 |
|
|
Surf A Little Torah PARASHAT KI-TISA
Here's something to think about when you recite mussaf next Shabbat: Parashat Ki-Tisa opens with the mitzvah of "machatzit hashekel," the mandatory half-shekel tax collected from each male among Benei Yisrael. Although the first collection of half-shekels, which was conducted during the construction of the Mishkan, was required only by those over the age of nineteen, there is some discussion regarding the age at which one becomes obligated in the half-shekel tax in subsequent generations. The Rambam (Hilkhot Shekalim 1:7) and Ramban maintain that in this regard the mitzvah of "machatzit hashekel" resembles all other mitzvot, and becomes obligatory at age thirteen. In opposition to this view stand Rav Ovadya of Bartenura (commentary to Masekhet Shekalim 1:3), Sefer Hachinukh and the Vilna Gaon (comentary to Yerushalmi Shekalim 1:3), who maintain that the obligation begins only at age twenty, as it did during the time of the building of the Mishkan. Interestingly enough, this dispute may yield rather critical halakhic ramifications. The funds collected from the half-shekel tax went towards the purchasing of animals for public sacrifices. In this manner, every contributor could consider himself a co-owner of the sacrifice. This is why in the absence of the Bet Hamikdash, when prayers substitute for sacrifices, we each recite the mussaf prayer, despite the fact that in the times of the Bet Hamikdash only a very small handful of people (i.e. several kohanim) actively participated in the actual service of the mussaf offering. Although non-kohanim did not directly purchase or administer to the musaf sacrifice, they were each considered a partial owner, and thus obligated to recite the mussaf prayer when the sacrifice proper cannot be offered. Based on this, a view cited by Rabbi Akiva Eger (commentary to Shulchan Arukh, O.C. 106) maintains that women are exempt from reciting the mussaf prayer. Whereas women were exempt from the half-shekel tax, they could not be considered "co-owners" of the mussaf sacrifices. Nowadays, therefore, when the mussaf prayer replaces the mussaf sacrifices, women are exempt. Following this train of thought, argues Rav Baruch Epstein (the "Torah Temima"), those views that set the minimum age for requirement in the half-shekel tax at twenty would exempt males under twenty from the mussaf prayer. Since they did not contribute in the "machatzit hashekel" collection, they are not considered owners of the mussaf and are therefore exempt from the mussaf prayer. In other words, no Jewish teenager should be obligated in the mussaf prayer. The inevitable conclusion from this, reasons Rav Epstein, is that a synagogue must not allow a teenager to lead the mussaf service. Certainly one who is not obligated in a given prayer cannot represent the congregation in that service! But, as Rav Epstein notes, we don't find any halakhic sources indicating such (in fact, in many syunagogues bar-mitzvah boys lead the mussaf service!!), and he leaves this issue unresolved. For practical guidance, consult a competent halakhic authority. [Prepared by David Silverberg.]
THE BIBLICAL COMMUTER The Torah tells us, halfway through Parashat Ki Tisa (33:7), that Moshe moves his tent outside of the national camp. When did this episode occur? According to Rashi and Ibn Ezra, it did not happen until Moshe descended from Sinai for the last time, on Yom haKippurim, with the second set of Tablets. Ramban, however, maintains that this happened immediately after the dialogue between Moshe and God at the beginning of chapter 33 (v. 1-3), wherein God declares that He will not lead Bnei Yisrael personally to the land, but rather He will send an angel to lead them. This dispute about the chronology of events actually points to two different, but complementary, understandings of Moshe's actions. On the one hand, Moshe wants to distance himself from the sinning nation, mainly for their own good. Until they repair the spiritual damage of the Eigel by building the Mishkan and returning God's Presence to their midst, "any who seek Lord" must come to Moshe's tent, which he names Ohel Moeid—the appellation that will be restored to its proper place, the Sanctuary of the Mishkan, when it is finally built. In the meantime, Moshe, emulating God, cannot be among Bnei Yisrael, on the principle of "excommunicated from the Master, excommunicated from the student," as Rashi puts it. Thus, this act has symbolism for Bnei Yisrael. On the other hand, there is also symbolism before God. Moshe is about to, as it were, issue the ultimatum of (33:15): "If your Presence will not go [with us], do not take bring us up from here." Moshe's position outside the camp strengthens his claim, for he can only lead the people when he is among them. Moshe essentially says: if Your Presence will not lead them, neither will I. This echoes the declaration: "'Either You will bear their sin, or, if not, erase me please from Your book which You have written'" (32:32). When Bnei Yisrael have fully repented, they no longer deserve to be distanced from God or Moshe. Coming from anyone else, this would be arrogance, if not heresy; how can any mortal issue an ultimatum to God? Yet, we know that Moshe is the humblest man on earth (Bamidbar 12:3), and as such it cannot be arrogance that motivates his statement, but rather a fierce love for the nation of Yisrael. This combination of personal humility and national boldness is what motivated God to pick Moshe as leader in the first place, and this is Moshe's finest hour as intercessor between God and the people. Far from abandoning them, Moshe is driving home to the nation the depth of their betrayal—and declaring to God that the task which he so reluctantly assumed a few months before he will now never relinquish.
[Prepared by Yoseif Bloch.] After the Jews are forgiven for the sin of the golden calf, the covenant is re-established. This is described in Shemot 34 and includes a restatement of the yearly festivals, in parallel to the original covenant at the end of Mishpatim. The festivals finish with the famous verse "the fruit of the firstborn of your land you shall bring to the house of the L-rd your God; You should not boil a kid in its mother's milk" (verse 26). This is one of the three verses describing the prohibition of milk and meat (basar b'chalav). This is found next to the mitzva of first fruits (bikkurim) which are brought to the Beit HaMikdash. What is the connection between these two mitzvot? The Ramban (Nachmanides - Spain, Israel 13th century) states that often with the first fruits one would bring firstborn animals, together with their mothers to feed the firstborn - for which the Torah warns us especially at this time not to combine the kid's meat with the mother's milk. The Rambam (Maimonides - Spain, Egypt 12th century) states that milk and meat was a pagan ritual, often practiced during festivals, explaining why this mitzva is included with the festivals. Perhaps the juxtaposition is hinting at another idea. Tosafot (France 12th century) on the Talmud Chullin 103b states: "perhaps one would think that [milk and meat] does not apply outside of Israel as it is textually connected to first fruits... similarly the Talmud learns to exclude first fruits from outside of Israel, despite that it is dependant on the Land (which would only be in Israel, anyway) as it is connected to milk and meat (and perhaps could also apply outside of Israel)." That is, the connection between milk and meat and first fruits is their applicability in Israel and in the exile. This is interesting, as the first fruits are intensely connected to Israel. From Devarim 26 we learn that when one brings Bikkurim one restates the Jewish history of slavery and exodus which culminates in coming to the Land and the Beit HaMikdash, where we bring the fruits of the Land. On the other hand, the prohibition of milk and meostensibly has no connection to Israel. Furthermore, experience has shown that observance of this mitzva intensified in exile. Every observant house in every location will have its kitchen built around separating milchig and fleishig (dairy and meat) - there is no connection to Israel. Tosafot hints that really there is a connection. Perhaps we need to understand that on the one hand, while in exile we need to be connected to the first fruits, to take Bikkurim and maintain their connection to Israel with us. On the other hand, in Israel, we also need to be connected with milk and meat, to take the milchig and fleishig with us, both physically and spiritually. An expanded variation of this idea was the basis of the weekly radio shiur of Rav Mordechai Alon for Parashat Teruma, which can be found at http:\\www.kerenyishai.org [Prepared by Larry Goldsmith] "God declared to Moshe, "Go down, for the people whom you brought out of Egypt have become corrupt. They have been quick to leave the way that I ordered them to follow, and they have made themselves a cast-metal calf. They have bowed down and offered sacrifice to it, exclaiming, "This, Israel, is your god, who brought you our of Egypt."" (Shemot 32:7-8) In this week's parasha, we are forty days after God appeared to the Jewish people, and gave the Ten Commandments. Despairing of Moshe's return, they make themselves a golden calf and worship it. They have broken the second of the Ten commandments. What can we learn from this sin? An interesting feature of the story is the repeated attributing of the bringing of the Jewish people out of Egypt. Moshe tells God that He brought them out. God calls them the people that Moshe brought out. The people describe Moshe as the man who brought them out and after building the calf, they call it the god who brought them out of Egypt. Of course, we know that it was God who brought us out of Egypt. Moshe was the leader at the time and had a part in it. However, on seder night, we ignore his role completely. This is because Moshe was at most God's mouthpiece and emissary. The spiritual message of Pesach is that God redeemed us form slavery to serve Him. Moshe's role is purely practical and therefore not mentioned. The people in the sin of the golden calf built a god to replace Moshe. It seems that their idol did. He was their physical symbol of the higher power that brought them of Egypt. Coming form an idolatrous culture, they needed an idol. Up until then, Moshe had been that idol. Nowadays, idolatry is not such a problem. The main danger is o four people forgetting that God brought us out of Egypt, rather than attributing it to some other power. Yet, there is still a danger of treating our leaders like idols. Not just that we trust them more than we should. Sometimes, we get so caught up in our view of the political game, that we forget the bigger picture. God is still looking after our people. He is the one who saves us, or (Rachmana latzlan) punishes us. Our vote may effect who our leaders are, but our prayer can effect what happens. As we remind ourselves on seder night, it was God who brought us out of the land of Egypt. May He save us now, too. [Prepared by Samuel Jackman.]
In this week's parasha, we are introduced to the chief architect of the Mishkan project, Bezalel. The verse introducing him seems to have a strange beginning. The verse opens: "See, I have called in a name, in Bezalel…" (31:2). There seems to be something significant in the name alone. Another strange point is the order of the construction that he is to undertake. If we recall in Parashat Terumah, the description places the construction of the vessels first and then the structure of the mishkan. Yet, here (31:7) the structure is listed first and then the vessels. The Talmud in Berachot (55a) is sensitive to these distinctions. The Talmud records that God had originally instructed Moshe to build the Mishkan and then bring in the vessels. Moshe, however, understood and subsequently relayed to Bezalel that first the vessels were to be built and then the structure. Bezalel retorts that it would make more sense to first complete the structure and then bring in the vessels. Upon hearing this, Moshe remembers that indeed this was the divine plan, and remarks that Bezalel ("in the shadow of God") was named appropriately for he must have been in the shadow of God to have known the divine blueprint. This story explains the unique nature of Bezalel's name and the incongruity in the verses, but what is the point of the story? Moshe was a figure who saw God in everything. He had no need to create a "home" for God. It would be enough to have some instruments which we would employ in the worship of God. Therefore, the vessels should precede the building. Bezalel, however, was more in tune with the people. It is very difficult to experience God in everything, all the time, as Moshe did. For everyone else, however, it is essential to have a point, a central place, indeed a physical landmark that we can point to and call the "home" of God. It is important that we can have a place to fill with sanctity. Though, perhaps, we may want to strive for the level of Moshe, to see God all the time, first we must learn, in our own world, how to push aside our everyday lives and create a home for God. To appreciate holiness, even in one place, to construct the structure of Bezalel, which was indeed God's intention, would be no small accomplishment. [Prepared by Aytan Kadden.]
In an interesting midrash, the lives of Moshe Rabbeinu and Noach are juxtaposed. Both are described at the beginning and end of their life. However, whereas Noach goes from being an “Ish Tzaddik” (righteous man) to an “Ish Ha-adama” (man of the earth), Moshe begins as an “Ish Mitzri” (Egyptian man) and becomes the “Ish Ha-elokim” (man of God) par excellence. Expanding upon this study in contrasts, our parsha shows us another point where Moshe outshines Noach. Moshe is faced with a situation not unlike Noach’s in that he is chosen to be the sole survivor of God’s wrathful destruction. Whereas Noach accepts God’s judgement, and is taken to task by Hazal for it, Moshe challenges God’s decision. Furthermore, Moshe demands “Erase me from Your book” if this justice is indeed carried out. In a world where the most convenient approach is to look after one’s self exclusively, Moshe’s greatness looms as a paradigm and a challenge. Our Atlases cannot afford to shrug. [Prepared by Elli Fischer.]
In Devarim (22:6) we see that there is a mitzva to chase away the mother bird "Lema'an" your days should be long and prosperous. "Lema'an" is traditionally translated as "for the sake of" but it seem incongruous that Hashem should give us a mitzva so that we can receive a reward. Furthermore, Rashi drives in the nail and states that this not only applies to this mitzva, but in general to all mitzvot! Can it be? Is it possible? Is this the extent to which the mitzvot are given – for hedonistic benefit? This expression, "Lema'an" is found in numerous other places, as well. For instance, "Pursue justice "lema'an" you should live to inherit the land" (Devarim 16:20), "Six days you shall work and on the seventh day you shall rest "lema'an" your ox, ass shall rest…" (Shemot 23:14). To understand "lema'an" as "for the sake of," in these cases seems rather superficial. Do we keep the Sabbath so that one's ass can rest? Do we maintain a legal and moral infrastructure for the sake of inheriting the land? I think the point is clear. Obviously, further investigation is required. The Ramban explains that this misconception is the result of a faulty understanding of the term "lema'an." Tru, the word can be understood as "for the sake of" but in this case, the meaning is "for the RESULT of." In this light, the previous cases adopt a far more acceptable understanding. In other words, keeping the Sabbath will result in your animals resting. Keeping a just legal system will result in living in and inheriting the land. This causes an additional problem: Why did the Torah maksuch an effort in revealing the reward for mitzvot? Surely, a more altruistic approach would be preferable, i.e., fulfilling mitzvot lishma – for the sake of heaven. The answer is that ideally the way to fulfill mitzvot is without any ulterior motives and simply because they are the Divine will, but the Torah wanted people to be aware that for all mitzvot, there is a schar (reward).
[Prepared by Jarred Myers. This dvar Torah is an adaptation of the shiur given by Harav Aaron Lichtenstein, Shlita, at Seudah Shlishit (5650).]
This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds. Make Jewish learning partof your week on a regular basis - enroll in the (c) YeshivHar Etzion1997 All rights reserved to Yeshivat Har Etzion Yeshivat Har Et | ||||||||||