Search Results

Article abstract for Lech Lecha: In this week's Parashah, we are introduced to Abraham's nephew, Lot. What is the meaning of his name, and could it provide insight into his choices and actions? Our Sages interpreted many names as hints to their character (see e.g. Tanch. Haazinu 7), and indeed said this about Lot's name as well (Tanch. Vayeshev 6), but in this case the Midrash did not specify what the name alludes to (but see Etz Yosef commentary ad loc. for his suggestions). This article seeks to determine the underlying meaning of the name by comparing it to other words in the Holy Language containing the string לט, the consonant letters of the word. We hope our proposals help to unpack this enwrapped (לוּטָה) mystery and illuminate concepts shrouded in murkiness (עלטה). וַיֵּלֶךְ אַבְרָם כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֵלָיו ה' וַיֵּלֶךְ אִתּוֹ לוֹט וְאַבְרָם בֶּן חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים וְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה בְּצֵאתוֹ מֵחָרָן (בראשית יב:ד). And Abram went, as the Lord had spoken to him, and Lot went with him (Gen. 12:4). Lot’s name in Hebrew is spelled לוט, yet the meaning of this name and it significance is unclear. The two radicals in this word are לט, so we will examine the meaning of that string of letters in other contexts. Avnei Shayish proposes a common theme to three words containing the string לט, namely: מלט, פלט and שלט. All three are related to defense / salvation: 1. מלט (fleeing from danger) – see Gen. 19:17, Ps. 124:3.[1] 2. פלט (escaping war) - see Gen. 14:13, Jer. 44:25, Ps. 17:13.[2] 3. שלט (meanings discussed below) - This word has two meanings: A. shield (e.g. II Sam. 8:7, Song 4:4),[3] B. national rulers (e.g. Gen. 42:6, Ecc. 7:19),[4] those charged first and foremost with defending their nations.[5] I would humbly suggest adding more words to the לט family, all of which are related to various aspects of defense / salvation: 4. Kalat קלט (see below) - This word has two meanings: A. Refuge, shelter (Num. 35:11),[6] B. Closure (Lev. 22:23[7] - a form of protection or enclosure). 5. Alat עלט (darkness)[8]- See Gen. 15:17, Ez. 12:6.[9] Darkness in general is often described as cover / concealment (see Ps. 44:20); so too is עלטה used in this sense (e.g. Abarbanel on Ezek. 12:6;[10] see also RSRH on Deut. 17:14). Others suggest a direct connection between עלטה and וילט,[11] both of which denote wrapping / concealing.[12] 6. Chalat חלט (snatching) - RSRH (Gen. 15:17)[13] cites an instance of חלט (I Kgs. 20:33) in the sense of snatching.[14] Based on this usage, he comments that both חלט in this sense and עלט denote types of concealment from sight. Both darkness and snatching lead to the same outcome - hiding and concealment from sight. 7. Leta לטא (lizard) - This is the root of the word לטאה, the lizard referred to in Lev. 11:30.[15] Onkelus renders the word וחלטתא.[16] Perhaps Onkelus chose the root חלט, which in Aramaic refers to snatching, because the lizard is among the quickest of reptiles, disappearing into cracks and crevices in split-seconds, as if “snatched” - hidden from the eye and thereby saved.[17] 8. Letash לטש (sharpener) - In Gen. 4:22, we find Tubal-Cain (a descendent of Cain) referred to as a לטש - sharpener.[18] While sharpening is a skill applicable to peaceful purposes like agriculture or art,[19] Rashi emphasizes that Tubal-Cain’s talents were directed in the main to sharpening implements of war.[20] Moreover, most instances of the root לטש in Scripture relate to war and violence (e.g. Ps. 52:4[21] [the same is true of the related word שנן - e.g. Ps. 64:4]). In fact, we find the foreign rulers of the Land of Israel prohibiting all sharpening of metal implements there for fear that such efforts would be applied to tools of war (see I Sam. 13:19).[22] How is this last meaning connected? Until now, we have described defense techniques such as hiding, fleeing, and enclosing. However, a most important aspect of defense is deterrence. The very knowledge that one’s neighbor possesses an arsenal of weapons at the ready, ironically, often serves to foster peaceful coexistence. And if all else fails, the best defense is a good offense - with sharpened spears at the ready. We also note that the letters of which the words לטש and [23]שלטare comprised are the same—albeit in permuted order (ala כבש-כשב, שמלה-שלמה). This too may allude to a shared or similar meaning as well. As we’ve seen above, the Biblical שלט is in fact a shield, and the שליט (ruler) is first and foremost charged with defense of his nation. 9. Lot לוט (wrapping) - See I Sam. 21:10 + Rashi.[24] Derivative meanings are concealment / secrecy (see Ex. 7:22 + Rashi, Sanhedrin 67b + Rashi).[25] 10. Malat מלט (mortar, cement) - Rashi (Jer. 43:9)[26] comments that the word מלט derives from the biliteral root לט; cement seals, envelopes, and protects.[27] It may be suggested that the above list can also explain the mysterious origins of the name לוט. At every critical juncture of his life, Lot either fled or hid - from enemies, dangers and trials. We know about four such episodes concerning Lot: 1. We are introduced to Lot as the orphaned son of Haran (who was killed by Nimrod, see Rashi on Gen. 11:28), escaping and finding refuge under his uncle Abraham’s wing. 2. Lot then fled from Abraham—whose success he may have viewed as a threat to his own ambitions (more on this below)—and therefore settled in the City of Sin, Sodom (Gen. 13). 3. When Sodom and its neighbors were attacked by four kings, Lot was kidnapped and then rescued by his uncle Abraham, finding salvation after being held captive (Gen. 14:16). 4. Finally, Lot and his daughters escaped the destruction of Sodom, and found haven in a nearby cave (Gen. 19:20). 5. Of note is the fact that the Hebrew root מלט (escape, finding refuge) is found only five times in the Pentateuch (in contradistinction to rest of תנ"ך) - all exclusively in connection with Lot (Gen. 19:17 [2x], 19:19, 19:20, 19:22).[28] Also of note is that the angel warning Lot to flee from Sodom uses the word להמלט three times, and does not use other synonyms for escape such as לנוס or לברוח. Lot himself uses the term twice, adding the word לנוס only in verse 20. Why is the word מלט so special, and why did Lot conclude with an alternate word? A hint towards our answer may be found in Gen. 19:17, where the angel urges Lot to: flee to the mountain. Rashi comments that “the mountain” alludes to Abraham, who lived on a mountain.[29] The simple understanding is that Lot was to be saved in the merit of Abraham. Lot refuses, but explains: I cannot flee to the mountain, lest the evil overtake me, and I die (Gen. 19:19). The commentators explain that Lot was simply afraid that he may not run fast enough to complete the journey in time. However, in the next verse Lot offers his reason for choosing to flee to Zoar instead: Behold now, this city is near to flee there, and it is small (Gen. 19:20). While the statement “near to flee” is fair enough, how is “and it is small” connected to his reason for fleeing there? The commentators again offer explanations, but perhaps one could suggest that Lot feared fleeing to Abraham for the same reason he had left him in the first place. Namely, in the shadow of his towering uncle, Lot was a nobody; compared to Abraham’s righteousness, Lot was a fiend. Ergo: lest the evil overtake me, and I die (there). In other words, he said that he cannot to run away or hide from Abraham’s greatness and uprightness there. Instead, Lot chose to remain in Zoar – a small, young town— where he can be considered important and righteous on his own right. There, he could be the “head of the foxes” (as opposed to the tail of the lions, see Avot 4:15).[30] This may explain Lot’s use of the term לנוס for the first time, in reference to Zoar: This city is close to flee [לָנוּס] to there (Gen. 19:20). I would suggest that the word לנוס indeed refers to the physical feasibility of fleeing to and arriving at the destination on time, as per commentators cited above. Lot explains that in fact Zoar is a more viable destination per its proximity. But then, he switches back to the root מלט at the end of the verse: …it is small, I will flee now to there (Gen. 19:20). In other words, Zoar is not just closeby, it has the added advantage of being small and young city - a place where Lot can be honored as an elder and revered as a tzaddik… and hide from the true righteousness of Abraham. The addition of אמלטה here suggests: Even if fleeing [לנוס] to “the mountain” is logistically possible, Lot still prefers to escape that place and hide among those who are smaller than him, so that in comparison to them, he will be considered a tzaddik.[31] Lot’s name, therefore, expresses his essence with extraordinary accuracy: evasion, avoidance and escape from trials. In contrast with Abraham, who triumphed in all his trials, thereby rising to spiritual greatness, Lot remained eternally mired, self-absorbed, enwrapped and enveloped in darkness. Our lesson is to learn from Lot’s tragic failure and to aspire to the greatness of our father Abraham, Prince of the Lord. Let’s do what we can to live up to it! [1] הִמָּלֵט עַל נַפְשֶׁךָ (בר' יט:יז); הַפַּח נִשְׁבָּר וַאֲנַחְנוּ נִמְלָטְנוּ (תה' קכד:ג). [2] וַיָּבֹא הַפָּלִיט (בר' יד:יג) - שנפלט מהמלחמה; פַּלְּטָה נַפְשִׁי מֵרָשָׁע חַרְבֶּךָ (תה' יז:יג); וּפְלִיטֵי חֶרֶב יְשֻׁבוּן (יר' מד:כה). [3] ש"ב ח:ז - וַיִּקַּח דָּוִד אֵת שִׁלְטֵי הַזָּהָב; רד"ק - שלטי הזהב - מגיני הזהב; מצ"צ - שלטי - כעין מגן. [4] הוּא הַשַּׁלִּיט עַל הָאָרֶץ (בר' מב:ו); מֵעֲשָׂרָה שַׁלִּיטִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ בָּעִיר (קהלת ז:יט). ועוד: אֵין אָדָם שַׁלִּיט בָּרוּחַ לִכְלוֹא אֶת הָרוּחַ וְאֵין שִׁלְטוֹן בְּיוֹם הַמָּוֶת (שם ח:ח). [5] כלומר, בהשאלה מ'שלט' בהוראת מגן (או נרתיק הנושא נשק - ע' רש"י בש"ב שם). [6] במ' לה:יא - עָרֵי מִקְלָט. [7] וי' כב:כג - וְשׁוֹר וָשֶׂה שָׂרוּעַ וְקָלוּט; רש"י - וקלוט - פרסותיו קלוטות. [8] ונראה להציע שמשמעות המלה "לייט" בארמית - קללה, נובעת מכאן, היינו שֶּׁיֵּשֵׁב המקולל מכוסה בחושך וצלמות. שוב ראיתי שכן כתב בספר "ממעמקים" (בראשית, דף 91 [ר' אלכסנדר מנדלבוים, ירושלים, תשנ"ז]). [9] בר' טו:יז - וַיְהִי הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ בָּאָה וַעֲלָטָה הָיָה; רש"י - ועלטה היה - חשך היום. [10] יחז' יב:ו - עַל כָּתֵף תִּשָּׂא בָּעֲלָטָה; אברבנאל - צוהו שיעשה... בגדים... ויוליך על כתפו... כאילו הוא בסתר בעלטה. [11] וַיָּלֶט פָּנָיו (מ"א יט:יג). [12] ראה ספר בעליל לארץ, דף קטו; אגרא דכלה (בראשית טו:יז), אור חדש (שם שם). [13] נמצא בפירושו לבר' טו:ט-כא במהדורת מוסד יצחק ברויאר. [14] מ"א כ:לג - וְהָאֲנָשִׁים יְנַחֲשׁוּ וַיְמַהֲרוּ וַיַּחְלְטוּ; ת"י: וְגַבְרַיָא נְחִישׁוּ וְאוֹחִיאוּ וְחַטְפוּהָא. [15] ויק' יא:ל - וְהָאֲנָקָה וְהַכֹּחַ וְהַלְּטָאָה וְהַחֹמֶט וְהַתִּנְשָׁמֶת. [16] ת"א - וְיַלָּה וְכֹחָא וְחַלְטְתָא וחֻמְטָא וְאָשׁוּתָה. גירסת ספר "אונקלוס המוגה והמדויק" (ר' ש. ויזר), ושל "חומש המאור" (בניגוד ל'והלטתא' במהד' אחרות. [17] וכן מסוגלת לטפס בקירות מאונכים חלקלקים ועל התקרה בעצמה. כל אלו התכונות מעניקות לה דרכים רבות להימלט מכל סכנה צפויה. ובכך השמות "לטאה" ו"חלטתא" מתארים בדיוק נפלא את כח ההישרדות שלה: היא נמלטת בחטף. [18] בר' ד:כב - תּוּבַל קַיִן לֹטֵשׁ כָּל חֹרֵשׁ נְחֹשֶׁת וּבַרְזֶל. [19] כדוגמת: ש"א יג:יט - לִלְטוֹשׁ אִישׁ אֶת מַחֲרַשְׁתּוֹ. וע' רד"ק, הכוה"ק והעמק דבר לבר' ד:כב שכך פירשו את הפסוק בפשטות, וכך משמע גם מרש"י ד"ה "לוטש כל חרש". [20] רש"י - תובל קין - תובל אומנתו של קין. תובל לשון תבלין, תיבל והתקין אומנתו של קין לעשות כלי זיין לרוצחים. וכך פירשו רוב המפרשים (ע' ריקאנטי [ד:כב], אברבנל [ד:כ-כב], תולדות יצחק [ד:יז]). וכך מסכם הזוה"ק (ג:עו,ב) את חייו של תובל קין: תובל קין אפיק זייני קטולא לעלמא הוציא כלי הריגה לעולם. ע"פ המדרש: ב"ר כג:ג - תובל קין... תבל עבירתו של קין [שהרג בלי כלי זיין] אבל זה לוטש כל חורש נחושת וברזל. [21] תה' נב:ד - הַוּוֹת תַּחְשֹׁב לְשׁוֹנֶךָ כְּתַעַר מְלֻטָּשׁ. [22] ש"א יג:יט-כ - וְחָרָשׁ לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְּכֹל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי אָמְרוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים פֶּן יַעֲשׂוּ הָעִבְרִים חֶרֶב אוֹ חֲנִית. וַיֵּרְדוּ כָל יִשְׂרָאֵל הַפְּלִשְׁתִּים לִלְטוֹשׁ אִישׁ אֶת מַחֲרַשְׁתּוֹ. [23] ראה גם חומש פרח שושנה (בר' ד:כ), תרגומנא (וי' כ, דף תקנב), שהעירו גם הם על קירבה זו בענין אחר. [24] ש"א כא:י - הִנֵּה הִיא לוּטָה בַשִּׂמְלָה; רש"י - לוטה - כרוכה, וכן: וַיָּלֶט פָּנָיו בְּאַדַּרְתּוֹ (מ"א יט:יג). [25] שמ' ז:כב - וַיַּעֲשׂוּ כֵן חַרְטֻמֵּי מִצְרַיִם בְּלָטֵיהֶם; רש"י - בלטיהם - לחש... בלט ובחשאי. סנהד' סז: - אמר רבי חייא בר אבא בלטיהם אלו מעשה שדים; רש"י - בלטיהם... בסתר. [26] יר' מג:ט - וּטְמַנְתָּם בַּמֶּלֶט; רש"י - וטמנתם במלט - מ' זו יסוד נופל היא בתיבה, כמו: מקום, מעמד, מעשה, ויסודו לט כמו: וַיָּלֶט פָּנָיו (מ"א יט:יג) - לאט אותה בתוך הטיט במלבן. [27] ראה גם יריעות שלמה (א:קד.), ע"ש. [28] בר' יט:יז - הִמָּלֵט עַל נַפְשֶׁךָ אַל תַּבִּיט אַחֲרֶיךָ... הָהָרָה הִמָּלֵט פֶּן תִּסָּפֶה; בר' יט:יט - לֹא אוּכַל לְהִמָּלֵט הָהָרָה פֶּן תִּדְבָּקַנִי הָרָעָה וָמַתִּי; בר' יט:כ - הָעִיר הַזֹּאת קְרֹבָה לָנוּס שָׁמָּה וְהִוא מִצְעָר אִמָּלְטָה נָּא שָׁמָּה; בר' יט:כב - מַהֵר הִמָּלֵט שָׁמָּה. [29] רש"י בר' וירא יט:יז - ההרה המלט - אצל אברהם ברח, שהוא יושב בהר, שנא' לעיל: וַיַּעְתֵּק מִשָּׁם הָהָרָה (בר' יב:ח). [30] השוה אבות ד:טו. [31] יש להעיר שבספר איוב פירש"י "אמלטה" כלשון השמטה: רש"י איוב א:טו - ואמלטה - אין מליטה אלא לשון השמטה. אף כאן י"ל כי לוט משתמט מצדקותו של אאע"ה, ומן אחריותו ללכת בדרכו.

Article abstract for Parashat Vayeira: The Parashah relates the story of the destruction of the wicked Sodom and Gomorrah. We find Abraham pleading –with astonishing audaciousness- on behalf of the barbarous Sodomoites. What could possibly have motivated him to act so boldly in support of such a villainous place? We believe a hint to the answer may be found by examining the numerous words the Torah uses in describing the destruction of the city. No less than five distinct words are employed to describe its ruin, chief among them the word שחת, used eight separate times. The difference between these words, and the connection between the appearance of שחת here and in conjunction with the sin of the golden calf I believe may provide a hint into the motive behind Abraham's unexpected brazenness. אוּלַי יַחְסְרוּן חֲמִשִּׁים הַצַּדִּיקִם חֲמִשָּׁה הֲתַשְׁחִית בַּחֲמִשָּׁה אֶת כָּל הָעִיר (בראשית יח:כח). What if the fifty righteous people should lack five? Would You destroy (הֲתַשְׁחִית) the entire city because of the five? (Gen. 18: 28). There are eight occurrences of the root שחת in the Torah portion Vayeira, exceeding its incidence in any other Torah portion. What is its meaning? It is also worth noting that besides for שחת, the Torah uses four other words to describe the destruction of Sodom: 1) Lechalotלכלות (to terminate) - see Gen. 18:21. 2) Lespot לספות (to stamp out) - see Gen. 18:23-4; 19:15, 17. 3) Lehamit להמית (to kill) - see Gen. 18:25. 4) Lahafochלהפוך (to overturn) – see Gen. 19:21, 25, 29. Thus, we must try to distinguish between these terms, and understand the message that each of them teaches us. Moreover, perhaps the biggest question we should ask: Why was Abraham so interested in saving the evil inhabitants of Sodom? Let us first examine the root שחת. We find this root in connection with the sin of the Golden Calf: Go, descend - for your people have become corrupt (שִׁחֵת) (Ex. 32:7). Our Sages interpreted the wordשִׁחֵת in the sense of קִלְקוּל (deterioration / spoilage),[1] and in the sense ofחֲבָּלָה (damage / corruption).[2] RSRH, commenting on the phrase, וַתִּשָּׁחֵת הָאָרֶץ, and the earth had become decadent (Gen. 6:11), points out that קִלְקוּל is an expression of incomplete destruction. The term השחתה takes on this meaning because it is derived from the word שחת, meaning a pit or trap.[3] RSRH makes a similar linkage regarding the phrase,פֶּן תַּשְׁחִתוּן , lest you act corruptly (Deut. 4:16), noting that the root שחת in that verse denotes a spiritual / moral deterioration, for like the descent of the pit, one who falls off of the proper moral path sinks into spiritual decline.[4] We also find the destructive חֲבָּלָה)) aspect of the root שחת in describing the blemish of an animal offering, in the verse, for their corruption (מָשְׁחָתָם) is in them, a blemish is in them (Lev. 22:25).[5] [As explained by Ibn Ezra, its root is שחת, as the letter מ is superfluous.] Ramban explains this connection in his comments to the verse, Their blemish has corrupted His estranged children for Him (Deut. 32:5) - “A blemish is referred to as a 'corruption,'”[6] as it is stated, for their corruption is in them, a blemish is in them… [Thus, our verse] is saying that the blemish of Israel has corrupted for the Rock (i.e., God) His nation and His heritage.[7] To summarize, the early commentators raise several ideas in order to clarify the meaning of the word השחתה. They are: A. spoilage / blemish; B. damage / break; C. decline / descent. We should note that we find similar meanings in other roots containing the letters חת. They are: 1. Shachet שחת (meaning discussed below) - This term has three related meanings: A. pit / trap (a sunken / low location);[8] B) distorted / degenerate / ugly (a decrepit / declining state);[9] C) spoilage (physical or spiritual).[10] 2. Pachat פחת (meaning discussed below) - This term has two related meanings: A) pit / trap (a sunken / low location);[11] B) defect / baseness (feeble / lowly quality).[12] 3. Tachat תחת (meaning discussed below) - This term has three meanings related to the above context, all of which are directly linked to its literal meaning, below / beneath: A) lowliness;[13] B) instead of / in exchange for[14] (as if the potential replacement is sitting beneath the original, ready to replace it at the appropriate time. In this sense, it is similar to the English word “lieu-tenant,” a subsidiary officer who is on call to serve “in lieu of” his superior; C) because / due to (the primary motive, which lies just beneath the surface).[15] 4. Chatam חתם (sign / seal) - A seal is sunken into the wax / lime. It is related to descent in the same way that the Hebrew word טבעת (signet ring) is related to sinking. Also, when part of a signet ring, it serves to leave an indelible and irreversible impression.[16] 5. Chata חתה (rain down) - This is how Yerios Shlomo interprets the term in the verse, for you will(חֹתֶה) rain down coals on his head (Prov. 25:22). Likewise, Midrash Sechel Tov, on the verse, Now Hashem had caused sulfur and fire to rain down upon Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24), states: “When [God’s] children were hungry, he rained down bread from the heavens, and when the Sodomites revolted [against Him], He rained down ((חתה coals.”[17] 6. Nachet נחת (descent / land / sink) - See Jer. 21:13.[18] 7. Chatan חתן (son-in-law)[19] - Yerios Shlomo (Vol. I: 112, 2) links the terms נחת and חתן as, in his view, both are based on the two-letter root חת. Thus, the term נַחַת רוּחַ denotes calm satisfaction, as the person arrives at a state of peace and settling down. Likewise, a son-in-law is one who “acquires an encampment in the family and settles into it.”[20] In this manner, it is similar to the word שִׁידוּךְ, the betrothal of two people, which is the Aramaic translation of שכך (subsiding) and שקט (calm).[21] 8. Chitat חתת (shattering) - This term can be used both in a physical sense[22] or in an emotional sense.[23] 9. Chatach חתך (cutting) - see Dan. 9:24.[24] 10. Chatar חתר (dig / shatter for some purpose) - see Ex. 24:1.[25] 11. Chataf חתף (seize / capture) - The verbs חתף and חטף have the same meaning, as noted by Ibn Ezra. In his comments to both Job 9:12 and Ex. 7:27, Ibn Ezra seems to equate the verbs חתף and שחת as both referring to capturing in a trap.[26] Thus, it would appear that he understood חתף to mean specifically seizure via trap, in which the seizure is a prelude to destruction. Indeed, we find similarly that Rashi and Ibn Ezra interpret the verse נִלְכַּד בִּשְׁחִיתוֹתָם (Lam. 4:20) as: captured in the pits that they dug.[27] 12. Chatal חתל (repair a rupture / breakage)[28] - Although repairing is the opposite of breaking; many times, words in the Hebrew language that have diametrically opposite meanings have the same root (e.g., שרש, דשן, etc.). This true of the root חתל: a broken bone that is bound with a bandage is concomitantly separated from other objects.[29] Having discussed at length the various meanings of the root שחת and the underlying biliteral חת, let us return to the question regarding the numerous instances of this root in connection with the destruction of Sodom, and how this word differs from the other terms of destruction in the context of that story. It would appear at first glance that all of Abraham’s great efforts to prevent the destruction of Sodom were for naught, for in the end it was utterly destroyed. However, if we analyze more deeply the use of these alternate expressions in Abraham’s “bargaining” with God over Sodom (כלה, תספה, להמית, שחת), a very different picture is revealed to us. 1. God opens His words (informing Abraham about the imminent overturning of Sodom) with the word כָּלָה, a word that denotes the utter elimination of everything contained in the city. This is evident both from Onkelus[30] and Rashi,[31] as well as from Onkelus’ interpretation of other instances of the root כלה in Scripture.[32] 3. However, in his response (Gen. 18:23-24), Abraham uses the expression תִּסְפֶּה, destruction.[33] Although Onkelus translates it here as תשיצי, which is the same “utterly destructive” expression that he uses in the aforementioned instances of כלה, we find other instances of the term in this very portion which Onkelus translates as תלקי, an expression of lashing rather than destruction.[34] As he continues to plead on behalf of Sodom, Abraham changes his word choice yet again, stating, It would be sacrilege to You to do such a thing, to put to death לְהָמִית the righteous along with the wicked (Gen. 18:25). While Onkelus translates here too as לשיצאה, throughout Scripture he translates לְהָמִית as קטלא,[35] which simply means killing. Elsewhere, the word consistently refers to individuals, not to an entire city! 4. Finally, in his closing argument (Gen. 18:28), Abraham alters his wording yet again, this time employing the word הֲתַשְׁחִית. As we have shown above, the root שחת is interpreted by the early commentators as an expression of spoilage and sinking, and it is translated regularly in Aramaic as חבל, an expression of breakage, or shattering (see Targum Yonatan to Isa. 10:27). What does all of this mean? Beyond any doubt, Abraham was fully aware of the extent of the Sodomites' wickedness. It certainly dawned upon him from the very beginning that there might not exist even a single righteous person in Sodom outside of Lot and his family.[36] Abraham's main goal was to lessen and curtail the scope of the punishment, as we shall explain: God provided Abraham with an opening, by stating that He wished to utterly destroy (לְכַלוֹת) the city. Abraham responded in a similar but not identical manner, instead using the root ספה, which can imply a mere lashing (הַלְקָאָה) rather than utter destruction, as per above. Essentially, Abraham toned down the degree of destruction by using a different word than God did. Since God, as it were, was silent and did not respond to this point, Abraham continued to try and temper Sodom’s fate by mentioning the word לְהָמִית a word that relates to individual people (but not to the city as a whole) - in the hopes that God would allow certain individuals to survive. Once again, God did not protest. So Abraham concluded his plea by using the word שחת, a word whose primary meaning does not even denote destruction and elimination at all, but rather spoilage / defect, sinking, and breakage - situations that can be overcome in principle - as long as the location is not obliterated in its entirety. Looking at it from this perspective, Abraham did indeed succeed in his mission. For from the time he began his supplications, the word כלה was no longer used. Although the angels who spoke to Lot did use the word תספה, Onkelus there merely translates it as the far milder תלקי, as we explained above. Perhaps they merely used the word in the context of warning Lot about the imminent doom, so that he would hasten his departure. In any case, the word כלה in the sense of an intense destruction was no longer being used. The destruction of Sodom was now merely described with the words השחתה and הפיכה, overturning (see Gen. 19:21, 19:25, 19:29, Deut. 29:22). Targum Yonatan (to Amos 4:11) describes the מהפכת סדום as the distancing of the Divine Presence, and we also find the term הפיכה interpreted in the sense of withdrawal / setback (see Targum Yonatan and Metz. David to Judg. 20:39). In any case, the site was not totally wiped off the map forever, and some remnant thereof was allowed to remain.[37] This could seemingly be accredited to Abraham and his tireless pleas. Finally, we also asked above: What was Abraham’s motive in pleading for the rescue of the evil Sodomites? Perhaps our Sages provided us with clues to the answer in the Midrashic works that expound on the verse, Go, descend - for your people (שִׁחֵת) have become corrupt (Ex. 32:7): Ex. Rabba (42:1) - “[The term] שִׁחֵת can only mean that they corrupted their deeds.” Tanchuma (Ki Tissa, 20) - "[The term] שִׁחֵת can only mean the spoiling of deeds.” Hence, we see that the sin of the Golden Calf - the greatest sin in the history of the Jewish people - is nonetheless described “merely” by the term השחתה, which denotes spoilage and corruption. How is this possible? The survival of the Jewish people in this incident may also stem from the merit of our Forefather Abraham, who foresaw the future of his own people in his relentless pleas on behalf of the evil Sodomites. When trying to temper God’s response to the Sodomites’ sins, Abraham was also setting a precedent which would tone down His response to the Jews’ later sins. In other words, whatever transgression Israel might commit in the future would surely not rise to the level of the evils of Sodom. Hence, if even Sodom itself was not completely wiped off the face of the earth, and it was “merely” נשחתה, it goes without saying that the Jewish people too deserve to survive forever. God’s description of even the cataclysmic sin of the Golden Calf as שחת therefore serves to reaffirm Israel’s destiny to survive in perpetuity - and the Eternal One of Israel does not lie (I Sam. 15:29)! [1] תנחומא כי תשא פ' כ - אמר למשה: לֶךְ רֵד כִּי שִׁחֵת עַמְּךָ (שמ' לב:ז), אין שחת אלא קלקול מעשים, שנאמר: שִׁחֵת לוֹ לֹא בָּנָיו מוּמָם (דב' לב:ה). [2] שמות רבה מב:א - אמר למשה: לֶךְ רֵד כִּי שִׁחֵת עַמְּךָ (שמ' לב:ז), ואין שחת אלא שחבלו מעשיהם, כד"א: שִׁחֵת לוֹ לֹא בָּנָיו מוּמָם (דב' לב:ה). [3] יר' ה:כו - הִצִּיבוּ מַשְׁחִית אֲנָשִׁים יִלְכֹּדוּ. יחז' יט:ד - בְּשַׁחְתָּם נִתְפָּשׂ. תה' נה:כד - תּוֹרִדֵם לִבְאֵר שַׁחַת. [4] רשר"ה בראשית ו:יא - וַתִּשָּׁחֵת הָאָרֶץ - 'שחת' מורה על קלקול, ולא על השמדה... הוראת היסוד של 'שחת': בור. אולם הכורה שחת איננו מתכוון לטובה... אלא רצונו לתת מכשול לפני ההולך בדרך; רשר"ה דברים ד:טז - פֶּן תַּשְׁחִתוּן - 'שחת' הוא בור, ו'שחת' מציין את השקיעה, את הנפילה מן הדרך המוליכה אל הישע הרוחני. [5] וי' כב:כה - מָשְׁחָתָם בָּהֶם מוּם בָּם; ת"א - חבולהון בהון מומא בהון. וכן תרגומו של שרש 'שחת' בכל מקום, כגון: בר' ט:יא - וְלֹא יִהְיֶה עוֹד מַבּוּל לְשַׁחֵת הָאָרֶץ; ת"א - ולא יהי עוד טופנא לחבלא ארעא. "חבלה" מתורגמת כשבירה: ישע' י:כז - יָסוּר סֻבֳּלוֹ מֵעַל שִׁכְמֶךָ... וְחֻבַּל עֹל מִפְּנֵי שָׁמֶן; ת"י - תֶּעְדֵי... נִירֵיהּ מֵעַל צַוְרָךְ וְיִתְּבְרוּן עַמְמַיָא מִן קֳדָם מְשִׁיחָא. [6] מום מציין בדרך כלל פגם וקלקול, אולם מצינו גם מום "חיובי", כמו שאמרו בגמרא: נדר' סו: - קונם שאי את נהנית לי עד שתראי מום יפה שביך; תוס' - מום יפה - כלומר יפה מאום שום דבר יפה, כמו: וּבְכַפַּי דָּבַק מאוּם (איוב לא:ז). [7] דב' לב:ה - שִׁחֵת לוֹ לֹא בָּנָיו מוּמָם; רמב"ן - שחת לו לא בניו מומם - המום יקרא השחתה, כמו שנאמר: כִּי מָשְׁחָתָם בָּהֶם מוּם בָּם (וי' כב:כה), וכן: וְזֹבֵחַ מָשְׁחָת לה' (מלאכי א:יד), יאמר כי מומם של ישראל שחת לצור עמו ונחלתו. [8] תה' צד:יג - עַד יִכָּרֶה לָרָשָׁע שָׁחַת. תה' נה:כד - וְאַתָּה אֱלֹהִים תּוֹרִדֵם לִבְאֵר שַׁחַת. [9] בר' ו:יב - וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְהִנֵּה נִשְׁחָתָה כִּי הִשְׁחִית כָּל בָּשָׂר אֶת דַּרְכּוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ. שמ' לב:ז - וַיְדַבֵּר ה' אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֶךְ רֵד כִּי שִׁחֵת עַמְּךָ. [10] בר' יח:כח - אוּלַי יַחְסְרוּן חֲמִשִּׁים הַצַּדִּיקִם חֲמִשָּׁה הֲתַשְׁחִית בַּחֲמִשָּׁה אֶת כָּל הָעִיר. [11] א. ש"ב יז:ט - בְּאַחַת הַפְּחָתִים. שם יח:יז - אֶל הַפַּחַת הַגָּדוֹל. [12] ויקרא יג:נה - פְּחֶתֶת הִיא. [13] יהושע טז:ג - בֵּית חוֹרֹן תַּחְתּוֹן. מ"א ו:ו - הַיָּצִיעַ הַתַּחְתֹּנָה. ישע' יד:ט - שְׁאוֹל מִתַּחַת רָגְזָה לְךָ.ישע' יד:יא - תַּחְתֶּיךָ יֻצַּע רִמָּה. [14] ישע' נה:יג - תַּחַת הַנַּעֲצוּץ. ישע' ס:טו - תַּחַת הֱיוֹתֵךְ עֲזוּבָה וּשְׂנוּאָה. תה' מה:יז - תַּחַת אֲבֹתֶיךָ יִהְיוּ בָנֶיךָ. בר' ל:ב - הֲתַחַת אֱלֹקִים אָנֹכִי. [15] ש"ב יט:כב - הֲתַחַת זֹאת לֹא יוּמַת שִׁמְעִי. דב' כח:מז - תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר לֹא עָבַדְתָּ. [16] אסתר ג:יב - וְנֶחְתָּם בְּטַבַּעַת הַמֶּלֶךְ. [17] משלי כה:כב - כִּי גֶחָלִים אַתָּה חֹתֶה עַל רֹאשׁוֹ; י"ש א:ס,ב (ת"ד) - גֶחָלִים אַתָּה חֹתֶה עַל רֹאשׁוֹ (משלי כה:כב) - הורדה סתם. כך משמע מלשון מדרש שכל טוב לפרשתינו: שכל טוב (בובר) בראשית יט:כד - וה' הִמְטִיר עַל סְדֹם וְעַל עֲמֹרָה גָּפְרִית... כשבאו בניו רעבים המטיר להם לחם מן השמים, וכשמרדו סדומיים חתה עליהם גחלים. [18] ירמיה כא:יג - מִי יֵחַת עָלֵינוּ; מצ"צ - יחת - ענין ירידה כמו חציך נחתו בי (תהלים לח). תהלים לח:ג - וַתִּנְחַת עָלַי יָדֶךָ; מצ"צ - נחתו, ותנחת - ענין ירידה כמו מי יחת עלינו (ירמיהו כא). [19] עוד מי לך פה חתן (בר' יט:יב), והתחתנו אתנו (בר' לד:ט). [20] י"ש א:קיב,ב (ת"ד) - שם 'חת' - להוראת השקיעה והירידה... והוא ענין נחת רוח - הגעה למנוחה וחניה. ומשרש 'חת' נגזר מלת "חתן", כמו: עוד מי לך פה חתן (בר' יט:יב), והתחתנו אתנו (בר' לד:ט). שהוא מי שקונה לו חניה במשפחה ומשתקע בה. [21] בר' ח:א - וַיָּשֹׁכּוּ הַמָּיִם; ת"י - ואשתדכו מיא. במ' יז:כ - וַהֲשִׁכֹּתִי... תְּלֻנּוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; ת"י - ואישדיך... תורעמות ב"י. שופ' ג:יא - ותשקט... ארבעים שנה; ת"י - ושדוכת... ארבעין שנין. מ"ב יא:כ - והעיר שקטה; ת"י - וקרתא שדוכת. אסתר ז:י - וחמת המלך שככה; תרגום - ורתחא דמלכא אשתדיכת. תה' צ:יא - וכיראתך עברתך; תרגום - צדיקיא דדחלין מנך משדכין רוגזך. [22] יר' מט:לז - וְהַחְתַּתִּי אֶת עֵילָם. שם נא:נו - וְנִלְכְּדוּ גִּבּוֹרֶיהָ חִתְּתָה קַשְּׁתוֹתָם. [23] דב' א:כא - אַל תִּירָא וְאַל תֵּחָת. ישע' ז:ח - יֵחַת אֶפְרַיִם מֵעָם. [24] דניאל ט:כד - נֶחְתַּךְ עַל עַמְּךָ וְעַל עִיר קָדְשֶׁךָ; מצ"צ - נחתך - נגזר כי שניהם הם מענין כריתה. [25] שמות כב:א - אִם בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב. יחזקאל ח:ח - וָאֶחְתֹּר בַּקִּיר. [26] איוב ט:יב - הֵן יַחְתֹּף מִי יְשִׁיבֶנּוּ; אב"ע - הן יחתוף - ישחית כמו: כְּחֶתֶף תֶּאֱרֹב (משלי כג:כח). וכבר השווה ראב"ע את שרש 'חתף' ל'חטף' - שניהם מורים על לכידה / תפישה: משלי כג:כח - אַף הִיא כְּחֶתֶף תֶּאֱרֹב; אב"ע מכת"י (תורת חיים) - אף היא - הזונה כפי שתוכל לחטף האנשים, היא תארוב לזנות עמהן. במקום אחר פירש ראב"ע את מלת "ותשחיתם" כלשון חטיפה: שמ' ז:כז - אָנֹכִי נֹגֵף... בַּצְפַרְדְּעִים; אב"ע - נגף כמו משחית, וכן כתיב: וּצְפַרְדֵּעַ וַתַּשְׁחִיתֵם (תה' עח:מה)... אמרו שהוא מין דג... ויוצא מן הנהר וחוטף בני אדם (אמנם חז"ל דרשו את הפסוק בתהלים עח:מה שציטט ראב"ע בצורה אחרת [ראה שמ"ר בא טו:כז; שם וארא א:י]). [27] איכה ד:כ - מְשִׁיחַ ה' נִלְכַּד בִּשְׁחִיתוֹתָם; רש"י - בשחיתותם - בגומות שחפרו; אב"ע - בשחיתותם - כמו: בְּשַׁחְתָּם נִתְפָּשׂ (יחז' יט:ד). [28] יחז' ל:כא - בֶּן אָדָם אֶת זְרוֹעַ פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם שָׁבָרְתִּי וְהִנֵּה לֹא חֻבְּשָׁה לָתֵת רְפֻאוֹת לָשׂוּם חִתּוּל לְחָבְשָׁהּ לְחָזְקָהּ לִתְפֹּשׂ בֶּחָרֶב. וכן כריכה בבגדים, כגון לתקן את איברי הוולד הרופפות: יחזקאל טז:ד - בְּיוֹם הוּלֶּדֶת אֹתָךְ... וְהָחְתֵּל לֹא חֻתָּלְתְּ; רד"ק - כמו שמלפפין את הולד ומחתלין אותו בחתלת בגדים וקושרין אותו לתקן איבריו ולישרם. [29] בדומה ל"גדות" הנהר המהווים חתך מבחינת שטח האדמה, ומאידך, מגבילים מכילים ומאגדים- את מי הנהר, (ומכאן הקירבה בין "תתגודדו" ל'אגד' בדרשתם ז"ל: "לא תתגודדו" - לא תעשו אגודות). [30] בר' יח:כא - וְאֶרְאֶה הַכְּצַעֲקָתָהּ הַבָּאָה אֵלַי עָשׂוּ כָּלָה; ת"א - ואדון הכקבילתהון דעלת לקדמי עבדו אעביד עמהון גמירא וכן ת"י (יר' ל:יא). והיא לשון כליון, כגון: תה' ז:י - יִגְמָר נָא רַע רְשָׁעִים; רש"י - יגמר - ל' כליון, וכן פתר מנחם: גמר אמר (תה' עז), גמר חסיד (שם יב) וכן כלם. [31] רש"י בר' יח:כא - ואם עומדים במרדם, כלה אני עושה בהם. [32] במקומות אחרים "כלה" מתורגמת "שיצי" (כריתה): במ' טז:כא - הִבָּדְלוּ מִתּוֹךְ הָעֵדָה הַזֹּאת וַאֲכַלֶּה אֹתָם כְּרָגַע; ת"א - וְאֵישֵׁיצֵי יַתְהוֹן. דב' לב:כג - חִצַּי אֲכַלֶּה בָּם; ת"א - אשיצי בהון. [33] בר' יח:כג-כד - וַיִּגַּשׁ אַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמַר הַאַף תִּסְפֶּה צַדִּיק עִם רָשָׁע. אוּלַי יֵשׁ חֲמִשִּׁים צַדִּיקִם בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיר הַאַף תִּסְפֶּה וְלֹא תִשָּׂא לַמָּקוֹם. [34] בר' יט:טו - פֶּן תִּסָּפֶה בַּֽעֲוֹן הָעִֽיר; ת''א - דִּילְמָא תִלְקֵי בְּחוֹבֵי קַרְתָּא: יט:יז - הָהָרָה הִמָּלֵט פֶּן תִּסָּפֶֽה; ת''א - לְטוּרָא אִשְׁתְּזֵב דִּלְמָא תִלְקֵי. [35] בר' לז:יח - וַיִּרְאוּ אֹתוֹ מֵֽרָחֹק וּבְטֶרֶם יִקְרַב אֲלֵיהֶם וַיִּתְנַכְּלוּ אֹתוֹ לַֽהֲמִיתֽוֹ; ת''א - וַחֲזוֹ יָתֵהּ מֵרָחִיק וְעַד לָא קְרֵיב לְוָתְהוֹן וְחַשִּׁיבוּ עֲלוֹהִי לְמִקְטְלֵהּ. [36] שנחשבו לצדיקים לענין זה, כפי שמשמע מרש"י והמדרש על פי פירוש רע"ב: בראשית יח:כד, לב - אוּלַי יֵשׁ חֲמִשִּׁים צַדִּיקִם... וַאֲדַבְּרָה אַךְ הַפַּעַם אוּלַי יִמָּצְאוּן שָׁם עֲשָׂרָה; רש"י - על פחות לא בקש. אמר דור המבול היו שמונה, נח ובניו ונשיהם ולא הצילו על דורם [ע"פ ב"ר מט:יג]; פירוש ר' עובדיה מברטנורא באשית יח:כט - שאברהם לא בקש על פחות מעשרה שהיה סבור שיהיו בסדום עשרה צדיקים לוט ואשתו וד' בנותיו וד' חתניו הרי עשרה. [37] שהרי העיר צוער לא נחרבה, כמשמעות הכתוב (דב' כט:כב, בר' יט:כ-כא, רש"י יט:כה. וי"א שנחרבה אח"כ; ראה פנים יפות בר' יט:כ. וראה גם רמב"ן בר' יט:כ בענין זה). ואף העיר סדום שנהפכה, יונתן פירש שמשמעות "הפיכה" היא ריחוק השכינה ממנה (ולא משמעות של כלוי מוחלט): עמוס ד:יא - הָפַכְתִּי בָכֶם כְּמַהְפֵּכַת אֱלֹהִים אֶת סְדֹם וְאֶת עֲמֹרָה; ת"י - רָחֵיק מֵימְרִי יַתְכוֹן כְּמָא דְרָחֵיק יְיָ יַת סְדוֹם וְיַת עֲמוֹרָה. ומצינו שהוראת "הפיכה" היא חזרה לאחור/ נסיגה [ולא כלוי]: שופ' כ:לט - וַיַּהֲפֹךְ אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּלְחָמָה; ת"י - וְאִתְחֲזַר אֱנַשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּקְרָבָא; מצ"ד - בעת אשר נהפך איש ישראל לנוס).

Which is the true Abraham - the Abraham of the beginning of this week's Torah Sidra, in which defends the wicked Sodomites in a confrontation with G-d, or the Abraham of the end of the portion, where he takes his guiltless son to be slaughtered on an anonymous summit? Here is a man who's entire life is dedicated to helping and providing for others. When confronted with the horrifying reality of the depravity of Sodomite society -- particularly their attitudes and actions vis-a-vis outsiders, foreigners (see San. 109b) - the very antithesis of everything Abraham believed in, Abraham should have been expected to rejoice at their impending destruction. Instead, in one of the greatest apparent displays of both irony and chutzpa in the Torah, Abraham confronts G-d: It is *forbidden* for You to do such a deed... will the Judge of the whole earth not do Justice? (18:25) But, still more ironically, Abraham is criticized by the Zohar not for his gall in questioning G-d's express will -- in the most direct of terms -- but rather that he did not go far enough in fighting *for* the Sodomites. The Zohar (1:105b) compares Noah, Abraham and Moses. Noah, upon hearing of the impending destruction of his generation, did not even open his mouth. Abraham requested that Sodom be spared for the merit of whatever righteous individuals might reside there. Moses, on the other hand, upon being told by G-d to "leave Me... that I might destroy them" (Ex. 32:10), wasted no time. He began forthwith to pray that the entire nation be saved - whether or not they deserved it; whether there were righteous among them or not. Whether Abraham  went far enough or too far in striving to save Sodom, how does his decidedly activist stand on behalf of the *wicked* Sodomites jibe with his button-lipped response to the command to slaughter his *righteous* son with his own hands? Which is his true nature? The truth is, neither; and this itself is perhaps Abraham's greatest legacy. Abraham's *nature* would certainly have allowed Sodom to be destroyed, and of course to protest against his beloved son's sacrifice. But, as a leader, he had trained himself to *transcend* his natural inclinations; never to react emotionally or impulsively, never to either protest or submit -- even to G-d Himself -- based on what seemed right to *Abraham* alone, but first to be absolutely sure that his own desires were not clouding his decisions. Abraham demonstrated repeatedly that he was willing to bow to G-d's will no matter how painful the consequences. But he did not use this as a self-righteous excuse for treading on others, even those who were thoroughly evil, *even* when G-d himself expressed his will to destroy them. Abraham is aptly called "Haivri," literally meaning "from the other side," possibly because he was constantly examining each event from every side, from every angle. His great legacy to humanity is *humanity* - never to react automatically like a machine, but to take each action *thoughtfully* - this is the essence of the human being. Share this: WhatsApp More Telegram Email Print Share on Tumblr

The Gift of Giving Ahead of the epic meeting of brothers, Jacob sent his older brother Esau quite a generous tribute, consisting of 550 animals. The Torah uses the word minchah four times when referring to this gift (Gen. 32:14, 32:19-22). The word minchah is one of many Hebrew words which mean “gift” or “present”. In this week’s essay, we will discuss six such words: minchah, matanah, shai, teshurah, eshkar, and doron. The word minchah is the most common of these six words, and appears over two-hundred times in the Bible. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808–1880) explains that a minchah is a gift of homage, by which the giver shows his subservience to the receiver. This type of gift serves the interest of the giver in demonstrating his dependency on the receiver. Alternatively, as R. Shlomo Aharon Wertheimer (1866–1935) notes, a minchah helps the giver achieve atonement. Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg (1785–1865) writes that a minchah can also be a tax or a tribute which a servant pays to his master, like the subjugated Moabites who paid a minchah to King David (II Sam. 8:2) or like the last King of Israel, Hosea, who paid a minchah to his Assyrian overlord (II Kgs. 17:3). According to Radak and others, the root of the word minchah is nach/nachah (“placed” or “rested”), because the giver uses this gift as a means of calming or placating the recipient. Rabbi Mecklenburg further writes that the more one shows submission to another, the more it can be termed a minchah. To that effect, he explains that the afternoon prayers are called Tefillat Minchah because during that time the sun is on its way down. This demonstrates the sun’s submission to G-d, as though it were bowing to Him. Similarly, when a poorman brings a meal-offering as a sacrifice, that sacrifice is called a Korban Minchah.* This is because the penniless worshipper very clearly demonstrates his submission to G-d by showing that he is willing to offer Him whatever little he has. Rabbi Wertheimer explains that the word matan or matanah (variations of which appear some twenty times in the Bible) is a gift which focuses on giving. In fact, the root of those words is the same as the verb of giving. In English, too, the words gift and give are of the same etymology, for the f-sound and v-sound are interchangeable. One gives a matanah when the receipent needs something, and the giver enjoys no other benefit from offering this gift other than that he has donated to fill the receiver’s need. This type of giving encourages friendship and comraderie—which is why it is mandated on Purim (see Esther 9:23 which calls for matanot la-evyonim, “gifts for the unfortunate”). Interestingly, Rabbi Mecklenburg writes that it is inappropriate to use the term matanah when discussing an offering to G-d, but he does not explain why. In light of the above, the explanation seems obvious: a matanah serves to fill a certain need on the part of the recipient. In the case of G-d, He is complete and has no needs, so He certainly does not require any sort of gift. For this reason, sacrifices to G-d are never described as a matanah in the Bible. The next most-common word for a “present” in the Bible is shai—which appears three times (Isa. 18:7, Ps. 76:12, and Ps. 68:30). Rabbi Avraham Bedersi HaPenini (1230–1300) writes that the word shai is yesh (“has” or “is”) backwards, because a shai is an especially substantial gift. Rabbi Wertheimer explains that shai refers to a gift which the giver considers significant, but for the receiver is not so special. For this reason, whenever the word shai appears in the Bible, it only refers to giving a gift to G-d, and does not appear in any other context. The word eshkar appears twice in the Bible (Ps. 72:10 and Ezek. 27:15), but is nonetheless quite obscure. In fact, Radak writes that he is unsure of eshkar’s root—whether all four letters of it make up its root (ALEPH-SHIN-KAF-REISH) or only the last three letters are its root (SHIN-KAF-REISH refers to “beer” or “drunk”). Rabbi Avraham ben Chaim Ibn Ramoch differentiates between minchah and eshkar by writing that minchah is something like gold, silver, and precious gems, while eshkar is special types of fruits. He does not explain the logic between the distinction between these two terms, but it sems that the former refer to inedible gifts, while the latter are only edible gifts. This might explain the connection between eshkar and sheichar. Rabbi Wertheimer takes a different approach. He explains that eshkar refers to a gift whose value is not in its monetary or utilitarian worth, but in its asthetic qualties. Such a gift “bribes” the receipient, so to speak, into overestimating its own importance. In doing so, this sort of gift effectively renders the receipient intoxicated (shikur), such that he cannot properly focus on the gift’s true value. Interestingly, Malbim writes that eshkar is related to sachar (“reward” or “payment”), with the SHIN morphing into a SIN. The last Hebrew word for “gift” which we will discuss is teshurah. This word is a hapax legomenon in the Bible, which means that it only appears once in that entire text (I Sam. 9:7). The Midrash Shocher Tov (Psalms 87) expounds on the word teshurah and explains that it is the type of tribute which “people look at and sing praises”. R. Wertheimer explains that the Midrash understood that the root of the word teshurah is two-fold: It is derived from shur—which is a type of “seeing”—and from shir—which is a “song”. Teshurah denotes the most honorable, flashy, and eye-catching present possible. Malbim explains that teshurah refers specifically to a present that is given when one greets an honorable figure. In a way, it is a type of minchah. When one would meet with a prophet or holy man in order to receive his blessing or consult with his prophecies, one would present the eminent personage with a special gift in order to cement a bond with said person. The purpose of this gift is to placate the receiver’s physical body. This would then allow the receiver to transcend his physical limitations, and allow an outpouring of his spiritual influence onto the giver, whether for the purposes of prophecy or blessings. By creating this bond, the receiver could now become a conduit for G-d’s blessing to the giver, thereby making the receiver a giver, and the giver a receiver. This, of course, is why Isaac requested that Esau present him with a delectable meal before he would bless him (see Gen. 27). Our last word for “gift” is not actually Hebrew, and does not even appear in the Bible. Targum pseudo-Jonathan generally translates the Hebrew text of the Bible into Aramaic. When discussing the “gift” that Jacob sent Esau, Targum pseudo-Jonathan translates the word minchah as doron. However, doron is not Aramaic. As Rabbi Eliyahu HaBachur (1469–1549) observes in Sefer HaTishbi, the word doron is actually Greek for “gift”. So even though Doron sounds like a manly Israeli name, it comes from Greek. Doron is actually closer in meaning to the name Theodore (“G-d’s gift” in Greek), which parallels the Hebrew name Yonatan (“Hashem’s gift”). * NOTE: Rabbi Mecklenburg points out that it is inaccurate to say that the word minchah translates into “meal-offering”; it simply means “gift”. Nonetheless, in the context of sacrifices, minchah does refer specifically to meal-offerings, albeit that is not its literal meaning. Share this: WhatsApp More Telegram Email Print Share on Tumblr

For the illui neshamah of my father, Dovid Yitzchak ben Tzvi Moshe, on his yahrtzeit, the thirteenth of Kislev. Parshas וַיִשְׁלַח Sweet Harmony נֶבֶל: nevel — a musical instrument נְבֵלָה: carcass of a dead animal, disgrace נוֹבְלוֹת: unripe figs נָבָל: a name in Tanach​ וַתֵּצֵא דִינָה בַּת לֵאָה אֲשֶׁר… וַיַּרְא אֹתָהּ שְׁכֶם בֶּן חֲמוֹר… וַיִּשְׁכַּב אֹתָהּוַיְעַנֶּהָ… וּבְנֵי יַעֲקֹב בָּאוּ מִן הַשָּׂדֶה כְּשָׁמְעָם וַיִּתְעַצְּבוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים וַיִּחַר לָהֶם מְאֹד כִּינְבָלָה עָשָׂה בְיִשְׂרָאֵל And Dinah, the daughter of Leah, went out…and Shechem the son of Chamor saw her…and he forcibly laid with her…and the sons of Yaakov came in from the field and when they heard what happened they became deeply distraught and angry because a disgusting act (נְבָלָה/nevalah) had been committed to a Jewish girl. כִּי שְׁכֶם הֵבִיא בְּנוֹת הָאָרֶץ סָבִיב לְאֹהֶל יַעַקֹב וְהָיוּ מְשַׂחַקִים בְּכְּלֵי נֶבֶל Shechem brought the daughters of the land to surround the tent of Yaakov and they were playing music with the nevel (alluring Dinah to come out). What’s the connection between נֶבֶל/nevel, a musical instrument, and נְבֵלָה/neveilah, a carcass of a dead animal? נֶבֶל: Nevel — A Musical Instrument Generally, instruments are hollow. A sound fills the hollow through a movement of air or through a vibration from a string. We are all walking instruments in that we are hollow, and when we pass wind through our voice box, we generate sound. The myriad of passages in our lungs are called symphonies. Each individual tube has the capacity to blow air from our lungs through our voicebox and create music, and thus we are not just a living instrument, but a whole symphonic orchestra! Are the sounds we play tuneful? Is our orchestra in sweet harmony? The answer very much depends on if we are being attentive to the Conductor. With every breath we take, we have the ability to praise Hashem — כֹּל הַנְּשָׁמָהתְּהַלֵּל יָ-הּ הַלְלוּיָ–הּ. Only when we allow our whole being to be directed by Hashem does He become our conductor, and then what comes out is a sweet harmony. However, if we rely on ourselves to do the conducting, then our orchestra is liable to be in a state of discord. The ayil/ram of Yitzchak that was offered up on the Akeidah was created bein hashemashos/ during the twilight hours on the sixth day of creation. In PirkeiD’Rebbe Eliezer, it says that none of the ayil was left over or discarded; the ashes were used for the foundation of the inner mizbei’ach; the skin was used to gird EliyahuHanavi; one shofar was blown at Har Sinai, and the other will be blown to herald the Mashiach. Its gidim(ligaments) were used as strings in the ten-string nevelthat King David used to play his beautiful psalms to Hashem. These ten strings were no ordinary strings; since they were offered up to Hashem as a korban, they had reached an elevated state and were now fitting to be used by King David as an instrument for kedushah. This instrument was called the Nevel. נְבֵלָה: Carcass of a Dead Animal, Disgrace Neveilah, on the opposite extreme, is a carcass of a dead animal that is full of tumah and cannot be drawn close to Hashem. The Torah calls the disgusting act done by Shechem ben Chamor in defiling Dinah an act of neveilah. No coincidence that he was a son of an animal (his father’s name, Chamor, is also the Hebrew word for a donkey). An animal act is a hollow action — an act of taking that leaves the chalal/empty space remaining hollow and dead inside — it leaves one feeling empty and wanting — like a dead carcass, which emanates tumah. This is what the Torah calls neveilah. We see that the same root (נֶבֶל\נְבֵלָה) has the power to uplift and become part of Hashem’s orchestra or to become tamei/impure and be rejected as something dead and disgusting. Only something that has life can play music and be in Hashem’s orchestra. Even though the ayil/ram was no longer alive, since it was offered up to Hashem, its very essence continues to live, as we see nothing went to waste. When we are connected to Hashem, and all that we do is for Hashem, then we are living, breathing, and playing in the big orchestra of life as part of the grand symphony. But when we are not close to Hashem, it is like we are dead, full of tumah, like a neveilah, a dead carcass, a hollow chalal/space without a player. What comes out of our mouths is not music but discord and disharmony. There needs to be a living force, a ruach/moving spirit in order to give the hollow life, to give the instrument life. Only when we are connected to life, to Hashem, is there a living force. In the pasukעַם נָבָל וְלֹא חָכָם in Parshas Ha’azinu, TargumOnkelos understands נָבָל to be referring to the receiving of the Torah. The Likkutei Moharan explains עַם נָבָל וְלֹאחָכָם to mean that in order to receive the Torah, we needed to discard the chochmas hagoyim/wisdom of the goyim.We were no different from the Egyptians; they served avodah zarah and so did we, so why did we get the Torah? The answer is that during our forty-nine-day sojourn to Har Sinai, we were able to discard their chochmah and their culture. The connection between the נֶבֶל and נְבֵלָה is simply that aנֶבֶל is a hollow full of kedushah and נְבֵלָה is a hollow full of tumah. Only when we empty ourselves from all the tumah are we able to make room for the kedushah. This was the נֶבֶל of Kabalas HaTorah. Torah is compared to מַיִם, and just like water flows from a high place and doesn’t stop until it reaches the lowest point, so too Torah can only be received by someone who is very humble. Someone who is full of himself, who is full of גַסֻת רוּחַ/arrogance, is not capable of receiving the Torah because he has made no room for it. Only someone who has deflated his ego, his sense of self, and who has made himself into an empty kli/vessel can be mekabel/receive the Torah. King David, who was full of Torah, used the נֶבֶל to play music and sing Psalms. We know that King Shaul, when he wanted to connect to Hashem, would call for David to play music, and through the medium of music he would be able to connect and have ruach hakodesh. What is it about the nature of music that gives people the ability of reaching heights of kedushah? Music has the quality of helping us to relax our minds from all the stuff that is going on in our lives and helps us to meditate. By throwing out all the mundane stuff from our minds, we are then able to fill ourselves up with kedushah. This is the process of going from נְבֵלָה to נֶבֶל. Unfortunately, we live in a generation where music can take us to the opposite extreme that puts us in touch with our animal selves. נוֹבְלוֹת: Unripe Figs In Bereishis Rabbah it mentions three types of נוֹבְלוֹת: sleep, dreams, and Shabbos. All of them are one-sixtieth of the real thing, as Chazal say that sleep is one-sixtieth of death, dreams are one-sixtieth of prophecy, and Shabbos is just one-sixtieth a taste of Olam HaBa. The Gemara in Brachos defines נוֹבְלוֹת as unripe figs that were blown off the tree before ripening and are thus very bitter. So נוֹבְלוֹת is something that has fallen short of its potential, just a taste of what it could have been. Hence, sleep, dreams, and Shabbos are all just a taste of the real thing. The aforementioned Midrash adds the sun and Torah to the list of נוֹבְלוֹת. The sun is included because its light is miniscule compared to the true heavenly light that surrounds the glory of Hashem’s throne, and the Torah that we have in our world is just a fraction of its counterpart in Shamayim. In essence, we are all נוֹבְלוֹת in that we have not yet come to fruition. We could be much greater. How do we get to the greater part of ourselves? Through the aspect of נֶבֶל.By deflating ourselves from all the waste and tumah that we are infected by in this world and instead inflating ourselves with קְדוּשָׁה through the נֶבֶל, which has the capacity to pluck the strings of our hearts and tune us into a much higher place. Just like a balloon, if we fill ourselves up with air, we are able to float our boat, however if we are connected to the aspect of נְבֵלָה, then we are full of decaying flesh and bones just wasting away; we have no chance of getting off the ground, our boat is anchored, and we’re going nowhere. נָבָל: Name in Tanach וְשֵׁם הָאִישׁ נָבָל… וְהָאִישׁ קָשֶׁה וְרַע מַעֲלָלִים The man’s name was Novol…the man was difficult and an evildoer. אָמַר נָבָל בְּלִבּוֹ אֵין אֱ–לֹהִים In Tehillim, Novol is referred to as Nevuchadnetzarbecause he filled up the world with corpses, or because in the future Hashem will cause him to fall like נוֹבְלוֹתfrom a tree. Noam Elimelech to Parshas Vayishlach refers to Lavanas לָבָן לָשׁוֹן נָבָל, a synonym for the yetzer hara. הַשַֹר הַמְנוּנִית עַל עַנִיוּת נָבָל שְׁמוֹ In the Mishnah Berurah, with regards to passing water next to one’s bed, it is considered a disgusting act in the eyes of Hashem and causes one to be impoverished. It quotes the Gemara in Pesachim that says the name of the angel of poverty is called נָבָל. נֶבֶל– וְהוּא כְּלֵי זֶמֶר עִם מֵיתָרִים כְּמוֹ נִקְרָא נֶבֶל מִי שֶׁהָיָה נִגוּנֵי מְתוּקָהבְּיוֹתֶר עַד שֶׁמְנַבֵל כָּל כְּלֵי שִׁיר שֶׁבְּעוֹלָם Nevel is a musical instrument and is called nevel because its music is so sweet that it menavel/puts to shame all other instruments in the world. The power to consecrate or desecrate is in our hands. זֶמֶר/zemer is to cut away, or to sing. By singing, we are able to cut through to our souls, to Hashem. נֶצַח/forever, victory; לַמְנַצֵחַ/LaMenatzei’ach, conductor When we are connected to Hashem, we are connected to the conductor, we are connected to forever, we are victorious over our נְבֵלָה/body, and instead we are strung up to a נֶבֶל and to Hashem. We are now an instrument of sweet harmony, worthy of being in the grand symphony orchestra. Share this: WhatsApp More Telegram Email Print Share on Tumblr

Article abstract: In the Torah portion Miketz, the word "חכם" (wise) appears for the first time in Scripture - used by Pharaoh to describe Joseph. In the article, we examine the depth of the word, specifically its uniqueness versus words like "בינה" "דעה", "השכל". We identify a common denominator between the spectrum of words containing the letters "חכ". The conceptual connection underlying this word group is fascinating and instructive, as is the connection to Chanukah, which we are celebrating today. Happy Chanukah! וְעַתָּה יֵרֶא פַרְעֹה אִישׁ נָבוֹן וְחָכָם וִישִׁיתֵהוּ עַל אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם (בראשית מא:לג). Now let Pharaoh seek out a discerning and wise man [וְחָכָם] and set him over the land of Egypt (Gen. 41:33). The verse which appears in the above epigraph is the first appearance of the word חכם in the entire Scripture. Thus, the word wise man first appears in connection to Joseph’s advice to Pharaoh. The Zohar (Vol. I, 130b) alludes to a connection between חכמה and the wordחכה , waiting: “No eye had ever seen, O God, beside You, what He will do for those who wait [מְחַכֵּה]for Him (Isa. 64:3). What does it mean, to wait for Him? As Scripture states: Elihu waited [חִכָּה] before addressing Job (Job 32:4)…” The Zohar goes on to say that the meaning of חכמה is the ability to infer and extract information: “…And these are the ones who press upon a word of wisdom and extract from it, and wait(ומחכאן) for it, to learn the clarification of the matter.”[1] Shoresh Yesha (entry חכם) suggests two logical connections between the phonetically related words ,חכם חכה (wait), [2] andחיך (palate):[3] The wise man (חכם) does not speak rashly, instead he waits (מחכה) [to think] before he speaks. He then speaks words that are sweet and pleasant to the palate (חיך). Based on the above, we will examine the gamut of words in the Leshon kodesh that contain the 2-letter string חכ, checking to see if the other words in this category share similar meanings. In Sefer Hashorashim (entry חך), Radak lists a number of verses denoting palate.[4] He then cites his father,[5] who held that the root of חך is [6]חנך, and the "dot" (dagesh) that appears in the letter kaf in the verses cited (חִכּוֹ, וְחִכֵּךְ, חִכְּךָ) appears in lieu of the absent letter נ. Radak then adds a second section to this entry, in which he includes the wordחַכָּה (fishing hook) - since the hook latches onto the fish’s palate.[7] In Aramaic, the word חייכא is the translation of the verb לצחוק (to laugh),[8] an act that involves the palate (from which derives the word חיוך, smile in modern-day Hebrew).[9] Until now, we have found a connection between words containing the lettersחך and theחֵךְ palate itself. However, there remains one word that seemingly bears no connection to חֵךְ, namely, the word חַכְלִילִי that Jacob used in his deathbed blessings for Judah: the eyes are red [חַכְלִילִי עֵינַיִם] from wine (Gen. 49:21). Nonetheless, our Sages teach us that this word is also based on the root חך. In Ketubot 111b, the Talmud tells us that the wordחַכְלִילִי means כָּל חֵיך שֶׁטוֹעֲמוֹ אוֹמֵר לִי לִי, “Every palate that tastes it says, ‘For me, for me.’”[10] There is one other instance ofחַכְלִילִי in Scripture, wherein King Solomon appears to hint to the aspect of waiting / pausing (חַכֵּה) inherent in the constituent letters חכ: Who has redness (חַכְלִילוּת) in the eyes? Those who linger over wine (Prov. 23:29-30).[11] It would appear then that the role of the palate is to instill in us the quality of waiting - both before releasing a word from one’s mouth, and before inserting something into it. Whereas an infant demands immediate satisfaction and does not grasp the unwanted outcomes that are liable to result from inserting random items into his mouth, the wise man foresees results in advance (like it says in Avot). Similarly, the fish is caught by the hook, because instead of waiting and making a careful assessment, it gobbles down what's in front of it without hesitation. By contrast, in Scripture we find numerous expressions of praise for the ability to wait, such as the word עקב, as explained by Ibn Ezra and others: And all the nations of the world shall bless themselves by your offspring, because [עֵקֶב] you listened to My voice (Gen. 22:18); Ibn Ezra - “עקב - the reward that comes at the end”; Radak - "עקב means the reward… just as the עֲקֵב, heel, is the end of the body, so too reward comes at the end…”[12] In other words, reward depends on the ability to wait and overcome the desire for immediate gratification. Similarly, RSRH (Gen. 15:1) compares the word שכר (reward) to the word סכר (a dam),[13] by explaining that reward, like water, can only be realized if allowed to accumulate over time.[14] As mentioned above, Radak noted that his father showed that the root of the word חֵךְ is חנך. What is the connection between - חנך the root for words such as education and inauguration- and חך? Based on the above, the connection is clear. An infant is born without the ability to hold back his desires, and it puts anything and everything into its mouth without compunction. The infant needs his parents and teachers to train / educate [לחנך] him in the value of waiting. Herein lies the secret of Chanuka (another word derived from חנך), which teaches us the value of waiting for God's salvation, as per Rambam’s principle of faith: "I will wait [אחכה] for him [the Messiah] every day, that he should come" - speedily, in our days! [1] זוהר (א:קל:) - כתיב: עַיִן לֹא רָאָתָה אֱלֹהִים זוּלָתְךָ יַעֲשֶׂה לִמְחַכֵּה לוֹ (ישע' סד:ג), מאי למחכה לו? כמה דאת אמר: וֶאֱלִיהוּ חִכָּה אֶת אִיּוֹב בִּדְבָרִים (איוב לב:ד), ומוסיף הזוהר שפירושה של מלת "חכה" הוא כח הדיוק: ואלין אינון דדחקין למלה דחכמתא ודייקין לה [אלו הם הדוחקים להבין דבר חכמה, ומדייקים בה] ומחכאן לה למנדע ברירא דמלה [ומחכין לה לדעת בירורו של דבר]. ע"כ לשון הזוהר. [2] וע' ספר לקוטי תורה (תורת שמואל תרל"ג [חלק ב, דפים תצא, תצב]) שקישר גם בין "חיך" ל"חכה". [3] ויש לציין שאמנם מנחם בן סרוק לא חבר 'חכם' עם 'חכה', אבל חבר שלש מחלקות קרובות בערך 'חך': 1. לשון "חכה" (המתנה), 2. לשון "חכה" (כלי לדיג) 3. לשון "חיך" (גג הפה). [4] רד"ק (שרש 'חך') - וְחֵךְ אֹכֶל יִטְעַם לוֹ (איוב יב:יא), חִכּוֹ מַמְתַקִּים (שה"ש ה:טז), וְחִכֵּךְ כְּיֵין הַטּוֹב (שם ז:י), אֶל חִכְּךָ שֹׁפָר (הושע ח:א)... ואדוני אבי ז"ל כתב כי שרש 'חך': 'חנך', והדגש ב'חִכּוֹ', 'חִכְּךָ' בפסוקים הנ"ל בעבור הנו"ן... [5]ראה ספר הגלוי, ערך 'חך'. [6] ומכאן לשון "חניכיים", מלה נרדפת ל"חיך": חולין קג: - בין החניכיים; רש"י - בין החניכיים - המדבק בחכו; מאירי - מה שעל החנכיים והוא החיך. [7] חבקוק א:טו - כֻּלֹּה בְּחַכָּה הֵעֲלָה; מצ"צ: בחכה - שם כלי צדיה. איוב מ:כה - תִּמְשֹׁךְ לִוְיָתָן בְּחַכָּה. ישעיהו יט:ח - כָּל מַשְׁלִיכֵי בַיְאוֹר חַכָּה. [8] בראשית יח:יב - וַתִּצְחַק שָׂרָה בְּקִרְבָּהּ לֵאמֹר אַחֲרֵי בְלֹתִי הָיְתָה לִּי עֶדְנָה; ת"א - וחייכת שרה במעהא למימר בתר דסיבית תהי לי ולימו. בראשית לט:יד - הֵבִיא לָנוּ אִישׁ עִבְרִי לְצַחֶק בָּנוּ; ת"א - איתי לנא גברא עבראה לחיכא בנא. [9] ומכאן "חיוך" בלשון המדוברת (אור חדש, בראשית מא:לג). [10] כתובות קיא: - חַכְלִילִי עֵינַיִם מִיָּיִן (בר' מט:יב) - כל חיך שטועמו אומר לי, לי. [11] משלי כג:כט-ל - לְמִי חַכְלִלוּתעֵינָיִם. לַמְאַחֲרִים[דהיינו, שוהים] עַלהַיָּיִן... [12] בראשית כב:יח - וְהִתְבָּרֲכוּ בְזַרְעֲךָ כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ עֵקֶב אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקֹלִי; אב"ע - עקב - שכר באחרית; רד"ק - עקב, פירושו שכר, והוא מענין עקב כמו שהעקב סוף הגוף כן השכר סוף, כי בשכר המעשה יבוא השכר בסוף. ול' חז"ל "עיכוב" בעצמה נובעת מל' מקרא "עקב". ראה למשל צרור המור (בר' כה:לא), הכוה"ק (שם כז:לו). [13] בחילוף אותיות גיכ"ק, וזסשר"ץ. [14] רש"ר הירש בראשית טו:א - שכרך הרבה מאד - 'שכר' קרוב ל'סכר'... לסתום פרצה, למלא חסרון. ואכן, זה כל עצמו של שכר: מי שהקריב מכחו ומזמנו, נוטל את שכרו וממלא את חסרנו. ורש"ר הירש משווה גם את המלה "חכם" בעצמה ל"אגם" (בחילוף אותיות אחע"ה וגיכ"ק): רש"ר הירש בראשית מא:לג - איש נבון וחכם -'חכם' קרוב ל'אגם': קליטת... המצוי.

Playing with Fire When telling of the future downfall of the descendants of Esau, the prophet Ovadiah (Obadiah 1:18) refers to the House of Jacob as an aish, the House of Joseph as a lehavah, and the House of Esau as straw. This passage refers to the Houses of Jacob and Joseph by different words for “fire”, and conveys the message that the House of Esau will be fodder for that future fire. But what is the difference between an aish and a lehavah? For that matter, what do we do with a whole slew of Hebrew words which are related to the idea of “fire”, but are not quite synonymous? The most common word for fire is aish. Rabbi Eliyahu HaBachur (1469–1549) in his work Metrugaman points out that most places in which the Hebrew word aish appears in the Bible, the Targumim translate the word into Aramaic as aisha or aishata. But, in some places, the Targumim translate the Hebrew aish into the Aramaic nur or nura. HaBachur admits that he does not know what makes the Targumim use one word over the other. Nonetheless, he notes that most times the Bible mentions a fire that burns or roasts something, then the Targumim use the word nura. What is the etymological basis for the word nura? Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim of Breslau (1714–1814) explains in his work Cheshek Shlomo that the letter REISH itself denotes “throwing”, and different roots that use the letter REISH are derived from that. He explains that the word ohr (ALEPH-VAV-REISH), “light”, is related to “throwing” because the light rays which emanate from sources of light act as if they are “thrown” from that source. The object which holds the source of light is called a ner (NUN-REISH), and the vessel within which a ner is fixed is called a menorah (MEM-NUN-REISH-HAY). With this in mind, I would say that the word nura is also related to this theory, although Rabbi Pappenheim does not openly mention that Aramaic word. There is another word related to this discussion which Rabbi Pappenheim does not explicitly mention—that is, the word ur (spelled the same as ohr, but pronounced differently). That word appears a total of six times in the Bible (only in the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel), and clearly means “fire”. It is the preferred word for “fire” in the Mishnah, where it appears quite a few times (Challah 4:8; Shabbos 1:11, 8:7, 16:5; Yoma 6:7; Beitzah 4:4, 4:7; Rosh Hashanah 2:3; Bava Kama 6:4, 9:4; Sanhedrin 9:1; Avodah Zarah 5:12; Avos 2:10; Zevachim 12:6; Menachos 10:4; Chullin 3:3; Tamid 1:3; Keilim 5:11, 29:8; Ohalot 11:7). Ur was also the name of an ancient Mesopotamian city where Abraham lived. According to tradition, the name Ur alludes to the fact that its king tossed Abraham into a fiery furnace, from which he miraculously emerged unscathed. The Malbim (to Ez. 2:5) writes that ur differs from aish in that ur denotes a smaller fire than aish does. Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim of Breslau explains in Yeriot Shlomo that while aish is a general term for “fire”, the word lahav/lehavah refers specifically to a flame which spurs forth into the air. A lahav is attached to a bigger fire, and serves as an outlet for that fire to spread outwards. The word lahav also refers to the blade of a knife/sword. Because lahav refers primarly to the part of a fire which affects things outside of the fire, it was borrowed to also refer to the part of a sharp tool which affects other things. Moreover, because the word lahav denotes the shimmering glimmer of a fire, it also refers to the glistening edge of a metal instrument. With this in mind, we can now better understand Ovadiah’s prophecy. It means that the fire from within the House of Jacob will spread outwards via the flame of the House of Joseph, and finally burn up the straw, that is the House of Esau. Returning to fire-related words, the word shalhevet is closely related to lahav. However, Rabbi Pappenheim explains that shalhevet refers to a flame which is attached to a tangible object. He explains that shalhevet is related lahav, but is also related to the word meshulav (“mixed”, see Ex. 26:17, I Kgs. 7:29). In that sense, a shalhevet is a flame that is mixed with some other material which it burns up. The word lahat refers to the fast movement of fire, which, as the saying goes, “spreads like wildfire”. Lahat is related to the root LAMMED-TET which refers to “bending”, and can also be used to refer to the sleight of hand, which Pharoah’s magicians used (Ex. 7:11, 7:22, 8:3). Both lahav and lahat primarly refer to a flame or a blade, and both terms are also borrowed to refer to enthusiasm. The word lapid (commonly translated as “torch”) is used when one’s focus is on the object which carries a fire, as opposed to the fire itself. Some linguists creatively connect the Hebrew word lapid to the Akkadian word diparu. They justify this by arguing that the l-sound can be interchanged with the r-sound, on top of which a metathesis can be employed to rearrange the consonants of rapid to become diparu. Interestingly, this is similar to an explanation found in the Radak (to Nachum 2:4) who wrote that aish-pladot is an alternate way of saying lapid-aish. The word avukah primarily refers to a bundle of twigs used for fueling a fire. As an outgrowth of that meaning, avukah came to refer to any candle or torch of which more than one wick is lit. According to Halacha, some situations call for specifically an avukah (such as Havdalah), while others call for specficially a ner (such as Bedikat Chametz and Chanukah candles), which has only one wick. The Hebrew word ner (“candle/lamp”) is generally translated by the Targumim into Aramaic as shraga. The word shraga later became a popular Jewish name (much like the Arabic name Siraj is quite popular in the Arab world). The Yiddish counterpart to the Hebrew name Shraga is Feivish. Interestingly, some scholars explain that Feivish, like Shraga, is also associated with the concept of light. They argue that Feivish is derived from the Greek/Latin name Phoebus, which was actually the name of the Greek/Roman god of light. It is a fascinating turn of events that the name of a pagan god was eventually adopted as a Jewish personal name. Nonetheless, Dr. Alexander Beider dismisses this explanation as mere “folk etymology”, and argues that Feivish is actually derived from Vivus (“life” in Latin), making it more closely associated with the Hebrew name Chaim (“life), than Shraga. Share this: WhatsApp More Telegram Email Print Share on Tumblr

Parshas מִקֵץ How to Charm the Snake נִיחוּש: divination נַחְשׁוֹן: Nachshon נָחָשׁ: snake נְחוֹשֶׁת: copper נִיחוּשׁ: Divination וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם יוֹסֵף מָה הַמַּעֲשֶׂה הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר עֲשִׂיתֶם הֲלוֹא יְדַעְתֶּם כִּי נַחֵשׁ יְנַחֵשׁ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר כָּמֹנִי And Yosef said to them, “What is this deed that you have done, is it not obvious to you all that a man like me practices divination?”1 The Ramban defines נִיחוּשׁ as any process that allows one to know the future ahead of time.2 As a young boy, time travel was always a marvel to me. Just to have in one’s hand tomorrow’s newspaper, to know the horse racing results, the stock market gains, the lottery numbers — alas, some things are just not within hand’s reach. Once, when I was very young, a gypsy woman knocked on our door and asked if she could use the bathroom. In return, she read my mother’s palm. One of the things she told my mother was that her son would become a teacher — little did I know then that I was destined to be a rabbi! It is known in the Torah that Egypt was the magic capital of the world. They were well versed in being able to read the stars. The heavenly bodies known as mazalosinfluence the world because Hashem channels His energy flow through them, which is why the goyim are called stargazers — because they look into the stars to see what will be. So there is definitely some truth to the art of horoscopes. One of these arts of divination the Ramban calls Negrormancia/black magic, (hence the word negro), which is a kind of voodoo practice of telling the future by communicating with the dead. Yosef’s goblet, which was supposedly stolen by the brothers, was no ordinary goblet; Yosef professed that he used it to tell the future. Lavan’s terafim were also some kind of crystal-ball from which he was able to know the future. Shlomo HaMelech had knowledge of the chochmas of the chirping of birds, which reveals the future. So we see many examples in the Torah that this kind of stuff was real. However, one of the rules on entry to the land was not to learn from the goyim, because in Hashem’s eyes, it is an abomination. Rather, we have to be תָּמִים תִּהִיֶה עִם ה’ אֶ-לֹהֶיךָ/pure with Hashem. In other words Hashem does not want us to be lusting after the ways of knowing what will be — rather, what will be will be. Rashi says that we are meant to walk with Hashem בְּתְּמִימִוּת/b’temimus/in purity, not to look into the future, rather to accept with simplicity anything that the future may bring. In doing so, we will be His people and His portion. And the snake said to Chava, “If you eat from the tree, you will be like G-d, knowing good and bad.” Divination, as its name depicts, is to be divine, to be like G-d, all-knowing. Whoever wants to know the future is like someone who, when he first gets a book, turns to the last page to read the outcome. Knowing the future before it happens might seem like the ultimate fulfillment of desire, but really it is cheating the system and cheating oneself. One can’t compare the first time one watched a movie to the second or third time. Not knowing what will be is the excitement of life. If one knows the future, there will be no adrenaline rush, no surprises, no cliff-hangers, just going through the motions. There will be no need for תְּפִילָה, so we will lose our connection to Hashem and to life. The true sense of feeling alive is taking each day as it comes, living each moment, with the complete knowledge that Hashem loves us and that everything’s going to be all right. In essence, life is a voyage of self-discovery where Hashem is revealing ourselves to ourselves, revealing the power within us after we face and overcome life’s ordeals. נַחְשׁוֹן: Nachshon וַיִּקַּח אַהֲרֹן אֶת אֱלִישֶׁבַע בַּת עַמִּינָדָב אֲחוֹת נַחְשׁוֹן לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה And Aharon took Elisheva, the daughter of Aminadav, the sister of Nachshon, to him as a wife.3 The Gemara in Bava Basra says that one who wants to know how his sons are going to turn out should check out his wife’s brothers, because the majority of the sons are similar to the mother’s brother’s, hence the saying “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.”4So too the name נַחְשׁוֹן hints that there is indeed a remote form of נִיחוּשׁ/ knowing the future, which is permissible by the Torah. נָחָשׁ: Snake וְהַנָּחָשׁ הָיָה עָרוּם מִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה And the snake was cunning from all of the other animals.5 Being that all the animals were created to serve man, the nachash, with his ability to speak, was most suitable to serving man in that he could act as an intermediary between man and all the animals. He in essence was king of the jungle. If man had not sinned, each one of us would have two snakes to serve us: one that would travel to the north and the other to the south, bringing us precious stones and pearls.6With all our needs taken care of, we would be free to pursue our ikkar tachlis/essential purpose in life to learn Torah and draw closer to Hashem. To be worthy of this lofty level, Hashem had to test us. The נָחָשׁ, with its ability to speak, was the most qualified for the job. But instead of rising to the challenge, man fell and the whole creation fell with him. Adam from the adamah/earth would now have to return to the עָפָר/dust in order to rise again. The adamah was cursed in that now it would bring forth weeds and thorns. The נָחָשׁ had his power of speech taken away from him, and with the painful dismemberment of his arms and legs, he was now committed to a life slivering around in the dirt. The overall curse of the נָחָשׁ was his becoming self-sufficient. With the עָפָר being a part of his stable diet, he no longer looked to Hashem for his sustenance. Not having a relationship with Hashem is the biggest curse of all. . You may wonder that if the snake was doing Hashem’s will, why was he punished? The simple answer is that Hashem is teaching a lesson to man that no act goes unpunished. Due to Adam’s sin, instead of having two snakes serving us, we have two snakes continually testing us, the שָׂטָןinside of us known as the yetzer hara, and the שָׂטָן outside of us known as the prosecuting angel. In the evening prayers, we say וְהָסֵר שָׂטָן מִלְּפָנֵינוּ וּמֵאַחֲרֵינוּ, asking Hashem to remove the שָׂטָן from before us and from behind us. The one before us is the one that can easily be seen, while the one behind us is the one intertwined with our very being, our yetzer hara that is so hard to decipher. Now, when we sin by listening to the snake inside of us, the snake outside of us comes to bite us, as Chazal say: rather than the snake that bites, it’s the sin that bites (as we see from Yosef HaTzaddik, whom the snakes were powerless to harm). When the Bnei Yisrael spoke lashon haraabout the manna, Hashem sent snakes to bite them. Who better than the נָחָשׁ, the progenitor of lashon hara, to come and teach them the error of their ways? In order to stop the snakes, Hashem tells Moshe to place a snake on top of a pole, and whoever looks at it will live. This was the נְחַשׁ נְחשֶׁת/Nachash Nechoshes, which worked to heal the snake bites, a spiritual healing that caused the Bnei Yisrael to look upward, toward the heavens, reconnecting with Hashem. The snake on the pole is the symbolism used by the medical profession to symbolize healing, which they profess originated from Greek mythology. Little do they realize that it originates from the Nachash Nechoshes that teaches us that the real cause of disease is sin and the real healing is spiritual, i.e., by fixing up the sin and reconnecting to Hashem. Chazal say that “what is crooked can never be made straight,”7referring to someone who has fallen prey to the advice of the נָחָשׁ. The נָחָשׁ is unable to walk in a straight path, therefore someone who follows his advice is said to be walking the crooked path. If he continues along that path, he can never be made straight. We learn from the Nachash Nechoshes, though, that if one reconnects with Hashem, then his path can indeed be made straight. In India, there is a phenomenon called snake charming, where a flute can mesmerize the snake to the point where the snake does not bite. However, the original home to the art of snake charming was in fact Egypt, where the imagery of the snake on the head of Pharaoh played a central role. When Moshe and Aharon first went to the house of Pharaoh, they went stick in hand, which, when thrown to the ground, turned into a snake. The entire house of Pharaoh just laughed at them, saying, “You have brought your goods to an overstocked market,”8to which the Egyptians brought in their young children with their own sticks to perform the same trick. Moshe and Aharon replied, “Only by bringing your goods to the competition can you show the superior quality of your goods,” and their stick proceeded to swallow up the competition. Targum Onkelos uses the word לַחַשֵׁיהוֹן to describe the Egyptian magicians, and elsewhere לַחַשׁ refers to a snake charmer, as it says, אִם יִשֹּׁךְ הַנָּחָשׁ בְּלוֹא לָחַשׁ וְאֵין יִתְרוֹן לְבַעַל הַלָּשׁוֹן/if the snake bites because it has not been charmed properly, then what good is the snake charmer?9Rashi says that this refers to the rasha, whose snake continually bites him because he does not possess the tools with which to charm his snake. In order to succeed, we have to know how to charm our snake in order that it doesn’t bite us — a little bit like training a dog! In essence, Hashem sends the snake in order to test us. Its job is to bring us down, but first it falsely raises us up by telling us how great we are in order to bring us crashing down to earth. The עָפָר/dust is his domain, the עָפָר representing the desire to do nothing, as we see from עֶפְרוֹן who said a lot and did little. The tzaddik is the opposite. He lowers himself in order to rise up, as we see מַשְׁפִּיל גֵאִים וּמַגְבִּיהַ שְׁפָלִים/Hashem lowers the haughty and raises up the lowly. Hashem raised Avraham, who said about himself, “I am just עָפָר וְאֵפֶר/dust and ashes.” נְחוֹשֶׁת: Copper נְחוֹשֶׁת is one of the metals used to build the Mishkan, but it is not in the same league as gold and silver. The Malbim in Parshas Terumah connects נְחוֹשֶׁת to the part of the נָחָשׁ, which in itself embodies earthly existence and materialism, whose very nature is to bite man’s heel, causing him to burn up, and to parch him from all liquids, reducing him to earthly matter. The reddish-brown earth of Eretz Yisrael is very similar in color to that of copper. The connection between נְחוֹשֶׁת and earth is more apparent in the making of the Mizbei’ach. In Shemos, Hashem instructs Moshe to tell the Bnei Yisrael to build a Mizbei’ach from earth,מִזְבַּח10אֲדָמָה תַּעֲשֶׂה לִּי and then later the instruction is to build a wooden Mizbei’ach coated in נְחוֹשֶׁת.11 In actuality, the Mizbei’ach was filled with earth, cased in wood, and coated with נְחוֹשֶׁת. So the Mizbei’ach, which is used by man to atone for his sins, is comprised of the elements of נְחוֹשֶׁת, symbolizing the נָחָשׁ, and עָפָר/earth, the domain of the נָחָשׁ, all of which were cursed (Adam, earth, nachash), all coming together to fix up the original sin.12 נְחוֹשֶׁת is also used in body armor. Like snake skin, armor has scales that one is able to sweat through. נְחוֹשֶׁת also has the quality of being able to sweat.13 This usage of the armor made from נְחוֹשֶׁת is contrasted well in the battle between David and Goliath.14David says to Goliath: “You come to me with sword and armor while I come in the name of Hashem.” Instead of protecting Goliath, the נְחוֹשֶׁת makes him sluggish, whereas Hashem gives David speed and agility. In the book of Daniel, Nevuchadnetzar, just like Pharaoh, has a dream that is impossible to interpret. Hashem causes Daniel to dream the same dream. The dream has four metal monsters, one following the other: gold, silver, copper, and iron. They represent the four exiles of the Jewish Nation, corresponding to Babylonia, Persia, Greece, and Edom. Greece is the third monster represented by נְחוֹשֶׁת. In מָעוֹז צוּר, which we sing on Chanukah, it says about Greece: וּפָרְצוּ חוֹמוֹת מִגְדָלַי/they were the ones to break through the walls, and, similarly, the nachash is פּוֹרֵץ גֶדֶר, known for breaking through boundaries. Just like sin causes the נָחָשׁ to breach our defenses, so too our sins caused the Greeks to breach our walls. Greece in Hebrew is יון, its very name representing the theology of the nachash to make us like עָפָר/dust in that they take the yud of יון, which symbolizes spirituality; with the vav they bring us down to earth; and with the nun they try and bury our spirituality in the dust itself.15 Chanukah represents the fight and victory against the Greek culture. On every day of Chanukah we read from the Torah the portion from Parshas Naso in which the princes of each tribe brought their dedication to the Chanukas HaMizbei’ach of the Mishkan. Who better than Nachshon ben Aminadav to open the proceedings — the one who testifies to the spiritual character of what we are looking for in our children, rather than the spiritual nemesis of the Greeks? Hashem brought us into the land on condition that we don’t act like the goyim; not to seek their ways of נִיחוּשׁ/divination to be like G-d, not to be like the נָחָשׁ who is independent of G-d, and not to be like Goliath seeking the outer protection of נְחוֹשֶׁת. Rather, Hashem wants us to be pure, תָּמִים תִּהִיֶה עִם ה’ אֶ-לֹהֶיךָ, and this is symbolized quite aptly with the pure olive oil of the פַּךְ הַשֶׁמֶן. Nothing else will do; there is no middle ground — either one is pure or impure. It all depends on whether one has charmed his snake or is charmed by his snake. 1Bereishis 44:15. 2Ramban to Devarim18:9–12. 3Shemos 6:23. 4Bava Basra 110a. 5Bereishis 3:1. 6Sanhedrin59b. 7Koheles 1:15. 8The original coals to Newcastle; see Rashi toShemos7:22. 9Koheles 10:11. 10Shemos 20:21. 11Ibid., 27:1. 12See also Midrash Tanchuma11, Parshas Terumah, which connects נחושתto the atonement of brazenness. 13See Devarim28:23. 14Shmuel I17:5. 15Shiur heard from Rabbi Eytan Feiner, rabbi of the White Shul, Far Rockaway, NY (when he was at Aish HaTorah, Yerushalayim); see also the Maharal, Ner Mitzvah, 2, footnote 74 (in Machon Yerushalayim edition). Share this: WhatsApp More Telegram Email Print Share on Tumblr

Photo by mali maeder on Pexels.com Sweet and Pleasant Not long after the Jews’ Exodus from Egypt, they travelled in the desert for three days and finally reached a place called Marah—aptly called so because its waters were bitter (mar). Predictably, the Jews complained to Moshe that they had nothing to drink, so G-d instructed Moshe to cast a tree into the waters and miraculously render them sweet (matok). The word matok is not the only word in Hebrew which means sweet. We pray every morning, “ve’ha’areiv na…” in which we ask G-d to make His words of Torah “sweet” (areiv) in our mouths. Similarly, in the Holiday Mussaf Service, before the Blessing of the Kohanim, we ask G-d “ve’tei’areiv lifanecha…” in which we ask G-d to make our prayers “sweet” (areiv) like sacrifices before Him. What is the difference between areiv and matok? The Vilna Gaon (1720–1797) does not directly address this question, but does explain the difference between matok and another word. He writes that naim/noam (pleasant) refers to visual appeal, while matok refers to gustatory appeal (which, of course, has to do with the sense of taste). Indeed, if one parses the Bible for instances of the words matok one will notice a pattern in its appearances. Words related to matok or metek commonly refer to culinary “sweetness” (something which tastes sweet), while the word areiv never appears in a gastronomical context (the only exception is Proverbs 20:17). In Song of Songs (2:14), the word areiv applies to auditory sweetness, as one lover says to the other, “allow me to hear your voice because your voice is sweet (areiv)”. Moreover, according to one opinion in the Talmud (Brachot 43a), the proper blessing to be recited over the scent of sweet-smelling balsam oil is …borei shemen areiv (“…who creates areiv oil”). This suggests that the word areiv also applies to the realm of the olfactory. According to this, it seems that matok refers specifically to a sweet taste, while areiv can also refer to a sweet voice and a sweet scent. With his signature diligence, Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim of Breslau (1740–1814) explains the differences between all three words in question. He argues that the word matok refers to an objective way of measuring taste and therefore refers specifically to the type of taste that is widely-acknowledged as “sweet”. “Sweet” is the polar opposite of “bitter”. “Sweet” is the form of taste found in such foodstuffs as honey, figs, dates, etc. Accordingly, the word matok primarily denotes a universally-recognized, positive taste. Nonetheless, the word was borrowed to refer to anything which one might argue is positive, desirous, or worthwhile. That said, R. Pappenheim explains that the waters at Marah are described as matok not because they were objectively “sweet”, per se, but because of the contrast in their transformation. Previously, those waters had been objectively “bitter” and now they lost that bitterness. Pappenheim writes that as opposed to the word matok which denotes an objective sweetness, the word areiv denotes a subjective sweetness or pleasantness. In that vein, a masochist who has an affinity for bitter foods might say, “bitter is areiv for me”, but he would not say “bitter is matok for me”. Areiv is an acquired taste; it is a matter of personal choice. [Perhaps, for this reason, we pray that the Torah should be areiv in our mouths because we want the Torah to appeal to us on a personal level. Similarly, this might also be the reason we ask G-d to look at our prayers as areiv like sacrifices, instead of matok. As opposed to paganism, Judaism does not believe that the rituals of sacrifices have any intrinsic (or “magical”) value, but that their value comes from the fact that G-d commanded us to offer these sacrifices. Accordingly, the word matok which denotes something objectively sweet is inappropriate, so we use the word areiv which means that they should appeal to G-d on the basis of His personal favor.] Pappenheim continues to explain the meaning of naim/noam. As opposed to the Vilna Gaon who understood that those words refer to visual sweetness, R. Pappenheim argues that these words do not refer to any type of physical property, but rather to the transcendental pleasure that one derives from enjoying something sweet. In this way, matok and areiv refer to the physical, while the term naim focuses on the sublime. The root of naim is NUN-AYIN-MEM, the last two letters of which also make up the root of the word im (“with”), because one’s soul tends to bond with that which he considers pleasant or enjoyable. In this way, the pleasantness of naim/noam focuses on the spiritual aspect as it binds disparate entities and joins them together. According to etymologists, the origin of the word areiv is unknown. However, some linguists suggest that its original meaning was related to the word arev (mixed) in the sense of “to be well-mixed”. So, for example, a glass of wine which is properly-mixed with the right proportion of wine to water, is considered pleasant and especially appealing. According to these etymologists, this is the basis for the meaning of the word areiv in the sense of “sweet”. I would argue that just as R. Pappenheim understood that naim is related to the idea of connection and attachment, so does the word areiv also refers to a type of binding. The common denominator between all the different groups of words that use the root AYIN-REISH-BET is that they all denote a form of connection or a joining of disparate elements: an arev is a guarantor on a loan (he connects the lender and borrower), erev (evening) connects day and night, taaruvot/irvuv is a mixture, an eirev is the woof-component of woven fabric, an eruv connects space into one Halachic domain, the Plague of Arov consisted of an assortment of beasts, and the Erev Rav are the mixed multitudes. The same applies to the word areiv. Sweetness/pleasantness creates a connection between the object in discussion and the one who beholds it. The more pleasing or sweet something or someone else is, the more the other wants to come closer to it. Therefore, because sweetness is an impetus for that link, it is related to the words for binding or connection. Share this: WhatsApp More Telegram Email Print Share on Tumblr

Article abstract for Parashat Terumah: This week's Parashah acutely delineates the makeup and measurements of the Tabernacle and its components, such as the Holy Ark and the Sacrificial Altar. But if it is important for one studying the intricacies of trees not to lose sight of the forest, how much more so should one analyzing the legal minutiae of the Sanctuary be sure to step back and ponder its fundamental purpose: atonement. The word for atonement in Hebrew is כפרה, but other words in the Holy Tongue bear this general meaning as well, such as סליחה and מחילה. What then is the unique import and mechanism of expiation represented by the word כפרה? This week's article examines the disparate derivatives of the root כפר, and delves into a fascinating dispute between Rashi and Ibn Ezra regarding its core meaning, and ultimately what the actual goal of atonement is. וְעָשִׂיתָ כַפֹּרֶת זָהָב טָהוֹר אַמָּתַיִם וָחֵצִי אָרְכָּהּ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי רָחְבָּהּ (שמות כה:יז). And you shall make a cover [כַפֹּרֶת] of pure gold; two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth (Ex. 25:17). In this article, we shall we shall try to pinpoint the meaning of the word כּפֹּרֶת, and of its root 'כפר'. Parashat Teruma delimits and details the structure of the Mishkan and its vessels. Among the vessels of the Tabernacle we find the Ark of the Testimony, and the כַּפּוֹרֶת covering over it. The commentators are divided as to the exact meaning of the word כַּפּוֹרֶת in this context. In this article, we will deal with the meaning of the word כַּפּוֹרֶת in particular, and the meaning of the root 'כפר' in general, a root bearing various meanings, such as atonement of sins. We will therefore try to understand: Given that there are other words in Leshon Hakodesh that also carry the general meaning atonement, such as סליחה and מחילה; what then is the meaning and unique mechanism of the atonement represented in the word כפרה? Rashi (loc. cit.) explains that the word כַפֹּרֶת refers to a cover, placed atop the ark, which was otherwise open from above.[1] Ibn Ezra explains likewise. However, while Rashi offers no proof-text to support this assertion, Ibn Ezra, compares it to the word כפרה - atonement - which, he asserts, denotes covering of a sin, similar in meaning to "כסוי" in the verse: Psalms 32:1 - Happy is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered [כְּסוּי חֲטָאָה].[2] The reason Rashi did not cite כפרה as a proof that כפורת means cover may be better understood in light of a different comment of Rashi. Before encountering Esau, Jacob said: Gen. 32:21 - I will appease his anger [אֲכַפְּרָה פָנָיו] with the gift that is going before me, and afterwards I will see his face, perhaps he will favor me; Rashi - “אֲכַפְּרָה פָנָיו - I will neutralize his anger. Similarly: And your treaty with death shall be nullified (וְכֻפַּר) (Isa. 28:18); you shall not be able to rid yourself of it (כַּפְּרָהּ) (Isa. 47:11). And it seems to me that all instances of כפרה concerning sin, transgression or anger are expressions of wiping away and getting rid of. In Aramaic, there are many instances of this in the Talmud; for example: ‘and he wiped (וְכָפַר) his hands’ (Baba Metzia 24a); ‘He wishes to wipe (לִכְפוּרֵי) His hands on this person’ (Gittin 56a). In the language of Scripture as well, the sacred sprinkling basins are called: כְּפוֹרֵי זָהָב (Ezra 1:10), because the priest wipes his hands on them, at the edge of the sprinkling basin.”[3] In the above citation, Rashi uses three separate words to explain the meaning of the word אכפרה: 1. ביטול 2. העברה 3. קינוח - all denoting erasing and wiping out. However, Rashi adds the qualification that these terms describe the root כפר, only when it appears concerning sin or anger (as in -this verse, which deals with Esau's anger). This effectively excludes the word כפורת, which functions as a cover and has nothing to do with wiping away. This seems to be the reason why Rashi does not see כפורת atop the Ark as a derivative of כפרה (as Ibn Ezra does). The root כפר first appears in Scripture in the context of Noah's ark, and there, its meaning is decidedly unrelated to erasing or wiping out: Gen. 6:14 - and you shall caulk it [וְכָפַרְתָּ] both inside and outside with pitch [בַּכֹּפֶר].[4] Here as well, Ibn Ezra comments that the term for caulking, וְכָפַרְתָּ, means covering, which he associates with the כפורת, the cover of the Ark.[5] In so doing, Ibn Ezra reiterates that all derivatives of the root כפר are related to the concept of covering. Rashi, however, does not relate the verb וְכָפַרְתָּ with the Ark’s כפורת, despite their apparently shared derivation from the root כפר.[6] A number of questions must be asked about Rashi's approach: A. Why did Rashi refuse to interpret וְכָפַרְתָּ as an expression of covering, as Ibn Ezra interpreted - which ostensibly connects "כפורת" to "כפרה"? B. Why does Rashi (to Genesis 32:21) give examples from the words of Chazal and from the Aramaic language, even before citing evidence from the Biblical term כְּפוֹרֵי זָהָב (Ezra 1:10), instead of likening the word כפרה to two examples that appear in the Pentateuch itself, namely to כפורת (Exodus 25:17) or to וְכָפַרְתָּ (Genesis 6:14) regarding Noah's Ark, as we mentioned above, which explicitly refer to matters of cover or covering. Before turning to these questions, we will first examine additional words derived from the root 'כפר', all of which at first glance are related to covering, thus reinforcing our quandary about Rashi, who chose to interpret כפרה as an expression of expunging, not as an expression of covering. 1. כופר / כפירה - heretic / heresy This term appears in Rabbinic literature, and by examining the Sages’ usage of this word, we can derive clues as to its connection to the root כפר. In Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer (Chap. 7, pgs. 135-7), many examples are cited emphasizing God’s loathing of כפיית טובה, ingratitude, and this term (כפיית טובה) is explicitly compared with כפירת טובה, denial of having received a favor, and ultimately denial of God Himself.[7] This equating of כפירה and כפיה can shed light on the word כפירה, since כפיה has only one meaning in Scripture - covering:[8] Prov. 21:14 - A gift in secret covers [יִכְפֶּה] anger; Metz. Tzion - "covering, and in the words of the Sages [we find this as well], that [at Sinai] God 'covered them [כפה עליהם] with the mountain like a barrel' (Shabbat 88a)."[9] Therefore, we may explain that those who deny God's existence are termed כופרים because they "cover their eyes" from seeing God's goodness, and indeed His very existence.[10] 2. כְּפָר - a village: The Sages expound the word כְּפָר as referring to כופרים: Eiruvin 21b - “What is the meaning of the verse, Come, my beloved, let us go out to the field, let us lodge in the villages (Song 7:12) … do not read this as villages [כפרים], but rather as כופרים deniers - Witness how all the goodness You have bestowed upon them has been repaid with aught but ingratitude [כפרו בך]![11] 3. כְּפִיר - a lion cub: Similarly, the Sages expound on the word כְּפִיר as though it stems from the word כופר: Avot D’Rabbi Natan 43 - “There are seven names for a lion… כפיר, because it is כופר its father and mother.”[12] In the above two interpretations as well – in which כְּפָר and כְּפִיר are both interpreted as כפירה, we may explain it along the lines of covering and hiding, in line with our explanation of Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer above. The self-sufficient villager feels like he is a master over his own property and affairs, and is loath to admit that what he has is all thanks to God's beneficence.[13] So too, when a lion cub feels itself already grown and independent, he “covers his eyes” to all the good his parents have done for him. Having found in all the above words that the root 'כפר' is interpreted as covering, we must return to our above questions. A) Why did Rashi (to Gen. 32:21, see above) write that "all instances of כפרה concerning sin, transgression and anger are expressions of wiping away and getting rid of." Why did he explain differently from Ibn Ezra's interpretation, who explained that the core meaning of the root כפר, in all its derivatives, is covering? B) Why did Rashi (loc. cit.) bring Aramaic examples and from the Talmud, even before citing the Biblical source, the verse כְּפוֹרֵי זָהָב (Ezra 1:10)? C) An additional question on Rashi: In a separate instance in which the word אכפרה appears, Rashi explains the word differently: Ex. 32:30 - And now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I will אֲכַפְּרָה for your sin; Rashi - “אֲכַפְּרָה בְּעַד חַטַּאתְכֶם - [This means] I will place a כופר, a wiping away, and an obstruction opposite your sin to separate you from your sin.”[14] Rashi here adds the terms obstruction and separation to the original definition of wiping away, but these ideas seem irreconcilable. Wiping away (קינוח) means erasing the sin entirely,[15] whereas obstruction and separation indicate at most a barrier, i.e., a covering for the sin,[16] akin to Ibn Ezra's approach![17] We can explain that the foundation of Rashi's approach is built upon what it means to atone for sins. Even though we have already brought sources that כפרת עוונות means covering sins, are we then to conclude that "Yom Kippur" [יום] הכיפורים means "the day of the coverings (of sin)?" But the verses say: I, only I, am He Who wipes away your willful sins for My sake, and I shall not recall your sins (Isa. 43:25), and later: I have wiped away your willful sins like a thick mist, and your transgressions like a cloud (Isa. 44:22).[18] These sources clearly refer to the wiping away of sin, not just to the covering over of sin! How can we reconcile these seemingly contradictory ideas? The goal of every would-be penitent is not that his sins be covered up, but that they be obliterated, as if they had never been committed in the first place. There may be sins that cannot be done away with entirely in his lifetime, due to their severity or other conditions (as listed by Rambam in the Laws of Repentance[19]). Nonetheless, it is important for the penitent - and indeed all of us - to know that complete obliteration of sin is always possible (even if such expiation can sometimes be reached only after death). In light of the above, we now understand why Rashi chose to interpret 'כפר' in the sense of wiping away, and not in the sense of covering (despite that seemingly, the simple meaning of root 'כפר' is indeed covering). This approach teaches us that there is also the possibility of wiping away and erasing offenses completely, and not merely "covering" them.[20] As for the evidence that Rashi cites regarding the meaning of 'כפר' from the Aramaic language and from the words of the Sages,[21] even before he mentions its appearance as "כְּפוֹרֵי זָהָב" in the Bible itself[22] - the reason is clear. The meaning of the term "כְּפוֹרֵי זָהָב" itself would be unknown to us from the Bible alone, if not for the words of the Sages! However, in the words, "Perhaps I shall atone (אכפרה) for your sins," Moshe Rabbeinu alludes (according to Rashi) to both meanings of the root 'כפר': A. covering / partition. B. wiping / removal. After the sin of the Golden Calf, the most grievous sin in our history, [23] there was a need to beg God first and foremost for atonement of any kind, even if only as a cover or partition. That is, "maybe" indeed God would atone at first only through "hiding the sin," and only after many prayers and intercessions would we be awarded the degree of wiping away / complete removal.[24] May we all merit to completely repent our iniquities, and to achieve ultimate atonement of our sins through the service of the High Priest before the Ark and its כפורת. Amen. [1]רש"י שמות כה:יז - כפרת - כסוי על הארון שהיה פתוח מלמעלה, ומניחו עליו כמין דף. [2] אב"ע שמות כה:יז (הפירוש הקצר) - הפירוש ידענוה מטעמו ומגזרתו: וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן (ויקרא ד:כו), כטעם: אַשְׁרֵי נְשׂוּי פֶּשַׁע כְּסוּי חֲטָאָה (תה' לב:א). [3]בר' לב:כא - אֲכַפְּרָה פָנָיו בַּמִּנְחָה הַהֹלֶכֶת לְפָנָי; רש"י - אכפרה פניו - אבטל רוגזו וכן: וְכֻפַּר בְּרִיתְכֶם אֶת מָוֶת (ישע' כח:יח), לֹא תוּכְלִי כַּפְּרָהּ (שם מז:יא). ונראה בעיני שכל כפרה שאצל עון וחטא ואצל פנים, כולן לשון קנוח והעברה הן. ולשון ארמי הוא הרבה בתלמוד: וכפר ידיה (ב"מ כד.), בעי לכפורי ידיה בההוא גברא (גיטין נו.),וגם בלשון המקרא נקראים המזרקים של קדש: כפורי זהב (עזרא א:י), על שם שהכהן מקנח ידיו בהן בשפת המזרק. [4]בר' ו:יד - וְכָפַרְתָּ אֹתָהּ מִבַּיִת וּמִחוּץ בַּכֹּפֶר. [5]אב"ע - וְכָפַרְתָּ - ל' מכסה. ובעבור זה נקרא הכֹּפֶר כֹּפֶר, מגזרת כַפֹּרֶת. וגם: וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן (ויק' ד:כו). יצוין שבמקור, דברי אבן עזרא אינם מנוקדים, ולכאורה ניתן היה לקרוא "מגזרת [ו]כָפַרְתָּ" במקום "מגזרת כַּפֹּרֶת". אך ראיה לדברינו יש מתוך גירסא אחרת באבן עזרא: וכפרת אותה. י"א שהיא מגזרת כפרת, והטעם מכסה משיחה. כאן בוודאי שאין הכוונה ל"כָפַרְתָּ", שאין מלה מתפרשת מעצמה. אלא ש"כָפַרְתָּ" נגזרת מן "כפורת", היינו כיסוי, כפי שפירש אבן עזרא אצל "כפורת". [6] ופירש רש"י (כאן ובתלמוד) רק שהפועל "וכפרת" מציין מרוח זפת: רש"י בראשית ו:יד - מפני חוזק המים זפתה מבית ומבחוץ. רש"י זבחים קיג: - זפותה היא מבית ומבחוץ, כדכתיב: וְכָפַרְתָּ אֹתָהּ וגו' (בר' ו). [7] משנת רבי אליעזר (פרשה ז עמ' 135-137) - לא נטרד אדם הראשון מגן עדן אלא על כפיית טובה, שנאמר: ויאמר האדם האשה אשר נתת עמדי... מפני מה ענש הכתוב ביותר לכפוייטובה? מפני שהוא כעניין כפירה בהקב"ה. אף הכופר בהקב"ה כופרטוב הוא. האדם הזה הוא כופה טובתו של חבירו, למחר הוא כופה טובתו של קונו (השוה גם ע"ז ה.-ה:). [8] אמנם בלשון חז"ל מצינו הוראות אחרות לכפייה כגון לקשור (רש"י שבת קנד:), להכריח (עירוב' ק:, ומכאן בארמית "איכפת ליה"), להפוך (תפארת יש', כללי שמח', ד"ה ט. וראה חברותא, סנהד' כ. לקשר הלשוני) - אולם כולן בהשאלה מענין כיסוי - הדומה לכיבוש והכנעה. [9] משלי כא:יד - מַתָּן בַּסֵּתֶר יִכְפֶּה אָף; מצ"צ - יכפה - ענין כסוי, ובדרז"ל: כפה עליהם הר כגיגית (שבת פח.). [10] וראה יערות דבש לר"י אייבשיץ (חלק א', דרוש טו), שהרחיב בענין הקשר המהותי שבין כפיית טובה לכפירה. וראה הערה להלן בענין "כפירת" האריה המכונה "כפיר", וכן של העיירה המכונה "כפר". [במאמר מוסגר נעיר שהגם ש"כפירה" מורה על דעות פסולות, ו"כיסוי" הוא בדרך כלל חיפוי מוחשי - ולא רעיון מופשט, מצינו "כיסוי" גם ברובד ציורי לגבי "גניבת דעת", כמפורש במקרא (בטענת לבן ליעקב): "ותגנב את לבבי" (בר' לא:כו), שתרגם (מיוחס) יונתן: "וגנבת דעתי"; ואונקלוס תרגם: "וכסיתא מני", והוא כיסוי דימויי של האמת. כך גם כפירה היא ביטוי לכיסוי האמת]. [11] עירובין כא: - מאי דכתיב: לכה דודי נצא השדה נָלִינָה בַּכְּפָרִים (שה"ש ז:יב)... אל תקרי בכפרים, אלא בכופרים - בא ואראך אותם שהשפעת להן טובה והן כפרו בך. [12] שופטים יד:ה - כְּפִיר אֲרָיוֹת; אבות דרבי נתן (נוסחא ב) פרק מג - ז' שמות נקרא אריה. אריה. ארי. כפיר. לביא. ליש. שחל. שחץ. אריה, בנערותו. ארי, בזקנותו. כפיר, שהוא כופר באביו ובאמו. והשוה גם: מדרש תהלים (בובר) קד:יז [קד, כא]; ילקוט שמעוני, משלי תתקנט:כ. [13] מדוע דווקא בני "כפר" כופרים? בגמרא שם מובאות שתי דרשות: "נצא השדה", אלו תלמידי חכמים שעוסקים בתורה מתוך הדחק. "נלינה בכפרים", אלו אותם שהושפעו טובה וכפרו בה'. אמנם ממפרשי המקרא משמע שאף "אנשי השדה" כפרו, כגון: נצי"ב (שה"ש ז:יב) - בכפרים - היינו בשדה הרחק משאונה של עיר. וכן משמע מפירוש הגר"א, שהביא דרשת חז"ל על "ת"ח שעוסקים בתורה מתוך הדחק" בכותרת "נלינה בכפרים" (ועל "נצא השדה" הביא פירוש אחר), ומשמע שהשוו "שדה" ל"כפרים". ופירש בעל ספר "תאיר נרי" (הגאון ר' משה סובול, יפו תשי"ט, עמ' כג) שידוע שבני הכפרים הגוים היו יוצאים בלילות לאחר מלאכתם להשתכר ולעסוק בתפלוּת. בניגוד לאחינו בני ישראל שישבו באותם הכפרים ועמלו באותם השדות, שלאחר מלאכתם הלכו לבתי מדרשות על מנת לעסוק בתורה (ע"כ תורף דבריו). ויש להוסיף שבני הכפרים משתי הקבוצות "כפרו" - העכו"ם בטובה שהושפע עליהם, וישראל הקדושים כפרו בדרכי האמורי, ופנו לדרכי הקדושה. [14] שמות לב:ל - אוּלַי אֲכַפְּרָה בְּעַד חַטַּאתְכֶם; רש"י - אכפרה בעד חטאתכם - אשים כופר וקנוח וסתימה לנגד חטאתכם, להבדיל ביניכם ובין החטא. [15] שרש 'קנח' אינו מופיע במקרא כלל, ומשמעותו בלשון משנה היא תמיד ניגוב, ניקוי והסרה (ראה רמב"ם פהמ"ש ברכ' ח:ג, שבת כא:ב, יומא ב:ג). ובהשאלה נקראת מנה האחרונה "קנוח סעודה" משום שהוא משאיר טעם חדש תחת טעם המנה העיקרית). ברם, פעולת הקינוח אכן דומה לפעולת המריחה, ומצינו גזירה שלא יקנח את הרטיה בשבת "שמא ימרח" (ראה רמב"ם, יד החזקה כא:כז). ולפי זה, שמא יפרש רש"י גם "וכפרת אותו" אצל תיבת נח כלשון קינוח כיון שגם במריחת זפת חייבים לנגב את העודף בכדי ליישר ולייפות את המשטח. [16] עיקר המושג "כיסוי החטא" טעון ביאור, היתכן להסתיר דבר מלפניו חלילה? ולאיזה מטרה? והרי אומר החכם: מְכַסֶּה פְשָׁעָיו לֹא יַצְלִיחַ (משלי כח:יג)! ואמר בני נ"י, שעל כן מדייק רש"י לומר "להבדיל ביניכם ובין החטא" - הפרשת והרחקת החוטא מהחטא, ולא כיסוי החטא מאתו יתברך. אופן נוסף להבנת המושג "כיסוי החטא" מצאנו ברש"י בתהלים (לב:א): אשרי נשוי פשע - שהקב"ה נושא פשע ומכסה חטאיו. פירוש, הקב"ה בעצמו "מסתיר" את החטא ומתעלם ממנו (כל עוד מופרש ממנו בעל התשובה בעצמו). [17] הסיבה שרש"י הוכרח לפרש "כפרה" כאן גם מלשון הבדלה וסתימה היא משום שהוא מפרש את המלה "בעד" בכל מקום במשמעות כנגד (עי' רש"י בר' כ:יח, שופ' ג:כב, ש"א א:ו, איוב ב:ד), ואם יפרש רש"י את המלה "אכפרה" האמורה בפסוק זה כדרכו בכל מקום (קינוח), יהיה פירוש הפסוק "אקנח כנגד חטאתכם", וזה לא ייתכן, ולכן הוסיף ופירש שלשון "אכפרה" כאן נושאת גם משמעות כיסוי. [18] ישע' מג:כה - אָנֹכִי אָנֹכִי הוּא מֹחֶה פְשָׁעֶיךָ לְמַעֲנִי וְחַטֹּאתֶיךָ לֹא אֶזְכֹּר; ישע' מד:כב - מָחִיתִי כָעָב פְּשָׁעֶיךָ וְכֶעָנָן חַטֹּאותֶיךָ. [19] ראה למשל שם פ"א ה"ד. [20] ובכך מתיישבת השאלה הראשונה ששאלנו על רש"י: מדוע רש"י פירש שמשמעו של שרש 'כפר' הוא קינוח והעברה, ולא כאבן עזרא, שפירשו מלשון כיסוי, כשהראיות לשרש 'כפר' מהחומש בעצמו ("וכפרת אותו בכופר"; "ועשית כפורת"), משמען לכאורה אכן כיסוי, כשיטת אבן עזרא. [21] היינו: רש"י בר' לב:כא - ונראה בעיני שכל כפרה שאצל עון וחטא ואצל פנים כולן לשון קנוח והעברה הן, ולשון ארמי הוא הרבה בתלמוד: וכפר ידיה (ב"מ כד.), בעי לכפורי ידיה בההוא גברא (גיטין נו.), וגם בלשון המקרא נקראים המזרקים של קדש: כפורי זהב (עזרא א:י), על שם שהכהן מקנח ידיו בהן בשפת המזרק. עוד בשיטת רש"י, השוה את פירושו לפסוקים הבאים: ישע' כח:יח, מז:יא, יחז' מג:כ, איוב א:י, דה"א כח:יז. [22] שהרי לא הביא רש"י בפ' וישלח ראיה לדבריו אלא מלשון ארמית, והדגיש שפירושו למלה בתנ"ך הוא "רק" הנראה בעיניו: רש"י בר' לב:כא - ונראה בעיני שכל כפרה שאצל עון וחטא ואצל פנים, כולן לשון קנוח והעברה הן. [23] תולדות יצחק (שמות לב:א), אלשיך (דברים ט:כה). [24] ובכך תתיישב השאלה השלישית ששאלנו על רש"י: במקום אחר הוסיף רש"י למשמעות קינוח גם את משמעות כיסוי (כפירוש אבן עזרא), מדוע?

Divine Dictator or Populist King After Joseph told his brothers about his dreams, which seemed to foretell Joseph’s eventual rise to greatness and leadership over his brothers, the brothers responded, “Will you reign over us? Will you rule us?” (Gen. 37:8). Joseph’s brother were not simply waxing poetic by repeating their question twice, they were alluding to two different concepts. The first question asks if Joseph thought he will become a melech (king) over his brothers, while the second questions asks him if he will be a moshel (ruler). What is the difference between a king and a ruler? Some explain that a melech is the king on top, while a moshel is a governor or the like to whom the king has delegated certain powers or sovereignty. However, the consensus view understands that a melech and moshel are both the same in terms of their position of power; they only differ in how they got there. The commentators explain that a melech is someone whose ascent to the throne is commissioned directly by the people. In other words, if the people willingly elect to anoint someone as their leader, he is called a melech. If the people do not necessarily accept their leader’s sovereignty willingly—rather he takes it from them by force—then he is called a moshel. Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik of Switzerland explains that for this reason the Midrash (Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer ch. 16) says that a groom is comparable to a melech. Just as even the most Machiavellian melech must constantly make concessions to his people in order that they lovingly accept upon themselves his sovereignty, so must a groom always act with patience and reliability, so that his wife will continuously want to remain his partner. The Vilna Gaon expands on this approach in differentiating between a melech and moshel. He writes that the melech arises from within the camp of the masses. The melech possess no inherent advantage over anyone else, except for the fact that the people had decided to recognize him as king, otherwise, he is their equal. The moshel, on the other hand, serves as a leader because of his abilities, not just because of the people’s whims. The moshel proves his worth in battle and the like, showing that he is more talented than everyone else. Using his abilities, he grabs ahold of his constituency and forces them under his rule. This approach explains why the Jews offered Gideon the position of moshel (Jud. 8:22). That is, even though the masses willingly offered him this leadership position, he would have still been called a moshel, not a melech, because they only offered him the position due to his acknowledged military prowess. The term melech is also applied to G-d, the ultimate King of the Universe. Interestingly, the Talmud (Rosh HaShanah 16a) justifies the practice of reciting during the Mussaf prayer of Rosh HaShanah different Biblical verse that speak of G-d’s Kingship, by explaining that G-d said, “you shall say before Me [verses about] kingship in order to make Me king (melech) over you”. By saying these verses, the Jewish people affirm their acceptance of G-d’s role as King of the Universe. But the Talmud assumed that saying those verses is not just an affirmation of accepting God’s kingship, but rather makes Him into a king. Why is G-d’s kingship contingent on the Jews’ acceptance of His sovereignty? Based on the above, the answer is clear: By showing their willing acceptance of G-d’s kingship, the Jews are consolidating G-d’s role as a melech of the world, as opposed to simply a dictatorous moshel. The Vilna Gaon takes note of an apparent contradiction between two verses cited at the end of the Aleinu prayer. In one verse, we say, “For to G-d is the kingship (melucha), and He rules (moshel) over the nations” (Ps. 22:29). This verse implies that G-d holds two roles: for the Jews, He is considered a melech because they willingly accept His rule, and for the other nations of the world, He is a moshel because He rules them despite their objections. Afterwards, however, we say, “G-d will be the king (melech) over the entire world—on that day G-d will be [recognized as] one and His name as one.” (Zech. 14:9). This implies that He will be a melech over the entire world. The answer must be that while in contemporary times, not everyone accepts G-d’s role in the world, in the future Messianic Era, when all truth will be finally revealed, everyone will recognize His role and accept it upon themselves—so G-d will universally be a melech, not a moshel. Share this: WhatsApp More Telegram Email Print Share on Tumblr

Exodus 35:24 – They attached (וַיִרְכְּסוּ) the Breastplate (Choshen) from its rings to the rings of the Ephod with a turquoise string, so that it would remain above the belt of the Ephod, and the Breastplate would not be loosened from above the Ephod, as G-d had commanded Moses . In a literally identical (save for vocalization) sentence above (ibid. 28:28), the Torah commanded that the Choshen be attached to the Ephod, using the verb וְיִרְכְּסוּ. It repeats its use of this term in this verse, which discusses the Israelites’ fulfillment of this command. In his comments on this term, Rashi defines וַיִרְכְּסוּ as an expression of connection, and cites two additional instances in which this expression appears in Scripture with a similar meaning: i) [Shelter them in the cover of Your countenance] from the רֻכְסֵי of man (Psalms 31:21) means from the evil gangs who join together in order to harm them. ii) And the רְכָסִים will become valley (Isaiah 40:4) means “the mountains that so closely abut each other that one can only descend to the valley between them with great difficulty since their closeness makes that valley steep and deep — will become a flat valley that is easy to walk in.” We find an additional allusion to the meaning “connection” if the root letters “רכס” are rearranged to form the root “סרך”, which also connotes attachment/connection in the Talmudic vernacular, as Rashi explains concerning the word סריך (Gittin 69a), and the word מסריך (Yev. 121b). The root סרך is itself derived from the Hebrew word שְׂרוֹך, strap/lace (see Genesis 14:23), which in its Aramaic form is spelled with a “ס” in place of the “שׂ” [see “משריכן” (harness straps) in Shab 53a]. All the commentators agree that “וירכסו” refers to connection in some general sense, since that is implied by this verse, which states that the Choshen was connected from above to the Ephod with chains between their respective rings, and that they were also connected via rings from below, although this connection was with a turquoise string. However, they differ in how they define the underlying root “רכס” that links the meanings of the word in these verses. According to Ibn Ezra, the root meaning of “רכס” is distortion/deformity, with its specific meaning in our verse being a “connection via entwining” (while the Isaiah verse refers to “uneven sites” becoming a smooth valley, and the Psalms verse refers to “crooked people”). Ribag sees the underlying root as strength/power, with וַיִרְכְּסוּ meaning that the Choshen was “reinforced by attaching it to the Ephod” (while the Isaiah verse refers to “tall, rugged mountains,” and the Psalms verse refers to “tough people”). Radak sees the underlying root as height, with וַיִרְכְּסוּ meaning that the Choshen was lifted up so that it could be connected to the Ephod from below (while the Isaiah verse refers to “tall mountains,” and the Psalms verse refers to “conceited people who think highly of themselves”). [This view is also supported by Sharshos Kesef.] To Malbim, the underlying root is a tight connection between two objects that necessitates a by-pass route, with וַיִרְכְּסוּ meaning that the Choshen was connected tightly to the Ephod (while the רְכָסִים in the Isaiah verse refers to “mountains so closely connected that one must travel around them,” and the רֻכְסֵי in the Psalms verse means man’s evil inclination and desires, which are so called because, like the aforementioned רְכָסִים, they force man off of the straight path). Finally, Yerios Shlomo explains that Rashi defines the root as “a perfectly aligned connection that does not protrude in any direction” (with the Isaiah verse referring to “mountains that jut out in perfect alignment opposite each other, leaving no possibility of passing between them,” and the Psalms verse referring to “untruthful people, who make an effort to align their statements perfectly to make them appear truthful”). He sees this explanation as serving to reconcile Rashi’s interpretation with that of the other commentators. The emphasis by Radak and Sharshos Kesef on the aspect of height and elevation in their definition of וַיִרְכְּסוּ is especially interesting in light of the second part of the verse, which warns: and the Breastplate shall not יִזַח from above the Ephod. The word יִזַח has no parallel in Scripture. Nonetheless, most of the commentators interpret this word in the sense of separation. Ramban and Chizkuni equate it with יִסַח (using the exchange of the similarly produced “tongue” letters, ז-ס-ש-ר-ץ), relating it to the words יִסְּחוּ (Proverbs 2:22) and יִסַּח (ibid. 15:25), which mean separation and breaking apart. Hence, it matches the first half of the verse, as Scripture says that they shall connect the Choshen to the Ephod in such a manner that it will not be able to separate from it. Indeed, according to Rambam (Negative Commandment 87), the Torah does not merely provide a reason why the Choshen must be attached to the Ephod, but actually issues a separate command that the Choshen may not be removed from the Ephod. Radak (under root “זחח”) also agrees that יִזַח refers to removal. However, in keeping with his interpretation of וְיִרְכְּסוּ in the first half of the verse as connection via lifting, he also ties the word יִזַח to elevation: “The meaning of and the Choshen shall not יִזַח [from upon the Ephod] is that ‘it shall not be raised above,’ i.e., you shall not remove or lift it off of the Ephod. Similarly, when our Sages state (Chullin 7a), ‘Once the זְחוּחֵי of heart became numerous,’ it refers to ‘the conceited and elevated hearts.’” Thus, in Radak’s view, יִזַח connotes lifting up in the sense of removal/separation. To gain a fuller understanding of Radak’s definition, which is based on the words of our Sages in Chullin 7a, let us look at a more extensive quote from that gemara: “[Rebbe said:] ‘In my case as well, my forefathers left a place [in Halachah] for me to stand out [by making a groundbreaking ruling].’ We see from here that a if Torah sage issues a halachic declaration, we are not מזיחין him (we should not separate him from his statement by demanding that he retract it — Rashi); others quoted this teaching as stating that ‘we are not מזניחין it’ (we must not make abominable his declaration by denigrating it — Rashi); and others quoted this teaching as stating that ‘we are not מזחיחין him’ (we must not make him elevated, i.e., say that it was due to his haughtiness that he failed to heed what his teachers said and issued this newly lenient ruling — Rashi). The one who said [the correct version is] מזיחין, meant it in the sense of the verse (Exodus 28:28), and the Choshen shall not יזח (be lifted off) from above the Ephod; the one who said [the correct version is] מזניחין, meant it in the sense of that which is written (Lamentations 3:31), For the Lord does not (יִזְנַח) reject forever; and the one who said [the correct version is] מזחיחין, meant it in the sense of what we are taught (Tosefta, Sotah 14:9), ‘Once the זְחוּחֵי of heart became numerous, there were numerous quarrels among the people of Israel.” Thus, although Rashi defines each of the three versions of the term — מזיחין, מזניחין, מזחיחין — differently, there is arguably an underlying link between all three. They all connote some aspect of separation: מזיחין, via its literal definition; מזניחין, since make him abominable essentially means separating from him due to his repugnance; and מזחיחין, since make him elevated essentially entails separating from him due to his haughtiness. Indeed, Ribag (root “זחח”) makes just such a link: “What we derive from all this is that מזיחין, מזניחין and מזחיחין all connote the same notion, namely, repulsion and withdrawal from.” In any case, according to Radak’s comments, the term יִזַח, like its parallel word זְחוּחֵי in the Talmud, is primarily an expression of elevation, with the connotation of removal/separation merely being a secondary aspect of this act of elevation. [Interestingly, in discussing the “removal” of the Choshen from the Ephod, the Talmud (Yoma 72a) does not use a word like הסרה (removal) or ניתוק (severance): “One who is מזיח the Choshen from above the Ephod … is flogged, for it is stated, And he shall not יִזַח the Choshen from above the Ephod.” Perhaps the reason is similar to that which we have discussed here — that the aspect of removal is merely a secondary result of the elevation.] In fact, this parallel link between the concepts of elevation and removal can also be found in three other words that connote ascent and elevation [namely, the roots עלה, נשא and רמם] : 1) In the verse (Genesis 2:6), A mist ascended (יַעֲלֶה) from the earth, Onkelos translates the word יַעֲלֶה as סַלִיק (departed). 2) The word “נשא”, which denotes elevation and ascent, also has a meaning of elimination and removal, as the author of HaKetav VeHakaballah demonstrates from various locations in Scripture in his comments to Numbers 14:18, which describes G-d as נֹשֵׂא עָוֹן, Forgiver of iniquity. Explaining why נֹשֵׂא, which translates literally as One Who lifts up, means Forgiver here, he notes: “Onkelos translates it as שָׁבִיק, leaves go of, while Yonasan ben Uziel translates it as שָׁרִי, pardon. We already find the expression נשׂא referring to the notion of cancellation or removal [in the verse] for then my Maker יִשָּׂאֵנִי (Job 32:22), [which] Rashi interprets as ‘will remove Me from the world’; and from this (II Samuel 5:21): And [the Philistines] left their idols there, וַיִּשָּׂאֵם David and his men, [which means] that ‘he removed and eliminated the idols from the world; likewise, וַתִּשָּׂא the earth from before Him (Nahum 1:5): [Rashi interprets וַתִּשָּׂא as] it vanished and disappeared, and Onkelos’s translation is it was destroyed; and from this (II Samuel 14:14): but G-d does not יִשָּׂא a soul, i.e., He does not wish to eliminate and remove the soul, but rather wishes that “the evil one will repent from his ways, and live.” [Similarly, the phrase נְשּׂוּי פֶּשַׁע (Psalms 32:1), which means one whose transgression is forgiven, is translated by Alshich as “one whose transgression is forgotten.”]. One final example of the connection between elevation and removal is illustrated in the word הרומו, which normally would mean to raise, but in the following verse bears the meaning of removal:  Remove yourselves (הֵרֹמּוּ) from this congregation, and I shall consume them in an instant (Numbers 17:10). In any case, given Radak’s emphasizing the aspect of elevation in the definitions of both וַיִרְכְּסוּ and יִזַח, he apparently explains the verse as follows: Lift up the Choshen so that you shall be able to attach it to the belt of the Ephod; however, do not raise it excessively to the point where it is impossible to connect it to the Ephod from below. Returning to the word יִזַח, a similar term, מֵזַח, is found several times in Scripture. Most commentators define the word מֵזַח either as a belt or strength. In his comments on the words מֵזַח in Isaiah 23:10 and Psalms 109:19, and the word וּמְזִיחַ in Job 12:21, Rashi interprets them as to mean a belt, but also notes that a belt itself usually symbolizes strength (similar to the dual meaning of “gird” in English). By contrast, Radak explains that their basic definition is strength and power, but since a belt fastens and strengthens one’s loins, it too is called a מֵזַח. Now, Menachem, links the word מֵזַח and the word יִזַח, placing both of them in the same category, under the root “זח” (as per his custom of limiting roots to two letters only). However, since Rashi and Radak define מֵזַח as strengthening and fastening, whereas יִזַח relates to separation, one would not seem to think of them as being of related roots. Indeed, Dunash ben Labrat (on p. 60 of his Sefer HaTeshuvos) refutes both Menachem’s assignment of “מזח” to a 2-letter root “זח”, and his linkage of “מזח” and יִזַח, arguing that the “מ” in “מזח” is a part of its root, and that יִזַח is a separate Arabic term meaning separate, or slip away. Rashi to our verse, in a rare instance, supports Dunash over his disputant Menachem and defines יִזַח as an Arabic term meaning severance. [Radak and Ribag also list יִזַח under the separate 3-letter root “זחח”.] However, the aforementioned Ramban solves the mysterious word יִזַח by equating it to the word “יסח” by way of exchanging the letters “ז” and “ס” (based on the similar letters ז-ס-ש-ר-ץ, which are formed between the tongue and the teeth) and defining it as meaning separation and breaking apart. Like Menachem, he finds a Hebrew equivalent for it in the verse, and may it be for a מֵזַח with which he constantly girds himself (Psalms 109:19). While retaining its literal definition as a belt, he suggests that it may also imply severance and breaking apart, like יִזַח: “Perhaps, [since the preceding verse states that the scheming maligner shall don curse like his garment,] this verse is saying that he shall gird himself constantly with the curse, as others gird themselves with their belts, until he is destroyed and broken apart by it.” [Thus, Ramban links the opposing notions of attachment and breaking apart in the same word. We find a similar example in Ribag’s definition of the root “נקף”, which alludes to both surrounding and cutting off.] Malbim (Isaiah 23:10) also tries to interpret the word יִזַח based on a comparison to “מזח”, by explaining that they have a common aspect of elevation: “The word ‘מזח’, as in the verse, and may it be for a מֵזַח with which he constantly girds himself (Psalms 109:19), connotes a belt that girds the body. But what differentiates a מֵזַח from [the standard terms for a belt,] an אֵזוֹר and an אַבְנֵט, is that a מֵזַח is a belt that one ties around long clothes in order to elevate them, so that they will be appropriate for his size. Just as in the expression, and the Choshen shall not יִזַח from above the Ephod, which refers to elevation, so does a מֵזַח lift up his clothes. Similarly, we find in Aramaic, the term זְחוּחֵי הַלֵב, raised hearts (i.e., conceited). Likewise, it says (ibid.) And he shall don curse כְּמַדוֹ, meaning that the curse should be like his size (מִדָה). [As the verse then continues,] May it be to him like a garment in which he wraps himself, and a מֵזַח with which he constantly girds himself — i.e., although it is customary for a garment to sometimes be longer than his body, the curse itself shall be like a מֵזַח which raises up the garment, so that it should fit his body size perfectly. This term is also used in a borrowed sense in reference to the banks of an island, which rise up from amidst the sea and gird the sea so that it should not ascend onto the island. [The banks are] the מֵזַח that keeps the island elevated above the water, and girds the sea. It is not a big stretch to explain the verse (Job 12:21), He pours scorn upon nobles, and loosens the מְזִיחַ of the אֲפִיקִים, as follows: אֲפִיקִים means springs (as in כַּאֲפִיקִים בַּנֶגֶב), and G-d will loosen and remove the “belt” that begirds the springs of water, and [the waters] will flood the land portions of the rich, and in this manner will pour scorn upon them, as they will end up without any of their wealth. Perhaps we can propose a third link between these two aspects. Our verse states: They attached (וַיִרְכְּסוּ) the Choshen from its rings to the rings of the Ephod with a turquoise woolen cord, so that it would remain above the belt of the Ephod, and the Choshen would not be disengaged (יִזַח) from above the Ephod, as G-d had commanded Moses. Thus, since the Torah specifies that the attachment of the Choshen to the Ephod from below be solely through a turquoise string, its aim is seemingly not to create a complete attachment. Had that been the case, the Torah would have commanded that they be directly tied or fastened together, or at least to link them with chains, like the top of the Choshen. Rather, this connection was to be similar to רכסים, the mountains that are adjacent to each other but not actually attached. Consequently, the expression וְלֹא יִזַח is meant to connote both aspects of its meaning: 1) On the one hand, it should not be elevated above the Ephod, as the threads of the turquoise cord keep it attached from below. 2) On the other hand, the Choshen is not to be attached to the Ephod in the manner of a מֵזַח, which is tightly fastened. That is, the threads keep the Choshen from being elevated above the belt of the Ephod, but the warning not to be יִזַח alludes that we must also avoid making the attachment excessive. Yet another perspective on the unbreakable link between the Choshen and the Ephod is presented in the “Daf al Daf” commentary to Erachin 16a. Our Sages teach us that the Choshen atoned for the sins of the Jewish people in monetary matters, while the Ephod atoned for their sins of idolatry. Thus, the Ephod atoned for the most fundamental sin between man and G-d (bein adam la’Makom), whereas the Choshen atoned for a most fundamental sin between man and his fellow (bein adam la’chaveiro). [Chasam Sofer states in his commentary to Exodus 28:16 that Aaron merited to atone for Israel’s monetary injustices because he himself did beyond what the law required in all matters of dispute with his fellow Jew.] Therefore, the Torah commanded that the Choshen not be separated from the Ephod, in order to emphasize that one may not differentiate between the commandments between man and G-d, and the commandments between man and his fellow. One may not be “good to Heaven” but bad to his fellow men, nor vice versa; both types of commandments are inextricably related. In this light, we can perhaps explain why this connection had to be through a turquoise string. Discussing the uniqueness of this color, the Talmud states (Sotah 17a) that it was due to our forefather Avraham’s refusal to take so much as a “thread” to a shoestrap (Genesis 14:23) from the King of Sodom as compensation for saving his country, that his descendants merited “the ‘thread’ of turquoise wool,” i.e., the commandment of tzitzis. The Gemara goes on to explain why the thread of tzitzis must be precisely from turquoise wool: “R. Meir used to say: Why is turquoise specified from all the varieties of colors? Because turquoise resembles [the color of] the sea, and the sea resembles [the color of] heaven, and heaven resembles [the color of] the Throne of Glory, as it is stated, They saw the G-d of Israel, and under His feet was the likeness of sapphire brickwork, and it was like the essence of heaven in purity (Exodus 24:10), and it is written, the appearance of a sapphire stone in the likeness of a throne (Ezekiel 1:26).” In other words, by fulfilling this commandment, a person becomes connected to some degree with the Divine Presence (see Rashi, ad loc.). In this light, we can perhaps explain the unique form of the lower connection of the Choshen to the Ephod. Avraham Avinu, in all of his actions — whether those related to man’s relationship with G-d, or those affecting interpersonal relations — desired to fulfill the will of G-d and thus become more closely attached to the Holy Throne in heaven. Therefore, the link between the Choshen and the Ephod — which symbolizes the linkage between these two categories of commandments — is not a tight and strictly fastened connection (מזיח) through gold chains; rather, it is merely achieved through material threads, in order to teach us that in order to sanctify G-d’s Name one need not invest a huge fortune, but can accomplish it even through the simplest of objects — threads and shoestraps. Such a connection to the Throne of Glory also protects one from haughtiness (זחיחות), because the entire world is but an expression of G-d’s Glory, while we are “but dust and ash.” May it be the will of G-d that soon, in our own time, we merit seeing the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) wearing the Choshen and Ephod, serving G-d in the rebuilt Temple and atoning for the sins of his nation, Amen. Share this: WhatsApp More Telegram Email Print Share on Tumblr