KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Parshat HaShavua Behar Bechukotai
KMTT - Parshat HaShavua Behar Bechukotai, by Rav Shlomo Dov Rosen
Thursday, rath yar, lamen habe omme, and this is KMT tea, and this is Esuebek, and today's shio, on KMT tea is a shio in poshata shavua, which will be given by Harav Shlomo do rozen. After the shio, we will be back with the halahayomid. This week we read Tupashyot, Pashaat Bahar, Bahasinay, and Pashaat Bukhukotay. Often when we read Tupashyot, we can ask ourselves what the relationship is between the first Pasha and the second Pasha, if it's just because the Tupashyot was small and we needed a bit of space that we put the two together, or whether there is a particular reason why Khazar connected these two, not just because they were shorter than the others. A similar question we can ask two weeks ago, when we read Ahreimot and Kadoshim, anyone can see that there is a connection between Ahreimot and Kadoshim. This is made very clear in that both Ahreimot and Kadoshim speak explicitly about the forbidden marriages or forbidden relationships, and the fact that the list comes both in Ahreimot and in Kadoshim, with much discussion of the Kadoshah of the Jewish people in between, and very spsukim talking about the relationship of that Kadoshah with the way we behave in our relationships, we come to the conclusion quite naturally that there is a connection between these two Pashaat, a similar connection we would look for in the two Pashaat we read this week, Bahar and Bukhukotay. Now Rashi, Ebenezer and Rambhan all understand that this is all Bahar and Bukhukotay together is all one covenant that the Jewish people had with Akholoshwahu, the Ebenezer develops this and the Rambhan develops it slightly further. The idea being that there is a relationship between the Mitzvot of living in Israel, which are explained in Bahar, they are brought out very clearly, one place in the Torah where it is explained properly is in Bahar, and Bukhukotay when we are told that we will be thrown out at the land of Israel because of not keeping these Mitzvot, however the point that it is because we don't keep the Mitzvot is only intimated and not explained and we will get to that point, and we still ask ourselves if there really is a connection between these two Pashaat, why is it not that explicit? So the connection is simply that we are told explicitly in Bukhukotay that because we were thrown out of the, because we did not keep the Mitzvot, that we had to keep in relationship to the land, we lost our right to stay in the land. The Pasuk, which explains it most explicitly in Pashaat, Bukhukotay, is Parakavav Pasuk Memgemon. "The land will then be able to keep the land of the land, the land will be able to keep its Shabbatot, its Shmitot, when we are no longer in it." In other words, it is because we did not keep these Shabbatot, these Shmitot, the years when we must leave the landfellow in order to serve Akhul Shboh who can come close to him and maybe equalize society somewhat, therefore we are thrown out of the land and the land then will be left alone, or earlier in the same Parak, Lama Dalib, Aztir el-Til Shabtotay, kolumehoshama, vatembeh, zhry bechem, Aztir Shbaatay, vilzateh Shabtotay, kolumehoshama, tishbot, eta Shello Shabtotay, shabtotihm, vishiftihm, aleha, all those years that did not stay fellow when we were in the land. Obviously, this makes a very strong connection between Pashaat Bahal when the Lehil Hoch-metah all explained to us, the one place in the Torah when they are brought out very explicitly, and Pashaat Bahokotay, now the structural connection is quite natural that both Bahal and Bahokotay speak about these ideas, this covenant, these mitzvaht, coming from Hausianai and it gives you the impression that there is a particular connection with these two Pashaat, two Hausianai, perhaps, these two Pashaat was said explicitly at Hausianai, all their particulars, and that's how they were shown in explain it in one way or another. It's not the only cases of Pashaat which are said at Hausianai, but these Pashaat are made very explicit to be connected to Hausianai. Now, in asking ourselves the relationship between Pashaat Bahal and Pashaat Bahokotay, we must ask ourselves a similar question to do with the relationship of the normative and the apocalyptic. That is to say that Bahpashaat Bahokotay speaks about Galut and Gula, exile and redemption, exile and redemption always from a particular geographical point back to the same geographical point. It is not contextualized historically, it speaks about an open historical possibility which actually in the Jewish history had happened twice, that we left the land and we came back. Now we are told it's because of our sins and we understand, as I mentioned just earlier, it's intimated that the sin is very likely to be connected to our behaviour in the land in relationship to the land or in relationship to the social structure that should be developed in the land. And then we ask ourselves why it is not made explicit in Pashaat Bahokotay and even more so why in Pashaat Bahal is no mention of the idea of Calut and Gula of the land, of the people mentioned at all. In order to ask ourselves such a question, in order to deal with it, we must deal with this question in a more philosophical approach. That is to say ask ourselves the question of the relationship between normative Mitzvaht and the way they play their role in the apocalyptic cosmic events of Galut and Gula of exile and redemption. Is there a relationship between the particular nature and the way that particular nature will be explained in the direct normative manner of teaching us how to keep the Mitzvaht and their major role in the spiritual history of the Jewish people? One way of dealing with such an issue is to look at a Jewish thinker in the Middle Ages who developed both and that is the Rambhan. Now the Rambhan is very important for modern Zionist thought because he both developed the importance of the Mitzvah of Yishov-eritzi-serv, of kiboshin Yishov, of conquering and living in the land of Israel, as a Mitzvaht, which is obligatory on every Jew at every point in history to the best of his ability and he is also the person who develops very much the idea of Galut and Gula of the importance of Mashiach coming in a very physical way, etc. In other words, it being something which can be explained in our terms and we can relate to in the sense of maybe trying to bring the cosmic, the apocalyptic stage of history closer. And we ask ourselves quite naturally if there is a relationship between these two points. Both of these two points play themselves out nowadays in modern Jewish thought quite a bit and we ask ourselves is there a relationship or perhaps we should completely separate the normative from the dreamlike, apocalyptic, hopeful ideas that somehow what we do in the physical arena could actually help Jewish history move forward. So if you would like to deal with that idea we should take a look at the two different works, two or three different works, whether Rambhan develops these ideas and ask ourselves if there is a relationship in the Rambhan's work. The Rambhan, not the Rambhan, the Rambhan did not enumerate the mitzvah of Yeshuwe of conquering and living in the land of Israel as a mitzvah in any particular explicit manner and there is a lot of discussion about that. However, the Rambhan in his commentary on the Rambhan argues with this point and claims that there is such a mitzvah. Mitzvah Raviit said, "Shanid Stavinul al-Areshitah areshitah areshan atana kellit bhariitah la votenul al-Areshitah kuliyakov, volonaz vabiadzulatinum inhaomot o lishmamah." The Rambhan might sound very dated in almost sounding like a crusade. He speaks about a mitzvah at every point in history not to let other peoples be in the land of Israel but to go and conquer it and to live in it. However, of course, he means not to be dated at all. He means to talk about an eternal mitzvah which applies in the time of Yashua al-Binun and applies to the end as a reply to our Jewish history even when we were in control of the land to live in it and to take care of it and to make it our home. And this point is brought out very clearly later on in the same Rambhan. "Harein et Stavinul be kibush bechol haldorot, vomerani ke amitzvashah, hahameemafliginba, vidirat eretz Israel areshan gushkoliyat se mein adar abhuzlah eretz eben hakov, vidar daza rah." That is talking all the time about the mitzvah of Yashua al-Binun. In other words, he understands the mitzvah of Yashua al-Binun. Yashua al-Binun is incredibly important mitzvah. Nothing to do with whether there is a necessary crusade of the Middle Ages because at that point of time we're not in control. Even when we are in control of the land the mitzvah of Yashua al-Binun is the main major mitzvah in the Torah. And of course, the relationship between kibush and Yashua al-Binun conquering and living, whether it's part of the same mitzvah or not, you'll get to, is a point which has received a lot of attention, and I hope to touch upon it a little later. So what we see here is a mitzvah which are completely normative mitzvah. It has nothing to do with any particular historical moment, quite the opposite. Nitzvah vinubaholadawat, irrelevant of whether we happen to be in control of the land or not, we have the mitzvah of living in it, of making it our home. This mitzvah has nothing to do with any possibility of Jewish history, and actually by definition it could not. Because every mitzvah by definition must be eternal, that is to say that although you might have fulfilled it to its complete possibility like shivat amim or amalek, still it has the potential in theory to be a mitzvah in every single generation. And so by definition the mitzvah is of the nature of being eternal and not being historically contextualized. And if so, it wouldn't be possible perhaps for the rambhan to speak about the cosmic or about the historical in this description. It is a very legal, almost eternal portrayal of a normative command. Okay, now let's take a look at what the rambhan said elsewhere. And I'll make quotes from the book of Rochavel, who brought it out, this is on page Rachel Sadialith. The rambhan develops a very mystical approach, a mystical approach, which comes from Sefer Hechalotrabati, the idea of a distinction between Mashiach bin Ephraim and Mashiach bin David, in other words that there will be two stages, either people or stages. Mashiach bin David is suddenly a person, Mashiach bin Ephraim is left slightly open, two stages of Jewish redemption, redemption of the Jewish people. The first is of a physical one connected to Ephraim. The idea that Mashiach bin Ephraim would be killed, that things won't be so easy at the immediate stage of physical redemption. And then a deeper and more spiritual version, which will come later on, which will be Mashiach bin David, which is the normal sense of Mashiach in the sense of bringing back Srinar and bringing back Navuah, and that we will have the complete world of Gu'ula in the spiritual sense. This idea of Kostor Rambant didn't create, but he developed somewhat. And this idea, of course, has found great interest and attention in the present time, particularly from the time of the groi in Koletar towards the beginning, who understands the groi. At least in the name of the groi, it is understood in the first chapter of Koletar, the first few pieces, that Mashiach bin Ephraim is a generation, it is a few generations. It's an epoch of time in Jewish history when there is a physical revival, which says something spiritual, but actually is very physical, that precedes the bringing back of Srinar, the bringing back of all the spiritual parts of redemption. This idea, of course, is developed by Rufko quite naturally, and is part of this specific mystical, capitalistic tradition. Now, the Rambant develops this idea elsewhere. An interesting way of approaching the idea and appreciating it is to see how the same idea receives two expressions into different works. So, the Rambant at the end of Seifed, at the end of, told the end of Seifed Varyim at the end of Pasha Tazinu, argues that the nuvua of Hazin, the prophecy of Hazinu, is not something that happened in the second besamikdash, but it's something which will happen in the future of the Jewish people. The argument of the Rambant is that it cannot be that the prophecy of Hazinu related to the second besamikdash, because in the second besamikdash, the political position of the Jewish people was not one of complete redemption. That is to say, that complete physical redemption shows that the proper gula, the gula ashlima, as he says earlier in Seifed, gula ashlima, ashpona gula ashlima, gula ashlima, is not a complete gula. The complete gula is connected to complete physical revival of the Jewish people in the political aspect. However, the exact same point, almost word for word, is brought in Seifed Vula with an addition. On pages raised samikdash, dalet to raise samikdash, bezot nuvua atidak, i nu anche bai chinaisha, i nuvua tambo yim. Aqul aqul aqul aqul minhe bizu i waqul mama, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, vula is shivi lakina kum sabna hu vu tama tama, up to here, word for word, from the end of pasha atazimu. And then he adds, khi loshaltashri na imahim bahim bai china, seil ai tasham nuvua, bak biklatabingan, habiglatabingan, habizra yama lakih, in other words. The reason why complete political and physical redemption did not come to fruition is because of a lack in the spiritual. That is to say, the initial stage of gula is physical. The complete physical redemption depends upon a spiritual renaissance that comes basically from above because of our behavior presumably. In other words, the mashiach ben davi, the spiritual stage of gula, also comes to fill in the physical. This gives you the impression, which very much is the impression of these mystical structures, that the physical is always expressing the spiritual even in its initial stages when you cannot see the spiritual revival. The physical is expressing the spiritual, the physical is infused with spirituality. And that idea of the physical expressing the spiritual, of understanding the spiritual by looking at the physical reality, we can see in the ramban in two other places. Firstly, the whole idea that is very, very famous, ramban is arguing with Ibn Ezzar as to whether it's possible that Yitzhakovinu and Yakovinu were poor, had very little money. We're not considered important politically or in any social sense in their own generation. And this is an argument that the ramban argues against, that's the Ibn Ezzar argument, the Ibn Ezzar actually was poor himself, that ramban says that it's not impossible, that's not possible. A great person like Yitzhakovinu could not possibly be unsuccessful financially and physically. Obviously, that does not mean that Sadiqima always successful. But somebody on the level of Yitzhakovinu, the ramban could not imagine as unsuccessful. How is this possible? Because when ramban is working with a spiritual structure by which he understands that by definition, physicality expresses spirituality and physicality is infused with spirituality. And this idea, as I said, there's another place, the other place where this idea comes in great importance is the argument between the ramban and the ramban brought out in the rambans, Sharagmula, at the end of Trita Adam, about in a more cosmic work, talking about not just Mashiach, but Olamaba, about the question of whether Olamaba is physical, spiritual. Everybody knows that the ramban holds that Olamaba is only spiritual. There will be a physical Trita meeting, but then we will go to Olamaba. The aim and destiny of every human being is pure spirituality according to the ramban. However, the ramban disagrees and argues very, very certain that the final destination, the eternal state of humanity is physical, eternal physicality infused with spirituality, and actually the argument which is connected very much to understanding of science, whether that is possible in physical terms, of course, is not a problem because it can be miraculous. But whether that's possible is actually turn full circle because in the middle ages it was considered impossible for matter, not to decompose. Nowadays we know that it is possible for matter, not to decompose long term. And some people claim that old age is purely a sickness and therefore the possibility, according to modern science, actually pushes more on the direction of the ramban than in the middle ages it was possible to expect. The idea of the ramban is that, this is Boran, Sharagmula, Amur, and Chinva, that the final state of humanity is a physical one infused with spirituality. That is certainly how the Ramhaltu kit at the beginning of Darshashan, that it is a zikur of the rama, it is a purification of physicality, but it is a physical existence. This is possible because the ramban is opposed to the ramban, it's not a rational philosopher, but working within a mystical system by which spiritual meaning is given to physical moments, physical developments, and physical bodies. The physical is infused with spirituality, it can be positive, it is not necessarily positive, but it can be. And therefore when we see a physical development which we see as positive, we may assume and expect it to be somehow related to a spiritual development. If we now return to our Pasha, and ask ourselves what the relationship is between Pashaat Bahai and Pashaat Bahakutai, we will notice that it is very much easier in, to understand this, in relationship to the ramban. What we notice is that the ramban in Seifra Ghoula does not mention the Mitzvah of Yiswah of Yiswah of Yiswah, it does not talk about the normative command to live in the land of Israel. And obviously there does not need to be any connection at all. If you have an explanation of cosmic and apocalyptic events which is connected to a physical initial stage, that does not mean that there is a mitzvah to bring about that initial stage. And as we have mentioned earlier, the ramban when he speaks about the mitzvah of Yiswah of Yiswah of living in the land of Israel conquering and living in it, he does not talk at all about the possible cosmic meaning of such a mitzvah in Jewish history over many, many generations. However, anybody can look at it and notice quite naturally that it is not in a chance occasion, that the ramban should say that there is a mitzvah of Yiswah of Yiswah of Yiswah in a physical sense in every generation, and that the initial stages of Gula will be physical. The idea of Mashiach Menefraim, the way at least the grander of Kuktake it as a stage in Jewish history, a physical initial stage which expresses the spiritual but brings to fruition in a high level of spirituality afterwards. It is only natural that the ramban should have understood in both cases that physicality is meaningful in bringing about spiritual events. That is clearly what he is saying in both. Nobody can possibly disconnect these two points. They are naturally brought together and that is why sociologically whether it is correct or incorrect in many communities these two ideas are brought together whether it is right or wrong in our generation. That is to say it is natural that if you understand that physicality expresses spirituality that an initial stage of spiritual redemption will be a physical redemption, it is only natural that you should believe that there is in every generation a command in the normative sense to go and live in the land. When somebody says this, it is only natural to assume he will also say that the cosmic, the apocalyptic stage of bringing Jewish history to its destiny in a redemptive process will happen through individuals coming and keeping that mitzvah of going and living in the land. It is only natural but he is very, very careful not to speak about one, about either in the other work. In other words, when he speaks about the normative, he does not make mention of the apocalyptic and he speaks about the apocalyptic. He does not make mention of the normative and it is quite natural. These are distinct aspects of gula, these are distinct aspects in Jewish experience. The normative has nothing to do with any historical program or situation. We could have never gone into Galut. It could only be a threat that perhaps our good behavior would have kept off of us but still the idea of the mitzvah of Yishwah Yishwah would of course be a mitzvah and quite naturally the other way around as well. Even if there was a mitzvah of Yishwah Yishwah Yishwah Yishwah I do not think the Rambhan would give up on his apocalyptic picture. Now, if we look at our Pasha, we see something very, very similar. Pashaat Baha talks about the normative commands of Yishwah Yishwah, it does not speak about the mitzvah to live in the land of Israel but rather how to live in the land of Israel, to live it fallow every seventh year, to equalize society, to return all land to its original owners after 50 years, to free slaves, particular behavior which is connected to the land and the social structure in the land. Not one word is made of Golotan Gula although the word Gula in relationship to the land, the word which means redemption but used in relationship to the land is brought up again and again and perhaps is trying to hint something to us but no more. In Pashaat Baha kotai, no direct references made to the idea of normative mitzvah but only the references we made before. It is intimated in more than one place towards the end, that it is because we did not keep the mitzvah relating to the land, that we are thrown out of the land and presumably we will be brought back on the hope that we will keep them or perhaps through keeping them. This reminds us, the point I wanted to allude to earlier, that the Rambhan in Sefer Amitzvah speaks about kibush and ishuh, conquering and living and there is a question of the relationship perhaps the conquering is a way of alluding to Mashiach Benafrein, in other words the physical initial stage of Gula which comes at a time of cosmic conflict, a time of major problems in the world when you have to struggle to be able to live in the land and the next stage is Ishuh which is connected to every period in history and has nothing to do with a problematic situation in the land. Similarly we receive an intimation in Pashaat Baha kotai that it is because of not keeping the normative that the apocalyptic picture comes out in one way or another. So if we now bring this down to earth in a very explicit sense we see that Pashaat Baha speaks about Mitzvah, in the legal sphere which are eternal or to do with our normal way of living our lives. Pashaat Baha kotai talks about, tells us about Jewish exile and Jewish redemption. We understand that it is because of our behaviour. We understand that we leave a land and we return to that land but no explicit reference is made to the nature of that land to what exactly it means to have left that land. It is not dated in any particular historical point, moment, it doesn't even ever have to happen on a certain level. It is simply a threat although we know that has happened twice. We are led to understand that there is a relationship between the normative and the cosmic but no explicit reference can ever be made because these two stages are distinct and it is necessary to keep them distinct. The normative has nothing to do with any particular historical moment, it is a command upon every one of us, the way we must live our life and we hope never to be exiled from the land. We hope always be able to live in Israel as a healthy nation. When we talk about Jewish history and Jewish destiny in Pashaat Baha kotai, about exile and redemption, the ideas of commandments to live in Israel or to live in Israel in the proper way are intimated but not made explicit. These are cosmic, apocalyptic descriptions that don't necessarily contextualise in any particular command, cannot be brought only into a particular command. They are general philosophical ideas about how Gula can come from Galut. We are to understand there is a relationship, that there is a connection between the two in the same way that there is a connection between the two in the case of the Ramban. That is to say that we are to understand that physical redemption and spiritual redemption are connected, that it is because of doing our best in the physical realm that spiritual redemption comes, that physical redemption expresses a spiritual meaning, a spiritual moment and the blinking back of Shrinna will come through our attempts in the physical realm to serve God. The apocalyptic picture must always be brought separately to the normative, our responsibilities in the normative. We must always have the cosmic ideas, the big abstract ideas in the back of our mind, understanding how physicality relates to spirituality, what this means for Jewish redemption, what this means for our obligation to function in the real world must always be at the back of our mind. But when we keep them in the normative realm, we keep them knowing that these are eternal ideas that have nothing to do with any Jewish moment in history. They are to do with our relationship to God or relationship to our fellow man in how we must behave ethically and religiously in the land of Israel irrelevant of any particular historical moment. Shabbat shalom. You have been listening to a rafslamadur vrazain, proshat a shavua for parashat vahar bhukatayi. Now the hai yomit, we've reached these three steps taken back after schmanesser. The shuchana bhok paskins, the at least three steps, the first step should be taken with your left foot, then a step with your right foot, then your left foot evens out together with your right foot. That's how it's paskins shuchana bhok, the size, how big a step does one take. There's a famous chubar of the rasbari that he says, "I don't know." There is no place that rasbari found a makore, a sauce for how large or small a step one should take. However, in other parashkim, no khatayim and apparently in rafhagan, the shiyur, the link to the step is given as agudal liad akayi. That means when you step back, your toe of the foot that's going back is next to your heel of the other foot, a relatively small step. This shiyur comes from the beta mikdash. In the beta mikdash, konim, this is how konim would walk in the beta mikdash, agudal liad akayi. And the idea being, idea which is from the tour, in a number of context, inchman s-ray, that person who was davank sman s-ray is like a kohi in the beta mikdash. This doesn't have a sauce in the gamara. However, this idea floats around in the rishonim that a person davank, it's a vodat hashem, a vodat sha-belive, the service in the heart, which is parallel to the service in your hands, namely the abodat beta mikdash. So someone who's davank is in his own private way a kohain in the beta mikdash in the presence of God. And therefore, the number of hadahot, which you basically invented, they don't have a sauce in shas, they are found in the proscam made in the tour or the beta safe, which parallel, to some extent, one extent to another, a person davank with the beta mikdash. And from this, the hadahot is brought down in the shoshanah that one should step at least, this is what the mikhaba says, at least agudal yadakay, the vamah says, and you shouldn't do more, you should try not to do more. Now as vamah saying is that you should do exactly like a kohain. In the mikhaba it says, at least. But that's basically how I want you to do it. If one doesn't even have that much space, so then a post can say, it's not good, you have to find that much space. But with the average, if you start giving sure it's very crowded, there is no way to do it. So then one takes smaller steps. But ideally, one should dab it in a place where the step would be at least agudal yadakay. And ideally, you don't take a larger step. Siyagasah, a large stride, is considered to be a negative thing, it's good spa, you're running away from God. And therefore the papa way to work is the small steps agudal bitzad agay. There's another halakha that one may not take the three steps back. If one will enter the dala dhammat, the two-meter area of someone else who's in the middle of dhammat. So if you finish before the person behind you, and you're not more than two meters away from him, you do not take the three steps at all. You can stay where you are, you can, you can answer to Shah there. And when he, when there's room, when he finishes, at the end of dhammat, in the end of kasadata, perhaps you can take the three steps then. But it's better not to take the three steps at all than to take steps which are less than the shoe of agudal bitzad agay. Wait till later on, and take, and take the steps then. You have been listening to KMTT, our Thursday Pashata Shabua program. And this is as with Beck. Tomorrow I'll be back with the area of Shabat program, for Pashat Bahabuhukutai. And until then, Kultov, vubakat ha'toram itcion, ume etcion. This has been KMTT, the Torah podcast, broadcast the vubakat ha'tion. KMTT, the Torah, vubakat ha'toram, vubakat ha'toram, vubakat ha'toram. [BLANK_AUDIO]