Yitro: How the Sacrifices Made the Torah More Approachable

by Rav Mordechai Hochman, Head of Kollel "Rinat Beit El" and the Beit El branch of Beit Midrash "Tzurva Miderabanan", yeshiva.org.il, translated by Hillel Fendel.

The Israelites in the desert received the Torah willingly, even saying, "We will do and we will listen," committing to perform the mitzvot even before knowing exactly what they were. But it didn't come to them so easily…

At the end of Parashat Mishpatim in the Book of Sh'mot (Exodus), Moshe Rabbeinu comes to the Israelites and proposes a covenant between them and G-d, regarding the acceptance of the Torah they were being given. Israel answered eagerly: Naaseh v'nishma, "All that G-d has said we will do and we will hear" (Sh'mot 24,7).

The Nation of Israel thus showed their willingness to fulfill the commandments that they already knew – as well as those that they were still yet to hear, even those that the Sages would institute later (as the Torah commands; Deut. 17,10). And in this merit, G-d gave them the Torah.

The Talmud has great praise for this stand: "When Israel preceded hearing with doing, a Heavenly voice was emitted, saying, 'Who revealed to My children this great secret that the ministering angels use?'" (Shabbat 88a)

But actually, it wasn't so easy for them to reach that point. In fact, in this week's Torah portion of Yitro (Exodus, chapters 18-24), in which we first read of the Ten Commandments, they responded differently to Moshe's first proposal of a covenant with G-d. "If you will listen to My voice and keep My covenant, you shall be My treasure from among all the peoples… a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (19,5-6). Israel responded then more modestly: "All that G-d has said, we will do" (verse 8) – naaseh, but without nishma. And again later, they responded similarly: "All the things that G-d has said, we will do" (24,3). Twice they said that they would perform whatever they were commanded, and only on the third time – just four verses after the second time – did they add that they would also do whatever they would be commanded in the future.

What brought about this change?

It appears that it was what happened in the intervening four verses that did the trick. We read there that Moshe built an altar, with "twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent the youths of Israel and they offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings of oxen to G-d" (verses 5-6). Moshe Rabbeinu wanted the Children of Israel to feel that they had a personal stake in the Torah; each pillar showed that the Torah touched the special quality of each of the 12 Tribes of the nation. In addition, the youths who offered the sacrifices were the first-borns of the various families, and they served as the priests in the sacrificial service. Thus, each family felt a personal connection to the Torah – and said eagerly, "We will also do whatever we will be commanded."

But it could be there was more to it than that.

We know that the Rambam (Maimonides) and Ramban (Nachmanides) explain differently the commandment of offering sacrifices. The Rambam writes in his Guide to the Perplexed that the sacrifices were not inherently required, but rather were the result of the Gentiles' practice of offering them. The Jews would have had a hard time receiving the Torah that did not include the "universally accepted" practice of sacrificing animals to G-d. The Rambam explains that G-d, in His great wisdom, would not have commanded something that went so totally against the people's nature – and therefore re-directed the inclination to bring sacrifices from "imaginary things [false gods and idols], to G-d's exalted Name." The Rambam elaborates on this concept at length.

Nachmanides, however, did not accept this approach at all, and said that the idea of sacrifices to G-d embodies very exalted concepts in the service of the One G-d. The Rambam, too, appears to accept this as well, in his Mishneh Torah, where he wrote that we cannot fathom the true purpose of sacrifices and that they will be renewed when in Messianic times.

Returning to the Israelites at Mt. Sinai, we can say that the Rambam's approach to sacrifices in his Guide, which is also found in the Medrash, is alluded to in Israel's acceptance of the Torah. At first, they said only, "We will do" what we know, without adding also the commandments not yet given to them – because they had trouble accepting a way of life that did not include sacrificial offerings to G-d. However, after Moshe built an altar for them, and they offered upon it sacrifices, as was familiar to them, they agreed enthusiastically to receive the Torah – even those aspects of it that they had not yet been commanded. And in the merit of this naaseh v'nishma, they received the Torah and set an example for generations of complete acceptance of G-d's word.

Shemot: The Dual Message of the Tribal Names

by Rav Mordechai Hochman, yeshiva.org.il, translated by Hillel Fendel.

They hint both at the Egyptian Exile and the Redemption 

The Book of Sh'mot, which Jews around the world begin reading aloud this week, is the second book of the Pentateuch. The Abarbanel names it the "Book of Exile and Redemption" – both of which appear dramatically in it.  

Sh'mot opens with the same six words that we read towards the end of B'reshit: "And these are the names of the children of Israel who came to Egypt" (B'reshit 46,8; Sh'mot 1,1). Many of the commentators seek to explain why, after the names of Yaakov's children were listed when they descended to Egypt, the Torah considered it necessary to list them again at the beginning of Sh'mot. Rashi explained that the reason is simply because the Torah wished to show the high affection in which G-d holds Bnei Yisrael. The Medrash Rabba explains differently:  

They are mentioned here [in Sh'mot] to allude to the Redemption. For instance, Reuven [which means 'See, it is a boy'] is reminiscent of G-d's words [setting the stage for Redemption], 'I have certainly seen the poverty of My nation [in its suffering in Egypt]' (Sh'mot 3,7). And Shimon [which stems from the root meaning 'to hear'] corresponds to 'G-d heard their cries' (2,24). And Levy [from the root meaning 'to accompany'] corresponds to the fact that G-d accompanied Israel in its troubles, as is written, 'I am with them in their troubles' (Psalms 91,15). And Yehuda [from the root meaning 'to thank'], for Israel thanked G-d… 

The Hassidic work Shem MiShmuel explains that G-d mentioned the names of the Tribes again just before the story of the enslavement to indicate that He created the cure – the future Redemption – before He brought upon them the disease, namely, the tribulations of the subjugation in Egypt. The names allude to the future Redemption; if the Creator had not created this cure, He would not have brought upon them the subjugation. 

This is a very different explanation than that of the Besht, Baal Shem Tov, the founder of Hassidism. His student R' Yaakov Yosef HaCohen Katz, in his work Tzofnat Pa'ne'ach, wrote in the name of his great teacher: 

The reason that Reuven, Shimon, etc. are listed here after already being listed [in B'reshit] during their lifetimes, is that in Sh'mot, the names are listed to their credit, but here, at the [beginning of the] Egyptian exile, the names allude to the exile of the soul… When they study Torah, for instance, Reuven wishes to boast about it, as if to say, "See I am a [Torah scholar];" and Shimon - so that his reputation [shom'o] will go forth, and Levi would connect to [accompany] pious men so that he will be considered pious and he will be praised… And therefore, from this spiritual exile that existed, the Children of Israel 'were fruitful and fertile and… they filled the land' (Sh'mot 1,7) – they turned the spiritual and inner into physical and material, and this brought about the physical exile, as the succeeding verse states: 'A new king arose over Egypt who did not know Yosef' (verse 8) – "new" in that he renewed decrees against Israel.   

The Besht understood that the names of the Tribes are to be understood here negatively; their descendants developed negative traits that can be derived from the tribal leaders' names. For instance, Reuven's descendants developed the negative trait of wanting to stand out ("See me!"), and similarly with Shimon; Levi's descendants began to do things not for the sake of Heaven, but rather to receive praise, as they "accompany" the pious men in order to impress others. And the same with the other tribes, in accordance with a "negative" understanding of their names. 

This is difficult! For we know that the Besht always sought to see the good in every one; why would he here, in Sh'mot, understand the names of the Tribes in this negative manner?  

It appears that the Torah itself leads us in this direction. We know that the names of the Tribes are listed in several places in the Torah, and often in different orders; each case must be studied to understand why its particular order was chosen. In this case, we note that the names of Yaakov's sons are divided into groups: The first four are "Reuven, Shimon, Levy and Yehuda" (1,2); the "and" makes it clear that they are one entity. This group is then followed by "Yisachar, Zevulun and Binyamin" – clearly again a group, this time of three. Next are two groups of two each: "Dan and Naftali; Gad and Asher." We must understand: Why are the sons of Leah – the first six names in this list – not mentioned together, but rather appear in two different lists? After all, in the list in B'reshit, and in Chronicles I (2,1), the six of them are mentioned in one group!  

It appears that the Torah is hinting to us that the four oldest sons of Yaakov, who were also born one after the other, took upon themselves to rise haughtily above the others and make the decisions for them. We know that after they were born, Leah stopped giving birth, until after the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah gave birth to two sons each, at which point the Torah tells us that Leah bore Yisachar and Zevulun. Thus, the four oldest saw themselves as "special" in a way – as alluded to by their placement here in a separate group unto themselves.  

Yisachar and Zevulun were seemingly not thrilled with this arrangement, but they consoled themselves by remembering that they, like their oldest brothers, were the sons of Leah, and not of the handmaidens as were the other four brothers. And they therefore placed themselves above the latter four. The Torah also includes Binyamin with Yisachar and Zevulun, because he, too, was born of one of two Yaakov's original wives, Rachel; these three sons had a common denominator of being younger brothers of the first sons of the main wives, Rachel and Leah. 

Even within the last group – Dan and Naftali; Gad and Asher – there seemed to be hierarchy, as the Torah hints by the separation between the two pairs. It is very likely that Dan and Naftali, the sons of Rachel's handmaiden Bilhah, felt themselves above those of Leah's handmaiden Zilpah – for we know that after Rachel's death, Yaakov moved into the tent of Bilhah, and not of Zilpah.  

The Besht sensed that the Torah was telling us that there was a hierarchy among the sons of Yaakov, and that each group felt itself to be "above" the next one. And even within the different groups, there are indications that each member considered himself "above" the next one.  

Arrogance Leads to Exile – and the Opposite 

This type of situation, in which each member of Israel tries to one-up and be superior to his fellow, leads to the Gentiles coming and reigning superior over Israel, as the Besht concluded: Their character traits brought about physical exile and new decrees from the king of Egypt. 

And on the other hand, Moshe Rabbeinu, who grew up as an Egyptian prince, repressed what could have been his sense of superiority over others – and actually endangered himself in order to save his fellow Jews. As the Torah tells us, "he went out to his brethren and he saw their suffering, and he saw an Egyptian man striking a Hebrew man of his brethren; he looked to and fro and saw that there was no man, and he smote the Egyptian" (2,12). The Netziv (Ha'amek Davar) explains that he looked to see if anyone would be a "man" and deal with the injustice; when he "saw that there was no man," he realized it was up to him! This lack of superiority over others is what began to sprout the Redemption, after the trait of arrogance brought about the subjugation.  

Clearly the Besht did not come to dispute the Medrash. Rather, the names of the Tribes allude both to the causes of the Exile and to the future Redemption. 

Vayishlah: Release Me, for the Dawn Has Broken

by Rabbi Mordechai Hochman, a former Rabbi/Teacher in Yeshivat Beit El, yeshiva.org.il, translated by Hillel Fendel.

When Yaakov was on his way back to the Land of Israel, a "man" wrestled with him. The Medrash explains that this was a struggle within the People of Israel, between the spiritual-angelic spheres and the material-mortal aspects. When the latter relates to itself as nil, the spiritual will truly give it life – and then the dawn will break and both will be Redeemed. 

In this week's Torah portion of Vayishlach, we read (in B'reshit 32,25-31) that a man wrestled with our Patriarch Yaakov until dawn, dislocating Yaakov's hip joint in the process. The man asked Yaakov to release him, "for the dawn has risen," but Yaakov demanded a blessing first. The man asked Yaakov's name, changed it to Yisrael, and blessed him. Yaakov then asked for the angel's name, but received no answer. Let us present an approach to this fascinating incident. 

We have explained elsewhere that Yaakov wished to establish in the Land of Israel a "kingdom of priests and holy nation" (Sh'mot 19,6). But when he encountered a "man" of his own descendants who did not want to live a spiritual life, but sought only to live a normal, physical life like Esav, a "man of the field" (B'reshit 25,27) – he did not reject him. Rather, he informed the "man" that Israel needed him, and that in the holy nation that would arise in the Land, both "angels" and "men" would be required. The "man" agreed to remain until dawn, i.e., until the Redemption. 

That is, while Yaakov did not see this as a healthy phenomenon – described as a "dislocated joint" caused by the struggle with the "man" (32,26) – he still did not want to give up on the physical aspects of Israel. One opinion of our Sages is that the spirituality of the Throne of Glory does not dwell on the actions of such a man, but another opinion, that of R. B'rechya, is that it does dwell on these actions, but only if a certain condition obtains, as we will see. 

First let us cite (in paraphrasal) the Medrash B'reshit Rabba (78,1) on this incident:  

R. Chelbo says in the name of R. Shmuel bar Nachman: "They are new every morning, great is Your faith" (Eccl. 3,23) - No group of angels repeats its praise of G-d from one day to the next; rather, G-d creates a new group every day which says praise and then leaves."  

R. B'rechya objected: "But the angel said to Yaakov, 'Release me, for the dawn has broken' and it is time for me to say praise! And this, despite the fact that he was created the day before!"  

R. Chelbo reacted strongly: "Strangler! Did you think to strangle me?! I asked R. Shmuel bar Nachman myself this question, and he answered me that it is referring to the angels Michael and Gabriel, who are the only two angels that are not replaced." 

R. Chelbo's response is quite strange. Why should he accuse R. B'rechya of wanting to strangle him?! The discussions of the Sages are filled with questions back and forth; why should the questioner be accused of negative intentions? Not to mention that R. Chelbo himself asked the same question! 

Let us first note that when we find the Sages occasionally relating to each other in a strange or unduly aggressive manner, this is not to be understood at face value. Rather, there is the "outer" level of the story, that which is understood at first glance, and then there are additional layers, whose meaning is grasped only after delving further into the matter. The strange stories of the Sages are their way of hinting that we must consider the matter on a deeper level, enabling us to climb to higher and more spiritual levels. 

When R. Chelbo accused R. B'rechya of wanting to strangle him, he was providing a key by which to understand what happened between Yaakov Avinu and the "man" who wrestled with him.  

Firstly, the Torah is called "song" (D'varim 31,19); the Rashbam explains that "song" is an organized account or narrative. Not only is the Written Torah a "song," but the Oral Torah as well. Therefore, when R. B'rechya objects to the organization and logic in the words of R. Chelbo, he seems essentially to be preventing these words from being included in the "song" of the Oral Torah – meaning that they will not be handed down through the generations of Israel. This prevention of being allowed to "sing" is like strangulation! 

And this cry-out by R. Chelbo is also symbolic of what happened between the "man" and Yaakov Avinu. Until this point, the "man" aspect of Yaakov was busy helping the "angelic" Yaakov engage and toil in the song of Torah via his physical and earthly work. But now, as they wrestled, the "man" seemed to be demanding to say a "song" on his own! 

This is in fact an important stage in the Redemption process, because his desire to "sing" is actually the "redemption of the will" – and the stage after that will be the actual Redemption in which the "man" will sing the "song" and be like an angel. But when the angel prevents the "man" from singing, demanding that he first bless him (verse 27), this is a form of strangulation!  

Why, in fact, does the angel wish to "strangle" the man in this manner?  

Let us recall that in B'reshit 14, King Malki-Tzedek blessed Avraham Avinu after the great war – but did not bless his 318 soldiers; for they were only assistants. As we said above, regarding the angel and the earthly "man" here, the latter must fulfill a particular condition before his actions are blessed. Yaakov told the "man," his wrestling partner, as follows: "If you wish to 'sing' on your own, you must first recognize that the angel is the central player here, and that you are only his assistant. You must understand that your success in work and in war is only in the merit of the Torah of the angel." 

The "man" agrees to this condition! He asks Yaakov, standing for the "angel," what his name is, and then says to him, "Your name will no longer be Yaakov, but rather Yisrael – for you have become great before G-d and man; you have won." That is, the "man" acknowledges that the actions of the angel are important and influential both in the upper worlds and in This World – and the name Yisrael shows the linkage between both these worlds.  

Yaakov then turns to the "man" and asks him to tell him his name – but the "man" dismisses this request: "Why should you ask my name?" With this humility, he is showing that he is only ephemeral in this world, and that therefore his name has no real importance. As we read in Job (Iyov14,19-20): "Stones are eroded by water, washed away… but the hope of man You have destroyed. You overpower him to eternity, and he leaves [i.e., he is no more] …" 

In sum, the "man" recognizes the worth of the angel by upgrading his name, and recognizes his own lack of importance by not giving his own name – and this is the very blessing that Yaakov wished to hear from the man. As summed up there: "He blessed him there." 

And by virtue of this acknowledgement and understanding, his own earthly actions are upgraded, and the spirituality of the Throne of Glory can dwell upon them, as stated above. 

The Medrash above concludes that the angels involved were actually Gabriel and Michael – and Gabriel, despite being an angel, is also referred to as "man" (Daniel 9,21).  

When Yaakov Avinu saw that the "man" lowered himself before the angel, he was happy to note, as he had hoped and foreseen, that the spirituality of both was in force. As written at the end of their encounter: "Yaakov named the place Pni-el, 'for I have seen G-d face [panim] to face and my soul was saved.'" That is, he saw here a struggle between two spiritual strengths - "face to face" – and not just between the forces of physicality and spirituality. And he declares that after the "man" has nullified himself, he has now gained a level of spirituality, and thus even the actions of the "man" will be written in the eternal work of the Nation of Israel."  

And when he concludes that "my soul was saved," he is referring to both souls of Israel: that of the angel and that of the "man," who was revealed in the end to be an angel. 

In this article, we have learned that when we see strange behavior on the part of our Sages, we must know that this is their way to arouse us to take a deeper look at the situation and internalize the lesson we are being taught. In this case, their behavior seemed to be strange; but on a deeper level, it taught us the merits of the various groups that exist within our nation.