Question by Talia Stern
Hi! I'm excited to be entering my first question(s) to the blog. Here it goes:
Okay, so when we say Asher Yatzar, we begin by saying: "Blessed are You Hashem...that creates the man with wisdom", and continue on: "and created in him many, many holes/openings..." and finally, end by saying: "that if even one of those opened or closed it would be impossible to stand before You [for even a short amount of time]". I have two questions related to this bracha:
1. Firstly, is it correct (medically) that if "even one of those opened or closed" that it would actually be impossible to survive? It seems that there are many medical issues that come up nowadays with our bodies/bodily functions that can be remedied by modern medicine.
2. Secondly: When we say this bracha we thank Hashem for having created us with wisdom. Later in the bracha, we mention that there are many, many holes/openings that Hashem created and that if even one things should go wrong, then we would not survive (due to the messing up of the entire system in our bodies). In no way am I challenging the fact that Hashem DID create us with wisdom but I was just wondering: creating a large, complex system (which we know is true, because the bracha tells us that we have many openings, etc.) in such a way that if "even one" tiny thing should go wrong, somehow seems a little bit weird to me. When a complex system is created, whatever it may be, it should be created in a way that has backups. Someone would not want to build something, or create a system that could be entirely messed up by one small thing going wrong. I was wondering if you could explain to me the connection between Hashem "creating us with wisdom" and the seemingly strange way in which he created our complex bodily system.
Hi Talia
What an interesting question! I can't address your specific biological questions, but I'll give you my more philosophical take on the general question that (I think) you're asking, which is...if Hashem created humans (and really the entire world) with so much wisdom and complexity, then why isn't there a back-up mechanism to fix things when they go wrong, and more generally, how can things go wrong?
There is a famous philosophical concept called the "free will defense" which is used to address the age-old question of "why do bad things happen to good people". In a nutshell, the main idea is that human beings have free will (the ability to make our own choices). In order to always truly have that freedom, our actions must have real consequences. Therefore, even though Hashem created things with great care and wisdom, human beings have the freedom to act and therefore impact the way the world works. For example (and this is a general example...no clue if there is scientific basis for what I'm saying) temperatures are rising and we are concerned about global warming. There is a possibility that glaciers will melt, natural resources will dry up, and our environment will deteriorate. Does this mean that Hashem didn't make the world with wisdom? Of course not...the environment is in danger because human beings have been abusing it for years and years and years. Our actions have consequences, and can/should interfere with how the world works.
(This concept of the free will defense also works in the positive...we can do good things that impact the way the world functions. We can cure diseases, overcome genetic predispositions, etc.)
One important thing to note: there isn't always a direct cause and effect with the free will defense. Meaning, we know that smoking causes lung cancer, but we can't necessarily say that it was any one particular action that caused a certain person to get sick. We don't know how our actions will take effect, but according to the free will defense, they certainly do make an impact (and this is a good thing, we want our actions to be meaningful!).
On a personal note, I am of the opinion that "the exception proves the rule". I absolutely think that looking around the world, at the amazing details of nature and the human body in particular, you see Hashem's hand.
I hope this is clear and am happy to discuss more in person.
Best,
Nina Bieler
Friday, February 27, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Dear Abby
Today in our JPhil class we ended up having a "Dear Abby" discussion about why our davening has not been so amazing, and ways that we can improve it. People suggested really fantastic ideas. If any other Ma'ayanoters have ideas, please send them in and we can post them on the blog!
Here are some ideas that we came up with (they were all great!)
Jennifer Herskowitz: get together with a friend and write down what you think about for each bracha of shmoneh esreh, and then exchange notes
Atara Clark: use tefllah as a way of getting through difficult times (ie-the stresses of the 11th grade workload etc.)
Rebecca Peyser: decide what you want to daven for that day, and you will find that so many parts of davening are actually perfectly matched with what you are davening for
Mrs. Sinensky: take a yellow sticky note and make a list of things that you think will help your tefillah be more meaningful. stick it in your siddur so that you can look at it throughout tefillah.
Here are some ideas that we came up with (they were all great!)
Jennifer Herskowitz: get together with a friend and write down what you think about for each bracha of shmoneh esreh, and then exchange notes
Atara Clark: use tefllah as a way of getting through difficult times (ie-the stresses of the 11th grade workload etc.)
Rebecca Peyser: decide what you want to daven for that day, and you will find that so many parts of davening are actually perfectly matched with what you are davening for
Mrs. Sinensky: take a yellow sticky note and make a list of things that you think will help your tefillah be more meaningful. stick it in your siddur so that you can look at it throughout tefillah.
Swearing in Court
Miriam Jacobson asks: If an american jew is called to court to testify or for jury duty, are they allowed to take an oath, in a secular court?
Rabbi Jachter writes: The U.S. Constitution offers the option to affirm instead of swearing. This option should be taken.
Rabbi Jachter writes: The U.S. Constitution offers the option to affirm instead of swearing. This option should be taken.
How can we thank Hashem for giving us everything we want?
Daniella Grodko asks: In Ashrei we say, "You open up Your Hand, and satisfy the desire of every living thing." I have learned that this sentence is to be said with much concentration. So much so, that if one does not have Kavanah while saying this sentence, he should repeat it. I don't understand why this line is so focused on. Yes, its a nice idea about G-d but why is it THAT amazing that it should be said again if the first time wasn't so great. I also don't think I can say this sentence truthfully according to the Artscroll's definition. How can I say that G-d satisfies all desires if I don't have everything that I want?
I have also wondered about this question, so thank you for spurring me to research it.
The Shulchan Aruch 51:7 is the source for the law that you state, that one should have extra concentration on the verse "You open Your hand..." Mishnah Berurah 51:15 explains why: "The whole reason Hazal instituted the practice to say Ashrei every day is for this pasuk, where we praise Hashem that He provides for His creatures." Rav Samson Rafael Hirsch (Germany, 1808-1888), in his peirush on Tehillim (Ashrei is Tehillim perek 145), agrees: this verse, he says, sums up the theme of perek 145 as a whole (and indeed of Pesukei de-Zimra itself): the universal order of God, which provides for every living thing. Rav Hirsch, however, also asks your question: "There are many who wait in vain for the fulfillment of their desires and indeed, there are people who are in want of the basic necessities of life!"
His answer is a bit complex.
Rav Hirsch explains that "You open Your Hand..." is a general statement, that all living creatures, including people, are sustained by God. Whatever we do get comes from Him, and He is capable of providing for all. But we - humans - don't necessarily get everything we want. It's true that the world in general is sustained by God without needing to justify or deserve it, but man in particular has special circumstances. We have intellect and free will and are subject to God's judgement as to whether we deserve to have our desires and needs fulfilled. Therefore, we say the next verse, "God is just in all His ways..." If we are not getting our desires fulfilled, it is a result of God's justice. "You open Your hand ..." is praise for Hashem's ability to benevolently run the world in general, but not for giving us each our own particular desires.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Tefilla Contest - Yael Herzog
Here is the submission of last month's 3rd place winner - Yael Herzog. The first two winning entries can be found here and here. They are all responding to "מודים אנחנו לך... על ניסך שבכל עמנו". Remember to work on your responses to this months passage - "קרוב ד' לכל קוראיו, לכל אשר יקראוהו באמת" - due on March 2.
MY KINDERGARTEN THEORY
The room was dark,
No light shined through
But the souls of those that stood.
They stood there still
And were not to move
For moving, not they could.
They had but one task
So tormenting, so tough,
was to travel through that door.
One tried to sit
And scootch himself,
but burned against the floor.
One lied on back
And tried to squirm
But found himself too weak.
One crouched on down
But moved not an inch,
for he did not know how to leap.
One day far off,
A lonely soul
At once began to talk.
“I did it!” he said,
and took a step.
He discovered how to walk!
What if walking didn’t come so easily? Do you think each taken step would carry a greater load of gratitude?
MY KINDERGARTEN THEORY
The room was dark,
No light shined through
But the souls of those that stood.
They stood there still
And were not to move
For moving, not they could.
They had but one task
So tormenting, so tough,
was to travel through that door.
One tried to sit
And scootch himself,
but burned against the floor.
One lied on back
And tried to squirm
But found himself too weak.
One crouched on down
But moved not an inch,
for he did not know how to leap.
One day far off,
A lonely soul
At once began to talk.
“I did it!” he said,
and took a step.
He discovered how to walk!
What if walking didn’t come so easily? Do you think each taken step would carry a greater load of gratitude?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Slavery
Each year, at פרשת משפטים, the subject of the Torah allowing and regulating slavery troubles many of us. While this issue is clearly bigger than can be adequately addressed in a blog post, here are a couple of notes. First, just because the Torah allows something, doesn't mean that it endorses it. There some things that are permitted, but are still considered to be a bad idea. For example, we all know that polygamy is permitted by Torah law, but what is its attitude towards polygamy? Being that every case in Tanach (am I missing any?) in which we learn about a man marrying multiple wives ends badly, I don't think we should consider that an endorsement.
Another idea to consider is one that I found from Rav Kook. Don't worry, it's not very long.
While neither of these fully address this complicated issue, to me they are a starting point in trying to better understand the Torah's position.
Another idea to consider is one that I found from Rav Kook. Don't worry, it's not very long.
While neither of these fully address this complicated issue, to me they are a starting point in trying to better understand the Torah's position.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Teaching Religious Zionism
Michal Novetsky, Ma'ayanot Class of 2007, asks:
Based on the statement that Zionism expressed to its full potential is Aliyah to Israel, how can the Religious Zionist community in America best teach Zionism? I ask this because in general religious people tend to teach ideals but in this specific example, in the end of the day, there are just some things that contradict. I want to be clear that I'm asking this question not to challenge in any way the community in America, I am asking because I think there is an answer: What is the best way to teach Zionism in America?
We are so pleased, Michal, that you consider yourself a blog-contributing member of the Ma’ayanot community, and we hope that other alumnae are inspired to do the same!
The core values of Religious Zionism inform aliyah, but also exist exclusive of it. They include: Israel as our *God-given*, and not just “historical”, homeland; Medinat Yisrael as the atchalta de-geula; Eretz Yisrael as the place in which we can practice all of Hashem’s mitzvot, and E”Y as not merely a State for Jews, but a Jewish State. (The practical implications of the latter are up for debate, even among the Dati Leumi sector in Israel.) I think a teacher can employ multiple pedagogical approaches in transmitting these values. This is precisely what we are aiming to do within our Modern Jewish History curriculum at Ma’ayanot – through readings, discussions, dramatizations, play-acting, debates, writing assignments, and so on. I would argue that these ideals, absorbed fully (through these various approaches, and reinforced outside of school – at home, in camp, in shul, etc.), are frequently what motivates a person to make aliyah. It seems to me that Diaspora teachers of Religious Zionism can be well qualified and passionate enough to transmit them. Indeed, I would argue that it is our job to do so, as we are the ones teaching Diaspora Jews.
I myself struggle with the reality of believing that I should express my awe of the nes of 1948 by living in Israel, but (for various reasons, as many people have) not doing so. I have no problem sharing that struggle, in broad strokes, with my students – but I also feel I have what to contribute to the Jewish community in the United States, which has, I believe, its own intrinsic value.
These are just a few thoughts, and I personally would welcome others' comments about this issue.
Based on the statement that Zionism expressed to its full potential is Aliyah to Israel, how can the Religious Zionist community in America best teach Zionism? I ask this because in general religious people tend to teach ideals but in this specific example, in the end of the day, there are just some things that contradict. I want to be clear that I'm asking this question not to challenge in any way the community in America, I am asking because I think there is an answer: What is the best way to teach Zionism in America?
We are so pleased, Michal, that you consider yourself a blog-contributing member of the Ma’ayanot community, and we hope that other alumnae are inspired to do the same!
The core values of Religious Zionism inform aliyah, but also exist exclusive of it. They include: Israel as our *God-given*, and not just “historical”, homeland; Medinat Yisrael as the atchalta de-geula; Eretz Yisrael as the place in which we can practice all of Hashem’s mitzvot, and E”Y as not merely a State for Jews, but a Jewish State. (The practical implications of the latter are up for debate, even among the Dati Leumi sector in Israel.) I think a teacher can employ multiple pedagogical approaches in transmitting these values. This is precisely what we are aiming to do within our Modern Jewish History curriculum at Ma’ayanot – through readings, discussions, dramatizations, play-acting, debates, writing assignments, and so on. I would argue that these ideals, absorbed fully (through these various approaches, and reinforced outside of school – at home, in camp, in shul, etc.), are frequently what motivates a person to make aliyah. It seems to me that Diaspora teachers of Religious Zionism can be well qualified and passionate enough to transmit them. Indeed, I would argue that it is our job to do so, as we are the ones teaching Diaspora Jews.
I myself struggle with the reality of believing that I should express my awe of the nes of 1948 by living in Israel, but (for various reasons, as many people have) not doing so. I have no problem sharing that struggle, in broad strokes, with my students – but I also feel I have what to contribute to the Jewish community in the United States, which has, I believe, its own intrinsic value.
These are just a few thoughts, and I personally would welcome others' comments about this issue.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Honesty & Mixed Messages
As we start פרשת משפטים, we we are first exposed to the civil laws that govern our personal interactions. That, as well as all of the headlines about A-Rod cheating, got me thinking about honesty and the messages we give you guys. Though I have only limited personal experience with it, every article or study I've seen says that there is probably some cheating in Maayanot. I've also heard that some students (not necessarily in our school) consider themselves perfectly honest, but think it's OK to cheat if they feel the test is unfair or stupid. (Interestingly, I recently heard of a psak - I don't remember from who - that said that if you cheat which helps your GPA which helps you get into college which helps you get a job, then a sliver of every dollar you earn forever is tainted.)
I wonder if we teachers may be inadvertently contributing to this problem. Many of my students know that a long-standing pet peeve of mine is the policy of not deducting points when I make mistakes when grading tests in the student's favor. My understanding is that most teachers don't deduct the points, presumably because we don't want to punish the student for her honesty bringing the error to our attention. Yet, until recently I always did because I'm afraid that we send the opposite message - that it's OK to only be honest when you don't have to pay a price for it. The guy at the cash register who gives you an extra $10 won't tell you to keep it when you tell him about his mistake.
I've recently changed my policy to conform with the norm, but I usually follow it up with this mussar schmooze to try to mitigate the message. What do you all think?
I wonder if we teachers may be inadvertently contributing to this problem. Many of my students know that a long-standing pet peeve of mine is the policy of not deducting points when I make mistakes when grading tests in the student's favor. My understanding is that most teachers don't deduct the points, presumably because we don't want to punish the student for her honesty bringing the error to our attention. Yet, until recently I always did because I'm afraid that we send the opposite message - that it's OK to only be honest when you don't have to pay a price for it. The guy at the cash register who gives you an extra $10 won't tell you to keep it when you tell him about his mistake.
I've recently changed my policy to conform with the norm, but I usually follow it up with this mussar schmooze to try to mitigate the message. What do you all think?
Matan Torah Musings
Some food for thought:
The Midrash tells us that at Matan Torah, all of Creation stood still. The waves stopped rolling, the birds stopped chirping, everything came to a standstill. One way of understanding this Midrash is that it is emphasizing the power of of Hashem's presence and closeness to us at the time of Matan Torah. Nature could not go on, because the experience was so overwhelming.
I think that we can learn a lesson from this Midrash as well. There are times in our lives where we are lucky enough to experience the Presence of Hashem, even if just for a moment. It may be when we are hiking up Masada on a summer trip to Israel, learning something amazing in Gemara or Tanach, or witnessing a person experience a refuah shlema. At these times, it is important to stop, recognize Hashem's Presence, and realize that this is a precious moment that we can use as an impetus for further growth in our relationship with Hashem.
The Midrash tells us that at Matan Torah, all of Creation stood still. The waves stopped rolling, the birds stopped chirping, everything came to a standstill. One way of understanding this Midrash is that it is emphasizing the power of of Hashem's presence and closeness to us at the time of Matan Torah. Nature could not go on, because the experience was so overwhelming.
I think that we can learn a lesson from this Midrash as well. There are times in our lives where we are lucky enough to experience the Presence of Hashem, even if just for a moment. It may be when we are hiking up Masada on a summer trip to Israel, learning something amazing in Gemara or Tanach, or witnessing a person experience a refuah shlema. At these times, it is important to stop, recognize Hashem's Presence, and realize that this is a precious moment that we can use as an impetus for further growth in our relationship with Hashem.
Question about sippur Yosef
Aviva Novick asks:
1) Going back a few parshiot... I still don't understand why Yosef put his brothers through the whole episode when he claims that they're spies and makes them bring down Binyamin.
i've heard 3 possible answers, none of which I like, or maybe I just dont fully understand them:
a) "Yosef was tyring to make his dreams come true." I see where they're getting this from in the text, but why would yosef have to make his dreams come true? its not a navi's job to make his nevuot come true. why is this different?
b) "He wanted to see if the brothers had changed their ways and improved." why? for personal satisfaction? Its up to them to change, why does he need proof?
c) "Yosef wanted to provide the brothers with a chance to do Teshuva in olam haZeh so that their punishment wouldn't be so harsh in olam haBa." Why is it Yosef's place to do this? Hashem will give out reward and punishment as He sees fit. If Hashem wanted to give them an identical situation to michirat yosef so that they could do teshuva, Hashem would do it. It doesn't seem right for Yosef to step in.
The way I like to think about the Yosef story is along the lines of your answer b), that Yosef accused his brothers of being spies and asked them to bring him Binyamin in order to see if they had changed their ways and improved. The reason he did so was not to satisfy his own curiosity, but because the question of whether his brothers had done teshuva would determine the correct course of action for him to take. When Yosef saw his brothers coming to Mitzrayim for food, he probably wanted to tell them who he was immediately so he could reunite with Yaakov, whom he had missed for so many years. However, if the brothers still hated him, this would be an unwise idea that would just cause more problems for the family and stir up trouble in the waning years of Yaakov’s life. Moreover, the fact that the brothers came without Binyamin might have indicated to Yosef that there were indeed still problems between Bnei Leah and Bnei Rachel—otherwise, why wouldn’t he be with the rest of his brothers? Maybe they were estranged from him too! In fact, Rav Yoel Bin-Nun suggests that Yosef may have even thought that Yaakov himself had rejected him. Yosef knew that Avraham and Yitzchak had each had one son whom they loved and another son whom they rejected. He knew that, back in perek 37, Yaakov had sent him on a long journey alone to find his brothers, and when he found them, they immediately threw him into a pit and sold him into slavery! Therefore, he may have actually thought that Yaakov had been complicit with the brothers in the plan to sell him. Since he didn’t know if the brothers still hated him or even if Yaakov had rejected him, and since Binyamin’s absence might have made him think that the Bnei Rachel really had been rejected by the family, he honestly didn’t know what to do next when he saw his brothers. He may have wanted to reveal his identity, but may not have known if this would cause more problems than it would solve.
In order to figure out whether it was safe or wise for him to reveal who he was, Yosef asked the brothers to bring him Binyamin. If they couldn’t produce Binyamin, that would be another indication that they had really rejected Binyamin also—maybe they had sold him into slavery too! When they did bring Binyamin, Yosef still didn’t know if they felt loyalty to Binyamin (and, by extension, to him) or whether they hated Binyamin the same way they had hated him. He arranged a situation in which the brothers were forced to decide whether to sell Binyamin into slavery as they had sold Yosef into slavery, in order to protect themselves. If they had decided to leave Binyamin in Mitzrayim as Yosef’s slave, Yosef would have known that it was not possible for him to reconcile with his family. When they left, he probably would have revealed his identity to Binyamin and treated him well, allowing him a good life as opposed to the life he would have endured with his brothers who hated him. However, when Yosef saw that the brothers actually cared about Binyamin and refused to abandon him in Mitzrayim, he knew that the wounds had healed and that it was safe for him to reveal who he was and to begin the process of reconciliation.
1) Going back a few parshiot... I still don't understand why Yosef put his brothers through the whole episode when he claims that they're spies and makes them bring down Binyamin.
i've heard 3 possible answers, none of which I like, or maybe I just dont fully understand them:
a) "Yosef was tyring to make his dreams come true." I see where they're getting this from in the text, but why would yosef have to make his dreams come true? its not a navi's job to make his nevuot come true. why is this different?
b) "He wanted to see if the brothers had changed their ways and improved." why? for personal satisfaction? Its up to them to change, why does he need proof?
c) "Yosef wanted to provide the brothers with a chance to do Teshuva in olam haZeh so that their punishment wouldn't be so harsh in olam haBa." Why is it Yosef's place to do this? Hashem will give out reward and punishment as He sees fit. If Hashem wanted to give them an identical situation to michirat yosef so that they could do teshuva, Hashem would do it. It doesn't seem right for Yosef to step in.
The way I like to think about the Yosef story is along the lines of your answer b), that Yosef accused his brothers of being spies and asked them to bring him Binyamin in order to see if they had changed their ways and improved. The reason he did so was not to satisfy his own curiosity, but because the question of whether his brothers had done teshuva would determine the correct course of action for him to take. When Yosef saw his brothers coming to Mitzrayim for food, he probably wanted to tell them who he was immediately so he could reunite with Yaakov, whom he had missed for so many years. However, if the brothers still hated him, this would be an unwise idea that would just cause more problems for the family and stir up trouble in the waning years of Yaakov’s life. Moreover, the fact that the brothers came without Binyamin might have indicated to Yosef that there were indeed still problems between Bnei Leah and Bnei Rachel—otherwise, why wouldn’t he be with the rest of his brothers? Maybe they were estranged from him too! In fact, Rav Yoel Bin-Nun suggests that Yosef may have even thought that Yaakov himself had rejected him. Yosef knew that Avraham and Yitzchak had each had one son whom they loved and another son whom they rejected. He knew that, back in perek 37, Yaakov had sent him on a long journey alone to find his brothers, and when he found them, they immediately threw him into a pit and sold him into slavery! Therefore, he may have actually thought that Yaakov had been complicit with the brothers in the plan to sell him. Since he didn’t know if the brothers still hated him or even if Yaakov had rejected him, and since Binyamin’s absence might have made him think that the Bnei Rachel really had been rejected by the family, he honestly didn’t know what to do next when he saw his brothers. He may have wanted to reveal his identity, but may not have known if this would cause more problems than it would solve.
In order to figure out whether it was safe or wise for him to reveal who he was, Yosef asked the brothers to bring him Binyamin. If they couldn’t produce Binyamin, that would be another indication that they had really rejected Binyamin also—maybe they had sold him into slavery too! When they did bring Binyamin, Yosef still didn’t know if they felt loyalty to Binyamin (and, by extension, to him) or whether they hated Binyamin the same way they had hated him. He arranged a situation in which the brothers were forced to decide whether to sell Binyamin into slavery as they had sold Yosef into slavery, in order to protect themselves. If they had decided to leave Binyamin in Mitzrayim as Yosef’s slave, Yosef would have known that it was not possible for him to reconcile with his family. When they left, he probably would have revealed his identity to Binyamin and treated him well, allowing him a good life as opposed to the life he would have endured with his brothers who hated him. However, when Yosef saw that the brothers actually cared about Binyamin and refused to abandon him in Mitzrayim, he knew that the wounds had healed and that it was safe for him to reveal who he was and to begin the process of reconciliation.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Kiddush Hashem in Basketball / Parsha Question
I wanted to share with you a great article that I read in last week's Jewish Week (written by Sara Noa's father). It talks about Jewish teens are "defying the norm" when it comes to sports tournaments, and how impressed other schools are with the derekh eretz that Jewish students show both on and off the court, as opposed to the violent competition usually associated with such events. I particularly liked the part about how at a recent SAR basketball tournament, each elementary school grade "adopted" a visiting team to cheer for.
I thought that this really stresses the point that being an observant Jew is not just about the external halakha that you keep, but also about developing a "religious personality". This means being conscious of the Kiddush Hashem you can make even in such ordinary events as a basketball or hockey game, and in allowing the Torah that we learn to affect how we behave even outside of the Bet Midrash. This is what being an Or LaGoyim is all about.
Finally, a question on the Parsha. Ibn Ezra asks a great question on the last of the 10 hadibrot: "Lo Takhmod". He asks (Ibn Ezra, Shemot 20:14), how can G-d command us to not be jealous of other people? People naturally are jealous of what they do not have. One can command someone to not ACT upon those feelings of jealousy, but how can G-d command us to not FEEL an emotion? Isn't true strength the fact that we decide not to act on certain feelings or emotions, even we have them? You can check out his perush for his answer, but I think his question is better then the answer he provides. I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on this; can G-d command us not to feel an emotion? Is this within our ability to control? Or should Mitzvot ultimately only control our actions?
Shabbat Shalom!
I thought that this really stresses the point that being an observant Jew is not just about the external halakha that you keep, but also about developing a "religious personality". This means being conscious of the Kiddush Hashem you can make even in such ordinary events as a basketball or hockey game, and in allowing the Torah that we learn to affect how we behave even outside of the Bet Midrash. This is what being an Or LaGoyim is all about.
Finally, a question on the Parsha. Ibn Ezra asks a great question on the last of the 10 hadibrot: "Lo Takhmod". He asks (Ibn Ezra, Shemot 20:14), how can G-d command us to not be jealous of other people? People naturally are jealous of what they do not have. One can command someone to not ACT upon those feelings of jealousy, but how can G-d command us to not FEEL an emotion? Isn't true strength the fact that we decide not to act on certain feelings or emotions, even we have them? You can check out his perush for his answer, but I think his question is better then the answer he provides. I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on this; can G-d command us not to feel an emotion? Is this within our ability to control? Or should Mitzvot ultimately only control our actions?
Shabbat Shalom!
Thursday, February 12, 2009
How can Beit Din punish criminals, isn't that Nekama?
From Danielle Weitchner:
How can Beit Din punish criminals, isn't that Nekama?
Two thoughts (without researching the topic)
1) You could say that the issur of "lo tikom velo titor" is directed to individuals, and not to beit din.
2) True nekama, revenge, is when a person does something to her friend just for the sake of spiting her. There is no constructive purpose to the act. However, Beit Din punishes criminals for a purpose (there are different perspectives as to what that purpose is: to get the person kapara, to prevent more crimes from happening/keep order in society, etc.) Therefore, I don't think that when Beit Din punishes people it is would fall under the category of nekama.
How can Beit Din punish criminals, isn't that Nekama?
Two thoughts (without researching the topic)
1) You could say that the issur of "lo tikom velo titor" is directed to individuals, and not to beit din.
2) True nekama, revenge, is when a person does something to her friend just for the sake of spiting her. There is no constructive purpose to the act. However, Beit Din punishes criminals for a purpose (there are different perspectives as to what that purpose is: to get the person kapara, to prevent more crimes from happening/keep order in society, etc.) Therefore, I don't think that when Beit Din punishes people it is would fall under the category of nekama.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Tefilla Contest Winner
The runner up submission, by Alona Stewart - responding to "מודים אנחנו לך... על ניסך שבכל עמנו":
She's sitting at her desk, slumped against the wood surface, the lesson barely registering in her mind. She laments silently that there's nothing interesting going on, nothing spectacular, nothing noteworthy, nothing at all.
A bird flies by, buoyed up despite the still air, its wings creating support to hold it up on nothing.
She yawns.
When she does, her lungs contract, forcing a breath out, and it passes into the room, creating tiny disturbances in the air all around, a chain reaction. It stirs a few hairs lying over her face, but they soon settle back into place, pulled by the forces that are even now dragging everything in the room towards the center of the earth, holding everyone down.
She tucks the hair behind her ear, her muscles stretching and moving her bones, blood vessels, skin, everything. She's running low on energy, like the kind that let her move her hand, and her brain reminded her body that it was almost time for some food.
Her stomach growls.
She sighs. Fourteen more minutes and then she's free, and lunch was waiting. She looks at the clock for a few seconds, watching the hands move, excruciatingly slow. She doesn't realize what a strange thing time is, something that exists but doesn't exist, isn't something that we can see or touch- it isn't even really there.
The walls, the floor, the desks, her classmates, her- may seem still, but are all moving constantly, every second, made up of tiny particles vibrating too fast to see or feel. They are made up of millions of them, little pieces coming together to make a whole, and although the air hangs with heaviness there are even tinier particles moving frenziedly around inside them. Despite the thickness of the mood, the heaviness- they are mostly empty space.
And yet, still…
There's nothing interesting going on.
She's sitting at her desk, slumped against the wood surface, the lesson barely registering in her mind. She laments silently that there's nothing interesting going on, nothing spectacular, nothing noteworthy, nothing at all.
A bird flies by, buoyed up despite the still air, its wings creating support to hold it up on nothing.
She yawns.
When she does, her lungs contract, forcing a breath out, and it passes into the room, creating tiny disturbances in the air all around, a chain reaction. It stirs a few hairs lying over her face, but they soon settle back into place, pulled by the forces that are even now dragging everything in the room towards the center of the earth, holding everyone down.
She tucks the hair behind her ear, her muscles stretching and moving her bones, blood vessels, skin, everything. She's running low on energy, like the kind that let her move her hand, and her brain reminded her body that it was almost time for some food.
Her stomach growls.
She sighs. Fourteen more minutes and then she's free, and lunch was waiting. She looks at the clock for a few seconds, watching the hands move, excruciatingly slow. She doesn't realize what a strange thing time is, something that exists but doesn't exist, isn't something that we can see or touch- it isn't even really there.
The walls, the floor, the desks, her classmates, her- may seem still, but are all moving constantly, every second, made up of tiny particles vibrating too fast to see or feel. They are made up of millions of them, little pieces coming together to make a whole, and although the air hangs with heaviness there are even tinier particles moving frenziedly around inside them. Despite the thickness of the mood, the heaviness- they are mostly empty space.
And yet, still…
There's nothing interesting going on.
Inspiring Thoughts - from Allison Alt
A while back we posted a quote from Zahava Rothschild that she found religiously inspirational. Here is a collection of quotes that Allison found at a Chabad website that speak to her. I think this is a valuable exercise for a few reasons. First, it allows all of us to see something that we might enjoy and that could effect us positively. Also, it gives us teachers insight into the different types of material that can reach different students. From the soaring rhetoric of the Rav to sharp Chasidic Mussar points, we each get closer to Hashem in our own way; that's important for us all to keep in mind. Enjoy.
- "Sometimes, when I consider what tremendous consequences result from little things, I am tempted to think that there are no little things."
- "When I start to find fault with all that I see, it's time to start looking for what's wrong with me."—Adapted from Rabbi Yisroel Baal Shem Tov
- "When you point your finger at someone else, three fingers are pointing at yourself."
The man whispered, "G-d, speak to me," and a meadowlark sang. But the man did not hear.
So the man yelled, "G-d, speak to me!" And the thunder rolled across the sky. The man still did not listen.
He looked around and said, "G-d, let me see You." And a star shone brightly. But the man did not notice.
He shouted, "G-d, show me a miracle!" And a life was born. But the man did not know.
The man cried out in despair, "Touch me, G-d, and let me know You are here!" whereupon G-d reached down and touched the man. But the man brushed the butterfly away and walked on. - Don't reject a blessing because it isn't packaged as you expect
- "A true friend is someone who knows us – and still likes us.""The best thing to do behind a person's back – is pat it!"
- A French astronomer announced, "I have swept the universe with my telescope, and I find no G-d."
A famous violinist responded to him, "That is as unreasonable as if I were to say, 'I have taken my violin apart, examined each piece with my microscope and find no music.'" - "Living in this world, we view the back of a master embroidery piece. Mismatched colored strings, knotted and twisted, overlap to form a warped pattern. But G-d views the other side. Colors blended in unity, each detail perfectly patterned forms a design of the highest quality." —Chana Burston
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Tzniut in front of non-Jewish men - a response to Ms. F's query
Ms. F wrote:
May I say that I feel so validated by what Mrs. Knoll wrote! I always felt the same way, even if I couldn't articulate why I felt that it was right.
Now I have a question, I was told that I could walk around an amusement park in my bathing suit if the only men there were non-Jews? Besides the obvious point that how can one possibly be 100% positive that all males are not Jewish - does tzniut only apply in front of Jewish men?
First, I'm so glad you liked what I wrote - thanks!
Now to address your question:
At first I didn’t understand how anyone could have even suggested to you that it might be OK to walk around in a bathing suit in front of non-Jewish men. It seemed almost absurd; in fact, in some ways, it seemed even worse than wearing a bathing suit in front of Jewish men – at least a Jewish man a girl might want to attract so that she can marry him, but nothing good can come of THIS scenario! But then, through an unrelated discussion with my Seminar class (about hair covering), I realized what the question is based on and I think there actually is a very logical basis for the suggestion, even though I think it is ultimately incorrect. I think the suggestion is based on the possibility that all the tzniut prohibitions are really on the man (i.e. he is not allowed to see immodestly dressed women); a woman needs to cover up only so that she does not cause a man to see something he is not allowed to see (lifnei iveir), but there is no objective issur upon the woman herself to be dressed in an immodest way. If that were the case, then it would make sense to say that if there are no Jewish men around, then there is no one around who has the issur of seeing immodestly dressed women, and so the women can dress however they want. However, I think this is an incorrect view of tzniut. I think that tzniut is very much a woman’s mitzvah – I think that we ourselves are obligated to dress modestly in front of men, not only so as to prevent them from sinning, but b/c we are obligated vis-à-vis ourselves to carry ourselves with dignity and dress modestly in front of them. If I am correct about that (and I apologize that I don’t have the time right now to research it and find out for sure - when I do, I will hopefully add to the blog), then I think it is irrelevant whether the men around are Jewish or not Jewish –either way, we have a mitzvah upon ourselves to dress appropriately.
In addition, I agree with Ms. Hoenig/Mrs. B’s point that this is a case in which sensitivity to tzniut would hopefully lead someone to decide not to wear a bathing suit in a park full of non-Jewish men, even if it turned it out that it was technically mutar (though I really don’t think it is, as I wrote above). To me this seems significantly less tzanua than wearing sweatpants while playing basketball when a man happens to walk in or wearing a bathing suit at an all-women's beach when one man happens to show up where he doesn't belong.
May I say that I feel so validated by what Mrs. Knoll wrote! I always felt the same way, even if I couldn't articulate why I felt that it was right.
Now I have a question, I was told that I could walk around an amusement park in my bathing suit if the only men there were non-Jews? Besides the obvious point that how can one possibly be 100% positive that all males are not Jewish - does tzniut only apply in front of Jewish men?
First, I'm so glad you liked what I wrote - thanks!
Now to address your question:
At first I didn’t understand how anyone could have even suggested to you that it might be OK to walk around in a bathing suit in front of non-Jewish men. It seemed almost absurd; in fact, in some ways, it seemed even worse than wearing a bathing suit in front of Jewish men – at least a Jewish man a girl might want to attract so that she can marry him, but nothing good can come of THIS scenario! But then, through an unrelated discussion with my Seminar class (about hair covering), I realized what the question is based on and I think there actually is a very logical basis for the suggestion, even though I think it is ultimately incorrect. I think the suggestion is based on the possibility that all the tzniut prohibitions are really on the man (i.e. he is not allowed to see immodestly dressed women); a woman needs to cover up only so that she does not cause a man to see something he is not allowed to see (lifnei iveir), but there is no objective issur upon the woman herself to be dressed in an immodest way. If that were the case, then it would make sense to say that if there are no Jewish men around, then there is no one around who has the issur of seeing immodestly dressed women, and so the women can dress however they want. However, I think this is an incorrect view of tzniut. I think that tzniut is very much a woman’s mitzvah – I think that we ourselves are obligated to dress modestly in front of men, not only so as to prevent them from sinning, but b/c we are obligated vis-à-vis ourselves to carry ourselves with dignity and dress modestly in front of them. If I am correct about that (and I apologize that I don’t have the time right now to research it and find out for sure - when I do, I will hopefully add to the blog), then I think it is irrelevant whether the men around are Jewish or not Jewish –either way, we have a mitzvah upon ourselves to dress appropriately.
In addition, I agree with Ms. Hoenig/Mrs. B’s point that this is a case in which sensitivity to tzniut would hopefully lead someone to decide not to wear a bathing suit in a park full of non-Jewish men, even if it turned it out that it was technically mutar (though I really don’t think it is, as I wrote above). To me this seems significantly less tzanua than wearing sweatpants while playing basketball when a man happens to walk in or wearing a bathing suit at an all-women's beach when one man happens to show up where he doesn't belong.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Re: Pants
An additional note from my chavrusa, Rabbi Josh Weinberger:
Tell Mrs. Knoll that her mehalech (approach) on wearing pants/bathing suit in all women areas where a man comes in is very similar to R'Moshe's approach - he has a teshuva in Igros Moshe about a male lifeguard for women's swimming hours. Because it is a place designed for women, it is not considered technically assur, though he adds a baalas nefesh (one who wants to be very careful about mitzvos) could be machmir.
Baruch Shekivant!
Tell Mrs. Knoll that her mehalech (approach) on wearing pants/bathing suit in all women areas where a man comes in is very similar to R'Moshe's approach - he has a teshuva in Igros Moshe about a male lifeguard for women's swimming hours. Because it is a place designed for women, it is not considered technically assur, though he adds a baalas nefesh (one who wants to be very careful about mitzvos) could be machmir.
Baruch Shekivant!
Another thought on makkat bechorot & pidyon haben
In addition to the excellent points that Rabbi Prince made in his post, I think another way to approach Leah and Aviva's question about makkat bechorot and pidyon haben is that there is a general theme of bechora that runs through the yetziat Mitzrayim story. Before Moshe goes to Mitzrayim to first ask Pharoah to let Bnei Yisrael go, Hashem appears to him and says, "Tell Pharoah, 'So says Hashem: Yisrael is My son, My firstborn. I have told you to send out My son to serve Me, and if you refuse to send him, behold I will kill your firstborn son'" (Shemot 4:22-23). "Bni bechori Yisrael" is the thesis statement of Yetziat Mitzrayim; the purpose of yetziat Mitzrayim is to demonstrate the unique "father/bechor" relationship of Hashem and Bnei Yisrael. The pesukim in perek 4 juxtapose the warning of makkat bechorot with the statement of "bni bechori Yisrael" because the point of makkat bechorot is that it demonstrates the truth of "bni bechori Yisrael." Makkat bechorot indicates to everyone that Yisrael is Hashem's bechor, and since the Mitzriim are torturing His bechor, He strikes their bechorot. Therefore, I think the commemorations of the fact that the Jewish bechorot were saved (pidyon haben, taanit bechorim) are another way of enacting "bni bechori Yisrael"--the Egyptian firstborn were killed, while the Jewish firstborn are consecrated to God.
First Strike!
Leah Blum and Aviva Novick ask:
Regarding Makat Bechorot - we do pidyon haBen in order to make up for the fact that Hashem saved our bechorot in makat bechorot. But part of the makka was specifically to target the Egyptians, and not Bnei Yisroel. Why are we making up for something that would never have happened? And if we are supposed to do this, why don’t we dedicate our light in some way to Hashem for sparing us from choshech, (or any other of the makkot)?
Although this question is related to last week’s parsha, I felt that the issues related to answering your question are themselves timeless.
You are correct, there is indeed a connection between Makkat Bechorot and Pidyon Ha’Ben; the Torah explicitly says so:
במדבר ג:יג- כִּי לִי, כָּל-בְּכוֹר--בְּיוֹם הַכֹּתִי כָל-בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם הִקְדַּשְׁתִּי לִי כָל-בְּכוֹר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאָדָם עַד-בְּהֵמָה: לִי יִהְיוּ, אֲנִי יְהוָה.
The Torah’s description of Makkat Bechorot and the state of devastation it left its victims in is quite shocking:
שמות יב:כט-ל- וַיְהִי בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה, וַיהוָה הִכָּה כָל-בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם... וַתְּהִי צְעָקָה גְדֹלָה, בְּמִצְרָיִם: כִּי-אֵין בַּיִת, אֲשֶׁר אֵין-שָׁם מֵת
This final blow to the Egyptians was not just meant to put an end to a very sad chapter in Jewish history, which came as a result of Hashem’s finally bringing our enemies to their knees, but this makka would literally create a new reality for those who were not even directly affected by it themselves- the Jews.
Immediately following the story of Makkot Bechorot the Torah describes the new role of firstborn Jewish male children and the role they would now have as leaders of the Jewish people:
שמות יג:א-ב- וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר. קַדֶּשׁ-לִי כָל-בְּכוֹר פֶּטֶר כָּל-רֶחֶם, בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--בָּאָדָם, וּבַבְּהֵמָה: לִי, הוּא.
שמות יג:יא– יב- וְהָיָה כִּי-יְבִאֲךָ יְהוָה, אֶל-אֶרֶץ הַכְּנַעֲנִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לְךָ, וְלַאֲבֹתֶיךָ; וּנְתָנָהּ, לָךְ. וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ כָל-פֶּטֶר-רֶחֶם, לַיהוָה; וְכָל-פֶּטֶר שֶׁגֶר בְּהֵמָה, אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה לְךָ הַזְּכָרִים--לַיהוָה.
Why though were the firstborn sons of Jewish families singled out for distinction, their lives were in no more jeopardy than any other Jew, after all, wasn’t this makka aimed at the Egyptians? It would seem though, that Jewish families were also at risk of casualties resulting from this devastating makka, why else would Jewish households be commanded to spread the blood of the Korban Pesach on their doorposts?:
שמות יב:כב- וּלְקַחְתֶּם אֲגֻדַּת אֵזוֹב, וּטְבַלְתֶּם בַּדָּם אֲשֶׁר-בַּסַּף, וְהִגַּעְתֶּם אֶל-הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְאֶל-שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת, מִן-הַדָּם אֲשֶׁר בַּסָּף; וְאַתֶּם, לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח-בֵּיתוֹ--עַד-בֹּקֶר.
Wasn’t the purpose of this to distinguish them from their Egyptian neighbors?:
שמות יב:כג - וְעָבַר יְהוָה, לִנְגֹּף אֶת-מִצְרַיִם, וְרָאָה אֶת-הַדָּם עַל-הַמַּשְׁקוֹף, וְעַל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת; וּפָסַח יְהוָה, עַל-הַפֶּתַח, וְלֹא יִתֵּן הַמַּשְׁחִית, לָבֹא אֶל-בָּתֵּיכֶם לִנְגֹּף.
The implication seems to be that anybody who did not do so was at equal risk of a potentially fatal outcome, despite the fact that they were Jewish. After all, isn’t this why the Jewish people required extra protection on that night? It was because of this extra protection that the Jews received from Hashem on the night of Makkat Bechorot that it is referred to as "לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים":
שמות יב: מב - לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים הוּא לַיהוָה, לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם: הוּא-הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה לַיהוָה, שִׁמֻּרִים לְכָל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְדֹרֹתָם.
But why? Why did the tenth makka specifically target the entire land and not just the Egyptians, as the previous makkot had? Would the Jewish people really have fallen victim to this makka if they didn’t properly identify their homes? Did Hashem need a reminder lest he run the risk of knocking on the wrong door?!
Rashi points out, יג:ב that the reason why Hashem specifically asked the Jewish people קַדֶּשׁ-לִי כָל-בְּכוֹר פֶּטֶר כָּל-רֶחֶם- “sanctify to me every first born” is because he in a sense “acquired” them after the tenth makka. Since He did not kill them along with the Egyptian’s firstborn they now belonged to Him. In other words, he spared them and now they owed him. What becomes clear is that the first nine makkot were targeted against the Egyptians, but the tenth was aimed specifically at bechorim everywhere, regardless of their nationality. (This is not to say that the Jews necessarily risked the same kind of casualties as the Egyptians, but rather that they too had to demonstrate that they fully understood the message Hashem was sending through makkat bechorot in order to deserve their salvation).
What was Hashem’s gripe with those who happened to also be firstborn children? Once we understand this we can also begin to understand why the decree of makkot bechorot extended to the children of slaves, captives and even animals, (ה:יא, יב:כט, יג:טו).
Egypt was a nation of slaves and there was a hierarchy there which existed amongst all classes of people. This social tiering was even present amongst the animals to some extent, and even the Jews themselves. The Talmud Yerushalmi uses this notion to explain the following possuk:
שמות ו: יג - וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן, וַיְצַוֵּם אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֶל-פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרָיִם--לְהוֹצִיא אֶת-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.
Although one would instinctively translate the phrase, “וַיְצַוֵּם אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל” to mean that Moshe and Aharon spoke with Paaroh concerning the Jewish people, the Meshech Chochma uses this Talmud Yerushalmi to offer a novel idea. He explains that the Jewish people, like Paaraoh, were also commanded to free their slaves, and thus Paaroh was not just to be spoken to concerning them, but that the Jews themselves were to be commanded to free their own slaves!
In order for the Jewish people to prepare themselves for their new post-slavery identity, a people whose identity would now and forever be defined by their commitment to Hashem and His Torah and whose stature in the world would come only as a result of their spiritual standing, a crash course involving vivid and graphic imagery would be necessary. If they were to transcend they too had to understand that what makes one great and what defines is his spiritual strivings. Once they could demonstrate that they understood this important concept then they no longer had to worry that Hashem would confuse them with the Egyptians, a people where everyone and everything was someone else’s master, even if he did not deserve this right. This directive came from the top, from a leader who thought he was a god.
From Makkat Bechorot forward a new precedent was to be set; man would have to earn the respect of other’s because of whom he was and what he represented. No longer could he simply demand respect. From here on in it would be earned. The Torah is also clear whose initiative this would have to be “קַדֶּשׁ-לִי כָל-בְּכוֹר.” We were told by Hashem to actively be mekadesh the firstborn because kedusha comes through effort and is neither granted nor freely possessed.
Although the privilege of serving in the Mikdash was originally reserved for bechorot, the natural leaders and those who would best be suited to inspire and help guide the Jewish people, this privilege was stripped from them after Chet Ha’Egel, (Rashi, במדבר, ג: (יג. As a result of their failure to remain apart during the Chet Ha’Egel and because they did not seize the opportunity to positively influence others, the mantle of leadership was passed on to the Leviim and the privilege of serving in the Mikdash was given to them. As a result of this transfer of responsibility, and since bechorot have an elevated status, which from then on would be supplanted by the Kohanim from the tribe of Levi, a Jewish father must redeem his firstborn son for five silver coins in a ceremony called a Pidyon Ha’Ben:
במדבר פרק ג:יב,מא - וַאֲנִי הִנֵּה לָקַחְתִּי אֶת-הַלְוִיִּם, מִתּוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, תַּחַת כָּל-בְּכוֹר פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם, מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְהָיוּ לִי, הַלְוִיִּם. וְלָקַחְתָּ אֶת-הַלְוִיִּם לִי אֲנִי יְהוָה, תַּחַת כָּל-בְּכֹר בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל;
Regarding Makat Bechorot - we do pidyon haBen in order to make up for the fact that Hashem saved our bechorot in makat bechorot. But part of the makka was specifically to target the Egyptians, and not Bnei Yisroel. Why are we making up for something that would never have happened? And if we are supposed to do this, why don’t we dedicate our light in some way to Hashem for sparing us from choshech, (or any other of the makkot)?
Although this question is related to last week’s parsha, I felt that the issues related to answering your question are themselves timeless.
You are correct, there is indeed a connection between Makkat Bechorot and Pidyon Ha’Ben; the Torah explicitly says so:
במדבר ג:יג- כִּי לִי, כָּל-בְּכוֹר--בְּיוֹם הַכֹּתִי כָל-בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם הִקְדַּשְׁתִּי לִי כָל-בְּכוֹר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאָדָם עַד-בְּהֵמָה: לִי יִהְיוּ, אֲנִי יְהוָה.
The Torah’s description of Makkat Bechorot and the state of devastation it left its victims in is quite shocking:
שמות יב:כט-ל- וַיְהִי בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה, וַיהוָה הִכָּה כָל-בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם... וַתְּהִי צְעָקָה גְדֹלָה, בְּמִצְרָיִם: כִּי-אֵין בַּיִת, אֲשֶׁר אֵין-שָׁם מֵת
This final blow to the Egyptians was not just meant to put an end to a very sad chapter in Jewish history, which came as a result of Hashem’s finally bringing our enemies to their knees, but this makka would literally create a new reality for those who were not even directly affected by it themselves- the Jews.
Immediately following the story of Makkot Bechorot the Torah describes the new role of firstborn Jewish male children and the role they would now have as leaders of the Jewish people:
שמות יג:א-ב- וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר. קַדֶּשׁ-לִי כָל-בְּכוֹר פֶּטֶר כָּל-רֶחֶם, בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--בָּאָדָם, וּבַבְּהֵמָה: לִי, הוּא.
שמות יג:יא– יב- וְהָיָה כִּי-יְבִאֲךָ יְהוָה, אֶל-אֶרֶץ הַכְּנַעֲנִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לְךָ, וְלַאֲבֹתֶיךָ; וּנְתָנָהּ, לָךְ. וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ כָל-פֶּטֶר-רֶחֶם, לַיהוָה; וְכָל-פֶּטֶר שֶׁגֶר בְּהֵמָה, אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה לְךָ הַזְּכָרִים--לַיהוָה.
Why though were the firstborn sons of Jewish families singled out for distinction, their lives were in no more jeopardy than any other Jew, after all, wasn’t this makka aimed at the Egyptians? It would seem though, that Jewish families were also at risk of casualties resulting from this devastating makka, why else would Jewish households be commanded to spread the blood of the Korban Pesach on their doorposts?:
שמות יב:כב- וּלְקַחְתֶּם אֲגֻדַּת אֵזוֹב, וּטְבַלְתֶּם בַּדָּם אֲשֶׁר-בַּסַּף, וְהִגַּעְתֶּם אֶל-הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְאֶל-שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת, מִן-הַדָּם אֲשֶׁר בַּסָּף; וְאַתֶּם, לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח-בֵּיתוֹ--עַד-בֹּקֶר.
Wasn’t the purpose of this to distinguish them from their Egyptian neighbors?:
שמות יב:כג - וְעָבַר יְהוָה, לִנְגֹּף אֶת-מִצְרַיִם, וְרָאָה אֶת-הַדָּם עַל-הַמַּשְׁקוֹף, וְעַל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת; וּפָסַח יְהוָה, עַל-הַפֶּתַח, וְלֹא יִתֵּן הַמַּשְׁחִית, לָבֹא אֶל-בָּתֵּיכֶם לִנְגֹּף.
The implication seems to be that anybody who did not do so was at equal risk of a potentially fatal outcome, despite the fact that they were Jewish. After all, isn’t this why the Jewish people required extra protection on that night? It was because of this extra protection that the Jews received from Hashem on the night of Makkat Bechorot that it is referred to as "לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים":
שמות יב: מב - לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים הוּא לַיהוָה, לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם: הוּא-הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה לַיהוָה, שִׁמֻּרִים לְכָל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְדֹרֹתָם.
But why? Why did the tenth makka specifically target the entire land and not just the Egyptians, as the previous makkot had? Would the Jewish people really have fallen victim to this makka if they didn’t properly identify their homes? Did Hashem need a reminder lest he run the risk of knocking on the wrong door?!
Rashi points out, יג:ב that the reason why Hashem specifically asked the Jewish people קַדֶּשׁ-לִי כָל-בְּכוֹר פֶּטֶר כָּל-רֶחֶם- “sanctify to me every first born” is because he in a sense “acquired” them after the tenth makka. Since He did not kill them along with the Egyptian’s firstborn they now belonged to Him. In other words, he spared them and now they owed him. What becomes clear is that the first nine makkot were targeted against the Egyptians, but the tenth was aimed specifically at bechorim everywhere, regardless of their nationality. (This is not to say that the Jews necessarily risked the same kind of casualties as the Egyptians, but rather that they too had to demonstrate that they fully understood the message Hashem was sending through makkat bechorot in order to deserve their salvation).
What was Hashem’s gripe with those who happened to also be firstborn children? Once we understand this we can also begin to understand why the decree of makkot bechorot extended to the children of slaves, captives and even animals, (ה:יא, יב:כט, יג:טו).
Egypt was a nation of slaves and there was a hierarchy there which existed amongst all classes of people. This social tiering was even present amongst the animals to some extent, and even the Jews themselves. The Talmud Yerushalmi uses this notion to explain the following possuk:
שמות ו: יג - וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן, וַיְצַוֵּם אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֶל-פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרָיִם--לְהוֹצִיא אֶת-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.
Although one would instinctively translate the phrase, “וַיְצַוֵּם אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל” to mean that Moshe and Aharon spoke with Paaroh concerning the Jewish people, the Meshech Chochma uses this Talmud Yerushalmi to offer a novel idea. He explains that the Jewish people, like Paaraoh, were also commanded to free their slaves, and thus Paaroh was not just to be spoken to concerning them, but that the Jews themselves were to be commanded to free their own slaves!
In order for the Jewish people to prepare themselves for their new post-slavery identity, a people whose identity would now and forever be defined by their commitment to Hashem and His Torah and whose stature in the world would come only as a result of their spiritual standing, a crash course involving vivid and graphic imagery would be necessary. If they were to transcend they too had to understand that what makes one great and what defines is his spiritual strivings. Once they could demonstrate that they understood this important concept then they no longer had to worry that Hashem would confuse them with the Egyptians, a people where everyone and everything was someone else’s master, even if he did not deserve this right. This directive came from the top, from a leader who thought he was a god.
From Makkat Bechorot forward a new precedent was to be set; man would have to earn the respect of other’s because of whom he was and what he represented. No longer could he simply demand respect. From here on in it would be earned. The Torah is also clear whose initiative this would have to be “קַדֶּשׁ-לִי כָל-בְּכוֹר.” We were told by Hashem to actively be mekadesh the firstborn because kedusha comes through effort and is neither granted nor freely possessed.
Although the privilege of serving in the Mikdash was originally reserved for bechorot, the natural leaders and those who would best be suited to inspire and help guide the Jewish people, this privilege was stripped from them after Chet Ha’Egel, (Rashi, במדבר, ג: (יג. As a result of their failure to remain apart during the Chet Ha’Egel and because they did not seize the opportunity to positively influence others, the mantle of leadership was passed on to the Leviim and the privilege of serving in the Mikdash was given to them. As a result of this transfer of responsibility, and since bechorot have an elevated status, which from then on would be supplanted by the Kohanim from the tribe of Levi, a Jewish father must redeem his firstborn son for five silver coins in a ceremony called a Pidyon Ha’Ben:
במדבר פרק ג:יב,מא - וַאֲנִי הִנֵּה לָקַחְתִּי אֶת-הַלְוִיִּם, מִתּוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, תַּחַת כָּל-בְּכוֹר פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם, מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְהָיוּ לִי, הַלְוִיִּם. וְלָקַחְתָּ אֶת-הַלְוִיִּם לִי אֲנִי יְהוָה, תַּחַת כָּל-בְּכֹר בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)