Birkat Hachama – Here comes the sun

The Shulchan Arukh (Orah Chayyim 229:2) rules that when the sun is at its turning point every 28 years on the night of the fourth day of the week (Tuesday night), on the following morning (Wednesday) when seeing the sun one says the blessings, oseh (maaseh) bereshit. This turning point is the vernal equinox, and this is thought to be the location of the sun when it was created. This ruling is based on the Talmud, Berakhot 59b, but the blessing is puzzling for at least four reasons.

One, the Rambam (1963, Guide, 3:45) writes with regard to the Bet ha-Mikdash that, “Avraham defined the direction towards which one would turn in prayer, fixing it exactly in the west. For the Holy of Holies is in the west… In my opinion, the reason for this is as follows: inasmuch as at that time the opinion generally accepted in the world was to the effect that the sun should be worshipped, and that it is the deity, there is no doubt that all men turned when praying towards the east. Therefore, Avraham turned when praying on Mount Moriah – I mean in the Sanctuary – towards the west, so as to turn his back upon the sun.” Yet, with the blessing of the sun we turn towards the sun.

The usual understanding of the blessing is that it is to show that we recognize G-d's control of the natural world, yet the blessing could give the impression that we are praying to the sun, G-d forbid. In our prayers, many of us face east but this in order to face Jerusalem, and only incidentally do we face the sun. Even by our prayers, the Rama (Orah Chayyim, 94:2) writes that the aron in the synagogue should not be directly in the line of the rising sun in order not to face the sun. In fact, the Tosefta (Berakhot 7:10) first records that one is to recite a blessing on seeing the sun, but then quotes R. Yehuda that saying a blessing on the sun is a form of paganism.

The Talmud Yerushalmi (Berakhot 65a, 9:2) and Vayikra Rabbah 23:8 quote the Tosefta, but leave out R. Yehuda's opinion not to say any blessing on the sun. Instead, they quote Rav Huna that the blessing on the sun is only in the rainy season when the sun had not been seen for three days. The Talmud Bavli (59b) quotes the Tosefta but does not quote either R. Yehuda's or Rav Huna's opinion. However, it quotes Abaye's explanation that the blessing is to be said once every twenty eight years.

The Rambam does not quote Rav Huna's opinion, which might be because it was not quoted in the Bavli, but also maybe he was uncomfortable with this blessing which could have been relatively frequent according to Rav Huna. However, he quoted (Mishneh Torah, Laws of blessings, 10:18) Abaye's opinion to say the blessing on the sun once every twenty eight years. The Rif did not quote this law, so why would he codify the law? Furthermore, Michael Morris has pointed out to me that the Rambam (Laws of the New Moon, 10:5) was aware that the calculation of the twenty eight year cycle was problematic (see below). Did the Rambam quote the law since it is said so infrequently? Yet, if it is problematic it should never be said. Maybe the reason why the Rambam quoted the law was because he thought one does not recite a blessing only the phrase baruch oseh bereshit.

The Mishnah (Berakhot 9:1) when referring to all the blessings on unique occasions, just refers to them by the final phrase of the blessing, as for example, oseh maaseh bereshit. Tosfot (Haroeh, 54a) quotes R. Shemayah (France, 11th century, student of Rashi) that all the blessings in the Mishnah and presumably the chapter in the Talmud are to be made with G-d's name (shem u-malchut), "Blessed be you, G-d, our G-d, King of the world," and that Rashi recited the full blessing with G-d's name by lighting. However, the Raavad (1120-1197, pages of Rif Berakhot 44a, comments on the Baal ha-Maor) writes that all the blessings recorded in chapter nine of Berakhot are said without G-d's name. Meiri (1249-1306, on Berakhot 54a, pp.202-205) writes that while the blessing of birkat ha-gomel is recited with G-d's name, the blessing of oseh (maaseh) bereshit is said without mentioning G-d's name. The Meiri also writes that the Rambam believes that all the blessings are said with G-d's name, but this is not clear.

When the Rambam records these blessings he writes the full form of the blessing, "Blessed be you, G-d, our G-d, King of the world..….," as for example by the blessing when a person sees a place where G-d did a miracle to the Jewish people (Laws of blessings, 10:9) or upon seeing the Mediterranean Sea (10:15). However, by the blessings oseh maaseh bereshit and shekocho u-gevurato malei olam, in reference to lighting, thunder, and the sun, the Rambam does not record the full blessing, just the last phrase of the blessing. (The Rambam also omits the word maaseh from the phrase, but this is a separate question.) It is assumed that the Rambam means for one to recite the full blessing with G-d's name even by these blessings, but why did the Rambam not spell this out as he did by the other blessings? Does the Rambam believe that one just says the phrase, oseh maaseh bereshit, without G-d's name? If yes, then one has emasculated the blessing, as Rebi Zera and Rebi Yehuda state in the name of Rav that any blessing that does not include G-d's Kingship is not a blessing, Yerushalmi Berakhot 62b, 9:1. Thus, maybe the Rambam was not bothered by the blessing on the sun since this was not a real blessing because he thought that one does not recite the full blessing with G-d's name on seeing the sun or for that matter by lightning and thunder.

Interestingly, the Tur and the Shulchan Arukh when referring to the blessing, oseh maaseh bereshit by comets, earthquakes, lighting, thunder, great winds (hurricanes?), oceans, rivers and mountains (Orah Chayyim 227:1, 228:1) record specifically that one recites the blessing by invoking G-d's name. However, when they record the blessing by the sun they just record that one says the phrase oseh maaseh bereshit without mentioning that one says the full blessing with G-d's name. Do they also limit the blessing since they are uncomfortable with it or just by the blessing of the sun they felt there was no need to spell out the full blessing?

Two, the Talmud and the Shulchan Arukh record this blessing in conjunction with other astronomical events, such as the movement of the moon, planets with regard to the stars, but we do not recite a blessing for these events, see Mishneh Brurah, 229:9. Rabbi Bleich, in a wonderful book on the blessing, (Bircas haChammah, Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 1980, p.67) notes that this discrepancy is curious and he suggests that we bless the sun since the sun in its turning point "is an occasion which readily lends itself to calculation, whereas the others can be determined only with great difficulty." Yet, as we discuss below our calculation of the movement of the sun is incorrect.

Three, we say the blessing in Nisan (see Rambam, above, Mishneh Brurah 229:7) and this is based on the idea that the world was created in Nisan since the timing of the blessing is when it is thought that the sun returns to its location when it was created. However, on our prayers on Rosh Hashanah we state that the world was created in Tishrei and not Nisan. This question is an argument in the Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 10b,11a) that R. Eliezer states that the world was created in Tishrei while R. Yehoshua says it was created in Nisan. It is odd that we are inconsistent with regard to this question, and R. Bleich (pp.63-65) quotes several answers to this question.

Four, the calculation that the blessing is based on is incorrect since the reckoning of twenty eight years is based on the Julian calendar. According to the Julian calendar, the year is 52 weeks and 30 hours, which means that with each passing year, the calendar advances one day and six hours. For example, if the sun was created at 6PM on Tuesday night, then the sun would "return" to that same location the following year at 12AM (midnight) Wednesday/Thursday, and in the following year, 6AM Friday morning. After four years, the sun would "return" to initial location at 6PM, but it would be off by five days, 6PM Sunday instead of 6PM Tuesday. We need seven cycles of four years, twenty eight years, until the sun returns to its initial location both with regard to the hour and to the date, 6PM Tuesday night. Yet, we know that the Julian calendar is wrong since it adds an extra eleven minutes and fourteen seconds to the year. Thus, after twenty eight years the sun is not returning to its initial location, as even within one 28 year cycle there is a discrepancy of 310.57 minutes.

This year the discrepancy is even more apparent than usual since the blessing on the sun is on erev Pesach, while the blessing is meant to be on Rosh Chodesh Nisan, which is supposed to be on the vernal equinox. This discrepancy is because the Jewish calendar is not based on the Julian calendar while the blessing of the sun is still based on the Julian calendar. The Julian calendar was established in 46 BCE, with March 25th being the vernal equinox. This means that the blessing was to be said on March 26th because we start the day at night. The sun was created on the fourth day, which is believed to have begun on Tuesday night (not like the Rashbam on Bereshit 1:4,5), and it is believed that the sun was created at the vernal equinox, which means that Tuesday night was March 25th. We do not say the blessing at night since we cannot see the sun, but wait until the morning which would be March 26th.

March 26th was the day of the blessing until 1582 when the Gregorian calendar was instituted. This calendar fixed the Julian calendar by skipping ten days in 1582 to make the vernal equinox on March 21st and omitting the leap year three times out of 400 years (the years 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, 2200,…). Of course, we would not accept this change which was declared by a Pope, and hence we had to add ten days to the new Gregorian calendar to return to the "true" Julian calendar. This means that after 1582, the blessing was said on April 5th, which would have been March 26th if the calendar had not been changed. In addition, in the years 1700, 1800 and 1900, the Gregorian calendar was missing three leaps years or three days, and again we have to add three days to our Gregorian calendar, which means that in the 20th and 21st century, the blessing is said on April 8th. In the 22nd century, they will have to add another day, and then the blessing will be said on April 9th.

In conclusion, R. Bleich (p.76) notes that while there is no requirement to say the blessing with a minyan, it is preferable to recite the blessings in the company of a large assemblage since "the glory of the King is in the multitude of the populace," see Mishneh Brurah 229:8. Thus, many are planning to make large gatherings on April 8 to say the blessing, but it seems to me that in view of all the problems with the blessing that it should be said in a low key manner. Furthermore, the Rambam and the Shulchan Arukh only record to say the blessing in the morning but do not specify when in the morning. The Magen Avraham (229:5) writes that one should say the blessing exactly at sunrise, but I think that one should specifically not say the blessing at sunrise to minimize the impression that one is praying to the sun. Finally, further research is needed whether one should say the full blessing with G-d's name or just the phrase oseh maaseh bereshit which is the view of the Raavad, the Meiri and most likely the Rambam, Tur and Shulchan Arukh.

Shemot 35:3 (Va-Yakhel) – Can’t start a fire

שמות לה:ג - לא תבערו אש בכל מושבתיכם ביום השבת.

Shemot 35:3 records “you shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat” (Hertz, 1960, p. 373). The interpretation of this verse has been quite contentious. What does it mean, "you shall kindle no fire?" Does it mean not to start a fire on Shabbat or not to have a fire burning on Shabbat?

The traditional Jewish interpretation of Shemot 35:3 is that the verse only prohibits lighting a fire on Shabbat, but a fire that was lit before Shabbat can remain burning on Shabbat. This position is recorded in the Mekhilta (quoted in Torah Shelemah 35:29) on the verse, which states that one cannot kindle a fire on Shabbat but one can kindle a fire on erev Shabbat that will burn on Shabbat. Menachem Kasher (Torah Shelemah, additions to Va-Yakhel, 3) notes that this interpretation contradicted the Samaritan (Jewish sect from at least the time of the second Temple) explanation of the verse that 35:3 prohibits all fires on Shabbat even if they were lit before Shabbat, and required one to extinguish all fires before Shabbat. Lauterbach (1973, p. 123 footnote 32a) writes that this view was also that of the Sadducees (sect from around 200 BCE to the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, 70 CE.). Thus at the time of the second Bet ha-Mikdash, there was a controversy whether fire was permitted on Shabbat if it was lit before Shabbat. The Pharisees (forerunners of traditional Judaism) argued yes, while the Samaritans and Sadducees said no.

The argument concerning Shemot 35:3 was renewed in the ninth century with the development of Karaites, who accepted the Samaritan and Sadducees understanding of 35:3. The most prominent defender of the traditional understanding of 35:3 was Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon (882-942) who wrote an excurses explaining why 35:3 only prohibits lighting a fire on Shabbat, but not benefiting from a fire that was lit before Shabbat. (The excurses was printed in English and Arabic by Hirschfeld (1906), and reprinted in Hebrew, by Kapach (1984) and Kasher, above.) In response, the Karaite biblical scholar, Yefet ben Ali ha-Levi (Arabic name, Abu Ali al-Hassan ibn Ali, b. Basra, d. Jerusalem, 10th century, quoted in Hirschfeld, above) attempted to refute all of Saadiah Gaon's proofs.

In the 12th century, Ibn Ezra (1089-1164, Spain) in his long comments on 35:3 refers to Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon's book against the Karaites, and in his short comments on 35:3 he records a lengthy argument he had with a Karaite concerning 35:3. Ibn Ezra writes that he told the Karaite that he would interpret the verse just based on what is written in the Torah and that the Karaite was happy with this offer. Ibn Ezra then asked the Karaite if it was permitted to light a fire on Friday night, and the Karaite said it was forbidden based on 35:3. Ibn Ezra rejected this response since the Torah uses the word day, and then the prohibition of lighting a fire should only be during the daylight hours and not at night. The Karaite then attempted to prove that the word day in 35:3 also referred to nighttime, but Ibn Ezra showed that the word day could refer to both day and night or to a specific time period. Ibn Ezra concluded that he recorded this argument since some verses can be understood in various ways, but we rely on tradition as to what is the correct interpretation.

This disagreement concerning 35:3 continues with modern translators of the Torah. Fox (1995, p. 463) in his translations of the Torah translates 35:3 as “you are not to let fire burn throughout all your settlements on the Sabbath day.” This is the Samaritan, Sadducees and Karaite position, as he understands 35:3 to mean that one must not allow a fire to burn. On the other hand, Alter (2004, p. 514) translates the verse as "you shall not kindle a fire in all your dwelling places on the Sabbath day." In his commentary, Alter writes, "the kindling of fire – as against merely making use of fire that had been set accidentally- is clearly a primary labor of civilization," which shows that he understand the verse as prohibiting the kindling of fire as opposed to using fire on Shabbat.

What is the basis for the disagreement concerning 35:3? The answer is that there is an ambiguity in the literal translation of 35:3. In Hebrew, the word tebaaru, means literally to burn, and thus 35:3 literally records one is not to burn a fire on Shabbat. Yet, what does it mean, “not to burn a fire? As noted by Propp (2006, p. 659) the verse "could be rendered either 'do not kindle' or 'do no permit to burn." This ambiguity can be seen in Ibn Ezra’s (short comments on 35:3) comments on the verse discussed above. He does not offer proof for the rabbinic position, but argued that the Karaites were inconsistent in their interpretation. Thus, in the end he resorts to relying on tradition.

Accordingly because of the ambiguity of 35:3, the arguments surrounding the interpretation of the verse have centered on other verses in Tanakh that are claimed to support one reading or the other. For example, one argument from Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon (above) is that Shemot 23:12 and Devarim 5:14 only require people and animals to rest. If a person has to extinguish a fire before Shabbat, then this means that one is required to make fire rest, yet what can it mean to require an inanimate object such as fire to rest? Yefet (above) countered that the obligation to rest is only one reason not to work on Shabbat, and also Bereshit 8:4 uses the word to rest by an inanimate object, the ark. Tobias ben Eliezer, (Rabbanite leader of Byzantine Jewry, end of 11th century, Midrash Lekah Tov, quoted in Torah Shelemah 35:30) who also battled with the Karaites, notes that a person can plant seeds during on Friday even though the seeds will take root on Shabbat and one can open an irrigation system on Friday that lets the field gets watered on Shabbat. Thus, he queries, why should using a fire that was lit on Shabbat be forbidden? Furthermore, he argues that if the Torah really meant to prohibit all fires on Shabbat, then the Torah should have written this prohibition explicitly as is recorded by the prohibition of hametz. In the 15th century, the Karaite scholar, Elijah Bashyachi (1430-1490, Istanbul, quoted in Frank, 2001, p. 263) accepted the traditional interpretation of 35:3 and argued:

A lamp burned eternally in the Temple on account of its sanctity; it is fitting, therefore, that all Jewish homes have lamps, in honor of the holy books they contain. Can any intelligent person really believe that Moses out teacher or the other prophets and princes used to sit in darkness on Sabbath evenings? No, to a sensible person this is inconceivable! 

For a discussion of how this argument influenced several laws/ customs and Jewish history, see Schein, 2008 and our discussion "Lighting candles before Shabbat and Yom Tov."

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Frank, Daniel, 2001, Karaite Ritual, in Judaism in practice: From the Middle Ages through the early Modern period, edited by Lawrence Fine, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 248-264.

Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press.

Hirschfeld, Hartwig, 1906, The Arabic portion of the Cairo Genizah at Cambridge, Jewish Quarterly Review, 18:4, pp. 600-620.

Kapach, Yosef (1917-2000), 1984, Commentary of Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon on the Torah, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Lauterbach, Jacob (1873-1942), 1973, Rabbinic Essays, New York: Ktav. Reprint of 1951 edition, Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College.

Propp, William, 2006, Exodus 19-40: A new translation with introduction and commentary, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Schein, Andrew, 2008, Can’t start a fire without a spark, in Edut BeYhosef: Essays presented to Rabbi Dr. Yosef Green on the occasion of his eightieth birthday, edited by Dov and Esther Green, Jerusalem

Shemot 35:1-3 (Va-Yakehl) – Shabbat, fire and the sin of the golden calf

Shemot 35:2 records that one who works on Shabbat is to be killed and 35:3 records that one cannot kindle a fire on Shabbat. These verses are located immediately after the sin of the golden calf and its repercussions, and before the building of mishkan/ ohel moed. Why were these laws of Shabbat recorded in this location?

Rashi (on 35:2) explains that the people had to know that one was not allowed to work on Shabbat even to build the mishkan/ ohel moed. However, while this message is undoubtedly true, Rashi (on 31:13) already explained that this lesson was known from 31:12-17, which also records laws prohibiting work on Shabbat in conjunction with the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed.

Why is there a need for the laws of Shabbat to be mentioned twice with regard to the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed? One possible answer is that after the sin of the golden calf there was a need to emphasize this prohibition. Yet, while this is also logical, the specific location of the two sets of laws of Shabbat suggests an additional rationale for their repetition.

The laws of Shabbat in 31:12-17 are recorded after the instructions to build the mishkan/ ohel moed, and prior to the sin of the golden calf, while the laws of Shabbat in 35:1-3 are recorded after the sin of the golden calf and prior to building of the mishkan/ ohel moed. Both sets of laws separate the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed from the sin of the golden calf and then the repetition of the laws of Shabbat form a bookend around the episode of the sin of the golden calf, which serves as a literary separation of the sin of the golden calf from the instructions and actual building of the mishkan/ ohel moed.

One difference between these frames of the Shabbat bookend is that 31:12-17 recorded the general law that one must rest on Shabbat without reference to any specific act of resting, while 35:3 refers to a specific prohibition of kindling fire on Shabbat. As the incident of the golden calf occurred between these two references to the laws of Shabbat, this event is most likely the reason for the mention of the prohibition of kindling a fire.

The sin of the golden calf was that the people intended to worship G-d in the way that they thought was appropriate instead of what G-d had commanded. With the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed, the people were reversing their actions with the golden calf. By the golden calf, the people had donated gold to build an idol, while by the mishkan/ ohel moed the people donated gold and other items for its construction. In addition, 32:4 records that the calf was made with fire, and correspondingly, by the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed and the items in the mishkan/ ohel moed, the people had to smelt metals. The prohibition of kindling a fire would prohibit the smelting of the metals, and was part of the message to the people not to repeat the sin by the golden calf when building the mishkan/ ohel moed. If they smelted metals on Shabbat to build the mishkan/ ohel moed, in essence they would be repeating the sin of the golden calf, that the people would be attempting to serve G-d in the way that they thought best, but not what G-d had commanded. Hence, Moshe had to remind the people not to build the mishkan/ ohel moed on Shabbat and specifically not to kindle a fire on Shabbat in order that the people would not repeat the sin of the golden calf. Accordingly, by the construction of the mishkan/ ohel moed, the Torah repeatedly records that the Jewish people did what G-d commanded them, see Or Hachayyim on 39:42 and Netziv on 39:32. This indicates that the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed was based on what G-d desired and that the sin of the golden calf was not repeated.

Shemot 30:11-16 (Ki Tissa) – The census by Mount Sinai: A covenantal membership fee

Shemot 30:12 records, “When you take up the head count of the Children of Israel, in counting them, they are to give, each man, a ransom for his life, for G-d, when they count them, that there should be no plague on them, when they count them” (Fox translation, 1995). This verse raises several questions. One, the verse assumes that the people will be counted in the future, but no reason is given why there will be a need to take a census. Was it necessary to have an exact count of the people once Shemot 12:37 already recorded that there were around 600,000 adult males? Secondly, what is this plague in reference to the future count? If the plague is a punishment, then what is it for and why can the people pay a ransom and not be punished? If the plague was not a punishment, so why should there be a plague altogether? There are at least five different ways to answer these questions. 

The first approach is from Rashi (1040-1105) who writes (on Bemidbar 1:1) that G-d would count the people out of love, which means that count was not done to ascertain the exact number of people. With regard to the plague, Rashi (on 30:12) explains that the plague was due to the “evil eye” that exists by things being numbered. With this approach, the goal was to count the people, and the giving of money was a means to count the people in order that there would not be the “evil eye,” since this problem only existed when one counted heads and not when one counted money. Yet, what does the “evil eye” mean and how can it cause a plague? It cannot be some power independent of G-d, and hence is this just another way of saying that the count was a sin? Why then have a count altogether? Was it only a sin to count heads and not a sin to count money that represented the people? 

Luzzatto (on 30:11) suggests that the Torah was accommodating the beliefs of the people who believed in the idea of the “evil eye.” Luzzatto writes that G-d did not want to remove this belief since it diminished the feeling of hubris in the people, which could develop from counting great numbers of people. Also, maybe one could say that really the idea of an “evil eye” is just superstitious, but since the people would have been worried about it, the ransom was instituted to remove this fear from the people.

A second approach is from the Abravanel (1437-1508) that the point of the count and the ransom was to raise money for the mishkan/ ohel moed, as 30:16 records that the ransom money when to supply the mishkan/ ohel moed. With regard to the plague, Abravanel follows the idea of the “evil eye,” though he tries to justify its existence by natural means. Luzzatto writes that he likes this idea that the count was a fund raising technique, with his variation of the understanding of the evil eye, but he notes that the money was not really needed since the people freely donated to the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed, 36:5,6. Instead, he suggests that there was a desire for some donations to be done equally between the rich and the poor, and the ransom was that each person gave exactly a half-shekel, 30:15. This approach is appealing, but as the Torah only mentions that the ransom money went to the mishkan/ ohel moed in the end of the section, it appears that this was not the main purpose of the ransom, just that once the money was collected then the most appropriate use of the money was for the mishkan/ ohel moed.

A third approach is that the plague was due to the sin of the golden calf, and the ransom, the giving of money to G-d, was part of the process of expiation from the sin. With this approach, the main point is the ransom, while the counting is only a means to getting the people to pay the ransom. Yet, why should the ransom save the people if they were really guilty for sinning by the golden calf?

Kli Yakar (1550-1619, on 30:12) suggests that Moshe’s prayers led to the people being forgiven on a national level, but on an individual level, there still remained some level of guilt. The ransom was then efficacious for this relatively smaller level of guilt, whenever there would be a count in the future. Kli Yakar offers an interesting proof for this idea from 32:34. 32:34 refers to some remaining level of guilt from the sin of the golden calf after Moshe’s prayers, and uses the word pakod when referring to this guilt. While pakod is understood to mean to visit in 32:34, the same word means to count in 30:12, and hence the word could suggest some connection between counting the people and the sin of the golden calf. This idea is interesting, but as pointed out by Luzzatto, with this approach, one would have expected the instruction for the count to be after the sin of the golden calf and not before. 

Benno Jacob (1992, p. 835) suggests a fourth approach that the count was to prepare for war, and the ransom was because the soldier might kill somebody. The soldier would not be considered a murderer since he killed in battle, but still he was required to make expiation for killing, which was the ransom. Hertz (p. 352) who quotes Jacob, explains, based on an anonymous Karaite commentator, that the plague meant that the soldiers would suffer defeat in battle if they did not pay the ransom before going to battle. With this approach, both the count and the ransom were equally important, but they were independent of each other. This idea is also interesting, but one wonders why the Torah was recording these instructions at this point, and not when the people were on the verge of going to war? Also, why count the entire male population as a preparation for war? Did all the men fight? 

My preference is that the counting was part of the covenantal process, that the counting delineates who is part of the covenant and who is not. Thus, as the covenant had just been made, there was a need to have a count in the near future. At the end of the 40th year of the people’s stay in the desert they made another covenant (Devarim 28:69) in the land of Moav, and Bemidbar 26 records that the people were counted when they were in the land of Moav. With this idea, the plague would be a punishment if a person was not counted since then the person indicated that he did not want to be part of the covenant. The ransom, the giving of money, was to show that the person wanted to be counted as part of the covenant and hence, there would be no plague. 

With this idea, the count was the crucial aspect and the giving of money was secondary. This idea explains why by the poor and the rich had to give equally, 30:15, since both were equal members in the covenant. Possibly, then the idea of giving a half shekel and not a full shekel was to lesson the tax burden on the poor. 

Why were only men counted and not the women and children? The answer is that the counting was really of families (see Bemidbar 1:18), and the counting of the family and the giving of the half shekel by the adult male relative showed that all the family members were part of the covenant. This would be similar to the korban pesach in Egypt, that was also divided by families, 12:3. According to this idea, the giving of money would only be associated with a count that was part of the covenantal process. 

Why then by the count in Bemidbar 26 is there no mention of giving money as part of the count? One possible answer is that the people did give money, but this was not mentioned in the Torah after this requirement was already recorded here. A second possible answer is that only when the covenant was first established would the people be punished with a plague for not joining the covenant. However, when there were additions to the covenant, then there was no threat of a plague since the people were already part of the pre-existing covenant. The covenant in Moav was an additional covenant, and hence if there was no threat of a plague, then there was also no need to give money in conjunction with the count. 

To conclude, 30:12 should be understood in the following manner: When you count the people, each person should pay a ransom to G-d for his soul when you count them in order that there will be no plague when you count the people. If a person would not pay the ransom he would be excluding himself from the count, which meant he was also excluding himself from the covenant and he would be punished with a plague.

Bibliography:

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press.

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1992, The second book of the Bible: Exodus, translated with an introduction by Walter Jacob, Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House.

Shemot 30:17-38 (Ki Tissa) – The laver, the anointing oil and the incense in the mishkan/ ohel moed: More barriers?

Shemot 30:17-38 records the instructions concerning the laver, the anointing oil and the incense. Why are these items recorded at this point in the Torah?

Ibn Ezra (on 30:12) explains that the discussion of the incense altar concluded with a reference to Yom Kippur and the giving of the half shekel was also once a year. Afterwards the laver was mentioned since it was not made with donations of the public, but with the bronze mirrors of the women, 38:8. The oil and spices were recorded since they too were not donated by the public but by the leaders of the tribes. This all seems very ad hoc.

Seforno (on 30:18) suggests that since the laver was used to prepare for working in the mishkan/ ohel moed, it did not contribute directly to the idea that G-d would le-shakhen in the mishkan/ ohel moed, 29:43-46. Hence, the instructions concerning the laver were recorded after the conclusion of the instructions of the mishkan/ ohel moed.

I believe that we need to return to the idea that the incense altar symbolized the barrier between G-d and the Jewish people, see our discussion on 30:1-10, "The barriers arise," http://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2011/02/shemot-301-10-tetsavveh-barriers-arise.html.

One common denominator between the laver, the oil and the incense, is that there is a threat of severe punishment (death or karet) for not maintaining the separation from things for G-d and for the common man. With regard to the washing, one had to wash before working on the outer altar or in the mishkan proper. With regard to the oil and incense, no person could use these items outside of the mishkan/ ohel moed. Thus, these three laws also show the idea of separation, and fact that there is a threat of punishment shows that the relationship between G-d and mankind is not “buddy, buddy.” Rather, mankind must know that there are barriers between G-d and man, and G-d can punish mankind. Similarly, by the laws of half-shekel, which is recorded between the laws of the incense altar and the three items, there is also the threat of a plague for not following exactly what is commanded. In addition, by the next section, the workers in the mishkan/ ohel moed are told to exactly as commanded, 31:6,11.

Thus, maybe these laws conclude the section about the instructions about building the mishkan/ ohel moed to teach a lesson about religion. G-d can be close to the people, as symbolized by most of the mishkan/ ohel moed, but there always remain a barrier between G-d and the people, as symbolized by the incense altar. The way to solve this paradox is by exactly following G-d’s commands, as in the case of the half-shekel, but there always will remain a separation between G-d and man, as shown by the laws of washing, oil and incense. If one follows G-d’s commands, then maybe one will be worthy of the blessings given to Betzalal that he would endowed with wisdom, 31:3.

Shemot 31:13-17 (Ki Tissa)– Shabbat and the creation of the world

Shemot 31:13-17 records a short section on Shabbat, and, as has been noted by many, this is the seventh section since the beginning of the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed if one divides the section by the opening phrase, G-d spoke to Moshe, see 25:1, 30:11, 30:17, 30:22, 30:34, 31:1 and 31:12. After the introductory verse, G-d spoke to Moshe, 31:13 records "Speak to the Children of Israel, saying: However, my Sabbaths you are to remember (shamor) For it is a sign between me and you, throughout your generations, to know that I, G-d mekadash you." The last verse of the section records, "between me and the Children of Israel a sign it (Shabbat) is, for the ages, for in six days G-d made the heavens and the earth, but on the seventh day He ceased and paused (adaptation of Fox 1995 translation). 

Both of these verses refer to Shabbat as sign and hence they form a bookend around this short section of the Shabbat. Yet, it is not clear how Shabbat is a sign, as the two verses record two different ideas in connection to the sign. 31:13 refers to Shabbat that it is a sign that G-d is mekadesh the people, while 31:17 relates the sign to the fact that G-d created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. How does the Shabbat relate to the kedusha of the people? Is this idea distinct or related to the idea that G-d rested on the seventh day? 

Ibn Ezra (long comments on 31:17, and short comments on 31:13) quotes Saadiah Gaon, that the Sabbath is a sign, because when people are resting on the Shabbat then it will be apparent to observers that this person is Jewish. Similarly, Benno Jacob (1992, p. 848) writes that "its public observance was a clear signal to the non-Israelite world… The sanctification of the Shabbat represents the practical proclamation of the faith of Judaism through deeds, not mere words." Ibn Ezra disagrees with Saadiah Gaon’s explanation, since 31:17 relates the sign to the creation of the world. Instead, Ibn Ezra suggests that if a person works on the Sabbath, he is denying that G-d created the world. I believe this is a popular understanding, but it seems to me that the stress of 31:17 is the difference between the six days and the seventh day that G-d stopped creating on the seventh day, and hence one who works on Shabbat repudiates this difference but does not necessarily deny that G-d created the world. Furthermore, there still remains the question how then does Shabbat relate to the kedusha of the people?

Amos Chacham (1991, on 31:13, also see S.R. Hirsch on 31:13) lists three ways that Shabbat relates to the kedusha of the people. One, since G-d was mekadesh the Shabbat, then our observance of the day shows that G-d was also mekadesh us as well. Two, when we observe the Shabbat, we are following G-d's laws and this shows that G-d was mekadesh us through the commandments. Three, when the Jewish people rest on Shabbat, then they have time to study and pray. While Ibn Ezra (short comments on 31:13) also mentions this last idea, this seems the most unlikely rationale since the Torah never mentions that somebody is specifically supposed to study or pray on Shabbat. The second reason also seems weak since according to this rationale there is nothing intrinsic to the Shabbat, as the observance of any law demonstrates that one is following G-d's laws. The first rationale is the most promising, yet still what is the mechanism that relates our observance of Shabbat to kedusha? Could G-d have designated any arbitrary law as being kadosh, and then the observance of the law would indicate the kedusha of the people? Presumably there must be something particular to Shabbat and its observance that relates to the idea of kedusha. 

To understand the sign of Shabbat it is necessary to recall that kedusha means separation. Shabbat is kadosh since G-d separated the seventh day from the other six days as Bereshit 2:2 records that G-d blessed the seventh day and made it kadosh because on this day G-d ceased from the creation of the first six days. The importance of the rest is that it marks a distinction between the seventh day and the other six days when G-d was creating the world. When a person rests on the Shabbat, he too is separating the seventh day from the other six days when one works. Thus, 20,8,9,11; 31:15; 35:2, and Vayikra 23:2 all record the resting on Shabbat in conjunction with the working on the other six days as the crucial idea it to differentiate the seventh day, the day of rest, from the other six days when one works. Similarly, by the mahn, 16:26 records that one was to gather the mahn for six days but on the seventh day one was to rest since there was nothing to gather. 

With this understanding of the connection between Shabbat and separation, we can understand 31:17. The verse states that the sign of Shabbat is between G-d and the Jewish people because G-d separated the seventh day from the other six days when G-d created the world. Our observance of Shabbat is a sign of our connection with G-d since we are copying G-d that we separate the seventh day just as G-d separated the seventh day. This idea of Shabbat and separation can also explain 31:13 that relates the sign of Shabbat to the kedusha or separation of the Jewish people. Shabbat, the separation of the seventh day, signals the separation process that begun at the time of creation, (also see Bereshit 1:4,6,7,14). The process of separation did not end at creation, but continues throughout Bereshit and Shemot. Bereshit 6:8 records that Noah was selected from the ten generation from Adam, and then his son Shem was separated from his brothers, Bereshit 11:10. Afterwards, within the family of Shem, the family of Terah was selected, Bereshit 11:27, and the selection process continued with Avraham, Terah's son. Yitzhak was separated from Yishmael and Yaakov was separated from Esav. Within Yaakov's family there was no further separation, but the exodus from Egypt separated the family from the Egyptians. The process of separation culminated with the covenant at Mount Sinai, which separated the Jewish people from the rest of the world, see 6:7, 19:6, 33:16, Vayikra 11:45, 20:26, and 22:33. Accordingly, G-d's separation of the seventh day from the six days of creation is the beginning of the process that led to G-d's separation of the Jewish people. When a person rests on the Shabbat one is separating the seventh day and this act of separation is a sign of the separation process, which includes the separation of the Jewish people. Thus, the observance of Shabbat is a sign that G-d separated or was mekadesh the Jewish people.

Bibliography:

Chacham, Amos, 1991, Da'at Mikra: Commentary on Shemot, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1992, The second book of the Bible: Exodus, translated with an introduction by Walter Jacob, Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House.

Megillat Esther: Sleepless in Shushan

The Mishnah (Megillah 2:3) records an interesting argument as to how much is one obligated to read of the Megillah on Purim. R. Meir says that one must read the entire Megillah, R. Yehuda says that one must read from 2:5 onwards and R. Yossi states that one must read from 3:1 onwards. The Talmud (Megillah 19a) quotes a fourth opinion, R. Shimon bar Yochai that really one must only read from 6:1, “on that night the king could not sleep,” onwards. (The Talmud states that the halakhah is like R. Meir.)

The Talmud quotes two explanations, from R. Yochanon and Rav Huna, for the four different opinions. While R. Yochanon and Rav Huna differ as to the sources for the different opinions, they both agree that R. Shimon bar Yochai’s position is based on the idea that there occurred some miracle relating to 6:1. Yet, the Talmud does not specify what was the miracle.

One possibility is that the miracle was that Achashverosh was unable to sleep. Esther Rabbah (10:1) writes that G-d disturbed Achashverosh’s sleep as G-d caused him to dream of Haman seizing a sword to kill him. Siftei Chachamim (on 6:1) provides a reason why this inability to sleep was considered a miracle. He suggests that people naturally fall asleep after a big banquet, so we would have expected Achashverosh to have slept well after Esther’s first banquet. However, not everybody agree that Achashverosh’s sleeplessness was a miracle. The Talmud (Megillah 15b, quoted by Rashi on 6:1) quotes Rava that Achashverosh was unable to sleep the night between the two banquets since he was worried that Esther and Haman were planning together to overthrow him.

The Malbim (on 6:2) suggests a different possible miracle. He writes that the divine providence was the timing of the events that on that particular night between the two banquets Achashverosh happened to learn of Mordechai’s loyalty and this occurred just when Haman came to ask him for permission to hang Mordechai. (Note, the Alshich writes that Haman came at night, but it seems that Haman came to Achashverosh first thing in the morning, and that Achashverosh had learned about Mordechai at the very end of the night.)

One could also combine these two possibilities, and claim that the miracle was both Achashverosh’s sleeplessness and the ensuing events of the night. Yet, what was the importance of Achashverosh’s sleeplessness and the ensuing events of the night?

Rav Soloveitchik (1973) explains that 6:1 is the turning point of the Megillah since it led Achashverosh to suspect Haman due to Haman’s mention of wearing the royal garb, horse, and crown, (6:8) and/ or his failure to reward Mordechai. Thus, “on the next day when Esther charged Haman with treason, the king willingly accepted the accusation,” and Haman’s fate was sealed when Achashverosh’s suspicion was raised even further when he saw Haman on Esther’s couch.

Yet, it is not clear if Haman’s fate was really sealed when Achashverosh saw Haman with Esther. Maybe he still could have bribed or talked his way out of the accusation. Instead, his fate was definitely sealed when Charbona reminded Achashverosh that Haman wanted to hang Mordechai, 7:9, and this is one explanation why we say Charbona of blessed memory on Purim (see Zlotowitz, 1976, on 7:9). Due to this possibility, Sasson (1987, pp. 340,341) adds another element to the importance of Achashverosh’s inability to sleep. He writes, “By itself, Esther’s accusation might have led the king to investigate the matter as he did earlier in similar circumstances (2:23). The king himself might not have decided to hang Haman if he had not recently remembered Mordechai’s loyalty. With Charbona’s revelation, right after Haman’s clumsy lurch at the queen, that Haman had prepared a hanging for Mordechai, the evidence for a conspiracy fully crystallized in the king’s mind.” Sasson also suggests that because Haman had to honor Mordechai he was so shaken that he was not able to “react coolly to Esther’s accusation.”

Accordingly, Achashverosh’s inability to sleep was crucial to the narrative since his lack of sleep caused Achashverosh to accept Esther’s accusation of Haman.

Shemot 28:31-35 (Tetsavveh) – The ringing of the bells in the mishkan/ ohel moed

Shemot 28:31-35 records that one part of the clothing of the high priest was the me`il, a robe. The me`il was woven completely from tekhelet, with an opening for the head and it had golden bells and pomegranates hanging from its bottom hem. Rashi (on 28:33) quoting from the Talmud (Zevachim 88b) explains that there were clappers within each bell. Note, pairs of clappers have been found in Egypt from approximately 1640-1900 BCE. However, the Rashbam (on 28:35) writes that the sound of the bells was from their ringing against each other, which implies that they did not have clappers within the bells. The pomegranates were yarn that was shaped in the form of pomegranates. Apparently the bells and pomegranates completely encircled the me`il, and Vayikra Rabbah 21:7 quotes R. Judah b. Eleazar that there 36 bells and 36 pomegranates while the Rabbis (see Zevachim 88b) stated that there were 72 bells and 72 pomegranates. Rashi (on 28:33) writes that the pomegranates were in between each set of bells, while Ramban (on 28:31) argues that the bells were inside the pomegranates.

Why were there pomegranates on the me`il? Ramban (on 28:31) writes that if one believes that the pomegranates were in between the bells, then they must have been for decoration. Ramban did not like this idea since he believed the pomegranates were to encase the bells. Benno Jacob (1992, p. 927) writes that as the pomegranate is a symbol of plenty, they symbolized the numerous descendants of the priests.

My guess is that the ringing of the bells was very difficult for the high priest since he would constantly be hearing bells ringing. Thus, the pomegranates, either placed in between the bells or encasing the bells, would serve to soften the sounds of the bells. The idea would be that it was desired that there would be sounds of bells ringing but it should not be so loud as to make the high priest go crazy from the noise.

Why did the high priest need to have bells on the bottom of the me`il? 28:35 records "Aharon shall wear it (the me`il) while officiating, so that the sound of it is heard when he comes into the sanctuary before G-d and when he goes out that he may not die" (JPS translation in Sarna, 1991, p. 183). The sound of the me`il would be the bells, and it is important since apparently Aharon is threatened with death if he would not hear the sounds. Yet, no reason is provided in the Torah for what the sound was supposed to accomplish, and this has prompted commentators to suggest different reasons for the ringing of the bells.

One, Rashbam (on 28:35) suggests that the sound of the bells was to tell other priests to leave the mishkan/ ohel moed proper when the high priest was entering it. The proof for this idea is Vayikra 16:6,7 which records that on Yom Kippur no priest could be in the mishkan/ ohel moed proper when the high priest was performing his service. This explanation is appealing, but it implies that the threat of death in 28:35 would be to the priest who would not vacate the mishkan/ ohel moed, not Aharon. Why were the regular priests unable to be in the mishkan/ ohel moed with the high priest? Finally, Aharon had different clothing on Yom Kippur which did not include the bells, so why on Yom Kippur where the bells not needed to tell people to leave the mishkan/ ohel moed?

Two, Cassuto (1967, p. 383, also see Bekhor Shor and Ramban) suggests that the bells were part of standard protocol that "propriety demands that the entry should be preceded by an announcement… and when he would come out… the sound of the bells would constitute a kind of blessing on leaving the sanctuary." The problem here again is that on Yom Kippur the high priest did not have the bells, even as he entered the inner room with the aron. Why did he not have to announce his entrance and exit on Yom Kippur?

Three, Hizkuni (on 28:35, also see Hertz, 1960, p. 343) suggests that the sounds of the bells were to inform the people when Aharon would be performing his duties and hence they would know when to pray. This approach assumes that the people prayed when the high priest was in the mishkan proper and stopped when he left. In addition, was Aharon responsible for their prayer that he could be threatened with death? Also, were the bells loud enough that they could be heard by the people outside the mishkan?

Four, Hizkuni also suggests that the bells were to differentiate the high priest from the other priests, and on Yom Kippur this differentiation was not needed as it occurred through the high priest's special duties. This idea leaves unexplained why the bells are specifically related to entering and exiting the mishkan proper. Also, it would seem that all the clothing of the high priest differentiated the high priest from the common priests and not just the bells.

Five, Benno Jacob (1992, p. 926) writes that the sounds of the bells were to remind Aharon "before whom he was about to enter and from whom he was about to leave." However, again why then did Aharon not need the bells on Yom Kippur and what about the common priest who entered the mishkan without bells?

Maybe there is another reason for the bells. Kaufmann (1972, pp. 303,304) notes that the work in the mishkan/ ohel moed was done silently since there is almost no mention of prayers that accompany the work of the priests. Yet, there are some exceptions to this silence, such as by the confession on Yom Kippur (Vayikra 16:21) and the curse by the accused adulterous women (Bemidbar 5:19-23). However, all the exceptions were in the courtyard of the mishkan/ ohel moed. Within the mishkan proper, there was only the ringing of the bells. In addition, as many people worked in the courtyard of the mishkan/ ohel moed doing the sacrifices on the outer altar, there must inevitably have been discussions about the work. (Maybe there was also trivial conversation in the courtyard as to the best of my knowledge there is no prohibition in the Torah for talking in the courtyard.) Thus, there was a contrast between the noise of the courtyard and the silence of the mishkan/ ohel moed proper.

Most likely the noise from the courtyard entered the mishkan through the curtain that separated the mishkan proper from the courtyard. Maybe then the noise of the bells was to block out the noise coming from the courtyard since Aharon would concentrate on hearing the bells. The Torah states that Aharon was to hear the sounds of the bells on entering and leaving the mishkan since that was the time when the noise from the courtyard was most likely to be heard. Aharon was threatened with death since he had to make this sound separation between the courtyard and the mishkan proper. On Yom Kippur the bells would not have been necessary since the only service that was occurring in the courtyard was also done by Aharon, and hence the courtyard would have been silent when he entered the mishkan.

Why could the common priests enter the mishkan/ ohel moed proper without the bells? My guess is that common priests only performed the service in the mishkan/ ohel moed proper when there was an emergency that the high priest was temporarily physically unable to perform his duties and on those times the sounds of the courtyard were not blocked. The situation was sub-optimal but was better than no work being done at all, and bells could not be temporarily attached to the clothing of the common priest. (The Mishnah, Tamid 3:9, implies that common priests entered the mishkan/ ohel moed proper regularly, but from the Torah it seems that the high priest was responsible for lighting the menorah and burning the incense in the mishkan. ohel moed.)