Vayikra' Leviticus 1:1-5:26
Tzav Leviticus 6:1-8:36
Shemini Leviticus 9:1-11:47
Tazria Leviticus 12:1-13:59
Metzora Leviticus 14:1-15:33
Acharei Mot Leviticus
16:1-18:30
Kedoshim Leviticus 19:1-20:27
Emor Leviticus 21:1-24:23
Behar Leviticus 25:1-26:2
Bechukkotai Leviticus
26:3-27:24
Leviticus in Human Development
CONTEXT: The Book of Leviticus, the third book of the Torah, contains a great deal of material dealing with ritual matters, some ethics, but almost no stories. How does it fit into the theoretical and narrative framework of the other four books?
Know that if the first person (Adam) had not sinned, it would not have been necessary for there to be a holy place, for all was like the Garden of Eden, and everything was holy, and as it says in Jeremiah: 'In the future they will no longer say: "The Ark of the covenant of GOD..."' (Jeremiah 3:16). Rashi [commenting on this verse] explains [this to mean that] 'any gathering of yours will be holy and I will dwell in it as if it were the Ark.' Similarly, there was no division between people regarding worship and priesthood, for they were all a 'kingdom of priests and a holy nation' (Exodus 19:6). Similarly, there was no distinction in time regarding holiness, for all times were equal in holiness, as it will be in the future, 'a world that is entirely Shabbat (Midrash Shir Hashirim Rabbah 4:9).'
Your sign [that] these three things [are true is the singular terms] 'world, year, soul' mentioned [frequently] in the Sefer Yetzirah, i.e. the holiness of place is of the 'world', the holiness of one time out of many is included in the term 'year', and the distinction in holiness between one person and other human beings is [included] in the term 'soul'.
A person did not have to approach [God] by means of a sacrifice, but the person was themselves a sacrifice to GOD, just as the souls of the righteous after their deaths are a sacrifice upon the altar above.
Therefore, this book [of the Torah] begins with a person, as it is said: 'If a person offers...' (Leviticus 1:2) – alluding to the first person (Adam); thus the Book of Leviticus [offers] reparation (tikkun) for human beings and all the laws of sacrifice.
After this [in Tazria' and Metzora'] are the plagues humans [suffer from], which are due to one's sins, and their cure, that is, uncleanness [arising from] menstruation, leprosy, secretions and discharges, and [methods of making] them clean.
After this [in 'Acharei Mot, 'after the death of'], the death of the two sons of Aaron alludes to the sons of the first human being [Cain and Abel].... And after this, there must be one day for atonement in the year, for thus was it decreed for Adam that on the day he ate of it, he would die, and the Holy Blessed One's day is 'elef (a thousand years) [cf. Psalm 90:4], and so it is [one] day for a thousand years. [Adam lived to be 930 years old (Genesis 5:5) – just less than one of God's 'days'.]
Then, to arouse holiness and to sanctify oneself [we have] the parashah of 'You shall be holy...' (Kedoshim, Leviticus 19:2). Then the holiness of time, in parashat 'Emor.
Then [we find] the matter of the seven sabbatical years [in parashat Behar], which are derived from the seven hidden days of creation...
After this are the blessings and curses, so that one may 'turn from evil and do good' (Proverbs 34:15 & 37:27). These promises 'If you walk in My statutes' (Bechukkotai, Leviticus 26:3) are not to be fulfilled until the [messianic] future; then eternity will inhere in the body and the spirit, as was the original intention of creation...
Isaiah HaLevi Horowitz (c.1570-1626), Shnei Luchot HaBrit (Jerusalem: 1975; reprint of 1863 ed.), v.2, p.54a.
COMMENT: To the untrained reader, the entire Book of Leviticus may seem a miscellaneous series of regulations, grouped into larger units admittedly, but with no inner connection between one section and another, and perhaps even without a spiritual dimension. Rabbi Horowitz seeks to dispel that impression with the analysis above.
For him, this book offers a blueprint or road-map designed to take us from the fall and the expulsion from the Garden of Eden to the messianic age. He suggests that the distinction between the holy and the profane did not exist in the Garden, and would disappear once again in the messianic age. His 'proof' for this is from the Sefer Yetzirah, the Book of Formation, believed to contain the secrets of God's creative process, where the singular and undifferentiated terms 'world', 'year' and 'soul' are frequently found from chapter 3 onwards to refer to the spatial, temporal and spiritual dimensions.
But we live in a world of differentiation and plurality, where each entity is perceived as distinct from all others, where we even see ourselves as separate and distinct from others and from the universe. In Horowitz's view, the Book of Leviticus is intended to help us bridge this gap by showing us how to sanctify ourselves after sinning, as described in the opening sidra of the book, parashat Vayikra'. The use of the word 'person' ('Adam) in relation to the sin-offering echoes the Adam's fall. [One presumes that he also sees the following parashiyot of Tzav and Shemini in the same light.]
The next sidrot, Tazria' and Metzora' deal with various medical and fungal conditions which, following Talmudic interpretation, Horowitz sees as the consequences of sin for which atonement has not been made.
The death of Aaron's sons in 'Acharei Mot reflects the conflict between Cain and Abel, both of which stem from a lack of understanding of how sacrifices were to be offered, and that sidra also includes the regulations for the Day of Atonement, which again refers back to Adam's life-span.
Having dealt with the issues arising from human sinfulness, the next sidra, Kedoshim, is meant to lead us on to holiness, while the one that follows it, 'Emor, is concerned with the festivals, or the working out of holiness in time. This in turn leads on to sidra Behar which deals primarily with the sabbatical and jubilee year, while in Bechukkotai, the discussion turns to the promises of good things if we observe God's laws and bad things if we do not. For Horowitz, as for others, the fulfilment of the good promises awaits the messianic age.
For me, this passage presents us with a crucial thought about our place in the history of humanity and the universe. It suggests that our task is to try to restore the unalloyed holiness that surrounded and encompassed Adam and Eve before the Fall and thus bring about the messianic redemption of our species. But we cannot do this without learning the painful lessons of life after the Fall, the lessons of sin and atonement, of death and loss, of holy and profane. Our new, messianic holiness will be of a higher order than that which our primeval ancestors perceived, precisely because we have passed through the stage of making distinctions and committing sins. We will become wiser for having sinned and repented.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
The Lesson of the Small 'Alef
CONTEXT: The opening word of the Book of Leviticus is written with a small final letter 'alef in many Torah scrolls and printed Bibles, and it is not at all clear why this should be so. Is there some lesson to be learned from this?
[Vayikra' 'And [God] called [Moses]....']
Leviticus 1:1
In the name of the Rav [Pinchas of Koretz]: [At the beginning of the Book of Leviticus the word] vayikra' [is written with] a small 'alef. In the [commentary called] Ba'al HaTurim [by Jacob ben Asher, 1270-1340] it says that because of his great humility Moses wanted to write vayikar ('And God met') as is written in the case of Balaam (Numbers 23:4). Therefore, the 'alef is written small. From this a person ought to learn to be small and humble. This is [the meaning of the word] 'aluf ('chief, master' in Hebrew; in Aramaic the root 'aLaF means 'to learn, teach') – it is an expression denoting learning – learning to be small.
From a text of the school of Pinchas of Koretz (1726-1791), Ms 803759 in Jewish National & University Library, fol.111b.
COMMENT: Pinchas of Koretz summarizes the answer to the question of the undersized 'alef that the Ba'al HaTurim gives, namely that this was a sign of Moses' great humility, in comparison with the non-Israelite Balaam, said to be the greatest non-Jewish prophet ever (cf. Bemidbar Rabbah 14:19). But then R. Pinchas adds his own view, connecting the name of the letter 'alef with the Hebrew term 'aluf and the Aramaic root 'alaf, with its connotations of teaching and learning. From this he derives the lesson that the small 'alef suggests that Moses' humility is a model for our own, that each person has the task of learning, not for the sake of becoming greater, as we so often think, but for the sake of becoming smaller, that is, more humble. True humility, like any skill, must be learned. Learning must lead to humility, not to pride.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Slaughtering the Enemy Within
CONTEXT:Much of the opening chapters of Leviticus is devoted to laws pertaining to the various sacrifices to be offered in the Tabernacle/Temple. Chapter one relates to the 'olah, the whole burnt offering.
'Then he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar towards the north (tzafonah) before GOD...'
Leviticus 1:11
[Said R. Yitzchak Meir Alter of Ger (1789-1866)]: 'Then he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar...' One must say that the interpretation is: 'Then he shall slaughter it' [means] the inclination towards evil; 'on the side of the altar' meaning at the 'birthplace,' at the [actual] moment that the act [is committed], lest you say: It is tzafunah ('hidden'), concealed and covert. Therefore, you will realise that it is 'before GOD', for the Blessed God knows all.
Yo'etz Qayyam Qadish Rokotz (ed.), Siach Sarfei Qodesh (n.p., n.d.), pt.3, p.59.
COMMENT: Of course, it is clear from the original context of the verse that 'it' refers to the whole burnt offering, but because the Torah is of eternal relevance and a literal fulfilment of this text is out of the question while there is no Temple, the Gerer rebbe applies the text to the issue of how to deal with the inclination towards evil that exists within each of us.
His answer is that we must acknowledge its presence in whatever act we may engage in at the moment we are doing it. The alternative is to imagine that it is hidden from God (which of course it isn't); instead we must realise that it is known to God and therefore, bring it to our own consciousness. In this teaching, the Gerer is clearly treading a path, common to much Hasidic and mystical literature, that there is great personal spiritual benefit in making that which is unconscious within us conscious. (Indeed, much of modern psychotherapy and analysis is based on the same premise.) Once our motives have become clearer to us, we may begin to purify them and strive to act selflessly to do what is right for its own sake.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Without Ulterior Motive
CONTEXT: In chapter 2 of this third book of the Torah, we find the laws of the meal offerings.
'You shall burn no [leaven, nor any honey, as an offering by fire to GOD].'
Leviticus 2:11
Once the Rav [ Pinchas of Koretz] said: 'If one were to put the smallest amount of honey [into the incense, no one could have resisted the scent]' (Talmud Yerushalmi, Yoma 4:5). That is to say, if a 'tiny bit' of ulterior motive were permitted in the midst of prayer, the prayer would be so very pleasant that 'no one could resist the scent.' But the Torah says: 'You shall burn no [leaven, nor any honey, as an offering by fire to GOD]' (Leviticus 2:11) so that there should be no ulterior motive.
Pinchas of Koretz (1726-1791), Ms 803759 in Jewish National & University Library, fol.153a.
COMMENT: The opening verse here clearly prohibits the addition of honey to the incense burnt in the Tabernacle, despite the fact that honey would presumably have made the aroma that much sweeter. The question is why? What is wrong with making the aroma sweeter? As we see, the Jerusalem Talmud attempts an answer, but in reality only leaves a deeper question. If incense with honey would have been irresistible, why does the Torah avoid the combination? Surely anything that will make religion more palatable and appealing should be done! But perhaps the Jerusalem Talmud is suggesting that free will may not be set aside. People must always have the freedom to decide for, or against, God.
Pinchas of Koretz seems to take a different tack. For him, the honey represents ulterior motive. When we undertake a mitzvah, a commandment or good deed, and prayer in particular, there may be many reasons behind our action. In Hasidic thought, the ideal that is held out before us is ethical action for God's sake, not for our own sake, not even for the sake of our spiritual development. Any ulterior motive is therefore to be avoided. The Koretzer seems to suggest that if we were allowed to pray with ulterior motives that our prayer would become irresistible to God! But prayer must always allow for the exercise of divine free will. Prayer is not a form of manipulative magic; God can say 'no'.
At another level, perhaps the Koretzer means that if prayer with ulterior motive were allowed it would become contaminated. We would be praying for every little thing, without taking account in our prayers of the needs of others or of God's grand plan for the universe. Treated in this way, prayer would no longer be the purifying experience it can, and should, be.
Alternatively, he may mean that we might be tempted to pray for things that are within our control. Used in this way, praying would become a method of avoiding responsibility for our actions or inaction.
But I find the Koretzer's view-point here a bit extreme. [In fact, in other passages, Pinchas of Koretz does recommend praying for one's personal needs.] Most of us cannot go directly from praying on our own behalf to praying on behalf of God's presence (Shechinah), that God's presence be recognised in the world, as Hasidic teachers often demand. I think that there is a middle way, in which one begins with one's own needs, recognises the needs of others, purifying our private prayers as we go, and then moves on to praying that God's sovereignty be more widely recognised, but most of all, by ourselves.
It may be that our own circumstances may dictate how we pray, and what we pray for. If we feel particularly under pressure, due to illness or work or family problems, we may incline towards personal requests in prayer. At other, more settled times in our lives, we may find it easier to pray the more universal prayer for God's presence. In my own private prayer life, I usually start with the personal petitions, before moving on to the more communal and universal.
* * *
Back
to the top of the page?
A Union of Opposites
CONTEXT: This verse continues the subject of the laws of the meal offering.
'And every meal-offering of yours you shall season with salt; [neither shall you allow the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your meal-offering; with all your offerings you shall offer salt].'
Leviticus 2:13
[This was said] in order to proclaim the Holy Blessed One ruler over the opposites that exist in the world and that cause many to leave [the faith] for atheism when they say that two opposites could not have arisen from one beginning. For salt, in its taste, is [simultaneously] one thing and its opposite, for it contains the power of fire and warmth but is the product of water, so that the sages of the Kabbalah say that it corresponds to [both] the attributes of judgment and of compassion. Therefore, it is called 'the covenant of your God', for by this offering they make a covenant with GOD to impose divine rule over opposites.
Now, all the offerings, except for those of the priest, were eaten by the priests, and this is like charity, which is compared to salt that keeps and preserves flesh; so too salt [involves] the loss of money, while the charity [that accompanies] the sacrifice is greater than the sacrifice itself, as it says, 'Doing justice and charity is more acceptable to GOD than sacrifice' (Proverbs 21:3). On this it says, therefore, 'And every meal-offering of yours you shall season with salt' for salt is that which goes over every offering and is 'more acceptable to GOD than sacrifice' [itself].
But the simple meaning of 'with all your offerings' is that it acts also as a preservative of meat.
Ephraim Shlomo ben Aaron of Luntschits (1550-1619), Keli Yakar, loc. cit.
COMMENT: Rabbi Ephraim of Luntschits offers three levels of interpretation here, though in what we would probably consider the reverse order, with the simplest last. He is attempting to answer the question: Why does the Torah require that salt be added to all offerings? The simple answer is probably for extra taste, and in the case of animal sacrifices that were to be eaten later, as a preservative, as he himself suggests.
His second interpretation is based on an analogy between the giving of charity and salt. Salt was a very expensive commodity until modern times, so the analogy is not as far-fetched as we might think. Just as salt was a necessary addition to the offering that made it acceptable, so too charity was a necessary addition that was more important than the offering itself. And like salt, which preserves meat, charity preserves the lives of those who need it as well as the social fabric of society.
His first interpretation is in fact the most profound. It is based on the ancient idea that all physical entities are made up of four 'elements' (earth, air, fire and water) and may be classified according to four criteria (wet or dry, hot or cold). Fire is hot and dry, water essentially wet and cold, while earth is considered dry and cold, and air wet and warm. Salt, however, seems to combine the properties of both fire and water, 'elements' which cannot coexist in the same place. For some people, he suggests, this could be an excuse for denying the existence of God, since one might ask how one perfect Being could create two contradictory qualities. But, says, Luntschits, the Kabbalists know that in the divine world of the sefirot all opposites have their origins, and are reconciled. Hence, salt represents that origin and reconciliation, and thus salt as an accompaniment to sacrifice is a statement of trust in the God who is the Source of Peace and will one day make it manifest in even the lowest levels of creation.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Learning from Experience
CONTEXT: Leviticus chapter 5 lists the laws that pertain to guilt offerings, beginning with the 'adjustable' guilt offering, the precise details of which depend on the circumstances of the act for which they are brought.
['If a person sins by hearing an oath, and one is a witness, whether one has seen or knows of the matter, if one does not speak up, then one must bear one's own iniquity.'
Leviticus 5:1]
In the Zohar [on the verse] 'If a person sins by hearing an oath' [it says that] the Torah is anxious for [each] person (Zohar III, 13a). 'By hearing an oath...' but doesn't a person have an obligation to listen to an oath...or see the actions of another, and be reminded of their own deeds? For whatever a person sees should be taken to heart, for it is not for no good reason that the Holy Blessed One has shown one a particular thing. Isn't everything governed by a special providence? So if one sees some transgression, one should think that one could also do the same. Even though one knows that one could never actually do this, one could think of it mentally, and it is well known that thought is more crucial than action.
Hence [the text]: 'whether one has seen it or knows' [may be explained] along the lines of [the prayer]: 'Our God, we are ashamed of our deeds and embarrassed to raise our faces towards You.' [Source unknown.] It is like a dirty signet ring. If you put it into wax, the wax becomes soiled. Similarly, a person may be dirtied by transgressions. Then, when one attaches (medabek) oneself to the blessed God during prayer, when one speaks words and something divine rests in them, one causes soiling above, as it were, and makes a great blemish while in union and attachment with the blessed God during prayer. Hence [the phrase]: 'We are ashamed of our deeds and embarrassed to raise our faces (panenu) to You' – meaning, 'our internality' (penimiyut) to you. That is to say that I am attached to You, although I know that I am soiled and dirty. This is the quality of 'bearing (or, forgiving) iniquity,' for the Holy Blessed One bears iniquity. Hence [the text says]: 'or knows' – for 'knowing' is an expression [denoting] binding together, that is to say, for the sake of binding with the Creator, one keeps oneself from transgression.
Dov Baer, the Maggid of Mezritch (d. 1772), 'Or Torah (Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1972), pp.37b-38a.
COMMENT: The Preacher (Maggid) of Mezritch, following what he sees as the teaching of the Zohar, was a great believer in God's special providence, the notion that God is intensely interested and involved in every detail of the way the universe is. This was not a universally-held opinion in Judaism. Some thinkers believed that God is only concerned with the species, not with each individual of that species, while some scholars took the view expounded by the Maggid that God is concerned with individuals, and yet others, like Maimonides, took an intermediate position.
The point the Maggid is making is, however, not philosophical, but personal, spiritual and moral. He is teaching us that everything we witness, whether formally, as in the verses quoted, or informally, is sent to us for a reason, and the reason, he says, is they are intended to make us re-examine our own deeds, and even more crucially, our thoughts. For, he says, we only recognise these things for what they are because they mirror something in ourselves. Even if we are not capable of acting in the same way, the thought that lies behind them exists within us too.
We may become morally corrupted by what we have seen, we may realise that what we have witnessed reflects an aspect of ourselves, but we can still attach our thoughts to God, and thus be purified. At first glance, this might seem incongruous. It might seem that attaching ourselves to God when we have been corrupted would somehow rub off on God, but this is not so, the Maggid suggests. Even as we attach ourselves in our moral degradation, God forgives our sin of thought if we turn our innermost selves to the divine.
'Knowing' of course has sexual connotations in Biblical Hebrew, and the Maggid alludes to this when he speaks of 'knowing' as an expression meaning 'binding together', but this is now elevated to a spiritual dimension. Union with the divine in prayer purifies the soul and helps keep one from transgressing in thought as well as in deed.
Back to the
top of the page?
Or
back home again?
Spiritual Ascent and Descent
CONTEXT: The opening chapter of Leviticus describes the laws of the burnt offering as they concerned the people who brought them to the priests. In chapter 6 the rules for what the priests had to do after the burnt offering was offered are given.
['This is the teaching of the whole burnt offering.'
Leviticus 6:2]
From the Ba'al Shem Tov (c.1700-1760) of blessed memory, on the subject of [the verse]: 'the creatures (CHaYYOT) ran and returned' (Ezekiel 1:14) – for after the soul (neshamah) is hewn from a holy place, it is fitting that it should be continually enflamed for the place from which it was hewn [on the one hand], and lest it should be annihilated from existence [on the other]. Therefore, it is surrounded with matter, so that it may also do physical things, like eating and drinking, buying and selling, and the like, rather than leading a life of constant service to the blessed God, through the mystical concept of repair (tikkun) and the [permanent] establishment of the body along with the soul. Thus, even at the levels of the sefirot, 'smallness' (katnut) and 'greatness' (gadlut) exist. 'And the words of a wise person's mouth are gracious' (Ecclesiastes 10:12).
Furthermore, one may say [on the phrase]: 'the vitality (CHiYYUT) ran and returned' that a permanent pleasure becomes natural [ordinary] and is [thus] no [longer a] pleasure. Therefore, a person may ascend and descend in the service of the blessed God, so that one might have pleasure, which is the essence of the service of the blessed God. And as I heard from my teacher, it says: 'This is the teaching of the whole burnt offering ('olah)' (Leviticus 6:2), for the diminution [that occurs] when perfect service does not ascend ('olah) to someone, and one is troubled [by this], this is the aim of ascent, for one will experience even greater pleasure afterwards. And this should be clear.
Jacob Joseph of Polonnoye (died c.1782), Toldot Ya'akov Yosef (Jerusalem, 1973), v.1, p.312. (cf. Israel ben Eliezer, Ba'al Shem Tov (1700-1760), Keter Shem Tov (Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1972), pt.1, §121, p.16a.)
The phrase from Ezekiel that describes the advance and retreat of the heavenly creature (chayyot) that accompany the divine chariot prompts the Ba'al Shem Tov to reflect upon the journey of the soul, or vitality (chiyyut), in the physical world. And rather like the heavenly creatures, the soul is continuously shunting between two opposing tendencies, a spiritual one back towards its divine source ['the place from which it was hewn'] and a physical one, to preserve itself in its physical environment. Because of its circumstances in this world, the soul must engage in physical activity, and this may distract it from its main purpose in being here, namely, the service of God. So, the result is a dialectic, a constant advance and retreat between the spiritual and physical realms, a dialectic that is mirrored in the World of the Sefirot.
Rabbi Jacob Joseph then adds the thought that this to-ing and fro-ing in the spiritual life is not something to be wondered at or to be concerned about. It is natural and normal. We cannot stay on a high spiritual plane all the time because, pleasurable though that might be, we would soon become used to it, and it would cease to be a pleasure. So, instead of letting a spiritual descent trouble us, we should see it as an opportunity to gather strength to ascend later, and thereby gain more spiritual pleasure in the future. Now, following the Ba'al Shem Tov, we can 'translate' our opening quotation from Leviticus as: 'This is the teaching for [spiritual] ascent' – ascent requires teaching. If our service of God does not ascend, is not spiritually fulfilling, the only thing we need to concern ourselves with is looking forward to our next ascent.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Torah is What We Make of It
CONTEXT: The last verses of Leviticus 7 are the conclusion of the laws of sacrifices begun in chapter 1.
'This is the teaching (Torah) for the whole burnt offering ('olah), for the meal-offering (minchah), for the sin[-offering] and for the guilt[-offering]....'
Leviticus 7:37
For the truth is that of one who studies the Torah itself for its own sake and in order to perform its commandments it is said: '[For the ways of GOD are upright;] the righteous walk on them' (Hosea 14:10) while, if – heaven forbid! – the opposite [is the case], it is said: 'But the wicked stumble on them' (Hosea 14:10). Hence, the explanation of [the verse]: 'This is the Torah' – sometimes [it is] 'for ascent' ('olah) and 'for a gift (minchah)' and sometimes [it is] 'for sin and for guilt'. Consider this well!
Israel Friedman of Ruzhyn (1797-1850), 'Irin Qadishin (n.p., 1885), pt.2, p.8a.
COMMENT: This teaching is based on a series of word-plays. The word Torah in the original verse simply means the teaching that follows, but the Ruzhyner makes it refer to the entire Torah, what we would call Judaism. 'Olah usually means 'whole burnt offering, but is related to the Hebrew root meaning 'to ascend, go up', presumably because the smoke of the 'Olah rose upwards. Minchah can mean a meal-offering or a gift. (Later on, it comes to designate the afternoon service.) And the words for sin and sin-offering (chatat) and guilt and guilt-offering are the same.
Hence, for the Ruzhyner rebbe, the Torah can become whatever we make of it. It can either be a vehicle for raising us to new spiritual heights, and a gift we offer to God, or it can be a guide to counting up our sins and adding to our guilt. In other words, it can be a source of both positive and negative feelings for us. The choice is up to us.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
True Leadership
CONTEXT: The elaborate ceremony for the installation of the priests is described in Leviticus 8.
'So Moses did as GOD had commanded him and the congregation assembled...'
Leviticus 8:4
The explanation: Since 'Moses did as GOD had commanded him', by this means, automatically, 'the congregation assembled.' For when a righteous person (tzaddik) does the will of the blessed God, Israel's hearts are awakened so that they draw near and learn from their ways.
Menachem Mendel of Kotzk (1787-1859), 'Ohel Torah MeHaRabbi MiKotzk (Lublin, 1909), p.19b.
COMMENT: In its original context, this verse simply indicates that Moses had carried out the command of God mentioned in verses 2 and 3, namely, to gather Aaron and sons and the requisite sacrificial animals together in preparation for the investiture of the priests. But the Kotzker lifts the verse out of context, and notes the juxtaposition of its two halves.
His point is that acting righteously will automatically attract others to one's cause. One needn't act with a view to pleasing others, for that could well interfere with righteous action. Good people will always attract others of like mind. All that is necessary is that we keep our principles in mind and strive to put them into practice with integrity.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
On Not Abandoning Our Role
CONTEXT: The installation of the priests was to last for seven days, during which time they were not to leave the Tent of Meeting.
'At the entrance to the Tent of Meeting you shall sit day and night, seven days.'
Leviticus 8:35
[The text] warns them not to go away from the entrance to the Tent of Meeting day or night during the service, that is to say, until they have completed the entire service that it is their duty to do at that time. This commandment applies in [future] generations, [namely] that the priest should not set aside the service and go. Hence it says: 'And from the sanctuary, he shall not go and not defile [the sanctuary of his God]' (Leviticus 21:12). 'When can he neither go out nor defile [the sanctuary]? You have to say [that this means] during the service, and if he does so [nevertheless], he deserves death, as it is said: "Lest you die" (Leviticus 10:7). From this negative [statement], a positive one may be derived.' [Sifra, Mechilta deMilu'im §42 & Nachmanides on Leviticus 8:35].
And just as when it warns them not to go away from the entrance neither by day nor by night, the verse is referring to those times when it was appropriate to sit there – for flesh-and-blood must attend to bodily affairs – so too, Scripture says of the building of the Temple: 'He was seven years building it, and Solomon was thirteen years building his palace' (I Kings 6:38-7:1). This did not include Sabbaths and festivals, for it is referring to days when it was appropriate to work. So too here, it warns them not to go away from the entrance during those times when it was appropriate to sit there.
Rabbenu Bachya ben Asher ben Chlava (13th century), Perush 'Al HaTorah (Midrash Rabbenu Bachya) (Jerusalem: Blum, 1988), pt.3, p.33.
COMMENT: There is a church in Ethiopia that, the locals claim, contains the ancient Israelite artifact known as the Ark of the Covenant. It is guarded by a priest who is apparently not allowed to leave it for any reason, perhaps for reasons derived from Biblical verses like those mentioned above. It is said that occasionally the priest in charge of the Ark has attempted to escape, only to be captured and reinstated in his post. It sounds like a perfectly onerous task, certainly for one person on his own.
The priests of ancient Israel did not have it so bad. According to the interpretations of the verse offered by the Sifra and Nachmanides, they were only not allowed to leave the sanctuary during the days when they were responsible for the services. And if Rabbenu Bachya is correct, they were allowed to leave to deal with their personal bodily needs, otherwise when did they eat, drink, sleep, go to the toilet, and so on. (What does the Ethiopian priest do about these things?)
But there are no priests officiating at sacrifices in Judaism today, so what relevance does this teaching have to us? According to Exodus 19:6, we are a 'kingdom of priests', put into this world to do God's will and to present the Jewish approach to truth to the world. This is a task we shirk at our peril, and at the world's peril.
The priests of old were allowed to see to their own needs along the way, as indeed we are, but their service differs from ours in several respects. First, theirs was of temporary duration. There was a rota system, and groups of priests would take it in turns to officiate. Our service is permanent, each of us serves for a lifetime.
Secondly, the role of the priests of ancient Israel was primarily a ritual one. Their presence was required if sacrifices of any kind were to be offered, because only they were authorised to offer them. Of course, they had to be morally, as well as ritually, pure, and immoral priests could be stripped of their authority, but their role was almost exclusively confined to the ritual sphere. Our role as a 'kingdom of priests' is much wider. Yes, of course, we have Jewish rituals to attend to, not least Pesach Seder which looms so large in our consciousness at this time of year, but we also have serious moral responsibilities, not just to each other, but to the suffering and underprivileged beyond our own families and community.
A priest never ceased to be a priest, but he only had to concern himself with his ritual duties during the period in which he as on duty. We, God's kingdom of priests, have our ritual duties which occur each day, each week or each year, but we never cease to be 'priests'. There are many non-ritual actions that are required of us, moral decisions which face us each day. And when our texts tell us that the priests were not allowed to leave the Tent of Meeting while they are on duty, perhaps the meaning for us should be that we must maintain consciousness of our actions as much as possible; that whatever we do, we are still think of ourselves as being at the entrance to the 'Tent of Meeting', in a place where meeting with God is possible, seven days a week, every day of the year.
Back to the
top of the page?
Or
back home again?
Beyond Holiness
CONTEXT: The installation of the priests over seven days is now complete. This chapter of Leviticus describes the events of the day after.
'On the eighth day, Moses called Aaron and his sons and the elders of Israel...'
Leviticus 9:1
...[The number 'seven'] is found [in relation] to many commandments in the Torah that are occasioned by the number 'seven', like the Shabbat, the Sabbatical year, and the Jubilee year, for the seventh is the most holy: of the days [of the week] it is Shabbat, of the years it is the Sabbatical year, and of the Sabbatical years, it is the Jubilee year. There are also seven days of Passover and seven days of Sukkot, and [the items that make up] the Four Species of the Lulav also add up to seven. [1 palm frond, 1 citron, 2 willow twigs, 3 myrtle twigs = 7.] Similarly, the days of mourning are seven, as are the days of celebrations [traditionally associated with weddings]. This is all one subject, hinting at the seven days of creation.
Similarly, Balaam offered sacrifices on seven altars and said: 'I have set up seven altars' (Numbers 23:4). Also the days of the installation [of the priests amounted to] seven, as explained in the text [itself]: 'For it will take seven days to ordain you' (Leviticus 8:33).
All these things that are occasioned by [the number] seven have their root and source in one place and their origins in one spring. And the reason why Aaron was not inaugurated into the High Priesthood on the seventh day itself, but on the following day, the eighth day, is because the High Priest was unique in the Temple in the service of the One God. The number eight is after seven: it is of the level of the One. Therefore, Scripture commands that the beginning of Aaron the Priest's priesthood and the dedication of his service be on the eighth day...
Rabbenu Bachya ben Asher ben Chlava (13th century), Perush 'Al HaTorah (Midrash Rabbenu Bachya) (Jerusalem: Blum, 1988), pt.3, p.35.
COMMENT: It is very well known that the number seven plays an important role in Jewish practice, and Rabbenu Bachya has listed all the familiar 'sevens' plus a few that most of us would not have thought of. And it is also very well known that the number seven represents holiness. So why, we may ask, was Aaron inaugurated as the first High Priest on the eighth day of the celebrations, rather than on the seventh?
Rabbenu Bachya's reply is that seven represents holiness, but that eight represents a new beginning, a return to One. (In mathematical terms, if we were using a number system with a base of seven, instead of ten as we do, the number we call 'eight' would be represented by a 'one' in the units column and another in the 'sevens' column; thus, '8' in our '10'-based system would appear as '11' in a system base '7'.) Certainly, if the Shabbat is a holy day of rest, study and spiritual stimulation, then Sunday is our first opportunity to put our renewed energies and new insights into practice. If Shabbat is to have more than a fleeting significance in our lives, it must affect the way we live the new week. If holiness is to have a real impact on our lives, it must be allowed to enter into even the mundane activities we need to spend so much time on.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Peace in the Midst of Tragedy
CONTEXT: On the very day after the completion of the installation of the priests, Aaron's sons, Nadav and Avihu, are struck down because the offered 'strange fire.' Moses reminds Aaron that they were warned that a higher degree of holiness was expected of the priests, but Aaron responds to the dreadful event with silence. This story is followed, in verse 8, by a law, addressed to Aaron alone, forbidding drunkenness among the priests.
'But Aaron remained silent.'
Leviticus 10:3
He received a reward for his silence. And what was the reward that he received? That the next passage, dealing with those [priests] who become drunk with wine, was spoken to him alone.
Rashi (1040-1105), based on Talmud Zevachim 115b.
'He received a reward for silence...' From this we learn that no one should despise GOD's discipline, but accept it with love.
Isaiah HaLevi Horowitz (c.1570-1626), Shnei Luchot HaBrit (Jerusalem: 1975; reprint of 1863 ed.), v.2, p.60a.
COMMENT: Aaron remained silent in the face of the sudden death of his two sons, Nadav and Avihu, who were struck down by God while going about their priestly tasks, and the Torah does not specify in so many words what they were doing wrong. Rabbinic tradition wrestles with the issue of what wrong they had committed, and one view (found in the midrash Vayikra' Rabbah 12:1 & reported by Rashi on v.2) is that they were officiating while drunk. Hence, the next commandment (vv.8-11) prohibits such behaviour by the priests. This commandment is addressed to Aaron alone, and the Talmudic reasoning given above in Rashi is that this was a reward for his silence when confronted with personal tragedy.
Isaiah Horowitz then draws a more general conclusion from this statement. For him, the tale of Aaron's silence is a lesson in learning to accept of life's tragedies and tribulations. This can sometimes be a very hard lesson indeed. This is partly because we believe that science and medicine must have a cure for everything, and partly because we sometimes just have difficulty in accepting unpleasant truths.
Yet, for all the advance of modern science and medicine, some tragedies are still inevitable. People will always get ill, sometimes with dreadful illnesses. People will always die, some of them quite young. And there will always be psychological stress. So, Horowitz' advice is still pertinent, and it may help us to find peace in the midst of tragedy, much as Aaron did.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
A Human Being is a Vessel
CONTEXT: Chapter 11 of the book of Leviticus is the primary source for the kosher food laws relating to animals. After lists and descriptions of kosher and non-kosher animals, the Torah offers rules governing contamination of various items by the bodies of non-kosher animals.
'And if any of them [i.e. unclean animals] fall into any earthenware vessel, anything that is in it shall be unclean and you shall break it [the vessel].'
Leviticus 11:33
Rashi (1040-1105) of blessed memory explains: 'An earthenware vessel only becomes unclean by virtue of what is inside it' (meaning, not what is outside it) '"And you shall break it" teaches that it cannot be purified in the ritual-bath (mikveh)' (based on Talmud, Chullin 24b & Sifra).
It seems that a reason may be offered why an earthenware vessel can only be made unclean by what is inside it and cannot be purified in the ritual-bath. [It is] because an earthenware vessel has no importance in itself, since it is really only dust and has only an interior. For its importance derives only from the fact that it is fit to receive [things] within it. Therefore, it cannot be made unclean by what is outside it, but only by what is inside, for its essence is its interior. (And the same applies to human beings, who are also 'earthenware vessels').
Menachem Mendel of Kotzk (1787-1859), 'Ohel Torah MeHaRabbi MiKotzk (Lublin, 1909), p.20b.
COMMENT: By definition, Menachem Mendel of Kotzk tells us, a vessel is only a vessel because it has an interior. Similarly, the essence of a human being, in his view, is the internal, spiritual aspect. It is what makes us truly human.
This chapter of Leviticus is one of the primary sources in the Torah for the laws of kashrut, of diet, an aspect of Jewish practice often neglected by many people today. They argue what we eat is not as important as our behaviour towards each other. Or to put it a different way, it is what comes out of a person's mouth that matters, not what goes in. (Most people who say this are unaware that this is a paraphrase of the Christian scriptures: Matthew 15:11).
Though he does not mention kashrut directly, the Kotzker must have had it in mind when he made the comment credited to him above, and thus we may infer that he would take the contrary view. What goes into one's mouth does affect who we are. The spiritual is the most important aspect of ourselves, but by observing kashrut we 'feed' the spiritual side of ourselves as well as the physical, and by not observing it, we 'starve' our spiritual side even as we indulge in sustaining our physical bodies.
The physical and the spiritual, the body and the soul, are not two separate and distinct entities. They are two intertwined aspects of our humanity, and they need nourishing simultaneously. The dietary laws of Judaism are a central feature of a comprehensive system for living that is designed to remind us constantly of who we are, where we come from, and to Whom we owe our very existence. So, we are what we eat...and what we do not.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Dedicated to God
CONTEXT: Almost the last verse in a chapter devoted to the kosher food laws is this reminder of the exodus from Egypt, reinforcing the idea that kashrut has a great deal to do with our self-identification as Jews.
'[For I am GOD who brought you up out of land of Egypt] to be God to you [literally, to be to you for God].'
Leviticus 11:45
In the name of Rabbi Israel Ba'al Shem of blessed memory: The meaning is that a person must see that even one's 'to you', that is, one's permitted desires should be for God, only for GOD alone.
Shim'on Menachem Mendel of Govarchov (ed.), Sefer Ba'al Shem Tov (Jerusalem, n.d.), v.1, p.93.
COMMENT: Chapter 11 of the Book of Leviticus is to the laws delineating which animals may and may not be eaten according to the rules of kashrut. And although may types of animals are not permitted, others are, such as mammals that chew the cud and have cloven hooves, fish that have both fins and scales, and certain birds. Clearly, refraining from eating those which are not permitted is a religious act. But what about eating those that are allowed? Or to put it another way, is the observance of kashrut the sum total of our spiritual involvement with eating?
The traditional answer, of course, is 'no'. There are blessings to be said before and after we eat, for example, which emphasise our dependence upon God.
It appears that for the Ba'al Shem Tov this does not quite go far enough. By reading this verse in super-literal way, he comes to the teaching that all our permitted desires, that is, all the physical acts that we are permitted to engage in, not just eating and drinking, but also acquiring wealth, enjoying music, sex, etc., all these things must be dedicated to the service of God. The things permitted 'to you' should also be 'for God'. The service of God is not confined to 'religious' acts.
We are All Feminine
CONTEXT: Leviticus 12, one of the shortest chapters of the Torah, is concerned with the ritual uncleanliness incurred by women at childbirth. The mother remains in this state for 33 days after the birth of a son, and 66 days after the birth of a daughter, at the end of which she was to bring an offering, and become clean again.
'If a woman conceives and gives birth to a male...'
Leviticus 12:2
It is written: 'Who can precede Me that I should repay [him]?' (Job 41:3), for people should realise that all their actions, all, come from the blessed God – that is, that every mitzvah that one does the Holy Blessed One has put into one's hand. For [God] gives [a person] a house, and one makes a mezuzah. [God] gives one a tallit and one puts fringes upon it. Similarly, with any active commandment – the Holy Blessed One is the essence, i.e. the internal aspect of any thing. One should truly realise that everything is from the blessed God.
An example: If one is aroused to Torah or prayer or to reciting songs and praises, or if a penitent thought comes and one is able to bring about an 'arousal from below,' it must be with a broken heart and one should know that in truth one has done nothing, except what the Holy Blessed One has bestowed. However, if one has it in mind that one has [actually] done [something], it is vanity and very inferior. Even one's Torah and prayer are from the blessed God.
This is [the meaning of the teaching]: 'Rabbi Simlai said: A person's creation is like their Torah' (Rashi & Leviticus Rabbah 14:1, misquoted). For the truth is that human beings are inferior to all the [other] creatures, since they require all other creatures and many garments before they can sustain themselves. But all [other] creatures sustain themselves without [extraordinary] effort. Hence [the saying]: 'A person's creation is like their Torah.' For in the Torah there are prohibitions and legitimate acts, unclean and clean, and human beings cause uncleanliness in life and uncleanliness in death. The other creatures do not cause uncleanliness during their lives.
However, even though the human body is inferior to all the [other] creatures, nevertheless it is written: 'And the person became a living soul' (Genesis 2:7), which is translated [into Aramaic by Onkelos] as: 'became a speaking spirit.' For it is in this [respect] that [human beings] are higher than all [other] creatures, so that they are able to restore everything to the blessed God. Hence [the verse]: 'If a woman conceives' – meaning, even when one has a penitent thought, and studies and prays, and brings about 'arousal from below,' one must nevertheless be in the state of the 'feminine,' i.e. the state of receiving, and realise that all comes from the blessed One. Then '[she] gives birth to a male' – one may become one who bestows, a masculine state.
Israel Friedman of Ruzhyn (1797-1850), 'Irin Qadishin (n.p., 1885), pt.3, p.30.
COMMENT: The opening section of Tazria' is troubling for many modern Jews, concerning, as it does, the notion of a woman's ritual uncleanliness after childbirth and the differing lengths of time for which she remains unclean – twice as much if her child is a girl than if it is a boy. And it must be obvious that any more mystical interpretations that are offered on it will probably be rooted in language that we would term 'sexist' today.
This is the case with our text from the Ruzhyner rebbe. He has based himself on the kabbalistic notion that defines the words 'masculine' and 'feminine' in terms clearly derived from the sexual act, but which also transcend it. In this view, 'feminine' indicates a willingness to receive, while 'masculine' denotes a willingness to give. Thus, though we each have our gender, our personalities include both 'masculine' and 'feminine' aspects.
For Rabbi Israel Friedman, we are all 'feminine' in relation to God; that is, we are all in a receptive role in our relationship with God. Therefore, we cannot honestly take credit for any ethical or spiritual achievements we may have attained, because ultimately, they must derive from God. This even includes thoughts of repentance that seem to come from within ourselves. And, he suggests, any attempt on our part to take credit is in vain, and represents a lower form of spiritual service than recognising and accepting our total dependence upon God. It is particularly vain when we add into the equation the physical inferiority of human beings to animals and the fact that we can cause, as well as alleviate, ritual uncleanliness, in a way that animals cannot.
But, if we have the capacity for destruction, we also can raise physical things to higher spiritual levels. And this we do, according to the Ruzhyner, by accepting our 'femininity' in respect to God, by recognising that even the apparently 'masculine' things we do are gifts that we 'receive' from God.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Inner Cleansing
CONTEXT: Chapter 13 of Leviticus ventures into areas of medicine and hygiene by offering diagnostic criteria for dealing with so-called 'leprosy': skin ailments and discoloration on clothing.
'A leprous plague... (nega' tzara'at)'
Leviticus 13:3 & frequently in this chapter & the next
This is translated [into Aramaic in the Targum Onkelos] as machtash SeGiRu [literally, 'a wound of closing up'] because it 'closes (SoGeR) the channels' so that the [divinely-bestowed] benefit cannot be transmitted through them. Thus is it stated in the Zohar (III, 47a). [As for] the uncleanness of body, clothing and houses, from this people should arouse themselves [to thoughts of] how to cleanse themselves in word, thought and deed. This is sufficient for those of understanding.
Isaiah HaLevi Horowitz (c.1570-1626), Shnei Luchot HaBrit (Jerusalem: 1975; reprint of 1863 ed.), v.2, p.60b.
COMMENT: Hebrew and Aramaic are both languages within the Semitic family, and as such, have many roots in common. But not all shared roots have identical meanings in both languages, nor do they necessarily develop in parallel ways. Nevertheless, it is a frequent occurrence for commentators to turn to the ancient Aramaic translation of the Torah, and then offer new interpretations of the original Hebrew based on supposed linguistic connections.
This is what Isaiah Horowitz (basing himself on the Zohar) is doing here. In this case, the root SGR, common to both languages, usually has the meaning 'to lock up' in both. Because the person suffering from skin disease was to be locked up, according to Leviticus 13:4, the root came to indicate leprosy itself, as in the Targum that Horowitz quotes.
He then follows the Zohar in suggesting that the skin diseases referred to here (usually translated as 'leprosy') represent the closing of the channels through which positive divine energies enter Creation from the world of the Sefirot. In that case, he suggest any of the forms of tzara'at (an untranslatable term) mentioned in this sidra, whether of the skin, of buildings or of clothing, should lead us to thoughts of how to clean up our moral lives, as well as our physical circumstances.
Although modern medicine has achieved great wonders, and no one would wish to stigmatise those suffering from any disease, nevertheless, texts such as this one serve to remind us that there may be a moral dimension to disease. Should illness befall us, we should at least take the unwanted opportunity it presents to examine our lives and to remove any moral or spiritual 'uncleanness' that we may find in ourselves.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
When We See that We are Unclean
CONTEXT: Verses 9 to 17 of Leviticus 13 deal with the treatment of a spot on the skin within which healthy skin has once again appeared.
'And on the day that the living flesh appears, he is unclean.'
Leviticus 13:14
That is, on the day that a person wants to behave in the right and proper way, so as to become what is called 'living flesh', at that point, one is 'unclean', that is, one sets one's mind how one has sinned against [God]. Then one is 'unclean' with 'plagues', a term which denotes punishments and suffering, as it is written: 'I will bring one more plague upon Pharaoh' (Ex 11:1)....
Jacob Joseph of Polonnoye (died c.1782), Toldot Ya'akov Yosef (Jerusalem, 1973), v.2, p.314.
COMMENT: Rabbi Jacob Joseph (in the same work, p.313) begins the sermon from which our passage comes with the thought that if the commandments of the Torah are eternal, how are we to understand the laws of skin disease, when it has been taught that skin disease as a direct punishment for certain sins no longer occurs since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the exile of the Jewish people? (Unfortunately, he gives no source for this teaching and I have been unable to locate it.)
His answer, in effect, is to say that these laws have a moral dimension, independent of their practical application. In the case of the verse above, the author of the Toldot suggests an analogy with repentance. Just as the appearance of the 'living flesh' (i.e. the raw flesh beneath the surface of the afflicted area of the skin) means that the affected person must be declared unclean by the priest, so too at the moment one begins to strive to serve God one realises how unworthy one is, how steeped in sin. That realisation must not, however, keep us from serving God to the best of our ability; it simply means that we must do so with total honesty.
When we truly understand the bad we have done we are free to become true and honest servants of God.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Telling Your Troubles
CONTEXT: In verses 45 and 46 of chapter 13, the Torah enjoins that a person who has been diagnosed with 'leprosy' is ritually unclean and should be isolated from the community, and must announce his passage to by keeping his head and face covered and crying out "unclean, unclean."
['And he [the "leper"] shall cry out: "Unclean, unclean."']
Leviticus 13:45
In the name of the Ba'al Shem Tov – may the memory of the righteous be a blessing for the world-to-come: 'People say that after a fire – may the Merciful One preserve us – one becomes rich. This is true: One truly does become rich.'
And he [R. Rafael of Bershad?] – may God preserve him – [said]: 'I think that this is connected a bit with what is said in the Gemara': 'He must make his suffering known to many, so that the many may pray for compassion upon him' (Talmud, Shabbat 67a on Leviticus 13:45).
And R. [Benjamin] Ze'ev [HaLevi of Balta (d.1825)] – may his memory be a blessing for the world-to-come – said: 'Longings are prayers, and it is the way [of the world] that people should have great compassion for one whose wealth has been burnt up – may the Merciful One preserve us – and they want [that person's] fortunes to be restored...
From the school of Pinchas of Koretz (1726-1791), Midrash Pinchas (Jerusalem, 1971), p.29b [quoted in Sefer Ba'al Shem Tov, v.2, pp.94-95].
COMMENT: The question implied in the opening verse is: Why is the 'leper', that is, the person afflicted with a skin condition, required to cry out 'Unclean, unclean'. An answer is given in the Talmud passage quoted later on, but our passage begins with a quotation from the Ba'al Shem Tov, and only later is this woven together with the Talmud's interpretation.
If the purpose of the 'leper's' cry is to arouse compassion, then one can explain the Besht's view, apparently based on a popular proverb, that a person who loses everything in a fire will become rich. Actually wealthy? Perhaps not, but maybe such a person will experience the true wealth of having friends to support and sustain him or her through the crisis. It is up to the rest of us to insure that this happens.
What We See Outside is Inside
CONTEXT: Metzora' continues the subject of 'leprosy' but moves from diagnosis to treatment, both ritual and medical.
['GOD spoke to Moses, saying: This shall be the teaching for the "leprous" person (HaMeTZoRa') on the day of their cleansing.]'
Leviticus 14:1-2
From the Ba'al Shem Tov: 'Who is wise? One who learns from everyone' (Pirke 'Avot 4:1) – even from an evil person, for one sees some transgression in [that person] and learns from it that, from the point of view of unity, within oneself there is also a particle of [that same transgression]. And one must repair oneself of that particle that is within, and then one brings cleansing to oneself... Hence it says: 'This shall be the teaching for' one who brings out evil, [i.e.] one's own evil (HaMoTZi' Ra' mira'ato) 'on the day of their cleansing' of oneself (cf. Talmud 'Arachin 15b)....
Israel ben Eliezer, Ba'al Shem Tov (1700-1760), Keter Shem Tov (Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1972), pt.2, §363, p.54a.
COMMENT: The Biblical teaching on the treatment of 'leprosy' (actually a variety of conditions significantly quite different from the disease we moderns call 'leprosy') is subjected a wide range of interpretations in Jewish literature in order to find a moral dimension to it. And the Ba'al Shem Tov's comments are in this tradition.
He begins by quoting my favourite passage from the Ethics of the Fathers, and reasons that if we have learned about what not to do from a wicked person, it is because something of that wickedness also lies within us too, because all is a unity within the divine. If that evil did not resonate deep within us, we would be unable to recognise it, even outside of ourselves. And having recognised it outside, we can then cleanse ourselves inside.
Then, the Besht makes use of an old pun on the term metzora' ('leprous') in order to demonstrate how the Torah has anticipated his teaching. One sees evil outside oneself in order to see it within oneself – then one may be cleansed of it.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
The Soul as Tenant
CONTEXT: In addition to its consideration of skin complaints and discoloration of clothing, the Torah also has laws, towards the end of Leviticus 14, on the diagnosis and treatment of the 'leprosy' of houses, probably dry rot or mildew.
'[The priest] will look [at the plague, and look here,] the plague is in the walls of the house, [in greenish or reddish streaks].'
Leviticus 14:37
This passage hints at GOD's actions in dealing with the wicked who have chosen the 'dainties' offered by the inclination toward evil, which is known as 'the plague of humanity.' They say in the Zohar (I, 187a) that the Holy Blessed One puts the soul into the human body that it may succeed [with] what is good, and if it does not, [God] uproots it from there, it goes back and [God] plants it in another place. This is what is alluded to here in the [matter of the] plagues of the house, for 'house' alludes to the body, which is the house of the soul. The 'priest' alluded to here is the Creator, for we find that in the Zohar (III, 48a) our sages of blessed memory have derived this from the verse 'It shall be brought to the priest...' (Leviticus 13:9).
And it says that when the Holy Blessed One sees that 'the plague is in the walls of the house' – meaning, that the aspect of evil is immersed in the very interior essence of the body, then, the 'house' is detestable. This was alluded to when they said of SHeKa'aRUROT ('penetrating streaks?') that this word is an amalgam of two: SHeKa' [and] RUROT and that the letter 'alef has been elided in the pronunciation, and it was as if it had said SHeKa' 'aRUROT ('a hole of cursed things'), for the aspect of the inclination toward evil, known as a 'cursed thing', is immersed within it, and since there are many aspects to [that person's] wickedness, it says 'aRUROT [in the plural].
Then it says YeRaKRaKOT ('greenish'), alluding to the sign of a transgression, along the lines of the saying of [our sages] of blessed memory: 'Dropsy is a sign of a transgression' (Talmud, Shabbat 33a). Also, it says 'aDaMMDeMOT ('reddish') hinting at the shedding of blood which is connected with the aspect of evil – may the Merciful One preserve us! GOD will command that the house be shut up, meaning that none of God's bounty will be bestowed.... If the person notices this, and repents, how good! But if not, GOD commands that afflictions be brought upon [that person] in order to wash away their stains and their 'plagues.' This is the secret meaning of the removal of the stones [of the affected house, v.43]. But if they still make their deeds stink, then they die, and thus it says: 'He shall have the house torn down, with its stones...' (Leviticus 14:45).
Hayyim ben Moshe ibn Attar (1696-1743), 'Or HaHayyim (Jerusalem: A. Blum, 1994), pt.3, p.71.
COMMENT: As part of the ongoing struggle to find moral teachings in this most 'medical' of sections of the Torah, Hayyim ibn Attar has resorted to allegorical interpretation. Basing himself on the Zohar, he identifies the afflicted 'house' with the body, the 'priest' with God, and the 'leprosy' with inclination towards evil, with the 'streaks' as its penetrating effects. The 'greenish' colour represents presumably minor transgressions, while 'reddish' symbolises the shedding of blood, which in rabbinic tradition covers a range of moral sins, including slander (cf. Talmud, Sanhedrin 57b).
For ibn Attar, the shutting up of the house symbolises the withholding of God's bounty from the transgressor, and this in turn, gives him or her an opportunity to repent of their sins. If they fail to, the removal of the stones from the house indicates that God will remove the soul from the body as its final punishment in this life, before it is returned to this world in a new, but inferior, body.
Although most of us would reject moral explanations for most medical conditions, ibn Attar's application of the notion of disease to moral conditions is still a telling one. As with disease, we can either choose to ignore our moral failings, or seek to cleanse ourselves of them. The question before us always is: What kind of home do we wish to provide for our divine soul?
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Why the Worst is First
CONTEXT: The closing verses of Leviticus 14 are also the conclusion of the laws of 'leprosy.'
'This is the teaching (Torah) regarding any leprous disease: an itch, leprosy in clothing and houses, for a swelling, eruption or spot...'
Leviticus 14:54-56
According to the tradition of our rabbis of blessed memory (Midrash Tanchuma, Buber ed. Tazria' 14) this is truly a 'sliding scale' of different types of 'leprosy', for first one is punished in relation to one's house, in order that one might humble one's heart, change one's deeds and repent. If one repents, fine. If not, one is punished in relation to one's clothing. If one repents, fine. If not, one is punished in relation to one's body. [But] this is not the order of the subjects in the paragraphs [of the Torah]. For the paragraph 'If a person has the plague of leprosy' (Leviticus 13:9) is first, then the paragraph 'If a garment has the plague of leprosy' (Leviticus 13:47), and then the paragraph 'I will put the plague of leprosy into the houses of the land of your heritage' (Leviticus 14:34).... [This is] because [of] the Torah [it is said:] 'All its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths peace' (Proverbs 3:17). And so that the order of punishments should not be one of continuous increase, it is decreased...
Rabbenu Bachya ben Asher ben Chlava (13th century), Perush 'Al HaTorah (Midrash Rabbenu Bachya) (Jerusalem: Blum, 1988), pt.3, p.62.
COMMENT: This sidra, like its predecessor, is primarily concerned with matters of physical health, and is, of course, based on ancient notions of medical treatment. But rabbinic tradition consistently sees the laws of tzara'at (rather unfortunately translated as 'leprosy') as having a moral dimension, and the midrash Rabbenu Bachya refers to has to be seen in this light, as indeed should his comment. The midrash suggests that the order in which punishments arrive in this life is that the least happens first, and the worst last. (Certainly, this is course of the progress of incurable diseases.) And if these punishments are the results of the sins that we have committed, then we could, in principle, change our ways and avoid those that are still to come.
But Rabbenu Bachya informs that the Torah itself presents the worst punishments first, in order to bring us to repentance sooner. It is a case of being cruel to be kind.
In modern times, we are no longer used to seeing disease as the consequence of sin. But it may be that this view is changing, at least for some types of medical conditions. It is quite clear that abusing our bodies by, for example, smoking or indiscriminate sex or an overly stressful lifestyle, can lead to serious damage to our health. It is increasingly clear that what we eat and the environment in which we live can have an enormous impact on our personal well-being. But most of us would agree that the neglect of religious ritual, for example, will not have negative health consequences – a view that differs from that of many of our forbearers.
On the other hand, rituals may serve to re-focus our minds on the moral issues by bringing us back to the spiritual basis that underlies them. Rituals should, for example, remind us that we inhabit a world created by God rather than one of our own making, and this in turn could lead us to greater appreciation of our bodies and our environment. The practice of religion can indeed have positive health consequences, even if its influence is 'only' indirect. And insofar as rituals calm us and 'centre' our minds they will relieve stress and provide health benefits in that way.
There may also be other lessons hidden in Rabbenu Bachya's exposition. Perhaps one can relate its lessons to a society or a social grouping. If we follow the order of the Torah, then if moral corruption is not stopped at the personal level, it will inevitably affect wider and wider circles of people ('the social fabric'), and then ultimately the entire 'house' may be affected. And if we follow the midrash, we can see how corruption in the group ultimately corrupts even the moral individuals within it. In either event, there are no innocent bystanders. We are either perpetrators or guilty by our failure to do nothing. But repentance is always available to us.
And the converse is also true. Sometimes, with the proper mix of righteousness and courage, the influence of a single person can bring relief and hope to an entire society, and a morally healthy society can bring out the best in its members.
Times for Awe and Fear
CONTEXT: This sidra opens with the rules for the rites of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. It begins by specifying that Aaron the High Priest was only to enter the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur itself, and not at other times.
'Tell Aaron your brother that he should not enter the holy place at [just] any time...'
Leviticus 16:2
For there are twenty-eight 'times' [mentioned in Ecclesiastes 3:2-8], fourteen for good ['a time to be born, to plant, to heal, to build, to laugh, to dance, to gather stones, to embrace, to seek, to keep, to sew, to speak, to love, and a time of peace'] and fourteen for the opposite ['a time to die, to uproot, to kill, to tear down, to weep, to mourn, to cast away stones, to refrain from embracing, to lose, to throw away, to tear, to keep silent, to hate, and a time of war'].
I say that although the essence [of the service of God] is supernal awe, that one should be in awe of [God], GOD of All, because [God] is master and ruler, nevertheless, at the beginning, one must serve [God] out of fear of punishment, for this is the path and entrance to supernal awe. Hence, 'that he should not enter the holy place at [just] any time' – i.e. that one is unable to enter the holy place at just any time, that is, the fear of reward and punishment of the twenty-eight 'times' [of Ecclesiastes]. Rather, one must serve [God] 'without hope of receiving a reward' (Pirke 'Avot 1:3)
But 'with this shall Aaron enter the holy place' (Leviticus 16:3). 'But let those who take pride, take pride in this, that they understand and know Me' (Jeremiah 9:23), for this is the aspect of supernal awe, when one knows that the Blessed One gives life to all one's qualities. Hence, 'you shall be holy, for I, GOD, your God, am holy' (Leviticus 19:2) – one should know that even in holiness and prayer one has help from GOD, and that holiness derives from the Blessed One, as [our sages] of blessed memory have said: 'If the Holy Blessed One had not helped him...'
'And you who cleave to GOD your God are all alive today' (Deuteronomy 4:4) meaning that one should attach oneself, with all one's qualities, to the Supernal Will and attach them to true life, and then they will be called alive.
Israel Friedman of Ruzhyn (1797-1850), Sefer Kneset Yisra'el (Ostila?, n.d.), p.87.
COMMENT: In much of Jewish medieval devotional literature, the fear of God is presented as a series of levels or stages, with fear of God's punishment as a lower level than the fear (or rather, awe) of the Godhead itself. Similarly, the love of God was seen as having different levels.
Although the Ruzhyner puts the awe of God at a higher level than fear of punishment, he clearly sees the lower stage as a rung in the ascent to the awe of God, and for him, this is symbolised by references to 'time' in both Leviticus 16 and Ecclesiastes 3. The fourteen negative 'times' of Ecclesiastes, for him, refer to punishments, and therefore, the lower level of fear at which fear of punishment and hope of reward are the primary factors in one's service of God, while the fourteen positive 'times' apply to that level at which one serves God simply out of awe of God.
Though both types of fear are valuable, yet only with the second, higher type may we, like Aaron the High Priest, enter into a full connection with and attachment to God. Only with the awe of God in our hearts, will we receive divine help in achieving holiness and in prayer, and be truly alive.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Time to Trust God
CONTEXT: The Yom Kippur ritual described in Leviticus 16 was given to Moses immediately after the death of his nephews Nadav and Avihu related in chapter 10.
'After the death of the two sons of Aaron when they approached... That he might not enter the holy place at [just] any time...'
Leviticus 16:1-2
For there are fourteen 'times' for good and fourteen 'times' for the opposite [in Ecclesiastes 3:2-8], and if – God forbid! – afflictions come upon a person, one should not enter into complaints against the Blessed One [about] why these afflictions have come upon oneself, but rather one should accept everything with love and believe with a perfect faith that everything is for one's good. This is hinted at in the text: 'After the death of the two sons of Aaron', for after GOD had done a 'Peretz 'Uzzah' [cf. II Samuel 6] against the two sons of Aaron. Afflictions like these afflicted him. Then, the Holy Blessed One said to Moses 'That he might not enter the holy place at [just] any time' to pray about a 'time' that is not good. But 'with this (beZoT) shall Aaron enter the holy place' (Leviticus 16:3), for ZoT is an expression [meaning] 'wherever he is' (Genesis 21:17), so that all the accidents of the 'times' with which the Blessed One treats [a person] are equal in one's eyes, whether for good or ill – God forbid! – for this is the will of the Creator. For one should trust that all that the Merciful One does, is done for good.
Israel Friedman of Ruzhyn (1797-1850), Sefer Kneset Yisra'el (Ostila?, n.d.), pp.87-88.
COMMENT: This passage is an alternative interpretation of the same verses by the same Hasidic teacher. Once again the Ruzhyner connects the fourteen occurrences of the word 'time' in Ecclesiastes with the same word in Leviticus 3, but here is point is a different one. It is that good and bad times should be treated as equal by us; they should neither elate nor upset us.
Aaron's behaviour in Leviticus 3 is a lesson in this. After the tragic and unexpected death of his two sons, he must carry on and conduct the divine service despite his grief. Why? According to Israel of Ruzhyn, because the tragedy too comes from God, and therefore, must be due to the will of God. And we must learn to trust God in bad times, as well as in good.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Self-Cleansing
CONTEXT: The essence of Yom Kippur is, of course, atonement, the restoration of our relationship with God that follows our repentance. With atonement comes the removal or cancellation of our sins.
'For on this day [God] shall put atonement upon you to cleanse you [from all your sins]....'
Leviticus 16:30
That is that the obligation falls 'upon you to cleanse' yourselves 'from all your sins.'
Menachem Mendel of Kotzk (1787-1859), 'Ohel Torah MeHaRabbi MiKotzk (Lublin, 1909), p.42.
COMMENT: The plain meaning of the verse from Leviticus 16 suggests that it is God who cleanses us on Yom Kippur, and one might be tempted to think that this requires little or no effort on our part. But Menachem Mendel of Kotzk, by dividing up the verse into its constituent parts ('deconstructing it,' we might say), arrives at the opposite conclusion. There is an obligation 'upon' us to cleanse ourselves first. We must make the first move; otherwise we are not worthy of God's atonement.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Putting Life into Religion
CONTEXT: Chapter 18 of Leviticus is primarily concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual practices, but it opens with an exhortation to keep God's laws, rather than those of, for example, Egypt or Canaan. Verse 5, however, is often taken out of this context and applied to quite different subjects.
'You shall observe My statutes and My judgments which a person shall do and live by them (chai bahem).'
Leviticus 18:5
For the general principle is: In all the active commandments the matter of 'by them' [may be expounded] as follows: [Take] for example [the commandment of] the fringes (tzitzit). When they are [merely] threads they have no vitality in them, that is to say, [they have no] supernal holiness. But the point about a commandment is that when one does it one binds together all the levels up to [that of] Action ('Asiyah), that is, thought, speech and action are all joined together. And all the laws of Tzitzit and the sections of the Torah [dealing with] Tzitzit rest upon the Tzitzit. The same occurs with all the commandments. Hence, 'You shall observe My statutes (CHuKKoTaY)' – this is an expression [meaning] 'engraving' (CHaKiKah), that is, the letters of thought are engraved on the mind. 'Which [a person] shall do' through the doing of 'live by them' (or, literally, 'in them'), that is to say, that the supernal vitality is in them. This is sufficient for one who understands.
Dov Baer, the Maggid of Mezritch (d. 1772), 'Or Torah (Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1972), p.38b.
COMMENT: Leviticus 18:5 is perhaps the most famous verse in 'Acharei Mot, and its most famous exposition, as found, example in Talmud, Sanhedrin 74a, is that the commandments are for us to live by, not die by; that is, that all the commandments (apart from idolatry in public, incest and murder) may, indeed should, be violated in order to save life.
The Maggid of Mezritch is making a very different point. His concern is that a religion that enjoins specific religious acts may degenerate into one of acting by rote. Jews run the danger of performing the commandments of our religion automatically, giving thought to their details, perhaps, but without recalling the One by Whom they were commanded. With ritual commandments in particular, it is so easy just to go through the motions without applying one's mind.
Taking the example of