How

goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel!

(Bamidbar

24:5)

The Mishkan [Tabernacle] as Mashkon [Collateral]

On the day that Moses finished setting up the Tabernacle (Bamidbar 7:1): This relates to that which is

written: How fair are your tents, O Jacob, your dwellings, O Israel!

(24: 5)

If [he mentions] your tents, why [mention] your dwellings,

and if [he mentions] your dwellings, [why mention] your tents?

Rather, how fair are your tents refers to the tents. [As for] your

dwellings – mishkenotekha – do not read mishkenotekha, but

rather mashkonotekha [your collateral]. God told Moses: "Tell Israel to make

a Tabernacle. Then, if they sin, it will be held as collateral for them."

Know that this is so, for when they sinned it is written, God heard it and

of Shiloh, the tent He had set among men (Psalms 78:59-60) – That Tabernacle was made

for no other purpose, but only so that when they sinned they could use it as

collateral.

(Tanhuma Naso 14)

How goodly are your tents R. Yohanan said: From the

blessings of that wicked man you may learn his intentions: Thus he wished to

curse them that they [the Israelites] should possess no synagogues or houses of

study – [this is deduced from] How goodly are your tents, O Jacob; that

the Shekhinah should not rest upon them – and your dwelling places, O Israel;

that their kingdom should not endure – As the valleys are they spread forth;

that they have no olive trees and vineyards – as gardens by the river's side;

that their odor not be fragrant – as aloes which the Lord has planted;

that their kings not be tall – and as cedar trees beside the waters;

that they not have a king the son of a king – He shall pour the water out of

his buckets; that their kingdom not rule over other nations – and his

seed shall be in many waters; that their kingdom not be strong – and his

king shall be higher than Agag; that their kingdom not be awe-inspiring – and

his kingdom shall be exalted. R. Abba b. Kahana said: All of them reverted

to a curse, excepting the synagogues and houses of study, for it is

written, But the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing for you,

because the Lord your God loved thee; the curse, but not the curses.

(Yalkut Shimoni

Balak 247)

And to walk modestly with your God

Deborah

Weissman

The haftora for

parashat Balak contains one of Scripture's best known and most quoted verses: He

justice, to love loving-kindness, and to walk modestly with your God

(Micah 6:8).

It seems that this verse is usually interpreted in very narrow terms – "modesty"

is understood as referring to proper relations between males and females; sometimes

it is even further restricted to the notion that women must take care not to

entice men with their manner of dress or behavior. During the 1980s Rabbi

Elyakim G. Ellinson, z"l, produced a series of three books under the title

Ha'Isha VeHaMitzvot [Woman and the Commandments]. The second book

was called Hatznei'a Lekhet [Walk Modestly] and it was

entirely concerned with separation of the sexes, dress, and various

prohibitions against yihud [a man and a woman being together in a

private space]. It must be said to R. Ellinson's credit that he did make some

comments upon proper male attire as well; however, he was only concerned about

what men wear while praying or studying Torah. Interest in these matters seems

to have intensified among religious Zionists over the past few years, and it

has also been the subject of deep and critical discussion within the Kolekh

organization.

Interestingly, in Sukka 49b, we find the

Sages interpreting the verse from Micah along different lines: "do justice – that is the law; to love

loving-kindness – that is acts of kindness; and to walk modestly with

your God – that is attending to funerals and paying a bride's

wedding-dowry."

Rashi's

commentary on the Talmudic dictum points out that the term walking is

used in relation to both attending to the dead and provisioning a bride:

"For [in the verse] is written [the word] 'walk': Better to walk to the

mourner's house than to the house of feasting (Kohelet 7:2). Modesty is required there as well;

to eat in moderation and rejoice in moderation… and some say: If he has to

spend [money] on the funeral of a poor person or the wedding expenses of a poor

bride – let him do it modestly [or: discreetly]."

In

his discussion of this topic, Rabbi Adin Even-Yisrael [Steinsaltz] adds that

"the Me'iri's explains that this is talking generally about funerals and

eulogies for the dead and the wedding expenses of a bride; that even though

these take place publically and before a large number of people, in any event

everything should be done moderately and within limits. Even in these matters,

one should not go overboard." That is to say: walk modestly is not

necessarily concerned with the length of a girl's sleeve or skirt, but rather with

what has been called "conspicuous consumption."

Conspicuous

consumption is no less a social problem today than it was in the Middle Ages or

in the days of the Sages. Many people try to display their material wealth in

weddings and funerals, events that actually require modesty and simplicity. It

is not hard to imagine huge weddings involving hundreds or even thousands of

participants, taking place in magnificent halls, in which there is no contact –

not even eye-contact – (God forbid!) between men and women, and hardly any

between the bride and groom themselves. Are these "modest weddings"? Lest

I be suspected of attacking a particular community, I must immediately add that

there have been ultra-Orthodox leaders – including, for instance, the Gerer

Rebbe – who commanded their followers to limit both the number of people

invited to weddings as well as the cost of food served there. Ostentatiousness

is a problem that crosses the lines that divide Jews from each other and from

other peoples.

I

would like to bring up the link between "modesty" [tzniyut]

and "humility" [anava]. In this connection, let us consider

one of my favorite piyyutim [liturgical poems] – Ha'aderet Veha’emuna

twenty-two lines long, one for each letter of the Hebrew alphabet. It is also

called Lehai Ha'olamim, an expression bearing multiple meanings. The

Hebrew word olam can refer to both time and space, as in the title of an

even more popular piyyut: Adon Olam. Our Sephardic brothers include Ha'aderet

Veha’emuna in the Psukei Dezimra [psalms of praise] recited on

Shabbat morning, following Psalm 136. Ashkenazim sing the piyyut in a rather

jocular fashion during the Hakafot on Simhat Torah, inserting the

Yiddish words Tzu vemen? Tzu vemen? In the middle of each line. This

creates pairs of questions and answers: "Wondrous power and faithfulness –

To Whom? To Whom? – To the One Who lives forever." Both Sephardim and

Ashkenazim sing the piyyut on Yom Kippur, using a variety of tunes:

Wondrous

power and faithfulness          belong to

the One Who lives forever.

Deep

understanding and blessing           belong

to the One Who lives forever.

Mystical

power and grandeur                belong

to the One Who lives forever.

Knowledge

and speech                         belong

to the One Who lives forever.

Awesome

beauty and majesty   belong to the One Who

lives forever.

Time

and reliability                                belong

to the One Who lives forever.

Clarity

and radiance                              belong

to the One Who lives forever.

Strength

and abundance                        belong

to the One Who lives forever.

Order

and purity                                   belong

to the One Who lives forever.

Oneness

and awe                                  belong

to the One Who lives forever.

Crown

and glory                                   belong

to the One Who lives forever.

Teaching

and rapture                             belong

to the One Who lives forever.

Kingship

and dominion              belong to the

One Who lives forever.

Pure

beauty and timelessness                 belong

to the One Who lives forever.

Sublimity

and transcendence                  belong

to the One Who lives forever.

Might

and humility                                 belong

to the One Who lives forever.

Splendor

and miracle                            belong

to the One Who lives forever.

Desire

and just measure                        belong

to the One Who lives forever.

Calling

“Sacred”                                   belongs

to the One Who lives forever.

Melody

and exaltedness                        belong

to the One Who lives forever.

Song

and praise                                    belong

to the One Who lives forever.

Psalm

and magnificence                         belong

to the One Who lives forever.

(Translation: Prof. David R. Blumenthal, http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/Ha-Aderet%20veha-Emuna.htm

)

Ha'aderet

Veha’emuna comes from Judaism's mystical literature; it has roots in

Hekhalot Rabbati, a text that has apparently has its origins in the days

of the Talmudic Sages. The medieval Hassidei Ashkenaz thought it was an angelic

song. I have come across two approaches to its interpretation. Prof. Daniel

Goldschmidt, following the celebrated Kabbalah researcher, Gershom Scholem,

claims that there is no logical connection between the poem's various lines and

that it is simply intended to praise God.

An alternative interpretation has it that

each pair of attributes combines two opposites. God can contain all these

contradictions within Himself, an impossible feat for us mere mortals. This internal

tension is perhaps most salient in the line of the letter nun: Hanoy

vehanetzah: "Pure

beauty and timelessness."

The

19^th century English poet John Keats did write: "A thing of

beauty is a joy forever," but as mere mortals we are all too aware that

life is but a "wilting bud," to quote the author of the piyyut, Unetaneh

Tokef. The most beautiful of flowers do not last more than a few days. Pure

beauty and timelessness conflict with each other in our human world. This motif

of contradiction might be found in other lines of the piyyut, such as the

juxtaposition of "Deep understanding and blessing" when considered in

the light of the saying "More knowledge, more worries." "Mystical power and grandeur" are

also in tension with each other. "Knowledge and speech" form a funny

pair, since we sometimes see that people who talk a lot have nothing

interesting to say.

I

want to claim that there is one pair of attributes which we must strive to

achieve in combination. These are found in the line of the letter ayin:

Ha'oz veha'anava ["Might

and humility"]. We must be strong at many levels – individual,

communal, and national. That is "might." But we must also be

cognizant of the limitations of power, and certainly of the limitations of

aggressiveness. By mere coincidence or divine providence (I will leave it up to

you to decide which) we find ourselves in the year TaShA [ending with the

letter ayin]. May it be God's will that at least the remainder of this

year be one of might but also of humility.

Dr. Deborah Weissman is a founder of

Kehilat Yedidya in Jerusalem,

and is involved in education and interfaith dialogue

Why Have You

towards all Creatures

The angel of the

Lord said to him, "Why have you beaten your she-donkey…?" (Bamidbar 22:32) The angel came to him to redress

a she-donkey's humiliation, and said to him: Even though this she-donkey lacks

merit or the patriarch's covenant, I claim its redress from you, all the more

so [will I act on behalf of] the entire nation which you seek to annihilate.

(Tanhuma Balak 10)

As for their dictum:

"[To avoid causing] suffering to animals is [an injunction to be found] in

the Torah" (Shabbat 128b) – in which

they refer to its dictum – Why have you beaten your she-donkey (Bamidbar 22: 32) – it is set down with a view

to perfecting us so that we should not acquire moral habits of cruelty and

should not inflict pain gratuitously without any utility, but that we should

intend to be kind and merciful even with a chance animal individual, except in

the case of need – for you have the urge to eat meat (Devarim 12: 20) – for we must not kill out of

cruelty or for sport.

(RaMBaM, Guide of the Perplexed

3:17, based on Pines' translation)

Balaam's Ass: Reality,

Dream or Prophecy?

And

the Lord opened the ass's mouth: It seems that this was also a

demand of the moment. It was needed in order to show him that he was like

the ass, for whom it was not natural to speak, but whose mouth was opened

by the Lord for Israel's

sake. Similarly, the Lord temporarily opened Balaam's mouth to prophesize for Israel's sake,

and to keep the nations from saying, "If only we had prophets, we would

repent."

(Kli Yakar Bamidbar 22:23)

And

the Lord opened the ass's mouth: According to the plain meaning,

the ass's speech was a great miracle and unnatural, and it occurred for

Israel's sake, for the Holy One blessed be He performed a wonder and changed

the plan of Creation by having an animal speak in order to say that even an

animal can recognize and know that this mission [of cursing Israel] was

improper. It is like a man who says that the mountains should cover him over

and the hills should fall on him, and there is no need to mention the human

race, for it is intelligent, for even the mindless animal understands that it

is wrong to curse the people, for it is blessed.

And if you understand the

passage's hidden meaning, you will find that the ass's speech is like the

snake's speech; in neither case does it come from themselves

for they have no faculty of speech. It is for this reason that the Lord

juxtaposed [the verses] and the Lord opened the ass's mouth and the

Lord uncovered Balaam's eyes, and he saw the angel of the Lord, for as soon

as she spoke and died the angel was revealed to him and spoke with him, for her

swerving from the path and pressing his leg and crouching down were three

signs. Each of hem occurred because of the angel, and there is no need to even

mention the fourth sign, i.e., [the ass's] speech.

(Rabbeinu Behayey Bamidbar 22:28)

We have explained that

wherever it is mentioned that an angel was seen or had spoken, this has

happened only in a vision of prophecy or in a dream whether this is explicitly

stated or not… And there is no difference between a

statement in which the prophet literally affirms from the first that he saw the

angel and a statement according to whose external sense the prophet at first

thought that an individual had appeared to him, whereas at the end it became

clear to him that it was an angel. For inasmuch as you find in the course of

the event that he who was seen and had spoken was an angel… And likewise the

whole story of Balaam on his way and of the she-ass speaking: all this happened

in a vision of prophecy, as it is finally made clear that an angel of the Lord

spoke to him.

(RaMBaM, Guide of the

Perplexed II:42, Pines translation)

Five things occurred to our ancestors on the 17^th of

Torah and placed an image in the sanctuary.

(Mishna Taanit 4:6)

The tablets were God's work, and the writing was God's

writing, incised upon the tablets. (Shemot

32)

Before the eyes of all Israel – His spirit moved him to

smash the tablets before their eyes, as is written, I smashed them before

your eyes, and The Holy one, Blessed Be He, assented, as is written (Shemot 34:a) Which (asher) you broke –

Yasher kokacha (may your strength continue) for smashing them.

(Rashi, Devarim 34:12)

…Do not imagine that the Temple

and the Tabernacle are – forbid – holy in themselves. The Name, May He Be

Blessed, dwells in the midst of his children, and if they behave as one who has

transgressed the covenant, all holiness is removed from them, and they are like

a vessel of sand which ruffians have defiled; Titus entered the Holy of Holies

with a harlot and yet he was not harmed, because the holiness had been removed.

Yet more, the tablets are the writing of the Lord; they, too,

are not inherently holy, but are such only for you, and when the bride is unfaithful

under the canopy, they are considered as an earthen pot with no intrinsic

sanctity, only for you who watch over them.

In summation: There is nothing holy in the world deserving of

service and submission, only the Holy One, Blessed Be He, is holy in his

inevitable existence, for him is glorious praise; all holinesses derive from

the commandment which the Creator commanded to build a Tabernacle to offer

sacrifices and offerings to The Name, Be He Blessed, alone.

(Meshekh Hokhma,

Shemot 32:19)