. He will do strange and unusual things because he believes that he has run out of alternatives. However, a person with genuine bitachon will never do this, because he always has God to fall back on.

In other words, while we are required to take normal, rational steps to care for ourselves, and we are not permitted to simply rely on God to miraculously provide us with all our needs and solve all our problems, this does not mean that bitachon has no practical expression. Bitachon means that once one has exhausted all reasonable means to deal with a problem, then the problem is no longer your responsibility. A person with genuine bitachon never feels that he has to "do something", no matter how crazy, because "doing something is better than doing nothing." From a Torah perspective, if the "something" is nothing more than a shot-in-the-dark act of desperation, then doing nothing actually is better than doing "something", for doing "something" demonstrates that one doesn't really believe that God is in control.

Based on this concept, the Chazon Ish explains that the nature of Egyptian society was such that it was extremely unlikely that the wine steward - a high ranking nobleman - would repay Joseph - a foreign slave - by mentioning him to the king. Thus, when Joseph asked the steward to remember him and mention him to Pharaoh, he knew that this was really just a wild "shot-in-the-dark", and that it was extremely unlikely to succeed. Such an act of desperation expressed a lack of bitachon that was inappropriate for a person on Joseph’s high spiritual level.

---

Vayeishev - The Scandal of Judah and Tamar

In Parshas Vayeishev we encounter the difficult story of Judah and Tamar. The verses (Genesis 38:15-16) state:

ויראה יהודה ויחשבה לזונה וכו'  ויט אליה וכו'

“And Judah saw her and thought she was a harlot… and he veered to her…”

The Midrash states:

אמר ר' יוחנן, בקש לעבור וזימן לו הקב"ה מלאך שהוא ממונה על התאוה. אמר לו, יהודה היכן אתה הולך? מהיכן מלכים עומדים? מהיכן גדולים עומדים? מהיכן גואלים עומדים? "ויט אליה אל הדרך" - בע"כ שלא בטובתו. (בראשית רבה פח:ח)

Rabbi Yochanan said, “Judah wanted to pass by, but God sent the angel who is appointed over lust. The angel said to him, “Judah! Where are you going? From where will kings come? From where will great men come? From where will redeemers come?” – “And he veered towards her on the road” – Forced against his goodwill.

The Rosh
Traditional Depiction

The union of Judah and Tamar created the ancestor of King david and, ultimately, of the messiah. We find shockingly embarrassing incidents repeatedly in the ancestry of the Jewish monarchy  – stories like that of Judah and Tamar, Lot and his daughters, Ruth and Boaz, and David and Bathsheba. Many commentators (שפתי כהן, דעת תורה, ועוד) note that, for very deep reasons, it is important that the messiah come from a family that is subject to scandals. Rabbeinu Asher (the Rosh, d.1327) (ספר הדר זקנים) explains this based upon a Talmudic teaching (Yoma 22b):

אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יהוצדק: אין מעמידין פרנס על הציבור אלא אם כן קופה של שרצים תלויה לו מאחוריו, שאם תזוח דעתו עליו ־ אומרין לו: חזור לאחוריך.

Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzedek, “We do not set up an authority over the community unless he has a heap of sheratzim (crawling creatures) hanging from behind him [Rashi explains, “family disgrace”], so that if his pride begins to rise over him, we say to him, ‘Look behind you!’”

It is important that a leader not think himself to be of a superior class over his people. Thus, it is best if a leader has embarrassing events in his family background, so that he does not become too arrogant. The same is doubly true of the kings of the Jewish nation. In fact, the Talmud also comments:

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: מפני מה לא נמשכה מלכות בית שאול ־ מפני שלא היה בו שום דופי.

Rav Yehuda said, “Shmuel said, ‘Why did the kingdom of Saul not persist? Because it had no [family] disgrace.’”

This teaches us the extreme importance of humility in a true leader.

---

V'Zos HaBracha - Torah is for Every Jew

Parshas V’zos HaBracha, which is read on Simchas Torah, is the final Torah reading of the yearly cycle. As is clear in the first few verses of the parsha, one of the main themes of this parsha is the centrality of the Torah in the identity of the Jewish people and their relationship with God. The “fiery law” of the Torah is the “inheritance of the congregation of Jacob.” The Torah is the portion of each and every Jew.

Every morning we recite the blessings on the Torah, saying:

ברוך אתה ה' אלקינו מלך העולם העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו לעסוק בדברי תורה

Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the Universe, Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to be occupied with words of Torah.

Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler

Rav Eliyahu Dessler (מכתב מאליהו א:89-91) explains that the term עוסק (to be occupied with) means to be totally focused on one matter to the exclusion of all else. This is our obligation towards Torah: to be totally interested in Torah, and only Torah, and our minds should never move from Torah.

But, Rav Dessler asks, how is this possible for ordinary people? If a person has a business or other affairs that he needs to deal with, doesn't this necessarily mean that he will be distracted from Torah?

Rav Dessler answers that this need not be so. Every person can make the Torah his total focus, even if he is also busy with ordinary matters. As Rav Dessler explains:

With my eyes I have seen a simple craftsman, an ignorant tailor, whose entire occupation in his business was only Torah. For all his thoughts and ambitions were focused on one goal – that his sons and sons-in law should be great Torah scholars. He himself lived on bread and water, and every penny he earned was devoted to this holy purpose. Thus, all his actions were literally עסק התורה – being occupied with Torah!

Our understanding of עסק התורה should not be limited only to the actual study of Torah. All activities that support and encourage the study of Torah are also part of עסק התורה.

The classic example of this is the partnership between the tribes of Zebulun and Issachar. The tribe of Zebulun engaged in commerce and supported the tribe of Issachar, who engaged in Torah study. This is what the verse refers to when it states (Deuteronomy 33:18), “Rejoice Zebulun in your going out [for commerce] and Issachar in your tents [i.e. the houses of study].”

Rav Dessler points out that both Zebulun and Issachar share in exactly the same rejoicing – for both tribes were equally devoted to Torah. Indeed, Rashi points out that Zebulun is mentioned first because it is he who enables Issachar to study Torah. (Rav Aharon Kotler adds that when Zebulun goes into the next world, he will gain the knowledge of all the Torah learning that he made possible in this world!)

The rejoicing of Simchas Torah is, therefore, not reserved for great Torah scholars. Every Jew, on his level, can and should be one whose true occupation is the Torah.

---

Book Review - "The Neshamah Should Have an Aliyah" by Rabbi Tzvi Hebel

When I started this blog, I was approached by a good friend, Rabbi Moshe Haikins, the founder and director of the Chevrah Lomdei Mishnah - The Society for the Mishnah Study, with the request that I read and review a book that they had published (in cooperation with Judaica Press). Of course, there is a danger in accepting such a request from a friend, as it entails the risk of having to inform your friend of your true opinion of the book. This is especially daunting when the book is already in print and your criticism can no longer serve any constructive purpose.

Thankfully, I was not faced with this difficulty in this case. In The Neshamah Should Have an Aliyah, Rabbi Tzvi Hebel has succeeded in producing an outstanding work that will probably become a standard text in the English speaking Jewish world. The work deals with an issue that everyone is eventually faced with; how to properly memorialize a deceased loved one according to Jewish tradition.

The book begins with a general overview of the different concepts that underlie the various traditional Jewish practices for memorializing the departed. All of these concepts are based upon the basic principle that the departed do not cease to exist at death, and that even after death, it is possible for the living to continue to contribute to the welfare of our loved ones who have passed on. Most significantly, the departed continue to gain merit through the good deeds of their children and family. Moreover, good deeds done with the intent to bring merit upon the deceased, are themselves raised to higher level, for in addition to the good deed itself, such acts also include the elements of chessed (kindness) and kibbud av v'eim (honor of parents).

However, the real strength and uniqueness of this work is in the next section, which makes up the bulk of the work, titled, "What You Can Do - A Practical Guide." This is a comprehensive, and very practical, guide to the many different traditional practices used to memorialize and gain merit for the deceased.

The only way to really appreciate how comprehensive this work is to look over the table of contents. The topics covered include Torah study (both during the period of mourning and afterwards), charity and chessed, prayer (covering the recitation of kaddish, yizkor, and other such practices), the tombstone, visiting the grave, naming children after the deceased, the yahrtzeit (yearly anniversary of the deceased's passing), and so on.

All of these are accompanied by highly practical advice and information. Thus, in reference to the practice of studying mishnayos during the shivah (first seven days of mourning) based upon the name of the deceased (in which each mishnah begins with a letter from the Hebrew name of the deceased), the publishers included an appendix to the book that has a mishnah with translation for each letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

Similarly, when discussing charity and chessed, the author includes an introduction to setting up a gemach - a fund for free loans of money or other acts of kindness - which can be an outstanding source of merit for both the deceased and the living. This book even includes names and phone numbers of organizations and experienced individuals who are willing to help you set up a gemach.

And, in connection to the practice of visiting the grave site, the book includes a separate pamphlet, printed on glossy card-stock, with the traditional prayers that are recited at the cemetery. The book also includes a CD with a presentation, both in audio (for a conventional CD player) and video, titled, "Providing Eternal Merit" by the world-famous speakers, Rabbi Yissocher Frand and Rabbi Paysach Krohn. (Obviously, these items are not included in the Kindle edition.)

The book even includes a sample agenda for a family meeting for discussing what the family can do to memorialize their departed loved ones.

Yet despite the comprehensive and practical nature of this work, Rabbi Hebel has succeeded in producing  a book that is of a reasonable size (well under 200 pages) and which is written in clear, accessible language. The book includes an index and glossary, and the longer sections are followed by bulleted summaries. 

In short, with this work, Rabbi Hebel has performed an extraordinary service for the Jewish community. He has provided us with a user-friendly guide to a topic that we are often first confronted with at a time of great stress. I highly recommend this work for every Jewish home.

---

Rabbi Hebel and the Chevrah Lomdei Mishnah have also published Mishnas Chayim, a collection of insights on the weekly Torah portion from the Mishnah originally published in their popular weekly parsha sheet.

---

Eikev - The Sin of Aaron

In Parshas Eikev, Moses recounts his dialogue with God in the aftermath of the sin of the golden calf and his efforts to intercede on the behalf of the Jewish people. In the course of his account, Moses mentions that God was angry not just with the Jewish people as a whole, but also with Aaron the priest (Deuteronomy 9:20), "And with Aaron God became very angry to destroy him, and I prayed for Aaron as well at that time."

This appears to be a clear statement that Aaron sinned in his actions at the time of the sin of the golden calf (as told in Exodus 32). However, this needs clarification because in Exodus there is no clear indication that God condemned Aaron's actions, and the Sages generally understand Aaron's apparent concessions at that time as an attempt to restrain and limit the sinful actions of the people who were demanding that Aaron construct a "god" for them to replace Moses.

These questions are raised by Rabbeinu Bachya (d.1340) in his commentary on this verse. He answers that God is judging Aaron is being judged according to a very high standard:

והתשובה בזה כי הקב"ה מדקדק עם הצדיקים אפילו כחוט השערה... ואע"פ שכוונתו היתה לשמים, מכל מקום המעשה לאהרן בידים היה חילול השם, ואע"פ שהוא לא חטא בו הנה החטיא את ישראל שלא בכוונה

The answer to this question is that God is demanding with the righteous to a hair's-breadth... and therefore, even though [Aaron's] intent was for the sake of Heaven, nevertheless Aaron's physical act was a desecration of the name of God, and while [Aaron] himself did not sin with [the calf], he unintentionally caused the Jewish people to sin.

So we find that Aaron is both praised and condemned for his actions at the time of the sin of the golden calf, and his actions are interpreted as both righteous and sinful. This dual perspective is reflected in the debate found in the commentaries on a somewhat vague passage in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 6b-7a). The Talmud is discussing the issue of a judge arbitrating a compromise:

רבי אליעזר בנו של רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר: אסור לבצוע, וכל הבוצע ־ הרי זה חוטא, וכל המברך את הבוצע ־ הרי זה מנאץ, ועל זה נאמר, "בצע ברך נאץ ה'"ץ אלא יקוב הדין את ההר, שנאמר, "כי המשפט לאלהים הוא", וכן משה היה אומר יקוב הדין את ההר. אבל אהרן אוהב שלום ורודף שלום, ומשים שלום בין אדם לחבירו, שנאמר, "תורת אמת היתה בפיהו ועולה לא נמצא בשפתיו בשלום ובמישור הלך אתי ורבים השיב מעון."

Rabbi Eliezer the son of R' Yosi HaGalili says: It is forbidden [for a judge] to compromise, and he who compromises sins, and anyone who blesses a compromiser blasphemes, for on this it is said (Psalms 10:3), "He who blesses a compromiser blasphemes against God."  Rather, let the law puncture through the mountain, as it says (Deuteronomy 1:17), "For the judgment is God's." And so Moses would say: "Let the law puncture through the mountain." But Aaron [who was not a judge, but a private citizen] loved peace and pursued peace and made peace between man and his fellow, as it says (Malachi 2:6), "The law of truth was in his mouth, injustice was not found in his lips, he walked with Me in peace and equity and he turned many away from sin."

While the exact ramifications of this discussion in legal terms is beyond the scope of this discussion, we find in this passage that while the Talmud condemns the encouragement of compromise by a sitting judge, it praises the pursuit of compromise outside the courtroom, as exemplified by Aaron. The Talmud continues discussing the propriety of compromise in a court setting and then concludes:

אמר רבי תנחום בר חנילאי: לא נאמר מקרא זה אלא כנגד מעשה העגל, שנאמר, "וירא אהרן ויבן מזבח לפניו." מה ראה? אמר רבי בנימין בר יפת אמר רבי אלעזר: ראה חור שזבוח לפניו, אמר: אי לא שמענא להו השתא עבדו לי כדעבדו בחור, ומיקיים בי "אם יהרג במקדש ה' כהן ונביא", ולא הויא להו תקנתא לעולם. מוטב דליעבדו לעגל, אפשר הויא להו תקנתא בתשובה.

R' Tanchum bar Chanilai said: This verse was said only with regard to the story of the [golden] calf, as it says (Exodus 32:5), "And Aaron saw and he built an altar before it."  What did he see? — R' Binyamin bar Yaphes said in the name of R' Elazar: He saw that Chur was slaughtered before him. [Aaron] said, If I do not listen to them, they will now do to me as they did to Chur, and through me (i.e. my death) will be fulfilled [the verse] (Lamentations 2:20), "if a priest and a prophet will be killed in the Sanctuary of God" and there will be no rectification for them forever! It is better that they serve the calf, for which a rectification through repentance is possible.

Here we find an explanation of why Aaron decided it was better to cooperate with the sin of the golden calf rather than directly oppose it. However, there is a significant ambiguity in the discussion. When R' Tanchum bar Chanilai says, "this verse", what verse is he actually referring to?

Rashi understands R' Tanchum bar Chanilai to be referring to the verse from Psalms cited in the earlier passage, "He who blesses a compromiser blasphemes against God." According to Rashi, R' Tanchum bar Chanilai is criticizing Aaron's action, saying that, while Aaron certainly had good intentions, he ultimately engaged in an illicit compromise.

Tosafos, however, understands R' Tanchum bar Chanilai to be referring to the verse from Malachi cited earlier with regards to Aaron, "The law of truth was in his mouth, injustice was not found in his lips, he walked with Me in peace and equity and he turned many away from sin." According to Tosafos, R' Tanchum bar Chanilai is actually defending, and even praising, Aaron, saying that through his actions at the time of the sin of the golden calf "he turned many away from sin."

It appears that Tosafos' understanding is generally accepted as the dominant opinion in this debate. This may be because it reflects a sentiment found in many other midrashic sources that discuss Aaron's role in the sin of the golden calf. For example, the medrash (Vayikra Rabba 10:3) states that is what because of his actions at the time of the sin of the golden calf, and his willingness to shift the burden of guilt from the Jewish people to himself, that Aaron was chosen to be the first, and ancestor of, the kohanim (priests).

How then, however, are we to understand the clear condemnation of Aaron's actions here in Parshas Eikev?

One possible answer is given by the Taz (R' Dovid HaLevi, d.1667) in his commentary on Rashi on this verse (בספרו דברי דוד), who suggests that perhaps the sin of Aaron was that, although his primary motivation was certainly for the sake of Heaven, because of his fear for his life, Aaron failed to pray for God to inspire the sinners to turn away from their sinful actions.

However, it would seem that the primary answer is more basic, and is found in the commentary of Rabbeinu Bachya that we quoted at the beginning of this discussion. It is certainly true that Aaron had good intentions, and that, in the big picture, his act was not truly a sin at all but an act of righteousness and self-sacrifice which, ultimately, saved many people from sin. Nevertheless, when all is said and done, there remains an inescapable element of chillul Hashem (desecration of God's name) in the fact that Aaron, one of the most righteous men of all time, not only failed to openly oppose the worshipers of the golden calf, but was actually the one who made the calf for them!

Just as justice required that God recognize and reward Aaron's good intentions, it also demanded that Aaron atone for the element of chillul Hashem in his actions. As we know, chillul Hashem is considered one of the worst possible sins. Chazal tell us that, unlike other sins, one is held liable for an unintentional chillul Hashem in a manner similar to an intentional sin (Avos 4:4) and that even repentance, Yom Kippur, and suffering cannot atone for the sin of chillul Hashem and full atonement for chillul Hashem can only be achieved through death (Yoma 86a).

For a person who had reached the heights of perfection that Aaron had achieved, this flaw was all the more glaring and significant. Thus, there is no real contradiction between the various sources that praise Aaron for his actions and those that condemn his actions.

---

The Age of Moses

Recently, one of my chavrusos raised a question that seemed like a really difficult problem. Towards the end of Deuteronomy (31:2, 34:7) the Torah tells us that when Moses died, at the end of the forty years in the wilderness (Deut.1:3), he was one hundred and twenty years old. This would mean that Moses was 80 years old at the time that he and the Jewish people left Egypt and, in fact, we read Exodus 7:7 that "Moses was eighty years old and Aaron was eighty-three years old when they spoke to Pharaoh."

The problem, however, is that this verse is written before the plagues begin later in the same chapter. While Scripture itself is vague as to the exact amount of time that passed from the beginning of the first plague to the last, it was clearly not a matter of a few weeks. Indeed, Jewish tradition (recorded in the Mishna, Eduyos 2:10) is that the ten plagues took place over a period of twelve months. If Moses was eighty years old at the beginning of this period, then he would have been eighty-one years old at the time of the exodus, which would make him 121 years old at the end of the forty years in the desert. (Exactly the same question can also be asked regarding Aaron.)

This would seem to be an obvious problem. In fact, in my opinion, the first hint to the solution is precisely that the problem is too obvious. All the major commentaries - who typically address issues of this sort - ought to be noting the issue, yet, to my knowledge, it is completely ignored by all the major commentaries. 

(רק מצאתי שהחת"ם סופר דחק לתרץ בשני אופנים, אחת בשו"ת ח"ו סי' כט, ואחת - שלא זכיתי להבין על בוריו - בדרשות חת"ם סופר לפרשת שקלים, ח"א דף קיז:)

When we encounters an apparently obvious problem that is apparently ignored by the commentaries, this is usually an indication that the source of the problem is actually a more basic flaw in our understanding of the material. In this case, it would seem that to the commentators, the "solution" was so self-evident that the "problem" never even presented itself. While this might sound self-defeating, it actually helps us a great deal in resolving the issue. If the solution was that self-evident, then the answer should be right there on the page, where any competent reader can see it.

With this in mind, we can return to the text in Exodus 7 and attempt to read it as the classical commentators would have read it. The first thing that we need to bear in mind, which is often overlooked by modern readers, is that the text of the Torah is divided into paragraphs. These paragraphs will be familiar to anyone who has ever read from a Torah scroll. These paragraphs are called פרשיות (parshiyos), and the division of these פרשיות was passed down to us in the written text of the Torah as given to us by Moses as he received it from Hashem. Like paragraph breaks in any text, these פרשיות are essential to a proper understanding of the Torah.

(By contrast, the conventional division of the text the Torah into chapters (פרקים) is not only not of Divine origin, but it is not even of Jewish origin and frequently does not reflect the traditional Jewish understanding of the text.)

When we look at the text in Exodus 7, we find that the verse we are discussing is the final verse of a paragraph. The paragraph in full (7:1-7) states:

And Hashem said to Moses: 'See, I have made you a master over Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother brother shall be your spokesman. You shall speak all that I command you; and Aaron your brother shall speak to Pharaoh, that he shall send the children of Israel out of his land. And I shall harden Pharaoh's heart, and I shall multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh will not listen to you, and I shall place My hand upon Egypt, and I shall bring out My hosts, My people the children of Israel, from the land of Egypt with great judgments. And Egypt shall know that I am Hashem, when I stretch forth My hand upon Egypt, and I bring out the children of Israel from among them.' And Moses and Aaron did so; as Hashem commanded them, so they did. And Moses was eighty years old, and Aaron eighty-three years old, when they spoke to Pharaoh.

We see in this paragraph God instructing Moses in a general sense of how he would interact with Pharaoh, and giving Moses an overview of the entire process of the Exodus, covering the entire period of the plagues, followed by the actual Exodus from Egypt. In regard to this overview of the entire Exodus process, the Torah, speaking from the perspective of the reader, tells us that, when it was all over, Moses and Aaron had done all that God had commanded them. It is in this context, speaking after the exodus, that the Torah says, "And Moses was 80 years old... when they spoke to Pharaoh."

Thus, from the context of the verse it seems clear that the verse is speaking of the age of Moses and Aaron, not at the beginning of the plagues, but at the conclusion of their talks with Pharaoh just before they left Egypt. If, instead of being the last verse of the previous paragraph, the verse had been the first verse of the next paragraph, which describes Moses and Aaron actually meeting with Pharaoh, then the problem would present a serious difficulty. However, as the conclusion of the previous paragraph, which is describing the course of future events, the problem disappears.

---