OHEL or MISHKAN?

Parashas Bamidbar

V’halevi’im yachanu saviv l’mishkan ha’eidus ... and the Levi’im shall encamp around the tabernacle of testimony (Bamidbar 1:53)
Vayedaber Hasaehm el Moshe v’Aharon leimor. Ish al diglo, b’osos l’beis avosam, yachanu b’nei Yisrael mineged, saviv l’ohel moed yachanu ... and Hashem spoke to Moshe and Aharon saying. Every person under his flag, with signs according to their paternal households, the children of Israel shall encamp, around the the tent of meeting they shall encamp (ibid. 2:1-2)

Rav Hirsch points out that this seemingly simple set of commands contains a number of elements that deserve consideration. The first command, the instructions to the tribe of Levi to separate themselves from the rest of the nation and encamp around the tabernacle, was given to Moshe alone [see 1:48] whereas the parallel command to the rest of the nation to encamp on all sides of the mishkan was delivered to Moshe and Aharon [see 2:1]. Additionally, the command to the tribe of Levi instructing them to make their encampment as a buffer between the people and the holy area refers to the place as mishkan ha-eidus - the tabernacle of testimony. The command to bnei Yisrael, on the other hand, instructing them to place their tents around this area so as to serve as a front line of defense, refers to the place as ohel moed - the tent of meeting. Obviously, there must be significance in a] adding Aharon and b] using different terms to refer to the same place.

Rav Hirsch explains that the Torah differentiates between instructions that were given as a means of creating the fabric of Jewish life and those laws that were more philosophical in nature and therefore required more instruction. The separation of the tribe of Levi from the rest of the nation was evidenced in two ways. They enjoyed an elevated status [they were supported by ma’aser and in the case of the kohen section of the tribe were subject to additional laws pertaining to their requirement to be kodesh - e.g., tumah and the specific laws as to who they were permitted to marry] and they were not to be part of the encampment of the other tribes. This type of command is given to Moshe alone, for it is given to create a fact of Jewish life and does not need to be explained. The division of the tribes into separate camps, however, and the decision as to the makeup of these four camps, entailed further instruction and elucidation. Surely the tribes would ask why they were paired with each other and there would always be contention. Moreover, the very division of the people into separate camps would seem to be questionable. At Har Sinai the people had encamped as one nation - k’ish echad im lev echad - like a single person with a single heart. And now they were being divided into separate encampments based on tribal and familial divisions, hardly a recipe for the creation of a united nation. This change required the assistance of Aharon, who together with Moshe could instruct the people as to the importance of separate but equal encampments.

This might explain the change from mishkan ha-edus used in regard to the levi’im and ohel moed when speaking to bnei Yisrael. The Tabernacle served a dual role - it was both the unifying factor for the people, the common denominator that united them as a people, as well as the repository of the luchos which testified to the unique role of am Yisrael among the nations as recipient of the Torah. As long as the entire nation encamped around the Tabernacle, they demonstrated that despite individual differences, they viewed themselves as a people with a shared destiny. In this regard it was the ohel moed - the tent of meeting - for it was there that the different factions met to be instructed in the law that bound them all. As pertains to the levi’im, however, it was mishkan ha-edut - the place of restricted access - for it was here that the document - the luchos - that set am Yisrael apart from the other nations was stored. Access to the repository of am Yisrael’s contract of separation was severely restricted [see 1:53] and was guarded by the levi’im - the tribe that had been separated from the others.

Rav Yaakov Kaminetski, zt”l, adds an interesting observation in this connection. Why, he asks, was the division of am Yisrael into separate encampments delayed until after the revelation at Sinai. If the optimal way of life for the nation is division into separate units so as to preserve the unique characteristics and traits of the individual rather than establishing a single nation, should this not have taken place before Sinai? Haven’t we been taught that am Yisrael is meant to be a confederation of individual tribes, each making their separate contribution to the nation, while at the same time maintaining their unique character traits [see Yaakov’s berachos at the end of Bereishis].

Rav Yaakov answers that the preservation of the individuality of am Yisrael is only possible if they share an eternal mission. Once they are united in a common cause, they can go about accomplishing their manifest destiny in the manner that suits them best. They can add their own nuances and flavorings once the commonality of purpose - the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos - is agreed upon by all, at the same time and with the same level of acceptance.

AMEILUS BATORAH
Parashat Bechukosai

Im bechukosai tailaichu v’es mitzvosai tishmeru v’asisem osam ... If you will walk in my strictures and observe my mitzvos and perform them (Vayikra 26:3)

Rashi, quoting the Midrash, remarks that the phrase im bechukosai tailaichu teaches us that one must be an amal baTorah - literally, work in Torah, but more understandable as constant Torah study (see Ohr ha-Chaim). Sifsei Chachamim explains that the verb tailaichu - to walk - is not what one might have expected the Torah to use in this context. Usually, when we find a dictate to follow mitzvos, the expression used is tishmeru - observe - or ta’asu - fulfill - and indeed, these verbs are both used in the pasuk’s second phrase. Tailaichu, on the other hand, implies an obligation to making the chukim man’s weltaunschaung; i.e., the path of life that identifies his persona. Since the chukim are strictures of which we have no explanation and no understanding, they can only become the lifestyle of man if he constantly studies them. Man’s nature is to question and to try to find meaning in everything that he does; hence, cursory observance of the chukim will never make them the definitive expression of the way that he lives. It is only through constant “toil in Torah” - true amailus - that this can occur.

There is perhaps nothing more difficult to explain to students than the concept of ameilus baTorah. In all honesty, are there not many of us who are bored and distracted when we try to learn? Try as a rebbi might to make his shiurim relevant and contemporary, he is still faced with an uphill battle and often loses. How often is he confronted by sleepy faces and yawns and frustrated by his inability to penetrate the fog that descends when he begins to teach? I used to tell my students that if they had any entreprenurial sense, they would tape my classes and sell them to insomniacs!

Talmidim can well understand the concept of Torah study as being important historically. We would not have continued to exist as a nation without the battei midrash and yeshivot that served as klal Yisrael’s link to Hashem in the aftermath of the churban. However, it is extraordinarily difficult to help them translate that understanding - and the sincere desire to fulfill their obligations - into concrete methods that will bring them success. I well remember sitting in the beit midrash yawning and the mashgiach coming over to me and asking “what’s wrong?" I told him that I had no cheishek to learn, whereupon he responded, “so learn without cheishek!”

At the time I was annoyed by what I considered a flippant and uncaring response. It took me quite awhile to understand what he was trying to teach me. No fighter enjoys the grueling training that he undergoes to prepare for a fight. However, he knows that he must continue running and jumping rope even when his legs ache and he is fighting for breath. He sacrifices the present for the promise of the future and the more he trains, the more he realizes that he must continue. Everyday is a new challenge to do more than he did previously. Every weight that he lifts goads him on to add another disc to the barbell. He sweats and wheezes because he knows there is no other way.

It is the chukim specifically that create a Torah lifestyle, for their fulfillment demonstrates our loyalty to G-d; loyalty that is not a result of our understanding or logic but, rather, based on our willingness to subjugate ourselves to G-d and His strictures. That willingness only comes through ameilus baTorah, constant study and toil in Torah even when one has no cheishek. They are our personal training program and come to describe who we really are.

KEDUSHAH - CHAPTER II
Parashas Emor

Kedoshim yihyu lai’elokaihem ... and they shall be consecrated to their G-d (Vayikra 21:6)

Ramban notes that the obligation of the kohanim referred to here parallels the requirement that was delineated in the first pesukim of parashas Kedoshim which was incumbent on the entire nation. Just as there the admonition was to separate from that which would otherwise be permitted, so too here the kohen is required to accept another level of separations; e.g., he is required to refrain from coming into contact with the dead and to accept another layer of forbidden marital relationships above that required of all other Jews.

Ramban’s comments are somewhat difficult to understand, for in the case of the kohanim, the steps or actions necessary to reach kedushah are mandatory, whereas in his opinion (see parashas Kedoshim), the parallel level of kedushah that the Torah suggests that every Jew aspire to are made up of voluntary actions; i.e., perishus - separating oneself by choice from that which would otherwise be permitted.

Moreover, the Torah clearly specifies - as Ramban notes - the steps necessary for a kohen to achieve kedushah. He must not defile himself by coming into contact with a corpse other than specified close relatives (21:1), he may not shave his entire head or cut himself as a sign of mourning (:5), and he may not marry a zonah, chalalah or a divorced women (:7). The kohen gadol, by virtue of his elevated status, is also forbidden to allow his hair to grow or to rent his clothing as a sign of mourning (:10), come into contact with any corpse (:11), or marry a widow (:14). If we take the kedushah of am yisrael to be parallel to that of the kohanim, albeit on a lower level, should one not expect that the laws delineated after the Torah’s mention of kedushah of am yisrael would call for a level of separation. For example, would it not be logical to place the laws of kashrus, or the laws of not following in the practices of the nations (18:3) in juxtaposition to the requirement to be kadosh, since these are the type of separations that might parallel the separations of the kohen and make us distinct?

Furthermore, as we have already noted in our comments to parashas Kedoshim, many of the mitzvos delineated there are unrelated to rituals. The portion immediately adjacent to the admonition of being kadosh teaches the laws of tzedakah (19:9-10), thievery, denial and lying (:11), swearing falsely (:12), not paying an employee on time (:13), misleading people (:14) as well as many other interpersonal mitzvos. In what manner are these mitzvos connected to achieving a level of kedushah?

I would like to suggest that there are two levels of kedushah referred to in these parshiyos - one individual and one communal. Parashas Kedoshim deals with the latter, and as such the mitzvos taught there reflect a standard wherein all of the community accepts a level of behavior that reflects a commitment to the public welfare at the expense of furthering individual agendas. For example, the laws of leaving the portions for the poor, teach man that tzedakah is not an act of voluntary sympathy, but rather an obligation. I must pay my employee on time because I have to understand that when a person is dependent upon me, I have obligations to them. The mitzvos in Kedoshim are chosen to create an attitude where the individual understands his obligation to the klal and makes his choices in life accordingly.

It is only when that mind frame is created that one can go on to the next level of kedushah, creating special laws for individuals. The extra level of sanctity demanded of the kohen is only possible once the klal as a whole has inculcated the concepts of community responsibility that the Torah teaches in Kedoshim. Man cannot hope to achieve the level of sanctity demanded of a kohen if he is deficient in his relationships with other men. Thus, man can only be sanctified by the avoidance of tumah, if he has first accepted the avoidance of lashon hara (:16) and of standing by watching his neighbor suffer (ibid.). The kohen who has not yet accepted the responsibility of admonishing his fellow Jew so as to help him avoid further sin (:17) can not successfully offer karbanos as a means of bringing that man atonement.

A note to us as educators: then Torah first speaks of the kedushah of the community and only then goes on to the kedushah of the individual. Perhaps we would do well in emulating this order when setting priorities in our schools and invest a little bit more in teaching those mitzvos which may be bein adam lechaveiro but bring us to kedushas haklal.