This Week in Learning

Dear Readers,

I have historically taken a writing hiatus over the summer. I’m grateful to be able to post a new idea in advance of Rosh HaShanah. Please find my 5785 High Holiday Reader linked and below for a compendium of previous articles. Wishing you and yours a כתיבה וחתימה טובה and a שנה טובה ומתוקה, a sweet new year for us and for all Israel.

Sincerely,

Ben

We may approach the day of Rosh HaShanah with a feeling of trepidation. This time of year is indeed referred to as the ימים נוראים, the days of Awe. We may be familiar with the statement of the Sages that 3 books are open on this day, the righteous are inscribed for life, the wicked for death, and those in between wait for final judgement on Yom Kippur (Rosh HaShanah 16b). But prior to this statement in the Talmud, we find a description of things that can change the outcome:

תלמוד ראש השנה ט"ז:

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים מְקָרְעִין גְּזַר דִּינוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם, אֵלּוּ הֵן: צְדָקָה, צְעָקָה, שִׁינּוּי הַשֵּׁם, וְשִׁינּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה. צְדָקָה – דִּכְתִיב: וּצְדָקָה תַּצִּיל מִמָּוֶת {משלי י׳:ב׳}, צְעָקָה – דִּכְתִיב: וַיִּצְעֲקוּ אֶל ה׳ בַּצַּר לָהֶם וּמִמְּצוּקוֹתֵיהֶם יוֹצִיאֵם {תהלים ק״ז:כ״ח}, שִׁינּוּי הַשֵּׁם – דִּכְתִיב: שָׂרַי אִשְׁתְּךָ לֹא תִקְרָא אֶת שְׁמָהּ שָׂרָי כִּי שָׂרָה שְׁמָהּ {בראשית י״ז:ט״ו}, וּכְתִיב: וּבֵרַכְתִּי אוֹתָהּ וְגַם נָתַתִּי מִמֶּנָּה לְךָ בֵּן {בראשית י״ז:ט״ז}, שִׁינּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה – דִּכְתִיב: וַיַּרְא הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם {יונה ג׳:י׳}, וּכְתִיב: וַיִּנָּחֶם הָאֱלֹהִים עַל הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהֶם וְלֹא עָשָׂה {יונה ג׳:י׳}.

Talmud Bavli – Rosh HaShanah

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A person’s sentence is torn up on account of four types of actions. These are: Giving charity, crying out in prayer, a change of one’s name, and a change of one’s deeds for the better. An allusion may be found in Scripture for all of them: Giving charity, as it is written: “And charity delivers from death” (Proverbs 10:2); crying out in prayer, as it is written: “Then they cry to the Lord in their trouble, and He brings them out of their distresses” (Psalms 107:28); a change of one’s name, as it is written: “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be” (Genesis 17:15), and it is written there: “And I will bless her, and I will also give you a son from her” (Genesis 17:16); a change of one’s deeds for the better, as it is written: “And God saw their deeds” (Jonah 3:10), and it is written there: “And God repented of the evil, which He had said He would do to them, and He did not do it” (Jonah 3:10).

Rabbi Yitzchak outlines 4 things that can change what is decreed, 1) Charity, 2) Prayer, 3) Changing one’s name, 4) Changing one’s actions. A scriptural source is then provided for each one. What is the idea behind each of these items? What ties them together?

The first item is charity. The verse quoted is from Proverbs, “the storehouses of the wicked will not benefit them, and charity saves one from death” (10:2). King Solomon often contrasts different lifestyles. Here he is contrasting two different attitudes toward money. He first portrays an unhealthy attitude, one who hoards and believes money is a good in and of itself, that it can address all of life’s problems. In contrast, he portrays one who can give money away, demonstrating a functional and transactional relationship. Money is merely a means. If God wishes us to distribute some of the money that comes across our desk, so be it.

The Rav, Rabbi Joseph B. Solovetichik, further discusses how charity can precipitate Teshuva. Many of our own errors are predicated on our deeply self-centered view of the world. We sometimes focus on our own needs to the exclusion of others, have an outsized sense of our own importance, or get angry when things don’t go our way. Charity is inherently an act that benefits others and has the potential to change our focus.

The second item is prayer. Rav Hirsch explains that the Hebrew term for prayer, התפלל is a reflexive form of the root פלל which means to judge (see Rav Hirsch, Collected Writings Vol. II). In other words, prayer is a form of self-judgment or self-evaluation. If done properly, prayer can indeed shift and adjust our perspective. The verse in Psalms illustrates that prayer can be transformative and lead to the resolution from distress.

The third item is changing one’s name. This is still a custom in some communities when someone is sick. Changing one’s name could refer to changing what one is known for. But if so, how does it differ from changing one’s actions? As the Maharsha points out, simply changing one’s name without changing anything else will not accomplish anything (commentary on Agadah, quoting R’ Shmuel Ashkenazi on the Agadot Yerushalmi). Changing one’s name might refer to changing one’s own self-concept. Technically changing one’s name could be a capstone to changing one’s identify, but only if it is based on an underlying recasting of one’s personality.

The fourth item is changing one’s actions. At first glance this one seems fairly obvious. Is there a new idea here? Isn’t changing one’s actions just part of typical Teshuva? Rashi comments this refers to returning from one’s evil ways. This is likely the basis for the statement in the high holiday liturgy, ׳׳ותשובה ותפילה וצדקה מעבירין את רוע הגזרה׳׳, “repentance, prayer, and charity, undo a bad decree”.

But perhaps it more broadly refers to changing one’s habits. It is human nature to fall into routines and default ways of operating. The habits we form don’t always benefit us, especially as the demands of life can change. Changing one’s actions can shake things up and provide new opportunities for how we expend our energy and efforts.

תלמוד ראש השנה ט"ז:

וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף שִׁינּוּי מָקוֹם – דִּכְתִיב: וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל אַבְרָם לֶךְ לְךָ מֵאַרְצְךָ {בראשית י״ב:א׳}, וַהֲדַר: וְאֶעֶשְׂךָ לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל {בראשית י״ב:ב׳}. וְאִידַּךְ, הָהוּא זְכוּתָא דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא דְּאַהַנְיָא לֵיהּ.

Talmud Bavli – Rosh HaShanah 16b

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A person’s sentence is torn up on account of four types of actions. These are: Giving charity, crying out in prayer, a change of one’s name, and a change of one’s deeds for the better. An allusion may be found in Scripture for all of them:

Some suggest that changing one’s place also provides an opportunity for Teshuva. The Talmud though questions this, noting that what benefited Avraham could have been the fact that he was journeying to Eretz Yisrael. Generic change unrelated to a person’s identity does not in and of itself lead to Teshuva. The Rambam nonetheless codifies all 5 items:

רמב"ם תשובה ב':ד'

מִדַּרְכֵי הַתְּשׁוּבָה לִהְיוֹת הַשָּׁב צוֹעֵק תָּמִיד לִפְנֵי ה', בִּבְכִי וּבְתַחֲנוּנִים, וְעוֹשֶׂה צְדָקָה כְּפִי כּוֹחוֹ, וּמִתְרַחֵק הַרְבֵּה מִן הַדָּבָר שֶׁחָטָא בּוֹ.  וּמְשַׁנֶּה שְׁמוֹ, כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁאֲנִי אַחֵר וְאֵינִי אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ שֶׁעָשָׂה אוֹתָן הַמַּעֲשִׂים; וּמְשַׁנֶּה מַעֲשָׂיו כֻּלָּן לְטוֹבָה, וּלְדֶרֶךְ יְשָׁרָה.  וְגוֹלֶה מִמְּקוֹמוֹ--שֶׁגָּלוּת מְכַפֶּרֶת עָווֹן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגּוֹרֶמֶת לוֹ לְהִכָּנַע וְלִהְיוֹת עָנָו וּשְׁפַל רוּחַ.

Rambam Teshuvah 2:4

(4) Among the paths of repentance is for the penitent to: constantly call out before God, crying and entreating; to perform charity according to his potential; to separate himself far from the object of his sin; to change his name, as if to say "I am a different person and not the same one who sinned;” to change his behavior in its entirety to the good and the path of righteousness; and to travel in exile from his home. Exile atones for sin because it causes a person to be submissive, humble, and meek of spirit.

Taken together, these 5 items do not represent Teshuva in and of themselves. Just giving charity, praying, changing one’s name or actions will not automatically result in true change. In each case we can end up falling into our previous modes of operating and ultimately face the same consequences. The Rambam codifies each of these in his laws of Tes…

Rebbe Akiva is a towering figure in Jewish history. He appears throughout the Talmud, where he is cited for his halakhic opinions and as the central character in many stories. While originally a junior member of the Sages, he eventually becomes the leader of his generation.

תלמוד בבלי – יבמות ס"ב

אָמְרוּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר אָלֶף זוּגִים תַּלְמִידִים הָיוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מִגְּבָת עַד אַנְטִיפְרַס וְכוּלָּן מֵתוּ בְּפֶרֶק אֶחָד מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא נָהֲגוּ כָּבוֹד זֶה לָזֶה. וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם שָׁמֵם עַד שֶׁבָּא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֵצֶל רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁבַּדָּרוֹם וּשְׁנָאָהּ לָהֶם רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ וְהֵם הֵם הֶעֱמִידוּ תּוֹרָה אוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. תָּנָא כּוּלָּם מֵתוּ מִפֶּסַח וְעַד עֲצֶרֶת

Talmud Bavli – Yevamot 62b

They said by way of example that Rabbi Akiva had twelve thousand pairs of students in an area of land that stretched from Gevat to Antipatris in Judea, and they all died in one period of time, because they did not treat each other with respect. And the world was desolate of Torah until Rabbi Akiva came to our Rabbis in the South and taught his Torah to them. This second group of disciples consisted of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua. And these are the very ones who upheld the study of Torah at that time. Although Rabbi Akiva’s earlier students did not survive, his later disciples were able to transmit the Torah to future generations. With regard to the twelve thousand pairs of Rabbi Akiva’s students, the Gemara adds: It is taught that all of them died in the period from Passover until Shavuot.

The Gemara tells us that at one point Rebbe Akiva had 24,000 students. The context of this Gemara is that one should try to have children across one’s life, and one cannot predict how children will turn out. While early on Rebbe Akiva had tens of thousands of students, it was the 5 students in his later years that ended up passing on his teachings. We also learn that Rebbe Akiva’s many students died because they did not show proper respect for one another, and this occurred between the holidays of Pesach and Shavuot, the period of time where we count the Omer. According to the Shulchan Aruch, this is the source of the custom not to get married between Pesach and Lag BaOmer (OH 493).

תלמוד ירושלמי – תענית ד:ה

תַּנֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: עֲקִיבָה רַבִּי הָיָה דוֹרֵשׁ: דָּרַךְ כּוֹכָב מִיַּעֲקֹב – דָּרַךְ כּוֹזִבָּא מִיַּעֲקֹב. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה כַּד הֲוָה חֲמִי בַּר כּוֹזִבָּה, הֲוָה אֲמַר: דֵּין הוּא מַלְכָּא מְשִׁיחָא…וְהָיָה שָׁם בֶּן כּוֹזִבָּה וְהָיָה לֹו מָאתַיִם אֶלֶף מְטִיפֵי אֶצְבַּע. שָׁלְחוּ חֲכָמִים וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: עַד אֵימָתַי אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין. אָמַר לָהֶן: וְכִי הֵיאַךְ אֶיפְשַׁר לְבוֹדְקָן? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: כָּל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹכֵב עַל סוּסוֹ וְעוֹקֵר אֶרֶז מִן לְבָנוֹן לָא יִהיֶה נִכְתָּב בְּאִיסְרַטְיָא שֵּׁלָּךְ. וְהָיוּ לוֹ מָאתַיִם אֶלֶף כָּךְ וּמָאתַיִם אֶלֶף כָּךְ. וְכַד דַּהֲוָה נְפַק לִקְרָבָא הֲוָה אֲמַר: רִיבּוֹנֵיהּ דְּעָלְמָא, לֹא תִסְעוֹד וְלֹא תִכְסוֹף, הֲלֹא אַתָּה אֱלֹהִים זְנַחְתָּנוּ וְלֹא תֵצֵא בְּצִבְאוֹתֵינוּ. שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וּמֶחֱצָה עָשָׂה אַדְרִייָנוּס מַקִּיף עַל בֵּיתְתָּר, וַהֲוָה רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַמּוֹדָעִי יוֹשֵׁב עַל הַשַּׂק וְעַל הָאֶפֶר וּמִתְפַּלֵּל בְּכָל יוֹם וְאוֹמֵר: רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים, אַל תֵּשֵׁב בַּדִּין הַיּוֹם, אַל תֵּשֵׁב בַּדִּין הַיּוֹם.

Talmud Yerushalmi – Taanit 4:5

Rebbi Simeon ben Yohai stated: Aqiba my teacher used to preach, there appeared a star out of Jacob there appeared Koziba out of Jacob. When Rebbi Aqiba saw Bar Koziba he said, this is King Messiah…There was Ben Koziba who had 200,000 with him missing a finger. The Sages sent, how long will you turn Israel into defective persons? He told them, how would it be possible to test them? They said to him, anyone who riding on his horse cannot uproot a cedar of Lebanon should not be enrolled in your army. He had 200,000 of either kind. When he went into battle he said, Master of the World: Do not support and do not hinder, did not you, God, neglect us, and do not go out with our armies. Three and a half years did Hadrian encircle Bettar. Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin was sitting in sackcloth and ashes, praying every day and saying, Master of the World, do not sit in judgment today, do not sit in judgment today.

Bar Kokhba, known as Bar Koziba in the Talmud, raised a Jewish army 200,000 strong. These soldiers were tough and committed, evidenced by their initiation test of cutting off a finger. The Sages were concerned about this practice, and communicated their concern and criticism to Bar Koziba. He responded asking for guidance, sharing his reasoning and apparently open to feedback. The Sages proposed an alternative, uprooting a tree while riding a horse, which Bar Koziba adopted in his further recruitment.

The Talmud Yerushalmi also tells us about Bar Koziba’s attitude toward God. He was confident in the capabilities of his army, and asked that God not interfere. Rebbe Elazar in contrast was in a state of mourning. He was deeply troubled by the state of the Jewish people, and prayed each day for God’s mercy.

תלמוד ירושלמי – תענית ד:ה

בְּעָא אַדְרִייָנוּס מֵיזַל לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ חַד כּוּתַיי: לָא תֵיזִיל לָךְ, דַּאֲנָא חֲמִי מַה מֵיעֲבַד וּמַשְׁלִים לָךְ מְדִינְתָא. עָאַל לֵיהּ מִן בַּיְבָא דִמְדִינְתָא, עָאַל וְאַשְׁכָּח רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַמּוֹדָעִי קָאִים מַצְלִי. עֲבַד נַפְשֵׁיהּ לְחִישׁ לֵיהּ בְּגַו אוּדְנֵיהּ. חֶמוּנֵיהּ בְּנֵי מְדִינְתָא וְאַייְתוּנֵיהּ גַּבֵּי בֶּן כוֹזִבָּא. אָמְרוּן לֵיהּ: חֲמִינָן הָהֵן סַבָּא מִשְׁתָּעֵי לַחֲבִיבָךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַה אָמְרָת לֵיהּ וּמַה אֲמַר לָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא אֲמַר לָךְ – מַלְכָּא קְטַל לִי, וְאִי לָא אֲנָא אֲמַר לָךְ – אַתְּ קְטַל יָתִי, טַב לִי מַלְכָּא קְטַל יָתִי וְלָא אַתְּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲמַר לִי דַאֲנָא מַשְׁלִים מְדִינְתָא. אֲתַא גַּבֵּי רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַמּוֹדָעִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַה אֲמַר לָךְ הָדֵין כּוּתַייָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא כְלוּם. מָה אָמְרָת לֵיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא כְלוּם. יְהַב לֵיהּ חַד בְּעוּט וְקָטְלֵיהּ. מִיַּד יָצָאת בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: הוֹי רוֹעִי הָאֱלִיל עוֹזְבִי הַצֹּאן חֶרֶב עַל זְרוֹעוֹ וְעַל עֵין יְמִינוֹ זְרוֹעוֹ יָבֹשׁ תִּיבָשׁ וְעֵין יְמִינוֹ כָּהֹה תִכְהֶה. הָרַגְתָּ אֶת אֶלְעָזָר הַמּוֹדָעִי זְרוֹעָן שֶׁלְּכָּל וְעֵין יְמִינָם, לְפִיכָךְ זְרוֹעוֹ שֶׁלְאוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ יָבוֹשׁ תִּיבָשׁ וְעֵין יְמִינוֹ כָּהֹה תִכְהֶה. מִיַּד נִלְכְּדָה בֵיתָתָּר וְנֶהֱרַג בֶּן כּוֹזִבָּה.

Talmud Yerushalmi – Taanit 4:5

Hadrian wanted to go away. A Samaritan said to him, do not go away, for I am seeing what to do that the city will submit to you. He went to the city gate, entered, and found Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin standing in prayer. He showed himself as if he would whisper into his ear. The people of the city saw him and brought him to Ben Koziba. They said to him, we saw this old man turning to your uncle. He asked him, what did you say to him and what did he say to you? He answered, if I shall tell you, the king will kill me; but if I do not tell you, you will kill me. It is better that the king should kill me but not you. He told him, he said to me, I will make the town submit to the king. He came to Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin. He asked him, what did this Samaritan say to you. He answered, nothing. What did you say to him? He answered, nothing. He kicked him and killed him. Immediately there came an unembodied voice and said, woe, criminal shepherds, who abandon the flock, a sword on his arm and on his right eye. His arm shall dry up and his right eye darken. You killed Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin, the arm of Israel, and their right eye. Therefore this man’s arm shall dry up and his right eye darken. Immediately Bettar was taken and Ben Koziba killed.

Rebbe Elazar is Bar Koziba’s uncle. A plot is hatched to arouse Bar Koziba’s suspicion of his uncle. The mere suspicion causes Bar Koziba to lose his temper and kill Rebbe Elazar. The downfall of Bar Koziba, his army, and the city of Beitar soon followed.

The Talmud Bavli i…

The Parsha of Kedoshim contains an array of Mitzvot. It begins with the exhortation to the Jewish people to “be holy”. Notably Moshe is told to convey this message to “the entire congregation of the Jewish people”.

ויקרא י”ט (ב) דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־כׇּל־עֲדַ֧ת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל וְאָמַרְתָּ֥ אֲלֵהֶ֖ם קְדֹשִׁ֣ים תִּהְי֑וּ כִּ֣י קָד֔וֹשׁ אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם׃

Vayikra 19 (2) Speak to the entire congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them, You shall be holy, for I, the Lord, your God, am holy.

רש"י ויקרא י"ט:ב'

דבר אל כל עדת בני ישראל – מלמד שנאמרה פרשה זו בהקהל, מפני שרוב גופי תורה תלויין בה.

Rashi - Vayikra 19:2

[This] teaches us that this passage was stated in the assembly [of the entire congregation of Israel] because most of the fundamental teachings of the Torah are dependent on it [i.e., they are encapsulated in this passage]. — [Torath Kohanim 19:1; Vayikra Rabbah 24:5]

Rashi (based on the Sifra) explains that this section was taught to the entire assembly at once, including men, women, and children. This contrasts with the ordinary method of instruction. The typical situation is outlined in Tractate Eruvin:

תלמוד בבלי ערובין נ"ד:

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן כֵּיצַד סֵדֶר מִשְׁנָה מֹשֶׁה לָמַד מִפִּי הַגְּבוּרָה נִכְנַס אַהֲרֹן וְשָׁנָה לוֹ מֹשֶׁה פִּירְקוֹ נִסְתַּלֵּק אַהֲרֹן וְיָשַׁב לִשְׂמֹאל מֹשֶׁה נִכְנְסוּ בָּנָיו וְשָׁנָה לָהֶן מֹשֶׁה פִּירְקָן נִסְתַּלְּקוּ בָּנָיו אֶלְעָזָר יָשַׁב לִימִין מֹשֶׁה וְאִיתְּמַר לִשְׂמֹאל אַהֲרֹן רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר לְעוֹלָם אַהֲרֹן לִימִין מֹשֶׁה חוֹזֵר נִכְנְסוּ זְקֵנִים וְשָׁנָה לָהֶן מֹשֶׁה פִּירְקָן נִסְתַּלְּקוּ זְקֵנִים נִכְנְסוּ כׇּל הָעָם וְשָׁנָה לָהֶן מֹשֶׁה פִּירְקָן נִמְצְאוּ בְּיַד אַהֲרֹן אַרְבָּעָה בְּיַד בָּנָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה וּבְיַד הַזְּקֵנִים שְׁנַיִם וּבְיַד כׇּל הָעָם אֶחָד. נִסְתַּלֵּק מֹשֶׁה וְשָׁנָה לָהֶן אַהֲרֹן פִּירְקוֹ נִסְתַּלֵּק אַהֲרֹן שָׁנוּ לָהֶן בָּנָיו פִּירְקָן נִסְתַּלְּקוּ בָּנָיו שָׁנוּ לָהֶן זְקֵנִים פִּירְקָן נִמְצָא בְּיַד הַכֹּל אַרְבָּעָה.

Talmud Bavli – Eruvin 54b

The Gemara continues to discuss methods of Torah study. The Sages taught the following baraita: What was the order of teaching the Oral Law? How was the Oral Law first taught? Moses learned directly from the mouth of the Almighty. Aaron entered and sat before him, and Moses taught him his lesson as he had learned it from God. Aaron moved aside and sat to the left of Moses. Aaron’s sons entered, and Moses taught them their lesson while Aaron listened. Aaron’s sons moved aside; Elazar sat to the right of Moses and Itamar sat to the left of Aaron. Rabbi Yehuda disagreed with the first tanna with regard to the seating arrangements and said: Actually, Aaron would return to sit to the right of Moses. The elders entered and Moses taught them their lesson. The elders moved aside, and the entire nation entered and Moses taught them their lesson. Therefore, Aaron had heard the lesson four times, his sons heard it three times, the elders heard it twice, and the entire nation heard it once. Moses then departed to his tent, and Aaron taught the others his lesson as he had learned it from Moses. Aaron then departed and his sons taught the others their lesson. His sons then departed and the elders taught the rest of the people their lesson. Hence everyone, Aaron, his sons, the elders and all the people, heard the lesson taught by God four times.

Normally Moshe would receive a communication from God. Then he would teach it multiple times, starting with Aharon, followed by his sons, then the elders, and then the entire community. The instruction for the content in this section of Kedoshim was not communicated in the typical manner. It received special treatment and was communicated to the entire congregation at once. Why did this section merit special treatment? What does it mean that “the majority of foundational aspects of the Torah are dependent on it”?

One possibility is that this section includes the charge to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Vayikra 19:18). Rebbe Akiva makes the famous statement, “this is a great principle in the Torah” (Yerushalmi Nedarim 9:4). If one observes this charge properly, he will not murder, steal, or harm his fellow. He will be kind, caring, and just.

A related possibility is that this section addresses itself to the spirit of the Torah. As the Ramban explains, it is possible to observe all the technical aspects of the Torah while missing the overarching objective (Rambam on Vayikra 19:2). This is what the Torah means by “you shall be holy” (19:2), you should not only aim to keep the technical aspects of Torah but to appreciate the Torah’s overall objective for the human being.

Perhaps it was essential that Moshe communicate the spirit of the Torah directly to the people. One might be able to get clarity about how a technical Mitzvah should be executed from someone else. For example how to shake the Lulav or whether a specific action is permitted or prohibited on Shabbat. But hearing about the philosophy of the Torah, its ideals and objectives, was taught directly by Moshe. This is the opinion of Rebbe Hiya (Vaikra Rabbah 25:4) quoted by Rashi.

ויקרא רבה כד:ה

תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּא פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ נֶאֶמְרָה בְּהַקְהֵל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרֹב גּוּפֵי תוֹרָה תְּלוּיִן בָּהּ, רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעֲשֶׂרֶת הַדִּבְּרוֹת כְּלוּלִין בְּתוֹכָהּ

Vayikra Rabbah 24:5

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: This portion was stated in an assembly because most of the essential principles of the Torah are dependent upon it. Rabbi Levi said: Because the Ten Commandments are included in it.

Rebbe Levi states that this section was taught to the entire community all together “because it encompasses the decalogue” (Vayikra Rabbah 25:4) colloquially referred to as the Ten Commandments. He then proceeds to show the parallels between the decalogue recorded in Shemot and Chapters 19 and 20 in Vayikra. This is consistent with Avraham ben HaRambam’s comments “from these 10 items one can see the foundation of the entire Torah” (Commentary on Shemot 20:13). The items listed in the decalogue are prototypical, representative of the entire system of Torah (see A Disciplined Inner World). Gathering the entire people together demonstrated these items as a continuation of the Divine covenant forged at Sinai.

According to both opinions, this section of the Torah was deserving of special attention. Either because it includes the underlying ideals of the Torah, addresses the spirit of the law, or because its Mitzvot are categorically representative of the entire Torah, this section was taught by Moshe during a convocation of the entire people. It was essential that they personally participate in the Mesorah, receiving the tradition directly from Moshe.

References

Rosenberg, A. (1980). A new English translation of the Hebrew Bible text and Rashi, with a commentary digest. New York: Judaica Press. Retrieved from: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/

Steinsaltz, A., In Weinreb, T. H., In Schreier, J., & Hotsaat Koren (Jerusalem),. (2017). Koren Talmud Bavli, the Noe edition: Talmud Bavli. Retrieved from: https://shas.alhatorah.org/

The exodus from Egypt was a foundational event in the history of the Jewish people. It transformed us from a family into a nation, from slaves to a people pursuing their own destiny, into a community that affirms the Oneness of God. We acknowledge this event daily, and celebrate it during the holiday of passover.

רמב"ם חמץ ומצה ז:א

(א) מצות עשה של תורה לספר בניסים ונפלאות שנעשו לאבותינו במצרים בליל חמישה עשר בניסן, שנאמר "זכור את היום הזה אשר יצאתם ממצרים" (שמות י"ג:ג'), כמה שנאמר "זכור את יום השבת" (שמות כ':ז'). ומניין שבליל חמישה עשר, תלמוד לומר "והגדת לבנך ביום ההוא לאמר בעבור זה עשה י"י לי בצאתי ממצרים" (שמות י"ג:ח'), בשעה שיש מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך:

Rambam - Laws of Chametz and Matzah 7

(1) It is a positive commandment of the Torah to relate the miracles and wonders wrought for our ancestors in Egypt on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan, as [Exodus 13:3] states: "Remember this day, on which you left Egypt," just as [Exodus 20:8] states: "Remember the Sabbath day.” From where [is it derived that this mitzvah is to be fulfilled on] the night of the fifteenth? The Torah teaches [Exodus 13:8]: "And you shall tell your son on that day, saying: 'It is because of this...' [implying that the mitzvah is to be fulfilled] when matzah and maror are placed before you.

One of the mitzvot of passover is the retelling of the exodus from Egypt. We are required to discuss this transformational event in the context of the seder, surrounded by specific mitzvot such as matzah and maror –bitter herbs. The Rambam sources this obligation in a verse obligating us to “remember the day you left Egypt” (Shemot 13:3). He further compares this to the obligation to “remember the day of Shabbat” (Shemot 20:7) as formulated in the decalogue. What is the comparison between remembering the exodus and remembering the sabbath?

רמב"ם שבת כט:א

(א) מצות עשה מן התורה לקדש יום השבת בדברים, שנאמר "זכור את יום השבת לקדשו" (שמות כ':ז'), כלומר, זכרהו זכירת שבח וקידוש. וצריך להזכירו בכניסתו וביציאתו, בכניסתו בקידוש היום וביציאתו בהבדלה

Rambam – Laws of Shabbat 29

(1) It is a positive commandment from the Torah to sanctify the Sabbath day with a verbal statement, as [implied by Exodus 20:8]: "Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it" - i.e., remember it with [words of] praise [that reflect its] holiness. This remembrance must be made at the Sabbath's entrance and at its departure: at the [day's] entrance with the kiddush that sanctifies the day, and at its departure with havdalah.

The Rambam formulates the mitzvah of remembering the Shabbat as an act of making Shabbat “holy” with words. We make this declaration through Kiddush at the beginning of Shabbat and Havdalah at the end. If we aimed to formulate a common definition across Shabbat and Pesach, we might define halakhic remembering as an act of verbal declaration.

Rambam – Book of Mitzvot – Positive Commandment 155

The 155th mitzvah is that we are commanded to make a verbal declaration when Shabbos enters and when it leaves. We must mention the greatness and exalted character of this day, and how it is distinct from the other days of the week which precede it and follow it. The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He), "Remember the Shabbos day to sanctify it." This means that one should commemorate it through mentioning its holiness and greatness. This is the mitzvah of Kiddush. The Mechilta says the following: " 'Remember the Shabbos day to sanctify it,' — this means one should sanctify it through reciting a blessing." The Sages said explicitly, "Remember [Kiddush] over wine.” The Sages also said, "Sanctify it when it enters and when it leaves," [the phrase, "when it leaves"] referring to Havdalah, which is also part of our commandment to remember Shabbos. The details of this commandment are explained in the end of tractate Pesachim, and in many places in Berachos and Shabbos.

Upon examining the Rambam’s formulation in his Book of Mitzvot, we note an additional element. Beyond a mere verbal declaration, we acknowledge the distinct character of Shabbat, and its distinction from the other days of the week. The function of Kiddush at the beginning of Shabbat, sanctifying Shabbat with words, and Havdalah at the end of Shabbat, literally meaning separation, is to demonstrate the unique character of Shabbat.

As a young teacher I remember struggling with how to translate the term Kiddush or Kodesh, commonly translated as “holy”. I wasn’t sure the term “holy” meant much to my students. After discussing the issue with my Rosh Yeshiva, he helped me understand the core concept of “holiness” in Torah. It really means “special” or “distinct” or “distinguished”. The Jewish people distinguish themselves based on their observance of Mitzvot (see Vayikra 19:2).

Taken together, the mitzvah of remembering Shabbat is to distinguish it from other days of the week. This is accomplished through a verbal declaration at the beginning and end of Shabbat. It is the contrast that is essential. Similarly on the holiday of Pesach, we distinguish it from all other nights. This is famously formulated in the four questions recited as part of the Hagadah.

רמב"ם חמץ ומצה – נוסח ההגדה

מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות, שבכל הלילות אין אנו מטבילין אפילו פעם אחת, והלילה הזה שתי פעמים, שבכל הלילות אנו אוכלין חמץ ומצה, והלילה הזה כולו מצה, שבכל הלילות אנו אוכלין שאר ירקות, והלילה הזה מרור, שבכל הלילות אנו אוכלין בין יושבין ובין מסובין, והלילה הזה כולנו מסובין:

Rambam – Text of the Hagadah

Why is this night different from all other nights? On all other nights, we are not required to dip even once. On this night, we dip twice? On all other nights, we eat chametz (leaven) or matzah. On this night, only matzah? On all other nights, we eat any type of vegetables. On this night, we eat maror (bitter herbs)? On all other nights, we eat either sitting upright or reclining. On this night, we all recline?

This section of the Hagadah could have been formulated much more efficiently. It could have merely stated, “this night is different because we dip twice, eat matzah, maror, and lean." But this formulation is designed to highlight the differentiation explicitly. On all other nights we do X, but on this night we only do Y. One of the primary obligations on Pesach night is to make it special and distinct from all other nights, to celebrate this singular event in the history of the Jewish people. We make Shabbat and night of Pesach holy and special, by verbally declaring their distinction and exceptionality from all other times of the year.

References

Maimonides, M., Touger, E., Kaplan, B., Abramson, Z., & Silverstein, S. (2007). Mishneh Torah. New York: Moznaim Pub. Retrieved from: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/682956/jewish/Mishneh-Torah.htm

Maimonides, M., Bell, B. (2007). Sefer HaMitzvos. New York: SIE Pub. Retrieved from: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/940209/jewish/Sefer-Hamitzvot-Translation.htm

Rosenberg, A. (1980). A new English translation of the Hebrew Bible text and Rashi, with a commentary digest. New York: Judaica Press. Retrieved from: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/

The Torah provides an elaborate description of the construction of the Mishkan. It includes materials and measurements for the structure itself and the articles inside. Parshat Pekudei provides some accounting.

שמות לח:כד

(כד) כׇּל־הַזָּהָ֗ב הֶֽעָשׂוּי֙ לַמְּלָאכָ֔ה בְּכֹ֖ל מְלֶ֣אכֶת הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ וַיְהִ֣י׀ זְהַ֣ב הַתְּנוּפָ֗ה תֵּ֤שַׁע וְעֶשְׂרִים֙ כִּכָּ֔ר וּשְׁבַ֨ע מֵא֧וֹת וּשְׁלֹשִׁ֛ים שֶׁ֖קֶל בְּשֶׁ֥קֶל הַקֹּֽדֶשׁ׃

Shemot 38:24

All the gold that had been used for the work in all the work of the Holy the gold of the waving was twenty nine talents, seven hundred and thirty shekels, according to the holy shekel.

What are we to gain from the numerical accounting of all the gold utilized in the construction of the Mishkan. Is it a lot or a little? What are we to compare it to for scale?

ספורנו שמות לח:כד

כל הזהב – העיד על קצבת הזהב והכסף והנחשת שנכנסה במלאכת המשכן, שהיה דבר מועט מאד בערך אל העושר שהיה בבית ראשון, כמבואר בספר מלכים (מלכים א ו':כ'-ל"ה, ז':מ"ח-נ'), ויותר ממנו העושר שהיה בבנין הורדוס. ועם כל זה יותר התמיד מראה כבוד ה' במשכן של משה ממה שהתמיד במקדש ראשון, ולא נראה כלל במקדש שני. ובזה הורה שלא קצבת העושר וגודל הבנין יהיו סבה להשרות השכינה בישראל, אבל רוצה ה' את יראיו ומעשיהם לשכנו בתוכם.

Sforno on Shemot 38:24

All the gold – (The Torah) attests to, and defines the (quantity) of gold, silver and brass included in the work of the Mishkan, which was a very small amount compared to the riches of the First Temple, as explained in the Book of Kings (I Kings 6: 20-35 and 7: 48-50), and even more so were the riches of Herod's temple. Nevertheless the appearance of God's glory was more constantly (found) in the Mishkan of Moses than in the First Temple, and was not present at all in the Second Temple. This teaches us that it is not the amount of riches and the size of the structure which causes the Divine Presence to dwell in Israel, but God desires those who fear Him, and their deeds, in order to dwell in their midst.

The Sforno provides us with some context. The amount of precious metals used in the construction of the Mishkan was minuscule compared to those used in the First Temple. The resources used in the First Temple pale in comparison to those used in the Second Temple. He also asserts a specific lesson to be gleaned. There is no relationship between the expense and physical stature of a building and the manifestation of the Divine Presence. In fact, an inverse relationship is almost implied. Historically speaking, the more gold the less manifestation of Hashem.

תלמוד בבלי סוכה נא:

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן מִי שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה שִׂמְחַת בֵּית הַשּׁוֹאֵבָה לֹא רָאָה שִׂמְחָה מִיָּמָיו מִי שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה יְרוּשָׁלַיִם בְּתִפְאַרְתָּהּ לֹא רָאָה כְּרַךְ נֶחְמָד מֵעוֹלָם מִי שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בְּבִנְיָנוֹ לֹא רָאָה בִּנְיָן מְפוֹאָר מֵעוֹלָם מַאי הִיא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב חִסְדָּא זֶה בִּנְיַן הוֹרְדוֹס. בְּמַאי בַּנְיֵהּ אָמַר (רָבָא) בְּאַבְנֵי שֵׁישָׁא וּמַרְמְרָא אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי בְּאַבְנֵי שֵׁישָׁא כּוּחְלָא וּמַרְמְרָא אַפֵּיק שָׂפָה וְעַיֵּיל שָׂפָה כִּי הֵיכִי דִּלְקַבֵּל סִידָא סְבַר למשעיין בְּדַהֲבָא אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן שִׁבְקֵיהּ דְּהָכִי שַׁפִּיר טְפֵי דְּמִיתְחֲזֵי כְּאִדְוָתָא דְיַמָּא.

Talmud Bavli – Sukkah 51b

The Sages taught: One who did not see the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, never saw celebration in his life. One who did not see Jerusalem in its glory, never saw a beautiful city. One who did not see the Temple in its constructed state, never saw a magnificent structure. The Gemara asks: What is the Temple building to which the Sages refer? Abaye said, and some say that it was Rav Ḥisda who said: This is referring to the magnificent building of Herod, who renovated the Second Temple. The Gemara asks: With what materials did he construct it? Rava said: It was with stones of green-gray marble and white marble [marmara]. Some say: It was with stones of blue marble and white marble. The rows of stones were set with one row slightly protruded and one row slightly indented, so that the plaster would take better. He thought to plate the Temple with gold, but the Sages said to him: Leave it as is, and do not plate it, as it is better this way, as with the different colors and the staggered arrangement of the rows of stones, it has the appearance of waves of the sea.

It is interesting that the Talmud appears to praise the magnificence of the Second Temple built by Herod. This is apparently despite the fact that there was no manifestation of the Divine Presence there. However, Abaye and Rav Hisda may merely be praising the physical structure itself and not its spiritual status.

It is noteworthy that the Sages themselves interceded to convince Herod not to plate the Second Temple entirely with gold. They opted for the beauty of blue and white, or green and white, resembling the colors of the sea. It was preferable for the walls of the Temple to possess awe-inspiring beauty orienting toward the natural world, rather than a show of wealth. Opulence is rarely a conduit to spirituality. Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik notes that “many halakhic scholars insisted upon utmost simplicity of the synagogue, and disapproved of elaborate ornaments in general” (2005). Based on the Sforno’s analysis, displays of opulence have been historically incongruous with the manifestation of the Divine Presence.

References

Rosenberg, A. (1980). A new English translation of the Hebrew Bible text and Rashi, with a commentary digest. New York: Judaica Press. Retrieved from: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/

Sforno O. ben J. & Pelcovitz R. (1987). Sforno : commentary on the torah = beʼur ʻal ha-torah le-rabi ʻovadyah sforno (1st ed.). Mesorah.

Soloveitchik, J. D., & Helfgoṭ, N. (2005). Community, covenant, and commitment : selected letters and communications of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. Published for the Toras HoRav Foundation by Ktav Pub. House.

Steinsaltz, A., In Weinreb, T. H., In Schreier, J., & Hotsaat Koren (Jerusalem),. (2017). Koren Talmud Bavli, the Noe edition: Talmud Bavli. Retrieved from: https://shas.alhatorah.org/

After an assassination plot against the king is revealed, Haman is promoted to Prime Minister. In this capacity, all are required to bow down to him by order of the king. Mordechai refuses to bow down. While Haman doesn’t personally notice, it is brought to his attention and he is furious.

אסתר ג

(ו) וַיִּ֣בֶז בְּעֵינָ֗יו לִשְׁלֹ֤חַ יָד֙ בְּמׇרְדֳּכַ֣י לְבַדּ֔וֹ כִּֽי־הִגִּ֥ידוּ ל֖וֹ אֶת־עַ֣ם מׇרְדֳּכָ֑י וַיְבַקֵּ֣שׁ הָמָ֗ן לְהַשְׁמִ֧יד אֶת־כׇּל־הַיְּהוּדִ֛ים אֲשֶׁ֛ר בְּכׇל־מַלְכ֥וּת אֲחַשְׁוֵר֖וֹשׁ עַ֥ם מׇרְדֳּכָֽי׃

Esther 3

6) But it seemed contemptible to him to lay hands on Mordecai alone, for they had told him Mordecai's nationality, and Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout Ahasuerus's entire kingdom, Mordecai's people.

But instead of going after Mordechai, Haman takes a different course. The verse says “it was contemptible in his eyes. The term “Vayivez” is worth analyzing. The Torah uses the term to describes Eisav’s rejection and devaluing of the birthright which he sells to Jacob (Beresheit 25:34). Eisav abandoned his birthright. Haman abandoned his plan to go after Mordechai individually. But apparently he wanted to. This is reflected in the Talmud’s analysis of the verse:

תלמוד בבלי מגילה י"ג:

"וַיִּבֶז בְּעֵינָיו לִשְׁלוֹחַ יָד בְּמׇרְדֳּכַי לְבַדּוֹ" (אסתר ג':ו') אָמַר רָבָא בַּתְּחִילָּה בְּמָרְדְּכַי לְבַדּוֹ וּלְבַסּוֹף בְּעַם מָרְדֳּכַי וּמַנּוּ רַבָּנַן וּלְבַסּוֹף בְּכׇל הַיְּהוּדִים.

Talmud Bavli – Megilah 13b

The verse states: “But it seemed contemptible in his eyes to lay his hand on Mordecai alone; for they had made known to him the people of Mordecai; wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai” (Esther 3:6). Rava said: At first he wanted to lay his hands on Mordecai alone, and in the end on the people of Mordecai. And who were the people of Mordecai? They were the Sages, i.e., Mordecai’s special people. And ultimately he sought to bring harm on all the Jews.

Haman wanted to murder Mordechai. But he rejected the idea of murdering Mordechai the individual. Upon closer analysis, he realized Mordechai’s attitude was not an isolated problem. His philosophy was a threat to Haman’s quest for power. Haman masked his quest for power from the king, the kingdom, and perhaps even from himself to a degree, under the guise of promoting the enterprise of the state. Similarly here, he hid his murderous intentions behind the bureaucracy. The final solution for the Jews of Persia was dictated and carried as an official correspondence throughout the 127 provinces. The banality in execution obscured the violence and evil.

Haman had a personal grudge against Mordechai. But he understood Mordechai represented an ideology. This was representative of the ideology of the Jewish Sages and the Jewish people. What was that doctrine? The Torah, the Sages, and the Jewish people believe in an ethic independent of the state. Might does not make right, and the rules on the books do not dictate what is true and correct. Such an idea is the foundation of a just society, but is a threat to any bureaucrat or bureaucracy. The fact that it is the policy does not make it just or right.

Achashveirosh subscribed to no particular values. “The drinking was according to the desire of each individual” (1:8). He did not believe in an overarching morality. There are no specific set of rules that are absolute. It was in this context that Haman could propose his “kingdom first” philosophy, with no value judgements on the means employed.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks - A Letter in the Scroll

What is morality? To this question there have traditionally been two answers. The first is that morality is objective. It is out there in the world of facts, in nature ("natural law") or in the structure of society and its generally accepted conventions. In this view, to be moral is to conform.

The second view is that morality is subjective. It is “in here,” in personal emotion, private desire, or inner intuition. There is no moral truth beyond that which we feel in our own hearts. According to this view, to be moral is to be true to yourself.

Adherence to either of these views has yielded disastrous results. Nature is often blind and cruel, societies have been oppressive and conventions have been unjust. Sometimes morality demands that we do not conform. But if we are only true to ourselves, then we buy our freedom at the expense of others. Desires conflict, as do emotions and intuitions. Societies built on the principle of each doing "that which is right in his own eyes" end in violence and manipulation.

Rabbi Sacks beautifully articulates the two views espoused by Haman and Achashveirosh. Haman believed in conformity. He expected everyone to follow the laws of the state, and also wished to be at the head of that enterprise. Achashveirosh believed in each man simply following his own desires. The more power and riches, the more opportunity. Disturbingly it is often in the context of an Achashveirosh, in a society with no morals or value judgments, that a Haman can rise, promoting and implementing policies that are truly evil.

Mordechai was not just an individual hindrance to Haman’s desire for absolute power. The Torah champions an abstract and independent idea of truth and justice. This stands in opposition to dictatorships and governments founded on maintaining lies and requiring conformity. Haman understood this and chose to pursue the destruction of the Jewish people, which led to his ultimate undoing.

References

Rosenberg, A. (1980). A new English translation of the Hebrew Bible text and Rashi, with a commentary digest. New York: Judaica Press. Retrieved from: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/

Steinsaltz, A., In Weinreb, T. H., In Schreier, J., & Hotsaat Koren (Jerusalem). (2017). Koren Talmud Bavli, the Noe edition: Talmud Bavli. Retrieved from: https://shas.alhatorah.org/

The opening scene of the Megilah portrays two elaborate parties hosted by King Achashveirosh, emperor of the Persian empire. The first party of 180 days entertained the nobles. It was political in nature, designed to consolidate his power across 127 provinces. He then hosted a 7-day party for the people of Shushan, his capital city. All were invited to eat and drink in the king’s palace.

מגילת אסתר א: (י) בַּיּוֹם֙ הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י כְּט֥וֹב לֵב־הַמֶּ֖לֶךְ בַּיָּ֑יִן אָמַ֡ר לִ֠מְהוּמָן בִּזְּתָ֨א חַרְבוֹנָ֜א בִּגְתָ֤א וַֽאֲבַגְתָא֙ זֵתַ֣ר וְכַרְכַּ֔ס שִׁבְעַת֙ הַסָּ֣רִיסִ֔ים הַמְשָׁ֣רְתִ֔ים אֶת־פְּנֵ֖י הַמֶּ֥לֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרֽוֹשׁ׃ (יא( לְ֠הָבִיא אֶת־וַשְׁתִּ֧י הַמַּלְכָּ֛ה לִפְנֵ֥י הַמֶּ֖לֶךְ בְּכֶ֣תֶר מַלְכ֑וּת לְהַרְא֨וֹת הָֽעַמִּ֤ים וְהַשָּׂרִים֙ אֶת־יָפְיָ֔הּ כִּֽי־טוֹבַ֥ת מַרְאֶ֖ה הִֽיא׃

Book of Esther 1: )10) On the seventh day, when the king's heart was merry with wine, he ordered Mehuman, Bizzetha, Harbona, Bigtha and Abagtha, Zethar, and Carcas, the seven chamberlains who ministered in the presence of King Ahasuerus. )11) To bring Vashti the queen before the king with the royal crown, to show the peoples and the princes her beauty, for she was of comely appearance.

Throughout the Megilah there is a surface level storyline. However, subtleties in the wording, peculiar order and phrasing, hint at additional features of the storyline not apparent at first glance. This is the way the Torah is written, and the same method of interpretation employed by our Sages applies.

Our Sages pick up on the Megilah’s choice wording. Achashveirosh had been partying for 187 days. Was it only on day 187 that he was merry with wine? What idea is being conveyed in telling us this episode occurred on the 7th day?

תלמוד בבלי – מגילה יב:

בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי כְּטוֹב לֵב הַמֶּלֶךְ בַּיָּיִן אַטּוּ עַד הַשְׁתָּא לָא טָב לִבֵּיהּ בְּחַמְרָא אֲמַר רָבָא יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שַׁבָּת הָיָה שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹכְלִין וְשׁוֹתִין מַתְחִילִין בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה וּבְדִבְרֵי תִשְׁבָּחוֹת אֲבָל אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם שֶׁאוֹכְלִין וְשׁוֹתִין אֵין מַתְחִילִין אֶלָּא בְּדִבְרֵי תִיפְלוּת. וְכֵן בִּסְעוּדָּתוֹ שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע הַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים מָדִיּוֹת נָאוֹת וְהַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים פָּרְסִיּוֹת נָאוֹת אָמַר לָהֶם אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ כְּלִי שֶׁאֲנִי מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ אֵינוֹ לֹא מָדִיִּי וְלֹא פָּרְסִי אֶלָּא כַּשְׂדִּיִּי רְצוֹנְכֶם לִרְאוֹתָהּ אָמְרוּ לוֹ אִין וּבִלְבַד שֶׁתְּהֵא עֲרוּמָּה

Talmud Bavli – Megilah 12b

The verse states: “On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine” (Esther 1:10). The Gemara asks: Is that to say that until now his heart was not merry with wine? Did it take seven days for him to achieve merriment? Rava said: The seventh day was Shabbat, when the difference between the Jewish people and the gentiles is most apparent. On Shabbat, when the Jewish people eat and drink, they begin by occupying themselves with words of Torah and words of praise for God. But the nations of the world, when they eat and drink, they begin only with words of licentiousness. The Gemara continues to detail what occurred at the feast. So too, at the feast of that wicked man, Ahasuerus, when the men began to converse, some said: The Median women are the most beautiful, while others said: The Persian women are the most beautiful. Ahasuerus said to them: The vessel that I use, i.e., my wife, is neither Median nor Persian, but rather Chaldean. Do you wish to see her? They said to him: Yes, provided that she be naked, for we wish to see her without any additional adornments.

Our Sages interpret the Megilah as intentionally setting up a contrast. At a typical Shabbat meal, we eat and drink and enjoy ourselves. But the activity is contextualized. We begin with words of Torah and wisdom. We elevate our involvement in pleasure and orient our experience toward a higher objective. The Shabbat table becomes a place not only to enjoy, but to share ideas, to bond over studying together, reinforcing our common commitment to the Divine. This stands in stark contrast to the boundless hedonism displayed by Achashveirosh. His meal quickly devolves into pointless vulgarity. He demeans his himself, his queen, and his court.

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik – Days of Deliverance

On the seventh day, Ahasuerus, the man of pleasure, is engrossed in sinful thoughts and unclean talk and begins to act like the beast in the forest. He gets intoxicated with hedonic experiences, while the Jew rises to higher levels. The Torah has never told the Jew not to enjoy, not to derive pleasure from some experiences. However, Judaism resented two aspects of hedonic man: the orgiastic seeking pleasure without an end--and the hypnotic the compulsive drive to take pleasure. Ahasuerus did not know when to stop, nor did he know how to control his desires. The entire society was saturated with carnal desire. Only in such an environment could a madman such as Haman rise to political heights and threaten the very existence of a people. Pleasure Man is volatile and cowardly.

At this juncture, we are reminded of the Jewish concept of the meal: the se'udah. It is a very strange institution. The seudah combines two contradictory elements: on the one hand, eating, drinking, gratifying an animal, instinctual drive, a profane, primitive function; and on the other hand, the offering of a sacrifice, for the table is the altar and taking a meal is a sacerdotal act, a service. These conflicting aspects are highlighted in the ostensibly self-contradictory verse: "And you shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God" (Deut. 14:26). On the one hand, you feast, you eat, and you drink wine; on the other hand, you feel your proximity to God. How is it possible to combine these two mutually exclusive states of mind into one experience?

In fact, this combination is typically Jewish. Our Sages taught: "If three have eaten at one table and spoken over it no words of Torah, it is as if they had eaten of sacrifices to the dead" (Avot 3:3). The meal in Judaism is not merely an occasion for eating. The meal is transformed into a symposium; it precipitates Torah debate. Moreover, the meal in Judaism has another purpose. Unlike the animal, a person almost never eats alone. He invites others. The Jew invites the poor man: "the stranger and the fatherless, and the widow who are within your gates" (Deut. 14:29). The meal is thus transformed into an act of charity, of hesed, of lovingkindness. Hence, Judaism elevates the meal and turns it into a Torah experience and a hesed experience.

The Rav beautifully describes the underlying philosophy behind Achashveirosh’s approach to the physical and the contrasting philosophy of Torah. This is hinted at in the subtle wording of the Megilah. Achashveirosh pursues pleasure with no boundaries. This affects not only his court but his kingdom. The Torah encourages us to enjoy the pleasures the world has to offer. We have a concept of Oneg, enjoying Shabbat. But our enjoyment is delimited, contextualized, and elevated. The meal becomes a springboard to learning, pleasure leads to a broader appreciation. Depending on one’s philosophy, the same physical experience of pleasure can be either empty or ennobling.

References

Rosenberg, A. (1980). A new English translation of the Hebrew Bible text and Rashi, with a commentary digest. New York: Judaica Press. Retrieved from: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/

Soloveitchik, J. D., Clark, E. D., Wolowelsky, J. B., & Ziegler, R. (2007). Days of deliverance: Essays on Purim and Hanukkah. New York: Published for the Toras HoRav Foundation by KTAV Pub. House.

Steinsaltz, A., In Weinreb, T. H., In Schreier, J., & Hotsaat Koren (Jerusalem),. (2017). Koren Talmud Bavli, the Noe edition: Talmud Bavli. Retrieved from: https://shas.alhatorah.org/

Related to Parshat Zachor, see below:

Moshe’s father-in-law Yitro joins the Jewish people in the desert following the exodus from Egypt. He is overjoyed to hear of the people’s salvation. He brings offerings with Moshe and celebrates with the elders. The following day, he observes Moshe judging the people. He is critical of the procedure and offers Moshe an alternative to be more effective.

שמות יח:כ

(כ) וְהִזְהַרְתָּ֣ה אֶתְהֶ֔ם אֶת־הַחֻקִּ֖ים וְאֶת־הַתּוֹרֹ֑ת וְהוֹדַעְתָּ֣ לָהֶ֗ם אֶת־הַדֶּ֙רֶךְ֙ יֵ֣לְכוּ בָ֔הּ וְאֶת־הַֽמַּעֲשֶׂ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר יַעֲשֽׂוּן׃

Shemot 18:20

20) And you shall admonish them concerning the statutes and the teachings, and you shall make known to them the way they shall go and the deed[s] they shall do.

In Yitro’s formulation of an alternative process, he diagnoses the problem, articulates the overarching goals, and offers a solution. In a single sentence, he succinctly summarizes the educational objective of Moshe teaching the people. In includes a warning about the laws, teaching the proper path, and proper actions. What is the difference between instructing them regarding the statutes and teachings, and the actions they should perform? The apparent redundancy in the wording is addressed and interpreted in the Talmud:

תלמוד בבלי – בבא מציעא ל:

דְּתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: "וְהוֹדַעְתָּ לָהֶם" (שמות י"ח:כ'), זֶה בֵּית חַיֵּיהֶם; "אֶת הַדֶּרֶךְ", זוֹ גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים; "(אֲשֶׁר) יֵלְכוּ", זֶה בִּיקּוּר חוֹלִים; "בָּהּ", זוֹ קְבוּרָה; "וְאֶת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה", זֶה הַדִּין; "אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשׂוּן", זוֹ לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין.

Talmud Bavli - Bava Metzia 30b

The Gemara cites a source for going beyond the letter of the law in the performance of mitzvot. As Rav Yosef taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and shall show them the path wherein they shall walk and the action that they must perform” (Exodus 18:20). The baraita parses the various directives in the verse. “And you shall teach them,” that is referring to the structure of their livelihood, i.e., teach the Jewish people trades so that they may earn a living; “the path,” that is referring to acts of kindness; “they shall walk,” that is referring to visiting the ill; “wherein,” that is referring to burial; “and the action,” that is referring to acting in accordance with the letter of the law; “that they must perform,” that is referring to acting beyond the letter of the law.

Rav Yosef explains each of the components of our verse. In order, the verse refers to teaching the people about 1) how to make a living 2) acts of kindness 3) visiting the sick 4) burial 5) the letter of the law 6) beyond the letter of the law. These are apparently the educational goals, the curriculum so to speak, that Moshe was trying to teach the Jewish people. What do these elements have in common? The Torah is a vast system of many mitzvot, concepts, and ideas. What ties together this set?

One approach, suggested to me by a friend, is that these are all ideals which are challenging to implement. We may earn a living, but it is challenging to do so in a way that doesn’t overtake our lives. Being kind seems straightforward, but is challenging in practice. One must really understand the needs of others to be truly kind. Visiting the sick is required even with a modicum of risk (not if there is a clear health risk). We must be involved in burial even if we feel it is beneath our dignity. Understanding when to apply the letter of the law and when to follow the spirit of the law is subtle. These are all endeavors that are complex in their implementation.

Accordingly, perhaps this was the back and forth between Moshe and Yitro. Moshe wanted to personally provide instruction in these complicated areas. He wasn’t trying to have a monopoly on the justice system. But wanted to ensure that the people had the highest level of instruction as they were building the foundation for Jewish society. Yitro explained that there was too great a cost to Moshe and the people. It would be more efficient and likely better for the spread of justice and the ideals of Torah to have instructors at every level of society.

A student of mine suggested these 6 components might represent a specific progression. The first building block of society is that people need to contribute and take care of themselves. As slaves in Egypt they did not have the opportunity to develop trades. In a matter of days they would be setting up society in Israel. They needed tailors and carpenters and architects.

The next step is a create a foundation of kindness between members of society. They need to take care of each other and watch out for each other. Visiting the sick and burying the dead are indeed subcategories of kindness, but their inclusion conveys the extent to which man must strive to support his fellow. The dignity of man must be respected and reinforced even in sickness and death.

When man interacts with his fellow there is always potential for conflict. There must be laws and expectations to regulate and adjudicate disagreements. Where is the precise property line? What happens if man inadvertently injures his neighbor or his neighbor’s property? How do we resolve two contradictory claims? There is the letter of the law, but merely carrying out the letter of the law does not always correspond to true justice. In fact, an appreciation for the spirit of the law is critical to the proper and functional implementation of justice.

תרגום ירושלמי (יונתן) שמות יח:כ

וּתְּזַהֵר יַתְהוֹן יַת קַיָּמַיָּא וְיַת אוֹרָיְתָּא, וּתְּהוֹדַע לְהוֹן יַת צְלוֹתָא דִּיִּצְלוֹן בְּבֵית כְּנִישְׁתְּהוֹן, וְיַת אוֹרְחָא דִּיְּפַקְדוּן לְמָרִיעִין, וּדְיַהֲכוֹן לְמִקְבּוֹר מֵיתַיָּא וּלְמִגְמוֹל בֵּהּ חִסְדָּא, וְיַת עוֹבָדָא דִּשְׁוָרַת דִּינָא, וּדְיַעַבְדוּן מִלְּגוֹ לְשׁוֹרְתָּא לְרְשִׁיעַיִּן

Targum Yerushalmi Shemot 18:20

And you shall warn them concerning the commandments and the Torah, and make known to them the prayer that they should pray in their synagogues, and the way they should visit the sick, and their duty to bury the dead, and to perform acts of kindness, and how to operate according to the letter of the law, and to operate beyond the letter [of the law] for the wicked.

According to the Targum Yonatan, the first of the 6 components is prayer in the synagogue. Perhaps this is indicative of the fact that man must recognize he is fundamentally in need. Prayer demonstrates that man is dependent on God for his existence. But specifically communal prayer takes this a step further and orients man to recognize he is in need of God and his fellow man. To live fulfilling lives and create a society that corresponds to the highest ideals, man must cooperate with his fellow in his approach toward God.

References

Rosenberg, A. (1980). A new English translation of the Hebrew Bible text and Rashi, with a commentary digest. New York: Judaica Press. Retrieved from: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/

Steinsaltz, A., In Weinreb, T. H., In Schreier, J., & Hotsaat Koren (Jerusalem),. (2017). Koren Talmud Bavli, the Noe edition: Talmud Bavli. Retrieved from: https://shas.alhatorah.org/

When Moshe first approaches Pharaoh, he makes a specific request that the Jewish people be granted 3 days respite to worship in the desert. Pharaoh refuses, and Moshe persists with this request during the debate that takes place throughout the subsequent 10 plagues. When Moshe is first instructed to facilitate the redemption of the Jewish people (3:10), he is told to gather the elders and approach Pharaoh with the request to go into the desert for 3 days and make offerings to Hashem (3:18). If the ultimate objective is to take the Jewish people out of Egypt, why did God instruct Moshe to request a mere 3 day holiday?

As the Jewish people finally depart Egypt, Moshe instructs them to request and accept valuables from the Egyptians. This was not a last minute request. Rather, as Rashi (11:2) points out, this was part of Hashem’s guarantee to Avraham (Beresheit 15:14). It was also part of the plan which Hashem revealed to Moshe at the burning bush (Shemot 3:22).

שמות יד

(ה) וַיֻּגַּד֙ לְמֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרַ֔יִם כִּ֥י בָרַ֖ח הָעָ֑ם וַ֠יֵּהָפֵ֠ךְ לְבַ֨ב פַּרְעֹ֤ה וַעֲבָדָיו֙ אֶל־הָעָ֔ם וַיֹּֽאמְרוּ֙ מַה־זֹּ֣את עָשִׂ֔ינוּ כִּֽי־שִׁלַּ֥חְנוּ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מֵעׇבְדֵֽנוּ׃ (ו) וַיֶּאְסֹ֖ר אֶת־רִכְבּ֑וֹ וְאֶת־עַמּ֖וֹ לָקַ֥ח עִמּֽוֹ׃ (ז) וַיִּקַּ֗ח שֵׁשׁ־מֵא֥וֹת רֶ֙כֶב֙ בָּח֔וּר וְכֹ֖ל רֶ֣כֶב מִצְרָ֑יִם וְשָׁלִשִׁ֖ם עַל־כֻּלּֽוֹ׃ (ח) וַיְחַזֵּ֣ק יְהֹוָ֗ה אֶת־לֵ֤ב פַּרְעֹה֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרַ֔יִם וַיִּרְדֹּ֕ף אַחֲרֵ֖י בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וּבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל יֹצְאִ֖ים בְּיָ֥ד רָמָֽה׃

Shemot 14

5) It was reported to Pharaoh that the people had fled; and Pharaoh and his servants had a change of heart toward the people, and they said, What is this that we have done, that we have released Israel from serving us? 6) So he [Pharaoh] harnessed his chariot, and took his people with him. 7) He took six hundred select chariots and all the chariots of Egypt, with officers over them all. 8) And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, and he chased after the children of Israel, and the children of Israel were marching out triumphantly.

What was told to Pharaoh? Didn’t he already know the people left? What accounts for the change of heart?

רש"י שמות יד

(ה) ויגד למלך מצרים – איקטורין שלח עמהם, וכיון שהגיעו לשלשת ימים שקבעו לילך ולשוב וראו שאינן חוזרין למצרים, באו והגידו לפרעה ביום רביעי. בחמישי ובששי רדפו אחריהם. ליל שביעי ירדו לים. בשחרית אמרו שירה, והוא יום שביעי של פסח, לכך אנו קורין השירה ביום שביעי.

ויהפך – נהפך מה שהיה, שהרי אמר להם: קומו צאו מתוך עמי (שמות י"ב:ל"א), ונהפך לב עבדיו, שהרי לשעבר היו אומרים לו: עד מתי יהיה זה לנו למוקש (שמות י':ז'), ועכשיו נהפכו לרדוף אחריהם בשביל ממונם שהשאילום.

(ח) ויחזק י"י את לב פרעה – שהיה מחשב אם לרדוף אם לאו, וחזק י"י את לבו לרדוף.

Rashi 14:5

It was reported to Pharaoh – He [Pharaoh] sent officers with them, and as soon as the three days they [the Israelites] had set to go [into the desert] and return had elapsed, and they [the officers] saw that they were not returning to Egypt, they came and informed Pharaoh on the fourth day. On the fifth and the sixth [days after the Israelites’ departure], they pursued them. On the night preceding the seventh, they went down into the sea. In the morning [of the seventh day], they [the Israelites] recited the Song [of the Sea (Exod. 15:1-18)]. Therefore, we read [in the Torah] the Song on the seventh day, that is the seventh day of Passover.

Had a change – He [Pharaoh] had a change of heart from how he had felt [previously], for he had said to them [the Israelites], “Get up and get out from among my people” (Exod. 12:31). His servants [also] had a change of heart, for previously they had said to him, “How long will this one be a stumbling block to us?” (Exod. 10:7). Now they had a change of heart to pursue them [the Israelites] on account of the money that they had lent them. — [based on Mechilta].

And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh – Because he vacillated about whether to pursue [the Israelites] or not. [So] He hardened his heart to pursue [them]. — [from Mechilta]

According to Rashi, Egyptians officers accompanied the Jewish people on their 3 day journey. When they did not immediately return, the Egyptians reported back to Pharaoh. That’s what is meant by “and it was reported to the King of Egypt” (14:5). Pharaoh had originally resigned himself to let the people go completely. His cabinet had also been begging him to release the people. But the fact that the Jewish people had been granted Egyptian possessions caused them to reconsider.

אברבנאל שמות ג:יח

ואמנם למה צוה הב"ה שיאמרו לפרעה דרך שלשת ימים כבר כתבתי דעת הר"ן בו בדרשותיו שהוא כדי שיתפעל אחר כך לב פרעה כאשר לא ישובו אחרי ג' ימים מהמדבר באמרו כי בורח הוא כי אם היה מתחלה שולח אותם בהחלט מבלי תנאי שיחזרו אחר אותו זמן מוגבל לא היה רודף אחריהם ולא היה נטבע בים סוף הוא וכל חילו. ויותר נכון אצלי לפ' שעשה הב"ה כן כדי להראות לבני אדם חוזק לב פרעה וקושי ערפו ושעליו יצדקו משפטיו ודיניו ומדותיו על פרעה ועל מצרים יען וביען לא בקשו ממני ללכת כי אם דרך ג' ימים לזבוח לאלוהיהם ומסתמא יובן מדבריהם שאחר כך ישובו ולא שמע אל תפלתם ואל תחנתם וכ"ש אם יאמרו לו לשלחם כלם שבלי ספק לא יאבה להם ולא ישמע להם הנה מפני זה צוה למרע"ה שתהיה בראשונה שאלתו ובקשתו דבר מועט דרך ג' ימים להבחין בו ערפו ומצחו הקשה וז"ש מיד ואני ידעתי כי לא יתן אתכם מלך מצרים להלוך ולא ביד חזקה כלומר ועם היות השאלה הזאת דבר מועט אני ידעתי רוע לבבו שלא יכנע גם לדבר המועט ההוא ועכ"ז לא אמר שאחרי ג' ימים ישובו אלא שילכו במדבר דרך ג' ימים וכן היה שהלכו שם כל אותו זמן וזמנים אחרי' הנה אם כן לא שקר משה בדבריו אבל העלים הכוונה מפני אותה סבה שזכרתי.

Abarbanel Shemot 3:18

Indeed, why did the Holy One, blessed be He, command that they tell Pharaoh that the journey would be for three days? I have already written the opinion of the Ran (Rabbi Nissim ben Reuven) in his Derashot (end of Derasha 11), that it was in order to later stir Pharaoh's heart when they would not return after the three days from the desert, and he would say that they were fleeing. For if He had initially sent them without condition to return after a limited time, Pharaoh would not have pursued them and would not have been drowned in the Red Sea, he and all his army. It seems more correct to me to explain that the Holy One, blessed be He, did this to show mankind the strength of Pharaoh's heart and the stubbornness of his neck, and that His judgments and laws would be justified upon Pharaoh and Egypt. Because they did not ask to go, except for three days’ journey to sacrifice to their God, and it is understood from their words that they would return afterward. But Pharaoh did not listen to their prayer and supplication. Certainly, if they had asked him to send them all away, he would not have agreed, and he would not have listened to them. For this reason, the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Moses that his first request should be a small one, to ask for a three-day journey to reveal Pharaoh’s stubbornness and his hard heart. And as it says immediately, 'And I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go, not even by a mighty hand,' meaning that even though this request is a small one, I know the evil of his heart, that he will not submit to even this small request. Nevertheless, Moses did not say that after three days they would return, but that they would go into the wilderness for three days. And so it was that they traveled in the wilderness for that time. Therefore, Moses did not lie in his words, but concealed the intention because of the reason I mentioned.

The Abarbanel quotes the Ran, who suggest that this was all part of a Divine plan. Had Pharaoh simply released the Jewish people, it would not have resulted in the destruction of the Egyptian army. Only because the original request was for 3 days, did Pharaoh and his servants end up chasing after them leading to the army’s destruction.

The Abarbanel himself however prefers a different explanation. The original request of merely a 3 day respite, and Pharaoh’s subsequent denial, demonstrated Pharaoh’s stubbornness and intransigence, and the absurd working conditions in Eg…

The first Pesach offering was conducted on the eve of the exodus from Egypt. The Jewish people were commanded to perform this service in a specific fashion. Some requirements were unique to that first offering, while others remained in effect throughout the generations.

שמות יב

(מח) וְכִֽי־יָג֨וּר אִתְּךָ֜ גֵּ֗ר וְעָ֣שָׂה פֶ֘סַח֮ לַיהֹוָה֒ הִמּ֧וֹל ל֣וֹ כׇל־זָכָ֗ר וְאָז֙ יִקְרַ֣ב לַעֲשֹׂת֔וֹ וְהָיָ֖ה כְּאֶזְרַ֣ח הָאָ֑רֶץ וְכׇל־עָרֵ֖ל לֹֽא־יֹ֥אכַל בּֽוֹ׃

Shemot 12

(48) And should a proselyte reside with you, he shall make a Passover sacrifice to the Lord. All his males shall be circumcised, and then he may approach to make it, and he will be like the native of the land, but no uncircumcised male may partake of it.

The Torah delineates the requirement that only the circumcised may participate in the Pesach offering. This is a noteworthy stringency. While circumcision is one of the 613 commandments, we don’t always find that a failure to fulfill one command precludes one from fulfilling other commandments. If one did not keep kosher, they are not thereby precluded from observing Shabbat. If one failed to take the Lulav, they are not prevented from participating in the mitzvah of Sukkah.

As the Ralbag further explains, our verse is the basis of an additional stringency. Not only is someone who is uncircumcised prohibited from bringing or eating of the Pesach offering. But if the head of a household did not properly circumcise the members of his household, he himself is precluded from participating in the Pesach offering. What is the idea behind this remarkable stringency?

רלב"ג תועלות שמות יב:מח

התועלת העשרים ושנים הוא במצוות, והוא מה שהזהירנו שלא יאכל מהפסח ערל ישראל, שנאמר: 'וכל ערל לא יאכל בו' (יב, מח). והיה זה כן, לפי שלא נכנס בשלמות באמונתנו; וזה, כי המצוה הראשונה אשר יחזיק בה מי שהוא מאמונתנו - נפקדה ממנו. והיא גם כן המצוה שנצטווה בה אברהם בעבור שיגיע השלמות לזרעו באופן שיקבלו התורה ויירשו את הארץ, כמו שביארנו בפרשת לך לך, ולזה החמירה התורה בזה המקום בענין הערלה. ולזאת הסיבה דקדקה התורה שלא יעשה ושלא יאכל ממנו מי שלא נימולו המוטלים עליו למול, כמו בניו הקטנים ועבדיו שהם מקנת כסף או ילידי בית, כי לא נכנס זה האיש בשלמות באמונתנו, אחר שכבר זלזל בזאת המצוה הראשונה. וראוי שתדע שמילת בנו הגדול אינה מעכבת אותו מאכילת הפסח או מעשייתו, כי אינו מוטל עליו למולו, אך הוא מצווה למול את עצמו.

Ralbag - Statement of Benefits 12:48

The twenty-second benefit is with regard to the commandments, and it is what we were warned about not eating from the Passover sacrifice if one is an uncircumcised member of the Jewish people, as it is said: 'No uncircumcised person shall eat of it' (Exodus 12:48). This is so, because one has not fully entered into perfection with regard to his commitment; and this, because the first commandment that someone who is part of our faith must affirm—has been neglected by him. It is also the mitzvah which Avraham was commanded in order that his descendants would reach perfection, in a manner that they would accept the Torah and inherit the land, as we explained in Lech Lecha. Therefore, the Torah is stringent in this matter regarding circumcision. For this reason, the Torah is careful not to allow anyone to participate in the Pesach offering who has not circumcised those who he is required to circumcise—such as his young children, his slaves which he purchased, or those born in his household— since this person has not fully entered into perfect commitment, having already disregarded the first commandment. It is important to note that the circumcision of his son who is an adult (age of majority) does not prevent him from eating the Passover or performing the commandment, because he is no longer required to circumcise him (at that point). However, he (the adult son) is commanded to circumcise himself.

The Ralbag explains that the mitzvah of circumcision is representative of a person’s commitment to the Jewish faith. If a person is obligated to be circumcised but remains uncircumcised, they lack in a fundamental demonstration of their dedication. The Pesach offering is itself a demonstration of commitment. One cannot authentically participate in the Pesach offering while simultaneously being in a state that undermines this demonstration. It is a walking contradiction.

But the Ralbag continues and explains the further stringency regarding the household. When Avraham was given the mitzvah of circumcision, it was not solely for his own perfection and benefit. Rather, it was ultimately oriented toward his descendants reaching a state of perfection in their faith. We see this reflected in the structure of the law of the Pesach offering. It is not sufficient for an individual to be circumcised while members of his household are not. Our commitment is not only toward our own personal faith, but it is our essential responsibility to pass on our faithfulness to our entire household, and onward to the next generation.

References

Rosenberg, A. (1980). A new English translation of the Hebrew Bible text and Rashi, with a commentary digest. New York: Judaica Press. Retrieved from: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/

Translation of the Ralbag based on ChatGPT with significant edits for accuracy and style.

Other posts related to Parshat Bo: