Vayikra
כל המנחה אשר תקריבו לה לא תעשה חמץ כי כל שאור וכל דבש לא תקטירו ממנו אשה לה. קרבן ראשית תקריבו אותם לה ואל המזבח לא יעלו לריח ניחח (ב, יא-יב)
Any meal-offering that you shall offer to Hashem shall not be made leavened, for you shall not burn up any yeast or honey as a fire-offering to Hashem. As a first-offering shall you offer them to Hashem, yet they shall not ascend to the altar for a pleasant aroma.
What personal instruction are we to take from these details of the Avodah in the Beis HaMikdash?
Let us begin with a well-known statement in Pesachim: * A person should always engage in Torah – even if not for its own sake, שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה, for through doing so not for its own sake one will come to do so for its own sake. In other words, Torah study for ulterior motives is positive, as it will lead to eventually engaging it with purer motives. Tosafos there observes that this is not so simple. For there is another passage – in Berachos ** – which declares that one who engages in Torah study for ulterior motives would have been better off not being created – a rather negative characterization, to say the least. While Tosafos suggests a resolution, I contend that the answer can be found in the Talmud itself.
But before we get to that, we should take note of the unusual language used to preface the passage in this parashah of a king’s sin-offering: אשר נשיא יחטא, That a leader will sin. As Rashi cites there from the Sages, it has a connotation of אשרי, fortunate. How can sin be fortunate?
Let us begin our exposition with a thought that I heard in the name of Reb Nachman Kossover *** about the mishnah in Avos: **** המהלך בדרך יחידי ומפנה לבו לבטלה הרי זה מתחייב בנפשו, One who travels alone and turns his mind to being devoid [of Torah] is deserving of death. Observing that the syntax would be more accurate as המהלך יחידי בדרך, R. Nachman renders: One who goes on the path of the Unique One – i.e., a righteous person – yet has some minor ulterior motivation in doing so, is deserving of death. That is, someone of such a lofty level is held accountable for the slightest shortcoming in the quality of his piety – a lacking would go unnoticed vis-à-vis the average person.
This theme found expression in a thought offered by the Maggid, Reb Mendel, regarding the Parah Adumah. The conundrum of that mitzvah, of course, is that its ritual process purifies the impure while rendering the pure impure. Reb Mendel took this to allude to Avodas Hashem with ulterior motives. For an impure person, i.e., someone of a lower spiritual stature, it can be purifying – that is, a positive experience. For the average Jew, any Torah or mitzvos that he can be engaged in, for whatever reason, is beneficial. Yet, for a pure person – someone already spiritually advanced – such engagement will be of a net loss. As the Sages say, it defiles him.
This is the inner meaning of our verse. Any meal-offering that you shall offer to Hashem shall not be made leavened. Leaven, as the Sages***** characterize it, is symbolic of the baser side of a person. One’s service of Hashem must be leaven-free, devoid of any impure motivation. As the verse continues, for you shall not burn up any yeast or honey as a fire-offering to Hashem. Dough-rising yeast alludes to an inflated ego, and honey to physical pleasures. Both are anathema to the divine altar; both must be excised from the mindset of the servant of Hashem.
But – the reader of the Torah will object – isn’t there a concept of מתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה? If nothing less than absolute sincerity is countenanced, what room is there for תורה שלא לשמה?
To this the Torah responds with the following verse. ‘קרבן ראשית תקריבו אותם לה, these motivators are appropriate for one’s youthful first steps into piety. Being that one cannot expect utter negation of the self at this tender age, it is then that one’s offerings can be laced with the ego-inducing yeast and the sweetening of honey to habituate him to a lifestyle of service of Hashem. But it must be borne in mind that ואל המזבח לא יעלו לריח ניחח, although these offerings are allowed, they are not legitimized; at no time are they considered a pleasant fragrance to Hashem. It is only a pragmatic dispensation predicated on the hope that מתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה, that it will lead to proper Avodah. As such, Tosafos’ difficulty doesn’t get off the ground: the positive passage in Pesachim refers to the allowance made; the negative passage in Berachos, to the intrinsic value of this service.
Having treated these verses, let us tackle the usage of אשרי in regard to the royal sin. ******
The Talmud Yerushalmi ******* tells us that Shmuel ha-Navi was successful in his prayers for the forgiveness of the nation’s shortcomings through his “donning the tunic of the Jewish People.” What does this mean? I believe that this can be understood through the following parable: There was once a wayward prince who abandoned his life in the palace, preferring to conduct himself as a commoner. Despite the best efforts of the noblemen and courtiers, he could not be convinced, cajoled, or pressured to recant. Finally, one advisor had an idea. He exchanged his royal ware for that of a peasant and made the prince’s acquaintance. By presenting himself as someone relatable, he was able to gain the lad’s confidence and gradually guide him back to his former life.
Sometimes, the tzaddik of the generation is so removed from his contemporaries due to his otherworldly piety that they cannot relate to him, rendering him ineffective in influencing them for the better. As such, he needs to don the “common ware” (clothing often serving as a metaphor for one’s character traits), i.e., the failings and shortcomings of the average man, allowing them a point of intersection. ******** This is what is meant that Shmuel donned the tunic of his generation. *********
The verse immediately before the words אשר נשיא יחטא concludes חטאת הקהל הוא, which can be rendered “it is a sin of the congregation.” Taken together, these verses are telling us that if the public is suffering from spiritual failings, and their leader, in an effort to assist them, lowers himself somewhat so that they will able to relate to him – such a generation deserves the accolade of אשרי, they are fortunate to have such leadership.
With this background, we may suggest an explanation of a curious halachah found in the Talmud Yerushalmi ********** and codified in the Shulchan Aruch, *********** that בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות, synagogues and study halls must be searched for chametz before Pesach. Now, if, as mentioned above, chametz is symbolic of the yetzer ha-ra, why would it be found in these holy spaces? This is particularly troubling regarding the study hall, to which we are told in the Talmud ************ to drag our yetzer ha-ra so as to have it “melted down or shattered;” how does the yetzer ha-ra manage to survive there?*************
The answer lies in the aforementioned explanation of ‘כל שאור וכל דבש לא תקטירו ממנו אשה לה, that the pursuit of honor and material benefits have no place in the service of Hashem. How then is it that, in reality, the opposite is true: the culture of the synagogue and the study hall revolvesaround these matters. Consider how much attention is paid to the honors distributed during services, with aliyos and privileged seating predicated on the social hierarchy of the community. And how much effort is expended within the study hall jostling for recognition of one’s scholarship so as to advance one’s social mobility. The Torah itself addresses this paradox in the following verse: ‘קרבן ראשית תקריבו אותם לה. Indeed, it is an evil necessary to encourage individuals to seek public office or service, without which communal life would grind to a halt. But, in truth, אל המזבח לא יעלו לריח ניחח, at its core, religiosity of such nature is undesirous to Hashem. As such, unfortunately, it is indeed our synagogues and study halls that need the most thorough of cleaning from the chametz of ego that they are rife with (not to mention the mundane prattle, quarrelling, jealousy and other social ills that are endemic there).
Along these lines we can offer a novel reading of the opening words of Pesachim, אור לי"ד בודקין את החמץ לאור הנר, on the eve of the fourteenth [of Nissan] we search for chametz by the light of a lamp. As is well known, ************** until a boy turns thirteen years of age, he is inhabited by his yetzer ha-ra alone; subsequently, it is joined by his yetzer tov. At that point he receives the potential to overwhelm his yetzer ha-ra with the light of the mitzvos that he has been empowered with. As Mishlei *************** states, כי נר מצוה, for a mitzvah is a lamp. Thus, the mishnah teaches, on the eve of the fourteenth, that is, just after the thirteenth year is completed and a lad has received his yetzer tov, he can search for chametz, i.e., the evil that has been strewn about him by his yetzer ha-ra, by the light of a lamp, through his newfound connection to the luminescent force of mitzvos.
To carry the analogy a step further: מדאורייתא, Scripturally, it is sufficient to merely mentally nullify all of the chametz in one’s domain to avoid transgressing its possession during Pesach. Chazal, however, instituted that one must search his quarters down to every crack and crevice, so that all chametz can be actually destroyed. The logic behind this stricture is that, unlike most other prohibited food items, we regularly consume chametz year-round. There is therefore a reasonable concern that if one should encounter chametz in his home over the course of Pesach, the lack of aversion would allow for easy transgression. Similarly, strictly speaking, one has the capacity to rectify his misdeeds through a mere mental act, through sincere regret and a commitment to turn a new leaf. But since we are so habituated to our sinful habits, it is necessary to manually remove them through the many activities and programs prescribed for a thorough Teshuvah. ****************
In conclusion, we can offer a new explanation of the famous teaching about Purim, ***************** that one is obligated to inebriate himself to the point that he can no longer distinguish between “Accursed is Haman” and “Blessed is Mordechai.” To do so, let us travel halfway across the calendar to a mishnah in Succah: ****************** הישן תחת המיטה בסוכה לא יצא ידי חובתו, one who sleeps under a bed within the sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation [to dwell within a sukkah]. The bed here can be taken as a metaphor for the human experience. If one makes his bed as he should, it will be available for him to enjoy a good night’s rest. Similarly, if man utilizes his time in this world to prepare for the next, he will enjoy its spiritual repose after he is laid to rest in the soil. Yet, One who sleeps, i.e., he fritters away his lifetime unconscious to his responsibilities, under, or (as תחת can be rendered) “in lieu of,” the bed, the engagement with those responsibilities, he has not fulfilled his obligation, he has not lived up to the purpose of his existence.
With this connotation of “bed” in hand, we can unravel the Purim imperative to drink hard. Man is a hybrid being, composed of a coarse physical side, subject to all of the curses of earthiness, as well as a refined spiritual side, source of all blessedness that the soul is disposed to. Man’s goal in life is to utilize the Torah and mitzvos to elevate the former to the degree that it is sublimated within the latter, allowing the soul’s blessings to flow freely through its bodily casing.
As such, חייב אינש לבסומי בפוריא, man is obligated to “sweeten,” that is, to refine, his corporeality during his tenure in his פוריא, which, in its sense as “bed,” refers to life in this world. To what degree? To the point that one cannot distinguish between the naturally accursed body and the naturally blessed soul, for the former will have been elevated to match the latter.
_________________________________________________________
* 50b.
** 17a.
*** Reb Nachman Kossover (d. 1746) was a kabbalist and chassid in Kuty, Ukraine. He initially opposed the Besht; even after accepting his legitimacy, Reb Nachman remained only peripherally associated with his circle. The Toldos and other students of the Besht quote many of his teachings.
**** 3:4.
***** Zohar, 1:226b.
****** The following two paragraphs are drawn from the Toldos in Yisro, p. 380 (Eichen ed.), and Naso, p. 881.
******* Ta’anis 2:7.
******** [Although the author here describes this as “joining the public through sin,” we would assume that he is not advocating that the tzaddik actually commit a forbidden act. In Yisro, the example he furnishes is a rabbi who prefaces his sermons and lectures with pilpul material, which is usual characterized by an egoistic demonstration of prowess.]
********* This is also what lies behind the Talmud’s (Shabbos 119b) teaching that one who disgraces a Torah scholar is beyond repair. One can only disgrace a person for a failing on his part – real or perceived. The only reason why a Torah scholar has such failings is as described above, to make him more relatable to the pedestrian. As such, if that failing is unappreciated by that pedestrian, he has effectively sabotaged his means of being influenced by thescholar for the better. Hence, his own failings are now beyond repair. (As elucidated in the Eichen edition)
********** Pesachim 1:1.
*********** OC 433:10.
************ Kiddushin 30b.
************* While we’re on the topic, it is appropriate to mention the following: There is a popular expression אין רגע בלא פגע, literally, there is no moment without suffering. Putting a spin on it, Reb Nachman Kossover explained it as referring to the aforementioned passage in Kiddushin, אם פגע בך מנוול זה, if you encounter this debased one, i.e., the yetzer ha-ra. That is, there is no moment in which one is free of the enticements of his darker side. How does the yetzer ha-ra keep up his racket around the clock? Understandably so, open provocation to sin will only go so far. Rather, it masquerades as the yetzer tov, passing off its proposed infractions as good deeds. How then is one supposed to unmask it? By dragging the impetus into the study hall and engaging in serious prayer and study. If it is the yetzer ha-ra, it will explode from the intense spirituality. If, however, the urge to do the mitzvah persists, then you can be certain that it’s the real thing.
************** Zohar, 1:179a.
*************** 6:23.
**************** With this meaning of a lamp, or light in general, as the source for inspiration to perform mitzvos, we can render the verse (Yeshayah 5:20) הוי שמים לאור חשך, Woe to those who make light into darkness, as referring to those who pervert that capacity into a tool for more sophisticated sinning; וחשך לאור, and darkness into light, to add to their wantonness, they pass it off as righteousness. The verse continues, שמים מר למתוק ומתוק למר, they make the bitter into sweet and the sweet into bitter. As we see in the incident of the Mei Merivah (Shemos 15:25, see Tanchuma 24), sometimes a bitter matter can be sweetened through an even more bitter one. This can be taken in two ways. One is that sometimes suffering can be a catalyst to move beyond more moderate hardship. Take, for example, R. Akiva, who was encouraged to commit himself to learning despite his poverty upon hearing of the more desperate conditions of the “beggar” at the door (Nedarim 50a). Another is that spiritual maladies, similar to physical ones, can be healed through the bitter medicine of harsh reproof. The wicked, however, ignore all of this. Rather, they make the bitter into sweet, considering their wicked deeds as righteous ones; and the sweet into bitter, passing up the sweet words of reproofas being too bitter to bear.
***************** Megillah 7b.
****************** 2:1.