An “On-Again”
“Off-Again” Relationship
That We Can Do
Something About
R. Yaakov Bieler
Parshiot VaYakhel-Pekudei/Chazak/HaChodesh 5770
With the conclusion of Sefer Shemot at the end of Parashat Pekudei, it
could be said that a cycle of alienation followed by reconciliation has been
completed. The end of Shemot describes the Return of the Divine Presence to the
world inhabited by human beings:
Shemot
40:34-8
And
the Cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and the Glory of God Filled the
Tabernacle.
And Moshe could not enter the Tent of Meeting
because the Cloud had Dwelled upon it and the Glory of God Filled the
Tabernacle.
And with the Rising of the Cloud from upon the
Tabernacle the Children of Israel would journey on all their journeys.
And if the Cloud did not Rise, they did not
journey until the day of Its Rising.
Because the Cloud of God was upon the Tabernacle
during the day and Fire would be at night before the eyes of the entire House
of Israel in all of their journeys.
A Rabbinic source posits that rather than this event constituting the first
time that God’s Glory Resided among people in this world, it should be
viewed as the Divine Presence’s Return to its original habitat:
Beraishit Rabba 19:7 (BaMidbar Rabba 13:19)
…The Essence of the Divine Presence was (located) among the lower ones
(mankind.) When Adam sinned,[1]
It relocated to the First Firmament. When Kayin sinned,[2]
It relocated to the Second Firmament. (When) the generation of Enosh (sinned[3]
It relocated) to the Third
Firmament. The generation of the Flood,[4]
to the Fourth Firmament. The generation of the Dispersion,[5]
to the Fifth Firmament. The Sodomites,[6]
to the Sixth Firmament.
And corresponding to them stood seven Righteous individuals. And these are:
Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov, Levi,[8]
Kehat,[9]
Amram[10]
and Moshe.[11]
Avraham stood and lowered It to the Sixth. Yitzchak stood and lowered It
from the Sixth to the Fifth. Yaakov stood and lowered It from the Fifth to the
Fourth. Levi stood and lowered It from the Fourth to the Third. Kehat stood and
lowered It from the Third to the Second. Amram stood and lowered it from the
Second to the First. Moshe stood and lowered It from above to below.
However,
God’s Closeness to the Jewish people via His Presence in first the Tabernacle
and then the Temple was not permanent, with the Talmud describing God gradually
and seemingly wistfully withdrawing from
the relationship yet again as a result of the increased sinning of the people leading
in turn to the eventual destruction of the Temple.
Rosh HaShana 31a (Soncino translation)
R. Yehuda bar Idi said in the name of R. Yochanan: The Divine Presence Left
Israel in ten stages… The Divine Presence left Israel by ten stages…it went
from 1) the Ark-cover to the Cherub, 2)
from the Cherub to the threshold (of the Holy
of Holies), 3) from the threshold to the court, 4) and from the court to
the altar, 5) and from the altar to the roof, 6) and from the roof to the wall,
7) and from the wall to the town, 8) and from the town to the mountain, 9) and
from the mountain to the wilderness, 10) and from the wilderness It Ascended
and Abode in Its Own Place…
And
while the Second Temple was built upon the return of the Jews from their
Babylonian exile, one of the features of the original Temple that was
apparently not restored was the direct evidence of the Divine Presence, leading
to the conclusion that It Remained during that time and beyond in its “Own
Place”:
Yoma 21b
Said R. Shmuel bar Inya: What is meant by (Chagai 1:8) “…’VaEchabed’ (and I
will be Honored) and I will be Glorified”. (Although the word is spelled ואכבד) the
traditional reading is (as if it were written) “ואכבדה”[12]
(with an additional “ה”); why is the “ה” omitted in the biblical text? To indicate that in five things[13]
the
The
ongoing sequence of closeness, distance and a return to closeness between God
and the Jewish people was embodied, according to one view in Rabbinic thought,
in a miracle involving the Cherubs atop the
Bava Batra 99a
How did they (the Cherubs) stand? R. Yochanan and R. Eleazar (disputed the
answer to this question, but we do not which assumed which point of view.) One
says, they faced each other, and the other says, their faces were inward (away
from each other, towards the walls of the room.) But according to him who said
that they faced each other, is it not written, (II Divrei HaYamim 3:13) “And
their faces were inward”? This is not a difficulty. The former was at a time
when the Jewish people obeyed the Will of HaShem; the latter was at a time when
the Jewish people did not obey the Will of HaShem…
The
concept that the Cherubs atop the
However, even if the opportunity to restore the Shechina to its
rightful place on a communal and national basis, i.e., the building of Bayit
Shlishi on the Temple Mount, is not presently available to us this being
considered a period of “Hester Panim” (God’s “Hiding His Face”, Making His
Immanence difficult to recognize and experience), there are a number of
Rabbinic statements that suggest that holy places, groups of individuals and
even single individuals can “bring down” the Divine Presence to Dwell in such a
place or amongst people engaged in
specific activities at least for finite periods of time.
Berachot 6a
Rabin bar
And how do we know that when ten people pray together the Divine
Presence is with them? For it is said, “God Stands in the congregation of God.”
And how do we know that if three are sitting as a court of judges
the Divine Presence is with them? (Ibid.) “And in the midst of the judges He
Judges.”
And how do we know that if two are sitting and studying Tora together,
the Divine Presence is with them? For it is written (Malachi 3:16) “Then they
that feared HaShem spoke with one another. And HaShem Paid attention and Heard,
and a Book of Remembrance was written before Him, for them that feared HaShem
and thought about His Name”…
And how do we know that even if one person sits and studies Tora the
Divine Presence is with him? For it is said, (Shemot 20:21) “In every place
where I Cause My Name to be mentioned, I will Come to you and Bless you”…
It
is not surprising that the synagogue be designated as the post-Temple
context of the Shechina in light of the following Rabbinic assumption based
upon a prophetic verse:
Megilla 29a
(What is the meaning of Yechezkel 11:16) “Therefore say to them: This is what the Lord God Said—Since I remotely Scattered you amongst the nations and I Spread you out amongst the lands, and I will Be for you a ‘Mikdash Me’at’ (a mini-Temple) in the lands that you will come there.”
Said R. Yitzchak: These
are the synagogues and houses of study in
R. Elazar said: this is
the “house” of Rav in
Rava gave the following interpretation: What is the meaning of the verse (Tehillim 90:1) “HaShem, You have Been our ‘Ma’on’ (dwelling place)”? This refers to the synagogues and houses of study.
Abaye said: In the past I would study at home and pray in the synagogue. But when I came across the words of David, (Ibid. 26:8) “HaShem, I love the ‘Ma’on’ (dwelling place) of Your House,” I began to study also in the synagogue.
Whereas R. Yitzchak and even more so R. Elazar, were not prepared to apply the designation of “Mikdash Me’at” to all synagogues and study halls, but rather to only specific ones in specific places, Rava and Abaye appear to be much more generous in their assessment that despite the Temples having been destroyed, there are still physical places which can inspire a sense of coming into close proximity with the Divine. The Gemora then goes on to state that even without the benefit of a particular structure endowed with “Kedushat Makom” (Holiness of Place), when ten pray together or three judge together or two study together, the Divine Spirit is assumed to be Hovering over those engaged in such activities. One could say that either this is a metaphysical truism, or perhaps that a sense of the presence of the Shechina is the “Kavana” (intention) that the pray-ers, judges, and students should try to maintain in order that their activities be endowed with ultimate spiritual meaning.[21] It seems to me that the most poignant assertion of the passage in Berachot is that the Shechina accompanies even the lone student who is striving to understand God’s Tora, reminiscent of a passage in Bialik’s magnificent paean to the Talmid Chacham, “The Matmid” (the extraordinary student of Tora):
A Matmid, in his prison house,
A prisoner, self-guarded, self-condemned,
Self-sacrificed to the study of the Law…
Earth and her fullness are concentrated here,
A thousand suns blaze in the gloomy corner,
Like vehement coals his eyes give answering fire,
While love-impassioned, back and forth he sways…
Day after day, firm stands the sentinel
From moon to night, from darkness to darkness.
Perhaps the Talmud’s assertion of the joining together of the solitary learner with God is also another form of the sentiment expressed by R. Soloveitchik in his iconic essay, “The Lonely Man of Faith”:[22]
In my "desolate, howling solitude" I experience a growing awareness that, to paraphrase Plotinus's apothegm about prayer, this service to which I, a lonely and solitary individual, am committed is wanted and gracefully accepted by God in His transcendental loneliness and numinous solitude.
Additional Rabbinic sources that suggest that
an individual is capable of maintaining a sense of the closeness of the Divine
Presence via “props” and self-consciously attained states of mind, even when he
is alone and does not find himself within a physical structure devoted to
either prayer or learning, include:
Kiddushin 31a
R. Huna the son of R. Yehoshua would never walk four cubits (six feet) with
his head uncovered. He said: The Shechina is Above my head.
Shabbat 30b
(After positing that there is a significant difference between joy that
arises as the result of performing a Commandment and joy that is the product of
silly, thoughtless behavior,) This is to teach you that the Shechina will not
Dwell in the midst of melancholy, laziness, frivolity, light-headedness,
conversation and small-talk, trivial, inconsequential matters, but rather in
the midst of the joy of fulfilling a Commandment…
Consequently, throughout
the Jewish calendar,[23]
we certainly bemoan the absence of the
See you at Minyan and at
Shiur!
[1] Beraishit 3.
[2] Ibid. 4.
[3] Ibid. 4:26.
[4] Ibid. 6.
[5] Ibid. 11.
[6] Ibid. 13:13.
[7] Ibid. 12:10 ff.
[8] Although the meaning that Leah attributes to Levi’s name is particularly meaningful in a spiritual sense, (Ibid. 29:34) “…my husband will accompany me…”, ostensibly a reference to Yaakov, but also suggesting God Accompanying the Jewish people by virtue of the service rendered by the Kohanim and Levi’im descended from Levi, during Levi’s lifetime, it appears that he is explicitly associated with Shimon with regard to the raid on Shechem following the rape of Dina (Ibid. 34:25-6) and assumed to be responsible for the initial plot to murder Yosef (Ibid. 37:19) as indicated in Yaakov’s deathbed words to these two brothers (Ibid. 49:5-7). While it could be assumed that the distinguished record of his descendents—Moshe and Aharon come from the tribe of Levi (Shemot 6:14 ff.), the tribe of Levi participates neither in the sin of the Golden Calf (e.g., Ibid. 32:26) or the Spies (BaMidbar 13:4-16 mentions representatives of every tribe except Levi) , they are Chosen as the Priests and Levites in charge of the Tabernacle service (e.g., Shemot 28:1) in effect replacing the Firstborn who were originally intended to perform these services (BaMidbar 3:12-3), and Pinchas stemming the Ba’al Pe’or insurrection embodied in Kosbi and Zimri’s public sinning (Ibid. 25:6-9)—it is interesting to note that there is nothing in the verses discussing Levi himself to indicate particular personal righteousness (as opposed to the zealousness) of his descendents. Is it Levi’s zealousness to protect his family’s honor with respect to the debacle that befell his sister his claim to fame? But then shouldn’t Shimon be equally praiseworthy, and his name is not mentioned on the list of the righteous. Is the Midrash’s assumption retroactive, i.e., that if his descendants turned out so exemplary, “the apple does not fall far from the tree”? A similar understanding could be applied to Kehat (see Shemot 6:16, 18; BaMidbar 3:19; 4:2), about whom we also do not hear anything in particular, aside from his claim to fame as being the grandfather of Moshe.
[9] See the end of the previous footnote.
[10]
Although Amram was Moshe’s father, the biblical text clearly states that Moshe,
once discovered in the reeds by Pharoah’s daughter, was raised in the royal
palace, as opposed to his parents’ home. While there are Rabbinic sources that
suggest that Amram secretly educated Moshe during this time and that the voice
that Moshe originally heard emanating from the burning bush was that of his
father , the biblical text could be read
that there was no contact between father and son once Moshe was placed in the
[11] Only Moshe literally brings the Shechina down via the construction of the Tabernacle and its being filled by the Divine Presence, as described literally at the end of Shemot. The Midrash assumes that the Shechina’s Reentry was gradual over the course of many generations and Moshe alone would not have been able to achieve such a feat.
[12] An example of the tension between “Ktiv” (the manner in which a word is traditionally written) and the “Kri” (the manner in which that same word is traditionally read/pronounced.) For a series of such words, see Sanhedrin 4a-b.
[13]
The numerical value of the letter “ה” is five.
[14]
On Yoma 21a the Cherubs in the
[15]
According to Yoma 21b, the fire on the altar looked like a “lion” in the
[16] A
reference to the Cloud which is mentioned as Filling the
[17]
Although the standard liturgical text for the closingin of the third of the four blessing comprising the
Grace after Meals is: “Baruch Ata HaShem Boneh BeRachamav Yerushalayim.
Amen” (Blessed are You God, Who Builds in His Mercy
[18]
According to Yoma 9b, since prophecy ceased after the careers of Chagai,
Zacharia and Malachi, all contemporaries of Ezra and members of the Men of the
Great Assembly, Divine Inspiration which was the means by which the prophets
prophecized was no longer present in the
[19]
The breastplate of the High Priest was arrayed with twelve stones, each
representing one of the Tribes of the Jewish people (see Shemot 28:17-21).
While the High Priest certainly wore the Choshen during the
[20] According to Megilla 13b, Yaakov attempts to justify to Rachel his intention of misleading Lavan and marrying her, despite Leah’s not yet being married by resorting to this verse in Shmuel and implying that he would be following God’s Lead, another case of imitateo dei. Of course the flaw in the argument is that while in certain regards we are commanded to “walk in God’s Ways”—as in Sota 14a—there are aspects of God’s Actions that are not to be emulated by man, e.g., God is described as (Tehillim 94a) a “vengeful God” and yet man is enjoined from taking revenge in VaYikra 19:18. Particularly when it comes to violence and meting out punishments, or for that matter, less than straightforward behavior, man is not trusted to carry such actions out precisely and appropriately, but rather has the tendency to “get carried away.”
[21] See e.g., Shulchan Aruch, Orech Chayim 98:1.
[22] Tradition, VII:2, 1965.
[23] Fast days on Asara B’Tevet, Shiva Asar B’Tamuz, Tisha B’Av; the three weeks leading up to Tisha B’Av; the references in the Mussaf prayers on Rosh Chodesh, Shabbat and Yom Tov to the absence of the Temple in which we could offer requisite sacrifices; the everyday liturgy for the Amida in which we pray for the restoration of the Temple and the sacrificial service; etc.