Putting the “!” into Mitzvot

 

R. Yaakov Bieler

Parashat Teruma, 5766

 

Two Midrashim interpret the very first verse in Parshat Teruma in a particularly evocative manner:

 

Tanchuma Yashan, Parshat Emor 24 (Tora Shleima, Parshat Teruma, #12, p. 4.)

(Shemot 25:2) “VaYikchu Li Teruma…” (And they will take for Me [HaShem] a gift).

It is similar to what the verse says, (Mishlei 4:10) “Shema Beni VeKach Imri” (Listen my son and take My Utterance).

The Holy One, Blessed Be He, Said to Israel: Many “Lekichot” (takings) I have Commanded you in order that you shall earn merit…

I Said to you: And you will take for Me a gift, in order that I will Dwell in your midst, as it is said, (Shemot 25:8) “And make a Tabernacle and I will Dwell in your midst.”

A very difficult matter, if it is possible to imagine, did He Say to them. He (in effect) Said to them: Take Me[1] so that I will Dwell in your midst. The text does not state, “Take a gift” but rather “Take ‘Li’ (Me) a gift”. You are in actuality taking Me.

 

Shemot Rabba 33:1 (Ibid. #14)

It is similar to what is written (Mishlei 4:2) “Because a good ‘Lekach’ (acquisition/taking) I have Given to you; My Tora do not forsake.” Do not forsake the acquisition that I have Given to you.

Do you have an acquisition whereby the seller is sold along with it? Said the Holy One, Blessed Be He, to Israel: I have Sold/Caused you to acquire My Tora; if it is possible to conceive, I have been sold/acquired with it, as it is written, (Shemot 25:2) “And take Me   for a gift…”

 

While the relationship between God’s Presence as manifested in the Tabernacle and the lives of the Children of Israel was obviously acute since that Presence could be objectively observed in the form of a Cloud and a Pillar of Fire seen from all parts of the Jewish desert encampment, day and night (Shemot 13:21; 40:38), the performance of any and all Mitzvot by a contemplative individual at all times and in all places entails a similar process. Whenever a Commandment is fulfilled or a transgression avoided, a person senses both that s/he has come so much closer to God as well as that God has been brought closer to him/her; conversely, failure to adhere to the Tora’s Halachic code becomes a manifestation of significant alienation and distance between God and the individual.[2] Although we read in Tehillim 121:5, “…HaShem is your Shadow, He is at your right hand”, apparently unless a person consciously acts in a manner reflecting such a verity by observing the Tora’s Commandments, the fact of God’s Proximity to each of us becomes basically irrelevant and meaningless. God may “Wish” to be an intrinsic part of our lives, but we have to “allow” Him to do so by contributing our time and resources, by sacrificing literally and figuratively.

 

The paradox of a person’s giving to or sacrificing for a religious cause, at the same time causes him/her to actually receive and gain a greater sense of being close to God, is understood by HaKetav VeHaKabbala as intrinsic to the word “VaYikchu” at the beginning of Parshat Teruma.

 

HaKetav VeHaKabbala on Shemot 25:2

When the one who is receiving a gift is important (in this case, the donations were being “given to” God so that a structure could be erected in which the Divine Presence could take up residence), the bestower of the gift is considered also as a “receiver”…This is the reason that the verb “VaYikchu” (and they will take/receive) is used rather than “VaYitnu” (and they will give). Similar language is also used in connection with Avraham—(Beraishit 18:5) “’VaEkcha’ (and I will take) a loaf of bread…” in contrast to “I will give a loaf of bread”. So too with Eliezer, Avraham’s servant—(Beraishit 24:22) “…’VaYikach’ (and the man took [rather than he gave]) a golden earring of half shekel weight and the two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold…” Because these givers (the Jewish people giving their possessions to God for the Tabernacle; Avraham to the three “guests” whom he welcomed into his tent at the beginning of Parshat VaYera; and Eliezer when he gave presents to Rivka in anticipation that she would agree to become Yitzchak’s wife) considered themselves (by virtue of the “guests” and Rivka accepting their offerings) as in fact receivers.

 

The idea that the “giving” involved in the collection of materials for the Tabernacle was experienced simultaneously as “receiving” something very important by the givers, can also explain why Rabbeinu Bachya understands the verb “VaYikchu” in Shemot 25:2 as connoting alacrity and diligence, i.e., those who respond to the call to give gifts by which the Tabernacle can be built, did it with enthusiasm and energy. Whereas one might be somewhat reticent when called upon to give up something without receiving anything in return, when there is not only a quid pro quo, but one ends up with much more than what s/he has originally given, a significant incentive spurs on the donation.

 

Rabbeinu Bachya on Shemot 25:2

(Mishlei 8:10) “’Kechu’[3] (take) My ethical Direction rather than silver; Knowledge (of Tora) is to be preferred over fine gold.” King Solomon is warning here the individual regarding the attribute of diligence, that he should strive and trouble himself to internalize the ethical teachings of the Tora, rather than devoting effort and troubling himself to acquire wealth, since by means of the ethical teachings of the Tora, an individual acquires benefits applicable to this world as well as the World to Come…

 

While HaKetav VeHaKabbala’s insight regarding the interrelationship of “giving” and “receiving” might explain psychologically why the donations were made with particular diligence, a textual proof to why Rabbeinu Bachya associates alacrity with the verb “Lakach” in the instance of Shemot 25:2, despite the word usually suggesting no more than the action of “taking”, is inherent within the manner in which the contributors to the Tabernacle are depicted when they ultimately answer Moshe’s call. 

 

Shemot 35:21-2

And they came, everyone “Asher Nesa’o Libo” (whose heart stirred him up) and all “Asher Nadva Rucho” (whom his spirit made willing), and they brought HaShem’s Offering for the work of the Tent of Meeting…

And they came, both men and women, as many as were “Nediv Leiv” (willing of heart)…[4]

 

But why might some people be more receptive and energetic than others when answering a call to bring HaShem into their lives? Why do only they, as opposed to others, consider themselves primarily as recipients rather than donors? From where does a “stirred up” and “willing” heart emanate? Lynne Truss, in her recent best-seller, Eat, Shoots and Leaves:[5] The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation (Gotham Books, New York, 2004, pp. 132-5) describes an 1885 short story by Anton Chekhov, entitled “The Exclamation Point”. The story recounts how a seasoned government secretary dreams that various specters in the form of punctuation marks attempt to attack him. While he is able to fend off almost all of them by means of invoking the rules that apply to their implementation,

 

But then a question mark unbends itself, straightens up—and Perekladin realizes he is stumped. In 40 years he has had no reason to use an exclamation mark! He has no idea what it is for. The inference for the reader is clear: nothing of any emotional significance has ever happened Perekladin. Nothing relating, in any case, to the “delight, indignation, joy, rage and other feelings” an exclamation mark is in the business of denoting.

 

While on the surface, Perekladin’s dilemma is comical, it also represents the situation that many individuals who consider themselves religious, at least in terms of their lifestyle and communal association, find themselves in, i.e., there are no “punctuation marks” in their religious lives. Perhaps the difference between those within whom the call “VaYikchu Li Teruma” resonated, the “Nosai Leiv” and the “Nedivai Ruach”, and those who remained indifferent to this opportunity to participate in the construction of the Tabernacle is whether or not they heard and therefore understood that there was an “!”[6] at the end of Shemot 25:2, to which they responded in kind. By extension, how many of us find ourselves doing no more than going through the motions when it comes to performing the Tora’s Commandments, as opposed to approaching our religious responsibilities and practices with passion, enthusiasm, and sincere commitment?

 

In the continuation of Rabbeinu Bachya’s comments on 25:2, he suggests that performing Commandments devoid of enthusiasm and inner concentration might not only cancel the Commandment’s fulfillment, but might even be deemed a transgression.

 

Rabbeinu Bachya on Shemot 25:2 con’t.

…One should “take” the ethical directions of the Tora and the Commandments with alacrity and effort, just as one would take on any command that one thinks important to fulfill, rather than relate to them lazily and thinking that they are pointless. Because if an individual treats Mitzvot lazily, it is impossible that he will avoid punishment, despite his having fulfilled the Commandment, for if while he is specifically declaring God’s Uniqueness with his mouth and lips,   his heart is far from Him, his sin will be too great to bear.  Whereas on the one hand he has performed the Mitzva, on the other he is fit for punishment because  he did not fulfill it in wholeness, but rather lazily…

 

Knowing what to do in terms of Halacha is certainly of importance; but fulfilling such obligations devoid of feeling and excitement will hardly contribute to allowing God to become a greater part of our lives.

 

The Jerusalem Talmud presents an abject example of how the “!” or lack thereof can make all the difference.

 

Yerushalmi Peah 1:1 (an expansion of Bavli Kiddushin 31a-b)

There is one who feeds his father fattened fowl (as a fulfillment of the Commandment to honor one’s parents, including feeding him when he is unable to obtain food for himself) and he nevertheless is condemned to Geihinnom, while there is another who causes his father to grind in a mill and he earns for himself the World to Come.

One individual fed his father fattened chickens. Once his father said to him: My son! From where do you get these? He said to him: Old man! Old man! Chew and eat, like the dogs that chew and eat. For this he is condemned to Geihinnom.

What is the case of the son who causes his father to grind in the mill and thereby earns the World to Come? An individual was employed as a grinder in a mill. At that time, his father was drafted into the army. The son said to the father: Take my place at the mill; it is better that I enter the army and thereby spare you from any difficulty and behavior that may be inappropriate for you. In this manner the son earn the World to Come.

 

The first son recognized his obligation to his parent, and carried it out at considerable expense. But he obviously did not bring to the fulfillment of his responsibility the “punctuation mark” that connotes a sense of deep respect, holiness and Divine Service.

 

Rabbeinu Bachya himself invokes the Mitzva of prayer as a context in which to exemplify the principle which he is discussing.

 

Rabbeinu Bachya on Shemot 25:2 con’t.

…If a person prays but did not concentrate on what he was saying, but rather allowed his mind to think about inconsequential things, about his business affairs and his possessions, behold he has sinned, and it is almost possible to say with regard to him, (Shemot 20:19) “Do not make alongside Me gods of silver and gods of gold…”, i.e., when you are “with” Me and are praying, do not think about your possessions of silver and gold, because one who prays and nevertheless thinks of things like this makes himself noticed by the King, His Name be Blessed, via his thoughts. Before a human king, he would never allow himself to do the same…

 

Even under the best of circumstances, praying properly is one of the most difficult Commandments to fulfill, and therefore anything short of full concentration and the avoidance of distractions will result in a spiritually empty experience.[7] In the case of prayer, it appears that the requisite “taking” involves not so much our possessions, but rather ourselves, i.e., unless we prepare and then put forward our entire beings in devotion to HaShem, prayer will constitute little more than an empty exercise that is increasingly disparaged and even disdained, as evidenced in so many contemporary synagogues.

 

Shabbat Shalom, and may we strive to capture the spirit of those who initially donated to the construction of the Tabernacle, and thereby put a true “!” upon our “Avodat HaKodesh” (holy Service) with respect to all Commandments, and particularly prayer.