Some years ago, when my daughter was 5, I worked for a high tech start up in Northern California. We had a family feeling typical of these start ups and one night, during a period the founders' baby daughter was in the hospitial, from which she never emerged, with congenital defect, I came on from working late, also typical of these start ups, and went directly to my daughter's room and just listened to her breath - taking relief in every breath. "When...?" I asked myself "When do we stop worrying if our children are going to make it?" The answer came immediately: Never.
This evening came to mine when I confront the strange and troubling episode of Nadav and Abihu ...
This evening came to mine when I confront the strange and troubling episode of Nadav and Abihu ...
(ג) וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֗ן הוּא֩ אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֨ר יְהוָ֤ה ׀ לֵאמֹר֙ בִּקְרֹבַ֣י אֶקָּדֵ֔שׁ וְעַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־הָעָ֖ם אֶכָּבֵ֑ד וַיִּדֹּ֖ם אַהֲרֹֽן׃
(3) Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD meant when He said: Through those near to Me I show Myself holy, And gain glory before all the people.” And Aaron was silent.
(א) הוא אשר דבר וְגו'. הֵיכָן דִּבֵּר? וְנֹעַדְתִּי שָׁמָּה לִבְנֵי יִשְֹרָאֵל וְנִקְדַּשׁ בִּכְבֹדִי (שמות כ"ט), אַל תִּקְרֵי בִּכְבֹדִי אֶלָּא בִּמְכֻבָּדַי; אָמַר לוֹ מֹשֶׁה לְאַהֲרֹן, אַהֲרֹן אָחִי, יוֹדֵעַ הָיִיתִי שֶׁיִּתְקַדֵּשׁ הַבַּיִת בִּמְיֻדָּעָיו שֶׁל מָקוֹם, וְהָיִיתִי סָבוּר אוֹ בִי אוֹ בָךְ, עַכְשָׁיו רוֹאֶה אֲנִי שֶׁהֵם גְּדוֹלִים מִמֶּנִּי וּמִמֶּךָּ (ספרא):
(1) 'וגו 'הוא אשר דבר ה THIS IS WHAT THE LORD SPOKE, etc. — Where had He spoken this? In the statement (Exodus 29:43), “And there I will be met by the children of Israel and it (the Tabernacle) shall be sanctified by My glory (בכבודי).” Read not here בִכְבוֹדִי, “by My Glory” but בִּמְכֻבָּדַי, “through My honoured ones” (Zevachim 115b). Moses here said to Aaron: “My brother, Aaron! I knew that this House was to be sanctified by those who are beloved of the Omnipresent God and I thought it would be either through me or through thee; now I see that these (thy sons who have died) are greater than me and than thee!” (Leviticus Rabbah 12 2).
(מג) וְנֹעַדְתִּ֥י שָׁ֖מָּה לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְנִקְדַּ֖שׁ בִּכְבֹדִֽי׃
(43) and there I will meet with the Israelites, and it shall be sanctified by My Presence.
The Midrash Tanchuma teaches:
According to Midrash Tanchuma Moses explains that he knew the dedication of the Tabernacle would necessitate the death of a great person, of one of the leaders. As it turned out, two of the leaders were taken. This is what the text means when it says that they died "in front of God."
Nadav and Avihu died in the proximity of God; their souls were complete.
According to Midrash Tanchuma Moses explains that he knew the dedication of the Tabernacle would necessitate the death of a great person, of one of the leaders. As it turned out, two of the leaders were taken. This is what the text means when it says that they died "in front of God."
Nadav and Avihu died in the proximity of God; their souls were complete.
This sounds disturbingly like sanctioned and sanctified human sacrifice!
There is a spirited discussion in the tractate Sanhedrin - daf 64b regarding not just WHEN - but WHETHER one is liable for a transgression for passing their children through fire.
There is a spirited discussion in the tractate Sanhedrin - daf 64b regarding not just WHEN - but WHETHER one is liable for a transgression for passing their children through fire.
א"ר ינאי אינו חייב עד שימסרנו למשרתי ע"ז שנאמר (ויקרא יח, כא) ומזרעך לא תתן להעביר למולך תניא נמי הכי יכול העביר ולא מסר יהא חייב ת"ל לא תתן מסר למולך ולא העביר יכול יהא חייב ת"ל להעביר מסר והעביר שלא למולך יכול יהא חייב ת"ל למולך מסר והעביר למולך ולא באש יכול יהא חייב נאמר כאן להעביר ונאמר להלן (דברים יח, י) לא ימצא בך מעביר בנו ובתו באש מה להלן באש אף כאן באש ומה כאן מולך אף להלן מולך אמר רב אחא בריה דרבא העביר כל זרעו פטור שנאמר מזרעך ולא כל זרעך בעי רב אשי העבירו סומא מהו ישן מהו בן בנו ובן בתו מהו תפשוט מיהא חדא דתניא (ויקרא כ, ג) כי מזרעו נתן למולך מה ת"ל לפי שנאמר לא ימצא בך מעביר בנו ובתו באש אין לי אלא בנו ובתו בן בנו ובן בתו מנין ת"ל (ויקרא כ, ד) בתתו מזרעו תנא פתח בכי מזרעו וסליק בתתו מזרעו דרשה אחרינא הוא זרעו אין לי אלא זרע כשר זרע פסול מנין ת"ל בתתו מזרעו אמר רב יהודה אינו חייב עד שיעבירנו דרך העברה היכי דמי אמר אביי שרגא דליבני במיצעי נורא מהאי גיסא ונורא מהאי גיסא רבא אמר כמשוורתא דפוריא תניא כוותיה דרבא אינו חייב עד שיעבירנו דרך עברה העבירה ברגל פטור ואינו חייב אלא על יוצאי יריכו הא כיצד בנו ובתו חייב אביו ואמו אחיו ואחותו פטור העביר עצמו פטור ורבי אלעזר בר' שמעון מחייב אחד למולך ואחד לשאר ע"ז חייב רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר למולך חייב שלא למולך פטור אמר עולא מאי טעמא דרבי אלעזר בר' שמעון אמר קרא (דברים יח, י) לא ימצא בך בך בעצמך ורבנן לא דרשי בך והתנן אבידתו ואבידת אביו שלו קודמת ואמרינן מאי טעמא ואמר רב יהודה אמר קרא (דברים טו, ד) אפס כי לא יהיה בך אביון שלו קודמת לשל כל אדם והתם מאפס אמר רבי יוסי בר' חנינא שלש כריתות בע"ז למה אחת לכדרכה ואחת לשלא כדרכה ואחת למולך ולמאן דאמר מולך ע"ז היא כרת במולך למה לי למעביר בנו שלא כדרכה ולמאן דאמר מגדף ע"ז היא כרת במגדף למה לי לכדתניא (במדבר טו, לא) הכרת תכרת הכרת בעולם הזה תכרת לעולם הבא דברי רבי עקיבא אמר לו רבי ישמעאל והלא כבר נאמר ונכרתה וכי שלשה עולמים יש אלא ונכרתה בעולם הזה הכרת לעולם הבא תכרת דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם:
§ Rabbi Yannai says: One is not liable for passing his child through fire to Molekh unless he hands him over to the priests of Molekh, as it is stated: “And you shall not give any of your offspring to pass them over to Molekh” (Leviticus 18:21), which indicates that the prohibition is to give, i.e., to hand the child over to the priests. This is also taught in a baraita: One might have thought that one who passed his child through fire but did not hand him over to the priests of Molekh should be liable. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall not give.” If one handed over his son to the priests of Molekh but did not pass him through fire, one might have thought that he should be liable. Therefore, the verse states: “To pass,” indicating that passing is also necessary. If one handed over the child and passed him through fire, not to priests of Molekh but rather to priests of another object of idol worship, one might have thought that he should be liable. Therefore, the verse states: “To Molekh.” If one handed over his child and passed him over to the priests of Molekh, but he did not pass him through the fire, one might have thought that he should be liable. It is stated here, in the verse: “To pass,” and it is stated there, in another verse: “There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or his daughter through the fire” (Deuteronomy 18:10). Just as there, the verse is referring to passing one’s child through the fire, so too here, the reference is to passing one’s child through the fire. And just as here, the verse is referring to one who passes his child over to the priests of Molekh, so too there, the reference is to Molekh alone, excluding any other object of idol worship. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, says: One who passed all his offspring through fire to the priests of Molekh is exempt, as it is stated: “Of your offspring,” indicating: But not all your offspring. Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If one passed through the fire a child of his who is blind, what is the halakha? Furthermore, if one passed his child through the fire while the child was asleep, what is the halakha? Does the child need to be capable of passing through on his own, or is that not necessary? Likewise, if one passed his son’s son or his daughter’s son through the fire, what is the halakha? The Gemara answers: Resolve at least one of these dilemmas, as it is taught in a baraita: Why must the verse state: “Because he has given of his offspring to Molekh” (Leviticus 20:3)? What is added by this statement? Because it is stated: “There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or his daughter through the fire,” I have derived only that it is prohibited for one to pass his son or daughter. From where do I derive that one who passes his son’s son or his daughter’s son is also liable? The verse states: “When he gives of his offspring” (Leviticus 20:4). The term “offspring” indicates that grandchildren are included. This resolves one of Rav Ashi’s dilemmas. The Gemara asks: The tanna began his exposition with the phrase in the verse “because he has given of his offspring,” and ended with an interpretation of the phrase in the verse “when he gives of his offspring.” Why did he cite two different verses as proof for his halakhic statement? The Gemara answers: The second verse is stated in the baraita for a different exposition, which was omitted from the baraita and reads as follows: From the term in the verse “his offspring” I have derived only that one is liable for passing through the fire his offspring of unflawed lineage, i.e., his descendants from a woman whom he was permitted to marry. From where do I derive that one is liable for passing through the fire his offspring of flawed lineage, e.g., a mamzer, as well? The verse states: “When he gives of his offspring,” indicating that one is liable for passing any of his offspring. § Rav Yehuda says: One is not liable for passing his child through fire to Molekh unless he passes him in the typical manner of passing. The Gemara asks: What is considered the typical manner of passing? Abaye says: The child is taken by foot along a latticework [sirega] of bricks in the middle, between the fire on this side and the fire on that side. Rava says: The typical manner of passing is like the leaps of children on Purim. It was customary to light a bonfire on Purim inside a pit, and children would amuse themselves by leaping over the bonfires. Passing one’s child over a fire in such a fashion is the typical manner of passing a child over to Molekh. The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: One is not liable unless he passes his child through the fire in the typical manner of passing. If he passed her by foot, he is exempt. Evidently, the passing ritual is performed by leaping and not by walking. The baraita continues: And one is liable only for passing his descendants. How so? If one passed his son or his daughter through the fire, he is liable. If he passed his father, or his mother, his brother, or his sister, he is exempt. If one passed himself over to Molekh, he is exempt. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, deems him liable. Both one who passes his child through fire to Molekh and one who passes his child through fire to other objects of idol worship are liable. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: If he passes him over to Molekh, he is liable, but if he transfers him to another object of idol worship, not to Molekh, he is exempt. Ulla says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who deems one who passes himself over to Molekh liable? The verse states: “There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or his daughter through the fire” (Deuteronomy 18:10), and the term “among you” is interpreted homiletically to mean: Among yourself. The Gemara asks: And do the Rabbis not interpret the term “among you” as referring to oneself? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bava Metzia 33a): If one finds his lost item and his father’s lost item, taking care of his own lost item takes precedence. And we said in discussion of that mishna: What is the reason for this? And Rav Yehuda said that it is because the verse states: “Only so that there shall be no needy among you” (Deuteronomy 15:4), meaning that one must avoid becoming needy. Therefore, if one lost an item, tending to his lost item takes precedence over tending to the lost item of any other person. Apparently, this interpretation of the verse is based on the understanding that the term “among you” is referring to oneself, i.e., one must take care of himself so that he will not become needy. The Gemara answers: And there, in that discussion, the halakha is derived from the word “only,” a limiting term, which is interpreted to mean that in preventing destitution one should begin with himself. § Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Why is the punishment of excision from the World-to-Come [karet] mentioned three times with regard to idol worship? It is stated twice with regard to the ritual of Molekh, in the verse: “I will also set My face against that man, and I will excise him from among his people” (Leviticus 20:3), and in the verse: “Then I will set My face against that man, and against his family, and I will excise him” (Leviticus 20:5). The third mention of karet is with regard to one who blasphemes: “That person blasphemes the Lord, and that soul shall be excised from among his people” (Numbers 15:30). One mention is for worshipping an idol in its typical manner of worship, and one mention is for worshipping an idol not in its typical manner of worship, and one mention is for performing the ritual of Molekh. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that Molekh is an object of idol worship, why do I need a special mention of karet with regard to Molekh? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the case of one who passes his child through fire to an idol other than Molekh, where this is not its typical manner of worship. According to this opinion, one who passes his son through fire to any idol is liable. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the verse concerning one who blasphemes is referring to one who engages in idol worship and not to one who curses God, why do I need karet to be mentioned with regard to one who blasphemes? The Gemara answers that it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: It is stated with regard to one who blasphemes: “Because he has despised the word of the Lord, and has breached His mitzva, that soul shall be excised [hikkaret tikkaret], his iniquity shall be upon him” (Numbers 15:31). The phrase “hikkaret tikkaret” is interpreted as follows: “Hikkaret”; the sinner is excised in this world, meaning that he will die prematurely. “Tikkaret”; the sinner is excised in the World-to-Come, and he will not merit everlasting life. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: But isn’t it already stated in the previous verse: “He blasphemes the Lord; that soul shall be excised [venikhreta]” (Numbers 15:30)? Are there three worlds in which the sinner is excised? Rather, from the term in the verse “venikhreta” it is derived that the sinner is excised in this world, from the term “hikkaret” it is derived that the sinner is excised in the World-to-Come, and nothing is derived from the doubled verb “hikkaret tikkaret,” as the Torah spoke in the language of people.
Taanit 4a
...And it is written, with regard to human sacrifice: “And they have also built the high places of the Ba’al, to burn their sons in the fire for burnt offerings to Ba’al, which I did not command, and I did not speak, nor did it come into My heart” (Jeremiah 19:5). The Gemara interprets each phrase of this verse: “Which I did not command,” this is referring to the son of Mesha, king of Moab. King Mesha sacrificed his son, as it is stated: “Then he took his firstborn son, who would reign after him, and he offered him as a burnt-offering” (II Kings 3:27). “And I did not speak,” this is referring to Jephthah, who sacrificed his daughter as an offering. “Nor did it come into my heart,” this is referring to Isaac, son of Abraham. Although God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, there was no intent in God’s heart that he should actually do so; it was merely a test. ...
...And it is written, with regard to human sacrifice: “And they have also built the high places of the Ba’al, to burn their sons in the fire for burnt offerings to Ba’al, which I did not command, and I did not speak, nor did it come into My heart” (Jeremiah 19:5). The Gemara interprets each phrase of this verse: “Which I did not command,” this is referring to the son of Mesha, king of Moab. King Mesha sacrificed his son, as it is stated: “Then he took his firstborn son, who would reign after him, and he offered him as a burnt-offering” (II Kings 3:27). “And I did not speak,” this is referring to Jephthah, who sacrificed his daughter as an offering. “Nor did it come into my heart,” this is referring to Isaac, son of Abraham. Although God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, there was no intent in God’s heart that he should actually do so; it was merely a test. ...
Isaac Died: The Alternative Version of Akedas Yitzchak
The Last Trial is a fantastic book. (And it's available at YU)
It is the English translation of a work (actually, a sixty-seven page introduction to a poem titled 'The Akedah,' written by Rabbi Ephraim ben Jacob of Bonn) by Shalom Spiegel titled Me-Aggadot ha-Akedah, literally, "From the Aggadot on the Binding of Isaac." Anyone able to read beautiful, rich Hebrew ought to read it in its original form. With that in mind, I still owe the translator, Judah Goldin, a debt of gratitude- I would never have been able to read this book otherwise.
Spiegel traces the various ideas, legends and lore that grew up around the Akedah, the Binding of Isaac, and notes their sources and interpretations, - that Isaac died.
~
The question begins with the famous verse, Genesis 22: 19.
Avraham returned to the young men.
But where was Isaac?
One of the interpretations was that he was in Paradise. And why was he in Paradise? He was being healed. Why was he being healed? Because of his wound. What wound?
The Midrash goes on to say that this is the reason that the "ministering angels began to recite, Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who quickens the dead."
In this case, it appears that Isaac was burnt- he was reduced to ashes.
Note that Avraham does not necessarily slay him here. As Spiegel takes care to point out, if one operates under the assumption that Avraham did everything in accord with the Torah, and later on the Torah gives very specific instructions as to the bringing of a korban or sacrifice, specifically in Leviticus 1: 7:
Note the order: First one places fire on the altar, then wood.
Similarly, by Avraham- Avraham would have lit the fire, then placed wood, and then placed Isaac upon the wood. This idea is completely corroborated by Genesis 22: 9
In this case, then, Spiegel suggests,
This is a completely plausible approach- in this case Abraham does not actively kill Isaac, he does not cut him or hurt him, but Isaac dies nonetheless because he is burned to death.
However, Spiegel now cites in a footnote the whole and correct version of this Midrash:
In this case, Isaac was slaughtered, and Avraham slew him.
The Last Trial is a fantastic book. (And it's available at YU)
It is the English translation of a work (actually, a sixty-seven page introduction to a poem titled 'The Akedah,' written by Rabbi Ephraim ben Jacob of Bonn) by Shalom Spiegel titled Me-Aggadot ha-Akedah, literally, "From the Aggadot on the Binding of Isaac." Anyone able to read beautiful, rich Hebrew ought to read it in its original form. With that in mind, I still owe the translator, Judah Goldin, a debt of gratitude- I would never have been able to read this book otherwise.
Spiegel traces the various ideas, legends and lore that grew up around the Akedah, the Binding of Isaac, and notes their sources and interpretations, - that Isaac died.
~
The question begins with the famous verse, Genesis 22: 19.
- יט וַיָּשָׁב אַבְרָהָם אֶל-נְעָרָיו, וַיָּקֻמוּ וַיֵּלְכוּ יַחְדָּו אֶל-בְּאֵר שָׁבַע; וַיֵּשֶׁב אַבְרָהָם, בִּבְאֵר שָׁבַע. {פ}
19 So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beer-sheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beer-sheba. {P}
Avraham returned to the young men.
But where was Isaac?
One of the interpretations was that he was in Paradise. And why was he in Paradise? He was being healed. Why was he being healed? Because of his wound. What wound?
- This is the version in Midrash Lekah Tob, and it is set down in connection with the verse (Gen 31: 42), "The God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac"- "for Isaac was in the grip of fear as he lay bound on top of the altar, and his soul flew out of him, and the Holy One, blessed be He, restored it to him by means of the dewdrops for Resurrection of the dead." (32)
- small Midrash on the Prayer in Shibbole ha-Leket. On the surface it seems that here have been assembled only the different haggadic strokes we have listed and outlined thus far; but its language clearly reveals that something new has been added, and now the profile of the whole midrash is suddenly transformed in a manner we could never have anticipated or dreamed of from our reading of Scripture: "When Father Isaac was bound on the altar and reduced to ashes and his sacrificial dust was cast on Mount Moriah, the Holy One, blessed be He, immediately brought upon him dew and revived him. (33)
The Midrash goes on to say that this is the reason that the "ministering angels began to recite, Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who quickens the dead."
In this case, it appears that Isaac was burnt- he was reduced to ashes.
Note that Avraham does not necessarily slay him here. As Spiegel takes care to point out, if one operates under the assumption that Avraham did everything in accord with the Torah, and later on the Torah gives very specific instructions as to the bringing of a korban or sacrifice, specifically in Leviticus 1: 7:
- וְנָתְנוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן, אֵשׁ--עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ; וְעָרְכוּ עֵצִים, עַל-הָאֵשׁ.
7 And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay wood in order upon the fire.
Note the order: First one places fire on the altar, then wood.
Similarly, by Avraham- Avraham would have lit the fire, then placed wood, and then placed Isaac upon the wood. This idea is completely corroborated by Genesis 22: 9
- ט וַיָּבֹאוּ, אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אָמַר-לוֹ הָאֱלֹהִים, וַיִּבֶן שָׁם אַבְרָהָם אֶת-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וַיַּעֲרֹךְ אֶת-הָעֵצִים; וַיַּעֲקֹד, אֶת-יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ, וַיָּשֶׂם אֹתוֹ עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, מִמַּעַל לָעֵצִים.
9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built the altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.
In this case, then, Spiegel suggests,
- when Abraham offered up his sacrifice in accordance with the proper order for making a whole burnt offering, and he did with the wood what is done in the propr laying-out of the sacrificial woodpile, wood on top of the fire, and he put his son "on top of the wood." And if in fact he did not do anything to the lad and did not remove him speedily from the wood upon the fire that was burning, why, in a twinkling the whole pile went up in a blaze and the flames of fire had Isaac to themselves and "he was reduced to ashes" and dust. (36)
This is a completely plausible approach- in this case Abraham does not actively kill Isaac, he does not cut him or hurt him, but Isaac dies nonetheless because he is burned to death.
However, Spiegel now cites in a footnote the whole and correct version of this Midrash:
- And now, thanks to a Cambridge University Library manuscript (Or. 1080, Box I: 48), we learn that the Shibbole ha-Leket reading is indeed abridged. Perhaps either R. Zedekiah bar Abraham delli Mansi or some pious soul of an earlier generation was exercising restraint- for reasons similar to those which prompted R. Isaac Aboab to omit that haggadah entirely from beginning to end. For this MS reads: "When Abraham bound his son Isaac on the altar, and slew him and burned him, (the lad) was reduced to ashes, and his ashes were scattered on Mount Moriah; then the Holy One, blessed be He, brought down life-giving dew and revived him [...] See S. Spiegel in the Abraham Weiss Jubilee Volume (New York, 1964), pp. 553-566.]
In this case, Isaac was slaughtered, and Avraham slew him.
(ז) וְשִׁנַּנְתָּ֣ם לְבָנֶ֔יךָ וְדִבַּרְתָּ֖ בָּ֑ם בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ֤ בְּבֵיתֶ֙ךָ֙ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ֣ בַדֶּ֔רֶךְ וּֽבְשָׁכְבְּךָ֖ וּבְקוּמֶֽךָ׃
(7) Impress them [teach them diligently" upon your children. Recite them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up.
(יט) וְלִמַּדְתֶּ֥ם אֹתָ֛ם אֶת־בְּנֵיכֶ֖ם לְדַבֵּ֣ר בָּ֑ם בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ֤ בְּבֵיתֶ֙ךָ֙ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ֣ בַדֶּ֔רֶךְ וּֽבְשָׁכְבְּךָ֖ וּבְקוּמֶֽךָ׃
(19) and teach them to your children—reciting them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up;
אמר רב ספרא משום ר' יהושע בן חנניא מאי דכתיב (דברים ו, ז) ושננתם לבניך אל תקרי ושננתם אלא ושלשתם
§ Rav Safra says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall teach them diligently [veshinnantam] to your sons” (Deuteronomy 6:7)? Do not read this as “veshinnantam,” with the root shin, nun, nun, which indicates a repetition. Rather, read it as veshillashtam, with the root shin, lamed, shin, related to the word three, shalosh. This means that one must study, review, and study again, thereby dividing one’s studies into three parts.
ת"ר (דברים יא, יח) ושמתם סם תם נמשלה תורה כסם חיים משל לאדם שהכה את בנו מכה גדולה והניח לו רטיה על מכתו ואמר לו בני כל זמן שהרטיה זו על מכתך אכול מה שהנאתך ושתה מה שהנאתך ורחוץ בין בחמין בין בצונן ואין אתה מתיירא ואם אתה מעבירה הרי היא מעלה נומי
The Sages taught: “And you shall place [vesamtem] these words of Mine in your hearts” (Deuteronomy 11:18). Read this as though it stated sam tam, a perfect elixir. The Torah is compared to an elixir of life. There is a parable that illustrates this: A person hit his son with a strong blow and placed a bandage on his wound. And he said to him: My son, as long as this bandage is on your wound and is healing you, eat what you enjoy and drink what you enjoy, and bathe in either hot water or cold water, and you do not need to be afraid, as it will heal your wound. But if you take it off, the wound will become gangrenous.
כך הקב"ה אמר להם לישראל בני בראתי יצר הרע ובראתי לו תורה תבלין ואם אתם עוסקים בתורה אין אתם נמסרים בידו שנאמר (בראשית ד, ז) הלא אם תטיב שאת
So too the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel: My children, I created an evil inclination, which is the wound, and I created Torah as its antidote. If you are engaged in Torah study you will not be given over into the hand of the evil inclination, as it is stated: “If you do well, shall it not be lifted up?” (Genesis 4:7). One who engages in Torah study lifts himself above the evil inclination.
ואם אין אתם עוסקין בתורה אתם נמסרים בידו שנא' לפתח חטאת רובץ ולא עוד אלא שכל משאו ומתנו בך שנאמר ואליך תשוקתו ואם אתה רוצה אתה מושל בו שנאמר ואתה תמשל בו
And if you do not engage in Torah study, you are given over to its power, as it is stated: “Sin crouches at the door” (Genesis 4:7). Moreover, all of the evil inclination’s deliberations will be concerning you, as it is stated in the same verse: “And to you is its desire.” And if you wish you shall rule over it, as it is stated in the conclusion of the verse: “But you may rule over it” (Genesis 4:7).
ת"ר קשה יצר הרע שאפילו יוצרו קראו רע שנאמר (בראשית ח, כא) כי יצר לב האדם רע מנעוריו אמר רב יצחק יצרו של אדם מתחדש עליו בכל יום שנאמר (בראשית ו, ה) רק רע כל היום
The Sages taught: So difficult is the evil inclination that even its Creator calls it evil, as it is stated: “For the inclination of a man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21). Rav Yitzḥak says: A person’s evil inclination renews itself to him every day, as it is stated: “And that every inclination of the thoughts in his heart was only evil all day [kol hayyom]” (Genesis 6:5). “Kol hayyom” can also be understood as: Every day.
ויש אומרים אף להשיטו בנהר מאי טעמא חיותיה הוא
§ The baraita adds: And some say that a father is also obligated to teach his son to swim in a river. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? It is necessary for his life, i.e., this is potentially a lifesaving skill.
להשיאו אשה מנלן דכתיב (ירמיהו כט, ו) קחו נשים והולידו בנים ובנות וקחו לבניכם נשים ואת בנותיכם תנו לאנשים
§ The baraita (29a) teaches that a father is commanded to marry his son to a woman. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this matter? As it is written: “Take wives and bear sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to men” (Jeremiah 29:6).
(ב) אשר אנכי מצוך היום היינו לומר בכל יום יהיו בעיניך כחדשים ולא כמי שכבר שמע אותו הרבה פעמים שאינו חביב אצלו:
(2) "Which I have commanded you today," (Deuteronomy 6:6) - it should be recited every day, and [still] appear in your eyes as if it is new, [and be] not like someone who hears it repeatedly, and has no love for it
(יג) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲדֹנָ֗י יַ֚עַן כִּ֤י נִגַּשׁ֙ הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֔ה בְּפִ֤יו וּבִשְׂפָתָיו֙ כִּבְּד֔וּנִי וְלִבּ֖וֹ רִחַ֣ק מִמֶּ֑נִּי וַתְּהִ֤י יִרְאָתָם֙ אֹתִ֔י מִצְוַ֥ת אֲנָשִׁ֖ים מְלֻמָּדָֽה׃
(13) My Lord said: Because that people has approached [Me] with its mouth And honored Me with its lips, But has kept its heart far from Me, And its worship of Me has been A commandment of men, learned by rote (sometimes "without intention or thought")
Radak on above: "The commandment of learned people is that whoever does not do but what he commands alone and does not add of himself does not do this of his own accord"
(Radak: David Kimhi (דוד קמחי, also Kimchi or Qimḥi) (1160–1235), also known by the Hebrew acronym as the RaDaK (רד"ק) (Rabbi David Kimhi), was a medieval rabbi, biblical commentator, philosopher, and grammarian
(Radak: David Kimhi (דוד קמחי, also Kimchi or Qimḥi) (1160–1235), also known by the Hebrew acronym as the RaDaK (רד"ק) (Rabbi David Kimhi), was a medieval rabbi, biblical commentator, philosopher, and grammarian
Rambam "Al haTorah - commentary on Dvarim:
It further stated that ‘Moses undertook (ho’il) to explain the Law,’ (v. 5) this being an allusion to the commandments which were already declared, that he would repeat them in order to clarify them (le-baer otam) further and to add innovations (u-lehadesh bahem devarim) to them. And the meaning of the expression ‘Moses undertook (ho’il) 6 to explain this Law’ is that Moses wished (ratzah) to explain the Torah, and he mentioned it thus to let it be known that he discerned the need to do so himself (ki me-atzmo ra’ah le‘asot ken). God had not commanded him in this regard.
It further stated that ‘Moses undertook (ho’il) to explain the Law,’ (v. 5) this being an allusion to the commandments which were already declared, that he would repeat them in order to clarify them (le-baer otam) further and to add innovations (u-lehadesh bahem devarim) to them. And the meaning of the expression ‘Moses undertook (ho’il) 6 to explain this Law’ is that Moses wished (ratzah) to explain the Torah, and he mentioned it thus to let it be known that he discerned the need to do so himself (ki me-atzmo ra’ah le‘asot ken). God had not commanded him in this regard.
Innovation:
Innovation is actually a basic tenet of Jewish thought, especially in the area of Jewish education. Jews around the world read thrice daily the command to be innovative in how they relate to and understand the Torah they are learning, as hinted in the third verse of the “Sh’ma Israel” prayer (Deuteronomy 6) “And these words which I command you today shall be upon your heart.”
The Midrash explains that the extraneous word “today”, teaches that each day we should learn the Torah as if we had just received it just that day. Expanding on this Midrashic idea, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 61:2) declares that we are commanded to be innovative “that each day the Torah should be new in your eyes and do not read the Torah like someone who has heard it many times before but as something beloved.” It is telling that both this verse and the commandment behind it were selected to be incorporated into one of the most central parts of our daily prayers.
Innovation is actually a basic tenet of Jewish thought, especially in the area of Jewish education. Jews around the world read thrice daily the command to be innovative in how they relate to and understand the Torah they are learning, as hinted in the third verse of the “Sh’ma Israel” prayer (Deuteronomy 6) “And these words which I command you today shall be upon your heart.”
The Midrash explains that the extraneous word “today”, teaches that each day we should learn the Torah as if we had just received it just that day. Expanding on this Midrashic idea, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 61:2) declares that we are commanded to be innovative “that each day the Torah should be new in your eyes and do not read the Torah like someone who has heard it many times before but as something beloved.” It is telling that both this verse and the commandment behind it were selected to be incorporated into one of the most central parts of our daily prayers.
“Man is born an object and dies an object, but possesses the ability to live like a subject, like a creator, an innovator... Man’s task in the world, is to transform fate into destiny; a passive existence into an active existence; an existence of compulsion, perplexity, and muteness into an existence replete with a powerful will, with resourcefulness, daring and imagination."
Rabbi Joseph Soloveithchik, “Kol Dodi Dofek,” in Bernard Rosenberg and Gred Heuman (eds.), Theological and Halakhic Reflections on the Holocaust. Pp. 54-5
Rabbi Joseph Soloveithchik, “Kol Dodi Dofek,” in Bernard Rosenberg and Gred Heuman (eds.), Theological and Halakhic Reflections on the Holocaust. Pp. 54-5
Tension between God’s will and commandment:
PARSHAT SHEMINI
THE SIN OF NADAV AND AVIHU
Rav Itamar Eldar
In Parashat Shemini, we read about one of the most traumatic episodes that passed over Israel during their sojourn in the wilderness.
It is the eighth day following the construction of the Mishkan. Great festivity is felt in the midst of the camp of Israel: "For today the Lord will appear to you" (Vayikra 9:4). And indeed the glory of God appears before the eyes of the children of Israel, a fire issues forth from heaven and consumes the sacrifices on the altar, and the people shout and fall on their faces before God. ...
Many explanations have been offered regarding the motivation underlying Nadav and Avihu's action, in an effort to explain the crime and its punishment.
...
... the following words of the SefatEmet:
In the name of my revered grandfather, of blessed memory, on the verse, "which He commanded them not." This teaches that the primary force of every human action is the Divine command. For all of human reason is nullified by this force. Now Nadav and Avihuwere exceedingly righteous men and they acted for the sake of heaven; but the command was missing. We may learn by a kal vahomer argument, a good quality being greater: if so, someone who does the will of the Creator, even if he does not know the reason so that he may do it with the desired intention. This is the force of God's command. As it is stated: "Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us." The force of this command is more important than anything else. One must understand what is written that they entered [the sanctuary] after having drunk wine. For the comprehension of reasons is called wine, the wine of Torah. Nevertheless, it must only be by royal order. As for their comprehension, they did even what God had not commanded, so that they are called drinkers of wine who entered [the sanctuary]. According to this, we can explain "Your love is better than wine" (Shir ha-Shirim 1:2). That is to say, the conjunction and nearness to God who has drawn us near to Him are better than any apprehension of human reason. (SefatEmet, Shemini 5636)
The Sefat Emet makes an important statement: "Nadav and Avihu were exceedingly righteous men and they acted for the sake of heaven." ...
There was, however, one fundamental problem: "The command was missing."
"AND HE SHALL TURN THE HEART OF THE FATHERS TO THE CHILDREN" (MALAKHI 3:24)
In contrast to these positions, we shall end with the view of Rav Kook who also noted this tension, but his conclusion, so it seems, is entirely different:
When one follows the supernal feeling of the appearance of the holy spirit, or any wisdom or appearance in the world, without detailed connection to the Torah and its deeds, and the good traits that follow therefrom – this is the sin of Nadav and Avihu, the separation of the paternal principle from the supreme mother. Those who act in that manner think that they are drawing near to the holy, offering even a strange fire, and entering the holy, drunk with wine, without the fear of heaven that stems from a supreme source and comes through a covered head, but rather with an uncovered heard. And each one unites with his unique comprehension without the supernal binding of the inheritance of Moshe's Torah. And they do not consult with each other, and they issue halakhic rulings in the presence of their master, out of a recognition of inner greatness. The great depth of this holiness must efface itself before the source of the Torah… Those who know God cannot be limited by the great limits set by Moshe and Aharon. When they expand, they are rejected from the world, and they do not build a family, and they have no children. And they return as Pinchas, he being Eliyahu, who is filled with the spirit of God and zealotry for the covenant. The tradition and the sanctified service based on prophecy and the Torah, and the supreme elevation that respects the holiness and limits the conditions of spiritual life, but nevertheless elevates itself above all worldly values were combined in Israel, to bear with its great strength the burden of exile and all its toil, and allow the penetration of the light of salvation and redemption. "Remember the Torah of Moshe My servant, which I commanded him in Chorev for all Israel, both statutes and judgments. Behold, I will you send you Eliya the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers" (Malakhi3:22-24). The stormy spirit of youth, which stirs up with strength and might, together with the orderly spirit of old age, that is filled with solemnity and caution, join together to impact upon life, spiritual and material, to hasten salvation and become the basis for the offspring of God, a shining light to the son of Yishai, the anointed of God, the spirit of our nostrils, when the two of them will come together, Eliyahu the prophet and the messiah son of David. (Shemone Kevatzim, VI, 265; Orot ha-Kodesh, III, p. 360).
PARSHAT SHEMINI
THE SIN OF NADAV AND AVIHU
Rav Itamar Eldar
In Parashat Shemini, we read about one of the most traumatic episodes that passed over Israel during their sojourn in the wilderness.
It is the eighth day following the construction of the Mishkan. Great festivity is felt in the midst of the camp of Israel: "For today the Lord will appear to you" (Vayikra 9:4). And indeed the glory of God appears before the eyes of the children of Israel, a fire issues forth from heaven and consumes the sacrifices on the altar, and the people shout and fall on their faces before God. ...
Many explanations have been offered regarding the motivation underlying Nadav and Avihu's action, in an effort to explain the crime and its punishment.
...
... the following words of the SefatEmet:
In the name of my revered grandfather, of blessed memory, on the verse, "which He commanded them not." This teaches that the primary force of every human action is the Divine command. For all of human reason is nullified by this force. Now Nadav and Avihuwere exceedingly righteous men and they acted for the sake of heaven; but the command was missing. We may learn by a kal vahomer argument, a good quality being greater: if so, someone who does the will of the Creator, even if he does not know the reason so that he may do it with the desired intention. This is the force of God's command. As it is stated: "Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us." The force of this command is more important than anything else. One must understand what is written that they entered [the sanctuary] after having drunk wine. For the comprehension of reasons is called wine, the wine of Torah. Nevertheless, it must only be by royal order. As for their comprehension, they did even what God had not commanded, so that they are called drinkers of wine who entered [the sanctuary]. According to this, we can explain "Your love is better than wine" (Shir ha-Shirim 1:2). That is to say, the conjunction and nearness to God who has drawn us near to Him are better than any apprehension of human reason. (SefatEmet, Shemini 5636)
The Sefat Emet makes an important statement: "Nadav and Avihu were exceedingly righteous men and they acted for the sake of heaven." ...
There was, however, one fundamental problem: "The command was missing."
"AND HE SHALL TURN THE HEART OF THE FATHERS TO THE CHILDREN" (MALAKHI 3:24)
In contrast to these positions, we shall end with the view of Rav Kook who also noted this tension, but his conclusion, so it seems, is entirely different:
When one follows the supernal feeling of the appearance of the holy spirit, or any wisdom or appearance in the world, without detailed connection to the Torah and its deeds, and the good traits that follow therefrom – this is the sin of Nadav and Avihu, the separation of the paternal principle from the supreme mother. Those who act in that manner think that they are drawing near to the holy, offering even a strange fire, and entering the holy, drunk with wine, without the fear of heaven that stems from a supreme source and comes through a covered head, but rather with an uncovered heard. And each one unites with his unique comprehension without the supernal binding of the inheritance of Moshe's Torah. And they do not consult with each other, and they issue halakhic rulings in the presence of their master, out of a recognition of inner greatness. The great depth of this holiness must efface itself before the source of the Torah… Those who know God cannot be limited by the great limits set by Moshe and Aharon. When they expand, they are rejected from the world, and they do not build a family, and they have no children. And they return as Pinchas, he being Eliyahu, who is filled with the spirit of God and zealotry for the covenant. The tradition and the sanctified service based on prophecy and the Torah, and the supreme elevation that respects the holiness and limits the conditions of spiritual life, but nevertheless elevates itself above all worldly values were combined in Israel, to bear with its great strength the burden of exile and all its toil, and allow the penetration of the light of salvation and redemption. "Remember the Torah of Moshe My servant, which I commanded him in Chorev for all Israel, both statutes and judgments. Behold, I will you send you Eliya the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers" (Malakhi3:22-24). The stormy spirit of youth, which stirs up with strength and might, together with the orderly spirit of old age, that is filled with solemnity and caution, join together to impact upon life, spiritual and material, to hasten salvation and become the basis for the offspring of God, a shining light to the son of Yishai, the anointed of God, the spirit of our nostrils, when the two of them will come together, Eliyahu the prophet and the messiah son of David. (Shemone Kevatzim, VI, 265; Orot ha-Kodesh, III, p. 360).
So we see articles in the supermarket checkout library "How to stop worrying and avoid being a helicopter parent"
So, why worry? What's the worst that could happen?
Ok, we know that - let's hope the little grieving we do when the young leave the next stays that little greiving.
Worrying is just negative energy, a pure expression of the Yetzer HaRa - the Torah tells us how to use this energy: "V'shenantem banecha - Teach them diligently" Teach them to swim. Tell them you love them. Hope for the best. get some rest. Shabbat Shalom.
So, why worry? What's the worst that could happen?
Ok, we know that - let's hope the little grieving we do when the young leave the next stays that little greiving.
Worrying is just negative energy, a pure expression of the Yetzer HaRa - the Torah tells us how to use this energy: "V'shenantem banecha - Teach them diligently" Teach them to swim. Tell them you love them. Hope for the best. get some rest. Shabbat Shalom.