Eitan - Parashat Chukat at first glance may seem like a challenging one to connect to a wedding — it includes the laws of the parah adumah, the deaths of Miriam and Aharon, and various confrontations in the desert — but I think it actually offers beautiful connections to you and your upcoming marriage to Gaby.
1. To begin,
1. To begin,
(ב) זֹ֚את חֻקַּ֣ת הַתּוֹרָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֥ה יהוה לֵאמֹ֑ר דַּבֵּ֣ר ׀ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל וְיִקְח֣וּ אֵלֶ֩יךָ֩ פָרָ֨ה אֲדֻמָּ֜ה תְּמִימָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֵֽין־בָּהּ֙ מ֔וּם אֲשֶׁ֛ר לֹא־עָלָ֥ה עָלֶ֖יהָ עֹֽל׃
(2) This is the ritual law that יהוה has commanded: Instruct the Israelite people to bring you a red cow without blemish, in which there is no defect and on which no yoke has been laid.
The parah adumah is the quintessential mitzvah that has no logical explanation. Why do we do it? Because we were commanded to do so. Similarly, marriage involves mystery, faith, and trust beyond full understanding. A successful marriage isn't built only on logic. It thrives on commitment, faith, and the willingness to embrace the inexplicable parts of life together.
With thanks to an essay by Rabbi Marc Angel :
(https://www.jewishideas.org/article/rabbi-joseph-b-soloveitchik-judaism-and-modernity)
In his Halakhic Man, the Rav notes that the halakhic Jew approaches reality with the Torah at the ready. "Halakhic man, well furnished with rules, judgments, and fundamental principles, draws near the world with an a priori relation. His approach begins with an ideal creation and concludes with a real one" (Halakhic Man, p. 19). Intellectual effort is the hallmark of the ideal religious personality.
You and Gaby certainly epitomize this approach and you are wonderful role models.
The Rav compares the domain of theoretical halakha with mathematics. The mathematical theoretician develops a system in the abstract; this theoretical construct is then applied to the practical world. The theoretical system helps define and shape practical reality. So it is with halakha. The classic halakhists immerse themselves in the world of theoretical halakha and apply halakhic constructs to the mundane world. The Rav observes that "both the halakhist and the mathematician live in an ideal realm and enjoy the radiance of their own creations" (Halakhic Man, p. 25).
The ideal halakhic personality lives in constant intimacy with halakha. His or her concern for theoretical halakha is an expression of profound love and commitment to the entire halakhic worldview. This love and commitment are manifested in a scrupulous concern for the observance of the rules of practical halakha.
Each person who attains the highest level of relationship with halakha is one "to whom the Torah is married." This level is achieved not merely by intellectual acumen, but by imagination and creativity.
The Rav, in Lonely Man of Faith, writes "The purely logical mode of halakhic reasoning draws its sustenance from the pre-rational perception and vision which erupt stormily from the depths of this personality, a personality which is enveloped with the aura of holiness. This mysterious intuition is the source of halakhic creativity and innovative insight . . . . Creative halakhic activity begins not with intellectual calculation, but with vision; not with clear formulations, but with unease; not in the clear light of rational discourse, but in the pre-rational darkness" (p. 219). The halakhic personality, then, is characterized by conflict, creativity, imagination, vision. One who reaches the level of being "married" to the Torah and halakha has come as close to eternal truth as is possible for a human being.
My first beracha for you and Gaby is that you apply your approach to halakha to your approach to your marriage - that you marry the logical with the mysterious and intuitive and come as close to eternal truth as is possible for married couple.
With thanks to an essay by Rabbi Marc Angel :
(https://www.jewishideas.org/article/rabbi-joseph-b-soloveitchik-judaism-and-modernity)
In his Halakhic Man, the Rav notes that the halakhic Jew approaches reality with the Torah at the ready. "Halakhic man, well furnished with rules, judgments, and fundamental principles, draws near the world with an a priori relation. His approach begins with an ideal creation and concludes with a real one" (Halakhic Man, p. 19). Intellectual effort is the hallmark of the ideal religious personality.
You and Gaby certainly epitomize this approach and you are wonderful role models.
The Rav compares the domain of theoretical halakha with mathematics. The mathematical theoretician develops a system in the abstract; this theoretical construct is then applied to the practical world. The theoretical system helps define and shape practical reality. So it is with halakha. The classic halakhists immerse themselves in the world of theoretical halakha and apply halakhic constructs to the mundane world. The Rav observes that "both the halakhist and the mathematician live in an ideal realm and enjoy the radiance of their own creations" (Halakhic Man, p. 25).
The ideal halakhic personality lives in constant intimacy with halakha. His or her concern for theoretical halakha is an expression of profound love and commitment to the entire halakhic worldview. This love and commitment are manifested in a scrupulous concern for the observance of the rules of practical halakha.
Each person who attains the highest level of relationship with halakha is one "to whom the Torah is married." This level is achieved not merely by intellectual acumen, but by imagination and creativity.
The Rav, in Lonely Man of Faith, writes "The purely logical mode of halakhic reasoning draws its sustenance from the pre-rational perception and vision which erupt stormily from the depths of this personality, a personality which is enveloped with the aura of holiness. This mysterious intuition is the source of halakhic creativity and innovative insight . . . . Creative halakhic activity begins not with intellectual calculation, but with vision; not with clear formulations, but with unease; not in the clear light of rational discourse, but in the pre-rational darkness" (p. 219). The halakhic personality, then, is characterized by conflict, creativity, imagination, vision. One who reaches the level of being "married" to the Torah and halakha has come as close to eternal truth as is possible for a human being.
My first beracha for you and Gaby is that you apply your approach to halakha to your approach to your marriage - that you marry the logical with the mysterious and intuitive and come as close to eternal truth as is possible for married couple.
Or, I guess I could simply say that the parah adumah is a great lesson for a happy marriage. When Gaby tells you to do something; don't ask why - just do it - the key to a happy marriage.
2. While looking at the essays of Rabbi Sacks on the parsha, I re-read one from 15 years ago.
https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/chukat/the-torah-of-conflict-resolution/
As the logic for the parah adumah is incomprehensible, similarly there is a short section of this week's parsha that in Rabbi Sacks words "is brief, cryptic, almost unintelligible and certainly does not seem to represent a major idea."
The context: After the episode of water from the rock, the Torah resumes the narrative of the journey to Israel; we are getting close. We have left the desert and are approaching the Yarden. We approach Edom and ask for permission to travel through the land; we are refused and we wage a battle against the Canaanite kingdom of Arad, and come to the vicinity of Moab.
https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/chukat/the-torah-of-conflict-resolution/
As the logic for the parah adumah is incomprehensible, similarly there is a short section of this week's parsha that in Rabbi Sacks words "is brief, cryptic, almost unintelligible and certainly does not seem to represent a major idea."
The context: After the episode of water from the rock, the Torah resumes the narrative of the journey to Israel; we are getting close. We have left the desert and are approaching the Yarden. We approach Edom and ask for permission to travel through the land; we are refused and we wage a battle against the Canaanite kingdom of Arad, and come to the vicinity of Moab.
(יד) עַל־כֵּן֙ יֵֽאָמַ֔ר בְּסֵ֖פֶר מִלְחֲמֹ֣ת יהוה אֶת־וָהֵ֣ב בְּסוּפָ֔ה וְאֶת־הַנְּחָלִ֖ים אַרְנֽוֹן׃ (טו) וְאֶ֙שֶׁד֙ הַנְּחָלִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָטָ֖ה לְשֶׁ֣בֶת עָ֑ר וְנִשְׁעַ֖ן לִגְב֥וּל מוֹאָֽב׃
(14) Therefore the Book of the Wars of יהוה speaks of “…Waheb in Suphah, and the wadis: the Arnon (15) with its tributary wadis, stretched along the settled country of Ar, hugging the territory of Moab…”
This language is so fragmentary and obscure that its meaning is largely a matter of conjecture. (For example, Targum Yonatan says the Sefer Milchmot is this section of the Torah; Rashi says it is a list of miracles performed by HaShem for the Jewish people. Chizkuni, Ibn Ezra, Abarbanel all have different suggestions.)
The Gemara does however share one midrashic interpretation that lays no claim to being the plain sense of the verse, but is nevertheless fascinating in its own right:
The Gemara does however share one midrashic interpretation that lays no claim to being the plain sense of the verse, but is nevertheless fascinating in its own right:
מַאי ״אֶת אוֹיְבִים בַּשָּׁעַר״? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: אֲפִילּוּ הָאָב וּבְנוֹ, הָרַב וְתַלְמִידוֹ שֶׁעוֹסְקִין בַּתּוֹרָה בַּשָּׁעַר אֶחָד – נַעֲשִׂים אוֹיְבִים זֶה אֶת זֶה. וְאֵינָם זָזִים מִשָּׁם עַד שֶׁנַּעֲשִׂים אוֹהֲבִים זֶה אֶת זֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶת וָהֵב בְּסוּפָה״, אַל תִּקְרֵי ״בְּסוּפָה״ אֶלָּא ״בְּסוֹפָהּ״.
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase “enemies in the gate” with regard to Torah study? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: Even a father and his son, or a rabbi and his student, who are engaged in Torah together in one gate become enemies with each other due to the intensity of their studies. But they do not leave there until they love each other, as it is stated in the verse discussing the places the Jewish people engaged in battle in the wilderness: “Therefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, Vahev in Suphah [beSufa], and the valleys of Arnon” (Numbers 21:14). The word “vahev” is interpreted as related to the word for love, ahava. Additionally, do not read this as “in Suphah [beSufa]”; rather, read it as “at its end [besofa],” i.e., at the conclusion of their dispute they are beloved to each other.
Our Sages read Vahev as a derivative of the root ‘aleph-hey-bet', meaning “to love”, and Suphah as related to the word sof, “an end”. What makes this text so intriguing is the way the Sages interpret the phrase “the Wars of the Lord” as a reference to the debates within the Beit Midrash, the dialogue and disputation about halakha.
At the time of the Gemara, after churban haBayit sheni and and the collapse of the Bar Kochba rebellion, we underwent a massive transformation. We were no longer fighting battles; our battles were intellectual, spiritual; they took place in the mind; our weapons were reason and tradition; our arena was the beit midrash; and our aim – to establish the meaning of HaShem’s word.
As Rabbi Sacks wrote: "Yet there is more to the statement than this. There is an awareness of human conflict. We disagree." And the Gemara does not gloss over this conflict. To the contrary: the texts preserve not the conclusion of the debate but the debate itself.
In this perplexing part of our parsha, Chazal went even further. They said: “there is love in the end”. What does this mean? Elsewhere, in the Mishnah tractate Avot, Chazal distinguished between an argument “for the sake of heaven” and one “not for the sake of heaven”. Their example of the first was the arguments between Hillel and Shammai; of the second, those of Korach and his followers (last week's Parsha).
Meiri explains that an argument for the sake of heaven is one in pursuit of truth. An argument not for the sake of heaven is one in pursuit of victory.
Eitan, my second beracha for you and Gaby, is that on that rare occasion when you have a disagreement, recall what Chazal meant when they said, “There is love in the end”. When two sides fight, not with weapons but with ideas, they recognize that their very disagreement presupposes an agreement: about the value of argument itself. Remember that you and Gaby are always on the same side.
You can approach any disagreement as if you were in the Beit Midrash: like 2 sages who dispute the interpretation of a text might disagree on a detail but agree on fundamentals.
At the time of the Gemara, after churban haBayit sheni and and the collapse of the Bar Kochba rebellion, we underwent a massive transformation. We were no longer fighting battles; our battles were intellectual, spiritual; they took place in the mind; our weapons were reason and tradition; our arena was the beit midrash; and our aim – to establish the meaning of HaShem’s word.
As Rabbi Sacks wrote: "Yet there is more to the statement than this. There is an awareness of human conflict. We disagree." And the Gemara does not gloss over this conflict. To the contrary: the texts preserve not the conclusion of the debate but the debate itself.
In this perplexing part of our parsha, Chazal went even further. They said: “there is love in the end”. What does this mean? Elsewhere, in the Mishnah tractate Avot, Chazal distinguished between an argument “for the sake of heaven” and one “not for the sake of heaven”. Their example of the first was the arguments between Hillel and Shammai; of the second, those of Korach and his followers (last week's Parsha).
Meiri explains that an argument for the sake of heaven is one in pursuit of truth. An argument not for the sake of heaven is one in pursuit of victory.
Eitan, my second beracha for you and Gaby, is that on that rare occasion when you have a disagreement, recall what Chazal meant when they said, “There is love in the end”. When two sides fight, not with weapons but with ideas, they recognize that their very disagreement presupposes an agreement: about the value of argument itself. Remember that you and Gaby are always on the same side.
You can approach any disagreement as if you were in the Beit Midrash: like 2 sages who dispute the interpretation of a text might disagree on a detail but agree on fundamentals.
Rabbi Sacks suggests these 7 rules for conflict resolution:
1. Respect different perspectives.
2. Listen actively to and try to understand the logic of the other person's position.
3. Never use force, physical or psychological. The only legitimate weapons are logic, argument, tradition and persuasion.
4. Be open to the outcome. You may be right, but you must be prepared to be proved wrong.
5. See disagreement not just as conflict but as collaborative activity in pursuit of honesty and truth.
6. Accept it as a legitimate, even holy, part of life.
And 7. Keep talking.
For even though the participants may feel as if they are enemies to one another, “Waheb in Suphah” – there is love at the end.
Shabbat shalom.
Shabbat shalom.