One Size Does Not Fit All when It
Comes to Avodat HaShem
R. Yaakov Bieler
Parashat BeHa’alotcha, 5770
R. Yehuda Kuperman, founder of the distinguished Israeli women’s seminary, Michlala, has published a new series of essays on Parashat HaShavua, entitled Kedushat Peshuto Shel Mikra.[1] In one of the discussions based upon passages in Parashat BeHa’alotcha, “HaDerachim HaShonot BeAvodat HaShem” (The Different Approaches to Serving God),[2] the author notes that BaMidbar 8:2-4[3] is the third time, and within the third different book, that aspects of the Menora that was placed in the inner section of first the Tabernacle and then the Temple, are discussed in the Tora. The verses in BaMidbar therefore have to be understood in light of previous passages in Shemot (25:31-40)[4] (Shemot 37:17-24 is a reprise of the earlier passage, describing how the instructions found in Parashat Teruma was carried out in Parashat VaYakhel) and VaYikra (24:2-4).[5] In contrast to the two earlier passages, Shemot describing how the Menora was to be constructed and VaYikra describing the type of fuel that must be used to light it, BaMidbar offers information regarding the act of lighting itself.
R. Kuperman draws specific attention to the interpretation of the verses in BeHa’alotcha by Sephorno, who suggests that the method of lighting symbolizes both distinctly different ways to approach how one worships God, as well as the common denominator that legitimates these different religious outlooks.
Sephorno on BaMidbar 8:2
“When you light the lights”—when you light six of the lights. (Even though there are seven lights on the candelabrum, the six to which the commentator is referring are those on the six branches, three on either side, that extend from the central column.)
“Towards the body of the
candelabrum”—this is a reference to the central column. This is fulfilled when
the flame on each of the six outer branches is tilted towards the central
column. In that way, all seven lights will give off light. All seven give off
light and impart the Upper Light to
While Sephorno considers those engaged in everyday work as no more than enablers[6] of those who opt to study Tora throughout their lives, R. Kuperman proceeds to cite NeTzIV as an example of a commentator who takes a broader view with regard to the possibilities of serving HaShem, positing that Tora study is one modality out of several with respect to leading a spiritual existence:
Emek Davar on BaMidbar 15:41
…The form of serving God in an ongoing fashion is not the same for each individual. This one engages in Tora and its challenges for the entire day. And this one sets himself for service—prayer and other ritual. And this one devotes himself to acts of kindness.[7] As long as everyone’s intentions are for the sake of Heaven (they are all equally worthy.) And even with respect to Tora, not all approaches are the same.[8] A similar approach is true about the performance of Commandments. (Shabbat 118b) “Your father, regarding what is he more careful? This one was careful about the Commandment of Shabbat and this one was careful regarding the Commandment of Tzitzit.”[9] [10]And it is taught (Avot 2): Rebbe says, “What is the straight path that a person should choose for himself? All that is glorious for the one doing it and splendor to him from his fellow man.”[11] This supports the idea that not all men are equal with respect to how to walk in the ways of HaShem. And a person who comes to determine for himself the path of HaShem, which is the straight path for himself? All that is glorious for the Maker—the One Making the path; and splendor to him from his fellow man that is coming to choose, i.e., it is in accordance with the nature of that specific person and what his particular predilections make him most prepared to do, whether it is Tora, Avoda or Gemilut Chassadim. This is the way that he should choose for himself a path.
But R. Kuperman feels that RaMBaM has taken the idea of acknowledging and approving of individualization to an even more profound level in his commentary to the final Mishna in Masechet Makkot:
Makkot 3:16
R. Chanania ben Akashya says: The Holy One, Blessed Be He, Wished to Provide a benefit for Israel. Therefore He increased for them (the scope of) Tora and Mitzvot, as it is said, (Yeshayahu 42:21) “HaShem Desired for his sake (i.e., the sake of the Jewish people),[12] (therefore) He Expanded Tora and Glorified it.”
RaMBaM, Commentary on the Mishna
Among the most fundamental beliefs in the Tora, is the concept that if a person would fulfill a Commandment from the 613 Mitzvot properly and as is appropriate, and he totally avoids attaching to it an ulterior motive from among those present in this world (e.g., honor, fame, monetary advantage, etc.), but rather carries it out for its own sake out of a sense of love (for the Divine) as I have explained to you (see RaMBaM’s Introduction to the last chapter of Sanhedrin, “Chelek”), he will merit by means of this performance a portion in the World to Come. Therefore R. Chanania said, that due to the large quantity of Mitzvot it is impossible for a person not to perform at least one during the course of his entire life perfectly, and thereby merit the eternity of his soul by means of that act. This principle is supported by the question of R. Chanina ben Tradyon to R. Yosi ben Kisma (Avoda Zora 18a): Will I be able to enter the World to Come? And he answered him: Has a “Ma’aseh” (an action, [singular]) been performed by you?, i.e., have you ever had the opportunity to do an action purely/perfectly? He responded that he had carried out the Mitzva of Tzedaka in the most perfect way possible, and in this way merited a portion in the World to Come. And the interpretation of the verse then is, “God Desires to Make righteous Israel, and to further that end, He Expanded the Tora and Glorified it.”
R. Kuperman contends that RaMBaM reflects a more extreme version of the same view that Sephorno and NeTzIV advocated, i.e., God per force, because of the principle (Avoda Zora 3a) “the Holy One, Blessed Be He, does not Treat is Creatures tyrannically”, accounts for individual differences and abilities. Therefore, His Expectation from each of us is that in addition to striving to comply as best as we can with all of the Tora’s requirements, we carefully reflect upon regarding which area of Mitzva observance, which might constitute a single Commandment!, we can become truly expert and devoted. Although RaMBaM does not mention it explicitly, perhaps the reason why such a liberal approach is proposed by RaMBaM, is since Judaism is a communal religion, the various members of the community, when they each exercise and model their expertise, in the end complement one another, resulting in the communal whole that emerges, is much greater than the sum of its individual parts. Consequently, while the corporate entity of Israel includes elements that in the end assure that all Mitzvot are performed flawlessly, individual responsibility is satisfied when a single Mitzva is carried out in an outstanding manner. Does this make the bar too high—perfection is difficult for human beings—or too low—only one Mitzva and no more? Discuss!
Earlier this year, I published a short essay on the RCA blog “Text and Textures” regarding Abrabanel’s symbolic take on the Menora, and which adds another dimension to the discussion:
An Early Interpretation Supporting
the Concept of Tora U’Madda
Yaakov Bieler
The latter Tora portions of the
book of Shemot, with the exception of Ki Tisa, focus upon the
construction of the Tabernacle and the fabrication of the ritual clothing worn
by the priests when they were performing the Temple service. Most commentators
are hard-pressed to derive rigorously argued, logical spiritual instruction
from this quantitatively significant section of the Tora; those who do attempt
to suggest such ideas usually see the various artifacts described as at best
symbolizing particular ideas or themes. The degree to which the suggested
symbolism reflects the particular predilections of the interpreter in question
as opposed to clear objective concepts that can readily be arrived at an
embraced by a wide range of traditional Jewish thinkers can certainly be
contested.
An example of one of these
symbolic approaches that I have found particularly intriguing is presented by
Abrabanel[13]
(1407-1508) with respect to the Menora.[14]
His overall scheme of interpretation regarding the three artifacts in the Heichal,[15]
i.e., the Shulchan,[16]
Menora and Mizbeach HaZahav,[17]posits
that each object represents one of the forms of reward that is forthcoming to
those who comply with the Tora’s dictates. The Shulchan connotes
physical, material rewards, the Mizbeach, particularly the incense that
is offered upon it, suggests the eternity of the soul even after death, while
the light-giving Menora is associated with wisdom. However, since the Aron
containing the Tablets of the Ten Commandments[18]
is the symbol for Tora wisdom, the knowledge represented by the Menora,
according to Abrabanel “hints at ‘Sheva HaChachmot’ (the seven wisdoms),
all of which are to be found in the Tora of God”. Obviously, the Menora’s
seven branches lead the commentator to seek out something comprised of seven
categories, and the fact that the wicks in the six outer branches tilt towards
the wick of the central branch which in turn tilts towards the Kodesh
HaKodashim containing the Aron,[19]
lead him to conclude that whatever the number seven represents is to be
ultimately connected to Tora. But the corpus of “Sheva Chachmot” that Abrabanel
appears to take for granted as obvious and well-known, since he does not bother
to define or reference the concept, bears investigation.
A biblical textual reference
that associates the number “seven” with “wisdom” is found in Mishlei 9:1,
“Wisdom has built her house; she has hewn out seven pillars.” Yet
traditional commentators on this verse do not appear to shed light upon the
Abrabanel’s reference:
a. RaShI—the seven days of Creation
(not a reflection of the types of wisdom that served as the basis of the
Creation, but rather the individual platforms for the application of such
wisdom; MaLBIM—the fact that on each of the days specific aspects of the
Creation unfolded is a reflection of wisdom being applied;)
alternately,
the
“seven” books of the Tora (according to Rebbe’s view in Shabbat
115b-116a that BaMidbar 10:35-6 constitute a book unto themselves,
resulting in BaMidbar being considered three separate books—but
Abrabanel clearly intended to reference forms of wisdom that are different from
that of the Tora;)
b. RaLBaG—the number “seven”
represents multiplicity as in Mishlei 24:16 (yet in order to explain
Abrabanel’s approach to the Menora, we are searching for a list of
exactly seven disciplines of wisdom;)
c. Ibn Ezra—if the number “seven” is
modifying “wisdom” (rather than “pillars”)[20]
then it is a reference to “the seven wisdoms that the house of wisdom rests
upon” (while this interpretation parallels Abrabanel’s comment, it nevertheless
does not serve to clarify what these seven wisdoms actually are.)
Consequently, we are left with
the conclusion that Abrabanel’s (and Ibn Ezra’s[21] as well) reference to the “seven wisdoms” is
intended to call to mind the seven disciplines that the medieval world referred
to as the “liberal arts”[22]:
the “trivium” comprised of the language arts, i.e., grammar, rhetoric and
logic, and the “quadrivium” made up of mathematics, i.e., arithmetic, music,
geometry and astronomy. Not only does Abrabanel contend that the directionality
of the wicks of the Menora represents how these seven secular
disciplines are all entirely complementary to the contents and assumptions of
the Tora, but he also makes claims regarding their individual importance and
respective interdisciplinarity:
And the Menora was entirely made of pure gold to symbolize
the value of wisdom, the eternity of its longevity and that no alien ideas that
would not be compatible with religious thought and belief (“dross”) are
contained therein…and there were on it “Gevi’im”, “Kaftorim”, and
“Perachim” (cups, bulbs and flowers)[23] the branching out of all of the wisdoms and
knowledges one from the other (an organic connection between them where one
exists in synergy with the next), and that this wisdom was the precursor to the
next.The Menora was hammered out of a single piece of gold because in a certain
sense the wisdoms come together…because the wisdoms are really one just as the
house is a single structure, but it is divided into seven branches in
accordance with the number of different subject matters that are referred to as
the “seven wisdoms.”
Abrabanel’s
romantic vision of the coalescence of wisdoms calls to mind the Herman Hesse’s
premise in his master work, Magister Ludi, in which different
disciplines are reduced to their essential principles and then integrated with
one another in order to demonstrate a similar unified nature of knowledge and
knowing. While Ibn Ezra also mentioned the seven wisdoms in the context of
Mishlei 9:1, for Abrabanel to imagine the holy Menora in first the
Tabernacle and then the Temple representing the integration of secular and holy
knowledge, and that secular knowledge should be considered a reward for Mitzva
compliance is surely notable.
[1] Mosad HaRav Kook, Yerushalayim, 5769.
[2] Ibid. pp. 309-13.
[3] BaMidbar 8:2-4
Speak to Aharon and say to him: When you light the lights, towards the body of the candelabrum will the seven lights give light. And Aharon did so; he lit the lights towards the body of the candelabrum, as the Lord Commanded Moshe. And this was the work of the candelabrum: it was beaten gold from its shaft to its flowers, it was beaten work. According to the pattern that the Lord Showed Moshe, so he made the candelabrum.
[4] Shemot 25:31-40
And you shall make a candelabrum of pure gold. Of beaten work shall the candelabrum be made: its shaft and its branches, its bowls, its bulbs and its flowers, shall be of the same. And six branches shall come out of its sides; three branches of the candelabrum out of the one side, and three branches of the candelabrum out of the other side. Three cups made like almonds with a bulb and a flower in one branch, and three cups made like almonds in the other branch with a bulb and a flower. So it will be in the six branches that come out of the candelabrum. And in the candelabrum there will be four bowls made like almonds with their bulbs and flowers. And there shall be a bulb under two branches of the same piece, and a bulb under two branches of the same piece, and a bulb under two branches of the same piece according to the six branches that extend out of the candelabrum. Their bulbs and their branches shall be made of the same piece, all shall be one beaten work of pure gold. And you shall make its seven lamps. And they shall light its lamps and give light over against it. And its tongs and its ashpans shall be of pure gold. Of a talent of pure gold shall he make it, with all these vessels. And be careful to make them after their pattern which was shown you in the mountain.
[5] VaYikra 24:2-4
Command the Children of Israel that they bring to you pure oil olive beaten for the light to cause the lamps to burn continually. Outside the Veil of the Testimony, outside the Tent of Meeting shall Aharon order it from evening until morning before the Lord continually. It shall be a statute forever in your generations. He shall order the lamps on the pure candelabrum, before the Lord continually.
[6] “…and the ‘left’ ones (represented by the branches on the left) that are engaged in temporal life and are assisting the “right” ones…” Sephorno thus implies that if the individual who engages in this-worldly work does not do so with the sole aim of assisting the Tora student, along the lines of Yissachar and Zevulun (see e.g., Beraishit Rabba 72:5—
...א"ר לוי בא
וראה מה יפה היתה
סרסרותן של דודאים
לפני מי שאמר והיה
העולם שע"י הדודאים
עמדו שני שבטים
גדולים בישראל
יששכר וזבולן,
יששכר יושב ועוסק
בתורה, וזבולן
יוצא בימים ובא
ונותן לתוך פיו
של יששכר והתורה
רבה בישראל, (שיר
/השירים/ ז) והדודאים
נתנו ריח...)
then he has no
claim that he is doing the service of God. This does not appear to take into
consideration the Rabbinic dictum based upon a phrase from Yeshayahu 45:18,
“…it (the world) was not created to remain in a state of confusion and
disorder, but rather in order for it to be settled/dwelled upon.” Unless one
sides with the likes of R. Shimon bar Yochai in Berachot 35b that Jews should
study Tora full-time and allow others to take care of the rest of humanity’s
work responsibilities—the Talmud itself states there that very few individuals
are on the requisite spiritual level where such an approach will succeed—at
least some Jews will have to primarily occupy themselves with other activities
aside from single-minded Tora learning. To relegate all such individuals to
second-class citizen status compared to life-long students of Tora would appear
to be disrespectful and even unfair. Whereas everyone is expected to be Kovea
Itim LaTora (to establish fixed time for Tora study), this is far different
from exclusively engaging in Limud Tora. The need for allowing additional
possibilities for being considered someone who serves HaShem perhaps motivated
R. Kuperman to following the discussion of Sephorno, to cite NeTzIV and RaMBaM.
[7] It would appear that NeTzIV is taking Shimon HaTzaddik’s statement in Avot 1:2
שמעון הצדיק היה משירי כנסת הגדולה הוא היה אומר על שלשה דברים העולם עומד על התורה ועל העבודה ועל גמילות חסדים:
and giving it a new twist. Whereas the simple meaning of the statement can be taken to mean that every individual to divide his personal religious efforts among three areas, i.e., between man and himself (Tora), between man and God (Avoda) and between man and his fellow man (Gemilut Chassadim), the biblical commentator suggests, along the lines of Howard Gardner’s educational concept of multiple intelligences, that there will be different individuals who because of their interests and specific abilities, will choose to specialize in only one of these three areas. And assuming that the intent underlying such specialization is for the sake of Heaven, such choices are all respectable and acceptable. While a case could be made for being well-rounded and that each of these areas balances the others and guarantees that a person will not become overly involved in one aspect of the religious life to the exclusion of another, yet it can also be readily maintained that for some, e.g., an individual who lacks the intellectual and focusing power necessary for excellence in Tora study or one whose social graces leave something to be desired and therefore his interactions with people are uncomfortable or even insensitive, or someone who, if challenged with constant self-improvement would be overly critical of himself which in turn could lead to emotional or psychological difficulties, the validation of focusing on one or more areas with a concomitant de-emphasis upon those for which he is poorly suited, can prove extremely important and fulfilling.
[8] NeTzIV is again taking a particular side of a fundamental disagreement regarding Tora study. The Talmud in Kiddushin 30a makes the case for dividing up one’s daily Tora study in such a way that equal time is allotted to several areas of Jewish primary sources:
אמר רב ספרא משום ר' יהושע בן חנניא, מאי דכתיב: )דברים ו( “ושננתם לבניך”? אל תקרי “ושננתם” אלא “ושלשתם”. לעולם ישלש אדם שנותיו, שליש במקרא, שליש במשנה, שליש בתלמוד. מי יודע כמה חיי? לא צריכא - ליומי.
Once again, concentration in a single area could lead to misunderstandings and exaggerations when e.g., traditional explanations of biblical texts that appear in the Oral Tradition or disputes that are not recorded clearly in the Mishna come to light in the Gemora, or in-depth Talmud study does not allow for the overview of general topics in Jewish law that can be obtained only by considering the Mishnayot making up an entire Seder of the Shisha Sidrei Mishna. However, a counter theme is based upon the statement in Mishlei 22:6
חנך לנער על פי דרכו גם כי יזקין לא יסור ממנה:
The assumption that different individuals possess different styles and interests can often provide the key to motivating someone with regard to Tora study, or conversely, the reason why a person becomes discouraged from continuing his studies. While striving to know “everything” may be an ideal for some, such an attitude could constitute a “deal breaker” for others. A middle position might maintain that while an individual is in his formative years, he should adopt a “survey” approach, because how is he to know in what he might be ultimately interested; however once exposure to all sorts of material has been achieved, it then becomes appropriate to make choices regarding where to concentrate. Yet it is interesting that the very source in Mishlei that suggests the importance of specialization in learning refers to a “Na’ar”, i.e., a youth who typically is thought to benefit from a Tora survey. It is possible that in the interests of “covering” vast amounts of material, the attraction for meaningful study becomes lost and trivialized, thus short-circuiting the process for the development of a life-long learner. The implication would appear to be that a balance has to be struck between the extremes that the Talmud in Berachot 64a refers to as “Oker Harim” (lit. the uprooter of mountains; a reference to those who are profound analysts and can go into extreme depth on a particular subject) and “Sinai” (the person who is familiar with everything in a broad manner, but who does not have the Oker Harim’s qualities of deep study.)
[9] The juxtaposition of these two Commandments is striking. While they are both mandated by the Tora, e.g., Shemot 20:7-10; BaMidbar 15:38-40, 1) Shabbat is listed in the Ten Commandments while Tzitzit is not; 2) Shabbat is delineated by both a positive and negative Commandment (in addition to Shemot 20:9, see VaYikra 23:3) while Tzitzit constitutes only a positive Commandment; 3) the punishment for a deliberate violation of Shabbat entailing actively transgressing a negative Commandments is death (BaMidbar 15:35) whereas one who fails to place Tzitziot on four-cornered garment has passively not fulfilled a positive Commandment and the consequences are far-less severe; 4) Shabbat is a sign and reminder that God Rested on the seventh day of Creation whereas Tzitzit is a reminder to perform the Commandments of the Tora; 5) Shabbat is incumbent on both men and women while Tzitzit is an obligation only for men, 6) concerning Tzitzit, at least until recently, the Commandment could not be carried out fully because of the loss of the tradition of creating the Techelet dye, etc. These differences would clearly suggest that when compared to one another, Shabbat is to be considered a far more basic Commandment than Tzitzit. Yet there is also the statement in Avot 4:2
בן עזאי אומר הוי רץ למצוה קלה כבחמורה ובורח מן העבירה שמצוה גוררת מצוה ועבירה גוררת עבירה ששכר מצוה מצוה ושכר עבירה עבירה:
Perhaps it should be kept in mind that the passage in Tractate Shabbat is not to be interpreted that the person for whom Tzitzit was more important did not observe Shabbat, but rather when it came to spiritual significance, personal inspiration, precise knowledge of the Commandment’s “in’s and out’s”, it was Tzitzit that the individual cared about more passionately and which inspired him to feel a connection with HaShem, and vice versa with respect to the other person referenced in the Gemora.
[10] Many years ago, I heard R. Soloveitchik, ZaTzaL, say a similar thing with respect to the Vilna Gaon and the Ba’al Shem Tov. He said that they both were careful about not transgressing negative Commandments. Where they differed was in the emphasis that they placed on certain positive ones, i.e., the Gaon stressed Limud Tora while the Ba’al Shem emphasized (Tehillim 100:2) “Ivdu Et HaShem BeSimcha”. There is no “right and wrong” in such a matter; only a question of preference, temperament and focus.
[11] The usual interpretation of this Mishna is that an individual has to not only strive to do the right thing in God’s Eyes, but also in the eyes of his fellow man. Sephorno reinterprets the second clause to connote that the individual has to please himself with respect to the type of Divine Service that he will concentrate upon.
[12] This is a homiletical interpretation because the simple sense of the verse would be “HaShem Desired for His (Own) Sake”, i.e., by means of the Jewish people engaging in extensive amounts of Tora and Mitzvot, there is more Glory for God.
[13] Peirush Abrabanel Al HaTora, Shemot, Saphrograph, New York, 1959, p. 116b.
[14] Shemot 25:32-8.
[15] The outer section of the central portion of the Tabernacle, as opposed to the inner section known as Kodesh Kodashim and containing the Aron.
[16] Shemot 25:23-30.
[17] Ibid., 30:1-10.
[18] Ibid., 25:16; Devarim 10:5.
[19] See for e.g., RaMBaM, Mishna Tora, Hilchot Beit HaBechira 3:8.
[20] Vilna Gaon (Sefer Mishlei Im Beiur Eliyahu MiVilna, Shilo, Tel Aviv, p. 27b), like Ibn Ezra’s first explanation of this verse, connects “seven” with “pillars” rather than wisdom. He speaks of three wisdoms.
[21] Since Ibn Ezra lived between 1089 and @1164, his reference to the “seven wisdoms” is an even more ancient one than that of the Abrabanel.
[22] Liberal arts were considered those disciplines by which an individual would gain wisdom, but not the skills and knowledge required to gain employment and earn a livelihood. Studies focusing on the latter goals were known as the “illiberal arts.” See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Arts
[23] E.g., Shemot 25:33.