ר"ע תיתד תונויצל ינויערה גוחה ,םולשו זוע
The Book of Leviticus is called the "Laws of the Priests" and the early Torah portions of Leviticus indeed deal with the service of the priests and the process of anointing and preparing them for their priestly duties. However, the latter Torah portions in Leviticus mainly relate to purification and sanctification of the people of Israel. Only in the Torah portion of Emor do we return to the subject of priestly purification and sanctification. The Torah portion first deals with the sanctification of the people of Israel before that of the priest because the holiness of the priest emanates from the holiness of the whole of Israel. Without holiness of the people as a whole - of Knesset Israel - the priest cannot be holy. Support for this idea can be brought from the Torah portion of Acharei Mot regarding the Yom Kippur service. In regards to the sin offering of the people, it is written that the priest will "atone for himself and his family and for the entire community of Israel." Why does the priest, who already sacrificed two sin offerings for himself and his family, include himself in the confessions of the people's sin offering? As long as there is no atonement for the people, the High Priest is still deficient and can only be purified through the sacrifice of a sin offering for the people.
We find a verse about Moses in Ki Tissa that also refers to the idea that the holiness and greatness of a leader depends on the people: "Go down because your people have become corrupt." The Talmud (Brachot 32) remarks about this passage that "the Almighty said, 'Come down from your greatness. The greatness I gave was to Israel not to you and now that Israel has sinned, where is your greatness?'" (Similarly, when Rabbi Ovadia Yosef called Prime Minister Netanyahu a "blind goat", he did not intend his statement as a personal criticism rather as a moral criticism towards the public to improve their ways).
As we see, the holiness of our leaders emanates from the people and the holiness of the people itself is derived from its existence as a community. In the book "On Repentance", Rabbi Soloveitchik states that the individual is atoned on Yom Kippur by sending the goat to Azazel which is the sacrifice for the people as a whole. Only when individuals serve and come together as one whole people, can they be atoned as the people of Israel as a community achieve atonement. This idea is also found in The Holidays and the Life and Thought of Rabbi Abraham Yitzchak Kook. In the section of the Haggadah about the evil child who separates himself from his people, the child rejected the principle that the people of Israel must be one united whole, and damaging this unity destroys the essence of the people.
In this Torah portion, the subject of creating a community and unity arises when referring to two holidays. First, as previously mentioned, during Yom Kippur we are atoned as part of Knesset Israel. In the words of Rabbi Soloveichik, "The Jew who has lost his or her belief in Knesset Israel and even sanctifies and purifies himself through severe restrictions and prohibitions is not ready to be part of the service of Yom Kippur, which includes all of Knesset Israel and all of its parts throughout the generations." Regarding the second holiday, Succot, according to the well-known Midrash each of the four species symbolizes one of the four kinds of Jew: the etrog - has Torah and good deeds; lulav - has Torah but not good deeds; myrtle - has goods deeds without Torah; and willow - has neither Torah nor good deeds; and what does the Holy One do? He cannot deny His people, but must bring them together so that each will atone for the other." In addition, Succot was chosen to be a communal holiday, symbolizing unity.
What is this unity based on? According to Rav Kook the glue bringing the people of Israel together is the collective spirit - the spirit of G-d. If, according to Rabbi Soloveitchik, our spirituality promotes unity, one of the elements contributing to the fragmentation of our people is materialism. One of the ways, then, to foster unity is to de-emphasize the importance of materialism. This Torah portion contains some relevant passages about Yom Kippur and Succot and the idea of unity. "And you shall afflict your souls" - what is the affliction? Five corporeal pleasures are prohibited on Yom Kippur: eating, drinking, washing, wearing leather, and sexual intercourse. According to the Midrash, on Yom Kippur the people of Israel are likened to ministering angels without any physicality, and in this way we attain unity (see Ramban 16:8). According to the Midrash "as the ministering angels of peace mediate among themselves, the Israel of peace mediates among themselves on Yom Kippur."
On Sukkot we also encounter the idea of redirecting our lives away from materialism. Sukkot, the harvest celebration, should be the high point of materialism in the year. On this holiday, though, we are commanded to leave our comfortable homes and shrink ourselves by dwelling in booths. The author of Akedat Yitzhak writes about the sukkah: "People should leave all economic matters - business, most income-bearing endeavors, and that connected with possessions and go out to this small sukkah, a fundamental realization that human beings should not seek to increase their material possessions, except for what is absolutely necessary." Minimizing our preoccupation with our individual needs is insufficient. The second element in the creation of a community is the concern for the welfare of the other person. In his book "The Man of Faith", Rabbi Soloveichik distinguishes between the first man in Chapter 1 of Genesis and the first man in Chapter 2 of Genesis. One of the differences is the capacity of the first man in Chapter 2 to create a community of prayer and covenant, which the first man in Chapter 1 is unable to do. "Only the first man in Chapter 2 knows the art of prayer since he faces G-d when petitioning for the many. The first man in Chapter 1, who is egocentric and consumed with himself, does not earn the privilege of belonging to the community of prayer and covenant…"
This idea is one of the main messages of Yom Kippur and is expressed in the Haftorah reading of the Yom Kippur morning service: "Is not this the fact I have chosen? To lose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bonds of oppression, to let the crushed go free, and to break every yoke?…Then you will call and G-d will answer. You will cry, and He will say, 'Here I am.'" Only when social justice becomes an integral value in our lives can we be part of the community, the community of prayer, and our prayers can be accepted. In the midst of describing the holidays the Torah reminds us of the seemingly unrelated commandment, "when harvesting your land, leave the ends of your field." Even while observing the holidays, when time is spent serving G-d, we may not neglect the other person. From Torah portion Emor we learn about the meaning of true unity. We are now at the height of the election season with much discussion taking place about divisiveness among our people and the need to mend the many fractures. The way to mend these fractures is not through a magic formula where each individual forfeits a portion of his or her values and principles to reach a compromise. We will attain true unity when we understand that Knesset Israel cannot be divided and each one of us must see his or her community as an inseparable part of Israel and not representing a separate group or sub-group within the whole. If we are able to rise above our own egocentricity, we will be able to put our individual and group needs aside and see the true needs of the community - social justice, equality, economic growth, and the building of peace in our region.
Mati Hershkovitz is a graduate of Yeshiva University and lives in Petah Tikvah.
(Reactions to the article by Professor Abraham Yitzhak Green in Shabbat Shalom 75)
Although I identify with your ideas and enjoy your articles very much, I
reacted very negatively to Abraham Yitzhak Green's article which appeared
in the Shabbat HaGadol issue of Shabbat Shalom. His statement we should
view the plight of the Palestinian people as an expression of this
generation's experience with oppression seems inappropriate. We should
not use this complex and controversial issue when bringing the memory of
leaving Egypt into the present. As I do not wish to dialogue with those
in favor of ruling over the Palestinian people, Green's article is naive
and superfluous. It is also disturbing to read about these ideas in an
article written by an individual who does not reside in Israel.
Alex Isaaacs, Jerusalem
I am writing to protest the unfortunate decision to print the last two
sections of A.Y. Green's article.
One of the major strengths of Shabbat Shalom is its presentation of
Jewish sources which uphold the values of peace and tolerance and allows
the sources to speak for themselves. The extreme politicization in the
above sections violates this principle, creates divisiveness and hinders
the objectives of the movement and its power to effect change among the
wider public. I hope this publication will continue to conform to its
usual standard and not be drawn into printing political "impressions".
The stature of the writer should not have any bearing on the decision to
include an article in this publication.
Dr. David Gilad, Beer-Sheva
Although we should never withhold the freedom of speech, I am writing to
protest the printing of this article in Shabbat Shalom. The fact that
this article moralizes to those who live in Israel is in itself immoral.
Neither the personage nor the philosophy of the writer should be of any
consequence, certainly not regarding whether to agree or disagree with
the writer's position.
Professor Green shows his impudence as an individual who has chosen to
live in the diaspora and preach to us about fundamental issues related to
our very existence. We are all too familiar with the anti-Zionist
self-righteousness of the diasporan Jewry and the fact that the State of
Israel is not moral enough for these people. No one who is unwilling to
share our fate has the right to interfere regarding issues related to the
blood of our children or the future of our homes. If we err in our
decisions, either way, we must pay the price. As the founders of
Professor Green's nation declared "no taxation without representation",
we maintain "no representation (that is, expressing opinions) without
taxation (that is, placing your fate with us)."
This issue arouses much controversy and abounds in complexity and therefore the opinions the writers express are taken very seriously. The subjects raised in this article provoke strong emotion among all of us and I wish to thank the writers for their thoughtful comments. The ideas, though, presented in Professor Green's article are not new. Even stronger ideas, were expressed by Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz z"l over 30 years ago when few among us were aware of the heavy price paid for ruling over another people. Although the association of remembering our people's departure from Egypt was not made through references to sources, many sources exist requiring us to use this memory to fulfill moral responses in our present society ("and you shall remember because you were slaves … therefore I command you..."). Political implications resulting from the moral statements Professor Green expressed in this article likely created an impression of politicization and at times may have blurred the limits between making value judgements and the need for tolerance. A delicate balance exists between the "truth" (an essential quality of G-d) and "peace" (one of G-d's names). I hope we continue to be able to maintain this balance. The emotional appeals regarding the right of diaspora Jews touches on the question of their shared involvement and the participation in the fate of the Jewish people both in Israel and in the diaspora. Much contention has ensued regarding this sensitive issue and some Jews have even proposed granting Jews living outside of Israel the right to participate in Israeli elections. I think that the voices of those concerned Jews, including intellectuals such as Professor Green, should constitute part of a healthy public discussion but the right to make decisions should of course be reserved for those responsible for paying the price.
Translated by Evelyn Ophir
|
|
|
| |
| Home |
The Movement Objectives and Principles You can Help! |
What's New Activities and Current Events |
Articles and Position Papers Peace Judaism and Israel |
|
|
|
|
Weekly Parsha (Hebrew) Weekly Parsha (English) |
Search Our Site | Links To Peace Movements |
Contact Us
OZ veSHALOM - NETIVOT SHALOM
P.O. Box 4433, Jerusalem, 91043 Israel
Tel: 02-5664218, for Shabbat Shalom only call 053-920206
ozveshalomns@gmail.com
©
Copyright 1997-2003 by Oz Veshalom. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.