Shabbat-B'Shabbato – Parshat Shemot

No 1407: 19Tevet 5772 (14January 2012)

AS SHABBAT APPROACHES

A Land Flowing with Milk and Honey - by Rabbi Mordechai Greenberg, Rosh Yeshiva, Kerem B'Yavne

The phrase "a land flowing with milk and honey" appears many times in the Torah as an expression praising the fruits of Eretz Yisrael. There are times when the Torah uses other expressions, such as: "The vine and the fig tree" [Devarim 8:8]; "Every man under his vine and under his fig tree" [Melachim I 5:5]; "For the tree has borne its fruit, the fig tree and the vine have given of their riches" [Yoel 2:22]. But why does the Torah praise the milk produced by the animals in the land and not the fruits which are the source of the milk? In addition, when the scouts returned from their mission and told about the praises of the land – "it flows with milk and honey, and this is its fruit" [Bamidbar 13:27] – why did they bring with them only "a vine and a bunch of grapes... and some figs..." [13:23]? Why didn't they bring a jug of milkwith them?

Rabbi Reuven Margaliyot gives a remarkable and quite novel answer to this question (although he is able to explain only some of the Midrashim and not all of them).

In last week's Torah portion, we read with respect to Yehuda that "he will wash his clothing in wine and his cloak in the blood of grapes" [Bereishit 49:11]. This refers to two kinds of wine – white and red. In the Midrash it is written, "'He will wash his clothing in wine' – this is referring to 'chalav' (milk?) and 'his cloak in the blood of grapes' – this is referring to the red wine." [Bereishit Rabba 98]. In Shir Hashirim, "I have drunk my wine with my milk" [5:1], is interpreted in the Targum as "red wine and white wine." Torat Shlomo brings another proof from the book "Ma'adanei Yom Tov" quoting a scholar from Eretz Yisrael that at the time when the book was written white wine was called "chalbon," and that it was used to wash clothing instead of water. This is what Yaacov meant when he said, "white teeth from 'chalav'" [Bereishit 49:12] – that white wine leads to happiness. Thus, the word "chalav" means not only milk but also white wine. The "land of milk and honey" is a land which can be praised for its white wine and for the sweetness of its fruit. The Torah mentions the white wine before the honey because this is the best and most wholesome type of wine, and for this reason its blessing is recited first (Maharsha, Ketuvot 111).

In a note in his book, Rabbi Maraliyot brings another proof of this idea, quoting Rabbi Shabtai Segal, based on the fact that the tribes of Gad and Reuven chose to take possession of the other side of the Jordan River because "it is a land for livestock, and your servants have livestock" [Bamidbar 32:4]. But this is hard to understand: Why is it written in the tractate of Bechorot that the first fruits of Bikurim are not brought from the land across the Jordan because "it does not flow with milk and honey"? If it is indeed a land suited to growing sheep, it must of necessity give good yields of milk from the animals! This implies that the word "chalav" is not milk, but as noted above refers to white wine.

Another light note is attributed to Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook. Milk and honey are items which are extracted from a source that is at first glance impure, but they are in fact kosher. Milk comes out of a living animal, and honey comes from an insect. This is the real praise of Eretz Yisrael, that it "flows with milk and honey" – it can transform something that is impure to a pure substance, and Jews who come to the land who are sick in their souls and in their deeds can be cured and be returned to good health.

POINT OF VIEW

"Exclusion of Women"Revisitied - by Rabbi Yisrael Rozen, Dean of the Zomet Institute

"And a man went from the House of Levi, and he married a daughter of Levi" [Shemot 2:1].

The subject of "exclusion of women" continues to be a hot topic in the media – and therefore on a cultural level – to a degree that is both very broad and beyond all reasonable proportion. Very few rational voices have been heard within this very loud and generalized framework. Since everybody is deeply involved in this subject and everybody is pounding it into a pulp with all their energy, I feel that I should add some marginal points to the subject, specifically with respect to three sectors.

The IDF

Does anybody remember how this issue sprung up? It was in the IDF officer's training base, "Bahad 1," when some cadets who are yeshiva students were expelled from a course after they refused to follow the orders of their commander, who commanded them to remain in the audience and listen to women singing. The subject grew and evolved until itmade an impression on the entire public sector in Israel (and even the Department of State in the United States, which took it upon itself to reprimand Israel in this matter). The spark that was lit in the IDF swelled by leaps and bounds, leading to the following stages: a military trial; involvement of rabbis from many different angles; a declaration by the Chief of Staff; feverish discussions by the IDF chaplaincy in a search for some sort of compromise; involvement of the Chief Rabbis of Israel; setting up a committee in the Manpower Division of the IDF to establish appropriate rules for this situation; the resignation of the Chief Chaplain of the Air Force from his job as head of the "Shachar" project (where Chareidimare invited to join the ranks of the Air Force); the possibility that he will be fired from his job at the IDF (as things stand when this article is being written), with a danger that this very successful project will be scrapped. And all of this "for want of a nail" that was pounded in (or removed) by a foolish IDF officer standing on principle the way he saw it.

The flame that has been ignited in the IDF will cause damage to the army itself. The wisest of all men wrote, "One who digs a pit will fall into it, and one who rolls a stone will have it return to him" [Mishlei 26:27]. A wise person learns to bypass problems and not to make them into a burning issue. It would have been much better for the commanding officer if when this issue began to surface at Bahad 1 he would have been satisfied with a reprimand, a personal note in the soldiers' files, and a fitting apology. Nobody is required to let himself be dragged in the wake of the media, which always thirsts for more and bigger scandals.

I have a dire feeling that in the social and media atmosphere that has developed we will all lose not only the talents of the yeshiva students who were integrated so well into the IDF (and who have been praised by all who came into contact with them), but that we are in danger of losing the very concept of this very commendable integration. Havingthousands of Chareidi soldiers join the IDF is a dramatic move that can have consequences for all of Israel. It would be a pity to lose this novel development because of one discordant note.

The Religious Zionist Sector

I wrote about this issue in my column for the Torah portion of Mikeitz (Chanukah, Issue 1404). The title of my article was "'Special Piety' in Excluding Women." My main theme was that not every "separation" is "exclusion," but that on the other hand I am not comfortable with exaggeratedly pious cases of separation. I wrote, "I support having mixed seating in our sector at weddings, for social reasons that I have discussed in this column in the past." Some of my readers searched for my earlier comments and could not find them. I was thoroughly amazed! But they are right – it turns out that I didn't write about this in my column but rather in a local newspaper. So, I will repeat my position now, since I know full well that this issue is often a bone of contention between sets of parents or between a new couple and their parents.

The Holy One, Blessed be He, was very kind to our generation in giving us Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who was inclined to permit mixed seating at weddings. He gives his halachic sources for this ruling in his responsa (Igrot Moshe Orach Chaim 48). About 400 years before him, the author of the Levush wrote, "People are not careful about this matter nowadays. Perhaps this is because women often appear together with men, and this does not lead to sinful thoughts sinceit is a common practice." [Likutei Minhagim 36, quoted by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Yavia Omer, Orach Chaim volume 6, 13]. There is reliable testimony that Rabbi Feinstein ruled a priori that his family members should have "mixed marriages" (that is, with mixed seating...), whichhe attended too.

For reasons of social necessity that provides great benefits, we often act a priori in a way that was in the past accepted only after the fact (as is also true in other subjects). It is very importanttoday to strengthen the family and community units, and having married couples sit together at a wedding together with friends or even with couples from another generation enhances this effect. We appear as couples at various affairs, and forced separation specifically at weddings carries with it a ring of excessive haughtiness and createsunnecessary feelings of opposition to halacha. In addition, often one of the couple accompanies his or her mate to a wedding and is then left isolated when forced to sit among a group of complete strangers.

Therefore, I do not object to mixed seating at weddings, and I am perfectly willing to accept the fact that "I have broad shoulders to lean on." On the other hand, I do not recommend and even object to mixed tables of unmarried guests, friends of the groom and of the bride together, "young men and also maidens" [Tehillim 148:12]. Let them meet in the lobby, the buffet and the well lit entrance ways, there is no need for them to sit together.

The Chareidi Sector

In my earlier article, I mentioned exaggerated piety in exclusion of women from the Chareidi sector, specifically, "the blocking of women voters at neighborhood polls in Jerusalem (we saw pictures of this in local elections in Jerusalem a mere two weeks ago)." My sources include the general media, who prey on the Chareidi sector, and I was therefore very happy to receive "a strong protest and a demand for an apology" from a member of the Chareidi sector who testified that he was in charge of the neighborhood elections where it was reported that women were excluded (and that he reads our column regularly). He wrote that "a simpleton who isalso a fool made some noise which everybody ignored. On the other hand, dozens of rabbis, politicians, and public figures stood in line with the women to vote," and that I did not write about them.

Please accept my sincere apology, my dear reader! We have been made wiser, and once again we have been taught the absolute truth of the well known phrase: "It is always the fault of the media!"

LET YOUR WELLSPRINGS BURST FORTH

Two Paths, and a Third OneToo - by Rabbi Moshe Shilat, Director of "The Torah of Chabad for Yeshiva Students"

We have a body and a soul, and there are three ways to relate to the almost impossible gap between the two: To live with the body and make a little bit of room for the soul; to live with the soul and shunt the body off to one side; or, not to ignore either one of these elements and to bring about fruitful cooperation between our physical and our spiritual aspects.

If we widen our viewpoint, we will see that the tension that exists in the "small" world – consisting of every individual'sbody and soul – is in essence the same tension that exists in the large world, between the material facet of the world and the Divine nature within it.

The first approach of the three possibilities listed above is the simple and most common waythat we serve G-d. It consists of fully participating in this world, "accepting" its reality and limitations, and feeling comfortable living here, even though the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not fully revealed in the world, at least not in the usual sense of the word. Of course this includes living according to the laws of the Torah, observing the mitzvot and refraining from sin, setting aside regular times for Torah study, and attempting to perform deeds in the name of heaven. But in the end this means living a "normal" life and not a "spiritual" one for the entire length of every day. In this approach, the Holy One, Blessed be He, "remains" in the synagogue and does not burst out into the street. Matters pertaining to Torah and the mitzvot are kept separate from matters pertaining to this world. The body takes the lead, and the soul is relegated to its own small corner.

The second approach refuses to accept that G-d remains hidden within the laws of nature. We might say that there is really no such thing as nature in the world. Or, in other words, there really is no such thing as "the world." Such an outlook leads to total dedication to the internal life of the soul, defiance, and "ignoring" the real world, including having nothing to do with bodily matters, out of a desire to rise up ever and ever higher. Such a path is not suitable or proper for most people, except for completely righteous people whose existence in the world is a signpost for the rest of us – a sign that reminds us all that the fact that the Almighty is "concealed" within the world is merely an illusion.

Quotes that support this point of view can be found in Chassidic literature, but this was not an innovation of Chassidic thought.

* * * * * *

According to the third approach, which was developed and is encouraged by the Chassidic viewpoint, it is possible to look at the world in a different way. It is possible and indeed necessary to serve G-d from "within" the world – neither to give up on maintaining a high spiritual level, nor on the other hand to stop acting in a normal way. We should be able to live with both the soul and the body. We should strive for a status where the physical aspects not only do not interfere but even join together with the spiritual, so much so that the spiritual world will no longer be seen as different from the physical one.

This third approach is not the result of a compromise, rather it is much more demanding than the first two. The third approach means to take hold of the rope from both ends at the same time. Just as in this approach the body can have no rest, so the soul has no rest either. It is not possible to surrender to the directives of the physical world in this approach, but ignoring the material realm is not a true solution to the problems either.

Know Him in all Your Ways

The usual way to serve G-d corresponds to the Mishna: "All your deeds should be in the name of heaven" [Avot 2:12]. Physical matters involve the physical world, but our intention must be for this to be a basis for our service of G-d – at another time, later on. This Chassidic approach can be described by the verse, "Know Him in all your ways" [Mishlei 3:6]. From our pathways and our deeds we can become acquainted with G-d and learn to experience His existence. We can learn to accept the viewpoint that the world is a reflection of G-d and not something that exists independently.

The vital soul (the "nefesh") is a middle ground between physical body and the Divine "neshama," the higher level of the soul. The vital relationship between the body and the soul can be a good model of the type of Divine service that Chassidut strives to achieve. The combination of the vital soul and the body is so complete that we do not feel that two separate things are being attached. A person feels his head or his heart as separate entities only when something is wrong. When a person is healthy, fresh, and awake, the body is not a burden that has been added to life but rather an intimate part of it. Similarly, when a person serves G-d with the proper depth, the body is not sensed as something separate from him, and it is not a burden for the soul. Everyday deeds are not a burden but can be a real part of a life of sanctity. "Know Him in all your ways."

A WOMAN'S ANGLE

"Shalom" to the First Grade - by Terza Frankel, a teacher in "Tehilla" – Evilena de Rothschild, Jerusalem

Every year when we begin to read the book of Shemot, we encounter the seasonal disquiet – the need to register the children for school next year. Which ones will begin the first grade, junior high school, or high school, or are there any who want to move to another school without any special reason? It is to the credit of the Chemed religious school authorities that they make every effort to ease the process, to delay the matter, and to make the travail of entrance exams and registration as brief as possible – in order that the wearying process will become shorter all the time and will be fair. But you may ask: What does that mean, fair? What was unfair about transparent methods based on clear criteria? Perhaps every school should be able to set its own criteria in order to build up the school according to the vision of its founders and then to choose students who will be suitable for this approach. But here we come to the crux of the problem. Who is choosing whom – does the school choose the pupils, or do the students (and the parents) choose the school? Who can decide what is best for my child – am I the best one to do this or should it be the school?