Blog > Articles by: Rabbi Jonathan Bailey

Author Archive

« Older Entries

This Land is Your Land, this Land is Your Land
Written by Rabbi Jonathan Bailey
Thursday, 10 September 2009 12:30

On Sukkot, at the beginning of the shmita cycle (i.e. the Sukkot of ‘Year One’), everyone is to gather in Yerushalayim (they are all in the vicinity anyway because of the holiday) and hear specifically chosen sections of Sefer Devarim read by the king (according to tradition) in order that the whole nation will ‘hear and therefore learn to be in awe of God’, ‘and the children that did not know previously of this required awe will listen and learn it for all time’. The sections chosen to be read are from (1) the beginning of Sefer Devarim, where Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael that God has in fact come through with His promise to the forefathers and is soon to give their children the Land; (2) the second paragraph of kriyat shema in which God describes the system that will facilitate the proper mutual relationship between Him and the nation: the basic system of mitzvot and averot, the repercussions thereof, and the ‘lengthening of days in Eretz Yisrael’’ if upheld properly; and (3) the halachot of giving ma’aser from one’s crop, the paradigmatic expression of understanding the true source of one’s bounty which their Land produced. The theme which so blatantly ties these three sections together is the Land: as the symbolic representation of God’s fulfillment of His promise, as the reflection of a truly observant nation, and the vehicle with which the nation can demonstrate their true awareness of their Divinely bestowed survival – all together teaching the required “awe”.

The fundamental message behind the stoppage of work on the Land every seventh year is similar to that of the meaning of Shabbat (a cessation of creative work every seventh day): the Land and its ability to produce belongs to and is controlled by God, and to facilitate a deep understanding of that truth, once every seven years the nation is commanded to express that awareness by allowing everyone to enter any field and eat from anywhere they desire. God also promises that there will be enough food for everyone, even having left the Land fallow for the year, conveying the message that even though the farmers haven’t actively been involved in the cultivating of the Land it continued to produce because of a ‘larger’ framework above their control.

The question must be asked: if the entire theme of the sections read for the ceremony of Hakel is the Land and the integral lessons it helps to convey, and the symbolic meaning behind shmita is the understanding of God’s authority as expressed through the Land, wouldn’t the significance of Hakel’s lesson be more poignantly realized and inculcated if it took place during the shmita year instead of immediately after its conclusion?

During the ‘season’ of Sukkot (in a normal, non-shmita year) the farmers would have been collecting and storing that which they planted during the Pesach ‘season’ and harvested ‘during’ Shavuot; this grain and other produce they would either store in silos or sell, in order to survive the winter. At the time of the Sukkot of Hakel, however, they would have been prohibited from plowing, seeding, harvesting, etc. and even though the new cycle of years has begun and they were now technically permitted to once again work the Land, nonetheless they were forced to live off the produce which God provided until the planting of the following season. It is at this convergence of opposing feelings, when the farmers have regained their independence and yet still were forced to depend on God and His sustenance, that the ceremony of Hakel was performed; for this is the moment of the greatest appreciation of the Land and its true role in the nation’s ongoing relationship with God – the perfect time to comprehend the “awe” the king’s reading of the Torah was established to instill.

  • Share/Bookmark
More
Last Updated on Thursday, 10 September 2009 09:31
Parshat Ekev
Written by Rabbi Jonathan Bailey
Thursday, 6 August 2009 05:00

Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael that when he was presented with the second set of luchot, he was told to place them in a ‘wooden aron’. The difficulty with this report is that this aron was not mentioned in the original narration of this event and we never hear of this simple wooden luchot-container again! Rashi understands that this aron was the one which escorted the army whenever Bnei Yisrael fought, but Ramban challenges this idea because, knowing that God commanded the whole and broken sets of luchot to be placed in the mishkan’s aron, why would the nation take an empty box out to war? Ramban himself maintains that this wooden box was actually a temporary holding container until the luchot could be placed in the mishkan’s aron (which had yet to be built) – their intended final destination. Although this approach presents a plausible reason for this makeshift box, it nonetheless does not answer the issue of having never previously heard of the command for this wooden aron!

There are additional enigmatic aberrations in Moshe’s recounting of this event. According to the simple reading of the text of the Torah, in the original story, after the breaking of the luchot Moshe then returned to God atop Har Sinai for 40 days and 40 nights and was successful in assuaging His anger concerning the nation’s egregious sin with the egel hazahav; Moshe is then told to lead the forgiven nation (sans God) into Eretz Yisrael. He then spends another 40 days and 40 nights and receives the second set of luchot.

In this week’s parsha, Moshe relays the same facts from Shemot as mentioned above – the breaking, the 40 days and 40 nights of placating for the sin of the egel, God’s acceptance of His pleas and the subsequent command to lead the people into the Land. However, this is where the new version strays, for instead of moving right to the receiving of the second set of luchot – the order of the original story – Moshe mentions the fact that they defied God’s command in refusing to enter the Land (the spy episode) and that he then fell before God (for 40 days and 40 nights) asking for His forgiveness and not to destroy the entire nation. Only then are we told (after a parsha petuchah – the Torah’s indication of a substantial thematic/section break) that Moshe is given the second set of luchot which he must place in the wooden aron. Stranger still, to end this section, Moshe concludes with stating that, ‘I stood on the mountain just like the first days, 40 days and 40 nights, and God also listened to me this time and did not annihilate you. And God said to me: ‘get up and go and travel before the nation and they will come and inherit the Land that I promised to their fathers to give to them.’ When did this 40-day period occur? Was it a third conference with God or a reiteration of a past meeting? And if it is a repetition of past events, why does Moshe feel the need to relay it again?

To review (questionable sections in bold):

Shemot – Breaking of first luchot

Devarim – Breaking of first luchot

Shemot – 40 days and 40 nights asking for forgiveness

Devarim – 40 days and 40 nights asking for forgiveness

Shemot – God’s acceptance and command to inherit Eretz Yisrael

Devarim – God’s acceptance and command to inherit Eretz Yisrael

Shemot –

Devarim – Spies incident/40 days and 40 nights for forgiveness

Shemot –

Devarim – (Parsha Petucha)

Shemot – Giving of second luchot

Devarim – Giving of second luchot (specifically placed in the wooden aron)

Shemot –

Devarim – ‘Another’ 40 days and 40 nights asking for forgiveness

Shemot –

Devarim – God’s acceptance and command to inherit Eretz Yisrael

Some preliminary answers. The transition from the report of God’s forgiveness after the egel flows very cleanly into the report about their defiance of God with the spies: after receiving absolution, they were told to inherit the Land – enter the spies, their sin, etc. (The parsha petuchah at the end of the spy episode would therefore signify the conclusion of the totality of these thematically connected events). However, why does Moshe then decide to return anachronistically to the account of the second luchot?

The puzzling ‘extra’ 40 days and 40 nights Moshe mentioned at the end of the section matches perfectly with the time he spent on Har Sinai after having broken the first luchot; then, too, he received God’s forgiveness and was told to go and inherit the Land – matching phraseology. In other words, this final 40 day and 40 night description is not a third, separate event but rather the repetition of the time he spent on Har Sinai after the sin of the egel. So why does Moshe repeat this incident within one speech? And of course, these questions are in addition to our original quandary concerning the mysterious wooden aron.

In Moshe’s recounting of his first trip down Har Sinai with the luchot, he states, “…the two luchot were in my two hands…and I held on to the two luchot and threw them from my two hands…’ – through the exaggerated emphasis on his active, personal grasping (and casting down) of the first set of luchot – absent from the original narrative of his bringing them down the mountain in Shemot – juxtaposed to the command to place the second set of luchot inside a simple, wooden aron, Moshe is conveying to Bnei Yisrael that, although he was certainly the emissary of the God’s Torah to His people (the ‘builder’ of the aron), he will now be literally ‘hands off’ – it is their Torah now and they must take full, personal possession of it ! And it is to emphasize and strengthen this same message that he chooses to separate the section on the giving of the second luchot from the chronological order of events and why he ends that section with a repetition of the bestowal of God’s forgiveness and the subsequent command to enter the Land: having taken hold of their Torah, the nation must also fully appreciate that they have received total forgiveness for the sins of the past and are personally commanded, anew, to complete the mission for which they have been destined from the time of their forefathers. It is their time now and nothing stands in their way of accomplishing their mission: they have their Torah, their Divine support and their instructions for the future, and they must truly understand that they don’t need Moshe to fully accept or succeed in any part of it!

  • Share/Bookmark
More
Last Updated on Thursday, 6 August 2009 06:37
It’s Not You, It’s Me
Written by Rabbi Jonathan Bailey
Thursday, 23 July 2009 05:00

This week begins Moshe’s final speech, delivered to Bnei Yisrael on the shores of the Yarden – Moshe’s ‘Mishna Torah’, his ‘Torah Review’ as it were. A common question asked throughout the parshiyot of Devarim concerns the sometimes blatant changes Moshe makes when recounting past events from the previous three books. Changes include the wording of the aseret hadibrot, the episode of the egel hazahav, and, in this week’s parsha, the retelling of the grave error of the spies. However, before we address the more popularly questioned beginning of the narrative, I want to skip to its enigmatic conclusion.

After Moshe recounts the sin of the spies and the subsequent barring of the entire generation from Eretz Yisrael, he remarks:

“And also God became infuriated with me because of you, saying: ‘you also will not go there’”.

Two questions:

1)Moshe was barred from entering the Land almost 40 years after the spy incident, when he was asked to bring forth water from the rock in Merivah; it seems that here Moshe is connecting the two vastly separated events.

2)Why does he blame this generation (‘because of you’) for his being barred from entering the land? Sure they were there, but he’s the one who failed!

Let’s return now and compare Moshe’s present narrative of the spy episode and its original story.

1. Shlach: God tells Moshe to send the men.

Devarim: The nation approached Moshe with the request and he approved it (‘it was good in my eyes’).

2. Shlach: The mission was to ‘tour’ the land.

Devarim: The mission was to ‘dig up’ the land, i.e. find its weaknesses.

3. Shlach: While in Eretz Yisrael, they ‘toured’.

Devarim: While in Eretz Yisrael, they ‘spied’.

4. Shlach: They return and report that, ‘we have come to the land that you sent us; and it is flowing with milk and honey and this is its fruit. But, we can’t go…’

Devarim: They return and report that, ‘the Land is good that God, our Lord, is giving us’.

5. Shlach: Kalev responds that they can fight and win, and if God wants them to win they will, just don’t rebel against God; and Moshe merely falls prostrate.

Devarim: Moshe responds that by refusing to enter the Land they had defied the word of God.

There are three basic categories into which all the above listed changes fit: #1 describes how the mission was initiated; #2 and #3 tell of the ‘spies’’ charge and the actions during the mission; and #4 and #5 convey the subsequent responses (from the people and the leadership).

The original mission was defined as a ‘tour’ which is exactly what the 12 men did; however, the goal of touring is to decide whether an environment is inviting, whether it’s worth sojourning in. This approach ultimately led to their devastating report: the fruit is good but the land consumes its inhabitants and the occupying nations are too mighty. In other words, it’s not worth settling there – tour accomplished. In the ‘new’ version, Moshe emphasizes that the mission needed to be a spy mission, one that assumed they would enter the land (as commanded) and therefore only required the gathering of information as to the weaknesses of the land and the best route of attack. The original mission was driven by personal willingness and desire, while the latter version expresses a necessary understanding of an enforced Divine direction.

The final two changes highlight the true mistake of the tourists: originally they said the conquering could not be successful because the enemy was too powerful, Kalev denied this and said that Bnei Yisrael were indeed strong enough because God willed it so, and Moshe was totally silent – no mention of God neither from the nation nor its leader! In this reworked-teaching version, Moshe relays that the spies said that ‘the Land that God is giving us is good’ and when Moshe (not Kalev) berates the nation, he says that by refusing to enter they are defying God’s command (nation and leader both mention God!) What Moshe teaches now, through the medium of the people and their leader, is the true Divine nature of the Land and the real meaning behind the refusal to conquer it, all of which was sorrowfully misunderstood the first time around.

And finally, the initial change creates a personal responsibility of leadership for Moshe. Although originally commanded by God to send the ‘tourists’, in his retelling, Moshe makes sure to place the blame squarely on his shoulders, establishing himself as the leader who accepted and approved his people’s flawed request. But why does Moshe make this change? Why does he accept sole responsibility?

For the answer we return to the end of the speech and the difficulties previously mentioned regarding the concluding verse. To review: 1) How could Moshe seemingly connect two chronologically (very) separate episodes? 2) Why does he blame this generation for his sin at the rock?

Moshe is not juxtaposing the events but rather their consequences, saying: Both ‘you’ (although these people were not the generation involved in the spy affair, nonetheless Moshe uses the educationally advantageous personalizing and collective ‘you’ to best convey his lesson to them) and I were similarly prohibited from entering the Land. (This idea is expressed through God’s words in the second half of our verse, ‘you also will not enter the Land’ i.e. the focus of the ‘also’ in the second half of the verse, the punishment, matches the focus of the ‘also’ in the first half, conveying that Moshe’s statement is not understood as ‘at the moment you lost your opportunity to enter, I did too’ (focus on the event) but rather ‘you lost your chance just like I did’ (focus on the punishment)). And Moshe’s purposeful juxtaposition of the consequences teaches Bnei Yisrael that he was barred for the very same reason that the previous generation was. And incorporating the significance of the latter four changes made in the new version listed above, we can understand that Moshe is telling them that he lost his privilege of entering the Eretz Yisrael because he defied God’s command when bringing water from the rock (See dvar Torah on Chukat as to the true nature of Moshe’s mistake) just as the spies and their generation had defied His word after their rejection of the Land and their refusal to enter into it! And God’s wording of the heart-wrenching consequences of these two episodes reflects this equating of the crimes perfectly:

Spies (Bamidbar 14; 11) “How long will this nation anger Me and how long will they not believe in Me…”

Rock (ibid 20; 12)“Because you [Moshe and Aharon] did not believe in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the nation you will not take this nation into the Land.”

And he isn’t ‘blaming’ this generation when he says ‘because of you’ but rather, once again (in the similar context of our understanding of the first change of the ‘revised’ spy episode above), is assuming a leader’s responsibility, in essence saying, ‘specifically because of you – the nation I needed to be the true leader of and had to assume responsibility for – I am not entering the Land’ – which is exactly his failing at the rock! He didn’t have faith in God and the nation and therefore refused to convey to them the Divinely instructed message he mistakenly assumed they couldn’t and wouldn’t accept; he was therefore told, ‘you will not take this nation into the Land’ – he will not be their future leader.

On the shores of the Yarden, on the dawn of entering the Land and completing the Divine promise which began with Avraham Avinu, Moshe painfully recounts previous errors (national and personal) in order to best instruct this fledgling nation, preparing them for a long, successful life in Eretz Yisrael. Faith in God and belief and preservation of His Torah and all it demands is the only way to enter and remain in the wonderful Land they see before them; anyone who defies or strays from this Divinely ordained path will be barred from such a privileged life, and will be forced to live, forever, outside the Promised Land.

It is not a coincidence that this parsha is always read prior to Tisha Be’av, the deeply mournful commemoration of our iniquitous behavior and the deserved exile from the Land.

  • Share/Bookmark
More
Last Updated on Thursday, 23 July 2009 07:14
Parshat Hashavua: Matot-Maasei
Written by Rabbi Jonathan Bailey
Thursday, 16 July 2009 09:07

When the tribes of Reuven and Gad approach Moshe and ask if they can remain on the Eastern side of the Jordan recently conquered by Bnei Yisrael (32; 5), Moshe berates them, declaring that through their request they are once again falling prey to the erroneous sin of the spies (6-15). Hearing this rebuke, the tribes pledge that they will assist the nation in any and all battles to inherit the land and only then will they return to this region outside of Israel (16-19) thereby avoiding the mistaken approach of the previous generation concerning the refusal to enter the Land. Still Moshe is unhappy, yet strangely responds with the demand for seemingly the very same conditions to which the tribes themselves had just agreed; he then also tells them that they need to swear to these ‘repeated’ conditions (20-24). They make the oath and ostensibly Moshe is happy (for he doesn’t respond again) (25-27); however, Moshe then decides to stand up before Bnei Yisrael and summarize the promised conditions and all that just transpired (28-30); the two tribes then swear again – publicly (31-32)

.

Why do we need this entire back and forth repetitive process? Why did it ‘happen’ this way – request, rebuke, response; repeat of response and oath to Moshe; repetition of entire private episode to the nation and repetition of the oath to the nation?

The original tribes’ request hit Moshe square in the face, and he immediately responded with the criticism, ‘how can you allow the rest of the nation to fight on their own?’ At first glance, it seems like Moshe is berating them for being ‘unfair’ to the rest of the nation who will have to fight the numerous occupying nations of Eretz Yisrael without a full national military force. However, if this were the true thrust of Moshe’s reprimand, when the tribes respond to this criticism with ‘we will join them until they have conquered and only then we’ll return to our land out here’ – it should have been satisfactory. But, as stated before, Moshe reiterates the conditions, apparently unsatisfied with what (or how) they had guaranteed their assistance. And in fact, Moshe’s original reprimand spanned another eight verses (after the initial ‘it’s not fair to let them fight alone’ approach) implying that there was something more to his speech that the tribes seemed to dismiss or misunderstand. So, what was Moshe’s intended meaning (and the continuation of his rebuke) when telling them it would be wrong to refuse joining the rest of the nation to fight for Eretz Yisrael?

‘You will corrupt the hearts of the rest of the nation and they will refuse to enter the Land…just like your fathers of the previous generation did…and they all died…so you will cause the rest of this nation to die too’.

What Moshe is saying is that by not fighting with the rest of the nation, they would deter Bnei Yisrael from completing the Godly mission of entering the Land – they will sow the seeds of doubt in the rest of the nation’s mind (just like the previous generation’s spies did) and this generation, too, will refuse to enter the Land that God has given them. How can they repeat this very same sin!?

They then responded with an apparently satisfactory answer: they promised to help with the fight, win the war, and then return. There you go – “we’ll go in with them and everyone will do what they’re supposed to do” – no bad influence, no repeating of past mistakes. However, Moshe, seemingly unsatisfied with what their compromise, responded with a reiteration of the very same conditions they just agreed to! What more is Moshe looking for? What did he add? In the first three pesukim of Moshe’s second response, he says ‘before God’ (the Biblical idiom for ‘fulfilling God’s will’) four times! Moshe saw a deficiency in their response, for while they stated that they would help fight and assist in inheriting the land for the rest of the nation, the problem was that they still nevertheless missed the point. There was no outright demonstrating of their understanding that this war was to be more than a military campaign to be won, an annexing to be completed. (The spies also stumbled the very same way, seeing it only as a military conquering and therefore when it looked impossible, they gave up). What Moshe had to make sure these tribes understood was that it was not simply about the actual conquering of the land; it was more importantly a fulfillment of the God-plan, of the conclusion to their Yetziat Mitzrayim and subsequent creation of the nation – specifically acting ‘before God’, according to His plan. If they didn’t understand and appreciate this point, even if they did join and help conquer, the ultimate mistaken awareness of the import of the mission would have led to a similar catastrophic national failure. Moshe realized that they had only heard the first line of the reprimand but didn’t heed the rest of his speech which ultimately explained the true danger! Even by joining in, they’d nevertheless ultimately be causing a national defiance of God’s plan to enter the Land (again) and that message had to be comprehended and corrected. So when they originally agreed to share the military responsibility, it still didn’t illustrate their understanding of the Divinely commanded necessity to occupy the Land. But what do they then respond the second time, after Moshe’s elucidation of their mistaken understanding? ‘We will go, before God, and conquer the land’ (27). Perfect. Message received.

And why was it so important for these tribes to personally appreciate this message? They were about to reside outside of the selected borders of Eretz Yisrael (for sound financial reasons) and by challenging their appeal, Moshe forced their realization of what the meaning of entering Eretz Yisrael truly was (not just a nation occupying it’s homeland, but a people fulfilling their God’s command) which, having elevated their understanding of God’s desires, he could then allow them to reside outside of the official borders.

So why does Moshe then require them to swear to this plan in front of the entire nation? We’ve seen that the mere action of the two tribes accompanying the rest of the nation would not necessarily convey an understanding of what this military assistance really demonstrates: the fulfilling of a Divine injunction; so, if the rest of the nation merely saw this action but then also witnessed the tribes’ subsequent return to the ‘outside’, the significance of the Divinely required inheriting of the Land would nonetheless be lost upon them (and perhaps create enough doubt to prevent a continued occupying mission). The tribes, after becoming self-aware, were then required to make the nation aware – publicly repeating their promise that, ‘we will go, before God, and conquer the land’ (32) – “know that our joining you truly expresses the facilitating of God’s command!”

When dealing with religious worship, it is all about the motivation. Do a mitzvah action – you’ve performed a God-commanded behavior; do it with the right intention however, and that’s what He truly wants from you. Physical mitzvot are merely tools to inspire an intellectual pursuit of the understanding of God and our relationship with Him; use them for anything less, it’s merely good Jewish theatre.

As Rambam stated in Moreh Nevuchim (3; 51): “Know that all the practices of the worship, such as reading the Torah, prayer, and the performance of mitzvot have only the end of training you to occupy yourself with…Him. If however, you pray merely by moving your lips while facing a wall, and at the same time think about your buying and selling…and similarly in all cases in which you perform the mitzvah merely with your limbs…without reflecting upon the meaning of the action or upon Him from whom the mitzvah proceeds…you should not think you have achieved the end”.

  • Share/Bookmark
More
Last Updated on Thursday, 16 July 2009 09:09
“Best Served Cold”
Written by Rabbi Jonathan Bailey
Thursday, 9 July 2009 05:00

Why is Pinchas hailed as the ultimate Warrior of God? Why are we to be so impressed by his expression of zealotry? In describing why He is rewarding Pinchas, God says, ‘Pinchas…turned back My anger against Bnei Yisrael, in avenging My vengeance’ , so that I did not annihilate Bnei Yisrael due to my vengeance…because he fought for His God he atoned for Bnei Yisrael’. According to God’s own reasoning, anyone who would have stood up and speared the brash sinners would have received the very same reward having accomplished the necessary atonement for the nation! Nowhere in God’s statement does it say that Pinchas’ reward is because he stood up when no one else would! God does not praise his zealousness but rather his accomplishments; a success anyone could have achieved ! So what is so special about Pinchas’ actions that the Torah feels the need to emphatically praise his actions and detail his subsequent reward?

In this parsha’s haftarah (not read this week due to Shiva Asar Be’Tammuz calculations), we are told of Eliyahu’s flight from the vengeful wrath of Izevel, Achav’s wife; he killed her prophets of Baal, and was informed that he would therefore pay with his life. Eliyahu runs to the desert where he sits under a bush and pleads for his immediate death. Twice an angel appears and tells the prophet to eat from the miraculously blooming desert foliage, ‘for your upcoming journey is long’. After his second repast, Eliyahu rises and travels 40 days and nights to Har Chorev where he is greeted by the word of God, saying, ‘what business do you have here?’ The prophet quickly answers that, ‘I have been vengeful for God because Bnei Yisrael has corrupted Your covenant, destroyed Your altars and killed Your prophets by the sword; only I, alone, remain and they want to take my life!’ Eliyahu is ‘explaining’ to God that because he took up His cause and killed the prophets of Baal, and continually defied the iniquitous reign of Achav and Izevel, he is now going to be killed for his efforts and therefore has decided to run away, hoping to die naturally in the desert instead of by the hands of the evil king and queen of Israel.

God then responds to Eliyahu’s report with an enigmatic statement: ‘Go and stand before God, and a great, mighty, strong wind that crumbles mountains and smashes rocks will pass before you – but God will not be in that wind; and after the wind, a [huge] noise – but God will not be in that noise; and after the noise, fire – but God will not be in that fire; and after the fire, a very, soft voice.’ And Eliyahu then goes out and hears the soft voice, which then asks again, using the very same words as before: ‘what business do you have here?’ – and strangely, Eliyahu answers exactly as he did before, verbatim! And this time God replies, ‘go and return on your way to the desert of Damascus and go and anoint Chazael as king over Aram, and anoint Yehu as king over Israel and anoint Elisha as the prophet who will succeed you. And those who escape the sword of Chazael will be killed by Yehu; and those who escape Yehu’s sword will be killed by Elisha…’

The obvious connection to the parsha is the use of the word ‘vengeful’ – the same root used to describe Pinchas’ actions. However, this puzzling story with Eliyahu must have a deeper, more significant meaning, thereby conveying an even deeper lesson through its connection to Parshat Pinchas.

We can easily assume that God repeated His very same question to Eliyahu, after His initial response of His unique wind/noise/fire/soft voice-arrival, to elicit a different reply from the prophet; ‘I heard what you said, and here’s what I have to say; so now, having heard my words, let’s try this again – what business do you have here?’ Unfortunately, Eliyahu does not change his answer, choosing rather to use the exact same words as he did previously; so what message was Eliyahu supposed to receive from God’s speech but unfortunately missed?

There was one other time in our history when God appeared to a people along with the very three things mentioned here: shaking mountains, loud thunderous noise and blazing fire – the giving of the Torah! And because of the similarities, the differences are brilliantly highlighted: by the giving of the Torah the voice of God was not soft like as it was with Eliyahu and God specifically did appear within the clouds and fire, thunder and noise (as opposed to the experience with Eliyahu where He explicitly declared that He would not be found neither in the wind, nor the noise, nor the fire)! This blatant juxtaposition is further illustrated by the fact that the angels fed Eliyahu in the desert specifically so that he would have enough strength to travel (for 40 days and 40 nights!) and reach Har Chorev – the same location! The poignant emphasizing of the differences between these two juxtaposed episodes forces us to appreciate that the message of Eliyahu’s ‘Chorev’ experience was the exact opposite to that of giving of the Torah. In placating their fear of God’s overwhelming appearance at Har Sinai, Moshe told Bnei Yisrael that the entire dramatic manifestation of God was purposeful, ‘so that His awe will be upon you to prevent you from sinning’ – the powerful ‘special effects’ were essential to their understanding of God’s omnipotent omnipresence which would positively guide their behavior. Eliyahu’s experience, conversely, lacked that similar force to God’s manifestation – His voice was soft and His presence limited; therefore, God would have been conveying the opposite point: His awe was not upon Eliyahu and therefore was not ultimately directing his laudable behavior.

And now putting it all into context: in explaining why he was running for his life, Eliyahu said that it was because he had been vengeful for God which infuriated his enemies enough to call for his death. Hearing this, God illustrated (through his highlighted God-removed Chorev appearance) that there was a dangerous aspect of Godlessness in Eliyahu’s original answer; He then asked His question again, hoping Eliyahu would have understood His intended message and would respond to His query differently. Unfortunately, Eliyahu does not change his response in any way so God tells him (instead) to anoint Chazael, Yehu and Elisha. What is so significant about these three appointments? God states that these people would take care of the very issues which Eliyahu had explained he had been fighting for and still needed to address! ‘Bnei Yisrael have corrupted Your covenant’ – Chazael, the king of Aram, will attack (and thereby punish) the people; ‘[they have] destroyed Your altars and killed Your prophets by the sword’ – Yehu will kill Achav and destroy any remnant of that sinful monarchy which destroyed and killed God’s altars and priests, respectively, replacing them with Baal’s; ‘only I, alone, remain and they want to take my life’ – Elisha will now take his place as prophet. Because of Eliyahu’s (repeated) faulty response, God commanded the prophet’s total removal from his previous role, delegating the entirety of its responsibilities to others.

But what could Eliyahu have possibly said that warranted such Divine criticism and the dramatic removal from his prophet-of-Israel role? Now we return to Pinchas. God says that Pinchas was ‘kan-oh kinati’ – ‘his vengeance was for My vengeance’ – in other words, Pinchas only expressed his vengeance because of God’s similar feelings! Pinchas stepped up to physically exhibit that which God was ‘exhibiting’ spiritually! He was God’s ‘man’ on the ground, intimately connected to the Divine goal; ‘God desires to be vengeful against these sinners; therefore, I will be vengeful, as the perfect reflection of God’s will’! And with this elevated Divine purpose, Pinchas, without question or pause, stepped up as the sole savior of the situation and quickly dispatched the sinners and halted the deadly plague.

How does Eliyahu explain his savior actions? ‘kanoh kinaiti l’adoshem’ – ‘I was surely vengeful for God’ (vs. Pinchas: ‘his vengeance was for My vengeance’). The difference is clear: while both men outwardly demonstrated similar actions, Pinchas’ were performed as a direct extension of God’s will, an expression of his pure connection to God; Eliyahu’s were merely motivated by God’s will, inspired by, but not expressed through, his relationship with God. And the significant weakness of this latter approach is realized when Eliyahu is threatened with his upcoming death by Izevel’s hands: he ultimately regrets his virtuous actions, requesting a death in the lonely desert, complaining (twice!) to God about his plight brought on only because he had fought for Him! Through Eliyahu’s repeated ‘lacking’ response and especially in light of his failure to appreciate God’s ‘instructive’ reply, God quickly ‘noted’ that Eliyahu’s fear and subsequent lament regarding his zealous actions pointedly demonstrated that he did not now possess the deep-seeded faith in and connection to God which was required of a leader of Israel – he was therefore removed from his leadership role. Pinchas, however, fought for God without hesitation or regret, from within the context of a perfect reflection of his powerful connection to Him, and ultimately received for his laudatory actions a guarantee of his future (and his descendants’ eternal) role as kohain!

If zealousness of worship is God-motivated yet ultimately not an expression of a deeply rooted relationship with the Divine, then when it faces the inevitable challenges of failure, danger, boredom or lack of opportunity, that worship will weaken and disappear no matter how strong it may have been originally. A chumra must serve the express purpose of strengthening one’s connection to God; this relationship is eternal, despite the trials and tribulations and limitedness of life; so too a ‘true’ dedicated edification of that relationship.

  • Share/Bookmark
More
Last Updated on Thursday, 9 July 2009 02:20
« Older Entries
Home