יום שישי, 28 במרץ 2014

טומאה-עבדות-מוות לעומת היטהרות, שחרור וחיים - Impurity, Slavery and Death vs.Purificatio, Freedom and Life

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
בשבת שעברה קראנו  את  הסיפור העצוב על מותם של בני אהרון וגם את פרשת פרה אדומה, המתארת טקס טהרה מטומאת המת. מחר נקרא על צורות אחרות של טומאה והיטהרות וגם על הפרשה המספרת על תחילתה של יציאת מצרים, וקביעת הזמנים.
בני אדם ועמים המשועבדים אינם שולטים בזמן. ואולי יש קשר בין טומאה, עבדות ומוות לעומת היטהרות, שחרור וחיים
שבת שלום וחודש טוב לכולכם
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם
http;//pinchaspeace.blogspot.com 
-




Dear Family and Friends,

Last week's Torah reading related to the tragic death of Aharon's sons as well as to the Red Heifer, used as a ritual of purification from closeness to death. This Shabbat we'll read about other forms of impurity and purification and also about the initial stages of Liberation, starting with the setting of the lunar calendar. Human beings or nations that are enslaved or oppressed aren't in control of Time. I guess there must be some relation between impurity, slavery-oppression and death versus purification and liberation and life.
Shabbat Shalom – Hodesh Tov to all,
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com 

יום רביעי, 26 במרץ 2014

Renewal and Deafness

On renewal and deafness
Pinchas Leiser
The Maftir reading for this Shabbat is that of Parashat HaChodesh (Shemot 12:1-20). It is reasonable to assume that during the Mishnaic period, the custom of Eretz Yisrael was observed, and on the Shabbat when the prayer for the month of Nissan is recited, this portion alone was read. The Mishnah states:
If Rosh Chodesh Adar falls on the Shabbat, we read the portion of Shekalim. If it falls in the middle of the week, it is read on the Shabbat before, and on the next Shabbat there is a break. On the second [of the special Shabbatot], [we read] Parashat Zachor (Remember Amelek), on the third, Para Aduma (Red Heifer), on the fourth, "This month is for you". On the fifth, the regular order is resumed. (Megilla 3:5)
"This month is for you" is the first law imposed upon the Children of Israel.Were it not for the need to teach the basic principle that "The earth and all that is therein is the Lord's" (see Rashi's commentary on Bereishit 1:1), the Torah could have begun with this commandment. It is the commandment of "Sanctification of the Month", the commandment that establishes the calendar and festivals for us. The dates and festivals are essential to public and social life. This parasha also marks the beginning of the salvation from Egypt, the freeing and the renewal.
The Torah reading, as with every reading, is a dialogue between reader and text. It meets the reader in various situations, and therefore it is interesting to note what happened to one of our great sages, Rabbi Elazar ben Arach, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai's prize student. The story appears in Tractate Avot - Pirkei Avot, Ethics of the Fathers:
Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai had five students, as follows: Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkanos, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananya, Rabbi Yosi HaCohen, Rabbi Shimom ben Netanel, and Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh. He used to recite their fine attributes:
Rabbi Eliezer ben Hokanos is a lined reservoir which does not lose a single drop. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananya - fortunate is the woman gave birth to him. Rabbi Yosi HaCohen, a hassid. Rabbi Shimon ben Netanel, sin-fearing, And Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh, An overflowing fountain.
He was wont to say: "If all the wise men of Israel were on one scale of the balance, and Eliezer ben Hyrcanos in the other, he would outweigh them all." Abba Shaul, however, quoted him otherwise: If all the wise men of Israel - including Eliezer ben Hyrcanos - were on one scale of the balance, and Elazar ben Arakh in the other, he would outweigh them all. (Trac. Avot 2:8)
The Talmud tells of Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh:
R. Eleazar ben Arakh visited that place [Diomsith and Perugitha - towns in northern Israel, famous for their wines and waters} He was attracted to them, and [consequently] his learning vanished. When he returned, he rose to read in the Scroll [of the Torah]. He wished to read, "Hachodesh hazeh lakem" ["This month shall be unto you, etc."] [instead of which] he read "hacharesh hayah libbam" [Did their heart become deaf?"1 But the scholars prayed for him, and his learning returned. (Bavli, 147b, in other version in Avot d'Rebbi Natan, Kohellet Rabba, and Yalkut Shimoni}
Other, more developed, versions of this story are to be found, but from the Bavli story, one can imagine a situation in which, following the death of his illustrious teacher, R' Elazar ben Arakh left the other scholars for more pleasant and satisfying environs with baths and vineyards. The price for his secession was that he forgot his studies. Upon his return to his scholar colleagues, probably on the Shabbat on which our parasha was read, or perhaps even on Parashat HaChodesh, he was honored with reading from the Torah, and he erred in identifying certain words of the parasha. One can assume that even a child who had learned to read would not make such gross errors, and we presume that it was not the Talmud's intent to inform us of a decline in R' Elazar's sight.
Maharsha detects significance beyond R' Elazars's simple misreading of similar letters (daled-resh; kaf-bet) and his confusion of vowels that so changed the meaning of the passage:
His mistake was related to his person, for his heart became a heart of stone, deaf to understanding, previously having been as an overflowing fountain while in the company of the Sages.
The Abot d'Rebbi Natan's version of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai's description of R' Elazar ben Arakh is richer than the Bavli's account. A bareyta reads:
And he called Elazar ben Arakh a rushing stream and a flowing spring, whose waters grow stronger and overflow, thus realizing that which is written (Mishlei 5:15): "Your springs will gush forth in streams in the public squares."
He is not only a "rushing spring", something which may symbolize exceptional creativity, or extraordinary intellectual capacity (as is explained by Rambam in his commentary on the Mishnah), but also symbolizes one whose waters overflow  - he fertilizes his surrounding and contributes of his wisdom and abilities to society.
The praises heaped upon R' Elazar ben Arakh by his teacher, as per "Avot d'Rebbi Natan", match those familiar to us from the Mishnah ("If all the wise men of Israel including Eliezer ben Hyrcanos are on one scale
of the balance, and Elazar ben Arakh in the otherhe would outweigh them all"); He was the only disciple able to comfort his teacher upon his son's death (Avot d'Rebbi Natan 14).
The story about his separating from his companions and going to Porgitha-Diomsith following the death of his teacher is paradoxical and especially tragic.
The short versions of our story in the Bavli and in Avot d'Rebbi Natan do not provide us with motivation for R' Elazar's cutting himself off from his society. Kohellet Rabba and Yalkut Shimoni assume that he "went to his wife" and that it was his wife who enticed him to remain in these places for an extended period. As is known, this is not the only instance in which a woman is presented as the enticing and instigating factor, but there is no need to assume that R' Elazar's wife was the 'guilty' party in our story.
In Avot d'Rebbi Natan, apparently the oldest source for our story, this incident is attached to the story of the comforting of R' Yochanan ben Zakkai and his being led to the bath house.
Could it be that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkei's praise for R' Elazar instilled a kind of conceit and egocentricism? Was this egotism responsible for R' Elazar's withdrawal into his four cubits, convinced that, having nothing to learn from others, he no longer needed chavruta (learning companions)? Perhaps in contrast to Rabbi Eliezer the Great - who was ostracized despite his desire to influence his colleagues - whose "colleagues separated from him" (as reported by Rabbi Akiva in Baba Metsiah 59b), he, R' Elazar, cut himself off from his colleagues.
As said above, the Bavli does not reveal the reason behind R' Elazar's travels to those locations, but rather focuses on the strength of the "la dolche vita's" attractions even for the greatest of sages. Pleasure has tremendous power, and no one is immune.
It seems to me that it is possible to widen the deep insight of the Maharsha which detected a connection between R' Elazar's sojourn in Diomsith and his erroneous reading of "this month is for you".
For various reasons - perhaps out of pride and superciliousness, perhaps because of his difficulty at observing his teacher in mourning, perhaps because of the magnetic pull of the world's delights, or perhaps of reasons unknown to us - R' Elazar felt that his place was not in the Beit Midrash, the Hall of Study, that he had no contribution to make and also that his motivation to give had dwindled. Therefore, he "escaped" from social and educational involvement, and focused upon himself. He did not realize that he had thereby foregone his spiritual growth and even begun to deteriorate.
Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that there no possibility of real spiritual growth without social involvement.
It would seem that that is no chance for geula - salvation, when, in the words of the Maharsha, the heart "is too deaf to understand".
This insight may have practical ramifications for our own generation. We have an opportunity for geula, freedom, revitalization and growth on many different planes, on person, social and national levels. This opportunity is dependent upon our ability to open our hearts to the distress of our surrounding society, on our involvement in the creation of more just society and on our striving for peace. Withdrawal to our own four cubits causes us to "make our hearts deaf", and stymies opportunities for growth, renewal, and geula on all planes. We must choose between histcharshut (becoming deaf) and hitchadshut(renewal).
Inasmuch as "a prisoner cannot free himself from prison", R' Elazar ben Arakh needs sages who are socially involved, who evince concern, to plead mercy for him, so that he may again open up to study and rejuvenation. Does there exist today leadership that can assist us in our constant struggle against deafness of the heart, and that can advance study, development and renewal?
1A misreading of two consonants and four vowels changed the meaning of the text.
Pinchas Leiser, editor of Shabbat Shalom, is a psychologist.


יום שישי, 21 במרץ 2014

וידום אהרון - Aharon was Silent

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים
בפרשת שמיני, שנקרא מחר, אנחנו קוראים על שיא של קדושה והתעלות ומיד לאחר מכן מספרת לנו התוןרה על מותם של נדב ואביהו, שני בניו של אהרון, "לפני ה'". איננו ידועים מה היתה תגובתו הראושנה של אהרון, אך אחרי שמשה אומר לו:  "בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ וְעַל פְּנֵי כָל הָעָם אֶכָּבֵד"
נאמר:  "וַיִּדֹּם אַהֲרֹן"
האם החליט אהרון על "דממה" ושתיקה? או שמא לא היו לו מילים כדי לבטא את רגשותיו?
כשאנחנו מתמודדים עם אירועים טרגיים, כולנו "אהרון"`` איננו מוצאים את המילים, או איננו בטוחים שיש מילים מתאימות לבטא את  השבר
שבת שלום לכולכם
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם
מוקדש לזכרו של חברנו היקר ג'רלד קרומר, שעזב את עלומנו בכ"ג באדר , לפני 6 שנים.
עוד באותו נושא:






Dear Family and Friends,
The Torah-section we'll read this Shabbat, after describing a climax of Holiness, relates the tragic story of the death of Nadav and Avihu, two of Aharon's sons. We don’t know what Aharon's first reaction was, but we know that after Moshe told him: Moshe said to Aharon: It is what God spoke, saying: Through those permitted-near to me, I will be proven holy, before all the people, I will be accorded honor.
" Aharon was silent".
Was his silence deliberate? Or, maybe he wasn't able to express his feelings with words?
I guess that when we are in touch with tragic situations, all of us can be Aharon; not finding the words or being reluctant to use them.
Shabbat Shalom to all,
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family
more on this topic:

Dedicated to the blessed memory of our dear friend Gerald Cromer, who passed away 6 years ago on 23rd of Adar


יום רביעי, 19 במרץ 2014

Sanctity in Life or Death?

THROUGH THOSE WHO MAY COME NEAR TO ME,
WILL I BE SANCTIFIED . . . AND AHARON WAS SILENT.

Pinchas Leiser

There is no really convincing explanation of the death of Nadav and Avihu, Aharon's sons, "as they brought near before God". Different commentators, beginning with our Sages, sought to identify their sin - or the lack of sin – in various ways (they entered the holy place while inebriated, they issued rulings in the presence of their teachers, etc.)
The "outside fire" also opens the door to different derashot, as is written "every generation and its explicators". It may well be that fire which is 'outside' to me may be holy for others, and so conversely.
Rashi and other commentators, in line with our Sages (Bavli, Zevahim 116b), explain Moshe's words to Aharon following the sons' deaths -- "Through those who may come near to me, will I be sanctified" -- as an attempt to console. Rashi writes:
"This is what God spoke . . .Through those permitted near to me, I will be sanctified" Where did He speak? "So I will appoint-meeting there with the Children of Israel, and it will be hallowed by my Glory" (Shemot 29:43) Read not "Bichevodi" – "by my Glory" – rather "Bimchubadai" – "through them that glorify Me." Said Moshe to Aharon: "Aharon, my brother, I knew that this dwelling was to be sanctified by those close to God, and I thought that it would be through me or through you. Now I see that they were greater than you and I."
In other words, the sanctification of the House, the Mishkan, on occasion of its dedication, is through those whom God honors; the death of Aharon's sons on this occasion attests to their greatness.
Rashbam, Rashi's grandson, offers a different understanding of "Through those permitted near to me, I will be sanctified." God's words are not an explanation of what happened, but are a demand made of Aharon for the future. Writes the Rashbam:
Moshe said to Aharon: Do not mourn and do not cry and do not desist from the service. For this which I tell you ""This is what God spoke . . .Through those permitted near to me, I will be sanctified" –through the high priests who are close to me to serve me I desire to be sanctified, lest my name and my service will violated, for so The Holy One, Blessed Be He, told me, "And the priest greater than his brothers . . . his head he is not to bare, and his garments he is not to tear . . . from the Holy-Shrine he is not to go out, that he not profane the Holy-Shrine of his God. If he will not go out – (he will be) holy. There is no chronological order in the Torah. Therefore, do not leave the service, for you are the high priest, and do not go out and do not profane, but let The Holy One, Blessed Be He, and his service be sanctified by you. "Before all the people, I will be accorded honor" – This is the honor accorded the Holy Presence – he (Aharon) sees his sons die and sets aside his mourning for the sake of serving his creator.

After a description of Aharon's reaction, the Rashbam continues:
This is the true and simple meaning. But that which the Agadda relates -- that Moshe was comforting Aharon with what God had said "It will be hallowed by my glory," and I thought that it would be either by me or by you, now you know that they were greater than me and you – all this is not the peshat, the plain meaning, For would The Holy One, Blessed Be He, announce to Moshe "They will make a dwelling for me" and on that very day your greatest people will die?!"
The Rashbam, then, considers the phrase "Through those permitted near to me, I will be sanctified" to be a demand made of Aharon in his most difficult moment, and not as a consolation for his sons' deaths. Yet more – The Rashbam does not even consider the possibility of attributing to God a request for "sanctification" through the deaths of those close to Him during the dedication of the Mishkan.
Neither exegetical approach – neither Rashi's nor Rashbam's – is easy to accept. The story itself is not at all simple. Attributing to The Holy One, Blessed Be He, a desire to be sanctified through the death of those near to him – as per the Talmud in Tractate Berachot which deals with suffering lovingly accepted ("Him who God loves does He chastise") -- presents us with a difficult problem in the comprehension of God. On the other hand, it would seem that the demand made of Aharon not to grieve over his sons but to continue the holy service as usual, is clearly superhuman.
Difficulties aside, it may be possible to discern in these explanations two models of kedusha – of holiness.
We occasionally refer to persons who were killed or died as "kedoshim" – holy ones. In the memorial prayer ("El Moleh Rachamim") we use the phrase "in the lofty levels of the holy and the pure ones, who shine like the glow of the firmament". We refer to those who perished in the Shoah as "kedoshim". In the memorial prayer on behalf of soldiers of Tzahal, we say: "Soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces who fell in sanctification of the Name, the nation, and the land." Even if we avoid a deep discussion of these phrases, it is clear to us that there is a post facto determination of holiness (somewhat similar to the Catholic Church's desiga pope or someone else a "saint"). It is interesting to note that the term "kiddush haShem" – Sanctification of theName – has taken root in our vocabulary as an accepted expression for the death of persons who give their lives for what they consider to be a holy and important cause. According to this thesis, the name of the Almighty is sanctified whenever a Jew dies or is killed "Al kiddush Hashem". This is also the source of formulation of the Kaddish – "May His great Name grow exalted and sanctified".
We note, in this context, an enlightening and radical interpretation by S. Agnon, in his "Following The Coffins of Those Who Died in Eretz Yisrael":
" . . . Should even one of Israel be missing, Heaven forbid, the King's legions are diminished, and the power of His kingdom, as it were, is weakened. For his kingdom is lacking a legion of his legions, and there is a diminution, God forbid, of His greatness. Therefore, we pray and say on behalf of each Jew who dies "May His great Name grow exalted and sanctified" – may the power of His name be magnified, and may there be no weakening before Him. May He be exalted and sanctified in the worlds which He created according to His will, and may we not fear for ourselves, but may He rise from the grandeur of the glory of His holiness "and give reign to His kingship" – that His kingdom reveal itself in perfection without any diminishing, God forbid.
In other words, the "Kaddish" prayer is intended to refill the deficiency brought about by the death of a person from Israel.
The concept of holiness, as expressed in the commentary of Rashbam, does not relate to "the death of Kedoshim", and does not speak about "Kiddush HaShem" in the sense of martyrdom. It speaks about Man's abilityto sanctify God's name during his lifetime, through full control over his drives and emotions.
This theory of holiness, which is future-oriented, and which focuses on striving for holiness in all areas of life, is compatible – according to Rashbam – with the plain meaning of Scripture. It also explains the juxtaposition of the parasha dealing with the death of Aharon's sons, with the parasha dealing with those animals and insects which may not be eaten.
Aharon is forbidden to externalize his sorrow. It is interesting to compare the explanations of Rashbam and of Abarbanel of "And Aharon was silent".
Rashbam:
"And Aharon was silent" - he was silent about his mourning. He did not cry nor mourn, for thus is it written in Yechezkiel "Oh, mortal, I am about to take away the delight of your eyes from you through pestilence . . . mourn softly: observe no mourning for the dead." Here, too, he "was silent" – not expressing his desire to mourn and weep.
Abarbanel:
His heart became like silent stone, and he did not raise his voice in crying and painful eulogy over his sons, and he did not accept consolation from Moshe, for he had no strength left, and he was incapable of speech."
Ramban writes:
At first he cried aloud, and then was silentOr in keeping with "Give your eyes no respite."
This point of view teaches us that the striving for holiness is bound up with the imposition of intellectual, moral, and ideological constraints on drives and emotions. Aharon is commanded to continue his holy service despite his feelings and his desire to express his grief. We are commanded to refrain from eating impure beasts, animals, insects, fish, and birds – even though we may hunger for them. [As in the words of our Sages: Do not say I am incapable of eating pig, or I cannot bear to eat blood. . . ]
These days we seem to be facing – as a society – trials no less challenging than that of defying the temptation to eat forbidden foods.
Perhaps the greatest test of our leadership and of all society is that of our ability to impose our intelligence, our values, and the image of God within us, upon the difficult emotions we are experiencing. The striving for holiness demands restraint; mourning has the potential of making us – individuals and collectively – more deserving of our destiny as human beings and as Jews. Together with this, in the words of Agnon, our faith must meet the challenge of the diminution which takes place, as if it were, in the Kingdom of Heaven with each tragic incident. Sanctification of the Name during life is the religious act required in order to rehabilitate the damaged Kingdom of Heaven.
Pinchas Leiser, editor of "Shabbat Shalom", is a psychologist.


יום שישי, 14 במרץ 2014

אסתר ברוח הקודש - האל המסתתר בפרטים הקטנים

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
מגילת אסתר מספרת לנו סיפור מוזר. אין שם אלהים;  הוא לפחות מסתתר ודווקא את הספר הזה החליטו חכמים להכניס לכתבי הקודש וגם נתנו לו מעמד מיוחד (קריאה בברכה מתוך קלף, היא לא עתידה להתבטל). גם בהעדר שמו של אלהים, כתבו חכמים שהוא נכתב "ברוח הקודש" ומוצאים את ההשראה האלוהית דווקא באחריות שלוקחים בני אדם מתוך בחירה חופשית. אולי בא הדבר ללמדנו  פעם נוספת ש"לא בשמים היא" ושאת האלהים צריך לחפש ב"פרטים הקטנים"
שבת שלום ופורים שמח 
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com  
-






Dear Family and Friends,
In the Book of Esther, which we'll read on Purim, G-d's name doesn't appear.
Maybe this teaches us that  what happens "behind the scenes" is much more meaningful than what we see; our visual perception may lead to superficial conclusions. Reality has more than one layer. This may explain the unpredictable or the mysterious.
Shabbat Shalom- Purim Sameach to all,
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family
http://pinchaspeace.blogspot.com 

         

יום שלישי, 4 במרץ 2014

Wee aleph

THE WEE ALEF

Pinchas Leiser


Many years ago, when I began to learn Chumash in Grade 1, the custom in the school where I learned was –  as per the time-honored heder tradition – to begin the study of Bible with Parashat Vayikra. Many reasons were given for this practice. Among them, following the Midrash Tanchuma, (91:14):

Said Rabbi Assya: Why do the children begin their study with the Book of Vayikra?
It is because all the offerings appear in VAYIKRA, and because the little children are pure, and they have not tasted sin and wrongdoing. Therefore The Holy One, Blessed Be He, said that they should first begin with the order of the offerings: Let the pure ones come and study pure matters, and therefore I reckon as if they stand and offer the sacrifices before Me, and I inform you that even though the Temple was destroyed, and offerings are not brought, were it not for children who study the order of the sacrifices, the world could not exist.”

The commencement of study was a festive and ceremonial affair, to which the rabbi and communal leaders were invited. Among other subjects discussed on this joyful and touching occasion was the written tradition with which we are all familiar: The letter aleph at the end of the word Vayikra is diminutive; in the Masorah, the tradition of Biblical inscription, it is called ‘aleph zeira’ – ‘little aleph’.

Now, fifty years later, I would like to consider afresh this unique phenomenon. I do not intend, within the framework of this d’var Torah, to conduct an extensive survey of the enlarged and diminished letters in the Torah and the Bible as laid down by the Masorah. I do wish to relate, in homiletic fashion, to the possible significance of this diminution, following in the footsteps of some of the commentators who dealt with this phenomenon.

Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, author of the commentary “Baal HaTurim” (and author of “The Four Turim”), presents the familiar inscription as a compromise between Moshe’s will and that of The Holy One, Blessed Be He:

The aleph of Vayikra is diminutive because Moshe wanted to write only “Vayiker’  (‘encountered’, as though by chance) as is written in the story of Bil'am, as though God appeared to him by accident. God, however, directed him to write ‘Vayikra’ – with an aleph. Moshe wrote the aleph – but undersized it.’

Rabbi Efrayim of Lunshitz, in his commentary “Kli Yakar”, takes in a similar approach, but he does not present the text as a compromise between the will of Moshe and that of God; it is rather a carefully directed message, designed to compare Bil'am’s prophecy with that of Moshe – at least in certain aspects:

The ‘aleph’  of ‘Vayikra’ is diminutive, as if it were written “Vayiker" – ‘encountered by chance’. This is intended to compare the prophecy of Moshe to the prophecy of Bil’am (“Now God did encounter Bil’am”), as is written, “There arose no further prophet in Israel like Moshe” – but among the nations there did arise one, and who was that? Bil’am.  The meaning of this is not that Bil’am was Moshe’s equal in prophecy, God forbid, but this is the explanation: Moshe perceived more that his preparation had prepared him for, as is written “who was known by God” but it does not say “who knew God”, meaning that he did not know God beyond his personal capability, but God knew him and granted him additional abundance in Israel, meaning to say “in Israel’s merit”.  None of Israel’s other prophets perceived beyond their abilities. But among the nations of the world there did arise one – for the honor of Israel – who did perceive more than his character entitled him to . . . this teaches us that the two were equal in that both had additional, unplanned perception, in addition to what their personalities entitled them.”

True, according to the logic of the above, the text should have read “Vayiker”, without the aleph”, but “Vayiker” has the connotation not only of something temporary, coincidental; it also has the connotation of impurity, and therefore an “aleph” - a wee aleph – was added on.

It is interesting to examine the Midrashic tradition (Midrash Rabba Parasha 14, beginning with “ub’vo Moshe)” which contrasts Moshe’s prophecy with that of Bil’am:
‘”When Moshe would come to the Tent of Appointment to speak with Him.’ It is taught ‘There arose no further prophet in Israel like Moshe’ – in Israel there arose no prophet the equal of Moshe, but among the nations there did arise one. This was so that the nations of the world should have no excuse, saying ‘If we had a prophet like Moshe, we too would have worshipped The Holy One, Blessed Be He.’  And what prophet did they have who was the equal of Moshe? This was Bil’am ben Be’or. There was, however, a difference between the prophecy of Moshe and that of Bil’am. Moshe possessed three qualities, which Bil’am lacked:

-          He would speak with Him standing, as is written, “And you stand here with Me and I will talk to you’; but He would speak to Bil’am only when Bil’am was prostrate, as is written, ‘Bowed, but with eyes uncovered’.
-          Moshe would speak with Him mouth to mouth, as is written ‘Mouth to mouth, etc’, but with Bil’am, ‘Utters the hearer of Godly sayings’ – he did not speak to Him mouth to mouth.
-          Moshe spoke with Him face to face, as is written ‘And God spoke to Moshe face to face”; to Bil’am He spoke only through parables, as is said, ‘He took up his parable and said.’
Bil’am had three qualities that Moshe lacked:
-          Moshe knew not who spoke to him, but Bil’am knew who spoke to him, as is written, ‘Utters the hearer of Godly saying who envisages a vision of Shaddai’.
-          Moshe did not know when God spoke to him; Bil’am knew when The Holy One, Blessed Be He, spoke to him, as is written, ‘Who knows the knowledge of the Most High’. A parable was spun: A king’s cook knows what is on the king’s table and how much the king spends on his table. So did Bil’am know what The Holy One, Blessed Be He, was going to say to him.
-          Bil’am would speak with Him whenever he so desired, as is written, ‘Bowed, but with eyes uncovered’ – he would fall on his face and immediately his eyes would be uncovered in respect to his request; Moshe did not speak with Him whenever he pleased.
-          Rabbi Shim’on said: Moshe, too, would speak with Him whenever he wished, as is written ‘And when Moshe would enter the Tent of Appointment to speak with him’ - he would immediately hear the voice speaking to him.”

In the Yalkut Shimoni (V’Zot Ha-beracha 247:966), we find a somewhat different presentation of the comparison:

There arose no further prophet in Israel like Moshe’ – in Israel there arose no prophet the equal of Moshe, but among the nations there did arise one. And who was that? Bil’am the son of Be’or. But there are differences between the prophecy of Moshe and the prophecy of Bil’am son of Be’or:
-          Moshe did not know who was speaking with him; Bil’am knew who was speaking with him, as is written, ‘utters the hearer of godly sayings’.
-          Moshe did not know when God would speak with him before He spoke; Bil’am knew when God would speak to him, as is written, ‘Who knows the knowledge of the Most High’.
-          Moshe did not speak with Him unless he was standing, as is written, ‘And you stand here with Me’; Bil’am spoke with Him while prostrate, as is written, ‘Envisages a vision of Shaddai, bowed, but with eyes uncovered’. This may be compared to a king’s cook who knows how much the king spends on his table.”

In Midrash Rabba,  separation  is  made between  those  characteristics  which make Moshe’s prophecy superior – although here too the Midrash does not ignore elements of Bil’am’s prophecy which make it the more important. In contrast to this, the comparison drawn by the Yalkut Shimoni tips the scales in favor of Bil’am.

The tension between the prophecy of Moshe and that of Bil’am appears to be the background for the Rashi’s commentary on Vayikra 1:1 – although there is no explicit reference to the diminutive aleph:
And He called to Moshe” – All statements and all declarations and all commandments were preceded by a call, a term of affection, the idiom used with reference to the angels, as is written (Isaiah 6:3) And they called one to the other’; but to the prophets of the nations of the world He reveals Himself with expressions connoting the temporary and the impure, as is written, ‘Now God did encounter Bil’am’.
Rashi contrasts “Vayikra” to “Vayiker” – without overt reference to the Masorah.

In my opinion, the diminutive aleph opens an interesting window through which we can observe the difference between the prophecy of Moshe, the greatest of all Israel’s prophets (“There arose no further prophet in Israel like Moshe’) and the prophecy of Bil’am, greatest of non-Israelite prophets, and perhaps, via these two prophets, we can discern the difference between Israel and the nations.

In Midrash Rabba the (almost) equal opportunity given Bil’am is presented as an opportunity given the nations of the world “so that they have no excuse” – but priority is given by The Holy One, Blessed Be He, to Moshe. In the Yalkut, however, Bil’am is presented as having a qualitative starting edge over Moshe.

The Baal Ha’Turim paints a Moshe as a humble man who does not see himself intrinsically any better than Bil’am, but The Holy One, Blessed Be He, grants him an advantage, and the ‘compromise” (diminutive aleph) is a result of dialogue between The Holy One, Blessed Be He, and Moshe.

The author of the Kli Yakar presents the two as equals in terms of basic God-given attributes; Moshe reaches a higher plane through his own efforts, not through divine favoritism.


It seems to me that these approaches parallel the differences between those who see the concept “Chosen People” as an innate trait, a kind of divine grace -- and those who believe in the basic and intrinsic equality of all men created in His image. The election of the Jewish people, according to this approach is first and foremost an opportunity and a challenge – a little aleph, but great responsibility.