Click here to receive the weekly parsha by email each week.
(Vayikra
23:42)
All seven days, one makes his sukkah into [one's] regular [dwelling] and his home in to an occasional [dwelling]. If rains fall, at what point may he leave the sukkah? When the porridge becomes spoiled [by rain falling into it]. [The Sages] spun a parable: To what may this be compared - to a servant who came to pour a cup for his master, and he poured a jug on his face.
(Mishna Sukkah
2:9)
A question was asked of the scholars: Who poured on whom? Come and hear that which was taught in a braita: His master poured a jug on his face and said to him: "I do not want you to serve me."
(Sukkah 29a)
(Rashi
ad loc)
"And spread over us Your
sukkah of peace,
the sukkah of compassion, life,
and peace"
Menachem Klein
The connection between the Sukkot festival and
the megilah of Kohelet
which is customarily during the holiday seems strange. Sukkot
is "the season of our joy" while Kohelet
expresses despair, pessimism, and deep skepticism. Sukkot
is a festival with great love of life, an outburst of vitality in the wake of
the High Holy days, which were designed to impose order and discipline from
above and to encourage us to choose life. Repentance, prayer, and charity set
aside the evil decree of death. Contrastingly, in Kohelet
(2:17) we find the verse, I hated the living.
Kohelet emphasizes the vanity of our living existence
and how death - final extinction - waits at the end of every human endeavor and
at the end of every life. Life is an illusion compared to the true reality of
death and termination.
These contradictions do not arise solely out of the encounter between Kohelet and the holidays of Tishrei;
they are built into the book itself:
This book contains difficult words. Sometimes one thing is stated in
many places while its opposite is stated elsewhere. That is why the Sages of
Israel said: "The Sages wanted to hide away the Book of Kohelet because it contradicts itself." It says [both]:
Better wrath than laughter and its opposite: Be not hasty with your spirit to become
wroth, for wrath lies in the bosom of fools. And also: For in much wisdom is
much vexation, and its opposite: It
is better to go to a house of mourning. And also: And I praised joy, and its opposite: and
concerning joy [I asked], "What does this accomplish?" And also: For
what advantage has the wise man have over the fool? And its
opposite: There is an advantage to wisdom. And also: And I praised
the dead and its opposite: better a living dog [than a dead lion]. And
also: for there is neither deed nor reckoning, neither knowledge nor wisdom
in the grave. And its opposite: There is a
season for every purpose. And also: But it will not be well with the
wicked, and he will not prolong [his] days. And its
opposite: There is a wicked man who prolongs his days. And also: ...that
it will be good for those who fear God. And its
opposite: there are wicked men to whom it happens according to the deed of
the righteous. One who seeks diligently will find others like these in the
book. (Ibn Ezra on Kohelet 7:3)
Following the Sages, Ibn Ezra asks whether
this book be counted as part of Holy Scripture when "it is known that even
the least among the wise would not write a book contradicting his own words in
his own book."
This is not a question regarding one verse or another, but rather a
matter of principle. Its answer will determine the interpretive approach to the
entire book. One possibility is to assume that the contradictions are merely
apparent. That is the policy of the Sages and the classical commentaries who
interpreted Kohelet in such a way that it would jibe
with the truths found in other books of the canon. Ibn
Ezra himself supports this approach: "We knew that there is no contradiction
in its words, rather, they are all proven to he who understands, and correct
for those who find knowledge" (ibid). Ibn Ezra dismisses the possibility that King
Solomon, the wisest of men, would commit an error that the least among the wise
would have avoided. We need to change our view of the book. Ibn
Ezra rejects the approach taken by one of the exegetes (his name remains
unmentioned) who suggested a different solution to Kohelet's
many internal contradictions. This commentator claims that the contradictions
arise from the fact that the book was not composed by a single author but
rather by many different writers who were all Solomon's students. The word kohelet [related to kahal
= "congregation" or "assembly"] points to a collection of
thoughts belonging to various people. "His students composed the book and
each of them expressed his own thoughts" (ibid). Ibn
Ezra bases his rejection of this approach upon verses that indicate the book's
having being written by a single author rather than comprising a compilation of
passages by a number of different authors.
Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun summarizes the various
exegetical approaches to the book in an article available at http://www.ykd.co.il/hebrew/shiurim/rav_yoel/kohelet.htm.
He points out that the approach adopted by Ibn Ezra
and the Sages does violence to the plain meaning of the text while preserving
the unity of the biblical religious world view. The verse which is repeated by
the congregation at the culmination of the reading of Kohelet,
The sum of the matter, when all is said and done: Revere God and observe His
commandments! For this is all there is for man, is the great leveler, the motto
which wipes away doubts and heresy and lights the way of faith and
commandments.
In contrast, the critical approach claims that the book's message is
subversive, thus turning the traditional approach on its head. According to the
critical view, Kohelet was originally written in
opposition to biblical faith but was later corrected by the editors of the
Scriptural canon in order to make it jibe with the other texts of Hebrew
Scripture. This correction was not achieved through deletion but rather through
the addition of verses reflecting established religious ideas that contradicted
the subversive passages. Thus the book lost its unified structure and became
the work of more than one hand. Of course, the critical approach prefers the
subversive message to that which it sees as expressing editorial emendation. Both
the traditional as well as the critical approaches seek a unified structure and
play down the importance of the book's other voice. As against this, Rabbi Bin
Nun believes that the other voice should not be disparaged. However, he is not
willing to go so far as to grant full legitimacy to the skeptical and
subversive voice. He champions an interpretation built upon the assumption that
the book is deliberately structured as a debate between different voices all of
which arise from the mouth of a single author whose own views are actually unambiguous.
Kohelet is a riddle that carries its own solution
within itself; its contradictions stimulate skepticism in order to support and
validate faith. According to his reading, the skeptical themes of Kohelet are instrumental both for the book's religious
message as well as for its structural unity. Such themes generate skepticism,
but they are part of the question and not part of the answer.
Yoel Bin Nun is not prepared to accept Mordechai Zer-Kavod's interpretation, found in the introduction to
the Da'at Mikra
edition, pp. 33-39. Yoel Bin-Nun correctly identifies
the interpretive orientation which, because Da'at
Mikra is an officially Orthodox commentary, Zer-Kavod conceals behind his careful linguistic
formulations. According to Zer-Kavod, Kohelet's dominant tone is that of the believer - that is
why the book could enter the canon. However, Kohelet's
skepticism is genuine rather than instrumental. The subversive voices do not
come to serve faith, but rather stand on their own in defiance of faith. Human
beings carry out wicked deeds and God is silent. Wisdom does not protect us
from heaven-sent misfortune or from human evil. The question does not serve the
answer, but rather stands independently and undermines the answer's certainty.
Beyond the debate over which interpretive strategy better fits the text,
Zer-Kavod's way of thinking better reflects human
reality. Kohelet describes human experience with all
its contradictions.
Let us return to my opening words regarding the contradiction between
the Sukkot festival and the Book of Kohelet. The contradiction is itself the heart of the
matter and not something to be resolved. The contradictory connection between Sukkot and Kohelet is itself the
message. One can find this contradiction within Sukkot
itself. The festival of Sukkot points in the other
direction, towards an alternative, and grants it a legitimate place. It
is precisely when we leave our summer home and gather in our crops that we are
required to move from our solid permanent homes into temporary dwellings. It is
precisely when the year begins anew and the temporal routine is re-established
- the Days of Awe which mark the social order, government, and discipline [malkhuyot - the shofar
blasts of "kingship", din - justice, reward and punishment] and the temporal regime [year, month, day] - that Sukkot comes and overturns that order, marking a different
direction that is also part of existence.
Dr. Menachem Klein is a member of the editorial board of Shabbat
Shalom. He teaches in Bar Ilan University's
Department of Political Science.
Clouds of Glory Point to
Human Dependence on God and Encourage Humility
(Hizkuni
Vayikra 23:42)
What is Good for Man?
The antithesis between the constantly repeated question
- what is good for man? - and nothing is discovered which is good
for man - and the final verse, which does not say what is good for man but rather what is the totality
of man - that is to say, what is
the significance of human existence in a world in which nothing is good for man?
- this antithesis proves that the final verse is not
an addendum tacked on by a God-fearing Jew who had been shocked by the
skepticism and heresy found in the author's words. It is rather quite the
opposite: that verse expresses the author's own main intention. Kohelet does not say fear God and observe His
commandments, for that is good
for man. Rather, he says in a
demonstrative and blatant fashion: for that is the totality of man. Here faith and the service of God are seen
as independent values, not as means for the gain of benefit.
(From
Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz z"l's He'arot le'Parashiyot Ha'Shavu'a pg.
137.)
God did this because, were the site of his [Moses'] burial to be known, future generations might err and make a god of him [i.e., worship at his grave] because of the wonders he performed. Indeed, we see how some of the Israelites erred with respect to the copper serpent that Moses made, because of the greatness of its creator (II Kings 18:4), but since God buried him in miraculous fashion [without human involvement which would have revealed the burial place], no one ever touched his grave.
(RaLBaG, Devarim
34:6)
...and the cemetery is
marked off, and a memorial stone is erected over the grave, and the righteous
have no stone erected to their memory, for their words are their memorial,
and people will not turn to visiting gravesites.
(RaMBaM, Laws of Mourning 4:4)
"Rejoice and Be Happy on Simhat Torah" - On the Difference Between
Joy (Sasson) and Happiness (Simha)
Simha is present on the occasion of the beginning or the renewal of something
which makes man happy; sasson is
present when that something reaches positive completion, as in [the verse from
the liturgical poem, El Adon], "Happy in
their going out, and rejoicing upon arrival" - when they [celestial
sources of light] go out to shed light upon the earth, they are happy; when
they reach the west, having completed their beneficial activity, they are
joyful... This being the case, why, in reference to Simhat
Torah, do we first say "Rejoice" and afterwards "Be happy"?
It is because these commands are said after the reading of the Torah; we
complete the Torah cycle, and immediately begin again from Bereishit.
Therefore we say "Rejoice" upon the completion and "Be
happy" on the new beginning.
(Brought in Taamei
Haminhagim (Mekore
Ha'dinim) attributed to the Gaon
of Vilna)
Looking
Back at Our Ninth Year
When began our journey with the first issue
of Shabbat Shalom (Parashat Bereishit 5758) we did not know how it would be received by
the public. Generally speaking, the materials we publish offer a point of view
different from the order of priorities commonly found in the National-Religious
public. The choice of classical sources and commentaries is also consciously
influenced by our approach, and our intention has been and remains to emphasize
those texts which express various aspects of our Torah and moral obligations
towards every human created in the Divine image, and to pursue peace and
justice. We are pleased that our words - which have sometimes invited criticism
- allow public discourse to address these crucial problems. For this reason we
are happy to publish responses from readers who sometimes express views
contradictory to our own - as long as they are formulated in a respectful
fashion.
In times of war and of disagreement on
various issues, it is important for us that public discourse be conducted in an
atmosphere of respect, and we hope that in the course of the years we have made
our own contribution to the debate "for the sake of heaven" in which the
other is respected and not belittled.
We welcome the appearance of other parashat ha'shavu'a
sheets that appear at various intervals. Those sheets do not necessarily
express complete agreement with all of our messages and positions, but their
positive and accepting spirit is encouraging. We pray that the debate over
ideological principles may be pursued with tolerance and attentiveness.
I would like to thank my co-worker, Miriam
Fine, who has been involved with Shabbat Shalom since its inception. She
loyally sees to the raising of funds and the distribution of the sheets in
Israel and abroad with devotion and efficiency.
I also thank Daniel Lazare
of Kibbutz Saad, our volunteer graphics editor who
also produces the electronic versions of Shabbat Shalom with devotion
and loyalty.
Our translator, who wishes to remain
anonymous, also deserves thanks for his work which allows our message to reach
English-speakers around the world.
I also thank our authors who make Shabbat
Shalom an interesting and thought-provoking publication. Special thanks is
owed to Dov Abramson and Harry Langbeheim,
whose pictorial midrashim
illuminate our Hebrew edition.
We thank the staff of Graphos-Group,
which has courteously and devotedly seen to the printing of Shabbat Shalom
from its first issue.
We also thank all of the financial
contributors who allow for our project to continue; we see you as important and
loyal partners in our efforts.
Last but not least, we thank our loyal
readers who constantly strengthen and encourage us.
God willing, we shall see the start of the
eleventh year of Shabbat Shalom in a few days time. With God's help and
yours, we shall begin again from the Beginning [Bereishit].
May we grow ever stronger!
Pinchas Leiser - editor
Shabbat Shalom is
available on our website: www.netivot-shalom.org.il
If you wish to
subscribe to the email English editions of Shabbat Shalom, to print copies of
it for distribution in your synagogue, to inquire regarding the dedication of
an edition in someone's honor or memory, to find out about how to make
tax-exempt donations, or to suggest additional helpful ideas, please contact
Miriam Fine at +972-52-3920206 or at ozshalom@netvision.net.il
If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.
Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.
In Israel, checks made out to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem 91043. Unfortunately there is no Israeli tax-exemption for local donations.
US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through:
New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA
New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $100.
PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA
All contributions should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.
5,000
copies of a 4-page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written
and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they
are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via
email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.