by Rav David Silverberg

MOTZAEI

            One of the questions that arise when reading the story told in Megilat Rut relates to the marriage of Machlon and Kilyon – Naomi's two sons – to Moabite women.  Did Machlon and Kilyon simply assimilate and intermarry upon relocating in Moav, or did Rut and Orpa convert to Judaism before their marriages?

            The Rambam makes brief reference to Machlon and Kilyon amidst his discussion of the prohibition against leaving Eretz Yisrael, and his comments likely shed some light on the nature of these brothers' marriages to Rut and Orpa: "Although it is permissible to leave [Eretz Yisrael due to financial hardship], this is not a measure of piety, for Machlon and Kilyon were two great leaders of the generation [gedolei ha-dor hayu] and left due to severe crisis, and were deserving of destruction before God" (Hilkhot Melakhim 5:9).  The Rambam speaks of Machlon and Kilyon as "gedolei ha-dor," a term generally reserved for the most righteous and knowledgeable men of the generation.  It stands to reason, then, that such men – though they violated the "measure of piety" that requires remaining in Eretz Yisrael during periods of drought – did not marry out of the faith.  What more, if they had married gentile women, then we have no basis on which to attribute their guilt to their "sin" of leaving Eretz Yisrael; we could instead point to the far more grievous offense of intermarriage.  Seemingly, then, we must conclude that – at least in the Rambam's view – Rut and Orpa legitimately converted to Judaism before their marriages to Machlon and Kilyon.

            This conclusion, however, must be reconciled with a passage in Masekhet Yevamot (47b), where the Gemara interprets the exchange between Rut and Naomi while leaving Moav as Rut's acceptance of the Torah.  Thus, for example, when Rut declared, "Wherever you go – I shall go," she accepted the halakhic restrictions on travel during Shabbat; with the phrase, "wherever you die – I shall die," Rut subjected herself to the authority of the Rabbinical courts to administer capital punishment.  Quite clearly, then, the Gemara reads this exchange as signifying the moment when Rut formally avowed her commitment to the Torah and accepted the responsibilities of a Jew.  In other words, it is here, at this point, that Rut converted to the Jewish faith.  This seemingly calls into question the conclusion we reached on the basis of the Rambam's comments, that Rut and Orpa had both converted before marrying Naomi's sons.

            The Bach, in his Meishiv Nefesh commentary to Megilat Rut, answers by applying to Rut and Orpa the Rambam's famous ruling regarding the acceptance of converts during the times of David and Shelomo.  In Hilkhot Isurei Bi'a (13:15), the Rambam writes that the courts during this period adopted a general policy not to accept converts.  Given the power achieved by the Israelite kingdom under David, and the wealth and prestige it enjoyed under Shelomo, the rabbis were concerned that gentiles would convert disingenuously, simply to enjoy the benefits of membership in this nation.  Nevertheless, the Rambam adds, there were isolated cases of converts whose conversion was authorized and accepted by legitimate courts.  In such cases, the convert was presumed Jewish, but his subsequent conduct was carefully scrutinized so that the sincerity of his conversion could be determined.  Only if he subsequently demonstrated loyalty to the Torah would he continue to be treated as a member of Am Yisrael.

            The Bach contended that the conversion of Rut and Orpa followed this same format.  Although they indeed converted before marrying Naomi's sons, the wealth and prominent stature of Elimelekh rendered their sincerity suspect.  A "follow-up" was thus necessary to determine whether they had converted with the sincere intention of accepting the Torah, or merely to enjoy the benefits of belonging to Elimelekh's family.  The death of Elimelekh and his sons, and the poverty which these tragedies brought upon their widows, marked the opportunity for Rut and Orpa to demonstrate their true motives in converting.  Rut, of course, avowed her sincere desire to remain with her mother-in-law despite her state of poverty, and to join the ranks of Kenesset Yisrael notwithstanding the hardships this would entail.  As such, her proclamations to Naomi as they made their way to Eretz Yisrael constituted a reaffirmation of her initial conversion, as she professed her willingness to live as a committed Jew not only when this served her well, but even when this required difficult sacrifices.

SUNDAY

            The haftara for Shavuot is taken from the beginning of Sefer Yechezkel, where the prophet describes the ma'aseh merkava, the vision of God's "chariot" taking leave of the Beit Ha-mikdash.  It is customary to conclude this reading with a verse from the third chapter of Sefer Yechezkel (verse 12), a verse that we recite each day as part of the U'va Le'tziyon prayer: "Va-tisa'eni ru'ach va-eshma acharai kol ra'ash gadol: Barukh Kevod Hashem mi-mekomo!" ("A wind [or 'spirit'] lifted me, and I heard behind me a great roaring sound: 'Blessed is the Glory of the Lord, from His place!'"

            The Radak explains this "sound" heard by Yechezkel as proclaiming that God's honor is increased by His departure from the Temple.  Given the disrespect shown to Him by the people, it is in the best interest of kevod Hashem, the glory of God, to take leave of the Mikdash and not reside among Benei Yisrael.  This verse should thus be read as, "Blessed is the Glory of God now that He has departed – more so than in its place."  God's taking leave of His people does not infringe upon His honor, but rather, quite to the contrary, serves to protect His honor which was continuously slighted by the people's ongoing corruption.  (Metzudat David explains similarly.)

            Rav Mendel Hirsch, in his commentary to the haftarot, suggests a different explanation of this verse, claiming that it conveys a much broader, theological message.  So significant is this verse, Rav Hirsch asserts, that it represents what he calls "the deepest and boldest thought of theodicy ever expressed by the mouth of a mortal."  Essentially, we are told here that the "glory of the Lord" is manifest in its clearest and most profound way specifically amidst the turmoil and instability that often characterizes human existence in this world.  If only a person could be "lifted" and shown the overall progression of the earth and mankind, he would recognize that the glory of God is indeed expressed "in its place," through world events.  Rav Hirsch writes:

To the human eye the heavenly world is usually taken as being the sphere of the everlasting almightiness of God's Law, as the realm where God's Will is a reality; the earth, especially human relations in it, as the realm of passions and wrongdoings.  There, above, the Law of God, here below, Man's capriciousness, there peace, here eternal war, there harmony, here discord.  For God's Kingdom of Peace, so the world believes, there is no place on earth until the time when the most distant goals will be reached.  Against all this the word of the Prophet peaches to us here: If we would only raise ourselves above the earth, as he was raised by the Spirit of God, we would hear, not from the heights of heaven, but from behind us, out of the depths of the world, out of all the storms and turmoil of the earth, the cry: The revelation of the Glory of God is promoted everywhere on earth!  What we look at so shortsightedly are only fractions, pieces, he who would look over the whole would see how all the fractions are struggling to attain the whole, all discord striving to harmony, all evil working to its own destruction, and all wars to bring about everlasting peace.  Of course this way of looking at the world is the boldest, the most daring optimism.  But it is rooted in the firmest rock-like confidence in God's Direction of the world, which is won only through the Torah.  Maintained on the height of this way of looking at things, what otherwise appears merely a beautiful dream attains the certainty of surest reality.

As such, this verse is indeed a most appropriate conclusion to this prophecy which foretells the disastrous events of the Temple's destruction.  Yechezkel proclaims that despite the countless misfortunes that have befallen and continue to befall mankind, on some level all events are directed toward the revelation of the divine glory.  Even amidst the anxiety and anguish that we must all too often witness and endure, the prophet reassures us that "the revelation of the Glory of God is promoted everywhere on earth," even in places and at times where just the opposite process seems to be taking place.

MONDAY

            Rashi famously opens his commentary to Parashat Beha'alotekha by citing a passage from the Midrash Tanchuma concerning the purpose served by the first section of this parasha.  This section records God's instructions to Aharon relevant to the daily kindling of the menora, and the Midrash asserts that these instructions came in response to Aharon's despondency.  The previous section tells of the special gifts and offerings brought by the tribal leaders in honor of the inauguration of the Mishkan, in which neither Aharon nor any other member of his tribe participated.  Aharon felt distraught over his exclusion from this special celebration, and God therefore sought to comfort and reassure him by reminding of the privilege he was given to kindle the menora each day.

            The Ramban raises a number of questions against this comment of the Midrash, including the obvious question of why Aharon would feel distressed over his exclusion from the tribal leaders' offering.  After all, during the seven-day milu'im procedure that preceded the Mishkan's inauguration, he offered numerous sacrifices, each day during this week.  Why would he feel slighted over not joining the nesi'im (tribal leaders) in their special offering, after having just spent seven days as the "center of attention" in the Mishkan during the seven days of milu'im offerings?

The Ramban proposes but immediately dismisses a theory that Aharon perhaps felt distraught because his milu'im offerings were commanded by God, whereas the nesi'im acted voluntarily.  Aharon's uneasiness stemmed from the fact that he did not volunteer to bring special gifts as did the other tribal leaders, and hence he found no solace in the fact that he had performed the obligatory milu'im rituals.  But the Ramban, as mentioned, immediately dismisses this answer, noting that the kindling of the menora was similarly an obligatory ritual.  Thus, if Aharon felt dismayed because he did not bring any voluntary offerings, a reminder about his role in kindling the menora would hardly settle his mind and offer reassurance.

The Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yehuda Amital shelit"a (http://vbm-torah.org/archive/sichot/bamidbar/36-64behaalotekha.htm), suggested a possible defense for this explanation that the Ramban dismisses.  According to the theory briefly proposed by the Ramban, Aharon felt something missing in simply complying with God's commands.  Voluntary, self-initiated gestures as part of avodat Hashem have a certain degree of excitement and an emotional charge that one generally does not experience when he merely fulfills his responsibilities.  Rav Amital suggested that perhaps God intended to teach Aharon that even in fulfilling commands one can and should experience enthusiasm and pride.  Mitzva observance can be rewarding and gratifying even without the element of initiative and creativity that voluntary gestures involve.  This notion is perhaps symbolized by the mitzva of kindling the menora.  A flame is, by nature, restless; it rarely stands still, and it is always looking to expand.  God perhaps indicated to Aharon that there is ample opportunity for this kind of fervor, excitement and continued growth within mitzva observance, and one need not search for new, self-initiated modes of expression to satisfy the innate drive for spiritual satisfaction.

TUESDAY

            The final verses of Parashat Beha'alotekha tell the story of Miriam's tzara'at, the skin disease she endured as punishment for speaking derisively about her brother Moshe.  When Miriam was stricken with tzara'at, Aharon turned to Moshe and begged him to forgive his siblings for their wrongdoing: "Please, do not cast upon us the sin which we have foolishly committed [no'alnu] and transgressed [chatanu]" (12:11).

            The Or Ha-chayim explains this verse to mean that Aharon asked Moshe to forgive two wrongs that his siblings committed against him, as indicated by the two terms used by Aharon – no'alnu and chatanu.  The word no'alnu denotes foolishness, and thus – according to the Or Ha-chayim – refers to Aharon and Miriam's misguided comparison between Moshe's prophetic stature and their own.  They had said about Moshe, "Did the Lord speak only to Moshe?  Did He not speak to us, as well?" (12:2), in response to which God reminded them of the fundamental differences between Moshe's prophecy and that of other prophets (12:6-8).  Aharon here thus confesses his and his sister's "foolishness" in failing to recognize this distinction.  Secondly, Aharon confesses, "Chatanu," referring to the actual sin of speaking negatively about his brother.

            In trying to extract from this episode practical guidance relevant to the prohibition of lashon ha-ra (speaking negatively about other people), it might be helpful to think in terms of these two elements described by the Or Ha-chayim.  Lashon ha-ra begins with "no'alnu," the foolish and presumptuous attempt to cast judgment upon, and reach unsubstantiated conclusions about, our peers.  Just as Aharon and Miriam erred in equating themselves with Moshe, so do many or most cases of lashon ha-ra originate from a mistaken or questionable impression about another person.  Very often, when somebody finds fault in his fellow, he lacks sufficient information about the circumstance at hand, or fails to recognize the wide range of factors that contribute to a person's character and conduct.  Avoiding lashon ha-ra thus requires refraining not only from chatanu – from negative speech itself – but also from no'alnu, from the common misconception that we are capable of accurately judging our peers' conduct.

WEDNESDAY

            In the final section of Parashat Beha'alotekha, we read of God's angry response to Miriam and Aharon's derisive remarks about their brother, Moshe.  God sharply criticizes Miriam and Aharon for equating their prophetic stature with Moshe's, and emphasizes Moshe's singular prophetic status.  He describes the manner in which other prophets receive the divine message – in a dream, and in an indirect, encoded fashion.  God then says, "Not so, My servant Moshe; He is the most trusted in all My household" (12:7).

            One might wonder why God chose to describe Moshe with the term ne'eman – "trusted" – in this context.  To what specific kind of "trustworthiness" does God refer, and how does it relate to His message to Miriam and Aharon?

            Rav Moshe Leib Shachor, in his work Avnei Shoham, suggests an explanation based on a verse in Sefer Mishlei (11:13), "ve-ne'eman ru'ach mekhaseh davar" – "A trusted spirit conceals a matter."  This has been interpreted to refer not only to concealing confidential information, but also to concealing one's own achievements and noble acts.  A person who is truly "trusted," fully loyal and faithful to a cause, will pursue it without seeking notoriety.  He works for the cause, and not for his own aggrandizement; his loyalty is to the given undertaking, and not only to himself.  The term ne'eman can thus refer to sincere loyalty that motivates a person to work "under the radar" without publicizing his activities in the interest of fame.

            Rashi comments that Miriam and Aharon criticized Moshe for his decision to separate from his wife, not realizing that this drastic measure was necessary due to the unique circumstances that his role as prophet entailed.  Even though other prophets were able to maintain a normal family life, Moshe's singular stature demanded separating from his wife.  The Gemara in Masekhet Yevamot (62a) tells that Moshe undertook this measure on his own initiative, but God later confirmed that he acted correctly.  Moshe, however, did not make it known that his decision received divine approval; he kept this information quiet, consistent with his humble, unassuming nature, whereby he acted with pure sincerity, without seeking any notoriety or public acclaim.

            For this reason, Rav Shachor suggests, God speaks of Moshe as "ne'eman" – "trusted" – in this context.  Aharon and Miriam's misunderstanding resulted from Moshe's "trustworthiness," his unbridled loyalty to fulfilling his duty.  This loyalty led him to act privately, without flaunting his unique prophetic stature, thus causing Miriam and Aharon to misinterpret his conduct.  As part of His response, God informs them that Moshe embodied the ideal of a ne'eman, of a person devoted to his cause so genuinely that he makes no effort to publicize his achievements.

THURSDAY

            Parashat Beha'alotekha begins with a brief presentation of the laws concerning the lighting of the menora in the Mishkan.  The Torah here reports that "va-ya'as kein Aharon" – Aharon, the kohen gadol, complied with these commands (8:3).

            Rashi, commenting on this verse, makes a famous yet enigmatic remark, citing from the Sifrei, explaining that the Torah here intends "to speak the praise of Aharon, that he did not deviate."  According to Rashi, we are to read this verse as a compliment given to Aharon for his strict obedience to the rules issued concerning the kindling of the menora.  Many writers and darshanim have raised and addressed the question of why the Torah found this compliance so praiseworthy.  Would we have expected anything less from Aharon?  Would others have responded to the command any differently?  Moreover, was this the most difficult, challenging or demanding responsibility assigned to Aharon?

            Rav Moshe Rosen, in his Ohel Moshe, explained Rashi's comment as referring to Aharon's observance of this mitzva without any frills or fanfare.  A person for whom mitzva observance is a novelty, something out of the ordinary, might find it necessary to add external "pomp and circumstance" to the event so that it would be remembered for years to come.  It is to Aharon's credit that he "did not deviate," that his observance of this mitzva did not necessitate anything other than what the mitzva itself entailed.  Complying with God's command was natural and intuitive enough that there was no need for "extras," for any hype or fanfare.  Thus, when the Sages speak of Aharon not "deviating," they refer to the absence of any sort of elaborate display accompanying the ritual.

            More generally, we might add, Chazal perhaps seek to instruct that even simply "va-ya'as kein," doing as required, fulfilling one's duties and obligations, is indeed "praiseworthy."  All too often, we reserve praise and distinction for the innovators, the creative thinkers, those who arrive at pioneering breakthroughs.  While creativity and innovation undoubtedly assume an important role in Torah life and are certainly deserving of praise, Rashi here teaches that simple obedience and compliance are also praiseworthy.  The fact that one strictly observes God's commands without "deviating," and with the sincere intention of fulfilling the will of his Creator, is itself deserving of praise.  Even Aharon Ha-kohen, who, as tradition teaches, was a remarkably accomplished tzadik and leader, received praise simply for "not deviating," for fulfilling his responsibilities loyally and dutifully.

FRIDAY

            Parashat Beha'alotekha discusses the designation of the Leviyim as the attendants in the Mishkan who were assigned certain tasks both in the Mishkan and with regard to its transportation during travel.  God here instructs Moshe that the Leviyim would serve in this capacity from the age of twenty-five until the age of fifty; upon reaching fifty years, a Levi would "retire" from his position (8:24:26).

            Rashi, in explaining these verses, writes that at the age of fifty a Levite becomes disqualified only for the job of transporting the Mishkan, but continues performing the other tasks assigned to the Levites: "He returns for locking the gates, singing and loading the wagons."  The Ramban, however, in his commentary, cites from the Sifrei that older Levites continue working only in locking the gates and transporting certain parts of the Mishkan (those parts assigned to the Levite family of Gershon).  With regard to the singing that accompanied the rituals in the Mishkan, however, a Levite became disqualified upon reaching the age of fifty.

            Rashi's view has its origins in the Sifrei Zuta, which writes explicitly that a Levi may continue singing in the Mishkan even beyond the age of fifty.

            Rav David Mandelbaum, in his Pardes Yosef He-chadash, hinges this debate between the Sifrei and the Sifrei Zuta on a discussion recorded in the Gemara (Masekhet Kiddushin 37b) regarding the nesakhim (wine libations).  The Gemara cites Rabbi Yishmael as maintaining that the nesakhim accompanied sacrificial offerings only after Benei Yisrael's entry into the land; in the wilderness, the nesakhim were not required.  Rabbi Akiva, by contrast, held that nesakhim were performed already during the forty years of travel in the wilderness.  Now the Gemara in Masekhet Berakhot (35a) establishes that the Leviyim's singing took place specifically "al ha-yayin," during the nesakhim ceremony in the Mikdash.  It thus stands to reason, Rav Mandelbaum asserts, that according to Rabbi Yishmael's view, that nesakhim were not performed in the wilderness, the Leviyim did not sing in the Mishkan at all during this period.  According to Rabbi Akiva, however, nesakhim were, in fact, performed in the Mishkan, and thus, by extension, the Leviyim sang in the Mishkan, as well.

            It thus emerges that the respective comments of the Sifrei and Sifrei Zuta cited above correspond to the two views of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva.  Indeed, as Rav Mandelbaum notes, the Sifrei is traditionally ascribed to Rabbi Yishmael, whereas Rabbi Akiva has been identified as the author of the Sifrei Zuta.  Thus, Rabbi Yishmael, who held that the Leviyim did not sing at all in the Mishkan during the forty years of travel in the wilderness, made no mention of singing in reference to this verse.  Since God conveyed these instructions primarily with respect to Benei Yisrael's travels in the wilderness, there was no need to mention the Leviyim's singing in this context.  The Sifrei Zuta, however, reflecting Rabbi Akiva's position, indeed mentions the Leviyim's singing, which, according to Rabbi Akiva, was performed even at this stage in Am Yisrael's history.

David Silverberg