This Week in Learning

Yaakov flees his home to escape the wrath of Esav. He heads toward Haran to begin a new stage in his life. Hashem appears to him in a dream and tells him:

בראשית כח

(טו) וְהִנֵּ֨ה אָנֹכִ֜י עִמָּ֗ךְ וּשְׁמַרְתִּ֙יךָ֙ בְּכֹ֣ל אֲשֶׁר־תֵּלֵ֔ךְ וַהֲשִׁ֣בֹתִ֔יךָ אֶל־הָאֲדָמָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את כִּ֚י לֹ֣א אֶֽעֱזׇבְךָ֔ עַ֚ד אֲשֶׁ֣ר אִם־עָשִׂ֔יתִי אֵ֥ת אֲשֶׁר־דִּבַּ֖רְתִּי לָֽךְ׃

Beresheit 28

(15) And behold, I am with you, and I will guard you wherever you go, and I will restore you to this land, for I will not forsake you until I have done what I have spoken concerning you.”

One of Yaakov responses is to take a vow:

(כ) וַיִּדַּ֥ר יַעֲקֹ֖ב נֶ֣דֶר לֵאמֹ֑ר אִם־יִהְיֶ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֜ים עִמָּדִ֗י וּשְׁמָרַ֙נִי֙ בַּדֶּ֤רֶךְ הַזֶּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָנֹכִ֣י הוֹלֵ֔ךְ וְנָֽתַן־לִ֥י לֶ֛חֶם לֶאֱכֹ֖ל וּבֶ֥גֶד לִלְבֹּֽשׁ׃ (כא) וְשַׁבְתִּ֥י בְשָׁל֖וֹם אֶל־בֵּ֣ית אָבִ֑י וְהָיָ֧ה יְהֹוָ֛ה לִ֖י לֵאלֹהִֽים׃ (כב) וְהָאֶ֣בֶן הַזֹּ֗את אֲשֶׁר־שַׂ֙מְתִּי֙ מַצֵּבָ֔ה יִהְיֶ֖ה בֵּ֣ית אֱלֹהִ֑ים וְכֹל֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּתֶּן־לִ֔י עַשֵּׂ֖ר אֲעַשְּׂרֶ֥נּוּ לָֽךְ׃

(20) And Jacob uttered a vow, saying, "If God will be with me, and He will guard me on this way, upon which I am going, and He will give me bread to eat and a garment to wear; (21) And if I return in peace to my father's house, and the Lord will be my God; (22) Then this stone, which I have placed as a monument, shall be a house of God, and everything that You give me, I will surely tithe to You.

This appears at first to be a strange reaction. God committed to protecting Yaakov. But Yaakov responds with what sounds like an ultimatum, “If God will be with me…the Lord will be my God”. How do we understand Yaakov’s statement? Rashi and Ramban help elucidate Yaakov’s response.

רש"י בראשית כח:כא

בשלום – שלם מן החטא, שלא אלמד דרכי לבן.

Rashi Beresheit 28:21

In peace: Perfect from sin, that I will not learn from the ways of Laban.

רמב"ן בראשית כח:כ

וטעם התנאי שלא יגרום החטא. וכך אמרו בבראשית רבה (בראשית רבה ע"ו:ב'): רב הונא בשם ר' אחא, הנה אנכי עמך (בראשית כ"ח:ט"ו) – אם יהיה אלהים עמדי. אלא מכאן, שאין הבטחה לצדיקים בעולם הזה.

Ramban Beresheit 28:20

The reason for the condition is lest the sin cause the abrogation of the promises. And so the Rabbis said in Bereshith Rabbah, "Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Acha, 'And behold, I am with thee, and yet it is written, If G-d will be with me! However, from here you infer that there is no assurance to the righteous in this world.’”

Yaakov was not issuing an ultimatum to God, nor was he questioning whether God would keep his promise. Rather, Yaakov was concerned that he might make a significant error or misstep. He was concerned that a critical mistake might make him no longer worthy of God’s protection.

Nehama Leibowitz summarizes the Ramban and the elaboration of the Sages:

Nehama Leibowitz - New Studies in Bereishit

Ramban explains that the "reason for the condition, the “if qualification, was lest sin should intervene." Jacob then did not, God forbid, cast doubts on the Almighty's word, displayed no lack of faith but impugned his own ability to keep faith with Him. Perhaps, as a result of his long stay at Laban's in alien environment, he might succumb to heathen influences. He doubted his own ability to withstand temptation. He might not ultimately prove worthy of the kindnesses promised him by God. Perhaps sin would soil him. Jacob did not cast doubts on God or His credibility, but on himself and his capacity to withstand temptation (p.309).

Rav Hirsch elaborates on Yaakov’s specific concern. Indeed Yaakov was moving into a new environment. But he was also moving into an entirely new endeavor. His objective was to find a wife and build a household to pass on the teachings of Avraham and Yitzchak. He was entering a new situation and he was not entirely certain how he would respond. Rav Hirsch builds off of the content of Yaakov’s vow, “if God will be with me and guard me on this path that I am going, and give me bread to eat and clothing to wear” (28:20).

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch - Commentary on Bereshis

This “guarding”, then, cannot refer to material possessions, which he did not yet possess, but, rather, refers to the spiritual and moral assets he bore in himself. Indeed, these assets were endangered "on this path" on which he was going, precisely because he was penniless and empty-handed. To explain:

Ever since the gates of Paradise were closed, the establishment of an independent household involves so many difficulties, hinges on circumstances and situations so complex, that a person needs special help from God so as not to forfeit the whole of his better self in gaining that piece of bread. Who can count the people who were morally pure before they set out on "the path to bread and clothing," but who subsequently, for the sake of making a living and attaining social status, denied God, spurned morality, were inconsiderate of their neighbor and of his human dignity, and so on. Not for naught do our Sages say that “this path" alludes to “idol worship, immorality, murder, and evil speech” (see Bereshis Rabbah 70:4).

Thus far, Ya'akov has been a “dweller in tents”, but now he is setting out to seek a wife and sustenance for his wife and children. The dangers involved seem to him so grave that first he prays for the preservation of his character, that he not forfeit his spiritual and moral integrity.

Yaakov’s attitude is remarkable. Despite being raised in the house of Yitzchak and Rivka, and spending years studying as a diligent student, he was deeply worried about being influenced by Lavan. Through this narrative we observe an aspect of the great personality of Yaakov our forefather. Despite his learning, he made no assumption about how that learning would transfer to his experiences in the outside world.

Yaakov possessed an authentic humility and personal skepticism. It is not that he lacked the confidence to operate or that he avoided lofty goals. But he did not assume he would be automatically successful. He remained on his guard, vigilant about his spiritual development. This sentiment is beautifully expressed by Hillel the Sage:

משנה אבות ב:ד – הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר…וְאַל תַּאֲמִין בְּעַצְמְךָ עַד יוֹם מוֹתְךָ

Avot 2:4 – Hillel says: Don’t believe in yourself until the day of your death

References

Hirsch, R. S. R. (2008). Hirsch Chumash: Sefer Bereshis. Jerusalem - New York: Feldheim Publishers.

Leibowitz, N. (1996). New Studies in Bereshit (Genesis). Brooklyn, NY: Lambda Publishers.

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

There are many confusing elements in story we read about the relationship between Yitzchak, Rivka, Esav, and Yaakov. Clarification is needed in order to understand the perspectives and motivations of each. They emerge from a close read of the narrative with classical commentaries.

בראשית כה:כו-כז

וַֽיִּגְדְּלוּ֙ הַנְּעָרִ֔ים וַיְהִ֣י עֵשָׂ֗ו אִ֛ישׁ יֹדֵ֥עַ צַ֖יִד אִ֣ישׁ שָׂדֶ֑ה וְיַעֲקֹב֙ אִ֣ישׁ תָּ֔ם יֹשֵׁ֖ב אֹהָלִֽים: וַיֶּאֱהַ֥ב יִצְחָ֛ק אֶת־עֵשָׂ֖ו כִּי־צַ֣יִד בְּפִ֑יו וְרִבְקָ֖ה אֹהֶ֥בֶת אֶֽת־יַעֲקֹֽב׃

Beresheit 25:26-27

The boys grew up. Esav was a man skilled in hunting, a man of the field, while Yaakov was a man of integrity, a dweller in tents. And Isaac loved Esau because [his] game was in his mouth, but Rebecca loved Jacob.

Why did Yitzchak love Esav? Why did he intend to give him a blessing which ultimately ended up being given to Yaakov? What in the nature of the child attracted the love of each parent?

רד"ק בראשית כה:כח

ורבקה אהבת את יעקב – [חיבה] יתירה על חיבה טבעית, שהרי יש שנפשו של אדם נוטה בטבע אל בן (אחד) יותר מן אל בן (אחר). ולא שהיתה שנאה את עשו, אלא אוהבת את יעקב יותר ממנו,

ויאהב – אין צריך לומר כי יעקב היה אוהב, כי יותר ויותר היה אוהב יעקב משהיה אוהב עשו, ולא היה אוהב עשו אלא שהיה מביא לו ציד למאכלו זהו שאמר בפיו. ורבקה היתה אוהבת את יעקב – לבדו

Radak 25:28

It did not need to be stated that [Yitzchak] loved Yaakov, for he surely loved Yaakov more than Esav. And he only loved Esav for the game that he brought him to eat, this is what it means “in his mouth (25:27). But Rivka loved Yaakov exclusively.

The Radak clarifies that when the verse describes Yitzchak’s love for Esav, it was not to the exclusion of Yaakov. Given Yaakov’s nature, there was a natural bond between Yitzchak and Yaakov. Rather, the verse mentions Yitzchak’s love for Esav as something novel and unexpected. When the verse describes Rivka’s love for Yaakov, this is to the exclusion of Esav.

Rav Hirsch offers a slightly different explanation, with an important opening caveat. We don’t assume our forefathers made foolish errors. But we do not make them out to be infallible.

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch - Commentary on Bereshis

Our Sages never hesitate to point out to us the errors and shortcomings, both great and small, of our forefathers, and precisely thus they make Torah great and glorious, heightening its instructiveness for us (25:27)…’To be sure, Yitzchak's love for Esav and Rivkah's love for Ya’akov can easily be explained by the attraction of opposites. Yitzchak, who was an “Olah Temima –a perfect offering” withdrew from the commotion of the world; he preferred to dwell in quiet solitude, near the well of "the Living One Who sees me," rather than amidst the bustle of human society. It is possible, then, that Esav's bold and vigorous nature appealed to Yitzchak, and that he saw in Esav the strength, which exceeded his own, to be the mainstay of the household. Rivkah, on the other hand, saw in Ya'akov the ideal personality, representing a way of life she had never known in her father's house (25:28).

Rav Hirsch explains that there was a particular characteristic of Esav that attracted Yaakov’s love, and a particular characteristic of Yaakov that attracted Rivka’s love. Yitzchak admired Esav’s worldliness, his ability to be an Ish Sadeh –a man of the field, at home in public, in the world at large. Perhaps he saw in Esav some of the qualities of his father Avraham. Rivkah saw purity in the nature of Yaakov. Each saw qualities that would be essential to the future mission of the Jewish people.

Avraham ben HaRambam explains that worldly pursuits are not against the values of the Torah inherently:

ר' אברהם בן הרמב”ם – בראשית כה:כח

לא היה יצחק שונא אותו אלא נשאר באהבתו הטבעית אשר מחזקים אותה עניני העולם הזה שאינם מתנגדים בגלוי לעניני הדת התנגדות גדולה. ורבקה אהבת את יעקב – [חיבה] יתירה על חיבה טבעית…ולא שהיתה שנאה את עשו, אלא אוהבת את יעקב יותר ממנו

Avraham ben HaRambam 25:28

Yitzchak did not hate Esav, but he remained in his natural love for him. For he strengthened the ways of this world, which are not entirely opposite the objectives of the religious sphere.

And Rivkah loved Yaakov, an additional love beyond the natural love [between parent and child], but she did not hate Esav, but loved Yaakov more than him.

We begin to see a picture emerge regarding the objectives of Yitzchak and Rivkah. Both had a natural love for their children, but their actions were motivated in consideration of the future of the Jewish nation and the continuation of the worldview of Avraham. This is stated explicitly by Rav Hirsch:

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch - Commentary on Bereshis 27:1

The actions of Yitzchak, too, become clearer, when we examine the nature of the blessing he wished to confer upon Esav…Yitzchak's two sons represented two different elements in his home. Esav represented material power; Ya'akov represented spiritual power. Yitzchak knew very well that both of these tendencies would be needed, if his future nation was to grow and prosper. He, too, apparently knew of the prophecy that the materially stronger one would ultimately serve the materially weaker one (“and the mightier will serve the lesser” (25:23). But Yitzchak thought that Esav and Ya'akov would fulfill the mission of Avraham in partnership and brotherly harmony, with the one complementing the other. He therefore intended to give Esav a blessing of material content, and reserved a spiritual blessing for Ya'akov. This blessing that was reserved for Ya'akov was meaningless to Esav, who by nature had no understanding of the spiritual aspect of the House of Avraham.

What emerges from our analysis is far more compelling than a narrative of petty parental favoritism. Yitzchak and Rivka loved both their children. The Torah does not need to tell us this fact. Rather, the Torah chronicles two different visions regarding the implementation and realization of Avraham’s values. Yitzchak saw potential in Esav the “man of the field” to be the political leader, a man of the people, the face of a great nation. He could win the hearts and minds of the masses, and guide them toward truth. Yaakov was always going to have a role, and his own bracha –blessing and destiny. He was “a dweller in tents”, a man of impeccable integrity, who spent his time in houses of study. Yitzchak thought that he would be the intellectual, the academic, the spiritual leader of the nation. These opposing tendencies could work in harmony to bring truth and justice to the world.

Rivkah had a different vision. This could be because of her accurate perception of Esav’s flaws, outlined by our Sages in many places and echoed by the commentaries. Rav Hirsch quotes the Sages statement, “Rivkah did not do so because she loved Ya'akov more than she loved Esav. She did it so that Esav should no longer be able to deceive his aged father" (Bereshis Rabbah 65:3). Rav Hirsch also suggests another line of reasoning:

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch - Commentary on Bereshis 27:1

Rivkah, however, remembered from the home of Lavan the misfortune entailed by such a division. She knew from personal experience that only in a home pervaded by the spirit of Avraham, and only in the hands of one guided by this spirit, would material things bring blessing and true happiness. She was right. She realized that materialism devoid of spirit is actually a curse, and that Yitzchak's blessing could not be divided; it could be placed only upon the head of one of the sons.

Rivka was successful in securing the blessing and mantle of leadership for Yaakov. This plan was ultimately blessed by Yitzchak and God. Material power could not be divorced from spiritual dominion and still promote Divine ideals.

References

Hirsch, R. S. R. (2008). Hirsch Chumash: Sefer Bereshis. Jerusalem - New York: Feldheim Publishers.

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/libr…

After Lot and Avraham part ways, Hashem tells Avraham that he will inherit the land of Israel. (Beresheit 13:14-17). He gives a further message to Avraham that he will have a child and his children will be as numerous as the stars (15:1-5). But between these two messages, we find a detailed description of a war between the alliances of four kings and five kings.

בראשית יד

(א) וַיְהִ֗י בִּימֵי֙ אַמְרָפֶ֣ל מֶֽלֶךְ־שִׁנְעָ֔ר אַרְי֖וֹךְ מֶ֣לֶךְ אֶלָּסָ֑ר כְּדׇרְלָעֹ֙מֶר֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ עֵילָ֔ם וְתִדְעָ֖ל מֶ֥לֶךְ גּוֹיִֽם׃ (ב) עָשׂ֣וּ מִלְחָמָ֗ה אֶת־בֶּ֙רַע֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ סְדֹ֔ם וְאֶת־בִּרְשַׁ֖ע מֶ֣לֶךְ עֲמֹרָ֑ה שִׁנְאָ֣ב׀ מֶ֣לֶךְ אַדְמָ֗ה וְשֶׁמְאֵ֙בֶר֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ צְבֹיִ֔ים וּמֶ֥לֶךְ בֶּ֖לַע הִיא־צֹֽעַר׃

Beresheit 14

1 Now it came to pass in the days of Amraphel the king of Shinar, Arioch the king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and Tidal the king of Goyim. 2 That they waged war with Bera the king of Sodom and with Birsha the king of Gomorrah, Shineab the king of Admah, and Shemeber the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar.

Lot gets tangled up in the war, Avraham rescues him, and Lot returns to Sodom where we find him in next week’s Parsha. At first glance, the level of detail describing the conflict and its overall significance is elusive. The Rav offers a fascinating interpretation of the war between the kings:

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik - “The War Between in the Kings”

In Abraham’s time, one bloc consisted of Amraphel king of Shinar, who, according to Hazal (Eruvin 53a), was Nimrod. "Kush fathered Nimrod, he was the first on earth to be a mighty one" (Gen. 10:8). He was a victorious warrior, "a mighty hunter before the Lord" (Gen. 10:9). He expanded his territory: “The beginning of his kingdom was Babel...in the land of Shinar; out of that land went forth Assyria, and built Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah" (Gen. 10:11). Like every great emperor and conqueror, he built new cities and thereby helped advance material civilization and technology.

Nimrod "himrid et kol ha-olam kullo, led the entire world to rebel against [God's] kingship" (Ervin 53a). According to Hazal, the generation of the dispersion was intoxicated with its own material success and technology. "Let us build us a city and a tower with its top in the heavens" (Gen. 11:4). Let us dethrone the Creator. Man reigns supreme and, by applying his mind, can conquer the universe. The generation of the dispersion sought power. Hazal say that if a worker fell to his death, they didn't care; but if they lost a brick, they would mourn for it (Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 24). They were power-loving, power-crazed, power-intoxicated. Abraham rejected the generation of the dispersion (Avodah Zarah 19a). He saw a generation that had gone berserk and was mad for power.

Opposing this bloc, there was another, represented by Sodom, which had "dust of gold" (Job 28:6). Its inhabitants were very rich and lived in luxury. This bloc represented the human quest for unlimited pleasure. Thus there was a clash of two powers, two military alliances, two armies. But more than that, there was a clash of two outlooks on the world, of two “ethical" systems, so to speak. (Abraham’s Journey, p.126-127)

Albert Einstein provides a remarkably similar description in an essay titled “Why do they hate the Jews?” Published in Collier’s Magazine in 1938:

Albert Einstein - Ideas and Opinions

In political life I see two opposed tendencies at work, locked in constant struggle with each other. The first, optimistic trend proceeds from the belief that the free unfolding of the productive forces of individuals and groups essentially leads to a satisfactory state of society. It recognizes the need for a central power, placed above groups and individuals, but concedes to such power only organizational and regulatory functions. The second, pessimistic trend assumes that free interplay of individuals and groups leads to the destruction of society; it thus seeks to base society exclusively upon authority, blind obedience, and coercion. Actually this trend is pessimistic only to a limited extent: for it is optimistic in regard to those who are, and desire to be, the bearers of power and authority. The adherents of this second trend are the enemies of the free groups and of education for independent thought. They are, moreover, the carriers of political anti-Semitism. (p.198)

Earlier in the essay, Einstein articulates his central thesis:

Hence the hatred of the Jews by those who have reason to shun popular enlightenment. More than anything else in the world, they fear the influence of men of intellectual independence. I see in this the essential cause for the savage hatred of Jews raging in present-day Germany. To the Nazi group the Jews are not merely a means for turning the resentment of the people away from themselves, the oppressors; they see the Jews as a nonassimilable element that cannot be driven into uncritical acceptance of dogma, and that, therefore-as long as it exists at all—threatens their authority because of its insistence on popular enlightenment of the masses. (p.197)

The Rav notes that Avraham did not want to get involved in the conflict between the kings. He would have preferred to stay out of it. But because of his loyalty to Lot, he got involved.

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik - “The War Between in the Kings”

Of course, both blocs were opposed by Abraham. He would have wanted to remain neutral, outside the entire drama of the clash between these two mutually exclusive ideologies and political systems. Suddenly, Abraham was pulled in, for Lot was taken captive. At this point, Abraham had to side with one bloc against another; he had no choice. We cannot imagine Abraham as an ally of Sodom and Gomorrah, of people who were "exceedingly wicked and sinners before the Lord" (Gen. 13:13). But he couldn't help it, as Lot was a prisoner. (p.128)

My students once asked me why the Jews have so many different enemies. Perhaps the answer lies in this description of the war between the kings. The war between the kings reflects the history of the Jew in the world. There are two opposing ideologies, constantly in battle with one another. The Jewish people find themselves stuck in the middle. We are neither committed to the endless pursuit of power nor the endless pursuit of pleasure. We are neither fully capitalist, nor fully communist. We are not wholly democrat or republican, capitalist or socialist, collectivist or individualist. We live lives of nuance and complexity, balancing the needs of the individual with society, pursuing prosperity while prioritizing charity, promoting freedom while managing competing commitments. We are not really a culture, not merely a religion, not just a political entity. Often we find ourselves outsiders as a result.

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik - “The War Between in the Kings”

Abraham is called here Avram ha-Ivri (Gen. 14:13). He stands "on one side," me-ever ehad, and the entire rest of the world on the other (Gen. Rabbah 42:8). "Abram the Ivri" means Abram the singular one, the lonely one, Abram from the other side of the river. (p.130)

When my great-grandparents emigrated to the United States during the turn of the 20th century, even though they came from specific countries in Europe, under nationality their documents say “Hebrew”. This is what it means to be a Hebrew, an Ivri, often simply the other.

References

Einstein A. Seelig C. & Bargmann S. (1988/1954). Ideas and opinions. Wings Books ; Distributed by Random House Value Publishing.

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. Shatz D. Wolowelsky J. B. & Ziegler R. (2008). Abraham's journey : reflections on the life of the founding patriarch. Published for Toras HoRav Foundation by KTAV Pub. House.

Following the flood, Noach is commanded to leave the ark. He blesses Noach, and exhorts him and his children to repopulate the world. God makes a covenant that He will not destroy the land and its population again through a flood. He sets up the rainbow a sign of this covenant.

בראשית ט

(יב) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים זֹ֤את אֽוֹת־הַבְּרִית֙ אֲשֶׁר־אֲנִ֣י נֹתֵ֗ן בֵּינִי֙ וּבֵ֣ינֵיכֶ֔ם וּבֵ֛ין כׇּל־נֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אִתְּכֶ֑ם לְדֹרֹ֖ת עוֹלָֽם׃ (יג) אֶת־קַשְׁתִּ֕י נָתַ֖תִּי בֶּֽעָנָ֑ן וְהָֽיְתָה֙ לְא֣וֹת בְּרִ֔ית בֵּינִ֖י וּבֵ֥ין הָאָֽרֶץ׃

Beresheit 9

(12) God said, "This is the sign of the covenant that I am setting between Me and you and all living creatures with you, for everlasting generations. (13) I have set my bow in the cloud and it will be a sign of the covenant between Me and the earth.

The Ibn Ezra among others is about how exactly God designated the rainbow as a sign:

אבן עזרא פירוש ראשון בראשית ט:יג

את קשתי – הנה נתתי קשתי עתה בענן. ואין פירושו כאשר אמר הגאון: כי בתחלה היתה.

Ibn Ezra - First Commentary Bereshit 9:13

My bow – Behold, I now set a bow in the clouds. Saadiah Gaon's interpretation that the rainbow was previously in existence is incorrect.

The Ibn Ezra concludes, directly contrasting his opinion with that of Saadia Gaon, that the rainbow was a new physical phenomenon created at that moment. The Ramban disagrees:

רמב"ן בראשית ט:יב

המשמע מן האות הזה שלא היה קשת בענן ממעשה בראשית, ועתה ברא י"י חדשה לעשות קשת בשמים ביום ענן…על כרחנו נאמין לדברי היונים שמלהט השמש באויר הלח יהיה הקשת בתולדת, כי בכלי מים לפני השמש יראה כמראה הקשת, וכאשר נסתכל עוד בלשון הכתוב נבין כן כי [אמר: את קשתי נתתי בענן ו]לא אמר: אני נותן בענן, כאשר אמר: זאת אות הברית אשר אני נותן. ומלת קשתי תורה שהיתה לו הקשת תחלה, ולכך נפרש הכתוב: הקשת אשר נתתי בענן מיום הבראה, תהיה מן היום הזה והלאה לאות ברית ביני וביניכם, שכל זמן שאראנה אזכור כי ברית שלום ביני וביניכם…(ובין שתתחדש הקשת עתה, בין שהיתה מעולם בטבע, הטעם באות שבה אחד הוא.)

It would appear from this sign that the rainbow in the cloud was not part of creation and that now G-d created a new thing by making a rainbow in the heavens on a cloudy day…We must perforce believe the words of the Greek [philosophers who maintain] that the rainbow is a natural result of the heat of the sun falling upon damp air for even in a vessel containing water which stands in the sun there is the appearance of the rainbow. When contemplating the language of Scripture we will understand that it is so, for He said, I have set My bow in the cloud, [the use of the past tense indicating that He had already set it so from the beginning and it is not a new creation]. He did not say, "I set in the cloud," even as He said, This is the sign of the covenant which I make. Moreover, the word kashti (My bow) — [in the possessive form] — indicates that He possessed the bow previously. Therefore, we shall explain the verse thus: "The rainbow which I have set in the clouds from the day of creation will be from this day on a sign of covenant between Me and you; whenever I will see it I will remember that there is a covenant of peace between Me and you.”…Thus, whether the bow was a newly established phenomenon or one that always existed in nature, the significance thereof as a sign is the same.

The Ramban notes that a plain reading of the verse indicates that God created a rainbow in the clouds for the first time at this moment. But he goes on and explains that in light of our scientific understanding of rainbows, that a rainbow is made when light passes through water, a constant property of physics, that the rainbow is part of the fabric of the original creation. The Ramban then returns to a careful reading of our verse and notes that it doesn’t say “I am placing” a rainbow in the cloud, but rather “I placed” in passed tense. God didn’t create the rainbow for the first time during the period of Noach, but he did identify as a sign from that point forward to reflect this covenant between man and God.

This is a beautiful example of the interplay between Torah and science. The Ramban rejected one possible interpretation of Torah based on science, and went back to see a more accurate reading of the original verse based on the scientific understanding of the natural phenomenon. Scientific understanding assisted in the accurate interpretation of the Torah.

Rav Soloveitchik and Rav Hirsch discuss both Torah and Science as avenues to knowledge of God:

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik

This psalm (Tehilim 19) has two distinct themes, and there is no immediately apparent transition from the first to the second. The first part describes the cosmos, with emphasis upon the sun, since for our world, our solar system, the sun is the central focus. Then, in the middle of the psalm, the theme changes to Torah and mitzvot. King David is saying that God’s glory manifests itself in two media. First, the cosmos with it its endless energy, the dynamics of the universe, the velocity of life; and second, the medium of the Torah, the moral law, the Jewish law; it, too, tells the story of God’s glory. (The Koren Mesorat HaRav Siddur, p.445; Abraham’s Journey, p.144)

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsh - Commentary on the Siddur - Tehilim 19

The book of nature from which [we] derive [our] knowledge of God, and the Torah, from which [we] learn how to worship Him…the realization that there must be a God could come to anyone who thoughtfully contemplates nature…however…[this] does not…answer the question what man should do with his freedom of will and action. (Hirsch Siddur p.56)

Rav Soloveitchik and Rav Hirsch explain that we have two distinct pathways to the knowledge of God. Nature can indeed teach us about God. But only Torah can tell us how to live life. The food chain might reflect the infinite wisdom of the Creator, but it doesn’t tell us about how we should treat our fellow. We rely on the Torah to tell us how to relate to God and how to live meaningful lives inline with how we were designed by our Creator.

References

Hirsch R. S. R. (1997). סדור תפלות ישראל = the hirsch siddur ; the order of prayers for the whole year. Feldheim Feldheim.

Ibn Ezra, E., Strickman, H. N., & Silver, A. M. (1996). Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch: Perush ha-Torah : Genesis (Beresheit). New York: Menorah Publishing Company, Inc. Retrieved from: https://mg.alhatorah.org/Full/Bereshit/9.11#e0n6

Nahmanides & C.B. Chavel (1999). Commentary on the Torah. New York: Shilo. https://mg.alhatorah.org/Full/Bereshit/9.12#e0n6

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. B. (2011). Koren Mesorat HaRav Siddur. Koren.

Kayin brings an offering to God. His brother Hevel follows his lead and brings an offering of his own which is accepted by God. Kayin’s offering is rejected and he is crestfallen as a result. Before the episode spirals into murder, God gives Kayin a message:

בראשית ד:ז

הֲל֤וֹא אִם־תֵּיטִיב֙ שְׂאֵ֔ת וְאִם֙ לֹ֣א תֵיטִ֔יב לַפֶּ֖תַח חַטָּ֣את רֹבֵ֑ץ וְאֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָת֔וֹ וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּמְשׇׁל־בּֽוֹ׃

Beresheit 4:7

Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it."

The first part of this message is the novel idea that God grants man the power to completely erase previous mistakes (see Radak 4:6). The final clause has a striking similarity to a verse in the previous chapter:

בראשית ג:טז

(טז) אֶֽל־הָאִשָּׁ֣ה אָמַ֗ר הַרְבָּ֤ה אַרְבֶּה֙ עִצְּבוֹנֵ֣ךְ וְהֵֽרֹנֵ֔ךְ בְּעֶ֖צֶב תֵּֽלְדִ֣י בָנִ֑ים וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ךְ וְה֖וּא יִמְשׇׁל־בָּֽךְ׃

Beresheit 3:16

To the woman He said, "I shall surely increase your sorrow and your pregnancy; in pain you shall bear children. And to your husband will be your desire, and he will rule over you."

What is the connection between these two phrases? At first glance, there does not appear to be an obvious link. Saadia Gaon addresses the connection in the context of explaining the ideas ensconced in the Kayin and Hevel episode:

ר' סעדיה גאון פירוש בראשית ד:ז

והענין השני ענין הבחירה והרשות {הניתנת לאדם}. והוא שאמר: ואליך תשוקתו, דוגמת מה שאמר לחוה: ואל אישך תשוקתך. כמו שנתן לאיש את היכולת להטות את האשה, לרצונו, כך נתן לבני אדם את הכח להטות את מחשבתם לטובה או לרעה, כרצונם. ולפיכך אמר: ראה נתתי לפניך היום את החיים וגו' ובחרת בחיים.

Saadia Gaon - Commentary on the Torah 4:7

The second concept in the subject of free will and autonomy {which is given to man}. And that is what was stated: “And to you will be its desire” (4:6), illustrated in what was said to Chava: “and to your husband will be your desire” (3:16). Just as he gave man to ability to sway the woman, as he wills, so too human beings are given the ability to sway their thoughts to good or bad, as they will. Therefore it says: “Behold, I have given before you today, life…and you shall choose life” (Devarim 30:15-19).

Saadia Gaon describes an analogy. Just as man is given the ability to influence the woman after they are banished from the Garden of Eden, so too man is similarly given the ability to influence his thoughts. An interesting relationship is being described according to Saadia Gaon regarding man’s relationship with his thoughts and feelings. He is not given total control over his inner world. But he can influence it at a distance. This is apparently part of the message God gives to Kayin. It is difficult to instantly change how one feels about a situation. But one can guide his own perspective and attitude over time.

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsh - Commentary on Beresheit 4:7

Moreover, a few verses earlier, in the previous chapter (above, 3:16), we find the very same expressions in a similar sentence: “and to your husband will be your desire, and he will rule over you”, a description of woman’s relationship with her husband…Thus the relationship between man and sensuality resembles the relationship between husband and wife. Man should be ready to draw sensuality near and to form, together with it, one personality; but he must freely rule over his sensuality and, with its help, achieve every noble aim. For this reason, Scripture draws an analogy between these two relationships, and sensuality is compared to a woman. Accordingly, it is possible that our verse means this: Whether you will accept sensuality for good or for bad - for this purpose sensuality waits at the door; its intense longing is toward you, that you should master it…The basic meaning of Mashal is to express the essence of something, to state its nature and purpose. By extension, Mashal means: to rule. A ruler (Moshel) directs everyone as to what he is to be and to do. Thus, Mashal is not synonymous with Kovesh which means to force, to subjugate; rather, the primary meaning of Mashal is to guide and to lead.

Rav Hirsch offers a clarification about internal dynamics and the analogy to the dynamics between husband and wife. One can work together with his or her personality. The ideal is not necessarily to conquer or subjugate our tendencies, but to guide and sublimate them toward higher aims.

Jonathan Haidt, an eminent social psychologist, offers a useful analogy for man’s struggle to navigate and negotiate his personality. He describes that "the mind is divided into parts that sometimes conflict. Like a rider on the back of an elephant, the conscious, reasoning part of the mind has only limited control of what the elephant does” (Haidt, 2012). There have been many historical attempts to describe the competing forces within the human personality. What is compelling about Haidt’s particular metaphor is the quantity of power given to man’s higher or rational forces compared with his other natural impulses, and the implied delicate and subtle approach necessary to effectuate change. Success is not necessarily about pitting one force against another directly. Such an attempt can be futile, frustrating, and ultimately hopeless. Rather, just as the rider naturally guides the elephant, shaping where it decides to go over time, so too we have the ability to shape the development of our personality over time.

After Kayin makes an error, God gives him a specific message. Don’t overestimate your capabilities and the level you are at. The possibility of making a mistake is always there. But don’t underestimate yourself either. While change is not instantaneous or easy, profound and significant change is always possible .

References

Haidt J. (2006). The happiness hypothesis : finding modern truth in ancient wisdom. Basic Books.

Hirsch, R. S. R. (2008). Hirsch Chumash: Sefer Bereshis. Jerusalem - New York: Feldheim Publishers.

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/

It is the standard Ashkenazic custom to read the book of Kohelet on the intermediate Shabbat of Sukkot. The Sukkot holiday is described in our liturgy as zeman simchateinu –the time of our joy. Why was this book chosen to be read on the holiday of joy? One possibility is Kohelet’s focus on the concept of simchah, perhaps best translated as joy. What is Kohelet’s message regarding joy?

The book of Kohelet can be confusing at first read. The Talmud informs us that the sages considered excluding Kohelet from our Jewish canon because it includes many contradictions.

תלמוד בבלי – שבת ל:

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: בִּקְּשׁוּ חֲכָמִים לִגְנוֹז סֵפֶר קֹהֶלֶת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדְּבָרָיו סוֹתְרִין זֶה אֶת זֶה…וּמַאי דְּבָרָיו סוֹתְרִין זֶה אֶת זֶה? …כְּתִיב: {קהלת ח׳:ט״ו} ״וְשִׁבַּחְתִּי אֲנִי אֶת הַשִּׂמְחָה״ וּכְתִיב: {קהלת ב׳:ב׳} ״וּלְשִׂמְחָה מַה זֹּה עוֹשָׂה!?

Since contradictions in Ecclesiastes were mentioned, the Gemara cites additional relevant sources. Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: The Sages sought to suppress the book of Ecclesiastes and declare it apocryphal because its statements contradict each other and it is liable to confuse its readers…

Likewise in one verse it is written: “So I commended joy” (Ecclesiastes 8:15), and in another verse it is written: “And of joy: What does it accomplish?” (Ecclesiastes 2:2).

One example of the contradictions referenced in the Talmud is the following two verses:

קהלת פרק ב – ב לִשְׂח֖וֹק אָמַ֣רְתִּי מְהוֹלָ֑ל וּלְשִׂמְחָ֖ה מַה־זֹּ֥ה עֹשָֽׂה:

Kohelet Chapter 2 - a 2 Of laughter, I said, "[It is] mingled"; and concerning joy, "What does this accomplish?“

קהלת פרק ח – טו וְשִׁבַּ֤חְתִּֽי אֲנִי֙ אֶת־הַשִּׂמְחָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר אֵֽין־ט֤וֹב לָֽאָדָם֙ תַּ֣חַת הַשֶּׁמֶ֔שׁ כִּ֛י אִם־לֶֽאֱכֹ֥ל וְלִשְׁתּ֖וֹת וְלִשְׂמ֑וֹחַ וְה֞וּא יִלְוֶ֣נּוּ בַֽעֲמָל֗וֹ יְמֵ֥י חַיָּ֛יו אֲשֶׁר־נָֽתַן־ל֥וֹ הָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים תַּ֥חַת הַשָּֽׁמֶשׁ:

Kohelet Chapter 8 - 15 And I praised joy, for there is nothing better for man under the sun than to eat and to drink and to be merry, and that will accompany him in his toil the days of his life that God gave him under the sun.

The solution to the contradiction requires an understanding of King Solomon’s broader approach in Kohelet. King Solomon highlights a series of lifestyles, demonstrates man’s failure to find satisfaction in each, and highlights the fallacy underlying each pursuit. We follow the empire builder, the pleasure seeker, the ascetic religionist. None of these lifestyles provide satisfaction. Through many examples, Kohelet shows that if a person is pursuing satisfaction and fulfillment in some particular endeavor, it will remain elusive.

The holiday of Sukkot is also referred to as the chag ha’asif –the holiday of gathering. It comes at the end of the harvest season. The produce has been finally collected. Whether the crop was small or great, whether it was below expectations or exceeded expectations, the obligation to rejoice remains the same. We are commanded to rejoice in the holiday. The book of Kohelet directly discusses enjoying the fruits of one’s labors.

קהלת פרק ג – יב יָדַ֕עְתִּי כִּ֛י אֵ֥ין ט֖וֹב בָּ֑ם כִּ֣י אִם־לִשְׂמ֔וֹחַ וְלַֽעֲשׂ֥וֹת ט֖וֹב בְּחַיָּֽיו: יג וְגַ֤ם כָּל־הָֽאָדָם֙ שֶׁיֹּאכַ֣ל וְשָׁתָ֔ה וְרָאָ֥ה ט֖וֹב בְּכָל־עֲמָל֑וֹ מַתַּ֥ת אֱלֹהִ֖ים הִֽיא:

Kohelet Chapter 3 - 12 I knew that there is nothing better for them but to rejoice and to do good during his lifetime. 13 And also, every man who eats and drinks and enjoys what is good in all his toil, it is a gift of God.

קהלת פרק ה – יז הִנֵּ֞ה אֲשֶׁר־רָאִ֣יתִי אָ֗נִי ט֣וֹב אֲשֶׁר־יָפֶ֣ה לֶֽאֱכ֣וֹל־וְ֠לִשְׁתּ֠וֹת וְלִרְא֨וֹת טוֹבָ֜ה בְּכָל־עֲמָל֣וֹ | שֶׁיַּֽעֲמֹ֣ל תַּֽחַת־הַשֶּׁ֗מֶשׁ מִסְפַּ֧ר יְמֵֽי־חַיָּ֛ו אֲשֶׁר־נָֽתַן־ל֥וֹ הָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־ה֥וּא חֶלְקֽוֹ: יח גַּ֣ם כָּֽל־הָֽאָדָ֡ם אֲשֶׁ֣ר נָֽתַן־ל֣וֹ הָֽאֱלֹהִים֩ עֹ֨שֶׁר וּנְכָסִ֜ים וְהִשְׁלִיט֨וֹ לֶֽאֱכֹ֤ל מִמֶּ֨נּוּ֙ וְלָשֵׂ֣את אֶת־חֶלְק֔וֹ וְלִשְׂמֹ֖חַ בַּֽעֲמָל֑וֹ זֹ֕ה מַתַּ֥ת אֱלֹהִ֖ים הִֽיא:

Kohelet Chapter 5 - 17 Behold what I saw; it is good, yea, it is beautiful, to eat and drink and to experience goodness with all his toil that he toils under the sun, the number of the days of his life that God gave him, for that is his portion. 18 Also every man whom God has given riches and property and has given him power to eat thereof and to take his portion and to rejoice with his toil; that is a gift of God.

There are many barriers we face in enjoying life, appreciating the gifts granted to us by God. We expected more than what we received. Our neighbor amassed more than us. The produce didn’t taste as good as we had hoped. The Vilna Gaon is quoted as saying that the most difficult mitzvah to fulfill was to be happy during the entire 7 days of the holiday. There is an art to enjoying life, and despite the bounty life offers, joy is not automatic.

Properly enjoying life is one of the fundamental themes in the book of Kohelet. The larger book discusses many variations, but an approach emerges from a careful read. Pleasure is wonderful accompaniment to life. Life filled with subtle pleasures is a blessing. In contrast, a life of pleasure-seeking is miserable. Pleasure is a spice of life. It’s not its main course. It doesn’t provide meaning inherently. Just like making a meal out of spices is empty and frustrating, a life looking for meaning in pleasure is unsatisfying. But learning to enjoy moments of pleasure is a delightful accoutrement to a life well-lived. According to Kohelet, it is a gift granted to us by 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/

A story is told about Rebbe Akiva in tractate Menachot (23b-24a). He was traveling among other sages to Jerusalem around 130 CE, after the destruction of the second temple. They arrived at a vantage point on Mount Scopus which currently hosts Hebrew University. Upon seeing the site where the temple had so recently stood, they tore their clothes, the time honored ritual of Keriyah expressing mourning. When they arrived at the Temple Mount, a fox emerged from the site where the holy of holies had previously stood. The other Sages began to cry, but Rebbe Akiva began to smile. What was it that Rebbe Akiva saw that the other sages did not? What was it about his worldview that allowed him to see what others didn’t. What was his unique perspective?

In discussing the philosophy of Sefirat HaOmer, Rav Soloveitchik asserts the following:

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik - “Counting Time”

We may state that Judaism has formulated a unique philosophy of time. We ought to experience time simultaneously in its two dimensions, as recollection and anticipation, as review and meditation, and as quest and search. Time is the experiential memory that reaches out for the as yet non-real future…the Jew is aware experientially of the past and committed to the future, which is a reality to him. To exist as a Jew, means to be at the junction of past and future, of that which is no longer real and that which is not yet real. Our mission is to live in both dimensions.

He goes on to explain that many mitzvot prompt us not just to remember the past, but to re-experience it. On Pesach we say, “In each and every generation we are obligated to see ourselves as we personally left Egypt” (Pesach Hagadah). On Tisha B’av we personally observe the mourning customs as if the temple was destroyed in our own time. Avraham minted coins depicting a young man and woman on one side, and an elderly couple on the other (Bava Kamma 97b). This represents the idea that youth and old age, past and future, are two sides of the same coin. Jews have a very close relationship to the past. We also have a deep conviction about the future. We wait, we anticipate, tomorrow is just on the horizon. We support the State of Israel even if we don’t live there, we invest emphatically in education, we are dedicated to passing down our Mesora Tradition from one generation to the next. The Jewish people experience time simultaneously in two dimensions. The present is fleeting, while the past the and future loom large.

The Rav goes on to note that counting takes a pre-eminent role in halacha. We count and quantify many things. “This experiential merger of past and future, of recollection and anticipation, is symbolized by the process of counting” (p.177). During the time when we engage in counting the Omer, we observe an interesting custom:

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים תצג

נוֹהֲגִים שֶׁלֹּא לִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה בֵּין פֶּסַח לַעֲצֶרֶת עַד ל"ג לָעֹמֶר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ זְמַן מֵתוּ תַּלְמִידֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא

Shulchan Aruch 493

It is our custom not to marry a woman between Pesach and Shavuot until Lag Ba’Omer (Day 33), because during that time the students of Rebbe Akiva died.

While the Talmud (Bavli Yevamot 62b) faults Rebbe Akiva’s students for not treating each other with respect, and a further discussion indicates they died a bad death including a plague or disease, Rav Sherira Gaon adds an additional element:

איגרת רב שרירא גאון כיצד – נכתבה המשנה – י

ומסר רבי עקיבא את עצמו להריגה (ברכות סא, ב) אחר שנפטר רבי יוסי בן קסמא, ונהרג ר' חנינא בן תרדיון ונתמעטה החכמה אחריהם. והעמיד ר' עקיבא תלמידים הרבה והוה שמדא על התלמידים של ר' עקיבא, והות סמכא דישראל על התלמידים שניים של ר' עקיבא, דאמור רבנן שנים עשר אלף תלמידים היו לו לר' עקיבא מגבת ועד אנטיפטרס וכלם מתו מפסח ועד עצרת והיה העולם שמם והולך עד שבאו אצל רבותיהם שבדרום ושנאה להם רבי מאיר ור' יוסי ר' יהודה ור' שמעון ור' אלעזר בן שמוע והם העמידוה באותה שעה כדאיתא ביבמות (סב, ב).

Rabbi Akiva sacrificed his life after the death of Rabbi Yosi ben Kisma; and then Rabbi Channina ben Teradyon was executed. The wisdom of the sages decreased after the passing [of these great men]. Rabbi Akiva had trained many students, but there was a persecution against the students of Rabbi Akiva [and they died]. Thus, the authority over Yisrael was entrusted to his latter students, as the sages teach: "Rabbi Akiva had twenty-four thousand students extending from Geves to Antipatris,* and all of them died between Peach and Shavous. The world remained desolate until the students came and studied under the sages of the south who taught [the Torah] to them. And it was they who revived [the Torah] at that time.

What is the connection between R’ Akiva and ספירת העומר? Rebbe Akiva was the religious leader of the Jewish people following the destruction of the second temple. He was a proponent of the Jewish’s people’s independent sovereignty in Israel and a supporter of Bar Kokhba’s revolt. The Roman’s targeted Rebbe Akiva and eventually executed him. Rav Sherira Gaon indicates that his 24,000 followers were persecuted. Thus emerges a picture which closely ties the death of Rebbe Akiva’s students to the failure to rebuild the temple, and the institution of counting the Omer as a commemoration of the temple (see last week’s Counting and Remembering the Mikdash).

Thus during the period between Pesach and Shavuot, we mourn the loss of Rebbe Akiva and his students. Rebbe Akiva personifies our unique time awareness, a perspective about our shared past and future. Counting time can remind us to see the world through the eyes of Rebbe Akiva, as a reflection of our rich, deep, and at times tragic past, and with eyes towards our promising, beautiful, and emerging future.

When Rebbe Akiva reached the Temple Mount, the Sages who were with him cried, while he smiled. He was clearly seeing this scene from a different perspective. The Sages asked him why he smiled. He asked them why they were crying. They replied “a place which the Torah writes ‘one who is not a Kohen and approaches shall die’ and now a fox prowls through this holy place. Should we not weep in response?” Rebbe Akiva replies: There are linked prophecies about the destruction and rejuvenation of Jerusalem. This level of destruction was indeed previously almost unimaginable. But just as I see this incredible level of destruction with my own eyes, I can also see the vision of the future which would otherwise be unimaginable. The Sages saw the scene only in the present. Rebbe Akiva saw it in light of both the past and the future.

Rebbe Akiva embodies and exemplifies this unique perspective of time awareness. He is able to see in the present, both a reflection of past events, and simultaneously an image of the future. He is a Jewish visionary, deeply enmeshed in the past, focused passionately upon what lies ahead on the horizon.

יהי רצון…שיבנה בית המקדש במהרה בימנו ותן חלקנו בתורתך, ושם נעבדך ביראה כימי עולם וכשנים קדמניות

May it be Your will to rebuild the temple speedily in our days, and give us a portion in your Torah, and there we will serve you in awe, as in days past and in previous years.

References

Soloveitchik, J. D. (2006). Festival of freedom: Essays on Pesah and the Haggadah. New York: KTAV Publ. House.

Parshat Emor outlines the mitzvah of counting the Omer in the context of annual holidays:

ויקרא כג טו וּסְפַרְתֶּ֤ם לָכֶם֙ מִמָּֽחֳרַ֣ת הַשַּׁבָּ֔ת מִיּוֹם֙ הֲבִ֣יאֲכֶ֔ם אֶת־עֹ֖מֶר הַתְּנוּפָ֑ה שֶׁ֥בַע שַׁבָּת֖וֹת תְּמִימֹ֥ת תִּֽהְיֶֽינָה: טז עַ֣ד מִמָּֽחֳרַ֤ת הַשַּׁבָּת֙ הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔ת תִּסְפְּר֖וּ חֲמִשִּׁ֣ים י֑וֹם וְהִקְרַבְתֶּ֛ם מִנְחָ֥ה חֲדָשָׁ֖ה לַֽיהֹוָֽה:

Vayikra 23 15 And you shall count for yourselves, from the morrow of the rest day from the day you bring the omer as a wave offering seven weeks; they shall be complete. 16 You shall count until the day after the seventh week, [namely,] the fiftieth day, [on which] you shall bring a new meal offering to the Lord.

The Torah outlines the requirement to count both days and weeks. The Gemara discusses whether this procedure changes after the destruction of the Temple:

תלמוד בבלי מנחות סו.

גופא אמר אביי מצוה למימני יומי ומצוה למימני שבועי רבנן דבי רב אשי מנו יומי ומנו שבועי אמימר מני יומי ולא מני שבועי אמר זכר למקדש הוא.

Talmud Bavli Menachot 66a

The Gemara analyzes the matter itself of Abaye’s statement cited in the course of the previous discussion. Abaye said: It is a mitzva to count days, and it is also a mitzva to count weeks. The Gemara notes that in fact the Sages of the study hall of Rav Ashi counted days and they also counted weeks. Ameimar counted days but not weeks. In explanation of his practice, Ameimar said: Since there is no longer an omer offering, the counting is performed only in commemoration of the Temple. Therefore, one does not need to count both days and weeks.

The Gemara confirms that we are commanded to count both days and weeks. The Rabbis in the academy of Rav Ashi followed this standard formulation. Ameimar however counted only days following the destruction of the Temple and not weeks.

רש"י מנחות סו. – אמימר מני יומי ולא שבועי – אמר האי מניינא דהשתא לאו חובה הוא דהא ליכא עומר אלא זכר למקדש בעלמא הוא הלכך ביומי סגי.

Rashi Menachot 66a – [Amaimar held] that from the fact that nowadays there is not a (full-fledged) obligation since we no longer have the Omer [offering], rather it is a commemoration of the temple in general, therefore [counting] the days is sufficient.

According to Rashi, since the nature of the mitzvah changed after the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash. We alter the method of counting, apparently to differentiate it from the observance as it was previously practiced. What is the idea behind this modification? Why tinker with the formulation outlined in the Torah?

The Rav explained that there are two distinct modes of commemorating the Best HaMikdash. One is exemplified by certain mourning practices adopted by the Jewish people after the destruction:

תלמוד בבלי בבא בתרא ס:

עושה אשה כל תכשיטיה ומשיירת דבר מועט מאי היא אמר רב בת צדעא שנאמר {תהלים קל"ז:ה'} אם אשכחך ירושלים תשכח ימיני תדבק לשוני לחכי וגו’. מאי על ראש שמחתי אמר רב יצחק זה אפר מקלה שבראש חתנים א״ל רב פפא לאביי היכא מנח לה במקום תפילין שנאמר {ישעיהו ס״א:ג׳} לשום לאבלי ציון לתת להם פאר תחת אפר. וכל המתאבל על ירושלים זוכה ורואה בשמחתה שנאמר {ישעיהו ס״ו:י׳} שמחו את ירושלים וגו׳.

Talmud Bavli Bava Batra 60b

Rabbi Yehoshua continues: The Sages said that a woman may engage in all of her cosmetic treatments, but she must leave out a small matter to remember the destruction of the Temple. The Gemara interjects: What is this small matter? Rav said: She does not remove hair from the place on the temple from which women would remove hair. The source for these practices is a verse, as it is stated: “If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its cunning. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I remember you not; if I set not Jerusalem above my highest joy” (Psalms 137:5–6). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Above my highest [rosh] joy? Rav Yitzḥak says: This is referring to the burnt ashes that are customarily placed on the head [rosh] of bridegrooms at the time of their wedding celebrations, to remember the destruction of the Temple. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Where are they placed? Abaye replied: On the place where phylacteries are placed, as it is stated: “To appoint to them that mourn in Zion, to give to them a garland in place of ashes” (Isaiah 61:3). Since phylacteries are referred to as a garland (see Ezekiel 24:17), it may be inferred from this verse that the ashes were placed in the same place as the phylacteries. The baraita continues: And anyone who mourns for the destruction of Jerusalem will merit and see its joy, as it is stated: “Rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all that love her; rejoice for joy with her, all that mourn for her” (Isaiah 66:10).

Another mode of commemoration is exemplified in the practice of taking the Lulav all 7 days, even in exile:

תלמוד בבלי סוכה מא.

מַתְנִיתִין: בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, הָיָה לוּלָב נִיטָּל בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ שִׁבְעָה, וּבַמְּדִינָה יוֹם אֶחָד. מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, הִתְקִין רַבַּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי שֶׁיְּהֵא לוּלָב נִיטָּל בַּמְּדִינָה שִׁבְעָה, זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּש

גְּמָרָא: מְנָא לַן דְּעָבְדִינַן זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ? אֲמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דַּאֲמַר קְרָא: {ירמיהו ל׳:י״ז} ״כִּי אַעֲלֶה אֲרוּכָה לָךְ, וּמִמַּכּוֹתַיִךְ אֶרְפָּאֵךְ, נְאֻם ה׳, כִּי נִדָּחָה קָרְאוּ לָךְ, צִיּוֹן הִיא דּוֹרֵשׁ אֵין לָהּ.״ דּוֹרֵשׁ אֵין לָהּ, מִכְּלָל דְּבָעְיָא דְּרִישָׁה.

Talmud Bavli Sukkah 41a

Mishna: Originally, during the Temple era, the lulav was taken in the Temple for seven days, and in the rest of the country outside the Temple it was taken for one day. Once the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted an ordinance that the lulav should be taken even in the rest of the country for seven days, in commemoration of the Temple.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that we institute ordinances in commemoration of the Temple? Rabbi Yoḥanan said that it is as the verse states: “For I will restore health unto you and I will heal you of your wounds, says the Lord; because they have called you an outcast, she is Zion, there is none that seeks her” (Jeremiah 30:17). From the fact that the verse states: “There is none that seeks her,” it can be learned by inference that it requires seeking, i.e., people should think of and remember the Temple. That is the reason for Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s ordinance.

The Rav explains these two modes of commemoration. One mode, expressed by the verse “If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its cunning. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I remember you not; if I set not Jerusalem above my highest joy” (Psalms 137:5–6) reminds us of the incredible loss we experienced as a result of the destruction of the Temple. Even at times of great joy, such as a wedding, we do not get carried away in our celebration without acknowledging this loss and our hope for rebuilding in the future. According to Ameimar, we modify the method of counting the Omer to remind us of our current state of affairs and our corresponding hope for a better future.

A second mode of commemoration reminds us of the glory of the Beit HaMikdash. In this mode of commemoration, we extend the observance outside of its normal boundaries. The Rav referred to this as “Kedusha Imperialism”. This is based on the verse ““For I will restore health unto you and I will heal you of your wounds, says the Lord; because they have called you an outcast, she is Zion, there is none that seeks her” (Jeremiah 30:17). We seek out Zion through our observance to remediate this loss.

Perhaps this explains the debate in our original Gemara (Menachot 66a) between the Rabbis in the academy of Rav Ashi and Ameimar. There debate centered around whether in a post-mikdash world we adopt a modified method of counting to remind us of the destruction (Ameimar), or a full-fledged counting modeled after Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakai’s bold concept of “Kedusha Imperialism”, extending the opportunity to encounter God within the four cubits of halakha.

References

Rosenberg, A. (1980). A new English translation of the Hebrew Bible text and Rashi, with a …

Judaism advocates for a bold implementation of justice. We have always stood in opposition to the conception that might makes right. Among the many legal and moral principles outlined in Parshat Kedoshim, including paying a worker’s wages on-time, having only even weights and measures, and loving your neighbor as yourself, we encounter a concept central to the administration of justice:

ויקרא יט

(טו) לֹא־תַעֲשׂ֥וּ עָ֙וֶל֙ בַּמִּשְׁפָּ֔ט לֹא־תִשָּׂ֣א פְנֵי־דָ֔ל וְלֹ֥א תֶהְדַּ֖ר פְּנֵ֣י גָד֑וֹל בְּצֶ֖דֶק תִּשְׁפֹּ֥ט עֲמִיתֶֽךָ׃

Vayikra 19

15 You should not commit any distortion in judgment; you should not show preference to a poor person, nor show extra honor to someone who is great; with justice you should judge your people.

We often hear about the preference our modern justice system gives to the rich and powerful. But it is interesting that we are first warned not to give preference to the poor. What is the Torah’s concern that we must guard against preference for the poor along with the rich?

רש"י ויקרא יט:טו

לא תשא פני דל – שלא תאמר עני הוא והעשיר הזה חייב לפרנסו, אזכנו, ונמצא מתפרנס בנקיות.

לא תהדר פני גדול – שלא תאמר: עשיר הוא זה, בן גדולים הוא זה, היאך אביישינו ואראה בבושתו, עונש יש בדבר, לכך נאמר: לא תהדר פני גדול.

Rashi Vayikra 19:15

You shall not favor a poor person – [This means] that you shall not say, “This man is poor, and the rich man is obligated to provide him with sustenance; therefore, I will acquit him in judgment, and he will thus be sustained respectably.”- [Torath Kohanim 19:37]

or show respect to the great – [This means] that you shall not say, “This man is rich, the son of prominent people; how can I embarrass him and behold his shame? That would surely be a punishable act!” Therefore, Scripture says here, “or respect a great man.” - [Torath Kohanim 19:38]

Rashi addresses the potential for a distortion of justice in favor of the poor. It is a core value to sustain and support those less fortunate. The Torah requires the farmer to leave the corners of his field and fallen produce to the poor, and we are obligated to use portions of our wealth and sustenance to support those in need. Perhaps when the rich and poor come before the justice system, this provides an opportunity to correct a perceived imbalance and support the poor? The Torah cautions us against this thinking. The judiciary process must be solely independent and focused on truth. This does not mean we are indifferent to the plight of the poor. Our obligations to support our fellow remain in full force. But the justice system must maintain its internal integrity.

משלי כד:כג

גַּם־אֵ֥לֶּה לַחֲכָמִ֑ים הַֽכֵּר־פָּנִ֖ים בְּמִשְׁפָּ֣ט בַּל־טֽוֹב׃

Mishlei 24:23

Also for the wise, showing preference in judgement is not good.

This is a somewhat strange statement. Why would this idea not apply to those who are wise? Why do I need a verse in Mishlei to tell me something that is explicit in the Torah?

מצודת דוד משלי כד:כג

גם אלה לחכמים – ר"ל עם כי נראה שהדברים האלה כל חכם יבין מדעתו ואין מהצורך להזהירו מ"מ אמורים גם המה לחכמים והם יוסיפו לקח להבין תוכיות הדברים.

הכר פנים – ר״ל אף לעשות משפט אמת ולומר להיוצא זכאי הנה הכרתי פניך לזכותך הנה לא טוב ידבר כי יש בדבר ח״ה לפני הזכאים.

Metzudot David Mishlei 24:23

These are also for the wise – Granted that these matters would be intuitive to a wise person, and it would seem unnecessary to warn him, nonetheless these statements are also for the wise, as they will perceive and internalize the ideas inherent in these subjects.

To show preference – Even to conduct true judgement, but to say (afterward) to the one who is innocent, “behold I gave you preference for your (general) merit,” behold this is not appropriate to say, for it is a desecration of God (even merely) before those who are innocent.

The Metzudot starts off by explaining that while these ideas might be intuitive to the wise, they will still benefit from review and further internalization. This also addresses why Mishlei emphasizes something that is explicit in the Torah. The concept might be clear, but the implementation can nonetheless be a challenge and requires additional attention. It also underscores that any perceived preference in judgement desecrates our Divinely mandated system of justice. Even if it has no impact on the particular judgement, even a minor show of preference merely to the wise, nonetheless distorts the institution of our judiciary system and is an assault on justice.

The verse in Vayikra reminds us that the judicial process must not show partiality to any individual, whether rich or poor, powerful or weak. The verse in Mishlei reminds us that this idea must be studied and internalized. The system of justice cannot bend to any person or any external agenda. Justice is the cornerstone of society, regulating our interpersonal affairs, the foundation of our cooperative enterprise. The Torah emphasizes that in order for our justice system to function properly, it must maintain its integrity, through adherence to its internal principles, and its impartial implementation.

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/

There are two different versions of the third mishna in Avot that have very different meanings. The standard text reads:

פרקי אבות א:ג

(ג) אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אִישׁ סוֹכוֹ קִבֵּל מִשִּׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אַל תִּהְיוּ כַעֲבָדִים הַמְשַׁמְּשִׁין אֶת הָרַב עַל מְנָת לְקַבֵּל פְּרָס, אֶלָּא הֱווּ כַעֲבָדִים הַמְשַׁמְּשִׁין אֶת הָרַב שֶׁלֹּא עַל מְנָת לְקַבֵּל פְּרָס, וִיהִי מוֹרָא שָׁמַיִם עֲלֵיכֶם.

Pirkei Avot 1:3

Antigonus of Socho received the tradition from Shimon the Righteous. He used to say: Do not operate like servants who serve the Master on condition of receiving a reward; rather, operate like servants who serve the Master not on condition of receiving a reward. And may the awe of Heaven be upon you.

According to this version, Antigonus of Socho is telling us that we should not serve Hashem contingent on receiving a reward, but we should serve Hashem regardless of whether we receive a reward or not. However, the text of the Kaufman manuscript, generally considered to be the most definitive version of the Mishna, reads as follows:

משנה כתב יד קאופמן אבות א:ג

[ג] אַנְטִיגְנַס אִישׁ סוֹכוֹ קִבֵּל מִשִּׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר: אַל תִּהְיוּ כַעֲבָדִים הַמְשַׁמְּשִׁים אֶת הָרַב עַל מְנָת לְקַבֵּל פְּרָס; אֶלָּא הֱיוּ כַעֲבָדִים הַמְשַׁמְּשִׁים אֶת הָרַב עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא לְקַבֵּל פְּרָס. וִיהֵא מוֹרָא שָׁמַיִם עֲלֵיכֶם.

Mishna Avot 1:3 - Kaufman Manuscript

Antigonus of Socho received the tradition from Shimon the Righteous. He used to say: Do not operate like servants who serve the Master on condition of receiving a reward; rather, operate like servants who serve the Master on condition of not receiving a reward. And may the awe of Heaven be upon you.

According to this version, Antigonus of Socho is telling us that we should serve Hashem on condition that we do not receive any reward at all. This is also the text of the Rambam and Rabbeinu Yonah among other Rishonim. But then the statement of Antigonus of Socho becomes difficult to understand. Don’t we expect to derive some benefit from our observance of mitzvot? Isn’t reward and punishment one of the foundational ideas of the Torah (#11 of the Rambam’s 13 fundamentals)? We discuss the rewards for Torah in the second paragraph of the Shema which we recite twice a day. What then are we to take away from the statement of Antigonus of Socho? The Rambam in his commentary on Avot helps us clarify our terms and the concept:

פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם מסכת אבות פרק א

[ג] פרס ייקרא הגמול אשר יגמול האדם מי שאינו חייב לו בדין, אלא יעשה זה על דרך החסד וההטבה, כמי שיאמר לעבדו, או לבנו הקטן, או לאשתו: עשה כך, ואתן לך דינר או שנים. וזה הוא ההבדל בין פרס ושכר, כי השכר חייבים בו בדין. ואמר זה החסיד, שאתם לא תעבדו את ה' על תנאי שייטיב לכם ויגמלכם חסד, ותקוו לגמול ותעבדו בעבורו, אלא עבדוהו כעבדים שאינם מקווים לחסד ולא להטבה, רצה בזה: שיהיו עובדים מאהבה, כמו שבארנו בעשירי מסנהדרין. ועם זה לא פטרם מן היראה, ואמר: ועם היותכם עובדין מאהבה, אל תניחו היראה לגמרי, ויהא מורא שמים עליכם, כי כבר באה גם כן בתורה המצוה ביראה, והוא אומרו: +דברים ו יג+ "את ה' אלהיך תירא". ואמרו החכמים: "עבוד מאהבה, עבוד מיראה". ואמרו: "האוהב לא יחמיץ מצוה, והירא לא יעבור על אזהרה", כי ליראה מבוא גדול במצוות לא תעשה, וביחוד במצוות השימעיות.

Rambam - Commentary on Mishna Avot

A Peras is what we call the reward the one provides to another without an obligation. Rather, one does so out of kindness and goodwill. This is like if one says to his servant, young child, or wife, if you do such and such I will give you a few coins. This is the difference between a Peras or prize and Sechar or compensation, for compensation is an obligation. And this pious one said, that you should not serve Hashem on condition that he does some good for you and rewards you based on kindness, that you should hope for a [particular] reward and serve him because of it. Rather, you should serve him like servants that are not hoping for some kindness or particular benefit. In other words, that we should serve out of love, as we have explained in the 10th chaper of Sanhedrin. And with this idea, we should not exempt ourselves from awe, as he said, and with serving out of love, don’t abandon awe completely, “And may the awe of Heaven be upon you.” For the Torah has been explicit about the commandment of Awe, as it said: “and you shall be in awe of Hashem” (Devarim 6:13). And our sages said, “serve out of love, and serve out of awe”, and said “one who loves will not leave behind an opportunity to do a mitzvah, and one who is in awe will not violate a prohibition. For through awe one appreciates the weight of the negative commandments, and together [with love one appreciates even] those mitzvot we don’t fully comprehend.

The Rambam makes an important clarification about the term Peras, distinguishing it from the concept of compensation. The term פרס Peras is probably best translated as a prize. This is different than something that a person earns, that would fall under the term שכר Sechar or compensation. A prize is an extraneous reward not based on any natural obligation.

We’re supposed to relate to our service of Hashem as having intrinsic value. It is not based on some extrinsic prize. In the analogy given by Antigonus of Socho, a true employee or servant has an appreciation for the objectives of the master. That’s not to say that we don’t receive a benefit or reward as the result of our service. The Sforno draws our attention to the following verse:

דברים י:יב–יג

וְעַתָּה, יִשְׂרָאֵל--מָה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, שֹׁאֵל מֵעִמָּךְ: כִּי אִם-לְיִרְאָה אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָלֶכֶת בְּכָל-דְּרָכָיו, וּלְאַהֲבָה אֹתוֹ, וְלַעֲבֹד אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשֶׁךָ. יג לִשְׁמֹר אֶת-מִצְוֺת יְהוָה, וְאֶת-חֻקֹּתָיו, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ, הַיּוֹם--לְטוֹב, לָךְ.

Devarim 10:12

And now Israel, what does Hashem your God ask of you? But only to fear God, to follow in all his ways, and to love Him, and to serve Hashem your God with all your heart and with all your soul. To guard the mitzvot of Hashem and his rules, that I command you today, for your benefit.

We should recognize that following Torah benefits us. If we need an external prize to engage in Torah, it means we don’t fully appreciate the inherent value of the Torah system and its observance. This explains Antigonus of Socho’s statement “on condition of not receiving a prize”. We should not be interested in some extraneous prize, but rather we should serve Hashem based on the intrinsic value of the service. The final clause in the mishna is “And may the awe of Heaven be upon you.” As the Rambam explains, our sense of awe reminds us to avoid the harms outlined in the Torah and codified in the Torah’s prohibitions. Our sense of love attracts us to the beauty of Torah and the divine wisdom implanted in the positive commandments. Awe and love of God compliment each other.