Masei 5774: Mother of the Kohen Gadol

“The congregation shall return him [the murderer] to the city of refuge…and he shall remain there until the Kohen Gadol (High Priest)…dies.” (Bamidbar/Numbers 35:25) 

In this week’s Torah portion the six cities of refuge are established. These are intended as places of asylum for those who have accidentally killed someone. The murderer had to remain in the city of refuge until the death of the Kohen Gadol. The Mishna (Makkot 11a) notes that the mother of the Kohen Gadol would bring food and clothing to the accidental murderers/refugees. Why would she do this?

The Mishna explains that the Kohen Gadol’s mother would distribute care packages so that the refugees would not pray for the death of her son. But what would keep the refugees from enjoying what the mother sent and then praying for the Kohen Gadol’s death?

Rabbi Ozer Alport on aish.com cites the explanation of Rabbi Shlomo Eisenblatt: “Her [the mother’s] focus was not to guarantee that nobody would pray for the death of her son, which would have been unrealistic, but rather to ensure that even if they did pray, their petitions would be denied…The power of a pure and truly heartfelt prayer is so great that even if it is uttered by somebody whose carelessness resulted in the death of another Jew, and even if his request is for something as audacious as the death of the Kohen Gadol, if he cries out to G-d with all his heart, he may well be answered.”

“Although the feelings of gratitude that the accidental murderers felt toward the mother of the Kohen Gadol may not have been sufficient to stop them from praying altogether, they were enough to ensure that they would be unable to pray with their entire hearts, and the smallest reduction in the purity and intensity of their petitions was enough to prevent them from being answered.”

Rabbi Mordechai Kamenetzky on torah.org provides further explanation. ”The mission of the Kohen Gadol’s mother was not just to distribute food. It was to develop a bond with those people whose carelessness spurred a death. They saw the love a parent had for her son as she subconsciously plead with the inmates to spare her child. They saw how a total stranger, despite her great esteem, would make sure that their needs in the city of refuge were cared for…After developing an awareness of life, they would never be able to pray for the death of anyone, even if it meant their own freedom.”

http://www.aish.com/tp/i/pp/162573116.html

http://torah.org/learning/drasha/5756/masei.html

Matot 5774: Making and Revoking Vows

“If a woman makes a vow to the L-rd or imposes a prohibition [upon herself] while in her father’s house, in her youth, if her father heard her vow or her prohibition which she has prohibited upon herself, yet her father remains silent, all her vows shall stand, and any prohibition that she has imposed upon herself shall stand. But if her father hinders her on the day he hears it, all her vows and her prohibitions that she has imposed upon herself shall not stand. The L-rd will forgive her because her father hindered her.

But if she is [betrothed] to a man, with her vows upon her or by an utterance of her lips which she has imposed upon herself and her husband hears it but remains silent on the day he hears it, her vows shall stand and her prohibition which she has imposed upon herself shall stand. But if her husband hinders her on the day he heard it, he has revoked the vow she had taken upon herself and the utterance which she had imposed upon herself and the L-rd will forgive her…Any vow or any binding oath of self affliction, her husband can either uphold it or revoke it.” (Bamidbar/Numbers 30: 4-9, 14)

This week’s Torah portion includes the laws for making and revoking vows. At first glance, it appears that Torah views women as incapable of making vows without first getting permission from our fathers or husbands. This is not at all what Torah intends.

The first verses cited apply only to a naarah, girl in her youth, between the ages of 11 and 12. Rashi writes: “Neither a minor nor an adult, since a minor’s vows are invalid and an adult is not under her father’s jurisdiction to revoke her vows. What is considered a minor? Our Rabbis said: A girl of eleven years and a day, her vows are examined. If she knows in whose name she vowed, or in whose name she consecrated something, her vow stands. From the age of twelve years and a day, she does not need to be tested.” Rashi cites the Talmud, Niddah 45b. Therefore, there is only a short time period when a father can revoke his daughter’s vows, only in the year preceding her bat mitzvah. Single women older than 12, widows and divorcees are responsible for their own vows.

As for married women, Chaya Shuchat notes on chabad.org that the husband can only nullify a certain type of his wife’s vows. She writes: “The type of vow that a husband can override is ‘an oath of self-affliction’ – a vow that restricts food, drink, sleep or other physical needs, or a vow that impacts their relationship. But if a wife should pledge a large sum of her money to charity, for example, she is on her own.”

“The power of nullification given to men is within the context of a relationship. A single adult woman makes or breaks her own vow…Torah is not making a statement here about a woman’s ability to be independent and to think for herself. Rather, the take-home message here has something to do with the bond between father and daughter, husband and wife.”

Mrs. Shuchat explains that Chassidism teaches that all of us have a blend of masculine and feminine traits. Part of us can make vows, and another part can overrule them. The two parts correspond to the intellectual attributes of the feminine binah and the masculine chochmah. She writes: “Chochmah is an idea and binah is its development; chochmah is the big picture and binah is the details. Chochmah is abstract and somewhat detached from the world, while binah is more invested in this world.”  

“Since binah is predominant in women, a woman may, for example, expend a great effort not only in cooking a marvelous dish, but also in presenting it and serving it. A man might be perfectly happy just to eat a warm meal. A woman may fuss over bedding sets and matching curtains, while a man is satisfied to sleep on any flat surface.”  (Not all women are obsessed with details and not all men are cavemen; we all have both feminine and masculine traits. Men sometimes express their feminine side, and women sometimes express their masculine side.)

With respect to vows, Mrs. Shuchat elaborates. A woman who gets caught up in the details of homemaking may become concerned that she is spending too much time on frivolous activities, clothes shopping and wasting time instead of doing mitzvot (commandments) such as reciting Tehillim (psalms) or visiting the sick. She may take a vow on herself to “afflict her soul.” Her husband or her father’s chochmah tells her not to make this vow, not to pull back from beautifying the world and making a lovely home.

Writes Mrs. Shuchat: “This is why the absolution of vows takes place only within the context of a relationship. The bond between father and daughter, or husband and wife, guarantees that there is a balance of energies. We need the masculine traits of objectivity and broad perspective, chochmah, to ensure that our mundane activities are neither neglected nor over-elaborate. Then the womanly art of binah can truly flourish, and whatever we do to beautify our homes or ourselves will serve a higher purpose. The male steps in not to suppress the female, but on the contrary – to elevate and dignify her, to make certain that she, herself, appreciates what she is bringing to the table. And through the bond between chochmah and binah, we draw down the highest divine energy into our midst, and make our home and our world into a true dirah, a place where G-d can dwell.”  

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/2635575/jewish/Broken-Vows.htm

Balak 5774: Lot's Daughters

“And Moav was very frightened of the people because they were numerous.” (Bamidbar/Numbers 22:3)

Moav and Ammon are protected nations. Because of the two great women who descend from them, Ruth and Naamah (wife of King Shlomo/Solomon) respectively, Torah forbids attacking them. However, there is a difference between the two nations.

With respect to Ammon, the Jewish people are not allowed to strike a hostile posture or appear belligerent. However, when it comes to Moav, the Jewish people are allowed to threaten and be belligerent as long as we don’t engage in outright hostility. Yelling and brandishing swords is acceptable; shooting is impermissible. This explains why Moav is “frightened of the people.”

Why does Torah differentiate between Moav and Ammon?

Rabbi Yissocher Frand in Rabbi Frand on the Parasha explains that the difference dates back to the circumstances of the birth of the nations’ founders. (The explanation is found in the Talmud in Bava Kama 38b.) After Sodom is destroyed, Lot’s daughters think that they and their father are the only people left on earth. They believe that they have to bear children by their father in order to save the human race from extinction.

“And Lot’s two daughters conceived from their father. And the elder bore a son, and she named him Moav; he is the father of Moav until this day. And the younger, she, too, bore a son, and she named him Ben-Ami; he is the father of the children of Ammon until this day.” (Bereishit 19: 36-38).

The name Moav means “from my father”. In giving her son this name, the oldest daughter advertises her incestuous relationship with her father. The other daughter names her son Ben-Ami, meaning “son of my people” or “son of my nation”.  With this name, she makes no mention of her child’s illegitimacy. We are permitted to harass the nation that emerged from the Moavite birth that advertises incest, while we are forbidden to disturb Ammon with even a hint of belligerence.

Rabbi Frand explains: “The Zohar (Jewish mysticism) states that ‘chutzpah (brazenness) begets chutzpah’.  The older daughter was immodest and bold; she took an aggressive posture. Therefore, we are allowed to take an aggressive posture toward her descendants. The younger daughter was modest and discreet, the opposite of aggressive. Therefore, we are forbidden to be aggressive toward her descendants.”

Rabbi Frand notes that shame no longer exists in contemporary society. In the past, people who had shortcomings and failures did not advertise them and were not proud of their mistakes and poor behavior. They tended to hide what they did and lied about it instead of admitting it. Today, there are reality shows and celebrity gossip in which people are open and honest about their foibles and are unashamed to tell all. Should shame be a relic of the past? The long-term ramifications of the actions of Lot’s daughters show that shame, modesty and discretion still matter.

Emor 5774: Shlomit bat Divri

“The son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man went out among the Children of Israel. And this son of the Israelite woman quarreled in the camp with an Israelite man. And the son of the Israelite woman pronounced the [Divine] name and cursed. So they brought him to Moshe (Moses). His mother’s name was Shlomit, daughter of Divri, of the tribe of Dan.” (Vayikra/Leviticus 24:10-11)

The end of this week’s Torah portion tells of a man, son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian, who blasphemed G-d. The Midrash Rabbah gives the “back story”.  The man’s mother, Shlomit bat Divri, was exceptionally beautiful. One day, an Egyptian taskmaster noticed Shlomit when she smiled at him as he went to her home seeking her husband, an Israelite overseer or “kapo” in charge of a large group of Israelite slaves. The Egyptian called the husband out to work and returned to Shlomit’s house pretending to be her husband.

Shlomit’s husband saw the Egyptian leave the house and was concerned. Shlomit told him that she mistook the Egyptian for her husband. When the taskmaster realized that Shlomit’s husband knew what happened, he whipped the husband with the intention of killing him. Midrash Tanchuma (Shemot 9) identifies the taskmaster as the Egyptian man that Moshe killed. Further, the Midrash identifies Shlomit’s husband as the troublemaker Datan. Moshe later broke up a fight between Datan and Aviram and Datan said he knew that Moshe had killed the Egyptian. (Shemot/Exodus 2:12-14)

Why does Torah provide the name of Shlomit bat Divri, but not her son’s name?

Rashi explains that Torah singles out Shlomit in order to commend the Israelites. During the enslavement, all of the Israelites were true to their spouses. Shlomit was the only woman who had relations with an Egyptian. Rabbi Ari Kahn on aish.com provides the Zohar's insight: the Israelites’ chastity is proven in Torah with the Sotah ritual done with the bitter waters of Marah in Shemot 23-25.  (Shlomit was not tested at Marah because she was no longer married.)

Rashi seems to blame Shlomit for the incident with the Egyptian. He comments that her name gives insight into her character. He writes: “[The name Shlomit denotes that] she was a chatterbox, [always going about saying to men] “Shalom aleich (peace unto you or how are you?) [She would] greet everyone and ask about their welfare. Divri [from the verb mDaBeRet, denotes that] she was very loquacious, talking with every person. This is why she sinned.”

Rabbi A.L. Scheinbaum in Peninim on the Torah writes that Harav M.D. Soloveitchik feels that "her [Shlomit’s] lack of tzniut, modesty and discretion, her constant chattering with whomever came her way, was the basis of her son’s miscreancy. When the mother is not a tzanua (modest woman), the child may [emphasis mine] gravitate towards evil behavior.” Rebbetzin Chana Bracha Siegelbaum strongly cautions against blaming the mother for the child’s actions; many factors besides the mother’s character influence the child’s outcome.

Citing Talmud (Yoma 47b), Harav Soloveitchik relates the example of Kimchis’ wife, who merited to have seven sons who served as Kohanim Gedolim (high priests). She attributed this to the fact that she was extremely diligent in her tzniut: whether inside the home or outside, she never uncovered her hair. The Maharsha claims that Kimchis’ husband was not a person worthy of such children. Writes Rabbi Scheinbaum: “We may derive from here that the mother…the akeret habayit, foundation of the home, can shift the balance in favor of her family through her righteous deeds.”

Writes the Rebbetzin in Women at the Crossroads: “Scripture refers to the uncontrolled speech of the mother of the blasphemer to teach us that a mother has a special responsibility to teach her children proper behavior by example. The way we use our Divine capability of speech has repercussions in our children…As mothers, we must realize our great responsibility in building the character of our children. They are influenced by who we are rather than what we preach.”

Shlomit’s son entered the camp of the tribe of Dan, which was his mother’s tribe, but not his father’s. He was denied entrance (camps are by the father’s tribe), quarreled with an Israelite man and then appealed to Moshe. He lost the appeal and cursed G-d. Rabbi Kahn gives the Zohar’s explanation for the son’s extreme anger. The Zohar identifies the Israelite man involved in the quarrel as Shlomit’s son’s half-brother. (Shlomit’s husband, Datan, divorced her after the incident with the Egyptian. He then remarried and had a son with his second wife.) The half-brother provoked Shlomit’s son by revealing that his biological father was the Egyptian taskmaster whom Moshe killed. The half-brother reviled Shlomit calling her a harlot, and the son came to Shlomit’s defense. The Midrash Rabbah says that the son cursed with the same ineffable name YHVH that Moshe used to kill the son’s Egyptian father. The son knew the name because he had heard it at Sinai when the Jewish people received the Ten Commandments.

http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/92077274.html

     

   

 

Tazria 5774: Holiness of Childbirth

“When a woman conceives (tazria) and gives birth to a son, she shall be tamei (ritually impure) for seven days…And if she bears a female, she shall be tamei for two weeks.” (Vayikra/Leviticus 12:2, 5)

Rav Yissocher Frand in Rabbi Frand on the Parsha writes that a pregnant woman comes “as close to being like the Creator as a human being can possibly come. [In creating new life] she gained a touch of the Divine and became sanctified.” He explains that a woman’s kedushah (sanctity/holiness) increases during pregnancy, climaxes at childbirth, and then disappears.

According to the Kuzari, when kedushah departs, it leaves a void. It follows that the greater the void left by the withdrawal of kedushah, the more tumah rushes in to fill it.

Rav Frand suggests that when a woman is pregnant with a girl, she rises to a much higher level of kedushah because her unborn daughter is a potential creator. Therefore, when she delivers a girl, a woman loses more kedushah than if the baby had been male. As a result, the mother’s tumah is proportionately greater than if she had borne a boy.

Rabbi A.L. Scheinbaum in Peninim on the Torah puts forth that the increased period of tumah accomplishes for the female child what the bris milah (ritual circumcision) does for a male child. He writes: “The striking characteristic of a Jewish woman, the emblem of Jewish womanhood which distinguishes her as a daughter of Sarah Imeinu (our foremother), is her ability to sublimate herself to the level of morality and modesty to which man has a constant reminder in the form of the bris milah on his body.”

“The double period of y’mei tumah (days of ritual impurity) infuses the mother with her two-fold mission. First, she must raise her daughter to represent the character of the Jewish woman. Second, she must do so by personally being a role model of this noble virtue…With each female birth, the mother must doubly prepare herself to lead the child along the lofty path of virtue and purity.”