FORBIDDEN RECIPES - PART II

Parashas Vayakhel

V’es habosem v’es hashamen, la’maor ul’shemen hamishchah v’liktores hasamim ... the spice and the oil, for illumination and for the oil of anointing and for the ketores (Shemos 34:28)

Last week we noted that the Torah forbade duplicating the mixtures used for the anointing oil and for the ketores. The Torah also proscribed using the anointing oil made by Moshe whereas there was no parallel proscription regarding the ketores made by Moshe. We also noted that these proscriptions were punishable by kares whereas illicit use of any other utensils connected to the Divine service was not a capital crime. While duplication of the menorah crafted by Betzalel and Moshe might be forbidden, one who did so was not subject to kares. Similarly, if one used the mizbeach for a barbeque, as distasteful as this might be, his punishment would be lashes and a fine for misuse of something sanctified. The question that we posed was why are the anointing oil and ketores different?

As a preface, I suggest that we first try to analyze the sins themselves; most specifically, what would entice man to commit these types of aveirot. Why would anyone want to duplicate the oil and ketores or use the oil prepared by Moshe? Netziv, in his commentary to Shir ha-Shirim, poses a similar question. It is understandable, he writes, why man would be tempted to violate the sin of ba’al tigra - of fulfilling a mitzvah in an incomplete fashion. For example, the Torah requires that one refrain from eating chametz for seven days. Man, either because of his distaste for matzah or his uncontrollable urge for chametz might decide that this mitzvah is just too difficult. Reluctant, however, to completely ignore the Torah, he decides to make his life easier by declaring that the mitzvah is not really for seven days but perhaps only for six or five. He has thus satisfied both his conscience as well as his yetzer ha-ra. How often do I, as a teacher, hear students declare emphatically that a law that they violate is not really an aveirah but simply a chumrah. They do so because they are reluctant to admit that they are doing something wrong and prefer the comfort of self-delusion.

On the other hand, Netziv comments, we have a similar proscription of ba’al tosif - overfulfilling the mitzvot; for example, a man who makes tefillin with five parshios in the batim. Why, Netziv asks, would any rational person want to do this? The Torah was obviously not addressing crazies! What urges would cause a person to do this?

In his answer, Netziv points to a psychological truth that I have found to be compelling. Usually, man sins because he cannot control his urges or because he seeks to limit G-d’s ability to legislate his life. Fearful of G-d, and essentially a believer, he creates a G-d who fits his own image, interpreting or reinterpreting what G-d says to fit his needs. However, there also people who become overly enraptured by their own spirituality or their search for a connection to the Divine. They seek to become holier than commanded, reluctant to allow things that the Torah clearly permitted. The prime example is the nazir, referred to as a kodesh but who must nevertheless offer a korban chatas for having chosen to deny himself that which the Torah saw as permissible. According to the Netziv, this was the basis of Shlomo’s failures, for he thought that he was immune to the inevitable results of this kind of search for spirituality. Shlomo took more wives than permitted, claiming that ani osif v’lo echta - I can take more but I will not be drawn to sin - but he was wrong, for ultimately they turned his heart away from Hashem. When man creates his own parameters of kedushah, he rejects the boundaries set by G-d. Although his intentions might be good, he is in fact recreating G-d in the image of man. In this, he is an oved avodah zarah, for he worships himself.

Why would anyone want to use the shemen hamishchah prepared by Moshe or duplicate the formulas of the oil and the ketores? Might we not suggest that the urge to do so is a result of a person’s mistaken need to assume a level of spirituality above that which he deserves. Think of the person who says to himself: “If I could take the oil prepared by Moshe and anoint myself, would that not automatically make me as holy and spiritual as the vessels and people anointed by Moshe? If I could but duplicate the smells of the ketores would that not make me the conduit through which atonement for Israel’s sins would flow?” This man might have begun his quest out of a true desire for spirituality, but he ended up being self-serving. His kares is a result of his having been reluctant to accept the limitations that G-d has placed upon him - a sin typical of the avodah zarah family.

FORBIDDEN RECIPES - PART I
Parashas Ki Sisa

Shemen mishchas kodesh ... al b’sar adam lo yisach u’v’maskunto lo sa’asu kamohu, kodesh hu ... the oil for sanctified anointing ... no person should use it for anointing and its recipe you shall not duplicate, it is sanctified (Shemos 30:31-32)

Rashi, quoting the Talmud [Kerisus 5a], notes that there are two distinct prohibitions in this verse. The first [al basar adom lo yisach] specifically proscribes using the oil that Moshe Rabbenu produced for anything other than its original intention. If I produced the exact same mixture of anointing oil on my own, I would not violate this prohibition by using it for myself or giving it to someone else. However, I would be in violation of the second proscription [u’v’maskunto lo sa’asu kamohu] which forbids following the recipe used by Moshe to create an anointing oil with the very same ingredients in the same proportion. Should I or someone else use that oil, however, there would be no additional violation. In other words, as regards the oil produced by Moshe there is a prohibition of using it whereas as regards oil that I make on my own, the prohibition only pertains to production. The punishment for either prohibition is kares.

The next parashah deals with the production of the k’tores used on the interior mizbeach. The Torah (ibid. :38) states: ish asher ya’aseh chamoha l’hariach bah, v’nichras mei’amav - a person who makes something similar to smell, and he shall be cut off from his people. Rambam (Klei ha-Mikdash 2:9) notes that the prohibition is dependent upon the producer’s intent; i.e., if they intended to use it as incense, they are in violation even if they did not actually use it. Moreover, if one used ktores but did not actually produce it, he would not be punished with kares; rather he would be subject to the same fine as anyone who derived benefit from anything that was consecrated. In this sense it would seem that the k’tores is similar to the second shemen hamishchah prohibition in that the laws concerns production rather than use.

However, this is not entirely accurate, for as regards the ktores, one is in violation even if one does not use the same amounts provided that one uses the same proportions. As regards shemen hamishchah, one is only in violation if both the proportions of ingredients and weight are precisely the same as in Moshe’s recipe.

A number of questions present themselves. In only a few other cases concerning the Divine service in the Mishkan/Mikdash do we find similar halachos calling for punishment for having duplicated something. One is specifically forbidden to create a human form of gold or silver like the keruvim [see 20:20 and Rambam, Avodah Zara 3:10-11] or exact replicas [e.g., a seven branch menorah] of the vessels used in the Mishkan/Mikdash] or playing the chatzotzrah made by Moshe. If one does so, however, he is not liable for kareis as he is here. Hence, we need to determine why non-sanctioned production/use of shemen hamishchah and k’tores is dealt with so stringently [kareis!]. Moreover, why does the Torah differentiate between the two, each having a stringent side [using the shemen hamishchah made by Moshe and making k’tores with non-identical weight] and a lenient side [the k’tores if not used to smell and anointing oneself or another person with private label shemen hamishchah].

As was the case with the clothing of the kohanim discussed in last weeks parashah and the utensils used in the Mishkan/Mikdash discussed in parashas Terumah, it is obvious that the incense and anointing oil have great symbolic value. Although we do not know understand why they used those particular ingredients in that particular mixture and with these weights, we can understand the symbolism of both products. The essence of the Divine service in Judaism is to elevate that which appears to be natural and extend to it spiritual meaning. This is the basis of the concept of korbanot, for example. Netziv explains that the sacrifices are referred to as lechem - bread - related to lechem - to bond. Bread is both the very basis of natural life [along with water of which Torah is symbolic] and of spiritual life [the offering to G-d who has no natural needs] and as such provide the bond between man and G-d.

Shemen and k’tores are also part of this process and b’ezras Hashem we will try to examine their meaning and answer the questions we posed.

THE CHOSHEN MISHPAT
Parashas T’zaveh

V’asisa choshen mishpat, ma’aseh choshev, k’ma’aseh ephod ta’asenu - And you shall make a breastplate of judgement, a woven design, similar to the ephod it should be made (Shemos 28:15)

Kli Yakar points out that only two of the eight articles of clothing worn by the kohen gadol were woven from multiple fabrics: the ephod - the vest - and the choshen - the breastplate. He explains that these two articles of clothing have similar symbolic purpose that is best expressed by a mixture of fabrics woven together. The ephod was worn as a means of achieving kapparah for sins of avodah zarah while the choshen was worn as a means of achieving kapparah for sins of perverting justice. Neither of these shortcomings need be overt; indeed they can be violated by thought alone. Thus, if one mentally accepts the validity of avodah zarah, one is liable even though one has not actually served an idol. Similarly, if a judge did not adjudicate a case correctly, or if he did not think things through to the extent necessary, he will have sinned even though his misdeed has no physical manifestations. The Hebrew ma’aseh choshev - translated in this context as woven - can also mean the product of thought; thus the connection between the symbolism [kapparah] and essence [woven] would seem to be mainly alliterative.

The choshen mishpat - the breastplate worn by the kohen gadol - was, as we have already noted, a source of atonement for the sins of judges who adjudicated incorrectly. However, it had an additional role as well. The choshen, and more specifically the stones that were inset within it, served as a means of divining the truth in a given situation. When the urim ve-tumim - a parchment on which the name of G-d was inscribed - was placed within the folds of the choshen, a question could be raised and the stones would provide the answer by illuminating the appropriate letters inscribed upon each one. According to the Midrash, the stones had a total of seventy two letters [the names of each individual tribe as well as the words shivtei yisrael so that each letter of the Hebrew alphabet was represented].The ability to decipher the answer demanded special talent, for the letters did not appear one at a time allowing for an easy reading [see Ramban]. According to the Vilna Gaon, Eli ha-kohen misread the answer when he queried the choshen about Chana [mother of Shmuel who Eli saw praying at the Mishkan at Shilo]. The letters heh, kaf, resh and shin all lit up and Eli read them as shikorah [drunkard] when he should have read k’sheirah [fitting].

Interestingly, the parameters as to when the choshen was to be used to are not delineated. It would seem from the Talmud in Yoma [73b] that the choshen was only used for public questions [e.g., questions similar to that posed by Yehoshua as to which tribe should lead the armies into Canaan at the time of the first conquest]. Obviously, the kohen gadol could not use it to ask for the numbers of the weekly lottery pick or as a means of playing the stock market. This limitation, however, would not account for the question addressed by Eli regarding the sobriety of Chana which would seem to have no public manifestations. It is also not clear whether consultation with the choshen was voluntary or mandatory. One might think that if there was a means of determining the Divine will, then the practice of relying upon the choshen should have been a requirement! Moreover, if all that was needed was to address the choshen, why not raise every single query to it and thus insure the possibility of mistake in halachah?

Ramban writes that the choshen was a lower form of prophecy, just above the bat kol used during the period of the Second Beit ha-Mikdash. As such, it could not be used at will, just as any other prophecy [with the exception of Moshe] was dependent upon situations and conditions. Moreover, in halachic matters just as a bat kol has no standing [see for example Bava Metzia 59b] we can assume that the choshen would also not have any standing. This might well explain why the choshen was considered the permanent kappara for a beit din that had erred in a halachic decision and the connection might well be more than a play on the words ma’aseh choshev..

Ki ein bayit asher ein sham meit

In the summer, I received an e-mail concerning an incident that had taken place in Monticello, N.Y. on a motzaei Shabbat. The writer was one of the community activists who had intervened in what he described as a base scene of debauchery that included young women and men from across the spectrum of observant Jewry. To his credit, he ascribed no blame for the incident. Many of the bloggers in our community did not share his reticence and were quite willing to serve as both judge and jury and let their learned comments loose. Their tone suggests that they understand their subject despite their lack of expertise in dealing with teenagers. "I was a teenager, I have sired teenagers, therefore I can analyze the problems of teenagers." The parallel would be: I have a headache, I've given others headaches, therefore I am qualified to perform neurosurgery.

Later, I received a second e-mail from the same source announcing that the problem had been solved. He and a group of askanim had come to the site early, before the parties began. They made arrangements before Shabbat whereby the local pool hall would be for boys and the local bowling lanes for girls. They put patrols in place to guarantee separation and voila, the situation was and is under control.

I have the greatest respect for the person behind the e-mails; he works tirelessly, is very well meaning and has a great deal of real life experience. But like many practitioners, he focuses on the symptoms rather than dealing with the malaise itself. This is not a criticism; his role is to deal with problems once they manifest themselves. However, my experience has been that the problem we are facing as a growing avalanche of kids at risk uses the Catskills as their latest venue, is a fault of the type of schools and families that we have allowed to develop.

As a high school level mechanech for some thirty years, I firmly believe that no-one has complete expertise in understanding teenage behavior; it remains the world's most inexact science. The consolation in dealing with adolescence is that it usually lasts for six years and then miraculously cures itself. That said, I do have a sense, even without statistical data to support my theory, that many readers will agree that the analysis I offer deserves further exploration. A caveat: I begin this diatribe by pointing out that I do not yet have a complete, step-by-step plan for implementing what I feel is the real resolution to the kids at risk phenomenon. Nevertheless, I present it to you and would greatly appreciate your direct feedback.

To begin, I propose that the identification of students as being kids at risk be expanded rather than limited to those who exhibit high risk behavior vis-a-vis alcohol, tobacco or substance abuse. The adolescents throwing rocks or harassing women on buses in Ramat Beit Shemesh are as much a part of this problem as are the kids in Monticello. So too are the students at our mainstream yeshivot who have to appoint a designated driver to take them back to the Beit Midrash after attending weddings. All exhibit conduct unbecoming a Jew and should be called off the derech even if the first group is considered a greater indication of departure from halachic norms than the latter two.

Additionally, I would like to remove from the equation, for the meantime, those adolescents who are clearly at risk because of sociological or psychological factors. Physical, verbal and/or sexual abuse, ADD, ADHD or diagnosable learning difficulties need treatment in and of themselves, and while they are clearly behavioral modifiers, they are often treatable through medication, therapy or various compensations and modifications.

I direct my comments to those adolescents who come from what seem to be stable, loving homes, who have been mainstreamed educationally and who nevertheless just don’t fit in. There are those who blame their departure from the derech to exposure to the internet and to the electronic and print media, blasting them as an evil the extent of which has never raised its head against the innocent youth of our people.

Frankly, I don’t think that the internet, as addictive as it can be [ask any serious blogger’s wife], is the cause of people going off the derech. Rather, once the person has begun to slide down the slippery slope out of Judaism, the internet may function as an outlet for various frustrations or as a means of seeking information that had heretofore been avoided. Drugs and alcohol can be viewed in the same vein: kids experiment because there is a void they are trying to fill. If that void did not exist, or if there was something as fulfilling/satisfying that could fill the void, they would avoid the temptation because they are aware of where it can lead.

In my relationships with adolescents through the years, and in talking to colleagues in the field, I have a sense that the overwhelming majority of kids at risk would like nothing more than to remain within the system. The fact that they experiment, or engage in illicit behavior, is no indication that they have chosen to abandon the derech. I would not be at all surprised if the kids who rented bungalows in Monticello for their weekend of partying [which I am sure included promiscuous behavior and a great deal of chilul Shabbos] nevertheless made kiddush Friday night and made sure that the food was glatt!

Ki ein bayit asher ein sham meit. There is no home in which one will not find someone who is dead spiritually. Reportedly, Dr. Abraham Twerski has named this phenomena SDS - spiritual deficiency syndrome. Intellectually, our schools have been a phenomenal success. In the post-war period we have created a true dor deah. Our kids collectively learn more Mishnayot, more dapei gemara, more rishonim and achronim than previous generations. It is true that previous generations learned more deeply on an individual level - we would be hard-pressed to match the level of Slobodka and Volozhin - but that is because a decision was made in the wake of the Second World War to expand the yeshivot quantitatively at the expense of their quality. Spiritually, however, our yeshivot have become morgues. Little or no time is spent on real mussar; a yeshiva that has a short seder where talmidim who barely understand Hebrew rote-read Sha’arei Teshuvah or Mesilat Yesharim is paying lip service to the idea of mussar. Machshavah and communal responsibility are subjects that are almost never discussed on the high school level. Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky zt”l would often stress in his Thursday afternoon shmuzzen that talmidei yeshiva had an enormous debt to society in return for the opportunities provided them by the ba’alei battim who supported the yeshiva. Is there a single rosh yeshiva who echoes this sentiment today?

Instead of challenging teens within the yeshivot to discuss their feelings about their personal role in the world and to examine their Jewish personna, the mashgiach, mashpia, rosh yeshiva engages in a monologue focusing on how awful general society is and how superior we are as Jews. This often confounds the young man - or woman - who hears that he or she is a member of an am hanivchar but doesn’t really know what that implies or means. If he is superior, is he wrong in acting like a behemah when he burns garbage cans to protest infringements on his royal territory? When his mind has been distorted by years of hearing about his entitlement, is it any surprise that he relates to a woman like a cockroach and will shove her to the back of the bus if she invades his turf, because he ranks higher in the pyramid of life. Moreover, the talmid or talmidah often looks at their surroundings and wonders in which way is he or she really superior? In ethical behavior, in the treatment of his environment?

What transpires in the beit midrash when the rosh yeshiva or mashgiach tells the student that tefillah raises him to a level of kirvat Elokim that is the greatest source of joy that man can experience? A percentage of kids will accept this without even needing further elaboration, for they are endowed with a natural sense of spirituality that can recognize the satisfaction of a relationship with G-d. Another percentage wait for the speaker to demonstrate how this is possible and when he fails to do so, are frustrated but not yet ready to throw it all away. And then there is a percentage who say that the words of the teacher are empty phrases and when they recall them, deem them to be completely out of touch.

I have heard many speakers talk to high school students in Israel and the U.S. Those who made the greatest impact were the ones who understood that they were not standing in the beit midrash in Baranovich or Kaminetz. Those who had the least impact were those who were either back in Eastern Europe or who walked into the beit midrash poorly prepared to face reality. I recall one speaker in particular, an entertaining and eloquent man who called me after his presentation to ask for my critique. He could not understand why I felt that his talk had been a disaster. I found that his cynical attempts to denigrate popular culture had backfired whereas he felt that he had struck responsive chords because he had elicited so much laughter. Little did he realize that he had caused great damage because his remarks were so obviously based on a limited information bank. I would suggest, for example, that these type of rabbis avoid historical issues unless they are truly well versed in the fields they mention. There’s almost nothing more shattering to a teenager than hearing someone whom they are told to respect reveal his foolishness or ignorance. Kids are extraordinarily adept at discerning when the emperor is wearing no clothes.

A recent conversation with a young man who is no longer at risk, for he has completely left the derech, was an eye opener for me. I asked him why assimilating the worst of general culture was so seductive; e.g., multiple body piercing, tattoos, emulating gangs by adopting their greetings and hand communications, contemporary music motifs and language patterns borrowed from rap/ebonics. He answered with one word: passion. I then realized that this young man, driven away from our faith despite having received an excellent yeshiva education, viewed Judaism as something dry and suffocating, for his soul had never been developed. Without passion our souls cannot thrive and without our souls our bodies are seduced by general culture. Passion for what we do and finding real meaning in our mitzvos and learning is the only antidote to the malaise.

In pharmacological research there is a stage wherein an antidote has been developed and even field tested but is not ready for mass distribution because the manufacturer has not yet managed to synthesize it and thus make its production economically viable. I feel that the same is true in dealing with SDS - spiritual deficiency syndrome. We know what will work, we simply have not yet developed the means to inoculate as many people as possible. The challenge to do so is twofold: to those engaged on the battlefields and to those who stay back and provide the financial support. Until we develop a method of producing passionate talmidim, we will remain mired in expressing compassion for those who have left the fold.

DIMENSIONS COUNT
Parashas Terumah

K’chol asher ani mar’eh os’cha, eis tavnis hamishkan v’eis tavnis kol keilov, v’chen ta’asu - like all that I show to you, the form of the Tabernacle and the form of all of its vessels, this is what you shall do (Shemos 25:9)

As has already been noted, the form of service as well as the vessels used in the Tabernacle and the Beis ha-Mikdash have obvious symbolic meanings that transcend their physicality. They are emplaced in the courtyard [the external mizbeach used for korbanot] or inside the kodesh [the menorah, shulchan, mizbeach hazahav (used for incense) or inside the kodesh hakodoshim [the aron] in specified places, covered in gold or copper et. al. as a means of imbuing them with a special aura and demonstrate their uniqueness. Generally, the commentaries agree that the shulchan represents Divine bounty that presents us with our sustenance, the menorah symbolizes the Divine wisdom manifested in the creation of this world, the mizbeach, G-d’s gift of teshuvah and atonement, and the aron - the crown jewel that is held separate and protected by a paroches - represents the gift of Torah, the manual that teaches us how to live in this world.

Kli Yakar notes that three of the internal vessels - the aron, the shulchan and the mizbeach hazahav had a zer zahav - a crown of gold - along their tops. He sees this as being symbolic of the three types of crowns - or leadership positions - that adorn klal Yisrael; the kesser kehunah - the crown of priesthood, the kesser meluchah - the crown of kingship and the kesser Torah - the crown of Torah. Despite this commonality, he notes that there was a disparity in the measurements of the vessels. The measurements in the aron were all partial or broken [it measured two and a half amos by one and a half by one and a half]. The measurements of the shulchan were both partial and whole [two amos by two amos by one and a half] while the measurements of the mizbeach were all whole [five amos by five amos by three].

He explains this phenomenon in the following manner: the measurements of the aron - representing the crown of Torah - were not whole, for one should never think that he has mastered all of Torah. On the other hand, the measurements of the mizbeach - representing kapparah - were whole, for when man returns wholeheartedly to G-d and is granted atonement for his shortcomings, G-d wipes his slate clean and there are no vestiges of his sins left. In regard to the shulchan however - representing parnasah - some amos were whole and some partial, for while man must appreciate that G-d has given him whatever he needs in this world, he is nevertheless given permission to seek more.

Interestingly, Kli Yakar does not discuss the fact that the menorah did not have a zer zahav even though it was an internal vessel. More intriguing is the fact that there are no measurements specified for the menorah even though there is a detailed account of the designs that were to be incorporated. Finally, why of all of the vessels used in the Mishkan and Beis ha-Mikdash is the menorah the only one that must be made mikshah achas - of a single mass of gold?

Perhaps all of these singular qualities of the menorah can be seen as being necessary elements for transmitting its true symbolism - the Divine wisdom manifested in this world. That wisdom is completely separate from man, who might comprehend parts of it but who can never use it to adorn himself. Man’s tzelem Elokim can give him the basic ability to recognize its existence, but no one can reach the plateau where chochmas Hashem becomes his crown. This might account for the reason why Moshe found it so difficult to construct [see midrash to parashas Vayekhel].

The Divine wisdom manifested in this world is immeasurable and cannot be quantified by amos - either partial or whole. Chazal spoke of G-d as being m’komo shel olam - the space within which this world exists - while it is impossible to think of this temporal world as being the space within which G-d exists. Thus, the dimensions of the menorah are not given and the only details provided are the adornments through which its light shines forth.