web analytics
October 25, 2014 / 1 Heshvan, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Holy Temple’

Broken Glass

Wednesday, January 9th, 2008

To my eldest daughter, Esther, upon her recent marriage.


 


 


It happens at every chuppah. After the bride’s encircling of the groom seven times, after the recital of the special blessings, after the ring has been placed on her finger, there are a few seconds of collective silence in anticipation. Then there is the definite loud crunching of glass as shards are being broken under foot, followed by the uproarious “mazal tov” issued in unison from everyone present.


 


The broken glass under the chuppah is meant to remind us of the destruction of the Holy Temple. Even in a moment of such blissful happiness at the uniting of two souls in marriage, we remember that we are still in bitter exile.


 


Interestingly, though, the breaking of the glass has become the signal for everyone to call out the congratulatory, “mazal tov!” It’s almost as if it is the breaking glass that confirms the marriage, validates the joy, and endorses the momentousness of this wonderful new beginning.


 


Why has a moment that is meant to signify the sadness of the Temple’s destruction developed into such a congratulatory event, the signature moment, almost, of the marriage ceremony?


 


I was thinking about this, upon the recent marriage of my eldest daughter. And I thought that perhaps the deeper, more conceptual message of the breaking of the glass is the reminder that being in exile means that our lives are not perfect. That we are not complete, but rather broken.


 


There is no person who is flawless. True, every kallah (bride) standing beneath the chuppah believes (and should believe so) that her groom is so perfect, so wonderful, so talented and so capable, so sensitive and caring. And he, too, surely feels the same about her – that he is marrying the ideal woman, faultless to the core, and that there is no one in the world as special, intelligent and caring as she.


 


The two of them together have also dreamed the perfect dream of how complete and perfect their life together will be. How much they will both accomplish, how they will each work side by side harmoniously, how meaningful and fulfilling it will all be.


 


But perhaps the breaking of the glass under the chuppah is there to remind both of them (and all of us) that every vision is a little bit flawed, that every dream has a hole in it, that every life has some cracks. That every person has imperfections, deficiencies, and areas of incompleteness.


 


Perhaps it is only when we are each prepared to acknowledge that we don’t need to be flawless for there to be a strong love for one another, that our life doesn’t have to be perfectly whole for it to be rich and meaningful – only then can each of us move forward, and only then can a bride and groom truly begin their new unified life together.


 


So under the chuppah, the bride and groom (and each of us present) will make that small symbolic “shattering” of perception of each other’s perfection, and accept one another wholly as s/he is, cracks, fissures and all. That moment of absolute acceptance will forge the everlasting bond between the new couple.


 


And, as for those of us present, only once we are each able to break the vision of our own lives and dreams, as being so whole and perfect, are we ready to begin to repair our world, to pick up the broken pieces of our exile and to truly begin building a redeemed existence.


 


May it be with good mazal!

The Miracle Of Trying

Wednesday, December 19th, 2007

         Chanukah has come and gone, and so have the donuts, the latkes and the celebration of the two amazing miracles that took place at that time. The first, of course, was the successful revolt of a ragtag group of religious Jews against the physical and spiritual presence of the Hellenist Greeks in the land of Israel. The second was the lasting of one day’s supply of oil in the Temple for eight days.


 


         These miracles are not something to think about for just one week during the year. They should be on our minds daily, for they offer a life-enhancing lesson that we should take to heart.

 

         This lesson is simple. Do not let the facts on the ground ever deter you from trying to reach a goal.

 

         It might be amusing for some to discover (like I did) that this message of trying, despite the “facts” staring at you, was often brought forth in the popular science-fiction series, “Star Trek.” It would seem that in just about every episode, the chief engineer of the spaceship exploring the galaxy would be ordered by the captain “to get us out of here.” The spaceship would be in imminent danger of being destroyed by an exploding asteroid, swallowed up by a space monster the size of a planet or trapped forever in another dimension – unless it quickly went to warp speed and zoomed away.

 

         Often the captain would tell the chief engineer that he had about three minutes to repair the warp drive. And the chief engineer, in a reproachful voice, would tell the captain that he needed at least 30 minutes and that he “couldn’t change the laws of physics.” But he would always try, and he always succeeded.

 

         Of course this was television, and a happy ending was necessary for the show to continue. But the lesson here is the one we can glean by examining the Chanukah miracles that describe two situations that, on paper, seemed hopeless and thus not worth trying to do something about.

 

         The first revolved around a group of outnumbered Jews fighting to oust their enemy. The Greek army had a large, well-oiled fighting machine. It’s likely Matityahu, the leader of the Jewish freedom fighters, must have repeatedly been warned not to even think about fighting the Greeks.

 

         Similarly when it came time to light the menorah in the Holy Temple and there was only enough oil for one day, the opinion of most might have been, “don’t bother, the flame is not going to last – so why waste what you have?”

 

         However, like the fictional chief engineer on the spaceship, Matityahu did not let logic or the laws of nature stop him from trying. He did not let the extreme odds against success hold him back from “going for it.”

 

         And neither should we. The road of life is full of potholes and seeming dead-ends. Faced with these damaging bumps in the road, or barriers and obstacles indicating that the journey is over – and that any attempt to continue is futile – there is the temptation to just accept the yoke of the status quo. The lesson of Chanukah, however, is clear. Do not give up; do not let the “facts” stop you from trying to change what seems to be cut in stone.

 

         Many years ago, while flipping through a newspaper looking for the comics, I came across the obit page. Most were a few lines, so when I saw a rather lengthy piece, I glanced at it out of curiosity. It started with the words, “eighteen years after being given six months to live, the family sadly announces the passing of…” It went on to say how this man in his upper 40′s, having far exceeded medical expectations, had outlived some of his doctors. Obviously, this man did not allow the “experts” dictate to him what his future would be. Despite the “facts on the ground” he fought – just like the Maccabees.

 

         So, too, must we not let “reality” stop us from trying to attain our heartfelt goals. There are many individuals who have been told that they are terminally ill, will never have children, will never walk again, or that their child will never be functional. Yet they or their loved one are alive and well, having achieved the supposedly impossible.

 

         The act of trying is itself a kiddush Hashem – an act of extreme faith. When attempting the seemingly impossible, you are expressing your belief that there is a Master of the Universe, who is above the laws of physics, nature, biology, etc. Hence, He can execute miracles. All He requires is that you take the first step.

 

         At the end of the day, since all is in Hashem’s wise hands, the true measure of your success will not be in the attaining, but in the trying. 

‘Geh Avek’ (‘Go Away’)

Wednesday, November 1st, 2006

       The question that is on many people’s mind these days is why the organizers of the international “Pride Parade” chose the holy city of Jerusalem as the venue for their exhibition. There are so many other cities on this planet that would be better suited for the festivities that they have planned – and where their activities would be accommodated and even welcomed. Why davka choose a place seeped in a tradition that totally rejects the lifestyle they are celebrating and whose residents in the great majority will be extremely antagonized and anguished by their presence and antics?

 

         I’m not by any means a psychologist, but their behavior triggered a memory of a long ago incident that I observed, and therefore I have my own theory as to why they are doing what they are doing.

 

         Many years ago, when I was 19, I spent a summer in Israel and have many interesting memories of that visit, but one sticks out to this day since it revealed a fascinating aspect of human nature.

 

         It was a sweltering Tisha BeAv and it seemed that every space at the Kotel was taken. There was a sea of humanity on both sides of the mechitza and all were occupied doing the same thing – praying.

 

         However, out of the corner of my eye I saw something that was different from the activity around me, causing me to take a second look. It was a bare-headed man who somehow had found a spot, perhaps on a nearby ledge that made him conspicuous – at least I noticed him. But what had captured my interest was that he was happily munching on a large slice of watermelon and being quite public about it.

 

         I have to admit that I was impressed. He was being quite ingenious. How better to show contempt for your religion and the beliefs of thousands of its adherents, how better to “rub their faces in it” than by eating refreshing, thirst-quenching watermelon on a hot summer’s fast day?

 

         The question that begs to be asked is – why did this obviously secular Jew deliberately eat his snack in full view of observant Jews keeping to themselves and mourning the anniversary of the destruction of the Holy Temple by fasting and praying? Why not just eat at home, as usual? He could do “his thing” privately, just like the religious people were doing theirs.

 

         My hunch is that on a psychological level he couldn’t, because, as the saying goes, “the best defense is a good offense.” Take this to the extreme and the offense becomes offensive. You can see this kind of behavior in children. When a child, for example, is chided for grabbing a toy from his playmate, his reaction is to toddle over and hit him. He’s trying to make the point that what he is doing is so OK, so right to that he will do more of it.

 

         This secular Jew followed this dictum and dealt with his defensiveness by going on the offensive – a self-serving form of denial that enables someone to “save face” and legitimize or whitewash one’s questionable actions or beliefs.

 

         Which leads to the next question that begs to be asked – why was this secular Jew being defensive? In the privacy of his home, there was no one to castigate and criticize him for eating and drinking on Tisha BeAv. With his doors closed and the curtains drawn, there was no one to make him feel that he was doing anything wrong.

 

         Except for himself. Deep inside him, a silent voice was telling him that he was doing something sinful. The pintele Yid – the spark of yiddishkeit that is buried in a Jew’s psyche was making him feel uncomfortable about his actions. His soul was making him feel guilty – albeit on a subconscious level which made him feel defensive, resulting in his offensive – and ultimately obnoxious behavior.

 

         There is no doubt that the spark of decency that resides in each human being is shouting out to the organizers of “The Parade” to put a stop to what many consider abominable behavior – and that is why they are so driven and so adamant to see its actualization on the sacred streets of Jerusalem. It’s not enough to indulge in immoral behavior in the privacy of their homes but they have to, out of pure spite, publicly “eat their watermelon,” fuelled by an internal guilt that they desperately are trying to extinguish.

 

         After all – the best defense is to be offensive.

The Niggun In Jewish Music

Wednesday, January 4th, 2006

In honor of Chanukah, a time of joy, I have been delving into the realm of Jewish music. Of the three types of Jewish music, klezmer (instrumental), chazzanut (cantorial) and the niggun (wordless tunes), it is the niggun that has evolved and is the most popular today.


There is no way to trace the exact origins of the niggun, a wordless tune that has become an integral part of Jewish culture. In my research I have read that one plausible origin is that at first musical instruments were not used in Jewish music, as an expression of mourning for the destruction of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. It was also deemed not proper to use words from the Torah or from the prayers when one was not either learning praying, so the wordless tune was created.


In more modern times the niggun was adopted by the chasidic movement as a way to achieve dveikut, the goal of every chasid of being in the presence of Hashem and serving Him with complete and utter joy.


The pure niggun was used whenever musical instruments were not available such as on Shabbat and Chagim. The Rebbe’s tish, where the Chasidic leaders would entertain their followers on Friday nights was a prime example of when niggunim were sung. The niggun was also used at the slightest provocation and can still be heard whenever the spirit overtakes a person. It is not unusual in a beit medrash to hear someone break out in song out of pure pleasure of being in the service of Hashem.


The chazzanim of pre-war Europe and even those dating back to the mid-18th century, when Chasidism first began to spread, performed in the great synagogues, often receiving large amounts of money for their services. The chasidim rarely used chazzanim from outside their group, and often the Rebbe would be the one leading the prayers. Chazzanim were also notorious for stretching the prayers and even repeating words to showcase their own talents. The chasidim were more concerned with the participation of every Jew in the prayers, and believe that there should be no repetition of words. Instead of the formal tunes of the chazzan, prayers were often sung to niggunim unique to either the Chasidic group, and sometimes to a region.


In chasidic thought, music brings a soul closer to Hashem. They believe that words constrain the melody, whereas the wordless tune repeated over and over can produce a sort of hypnotic state bringing the singer to ever-higher levels of oneness with the creator.


Many chasidic groups were famous for their singing ability. The Modzitzer chasidim who settled in Demblin, Poland, were renowned for their compositions, many of which are still sung today. In recent years there is hardly a chasidic group that does not have a record of their songs, and every record includes a few niggunim.


The chasidim incorporated niggunim into the prayers. These wordless tunes were then brought home and taught to family members at the Shabbat table and used during the singing of zmirot, the songs sung during the Shabbat meals.


Today the niggun has evolved words often are added and when permissible there – is instrumental accompaniment. The boundaries between the three types of Jewish music have blurred. Chasidic music is often today defined as any song whose words originate from a religious source, either the Torah, prayers or rabbinic writings. Most of today’s popular Jewish music is a combination of the three but can be traced to the niggun more readily than to klezmer or chazzanut.

Human Chain

Wednesday, August 25th, 2004

Two events that seemed to fit the days before Tisha B’Av happened recently. A few days ago, representatives of many communities met in Hashmonaim with Pinchas Wallerstein, the chairman of the Binyamin Region, and with an army spokesman. The army spokesman made a presentation using colored maps of the security fence’s new planned route.

The Israel Supreme Court decision in favor of the Leftists and the Arabs forced the army to redesign the fence route and to bring it much closer to Jewish communities. The court and the U.S. pressure forced the army to ignore land purchased by Jews and Jewish public land. All the army did was design a plan to satisfy the Leftists and the Arabs. The spokesman could not explain, for example, why the planned fence route took a strange detour to within 100 yards of my home nor why it almost touched the houses of part of the City of Modiin in the Macabbim suburb.

The sighs that emanated from Pinchas Wallerstein, who sat next to me every time the army spokesman showed how the fence route cut up a planned Jewish neighborhood or decimated a Jewish industrial area, sounded like the sighs of those mourning for the destruction of the Holy Temple. The conceit and hatred of one Jew for another caused the destruction of the Holy Temple, and the non-religious Leftist hatred of Right wing religious Jews will, G-d forbid, cause the loss of huge sections of Israel for no good reason. We all left the meeting sad and depressed and with little hope that the government would change the route of the fence.

The second event also took place before Tisha B’Av. Over 200,000 Jews of all backgrounds formed a human chain from Gush Katif in the south to the Kotel in Jerusalem in protest against the government’s plan to force every Jew out of the Gaza Strip. As we waited for everyone to arrive, some people read Tehillim while others learned or commiserated with their friends. At 7:00 p.m., we joined hands to form a solid chain, sang Hatikvah and then sang Ani Maamin. We fervently hoped for a change in government policy, but the media reports all spoke with confidence that Sharon and his new coalition will ignore the amazing sight of men, women, children and babies in carriages who all left their homes and traveled to their appointed areas.

We stood in the sun and waited peacefully for the time when we were told to join hands. What an uplifting feeling it was to be part of this human chain. Sadly, the Israeli government can ignore this human outpouring of solidarity and emotion.

I guess we are prepared to begin our fasting and lamenting. (Comments may be sent to dov@gilor.com)

Q & A: Bal Tash’chit During The Nine Days (Conclusion)

Wednesday, August 18th, 2004
QUESTION: May leftover meat from the Sabbath during the Nine Days be used during the week so as not to violate “bal tash’chit” – the prohibition against wastefulness?
Rabbi Yaakov Spivak, Rosh Kollel
Kollel Ayshel Avraham
Monsey, NY
ANSWER: The Rabbinical prohibition of eating meat during the Nine Days (from Rosh Chodesh Av until Tisha B’Av) as part of a general aveilut custom, the mourning for the loss of the Holy Temple, was discussed (Rambam, Hilchot Ta’aniyot 5:1). The goal is to inspire repentance.The Biblical prohibition of bal tash’chit is based on Deuteronomy 20:19, which specifically mentions fruit trees. Our Rabbis explain that this concept extends to any deliberate, unnecessary loss (Bava Kamma 91b).

This week we discuss the avoidance of bal tash’chit regarding meat during the Nine Days.

* * *

The Gaon R. Shimon Greenfeld, zt”l, was asked this very question (Responsa Maharshag Vol. 4, Orach Chayyim, Responsum 20).

His questioner, a noted scholar, cited the Bnei Yissaskhar (by the Admor R. Zvi Elimelech Shapira, the Dinover Rebbe, zt”l) who quoted the sefer Ikrei Dinim in the name of Kol Eliyahu, where we find a view that if meat is left over from the Sabbath meal during the Nine Days, it would be proper to eat it even during these days. He cites as proof the Talmud (Chullin 17a), where the Gemara discusses “evarei besar nechira – limbs of meat from an animal killed by stabbing,” i.e., not ritually slaughtered. Such meat was permitted to the Children of Israel prior to their entry to Eretz Yisrael, as the verse states (Deuteronomy 12:21), “Ki yirchak mimcha hamakom asher yivchar Hashem Elokecha lasum shemo sham, ve’zavachta mi’bekarcha u’mitzoncha asher natan Hashem lecha ka’asher tziviticha, ve’achalta bi’she’arecha bechol avat nafshecha – If the place where Hashem, your G-d, chooses to put His name will be far from you, you may slaughter from your cattle and your sheep that Hashem has given you, as I have commanded you, and you may eat within your cities according to your heart’s desire.”

From this verse we see that after they finally entered the Land of Israel, besar nechira is no longer permitted even if they subsequently travel to other lands outside Israel, and meat may only be consumed after ritual slaughtering.

The Gemara then discusses whether the limbs of animals that were stabbed prior to entry into Israel were permissible. The Gemara concludes “Teiku,” (Tishbi yeva’er kushiyot u’ve’ayot – When the prophet Elijah (who lived in Tishbi, a town in the territory of Naphtali) heralds the arrival of Mashiach, he will personally resolve this particular question).

The Rosh (Chullin ad loc. siman 23) explains the practical difference resulting from this Gemara. When someone vowed to abstain from eating meat during a certain period of time, but some meat was left over from a time prior to his vow, or there was an enactment of the Beit Din to prohibit a certain substance, we would be more lenient in allowing its use since the Gemara remains unresolved (teiku). It would seem that, similarly, meat left over from the Sabbath during the Nine Days would be allowed. Is this so?

The questioner points out - and R. Greenfeld agrees – that the Gemara cannot be taken as proof for our situation: for instance, would we assume that the prohibition of chametz on Pesach means only chametz that is newly acquired on Pesach, and not chametz possessed before Pesach? Of course not! The Sages extend this prohibition even to wheat of Kardunia (Cordyene), which, Rashi (Pesachim 7a) explains, is hard wheat that does not easily become chametz.

We see that regarding a Rabbinical prohibition it does not matter if the prohibited item is possessed before or after the prohibition takes effect.

If so, how can a scholar, as quoted by the Bnei Yissaskhar, wish to make a comparison and permit meat or wine that has been left over from an earlier period of time once the prohibited time, namely, the Nine Days, has arrived?

This view has to be reconciled not only with that of the scholar who wishes to opt for permissibility but also with that of the Rosh as well, who stated the practical difference between a case where one vowed to abstain from eating a certain food [such as meat] or where the Beit Din enacted a decree to prohibit a substance [such as cheese or cooked vegetables], and the case of besar nechira, i.e., meat from a stabbed animal, because his setting the time [or the Beit Din setting the time] when the prohibition is to take effect is not the same as a Torah-set time; we cannot differentiate between that which remains from before and that which he will now aquire ? both should be prohibited to him.

R. Greenfeld now seeks to explain and reconcile these views according to the Gemara in Chullin, for in regard to the vow the Torah did not prohibit that particular substance at that time, but rather the individual accepted upon himself a prohibition as a seyag (lit., a fence around the Torah law) or, similarly, the Beit Din did likewise, and there is now a doubt as to what the intention of the individual who made the vow or the Beit Din’s intention was. Does the prohibition apply only to that which will be acquired at the set time, or also to that which is in one’s possession already?

Since we find regarding besar nechira that the Torah only prohibited such limbs from the time of the Children of Israel’s entry into the land, [perhaps] the Torah had no intention of prohibiting that which they already possessed, but rather only newly acquired meat from a stabbed animal.

Thus, though normally we would say that in the case of any set time at which a matter becomes prohibited, such as chametz before Passover or food on Yom Kippur and Tisha B’Av, there is no distinction between the newly acquired food or that already in one’s possession, as all are prohibited. However, since there is a doubt in the Gemara regarding meat from a stabbed animal, we should apply the same rule regarding every enactment and individual vow – the intention may not have been to include that which was in one’s possession from before. Since it is a safek, a doubt regarding the enactment or vow (which is of Rabbinic rather than Biblical origin), we would be lenient.

As to the scholar who wished to be lenient, his leniency only referred to eating meat on the Nine Days, which is not specifically prohibited according to the law. Rather, eating meat is only specifically forbidden from erev Tisha B’Av at chatzot (noon), when it is surely forbidden [even if some meat were left over from the Sabbath - there is no doubt about this]. As to the rest of the Nine Days, the Sages only enacted a ‘fence’ in order to ensure our discomfort and to make us mourn the destruction of the Holy Temple. If this is the case, possibly they only made an enactment regarding that which one will acquire or cook, but as to that which is already in our possession or was previously cooked, its consumption would be permitted.

Regarding wine, R. Greenfeld notes that if this prohibition only applies to that which we will acquire during this period, but not to that which one already has, there are many people who have extensive stocks of wine and, as such, we will cause the entire minhag of aveilut during the Nine Days to be cast aside.

We must thus understand that this aveilut is not a din but a minhag that our Sages imposed in earlier times. For this reason they allowed us to eat meat and drink wine at a seudat mitzva such as a brit, a pidyon ha’ben or a siyyum, the completion of a tractate. If this were based on a din, we would not be allowed to consume wine and meat.

Therefore, if one prepared food for the Sabbath, and due to means beyond his control some of the food was left over for weekday consumption, i.e., due to his being incarcerated on the Sabbath for a minor offense (something that often happened in Europe in R. Greenfeld’s time), since the food was prepared for the Sabbath it is considered food left over from a seudat mitzva, and leftovers from a seudat mitzva should be permitted for consumption during the Nine Days.

R. Greenfeld adds: “We must also state that to waste food is a prohibition of bal tash’chit, and if he prepared food for the Sabbath and, due to some unexpected reason beyond his control, he was unable to eat it and he were to discard this valuable meat, this would be a violation of bal tash’chit. Our Sages never intended the custom of aveilut to override a clear prohibition.

This rule, however, applies only to meat or a cooked dish that will spoil. Wine, which keeps for many days (and may improve with time), does not warrant leniency. Fear of bal tash’chit does not allow consumption of wine during the Nine Days.

One who would rely on this scholar should only do so where there will be a loss due to food spoilage, namely, food prepared for the Sabbath or another seudat mitzva (meals eaten at a celebration of mitzvot such as a brit milah, pidyon ha’ben of a firstborn son or a siyyum of a significant portion of Torah study).

The fact that the threat of spoilage of food causes leniency during the Nine Days is a demonstration of how meticulous our Torah is regarding the money of a Jew, “Chassa haTorah al mamon Yisrael” (Chullin 49b).

However, we caution that in today’s times of ample refrigeration, freezers and food storage options including sealing products to preserve food quality, storable food should be treated as wine. Leniency would not be warranted during the Nine Days, as bal tash’chit is not a viable threat. Rather, to ensure the freshness of the food to be stored, be sure to wrap it well and freeze it as soon as possible for later use.

Q & A: Effort And Diligence In Torah Study (Conclusion)

Wednesday, August 20th, 2003
QUESTION: I recently read your Daf Yomi column (JP, June 13, 2003), where you cited the Chikrei Lev’s comments regarding the standard of ‘Sinai’ in Torah study, that is, having extensive knowledge of the Torah. He stated that this is not as important today because the Mishna has been recorded.
My question is: Was the Mishna not recorded in Rashi’s time? Commenting on the first verse in Parashat Bechukotai, Rashi notes (based on Sifra) that “Im bechukotai tele’chu” means “shetih’yu amelim baTorah.” In yeshiva I was taught that this means that one must toil with much effort to learn and understand Torah. If so, how can one not be expected to have an extensive knowledge and yet be amel baTorah?
Zvi Kirschner
(Via E-Mail)
ANSWER: Last week, we referred to Leviticus 26:3, where we are commanded, “Im bechukotai tele’chu - If you follow My decrees.” We concluded that this verse serves as the Biblical source for the requirement to be amel baTorah, lit., to work in Torah study. We also discussed the machloket (argument) in the Gemara (Horayot 14a) over whether the goal of “Sinai,” extensive Torah knowledge, or “Oker Harim,” sharp analytic ability, is the preferred method or goal of Torah study, taking into account that we now have the necessary sources available in print.

* * *

A discussion relevant to our subject is found in the newly released Shemen HaTov on Torah by the renowned scholar R. Dov Zev Weinberger. R. Weinberger is the rabbi emeritus of Young Israel of (Williamsburg) Brooklyn.

R. Weinberger is perplexed by the Gemara (Arachim 11a) discussing the singing required in the Holy Temple as the sacrifices were offered is discussed. The verse in Parashat Naso (Numbers 7:9) is given as a biblical source: “Veli’venei Kehat lo natan ki avodat hakodesh aleihem bakatef yissa’u – But to the sons of Kehat [of the Levite tribe] [Moses] did not give [wagons] because the service of the sanctuary was upon them; they carried on their shoulders.” Rashi (ibid.) explains that the burden of the holy items (i.e., the ark, the table) was upon them, therefore it is stated, “they carried on their shoulders.”

The Gemara asks: Since the verse specifies “on their shoulders,” is it not clear that “they carried”? What does the word “yissa’u” teach us? The answer provided is that “yissa’u” is another term for song, as we have the verse in Psalms (81:3), “Se’u zimra u’tenu tof ? Take up the melody and sound the timbrel.” Similarly, there is a verse (Isaiah 24:14), “Yis’u kolam yaronu – They raise their voice and sing,” which also refers to song with the word for carrying (yis’u).

Thus, the verse in Numbers serves as a Biblical source for the requirement of song in the Holy Temple.

R. Weinberger points out that the Gemara (ad loc) states that a Levite who sings, known as a meshorer, was not allowed to assist the sho’arim, the doorkeepers, and vice versa. Every Levite had his specific labor and duty and was liable for death if he went beyond his own requirement into that of his fellow Levite. If so, how could we say that those who carried also sang, or that the verse regarding those who carried can serve as a source for the requirement to sing?

In answer to his question, R. Weinberger cites Torah Temima (Numbers 7:9), which explains that the Sages did not intend this to be the simple explanation of the verse, but rather to be an asmachta, a support for the concept of song.

However, R. Weinberger finds this solution incomplete, as the Gemara (ibid. 11a) did seem to cite the verse in Numbers as the source of the requirement of song to accompany the sacrifices in the Temple.

To solve the difficulty, R. Weinberger points out that after the sons of Kehat carried the ark on their shoulders and were successful in that task, including refraining from any sin even in thought or manner of carrying, and reached their destination, they put down their loads and broke out in song. They had been in mortal danger (improper behavior while carrying brought severe punishment), and the joy upon completion of the task caused them to break out in songs of joy.

Similarly, after the service of the Kohen Gadol (the High Priest) was completed on Yom Kippur, he would exit the Holy of Holies to songs of joy and festivities. The tenseness of the wait to see wether the Kohen Gadol would come out alive gave way to celebration as he appeared. (See our Yom Kippur prayers for a description.)

We derive from the above an understanding that where the effort is increased according to the difficulty of the task, the resulting joy upon completion of the task becomes greater as well.

R. Weinberger describes an event of this kind. The Gaon R. Yitzhak Hutner, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Rabbenu Chaim Berlin, met the Gaon R. Aharon Kotler, Rosh Yeshiva of the Beth Medrash Govoha of Lakewood, at a wedding. R. Hutner told R. Kotler about a great scholar who was approached regarding a prospective marriage partner for his daughter. The young man was described as a matmid, greatly diligent in his studies, and of refined character. It was explained that he had the finest of traits; however, he was not a ba’al kisharon, that is, he lacked in aptitude and understanding at Torah study.

The scholarly father was in doubt as to whether to consider this young man for his daughter. Finally, the one who approached him reminded the father of what we learn in the Mishna (Avot 4:9), “R. Yonatan says, ‘He who fulfills the Torah in poverty will ultimately fulfill it in a state of wealth,’” and that the poverty mentioned in the Mishna does not refer exclusively to monetary poverty but to intellectual deficit as well.

The father was convinced, and the marriage took place. The young man labored with great diligence and perseverance in his Torah study, with encouragement from his wife and father-in-law, and emerged as a great scholar.

Shortly after relating this story, R. Hutner noticed that R. Kotler had disappeared. R. Hutner found R. Kotler crying in another room. When questioned, R. Kotler explained that he himself had never experienced such tribulations, and had never had to resort to such diligence and effort in his Torah studies. R. Kotler was sad that as a result of never undergoing the “poverty” he had lost out on the promised “wealth”.

R. Weinberger concludes that we might see from here how far these matters reach. [As we read in Avot (5:23), Ben Heh Heh states, "Lifum tza'ara agra - The reward is in proportion to one's pain (and effort required in the course of a task)." This, of course, can be applied to Torah study as well.]

We may now be able to understand the comments of Chikrei Lev – if one immerses himself in the analytical approach to study, even though one may not aim toward the goal of extensive knowledge of the Torah, one will end up accomplishing the standards of both Oker Harim and Sinai.

R. Kotler, who notwithstanding his emotional reaction to R. Hutner’s story, did study with due diligence, was just the opposite of the above. R. Kotler had vast knowledge of Torah as well as the great power of dialectic analysis. We see that diligence in Torah study will result in increasing both these attributes in the scholar.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/ask-the-rabbi/q-a-effort-and-diligence-in-torah-study-conclusion/2003/08/20/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: