Rei'ach HaSadeh Vol 5

28 Rei’ach HaSadeh

the Torah itself – reminds us that “wherever we are, we can begin again.”59
Similarly, morality in the civic sphere takes time to develop: “cultural
transmission is altogether more subtle and sensitive than genetic
transmission.” 60 It is “intergenerational and future oriented,” 61 and
therefore a form of “open particularism,” rather than a universalism that
wears the mask of particularism.

R. Sacks’s pursuit of a ‘dignity of difference’ envisions a selfhood
that may encompass a broad range of possibilities, from those of natives of
a sovereign state who privilege their claims alone, to foreign strangers who
make their own claims to belonging. In his 2005 work The Home We Build
Together, R. Sacks argues that Great Britain must create space where
attachments and resources constitute a polity that both accommodates and
distinguishes among people.62 To be embedded in a covenantal narrative is
to be embedded in a loose web of connections with people from different

59 The Politics of Hope at p. 260. Similarly, Hannah Arendt writes in “What is Freedom?,”
in Arendt, Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought (New York: Penguin,
2006), p. 166:

In this birth of each man this initial beginning is reaffirmed, because in
each instance something new comes into an already existing world
which will continue to exist after each individual’s death. Because he is a
beginning, man can begin; to be human and to be free are one and the
same. God created man in order to introduce into the world the faculty
of beginning: freedom.
Compare this statement to the comments made linking Nietzsche to Arendt in The Great
Partnership at p. 132.
60 The Politics of Hope at p. 181.
61 See The Dignity of Difference at p. 202. (inferring this notion from Isaiah 19:19-25).
62 R. Sacks further writes:

England does not have the same kind of national narrative [as America]
because it is based not on covenant but on hierarchy and tradition.
“England,” writes Roger Scruton, “was not a nation or a creed or a
language or a state but a home. Things at home don’t need an
explanation. They are there because they are there.” England,
historically, was a class-based society in which there were ruling elites
who governed on behalf of the nation as a whole. America, founded by
Puritans who saw themselves as a new Israel bound by covenant, was
not a society of rulers and ruled, but rather one of collective
responsibility. Hence the phrase, central to American politics but never
used in English politics: “We, the people.”
Jonathan Sacks, “A Nation of Storytellers (Ki Tavo 5779),” Covenant & Conversation,
September 16, 2019, available at https://rabbisacks.org/ki-tavo-5779-nation-storytellers
(citing Roger Scruton, England an Elegy (London: Continuum Press, 2006), p. 16).

Reuven Pepper 29

communities and identities over time.63 What would then be recognized as
the common good is a society in which the foreign are welcomed into
a community that remains fortified by its historic institutions, along with
a dense network of communications that is expressed in several ways:
figuratively, there is “a first language of citizenship whose minimum
requirements are set by the Noahide laws. And there are diverse second
languages of religious identity: in the case of Jews, the language of Jewish
law and faith.”64 In this covenantal society, the there is a shared attachment
to the state and the economy, as well as space for counter-movements by
those members of society who may conceive themselves as not belonging.

R. Sacks concedes that it will take a great deal of hard work for his
the vision of morality to thrive. Socially, he asserts,

[w]e still have to fight for the truth that every group should
feel safe; and that our differences, not just our similarities,
are what make us human…Symbolically, the Bible
taught…every human being is in the image and likeness of
God. Meaning that one who is not in my image – whose
colour, culture or creed is not mine – is nonetheless in
God’s image.65

Such a society, based on working “side by side,”66 represents a symbolic
covenant that is persistently informed by the knowledge that the
“universality of moral concern is not something we learn by being universal
but by being particular.”67

In defining a covenantal society, R. Sacks concludes that
“We aren’t citizens because of race or creed but story. A story precedes and

63 R. Sacks writes that a

covenantal narrative is always inclusive, the property of all its citizens,
newcomers as well as the home-born. It says to everyone, regardless of
class or creed: this is who we are. It creates a sense of common identity
that transcends other identities. That is why, for example, Martin Luther
King was able to use it to such effect in some of his greatest speeches.
He was telling his fellow African Americans to see themselves as an
equal part of the nation. At the same time, he was telling white
Americans to honour their commitment to the Declaration of
Independence and its statement that ‘all men are created equal.’
Ibid. See also Future Tense at pp. 168-169.
64 Faith in the Future at p. 121.
65 Ibid.
66 The Home We Build Together at p. 23.
67 The Dignity of Difference at p. 58.

30 Rei’ach HaSadeh

exceeds its members while welcoming new members to write the next
chapter. We don’t change coulour and most often neither religion, but we
learn new stories.”68 Covenantal politics is therefore

the most powerful form of identity creation because it
does not depend on custom, habit or tradition-for-the-
sake-of-tradition. Nor does it rest on an ideology,
a philosophical system, a theory about power, wealth or
the human condition…Covenant does not, in and of itself,
suggest a larger or smaller state. It is not on the right or
left of politics. It is, rather, a way of thinking about what
politics actually represents It is about free individuals
governing themselves for the sake of the common good,
and about the free society as a moral project in which we
all play our part, recognizing that our destinies are
interwoven.69

Reuven Pepper and his wife Danielle have been CIS members since 2009, and are proud to
raise their three children in this wonderful community. Reuven has enjoyed sharing his insights in
all 5 volumes of Rei'ach HaSadeh. This year's article is especially meaningful, as it comes in
conjunction with his earning an MA in Theology and Religious Studies from Drew University.
His master’s thesis also explores the writings of R. Jonathan Sacks, z”l.

68 Morality at p. 122.
69 Id. at p. 321.

31

THE RIGHT PIECE IN THE WRONG PLACE

BY: DAVID KOHN

 Introduction 

In the Torah, not a single letter is extra.1 Chazal (our Sages) infer
laws and principles from words in Torah that are written with extra letters
or with letters missing. One such principle is found in the extra “‫ ”ו‬of the
word ‫( ואלה‬literally “and these”). When a parashah (section of the Torah)
begins with the word ‫ואלה‬, including the “‫ו‬,” the parashah continues the
narrative of the previous parashah. But when it begins with the word ‫אלה‬,
omitting the “‫ו‬,” the parashah not only begins a new narrative but also
negates the previous narrative.

An example application of this principle is demonstrated by Rashi
at the beginning of Parashat Mishpatim, which presents many of the Torah’s
laws:

.‫ ִל ְּפ ֵני ֶהם‬,‫ ֲא ֶשר ָת ִשים‬,‫ ַה ִמ ְּש ָפ ִטים‬,‫ְו ֵא ֶּלה‬

And these are the principles that you shall place before them.

Shemot 21:1

.‫ ואלה מוסיף על הראשונים‬,‫ כל מקום שנאמר אלה פסל את הראשונים‬- ‫ואלה המשפטים‬
.‫מה הראשונים מסיני אף אלו מסיני‬

And these are the principles – any place that it says “These” negates the
preceding [narrative], “And these” adds to the narrative. Just as the
preceding narrative [i.e., the Aseret haDibrot (Ten Commandments)] were
from Sinai, so too these are from Sinai.

Rashi, ad loc.

1 This concept is implicit from many discussions in the Talmud, e.g., Kiddushin 57a ( ‫שמעון‬
‫)העמסוני ואמרי לה נחמיה העמסוני היה דורש כל אתין שבתורה‬, and is explicitly stated in several later
commentaries, e.g., Hasagot haRamban to Sefer haMitzvot, shoresh sheni:‫אבל הכתוב יכלול הכל כי אין‬
‫ כי ספר תורת ה' תמימה אין בה אות יתר וחסר כולם‬.‫הפשט כדברי חסרי דעת הלשון ולא כדעת הצדוקים‬
‫בחכמה נכתב‬, and Rabeinu Bachye, Bereishit 47:28: ‫ אין בה תיבה ואות שלא‬,‫אבל התורה כולה רמזים‬
‫נאמר לענין הכרחי ומוצרך‬.

32 Rei’ach HaSadeh

As Rashi explains, the Torah’s laws within Parashat Mishpatim
continue and build upon of the Aseret haDibrot, as opposed to standing
separate and apart from them.

I recently discussed this principle with my sons, ages 7 and 9. Their
first reaction was to look for other instances of ‫ אלה‬and ‫ ואלה‬in the Torah
and attempt to apply the principle. When they discovered that Sefer Devarim
(the Book of Deuteronomy) begins with the word ‫אלה‬, they were confused.

...‫ ַב ִמ ְּד ָבר ָב ֲע ָר ָבה‬:‫ ַה ַי ְּר ֵדן‬,‫ ְּב ֵע ֶבר‬,‫ ֲא ֶשר ִד ֶבר ֹמ ֶשה ֶאל ָכל ִי ְּש ָר ֵאל‬,‫ֵא ֶלה ַה ְּד ָב ִרים‬

These are the things that Moshe spoke to all of Israel opposite the Jordan,
in the desert, in the plains…

Devarim 1:1

“What does this mean?” asked the younger one, perplexed. “Is the whole
rest of the Torah canceled?!”

‫ אלה‬is such a benign word. It means “these.” In the context of a
larger sentence, it does very little work except perhaps to preface an
upcoming list. Even so, the list, and not the word ‫אלה‬, is the meat of the
sentence. Moreover, ‫ אלה‬does not even refer to whatever precedes it.
So how can the word have such a profound effect on the preceding
narrative? What did our Sages see in this word that turns it from a benign
introduction into a destructive force that negates everything in its wake?

Further what does it even mean for the word ‫ אלה‬to “negate” what
comes before it? To whatever extent parshiot or sefarim of the Torah may be
“negated,” they are not actually erased. They still exist. In fact, the entire
principle of ‫ אלה‬and ‫ ואלה‬presupposes that the “negated” material is in fact
part of the Torah, or else it would not be there to be “negated” in the first
place. And if this material is written, then there must be a purpose for its
existence. After all, in the Torah, not a single letter is extra, much less an
entire parashah or sefer.

 

David Kohn 33

What would it mean for Sefer Devarim to negate Bereishit, Shemot,
vaYikra and baMidbar?

Sefer Devarim predominantly contains Moshe’s final sermon, a single
point in time after forty years of wandering in the desert and before
entering Eretz Yisra’el (Land of Israel). The entire previous generation has
perished – a punishment for the chet haMeraglim (sin of the spies) – and
a new generation stands at the precipice of a new life in a new land.2 The
new generation does not remember hardship in Mitzrayim (Egypt), they
know only the hardship in the desert. At this moment in time, the nation
anticipates its future in Eretz Yisra’el, and is very much removed from its
past. If there was ever a moment that could negate everything that came
before it, perhaps it is this moment.

This tension between the old and new is especially relevant in the
present day. Often termed the “new normal,” it marks a return to normalcy,
but not the same state that existed before.

Following the widespread shutdowns caused by the coronavirus
pandemic, the world is now thawing from its stasis. But, it is apparent,
some aspects of “normal” life will never return. As things go “back to
normal,” the greatest emphasis will be on achieving “normal,” and much less
placed on rolling things “back.” And if there was ever a moment in our own
lives at which it feels as if the past could be negated, perhaps it is this
moment.

The tension between the old and new of a “new normal” is
inherent in the principle of ‫אלה‬. The Torah begins a narrative. But ‫אלה‬
breaks the narrative. The new narrative draws from lessons from the past.
But ‫ אלה‬acts as a caveat, making those same lessons, in at least some way,
invalid for future application.

Part I of this essay explores the principle of ‫אלה‬: why the Torah
points out when there is a “new normal” in the first place, and why the
word ‫ אלה‬is the appropriate marker for this principle. Part II examines why
the principle of ‫ אלה‬is such a necessary element of growth and
improvement through the lens of a specific example from our present time,
and demonstrates through that example how we can use a “new normal” to
improve our world and ourselves.

2 See baMidbar 14:29-31.

34 Rei’ach HaSadeh

 Part I 

In order to understand how a word or principle in the Torah
operates, the first instance of the word or principle in the Torah is often
examined.3 The first appearance of the word ‫ אלה‬is in the second chapter of
the Torah, immediately after the description of the seven days of Creation:

.‫ם ֶא ֶרץ ְּו ָש ָמ ִים‬-‫י‬-‫ה‬-‫ל‬-‫ה א‬-‫ו‬-‫ה‬-‫ ֲעשֹות י‬,‫ ְּביֹום‬:‫ ְּב ִה ָב ְּר ָאם‬,‫ֵא ֶלה תֹו ְּלדֹות ַה ָש ַמ ִים ְּו ָה ָא ֶרץ‬

These are the offspring of the heavens and the earth when they were
created on the day that HaShem Elokim made earth and heavens.

Bereishit 2:4

This passuk (verse) is an introduction to a second account of
Creation. Many details of the second account of Creation conform with
those of the first account. Both describe creation of Man,4 the planting of
trees,5 the creation of animals,6 and so on. But there are also differences. In
the first account, Man is created last, after the plants and animals, and Man
and Woman are created with a shared body.7 Also, in the first account,
HaShem is referred to by the name ‫ם‬-‫י‬-‫ה‬-‫ל‬-‫א‬, which represents the element
of Justice.8 By contrast, in the second account, Man is created first, before
the plants and animals, Woman is formed with a separate body9 and after
the plants and animals are created, and HaShem is referred to by two
names: ‫ה‬-‫ו‬-‫ה‬-‫ י‬and ‫ם‬-‫י‬-‫ה‬-‫ל‬-‫א‬, the added name ‫ה‬-‫ו‬-‫ה‬-‫ י‬representing the
element of Mercy.10

The second account addresses the same events as the first, but
from a conflicting perspective. By introducing the second account with the
word ‫אלה‬, the Torah signals that the entire first account is in some way
negated by the conflicting, second account. This negation does not mean
that the first account is “incorrect,” and that the second account is

3 See Yisra’el Kedoshim (“ ‫וקיבלתי שבכל דבר וענין במקום שמלה זו נזכר פעם ראשונה בתורה שם הוא‬
‫)”שורש הענין‬. The author, R. Tzadok haKohen of Lublin, cites support for this concept from
Bava Kama 55a: (“ ‫ הואיל ופתח בו הכתוב לטובה‬... ‫א"ר יהושע הרואה טי"ת בחלומו סימן יפה לו מ"ט‬
‫ ד) וירא אלהים את האור לא כתיב טי"ת‬,‫)”תחילה שמבראשית עד (בראשית א‬.
4 Bereishit 1:27 and 2:7.
5 Bereishit 1:12 and 2:9.
6 Bereishit 1:25 and 2:19.
7 Rashi, Bereishit 1:27, s.v. “zachar u’nekaivah bara otam.”
8 Shemot Rabbah 3:7. The word ‫ אלהים‬also describes human judges. See, e.g., Shemot 22:7.
9 Bereishit 2:22.
10 Shemot Rabbah 3:7.

David Kohn 35

“correct.” After all, there is nothing false in the Torah.11 But why is there
a conflict at all, and how else can it be resolved?

Rashi deduces the meaning of the “negation” of the first account
of Creation from the change in HaShem’s name between the two accounts:

‫“ שבתחילה עלה במחשבה לברואתו במידת הדין; ראה שאין‬.‫ה‬-‫ו‬-‫ה‬-‫ולא אמר ”ברא י‬
‫ היינו דכתיב )להלן ב ד( ביום‬.‫ הקדים מידת רחמים ושיתפה למידת הדין‬,‫העולם מתקיים‬

.‫ה אלקים ארץ ושמים‬-‫ו‬-‫ה‬-‫עשות י‬

It does not say “HaShem created,” since at the beginning it arose in the
Creator’s thought to create [the world] with the attribute of Justice; He then
saw that the world could not be sustained, so He started with the attribute
of Mercy and partnered the attribute of Justice to it. This is what it means
when it writes “on the day that HaShem Elokim made earth and heavens.”

Rashi, Bereishit 1:1, s.v. “bara Elokim”

According to Rashi, the two accounts of Creation describe different
approaches to creating the world. Utilizing the first approach, HaShem
builds Creation entirely on a foundation of Justice. After HaShem sees that
this was unsustainable, the first Creation is dismantled, and the foundation
of Justice is uprooted. In the second account of Creation, HaShem lays a
new foundation of Mercy, and then couples with it the attribute of Justice
taken from the first iteration. Hence, the first creation is negated in favor of
a second, more sustainable product.

Rashi’s interpretation answers the question of how one account of
Creation negates the other. But it also raises a question: why should the first
attempt at Creation be recorded in the Torah at all? After all, if the first
Creation failed, then it must be obsolete. Why then is it important to know
about HaShem’s seemingly failed attempt at creation?

In reality, although the first venture at Creation was dismantled,
the material used therein – namely the element of Justice – is not discarded.
So while the original plans for Creation necessitate a second approach to
Creation, Justice remains an important piece of Creation; it just needs to be
put in the right place.12

11 See Malachi 2:6 (describing the Torah as a “Torah of truth”).
12 Rashi makes this point but through the lens of Divine names. Had the first chapter used
only the name ‫ם‬-‫י‬-‫ה‬-‫ל‬-‫ א‬and the second chapter only the name ‫ה‬-‫ו‬-‫ה‬-‫י‬, it may have been
much less important to understand the name ‫ם‬-‫י‬-‫ה‬-‫ל‬-‫ א‬in order to understand the second

36 Rei’ach HaSadeh

In this regard, the word ‫ אלה‬signifies a fresh start with old
materials. It requires things to be uprooted, but not thrown away. The fresh
start comes from rearranging and recycling the uprooted things, sometimes
right down to the very foundation.

By this understanding, the word ‫ אלה‬at the beginning of Sefer
Devarim could also signify a fresh start. Indeed, the Jews are experiencing
a fresh start, as they will soon begin a new life in Eretz Yisra’el. But ‫ אלה‬also
connotes an uprooting and reorganizing of elements from the past. This is
evident in the structure of Sefer Devarim. Some mitzvot – like ‫( ציצית‬tzitzit)
or ‫( עיר מקלט‬city of refuge) – are restated with new context in Sefer
Devarim.13 This is comparable to the element of Justice in Creation, which is
repurposed in the second attempt at Creation. Other mitzvot – like ‫שילוח‬
‫( הקן‬sending away the mother bird) and ‫( עיר הנידחת‬missionized city) – are
presented for the first time in Sefer Devarim.14 These mitzvot are comparable
to the element of Mercy, which is added in the second Creation.

It is well and good to explain that Sefer Devarim is a reorganizing of
Torah. But none of this explains why the Torah needs to be reorganized in
the first place. It is understandable that the Jews get a fresh start when they
enter Eretz Yisra’el. But if an element of a previous Sefer, such as Shemot or
vaYikra or baMidbar, is restated in Devarim, it suggests that the element at
hand required uprooting. What is wrong with the rest of the Torah that
could warrant uprooting?

 

To understand what was wrong with Jews’ previous forty years in
the desert, look no further than Moshe’s own words in Sefer Devarim.
Toward the end of his sermon to the Jewish people, he explains to them:

attempt at Creation. But because the second attempt at creation is really a synthesis of new
materials with old ones, the Torah chooses to introduce the old materials in the narrative of
the first attempt, and then show how they were repurposed. This gives a greater insight into
the constituent materials of the second attempt at Creation than simply starting at the
second attempt itself.
13 ‫ ציצית‬in baMidbar 15:37-41 and Devarim 22:12, ‫ עיר מקלט‬in baMidbar 35:9-29 and
Devarim 19:1-10.
14 ‫ שילוח הקן‬in Devarim 22:6, ‫ עיר הנדחת‬in Devarim 13:13-19.

David Kohn 37

.‫ ַהיֹום ַה ֶזה‬,‫ ַעד‬,‫ ְּו ֵעי ַנ ִים ִל ְּראֹות ְּו ָא ְּז ַנ ִים ִל ְּש ֹמ ַע‬,‫ ָנ ַתן ה' ָל ֶכם ֵלב ָל ַד ַעת‬-‫ְּולֹא‬
And HaShem did not give you a heart to know and eyes to see and ears to
hear until this day.
Devarim 29:3

According to Moshe, there is something that the people could
neither understand nor see nor hear for forty years. But now that they have
reached their destination and stand at the border of Eretz Yisra’el, they can
finally understand. They can finally see and hear this thing that they have
not seen and not heard for forty years.

The passuk does not outright state what had been hidden from
them, but Rashi provides a clue:

.‫ להכיר את חסדי הקב"ה ולידבק בו‬- ‫ולא נתן ה' לכם לב לדעת‬
And HaShem did not give you a heart to know – to recognize the
kindnesses of HaShem and to cling to Him.
Rashi, ad loc.

According to Rashi, during all the forty years that the Jews spent in the
desert, they could not recognize the great kindness that HaShem had done
for them. This failure of recognition prevented them from connecting with
HaShem. But upon reaching the plains of Moav, Moshe announces that
they can finally recognize this great kindness, and they can finally connect
with HaShem.

How does this make sense? Did HaShem not perform amazing
miracles for the Jews from the day they left Egypt? Did HaShem not split
the sea and feed them man (manna) from heaven and water from a rock?
How could the Jews not recognize these amazing miracles as acts of
kindness? What does Moshe mean when he says they could not recognize
HaShem’s kindness “until today?”

If anything, one would expect the recognition of HaShem’s
kindness to work in the opposite way. When the miracles began, forty years
earlier, they were astounding and immediately recognizable acts of kindness.
But now, after forty years of experiencing such events, these miracles might
be expected to feel routine. Should that not make it harder to recognize

38 Rei’ach HaSadeh

HaShem’s kindness? How then does it because easier to cling to HaShem
after forty years?

Furthermore, Moshe says that the people could not understand
HaShem’s kindness “until today.” The use of the word “today” connotes the
present, not the future. They do not enter Eretz Yisra’el until more than
a month after Moshe’s death.15 This means that whatever renders them
capable of recognizing and appreciating HaShem happens in front of
Moshe, and not in the future after his death. Whatever “new normal” the
Jews discover must therefore be discovered in Sefer Devarim, and not after
Sefer Devarim. Whatever change this is, it is not the act of entering Eretz
Yisra’el.

 
The opening lines of the Midrash Tanchuma on Sefer Devarim
compare the beginning of Moshe’s speech to another momentous change:
the coming of Meshach (the Messiah)

.‫ כך עתיד לעשות להם בציון‬,‫ שכל הנסים שעשה לישראל במדבר‬- “‫” ֵא ֶלה ַה ְּד ָב ִרים‬
‫ אשים מחשך (לפניך) [לפניהם] לאור ומעקשים‬:‫ ובציון כתיב‬,‫ ֵא ֶלה ַה ְּד ָב ִרים‬:‫במדבר כתיב‬

.‫למישור אלה הדברים עשיתם ולא עזבתים‬

These are the things – All miracles [HaShem] did for the Jews in the desert, so
too will He do for them in Zion. In the desert it is written “These are the
things” and in Zion it is written “I will turn the darkness in front of you
into light, and the obstacles into flat ground, these are the things I have
done and I have not abandoned you.
Midrash Tanchuma, Devarim 1

The midrash draws a parallel between the words ‫ אלה הדברים‬used by
Moshe to recap the forty years in the desert, and the same words used
by the prophet Yeshayahu (Isaiah) to foretell the End of Days. Based on
this parallel, the midrash infers that the arrival of moshiach will be heralded by
great miracles. But the miracles will not arrive instantaneously. Instead, they
are gradual:

15 Moshe’s death was on 7 Adar (see Keddushin 38a), and the Jews crossed the Jordan River
into Eretz Yisra’el on 10 Nissan (see Yehoshua 4:19).

David Kohn 39

‫ מפני‬,‫ אינו נגלה עליהם כאחת‬,‫בשעה שהקדוש ברוך הוא מגלה שכינתו על ישראל‬...
.‫ ימותו כלם‬,‫שאינן יכולין לעמוד באותה טובה בפעם אחת; שאם יגלה להם טובתו כאחת‬

…When HaShem reveals his Presence to the Jews, it will not be revealed to
them all at once, because they could not stand such Greatness in a single
moment; for if He would reveal His greatness at once, they would all die.

Ibid.

And from where is it known that the immediate revelation of
HaShem’s presence would be paralyzing, if not fatal? The midrash continues:

:)‫ ד‬,‫ אמר להם (בראשית מה‬,‫ בשעה שנתודע לאחיו לאחר כמה שנים‬:‫צא ולמד מיוסף‬...
‫ הקדוש‬.‫ ג) ”ולא יכלו [אחיו] לענות אתו“ וגו‬,‫ (שם מה‬,‫ מתו כלם‬,“‫”אני יוסף אחיכם‬
‫ אלא מה הקדוש ברוך הוא עושה? מתגלה להם קמעא‬.‫ על אחת כמה וכמה‬,‫ברוך הוא‬
.‫קמעא‬

…Go and learn from Joseph: When he revealed himself to his brothers
after several years, he said to them “I am Joseph your brother” and they all
[figuratively] died, [as the verse states] “and his brother could not answer
him.” All the more so with HaShem. Rather, what will HaShem do? He will
reveal Himself to them little by little.

Ibid.

We see from the story of Joseph and his brothers how a big
surprise can be paralyzing. After twenty-two years of separation,16 Joseph
reveals his identity: He is their long-lost brother, not some adversarial
Egyptian ruler. But instead of hugging Joseph or even speaking to him, the
brothers are speechless. Surely the moment that HaShem reveals His
presence to the Jews will be more shocking than the moment that Joseph
reveals his identity to his brothers. So, the midrash explains, the only way to
avoid this shock is to ensure that the revelation is gradual instead of sudden.

At first glance, the comparison between Joseph revealing his
identity and the End of Days appears a stretch. In the case of Joseph, the
brothers think that they are standing in front of a tyrant who wishes to lock
them up in jail; they do not expect this tyrant to be their brother.
By comparison, Jews wait every day for mosaic to come, and they constantly
search for hints of HaShem’s presence. How then can the miracles

16 Megillah 17a.

40 Rei’ach HaSadeh

anticipated to come at the End of Days be as jarring as the unanticipated
revelation of Joseph’s identity to his brothers?

The answer lies within the passuk quoted by the midrash. HaShem
does not say that He will replace the darkness with light or that obstacles will
be replaced by flat ground. Instead, He says that he will turn the darkness into
light and the obstacles into flat ground. Additionally, HaShem does not say
that He will do these things for the Jews in the future. Instead, He says,
“These are the things I have done and have not abandoned you.”

In other words, throughout the days of exile, the Jews will think
that they have been abandoned by HaShem, that they have been left in the
dark to stumble over obstacles. But at the End of Days, when HaShem
finally reveals Himself, they will realize that HaShem has been there all
along. That what they thought was darkness was in fact always light. And
that what they thought was an obstacle was in fact always flat ground.

In this manner, the revelation at the End of Days is much like the
surprise Joseph gives his brothers. Just like the Jews will discover that all
the obstacles in front of them are in fact solutions, so do the brothers
experience the same epiphany: the Egyptian tyrant is not an obstacle
standing in the way of their redemption, but rather Joseph, the brother who
holds the key to reunifying their family.

If the brothers had discovered Joseph in a different setting, it may
have still been surprising, but it would not have been so shocking. What is
most shocking to the brothers is their understanding that their perception
of the Egyptian tyrant is the opposite of reality. This is too much to absorb
and leaves the brothers in a state of speechlessness.

Significantly, this episode also reveals the true meaning of the
words “‫אלה הדברים‬.” Those words do not just mean “these things.” They
mean “these same things we have been dealing with all along.” That same
thing the brothers believe to be a problem is in fact a solution. The very
thing the Jews in exile perceive as darkness is in fact light. And, at the
beginning of Sefer Devarim, Moshe teaches the Jews ‫אלה הדברים‬: every act of
HaShem in the desert that the Jews had perceived as cruel was in fact an act
of kindness.

David Kohn 41

Moshe makes this point to his audience in the following manner:

,‫ הֹו ִצי ָאנּו ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְּצ ָר ִים ָל ֵתת ֹא ָתנּו ְּב ַיד ָה ֱא ֹמ ִרי‬,‫ ְּב ִש ְּנ ַאת ה' ֹא ָתנּו‬,‫ ַותֹא ְּמרּו‬,‫ַו ֵת ָר ְּגנּו ְּב ָא ֳה ֵלי ֶכם‬
‫ הּוא‬,‫ ה' ֱאֹלקי ֶכם ַה ֹה ֵלְך ִל ְּפ ֵני ֶכם‬.‫ ֵמ ֶהם‬,‫ לֹא ַת ַע ְּרצּון ְּולֹא ִתי ְּראּון‬:‫ ֲא ֵל ֶכם‬,‫ ָו ֹא ַמר‬... ‫ְּל ַה ְּש ִמי ֵדנּו‬
,'‫ בה‬,‫ ַמ ֲא ִמי ִנם‬,‫ ַה ֶזה ֵאי ְּנ ֶכם‬,‫ ּו ַב ָד ָבר‬... ‫ ְּב ִמ ְּצ ַר ִים ְּל ֵעי ֵני ֶכם‬,‫ ְּכ ֹכל ֲא ֶשר ָע ָשה ִא ְּת ֶכם‬:‫ִי ָל ֵחם ָל ֶכם‬

.‫ֱאֹלקי ֶכם‬

And you complained in your tents, and you said “Through HaShem’s
hatred of us did He take us out of Egypt to deliver us into the hand of the
Emorites to destroy us” … And I said to you “do not tremble and do not
be afraid of them. HaShem your G-d, Who walks in front of you, He will
fight for you as did for You in Egypt before your eyes … And on this
matter you did not believe in HaShem your G-d.

Devarim 1:27-32

The Jews complain that HaShem took them out of Egypt out of hatred in
order to kill them all. But in reality, everything HaShem does for the Jews
is out of kindness. They simply cannot recognize the kindness through all
their suffering.

At the end of the forty years of travel and travail in the desert, as
the Jews prepare to enter Eretz Yisra’el, Moshe tells them to reconsider
everything they have experienced in their past. ‫אלה הדברים‬, he says. All these
things that you perceived as bad were in reality good. And as the Jews
rethink their past, they also rethink everything they have encountered in
their past: the Torah; the mitzvos; their connection to HaShem. Only after
reframing their history in a new context are they equipped to recognize all
of the kindness HaShem has done for them – and that He will continue to
do for them. And only then will the Jews choose to connect with HaShem.

 

When the Torah begins a parashah with the word ‫אלה‬, the Torah is
not merely highlighting a transition to a “new normal.” Instead, the Torah
is signaling a reversal in perspective. Justice, the presumed foundation of
the world, is discovered to be an unsustainable base on its own. The Jews’
forty years in the desert are discovered to be an expression of HaShem’s
kindness, not His hatred. The travails are recognized as a product of
HaShem’s presence in their lives, not His absence. Everything becomes the
opposite of what it was originally perceived to be. All the pieces had always
been there. But each piece had been put in the wrong place.

42 Rei’ach HaSadeh

Once these new perceptions emerge, the old normal has to go,
as its foundations are discovered to be unsustainable and false. The pieces
must be disassembled and reassembled into something new. And so the
word ‫ אלה‬ushers in a new normal.

 Part II 

The long pause from coronavirus lockdowns makes the present
time an especially good time for new perceptions to emerge, to reassess the
past and build a suitable new normal. It is a good time to ask, “what things
appear to be bad, but are actually good?” Or, conversely, “what things
appear to be good, but are actually bad.” And it is a good time to consider
how these changes in perceptions can manifest in new routines and habits.

I wish to propose to the present-day Jewish community one simple
change. The change involves two fundamental, perhaps foundational,
elements of any Jewish community: Torah study and tefillah (prayer).

Modern habits have led these two fundamental elements to occupy
nearly the same space in Jewish life. Often, Torah learning is squeezed into
open time slots around or between prayers, whether it be shacharit (morning
prayers) ending with a devar halachah (literally, statement of Torah law),
a brief Torah learning session offered between mincha (afternoon prayers)
and ma’ariv (evening prayers), or a longer Torah learning program scheduled
immediately before or after ma’ariv. These scheduling choices increase the
likelihood that the appropriate time for Torah learning will be confused for
or conflated with the appropriate time for prayer.

Take chazarat haShatz (leader’s repetition [of the prayers]), for
instance. It often feels like a lull in the middle of prayer, a perfect time to
take out a sefer (book) and learn. But in fact, the time for chazarat haShatz
is a time strictly for prayer, and not a time for Torah learning.

‫כששליח ציבור חוזר התפלה הקהל יש להם לשתוק ולכוין לברכות שמברך החזן ולענות‬
.‫אמן‬

When the leader of the congregation repeats the prayers, the congregation
must remain silent and focus on the blessings that the leader recites and
answer “Amen.”

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 124:4

David Kohn 43

The Chofetz Chaim, in his commentary Mishnah Berurah, takes the
concept of avoiding Torah learning during prayer one step further:

‫ ע"כ יש ליזהר מלומר תחנונים או ללמוד בעת חזרת הש"ץ ואפילו אם מכוונים‬- ‫ולכוין‬
‫לסוף הברכה לענות אמן כראוי שלא תהיה אמן יתומה כמו שיתבאר ג"כ לא יפה הם‬

‫עושים שאם הלומדים יפנו ללימודם עמי הארץ ילמדו מהן שלא להאזין לש"ץ ויעסקו‬
.‫בשיחה בטילה ח"ו נמצאו מחטיאין את הרבים‬

And focus – therefore one must take caution not to recite supplications or
learn [Torah] during the chazarat haShatz, and even if they focus on the ends
of the blessings to appropriately answer “Amen,” in order that it should not
be an “orphan Amen” as will be explained [in ]. It is also inappropriate [to
learn Torah during chazarat haShatz], since if the learners turn to their
learning, the ordinary folk will learn from them not to listen to the leader
and they will engage in idle chatter, Heaven forbid. [The Torah learners]
will be found to have caused the masses to sin.

Mishnah Berurah, ad loc. 124:17

The Chofetz Chaim’s warning presents an example of a thing that
appears good but is actually bad. One might think that the lull of chazarat
haShatz provides an opportunity to fulfill the obligations of Torah learning
and prayer at the same time. In reality, the opposite is true. A person who
learns Torah during chazarat haShatz is not participating in communal prayer
as required. And if the Torah learning undertaken instead of prayer serves
as a vehicle for others to sin, it is indeed a bad thing and not a good deed.

Say someone enters into a synagogue and sees half of the
congregants learning Torah during chazarat haShatz and the other half idly
chatting. That person may think that the “ordinary folk” who are less
meritorious than the “learners.” At least the learners are doing something
productive with their time and learning Torah, right? The Chofetz Chaim’s
lesson says “Wrong!” Idle chatter during prayer is wrong, no doubt. But
Torah learning during prayer is a worse sin because it encourages the idle
chatter.17

This observation may seem surprising. Typically, congregations
focus their attention on maintaining decorum during chazarat haShatz. This
means shushing or stopping the proceedings when congregants are talking.
But little is said or done about congregants who learn Torah during chazarat

17 See Yoma 87a (noting that those who cause the masses to sin are not enabled to repent so
that they will not have a place in the World to Come).

44 Rei’ach HaSadeh

haShatz. But instead of aiming to preserve decorum, it would behoove
congregations to preserve the quorum of worshipers who focus on – and
answer “Amen” to – every blessing.

 
If it seems inapt to focus on the learners and not the talkers,
I believe this is a sign of our warped perception of these foundational
elements; Torah learning and prayer. We have come to assume that learning
Torah is inherently good, no matter when or how it is done. But every piece
has its place. And the right piece in the wrong place must be uprooted and
reimagined.
Consider, for instance, the words of Yeshayahu shortly before
Churban Bayit haRishon (the destruction of the first Temple). HaShem
conveys through Yeshayahu His disgust of the avodah (worship) at the time:

‫ ָש ַב ְּע ִתי ֹעלֹות ֵאי ִלים ְּו ֵח ֶלב ְּמ ִרי ִאים; ְּו ַדם ָפ ִרים ּו ְּכ ָב ִשים‬,'‫ ִז ְּב ֵחי ֶכם יֹא ַמר ה‬-‫ ִלי ֹרב‬-‫ָל ָמה‬
.‫ ְּר ֹמס ֲח ֵצ ָרי‬,‫ ֵל ָראֹות ָפ ָני ִמי ִב ֵקש זֹאת ִמ ֶי ְּד ֶכם‬,‫ ִכי ָת ֹבאּו‬.‫ לֹא ָח ָפ ְּצ ִתי‬,‫ְּו ַעתּו ִדים‬

“Why do I [need] your plenty of sacrifices,” says HaShem. “I am full of
your Oleh offerings of rams, fats of sheep, and blood of cows, and I do not
desire your sheep and goats. When you come to see My Face, who asked
this of you, to trample by courtyards?”
Yeshayahu 1:11-12

HaShem says, “I do not want your sacrifices.” What does this
mean? Does the Torah not obligate the Jews to bring sacrifices? HaShem
asks “who asked you to trample my courtyard?” Who asked us?
Did HaShem not command the Jews to bring the sacrifices in His courtyard
and nowhere else?! It is not a question of doing what HaShem wants, it is
a matter of obligation! How then can HaShem turn around and blame
the Jews for entering His space? How can He refuse the sacrifices He
obligated?

.‫ לרמוס את חצרי אחרי שאין לבבכם שלם עמי‬- ‫מי בקש זאת מידכם רמס חצרי‬
Who asked this of you … to trample by courtyards after your hearts are not
whole with Me.
Rashi, ad loc.

David Kohn 45

Rashi explains how this could happen. The Jews’ hearts are not at
one with their Creator. So while they presume their actions are in service of
HaShem, their actions actually cause greater harm.

‫ מתרה אני בכם לא תביאו לי מנחת שוא שלכם שהעשן עולה‬- ‫לא תוסיפו הביא מנחת שוא‬
.‫ממנה קיטור של תיעוב הוא לי ולא לנחת הרוח‬

Do not continue to bring offerings in vain – I am warning you to not bring
your vain offerings, for the smoke from them ascends a cloud of
abomination to Me, and not as an appeasement.
Rashi, Yeshayahu 1:13

A sacrifice is normally a vehicle of appeasement. But outside the
context of a meaningful relationship with HaShem, the sacrifice becomes
the vehicle for exactly the opposite, for abomination. This demonstrates
how a foundational piece of Jewish practice such as worship can be
transformed from good to bad when it falls out of its proper context. Not
only does the “right piece in the wrong place” fail to accomplish its basic
purpose, but it even becomes a grave sin.

The same perspective can and should be applied to any mitzvah
a Jew performs. Just because an action is commanded by HaShem does not
necessarily mean that the action pleases HaShem when it is performed.
Context is key.

 

When the right piece is in the wrong place, it does not just prevent
us from maximizing our potential. It can lead to punishment; it can make
the entire world crumble. When the right piece is in the wrong place,
it must be uprooted and repositioned.

But when the right piece is put in the right place, every change is
for the better. ‫אלה הדברים‬. Those things that once appeared good are
recognized to actually be bad. And the things that once seemed bad
miraculously become good. Everything that came before is suddenly
negated in favor of a new, more sustainable, perspective of reality.

In this manner, the transition from “old normal” to “new normal”
is more than merely an improvement. It is our greatest – and perhaps our
only – protection from serious consequences.

46 Rei’ach HaSadeh

 Conclusion 
At first blush, the Torah’s use of the word ‫ אלה‬as a literary device
to mark an abrupt change appears to be borne out of convenience. After all,
“cancelling” an entire narrative with a single word is incredibly efficient. But
upon a closer look, the change heralded by ‫ אלה‬is not one of narrative but
rather one of perspective. ‫ אלה‬signifies an abrupt change in perspective.
Furthermore, ‫ אלה‬is a critical device in the “storytelling” of the
Torah. The word connotes, and allows for, a complete rethink of past
narratives. Without the opportunity to rethink and reframe our past, we
would be bound to repeat our mistakes.
As our institutions reopen after the long coronavirus lockdowns,
let us use this opportunity to rethink and reframe the foundational pieces of
these institutions and, where needed, reassemble them. We may just
discover that our world – which at times can feel hopelessly broken – is
actually just a misplaced piece or two away from miraculously having been
fine all along.

David Kohn was born and raised in Springfield. He and his wife, Lauren, returned to the CIS
community as a young couple before making Aliyah four years ago to Yad Binyamin, Israel.
While at CIS, David co-taught the local daf yomi class, and began a thirteen-part series of lectures
on Maimonides' Principles of Faith that he still plans to complete in future years. David is an
intellectual property lawyer with 10 years' experience, and works remotely for a NJ law firm.

47

THE MISHKAN AND JEWISH COMMUNITY BUILDING

BY: MOSHE B. ROSENWEIN

Sefer Shemos (the Book of Exodus) describes the transformation of
the Jewish people from the progeny of Yaakov’s twelve sons into a nation.
The book is organized around three main narratives: (i) slavery and
deliverance; (ii) the Revelation and giving of the Torah; and (iii) the design
and building of the Mishkan. This essay focuses on the Mishkan’s pivotal
role in the creation of a Jewish national identity.

HaShem commands Moshe and the Jewish people to build
a Mishkan (Shemos 25:8) – “they shall make Me a Sanctuary, and I will dwell
among them.” HaShem’s presence is referred to as the shechinah which shares
the same root in Hebrew as Mishkan and shachanti (the Hebrew word for
dwell, as used in Shemos 25:8). All of these words share the same Hebrew
letters – shin, kaf, nun – which also form the Hebrew word for neighbor.
The Mishkan enables the Jewish people to connect with HaShem as if they
were connecting with a neighbor and “to experience His presence in their
everyday lives.”1 The Mishkan addresses the “deep longing of human beings
to be in touch with…and relate directly with the [D]ivine.”2

The Mishkan plays a central role in the development of a Jewish
society, expressing the Torah’s middos and values. It is a “place for the
community to meet and to seek and commune with G-d. The center of
communal life, it [was] a home for showing gratitude and seeking
atonement, for prayer and sacrifice, and for dedicating personal and
collective life to serving G-d and His higher purposes for humankind.”3
The Mishkan reflects the recognition of a human aspiration to grow beyond
simply being concerned with one’s own comfort and needs. Its design and
construction represents the final – and perhaps most critical – stage of
Jewish nation building.

Fittingly, in giving his instructions to the people to proceed with
the Mishkan’s construction, Moshe uses the verb vaYakhel – he assembled.
The root of vaYakhel is kahal which means community. A kahal serves to
bring disparate individuals, from distinct backgrounds and identities, into
a common collective that is based on a shared vision and purpose.
Construction of the Mishkan instilled collective responsibility through
a shared task. Unlike the liberation from Egyptian slavery and the giving of

1 Leon Kass, “Exodus and American Nationhood,” Wall Street Journal, January 9-10, 2021.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.

48 Rei’ach HaSadeh

the Torah, the Jewish people – and not HaShem – are the main actors in
the Mishkan narrative. In building the Mishkan, different individuals,
encompassing a wide range of skills and talents, collaborate and join
together to complete a complex and ‘multi-disciplinary’ project. The
‘magnet’ that draws the people together is a shared vision of Torah and
Jewish destiny. Attainment, among the disparate Jewish families and tribes,
of a shared and unified vision and purpose are a foundation for nation
building. In the words of Dr. Leon Kass, “the goals of shared history create
attachments that induce people to care concretely for one another.”4

During the construction of the Mishkan, the Jewish people do not
quarrel with one another, and contribute so generously that Moshe must tell
them to stop bringing materials and gifts!5 By ‘building a home together,’
the Jewish people are transformed and coalesce into a unified society and
a nation. The Mishkan serves to connect the Jewish people with one
another, in addition to connecting each individual with HaShem. Arguably,
based on Rashi’s commentary to Devarim 33:5, Jewish unity is
a prerequisite for HaShem to extend His Sovereignty and Shechinah over the
Jewish people: “He [HaShem] became King over Jeshurun [i.e., the Jewish
people] when the numbers of the nation gathered – the tribes of Israel in
unity.”

The Mishkan remains a temporary structure, serving as HaShem’s
dwelling place until Shlomo haMelech (King Solomon) constructed the
(first) Beis haMikdash. Upon the destruction of the Beis haMikdash, the
people themselves are inspired to establish the concept of a synagogue
– a Mikdash Me’at.6 R. Jonathan Sacks, z”tl, points out that establishment of
houses of worship is an example of “an awakening from below,” as the
concept of a shul is not prescribed by the Torah or the Prophets.7 The
Jewish people shift their emphasis from a distinct place of worship – the
Beis haMikdash – to the gathering of worshipers assembled in any designated
place. Arguably, the development of shul communities was inspired by the
Mishkan – a portable and temporary institution. Ironically, despite its
relatively short history as G-d’s dwelling on Earth, the Mishkan endures as
a permanent influence on Jewish life, having inspired the synagogue
communities that have sustained the Jewish people for nearly two millennia
in the Diaspora – the longest of all our nation’s desert journeys.

4 Ibid.
5 See Shemos 36:5-7.
6 See Yechezkel 11:6.
7 Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Covenant and Conversation Exodus: The Book of Redemption, (Jerusalem:
Maggid Press, 2010), p. 190.

Moshe B. Rosenwein 49

Significantly, each of the three narratives in Sefer Shemos is
connected with one of the three Festivals (Sholosh Regalim). The connection
between Pesach and the liberation from Egypt is straightforward. Likewise,
Shavuos and the giving of the Torah are clearly intertwined. The connection
between Succos and the Mishkan requires a deeper examination.

Interestingly, the Mishkan is often translated as ‘Tabernacle’ in
English. A tabernacle is a hut – that is, a Sukkah. Likewise, Succos is often
translated into English as the ‘Tabernacle Festival.’ In order to relate Succos
to the Mishkan, we must explore the nature of a Sukkah, a subject of debate
in the Gemara (Sukkah 11b). Is it an actual hut or does the word Sukkah
refer to the Clouds of Glory – a symbol of HaShem’s presence in the
Jewish people’s encampments and travels in the desert? In R. Sacks’s view,
both interpretations of a Sukkah are problematic.8 If a Sukkah is an actual
hut, then why doesn’t the Torah refer to Sukkahs in describing the dwelling
places of the Jews in the desert? Rather, it seems that the Jewish people
dwelled in tents (ohelim) – not Sukkahs (for example, see references to tent-
dwelling in Bamidbar 11:10, Bamidbar 16:26, and Devarim 5:27).
Furthermore, what is the miracle associated with living in a hut in the
desert? On the other hand, if a Sukkah symbolizes the Clouds of Glory,
then why doesn’t the Torah explicitly reveal this miracle?

The connection between a Sukkah and the Clouds of Glory is
found in Yeshayahu (4:5-6):

Then the Lord will create over the whole site of Mount Zion and over
her assemblies a cloud by day, and smoke and the shining of a
flaming fire by night; for over all the glory there will be a canopy.
There will be a Sukkah for shade by day from the heat, and for a
refuge and a shelter from the storm and rain.

In the Torah itself, the Clouds of Glory are of course mentioned only in
connection with the Mishkan. At the conclusion of the narrative about its
construction, which marks the end of Sefer Shemos, the Torah (Shemos
40:34) states that “the cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and the glory of
the Lord filled the Tabernacle.” Likewise, a Cloud of Glory is mentioned in
connection with the Beis haMikdash, the successor to the Mishkan (Melachim
I 8:11): “And the priests could not stand up to serve because of the cloud for the Presence
of G-d filled the House.”

8 Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Ceremony & Celebration: Introduction to the Holidays, (Jerusalem: Maggid
Press, 2017), pp. 140-141.

50 Rei’ach HaSadeh

In addition to the Clouds of Glory, there are other connections
between Succos and the Mishkan. On Succos, we read the Book of Koheles,
written by Shlomo haMelech. However, rather than identifying himself by
his actual name, he uses Koheles – which has kahal as its root. He would
gather the nation every seven years in Yerushalayim on Succos to observe
the mitzvah of hakhel (which also has kahal as its root!). This mitzvah,
which is the last mitzvah prescribed in the Torah, is intended to gather the
entire Jewish nation – on Succos – for the purpose of being instructed in
Torah by their king. It is clear, then, that both the Festival of Succos, like
the Mishkan, are intended to create a connection among the Jewish people
themselves, as well as a link between the nation and HaShem.

Another element that reinforces the association of this chag and the
Mishkan is the Sukkah itself, which is covered by sechach (from which the
word Sukkah is derived). Interestingly, however, the Torah does not
mention sechach in regard to the Festival of Succos, but rather the Mishkan:
the Cherubim – angelic, childlike figures – have wings that overshadow
(“sochahim,” Shemos 25:20) the Ark. Similarly, the Torah (Shemos 40:3) uses
the term sacosah to describe the Paroches, the curtain covering the Ark. The
Torah’s use of different forms of the word sechach in connection with the
Mishkan further bonds the Mishkan to the Festival of Succos.

Yet another connection between the Mishkan and the Festival of
Succos is found in the dedication of the Beis haMikdash – the structure that
was predestined to be the ultimate dwelling place of the Shechinah. Shlomo
dedicated the Temple over a 14-day period, overlapping with the Festival of
Succos (as described in the Haftorah of the second day of Succos in the
Diaspora). In the narrative describing the dedication, a form of the word
kahal is mentioned seven times. Indeed, R. Sacks points out that in Tanach,
the use of a term seven times implies the heightened importance of the
concept being described.9 The Navi Amos carries forward the theme of
linking Sukkah and Mishkan/Mikdash by referring to the Beis haMikdash as
‘Sukkas Dovid,’ or King David’s Tabernacle (See Amos 9:11).10 In our day,
we insert a reference to the reestablishment of Sukkas Dovid – that is, the
Beis haMikdash – in Birkas haMazon (Grace after Meals) on Succos.

Reflecting on the Covid-19 pandemic, we realize that one of the
three pillars required for Jewish nation building and its preservation has
been shaken at its core. Unlike, for example, Jews in Nazi-controlled
Europe or the former Soviet Union, we have been free to practice and

9 Id. at p.115.
10 See Amos 9:11.

Moshe B. Rosenwein 51

study Torah. However, for over a year our ability to gather as a community
– to worship, rejoice, and mourn together – was severely impaired.
Communal participation is an antidote for the loneliness that many
experienced during the pandemic. Communities give people a sense of
“belonging and identity.”11 After having experienced a loss of community, it
is hoped that our appreciation of its importance in our daily lives will be
heightened in the years ahead.

May we all be privileged to witness the fulfillment of Amos’s
prophecy concerning the reestablishment of Sukkas Dovid haNofeles in
a secure and undivided Yerushalayim.

Moshe B. Rosenwein and his wife, Debbie, have been part of the Springfield shul
community for 24 years, where they were fortunate to raise their three children, David, Hannah,
and Benjamin.

11 Andres Spokoiny, “What Does Community Mean in the 21st Century,” Moment, May 2021,
available at https://momentmag.com/community.



53

BRIT MILAH:
THE QUINTESSENTIAL CONNECTION BETWEEN

MAN, WOMAN AND GOD
BY: AVI BORENSTEIN
Introduction

What Is Connection in Judaism?
Judaism is not a Snapchat religion. It is the opposite: Judaism

values connection, history and is based on mesorah, the transmission of its
teachings and values from generation to generation. Unlike apps designed
to capture fleeting moments in time, Torah continuity, which informs
Jewish values, is predicated on the core concept that events that occurred in
the past not only exist forever, but influence subsequent events and will
influence the future as well.

In the internet era, the human race is experiencing a sharp
differential between connectivity and connection. Connectivity is the ability
to reach another person, and in that sense, with the advent of the internet,
the smart phone and the multiplicity of apps, we are able to do ‘connect’ in
short bursts with ease and speed, but without matured connection. Contrast
such facile, often evanescent social media like Twitter, Instagram, TikTok
and Facebook with the connections described in the very first Mishnah
in Pirkei Avot:

Moshe Kibel Torah miSinai, uMesarah liYehoshua; viYehoshua
laZekenim; u’z’kaynim linveeim; uNevi’im masruha leAnshei
Kenesset haGedolah.
Moshe received the Torah from Sinai, and transmitted it to
Yehoshua; and Yehoshua to the Elders; the Elders to the Prophets;
and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly.1

1 Translation from Maharal of Prague Pirkei Avos, trans. Tuvia Basser (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah
Pub., 2009), pp. 8-10.

At various times, your writer employs traditional Ashkenazic pronunciation, and at
other times modern, Sephardic pronunciation, as determined by context. For example,
relating to an important discussion in this piece, regarding the Hebrew word for “sign,” we
apply ”os” and “ot” interchangeably. Names are used interchangeably as well (e.g., Yosayf and
Joseph).

54 Rei’ach HaSadeh

This introductory Mishnah describes the in-depth, long-term connections
that link the Torah, Jewish history, Jewish philosophy and Jewish theology
to current events.2 This reality is manifested in a concept called Zechut Avot:
the merits of the forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Their merit serves
as a saving grace or a source of redemption that is repeatedly mentioned in
daily and holiday liturgy3 as well as Scripture.4 The section of Mussaf on
Rosh Hashanah called “Zichronot” expresses another aspect of relationships
in Judaism: that specific dates on the calendar also invoke connection.5

2 The opening Mishnah of Pirkei Avot deposits the further development of Torah at the
footsteps of successors to those listed in the Mishnah. Following the compilation of the
Talmud, Jewish Torah connection continued with the Geonic era, which extended from about
690 C.E. until the 11th century. The first Geonim popularly referred to as “Sages,” were the
heads of the Babylonian (“Bavli”) and Jerusalem (“Yerushalmi”) academies in which the
Talmud was studied. The successors to the Geonim were the Rishonim, or early scholars, to
distinguish them from the later Torah authorities, popularly called Acharonim. Spanning
approximately a 500-year period, the Rishonim led the Torah world from approximately 1000
to 1500 CE, during which time Jewish life underwent enormous changes. The closing years
of the fifteenth century marked the beginning of a new era, as the time of the Acharonim was
opening. The basic dividing line between the Rishonim and Acharonim periods was the
printing of the Shulchan Aruch. The Shulchan Aruch (literally: “Set Table”), known in English as
the “Code of Jewish Law,” is the most widely consulted of the various legal codes in
Judaism. See, the Jewish History section of the Chabad website, available at
https://www.chabad.org/ library/article_cdo/aid/68870/jewish/Jewish-History.htm; Yosef
Eisen, Miraculous Journey (Brooklyn, NY: Targum Press, 2004); Hersh Goldwurm, The Early
Achronim, (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Pub., 1989), pp. 15-16.
3 As one example, the opening berachah of the Shemoneh Esrei (also referred to as the Amidah
prayers) recited three times daily is called Avot, Patriarchs. It recalls the greatness of our
forefathers in whose merit Hashem pledged to help the Jews, even when unworthy. See ‫סדור‬
‫קול יעקב‬, The Rabbinical Council of America Edition of the ArtScroll Siddur, (Brooklyn, NY:
Mesorah Pub., 2013), p. 98; hereinafter “the ArtScroll Siddur.”
4 See Vayikra 26:42.
5 In Judaism, time is not said to move in a straight line, but rather in a spiral, and thus from
year to year, Jewish people pass through and experience the same seasons and same
historical moments that our ancestors experienced. See Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, Da’at
Tevunot, trans. Mordechai Rose (Jerusalem: Feldheim Pub., 2016), pp. 435-439.

Passover is an excellent example of the idea that ancient events in Jewish History
are not one-time moments, but repeat in the same season. The Passover Seder actually is an
invitation and formula for the participant to experience and relive the very event of the
exodus in his/her time. That is one reason so many berachot say, “baYamim haHem, baZeman
haZeh,” in those days, but at this time. (e.g., lighting of Chanukah candles). Similarly on the
night of Shavuot, Jews study Torah all night, not as a memorial, but to experience kabbalat
Torah, receipt of the Torah, all over again. See, R. Joseph Elias, The Haggadah (Brooklyn, NY:
Mesorah Pub., 1990), pp. xviii-xx. Lastly, on Tisha B’av, Jews sit on the floor and mourn the
destruction of the two Temples, and many other tragedies, as if they just happened.
Moreover,

The tragedy of the [Israelites’] delusion [believing the lies of the spies]
had far reaching consequences, for when the people wept that night [i.e., the
night the spies returned and gave their evil report], God declared “They
indulged in weeping without a cause; I will establish [this night] for

Avi Borenstein 55

Brit Milah: Origins and Meanings

Jewish connection has a physical and spiritual component of the
highest significance. The Brit Milah rite, the ritual circumcision of Jewish
boys, is that powerfully charged, fundamental physical and spiritual
connection between the generations of mankind. In Judaism, circumcision
is considered a physical manifestation and symbol of the covenant between
God and the Jewish people. In fact, brit literally means “covenant.”6

Our study of the origin of the need for milah (circumcision)
commences with Adam, the first-created man. Adam was guilty of the
“original sin” which was, eating from the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden
of Eden against the direct orders from HaShem (Genesis 2:15-17; 3:6).

Adam was created without a foreskin.7 Adam’s sin of eating from
the Tree of Knowledge caused the foreskin (orlah) to be imposed on his
male organ, and resulted in the biological fact that all of his male offspring
thereafter were born with a foreskin.8 As we will explore, the physical and
spiritual manifestation of Brit Milah for males includes, by extension, all
women in connection with their reproductive organs, starting with the first
woman, Chavah, due to her involvement in the transgression of eating and
supplying Adam with the fruit of the Etz Hada’as (Genesis 3:6-7).

The brit component of milah commenced with Avraham, the first
man circumcised, and at the direction of and with a Covenant with HaShem
(Genesis 17:9). For Jews, the combination of brit and milah since the time of
Avraham is continuing to this very day.

them [as a time of] weeping throughout the generations.” That night
was Tisha B’Av.
Ta’anis 29a. See further, The Stone Edition Chumash, general ed. R. Nosson Scherman and R.
Meir Zlotowitz (New York: Mesorah Pub., 1996), p. 803, n. 1-4. And thus the spirit of Tisha
B’Av connects to every subsequent year on the 9th of Av.
6 See Nedarim 31b-32a, Schottenstein Ed. (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Pub., 2017) and notes
therein for an incisive Mishnaic and Talmudic discussion of the centrality of circumcision to
Judaism, and the Jewish people, as well as to in the lives of Abraham and Moshe. Many
concepts in that portion of the Gemara are weaved through this article.
Note that references to Talmudic tractates are to Talmud Bavli, unless otherwise
indicated. While Talmud Bavli historically has been studied much more universally than
Talmud Yerushalmi, the Yerushalmi is now enjoying widespread popularity which requires this
specification.
7 See Or HaChaim, Yaakov and Ilana Melohn Ed. (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Pub., 2019) at
Vayikra, Parashat Tazria, p.350 and n. 63. All citations to Or HaChaim are from the Melohn
Edition unless otherwise noted.
8 See R. Dovid Hofstedter, Dorash Dovid, Series 1: Bereishis/Shemos, Insights and Essays on the
Torah, (Lakewood, NJ: Israel Bookshop Pub., 2011), at p.73.

56 Rei’ach HaSadeh

Adam and Eve’s sin made the newfound orlah and the
consequences of both of their actions new, essential phenomena of the
natural world.9 Circumcision of Jewish males thereafter became a crucial
component for rectification of Adam’s original sin. The removal of the
foreskin by the Milah process represents the physical act by which man
attempts to remove a portion of the barrier that the foreskin represents and
to once again come close to God.

Since the time of Adam, commencing with Avraham, the orlah,
which represents the barrier that Adam created between himself and God,
requires removal.10 Judaism, however, does not just remove the foreskin;
Judaism removes the foreskin with specific intentions and consequences
that we know as Brit Milah. Its removal, combined with the
acknowledgement of the Brit, is a physical act by which the Jewish man
attempts to come close to God again; and indeed, the formulation of the
mitzvah, rather than a source of anguish, is a divine gift.11

As explained by R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, known as Ramchal, in
his Da’at Tevunot (“God’s Knowing Plan”) 12 Adam’s (along with Eve’s)
sins brought death to all living creatures; moreover, their sins caused their
bodies to become as impure as their souls, nullifying the capacity of any
soul to fully purify itself (with rare exceptions) during life.13 Just as Adam’s
sin caused him to develop a foreskin, so too did Chavah’s sins (eating from
the Tree of Knowledge and causing Adam to eat as well) cause physical
changes that persist to this day; in Judaism, the contamination of a woman’s
body is continuously ejected by the menstrual process, and endures until
death.14

9 See Id. at pp. 72-77and sources cited therein.
10 See Or HaChaim at Vayikra, Parashat Tazria, p.350 and n. 63.
11 See Dorash Dovid at pp. 72-77.
12 Da’at Tevunot at pp.152-154, n. 20-22; and 315-325.
13 The Talmud (Bava Basra 17a) mentions four individuals who never sinned in their lifetime
and did not deserve to die, but nevertheless had to die because of the mortality imposed on
humankind in the wake of Adam and Eve’s eating from the Tree of Knowledge. They are:
Binyamin (Yaakov’s youngest son); Amram (Moshe’s father); Yishai (King David’s father);
and Kilav (King David’s son). Only two men – Chanoch and Eliyahu – so refined their
bodies to be as angels that they did not have to die. See Bava Basra 121b. For an incisive
overview, see Kings I and II, Rubin Ed. (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Pub., 2017) at Kings II
2:1-14, pp. 237-243.
14 I direct readers to the classic work Nefesh HaChaim, by R. Chaim of Velozhin, as presented
in a brilliant two-volume work called Nefesh HaTzimtzum by R. Avinoam Fraenkel (Jerusalem:
Urim Pub., 2015), at Nefesh HaChaim 1:6, N7(Sins of Adam/Golden Calf internalized Evil
Requiring Death to Purify), pp.154-160 (noting “when the snake came upon Chavah it placed
poison in her, meaning it was literally placed within her.”). See also Shabbat 146a,
Schottenstein Ed. (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Pub., 1997), n. 1. Through Eve’s interaction with

Avi Borenstein 57

The consequence of Adam and Eve reconstituting the natural
order of the world by their enormous sin are crucial components of the
human condition which will continue until the time of Meshiach. When the
body of a male or female is rebuilt after resurrection, the soul will enter
a purified body and will be entirely without a trace of evil – a three-step
process involving: (1) the acquisition of merits in this world by Torah
learning and Mitzvah observance; (2) death and decomposition to cleanse
the body and rid it of dross and negativity; and (3) at techiyat haMetim,
resurrection of the dead, reunification of body and soul where the now-
purified soul will illuminate and elevate the body.15

The way in which the Brit Milah is experienced encompasses
a panoply of Jewish connections. Some are simple and some are very deep
and intricate, including the following:

1) Adam’s first sin, and the implications of that sin, for time
immemorial.

2) The Kabbalistic kelipah (covering or husk) and the Brit
Milah process.16

the snake, the serpent injected into all of humankind the spiritual impurity that is the root of
all sin.
15 Note that there is no reference in that discussion to Gehinnom, sometimes called
“purgatory,” which this writer takes as an optimistic perspective of the deceased person by
the Ramchal, but suggests that in fact there is a four-step process for most souls,
with Gehinnom purification a critical part of the process. See Nefesh HaTzimtzum at pp.154-
160.
16 The forces of impurity in the world are called, in Kabbalistic terminology, kelipah, which
means “encasement” or “peel.” This name signifies that the kelipah conceals the divine
presence and the element of spirituality in this world. The orlah is associated with kelipah as
a form of covering that is hiding an object or an action from its spiritual essence. The term
“orlah” means “covering.” It has many usages in Scripture and Jewish law and philosophy,
and they are interrelated as we will see in this piece. For example, when Adam was born fully
circumcised without an orlah, he was created with no spiritual impediment. Eating from the
Tree of Knowledge generated the spiritual impediment which caused Adam’s orlah to come
into being, which had grave consequences for Adam and all of his progeny, male and female.

Further, the word “orlah” derives from the word “orayl” and means closed or
blocked. A male who is uncircumcised is called an “orayl” because the covering that is to be
cut away has not been removed and thus that male is “blocked.” That male is thus closed,
just as the Orlah fruit is closed. See The Mishnah Elucidated, Schottenstein Ed., (Brooklyn, NY:
Mesorah Pub., 2020), pp. 3-7.

An entire tractate of the Mishnah, in Seder Zeraim, called “Orlah” is devoted to the
halachot of orlah as it pertains to plantings. The Torah prescribes that for the first three years
of a tree, its fruit is forbidden as orlah. The fruit of the fourth year is called “revai” and must
be eaten in Jerusalem. Additionally, while there is no tractate in Talmud Bavli called “Orlah”
there is an entire Tractate in Talmud Yerushalmi called “Orlah.” ArtScroll, in its ongoing
translation and commentary of Talmud Yerushalmi, released an excellent revised translation

58 Rei’ach HaSadeh

3) The nature of free will, good and evil, and man’s choices in life as
related to the bris.

4) The relationship between Brit Milah and the Orlah prohibition
regarding fruit trees.17

5) The relationship between the Korban Pesach and Brit Milah.
6) Why 8 days after birth (for a healthy male child)?
7) Will the physical manifestation of requiring a Brit Milah ever end?
8) The relationship between a woman and the Brit Milah.
9) The relationship between Shabbat and the Brit Milah.18

Centrality of Brit Milah to Judaism

Brit Milah is a uniquely Jewish concept that connects Jews as
a people to each other and to HaShem, and separates Jews from the rest of
the nations of the world. Medically, circumcision is routinely practiced, but
in the absence of Brit Milah – the covenant between the Jewish people and
God – it cannot produce spiritual purification. 19 The Brit Milah thus is
carved in the flesh of the Jewish male as a physical manifestation of this
moral and spiritual imperative; it is an aspect of the commandment
(Vayikra 20:7), “kedoshim tiheyu,” which means Jews must sanctify
themselves in order to draw close to HaShem’s holiness.

The Torah is replete with references to Brit Milah, starting with
God’s commandment to Avraham to circumcise himself, a commandment
meant to apply to all Jewish men born in the future (Bereishit 17:9-14).
As Avraham was forewarned, his descendants would undergo many trials
before their redemption; however, as emphasized in Parashat Bechukotai,

and commentary in October 2020. See Orlah/Bikkurim, Talmud Yerushalmi, Schottenstein Ed.
(Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Pub., 2020).
17 See below.
18 See below.
19 Muslims practice the rite of circumcision at 13 years of age. That tradition has nothing to
do with Brit Mila which is the “Covenant” of the act of circumcision, is an outgrowth of the
Brit, the Covenant, the contractual relationship, i.e., the connection, between the Jewish man
and God. A surgical circumcision without the holy Brit attached does not remove spiritual
impurity from a non-Jew because the “nations of the world” – whose entire soul is
inherently imbued with evil elements – do not achieve purity by surgical circumcision,
without conversion. See Or HaChaim at Vayikra, Parashat Tazria p. 350. The Shechemites of
the time of Yaakov, Shimon, Levi and Dinah are a good example of how a mere medical
circumcision procedure does not have any moral or spiritual impact on the male affected.
See Bereishit 34:13-26. This difference applied in Scripture to the Egyptians as well (see
Bereishit 41:55). For an overview, see Dorash Dovid at pp. 73-74.

It is in this context that Yirmiyah reports (Yirmiyah 9:25) that “all the nations are
uncircumcised.” Thus, males of other religions may have a Milah, but they do not have a Brit
with Hashem arising out of that Milah. Nor does their circumcision result in spiritual
purification as it does with the Jews.

Avi Borenstein 59

(Vayikra 26:3-27:34), Meshiach will depend on whether we fulfill our
covenantal obligations. As reported later in the Torah (Vayikra 26:42):

veZacharti et beriti Ya’akov, v’af et beriti Yitzchak, veAf et beriti
Avraham, ezkor, v’ha’aretz ezkor.

I will remember My covenant with Jacob and also my covenant with
Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember, and I
will remember the land.

The connection between redemption and the first Brit Milah in
particular is reflected in the first berachah of the ritual: “Blessed are You
HaShem…who sanctified the beloved in the womb.” Sanctified the beloved
in the womb? How so? In fact, sanctification of the ‘beloved in the womb’
refers to Isaac, who was beloved to HaShem before he was born, and who
could never have been born to Avraham and Sarah had not Avraham been
sanctified by his circumcision.20

But what about Avraham’s actual first born, Yishmael? Yishmael
was born before Avraham was circumcised. HaShem arranged for
Yishmael to be born before Avraham had his Milah, and the result of
that timing is that Yishmael does not share in the holiness of the Brit
Milah, and could not be Avraham’s spiritual progenitor. In reality,
Yishmael’s source of conception was from the orlah, the foreskin, and
thus he represented the physical and spiritual manifestation of impurity.21

As a precursor to the cherished blessing Yaakov gave to Joseph’s
children that we know as “haMalach haGo’el,” (Bereishit 48:17)
in Bereishit 48:16, we read that the blessing that Yaakov gave Joseph is
depicted as “vaYevarech es Yosef” (“And he blessed Joseph”); but after
saying that ‘Yaakov blessed Joseph,’ the passuk never actually describes
that blessing. Instead, Scripture immediately and seemingly inexplicably
transitions to the blessing of Joseph’s sons, Menashe and Ephraim. Thus,
instead of blessing Yosef, Yaakov recites the haMalach haGo’el,
the blessing of the two boys, which is, “May the angel who redeems me

20 An excellent source for an overview of the spiritual aspects of Brit Milah is an essay
found in the collected writings of R. Yaakov Abuchatzeira, entitled “The Sanctity of the
Bris,” Teachings of the Abir Yaakov, trans. Daniel Worenklein (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah
Pub., 2021), pp. 481-524.
21 Id. at 482. Islamic circumcision is not mentioned in the Quran, is not a covenant and does
not have the religious significance that it has in Judaism. See Dr. Michelle Klein, “A History
of Brit Milah,” My Jewish Learning, available at https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/a-
history-of-brit-milah; “Circumcision of Boys,” BBC, available at https://www.bbc.co.uk
/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/malecircumcision.shtml.

60 Rei’ach HaSadeh

from all evil bless the lads and may my name be declared upon them, and
the names of my forefathers Abraham and Isaac.”22 One reason offered
for why there is no blessing for Joseph himself, but rather for his
children, is because Joseph respected his Brit Milah when he avoided the
temptation of Potiphar’s wife, and for all eternity he is called Yosayf
Hatzadik.23

With that transition, the Brit Milah was related to Joseph in this
context by the precise language used in the passuk. Therefore, when
summoning Joseph to come to him to be blessed, as we have observed
above, Yaakov said “vaYevarech es Yosef.” The passuk could have simply
and properly said, “vaYavarech Yosef.” There was no need for the word
“es.” Why “es” now?

No words are extra in the Torah. Thus, the additional “es” here is
a hint of some secret. That secret is rooted in the tradition that in
Hebrew usage the word “es” can also be read “os,” which means a “sign.”
Indeed, there as an “os,” a sign, on Joseph, and that sign was his Brit
Milah which Joseph respected in the incident with Potiphar’s wife. Thus,
having sanctified his Brit Milah he did not require a berachah and the
attention was given his beloved sons, the only of his grandchildren
blessed by Yaakov in Scripture.24

As we will see, the word “os” is a central theme in connection
with the Brit Milah. When HaShem enters into the Brit with Avraham he
calls circumcision an “os” a sign25 and so the term “os” is connected here
to Joseph as indicative of his Brit Milah.26

22 Translation from The Stone Edition Chumash at Bereishis, Parashat Vayechi, p. 273.
23 More than any other biblical figure, Yosef epitomizes the ability to control base human
instinct: He resists sexual temptation; he overcomes the human tendency toward
vengefulness, spite and hatred against his brothers – even when these might have been
perfectly well-deserved. Yosef, and no other, is known as “Yosef the Tzaddik,” and
Kabbalistic sources refer to him as Yesod – the foundation. See R. Ari Kahn, “Yosef
HaTzaddik,” OU Torah, available at https://outorah.org/p/32849.
24 Teachings of the Abir Yaakov, at p. 482.
25 Genesis 17:11: “uNemaltem et besar orlatchem, vehayah le’os brit, beini uVenechem” – “You shall
circumcise the flesh of your foreskin and that shall be the sign of the Covenant between Me and you.”
Translation from The Stone Edition Chumash.
26 Note that Shabbat is also called an “os.” That repeated terminology is one of the
connections between the Brit Milah and Shabbat we shall explore below. Tefillin are also
called an os in the first paragraph of the Shema. The Tefillin are to be bound on the arm as
a sign, an os. As the passuk (Devarim 6:8) says: “uKeshartem le’ot al yadecha,” – “Bind them as a
sign on your arm” and for that reason, Tefillin are not worn on Shabbat and the holidays.
Shabbat too is an ot and therefore, under well-established Jewish law, no further expression
of the “ot,” the special relationship between Hashem and the Jewish, people is required.
Thus, when it is Shabbat, no Tefillin are worn and the same applies to the festivals. See R.

Avi Borenstein 61

A deep dive into the most profound Brit Milah concepts takes the
student to Parashat Tazria. There, the Torah sets forth the laws pertaining to
the tumah (spiritual contamination) of a woman who gives birth to a male or
female child (Vayikra 12:1-8):

And the lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Children of
Israel, saying: If a woman conceives and gives birth to a male, she
shall be unclean for seven days; as [in] the days of her menstrual flow,
she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin
shall be circumcised and for 33 days, she shall remain in the blood of
purity; she shall not touch anything holy, nor may she enter the
sanctuary, until the days of her purification have been completed.
And if she gives birth to a female, she shall be unclean for two weeks,
like her menstruation [period]. And for sixty-six days, she shall
remain in the blood of purity and when the days of her purification
have been completed, whether for a son or a daughter, she shall bring
a sheep in its first year as a burnt offering, and a young dove or a
turtle dove as a sin offering, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting
(Mishkan), to the Kohen. And he shall offer it up before the Lord
and effect atonement for her, and thus she will be purified from the
source of her blood. This is the law of a woman who gives birth to a
male or to a female. And if she cannot afford a sheep, she shall take
two turtle doves or two young doves, one as a burnt offering and one
as a sin offering. And the Kohen shall effect atonement for her, and
she shall become clean.27

As we explore below, the Brit occurs (for a healthy baby boy, born
vaginally) on the eighth day after birth precisely so that the newborn baby
will by necessity live through a complete week, which must include
a Sabbath. Once the baby has experienced the “holiness” of the Shabbat,
he may enter into the covenant of the Jewish people.

It is no coincidence that the Torah outlines the requirement of Brit
Milah on the child’s eighth day of life immediately after discussing the
woman’s tumah; there is an inextricable link between the two institutions.
The process as described in Parashat Tazria appears as a continuum in time:

Aaron HaLevi of Barcelona, Sefer haHinnuch, trans. Charles Wengrov (New York: Feldheim
Publ. – Judaica Press, 1991), pp. 274-275 (discussing Mitzvah #421, “The Precept of the
Tefillin of the Hand” and the reasons that Tefillin are not worn on Shabbat (and the
festivals)).
27 Translation from Chumash Mesoras Harav, The Neuwirth Ed., trans. R. A.J. Rosenberg,
comp. and ed. Dr. Arnold Lustiger (New York: OU Press, 2019), Vayikra, Parashat Tazria,
pp. 77-78.

62 Rei’ach HaSadeh

the mother is tumah to her husband for seven days; on the eighth day the
boy is circumcised; and only then is the woman is permitted to be with her
husband, after undergoing physical and spiritual immersion in a mikvah, or
ritual bath, even as she retains certain remnants of spiritual tumah for ritual
purposes for thirty-three more days. The Brit Milah therefore erases both
the most important aspect of the tumah of the mother; and with the Brit
Milah on the eighth day, the impure status of the baby boy, also called
before circumcision an orayl (a person bearing an orlah is called an orayl).28

But this process begs a critical question: why would HaShem, who
created perfectly a perfect world, create an imperfect being?

This very question is discussed in the Midrash Tanchumah
(Tazria, Siman 5)29 as explored in the Chumash Mesoras Harav, a Chumash
featuring the teachings of R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik. There, Rav
Soloveitchik reports the famous interplay between Rabbi Akiva and the evil
Roman Governor Turnus Rufus, who asks Rabbi Akiva, “If God hates the
uncircumcised, why does He create man in an uncircumcised state?30

Rabbi Akiva answers with an analogy: “Does the earth yield
bread?” By this response, Rabbi Akiva conveys that just as God wants man
to convert stalks of raw wheat into bread by dint of his own labors (there
are ten of them, according to Shabbos 10a), so too must man endeavor to
sanctify himself before God. If man wants to attain holiness, the initiative
rests with him. According to Or HaChaim, HaShem gave man mitzvot
specifically in order to offer him the opportunity to remove his spiritual
imperfections.31

Or HaChaim explores the byplay between Rabbi Akiva and
Turnus Rufus in great depth and observes that the underlying question
Rufus was asking was, “Whose works are nicer (more perfect), those of
HaShem or those of flesh and blood.” 32 Turnus was expecting Rabbi
Akiva to answer, “HaShem’s works are nicer.” And so, he asked, “why

28 See fn. 16 supra. It is glaring that the tumah of the mother in the 33-day period, and the
impure, uncircumcised orayl status of the child are related. According to R. Akiva
(Yevamos 73b), both an unclean person (woman) and an orayl share the prohibition of eating
Kedoshim and Terumah foods. Both categories of people also are excluded from the mitzvot of
regel (participating in the pilgrimage on the shalosh regalim) and reiyah (appearing in the
Beit haMikdash on the Regalim).
29 Parashat Tazria, Siman 5. A full translation of this Midrash is available on Sefaria at
https://www.sefaria.org/Midrash_Tanchuma%2C_Tazria.5?lang=bi.
30 Chumash Mesoras Harav at pp. 76-77.
31 Or HaChaim, at Vayikra, Parashat Tazria, p. 348.
32 Id. at pp. 348-350.

Avi Borenstein 63

do you circumcise your sons?” Meaning, if God is perfect, how can he
not create a perfect being, without an orlah?

R. Akiva gave the unexpected reply that man’s work is nicer. To
prove his point, R. Akiva brought to Rufus stalks of wheat and baked
goods, and said to him, “These stalks are the handiwork of HaShem and
these baked goods are the handiwork of flesh and blood. Are the baked
goods (made my man) not nicer?”

Rufus then doubled down on his original question and asked,
“Since you claim HaShem wants the removal of the foreskin, why does
the baby not emerge from the womb circumcised?” Meaning: If a
circumcised baby is what God wants, why didn’t He create the baby that
way? Rabbi Akiva then offered an indirect answer, “HaShem gave
mitzvot to the Jewish people only in order to purify them and remove
thereby their spiritual flaws.”33

The logical question is, if R. Akiva had shown Rufus that man
improves on God’s work by showing him the baked goods, why did
Rufus continue to ask about the foreskin and perfection? He should have
been satisfied with the demonstrative response of baked goods that
R. Akiva offered.

Or HaChaim answers that Rufus was not satisfied with the answer
about the wheat stalks requiring improvement because the wheat stalks,
as created, were not suitable for usage by people. It made sense therefore
that people would labor to improve the stalks into baked goods. But
Rufus recognized that people and Milah are different.

Milah, in contrast, is for the sake of heaven. In that case, Rufus
was asking, the work should have been perfect in the first place and since
it is for HaShem, let HaShem do his own work, and why have man do
the work?

The answer that Rufus failed or refused to grasp was that man
has mitzvot as an opportunity to improve and possibly perfect himself;
and it was through that opportunity, by removal of the imperfection in a
man, that HaShem enables people to do more and to be better.

33 This response by R. Akiva is reminiscent of the Mishnah from tractate Makkos recited at
the end of every devar torah or recitation of Mishnah or Talmud in Synagogue or after each
chapter of Pirkei Avot; the ubiquitous “Rabbi Chananya Ben Akashi’a says…The Holy one blessed
be he wished to confer merit on Israel; therefore he gave them Torah and Mitzvos in abundance.”
See Maharal of Prague, Pirkei Avos at p. 66.

64 Rei’ach HaSadeh

Or HaChaim observes the connection between the father and the
baby newborn and how it is connected to the orlah on the newborn.
He notes that it is the nature of the world that when anything gives birth
or brings another item into existence, (most of the time) it will have the
form of the parents of its kind. This includes vegetation and animal life.
Carrots bear carrots, cows bear cows and people bear a striking
resemblance to parents, if not always in outward appearance certainly in
the basic physical characteristics.

Indeed, we note that there are instances in the Torah where men
were born without a foreskin, but their children followed with a foreskin.
Moshe, for example, was born circumcised (Sotah 12a), but his sons were
uncircumcised, and it was only through the heroics of Moshe’s wife
Tzipporah, who circumcised her sons on the way to Egypt, that Moshe’s
life was thereby saved (Exodus 4:25).

The Or HaChaim poses many further fascinating questions about
the Rabbi Akiva and Turnus Rufus exchange and its implications.
For example, he wonders why, if Adam was born perfectly pure, he none-
theless had a yetzer haRa, or inclination toward evil. One answer is found in
the Gemara (Sanhedrin 38b), which explains that when Adam ate from
the Etz Hada’as, he “pulled down his orlah,” enabling the impurity
represented by the orlah to come into existence. It seems that this sin was
intertwined with his yetzer haRa; it created an element of evil that infected
Adam’s soul, and the souls of every human born thereafter. When Chavah
ate of the fruit, her soul too was infected with evil, which led to the advent
of menstrual blood and caused her and all Jewish women to be beset with
the tumah of niddah, or separation.34

Because the body encases the soul, its parts must be evaluated in
order to ascertain the spiritual elements within.35 In the case of the orlah that

34 See Eruvin 100b, Schottenstein Ed. (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Pub., 1991) and notes
therein.
35 In Jewish tradition, the body has 248 limbs and 365 sinews, totaling 613. There are 248
positive commandments and 365 negative commandments. This mathematical equivalent
corresponds to the 613 mitzvot, indicating that each body part has an intrinsic connection to
a specific mitzvah. In Kabbalistic terms, whenever a person performs a specific mitzvah,
Hashem’s name “rests” on the applicable body part. This relationship between specific
mitzvah performance and the 613 body parts converts the body into a “chariot” of
Hashem’s name and that is what the passuk (Leviticus 18:4) means when it says, “et mishpatai
ta’asu veEt chukosai tishmaru laLechet beHem,” meaning, “Carry out My laws and safeguard My
decrees, to go with them.” (Writer’s translation) The seemingly extraneous “to go with them”
shows that mankind is a vehicle, or in Kabbalistic terms, a ‘chariot’ of Hashem’s Name
corresponding to each body part as the mitzvot are performed. See Or HaChaim, at Vayikra,
Parashat Acharei Mot, pp. 117-118.

Avi Borenstein 65

now covers the man’s sexual organ, the obstruction is an impure spiritual
reality that must be excised. Similarly, because the seed of Adam and
Chavah was sown throughout the entire world, it affected the earth itself –
and it remains infected today. Thus, all male progeny are not only born with
an orlah, but the earth itself now brings forth fruits characterized by their
own physical manifestations of impurity, or a kelipah.36

With this in mind, we can take an even deeper look into the
interaction between Rabbi Akiva and Turnus Rufus, as evaluated by
Or HaChaim.37 As we observed, the earth itself became a source of impurity
due to Adam’s act of eating the fruit. The wheat brought to Rufus’s
attention by Rabbi Akiva was thus encased by husks that could be removed
only by means of ten labors on the part of man; these labors “purify” and
transform it into bread (the most basic food of mankind). It is fascinating to
note the similarity between the refinement of “seeds” of wheat stalks into
bread, and the Brit Milah that a Jewish baby boy undergoes after he is
conceived by means of his parents’ “seeds.”

Due to his own spiritual impurity, Turnus Rufus could not
understand that the removal of the orlah removes a portion of the evil
element in a man; he viewed circumcision as a purely physical act. In Jewish
law, however, the punishment for failure to circumcise is kares, the spiritual
severing of a person from the life force of the larger Jewish soul, known
as neshamah.38 Because it is man’s obligation to effectuate his moral and
spiritual improvement, the removal of the orlah from a male baby is
a necessary first step in fulfilling this spiritual responsibility. But as Rabbi
Akiva tried to explain, this is not all that is required; HaShem gives the Jews

Note further that the three paragraphs of the Shema have 245 words. But there are
248 organs in the body which correspond to the 248 positive commandments. To highlight
this symbolism in the recitation of the Shema, the sages added three words to Shema. If
a minyan is present, the chazzan repeats the last three words, “Adonai eloheichem emet” making
the total number of words 248. If a person prays alone, the three words “Kel Melech Ne’eman”
are added at the beginning of Shema to reach 248 words. These words were chosen because
their initial letters spell amen, which means “true” and testify to the truth of the words to be
recited. See the ArtScroll Siddur at p. 90.
36 Or HaChaim, Vayikra, Parashat Tazria at 350, n.62.
37 Id. at 351-352.
38 The soul has five levels, from bottom to top: Nefesh, Ruach, Nehsamah, Chayah and Yechidah.
See R. Chaim Vital, Sha’ar Hagilgulim, Gate of Reincarnations, An English Translation of the Arizal’s
Work on Reincarnation, trans. Pinchas Winston (Toronto, Ontario: ThirtySix.org, 2014),
pp. 1-4. A person has all five levels at birth, but does not have the ability to access all of
them during his/her lifetime except by meritorious deeds. A more detailed discussion about
the five levels of souls is set forth in many works of Kabbalah and Jewish philosophy and is
beyond the scope of this piece.

66 Rei’ach HaSadeh

many opportunities to purify their bodies and souls through the
performance of mitzvot.

If mitzvot are designed to purify the soul, we must understand how
that occurs. The basic premise is that all mitzvah obligations are designed to
provide the illumination of the soul necessary to rectify the impurity created
when Adam ate from the Etz Hada’as, thereby giving every descendant the
taste of sin. That impurity must be eradicated by his successors. Thus, when
a Jew despises evil, avoids the yetzer haRa and performs mitzvot, there is
a corresponding enlightening of the soul. 39 How does the enlightening
occur? Each positive mitzvah performed illuminates the soul; likewise,
avoiding mitzvah prohibitions cures the soul (as transgressing them would
promote new impurity and arouse existing impurity). Thus mitzvot, positive
and negative, strengthen the holiness of the soul, and with each positive
mitzvah performed, or negative mitzvah avoided, a portion of the world’s
impurity is corrected.40 In that sense, man and HaShem are connected as
partners in purifying the world.41

This is the reason HaShem does not create man without the
foreskin: because it is man who caused his own spiritual impurity, and it is
man who must clean up the mess he made by fulfilling HaShem’s
commandments. Thus, Zechariah says (3:4), the people must “remove the
filthy garments in which I clothed myself.” This phenomenon also explains
why there is no room to ask why evil exists in the world; it exists because
the first man and woman brought it upon themselves and their progeny in
perpetuity by sinning and thereafter producing offspring whose spiritual
and physical beings house and bear the burden of, their ancestors’ sins.
Thus, as Adam’s and Eve’s children, it is up to us to rectify the evil they
caused to be inherent in each person. Indeed, the performance of positive

39 Or HaChaim elaborates on this concept both in Bereishis 4:6 and Shemos 19:5. As described
in Shemos (at p. 616), the Torah obligations and prohibitions are directly related to categories
of evil that are identifiable. Each mitzvah or prohibition observed distances the Jew from
evil by non-performance and sanctifies the Jew by performance of the positive mitzvot. The
Torah is thus described as an “Etz Chaim,” it is (Proverbs 3:8) “a tree of life, for those who grasp
it” – “Etz chaim he, laMachazikim bo.”

Note the use of the term “tree of life” encompasses the tree permitted to Adam,
but which tree of life was denied him after his sinful eating of the wrong fruit. That act of
eating the fruit soiled his body and soul. In Kabbalistic terms, every deed which is borne of
evil comes from an evil spiritual root whose essence is of impurity. Regarding acts we are
ordered not to do, if we violate that prohibition, there is a corresponding evil associated with
that act. When a person performs the evil act, he strengthens that evil root. Conversely,
when one has an opportunity to do a prohibited act, but refrains from performing that evil
act, he nullifies the root of that act. See Or HaChaim at Shemos 19:5, Parashat Yisro, p. 617.
40 See Or HaChaim on Vayikra 12:3, Parashat Tazria, at p. 354, n.72.
41 Da’at Tenuvot at pp. 499-509.

Avi Borenstein 67

commands and avoidance of negative commands is the very essence of
reward and punishment, which is a fundamental concept in Judaism.42

Rebbe Nachman of Breslov posits another dimension to this Brit,
as it affects the organ that helps create new life. He observes there exists in
each person four kelipot which restrict the ability of the man to properly
devote himself to HaShem. Those four kelipot are:

1) Distractions of family and friends and financial issues;
2) Confusion and questions of faith;
3) Avarice, lust, arrogance and anger;
4) The element of evil incorporated into every male by the sin

of Adam.

Three of the four kelipot, for the male, are removed by the three-stage
process of the Brit Milah:

1) The foreskin is removed;
2) Metzitzah, the process by which the blood is drawn;
3) A thin membrane is opened and peeled back, and periyah is

performed in order to reveal the tip of the organ.43
4) There is no remedy for the fourth kelipah merely by virtue of the

circumcision, but the Brit Milah does initiate an opportunity to
engage in a purification process as one matures.

After the baby experiences his first Shabbat and receives the extra
boost of the neshamah yeserah by virtue of the Brit Milah administered after
eight days, the fourth kelipah is made susceptible to diminution and even
eradication by additional effort. That process to eliminate the fourth kelipah
first becomes available to a young man at his bar mitzvah (and to the girl at
age of 12) and is realized by the proper exercise of his free will and
fulfilment of responsibilities post maturity the bar mitzvah entails. This
opportunity is available to everyone regardless of station. That helps explain
why every Jewish baby boy must undergo a Brit Milah, irrespective of his
“yichus,” his family history, wealth or social status. Once a boy is bar
mitzvah age and older, no heights are unattainable spiritually and
intellectually. This opportunity, regardless of rank, is brought home
powerfully by the Gemara (Horayos 13a), which states that a mamzer who is

42 A person is punished by means of the forces of impurity created by his actions. See Nefesh
HaChaim at pp. 198-204.
43 See Anatomy of A Soul, Rebbe Nachman of Breslov, trans. Chaim Kramer (Jerusalem; Breslov
Research Institute, 1998), pp. 400-411. The Brit Milah process is generally well known and
will not be amplified in this piece.

68 Rei’ach HaSadeh

a Torah scholar takes precedence in various ways over a Kohen Gadol who
is not a Torah scholar. Thus, status is not an impediment to spiritual
elevation for any Jew; and any baby boy can achieve the highest possible
level of perfection, beginning with the removal of the orlah.

Connection Between Brit Milah and Tumah of the Mother

Brit Milah is performed only on the male child, but Parashat Tazria
suggests there is a deep connection between the Brit Milah and the tumah of
the woman who has just given birth. As we have observed, the connection
hearkens back to the sin of Adam and Chavah, and its spiritual and physical
consequences for all time: the earth is cursed and men and women take on
new characteristics of evil in their very beings. In the case of Adam, the
orlah covers the male organ, as a symbol of his impurity; Chavah’s tumah is
associated not only in the advent of her menstrual flow, but also with the
act of giving birth, as explained in the parashah.

While the sins of Adam and Chavah are literally world-changing,
they are not entirely equivalent: because Adam ate the fruit of the Etz
Hada’as at the urging of Chavah, a Jewish man’s impurity can be partially
rectified by Brit Milah. Chavah, however, sinned twice, by eating and giving
the fruit to Adam. Because her sin is greater, the woman is tethered to
tumah every time she has a child or becomes a niddah via menstruation.44

Significantly, as Parashat Tazria explains, the spiritual and physical
consequences for a woman who gives birth to a boy also differ from those
the follow the birth of a girl. A woman who gives birth to a male child
remains tamei for thirty-three days after the first week, for a total of forty
days (Vayikra 12:4). If she gives birth to a girl, there is no brit on the eighth
day, and she remains tamei for an additional two weeks, for a total of sixty-
six days – twice the number of impure days following the birth of a boy.45

44 Or HaChaim at Vayikra, Parashat Tazria 12:3, p. 355.
45 Several commentators, e.g., Or HaChaim at Vayikra, Parashat Tazria 12:5, p. 359-364,
discuss the use of “v’” meaning “and” in, “And if she should give birth to a female”
“V’im nekayvah Taylayd” as relating to the halachot of a woman who gives birth to a
tumtum (someone whose reproductive organs are covered by a thick membrane) or to
and androginos (someone with both male and female genitals, often called an hermaphrodite),
and which of the two periods of tumah are applicable in such circumstance. The genders of
a tumtum or an androginos halachically are unknown and may be classified as male or female.
There are numerous detailed halachic considerations argued in the Mishnah (Bikkurim 4:5)
and the Talmud (Yevamos 82b-83a, Yoma 74a, Bava Basra 127a, and Niddah 28a), which are
reviewed in depth in the Or HaChaim, but are beyond the scope of this essay.

The consensus conclusion is that by Rabbinic enactment, in the case of such
births, a woman of such child is treated as if she gave birth to a female, with the resultant
longer tumah periods. See Or HaChaim at Vayikra 12:5, Parashat Tazria, pp. 359-364.

Avi Borenstein 69

When a woman is a niddah, she is in a state of tumah for seven days
(as a general principle); her impurity ends only after she immerses in
a mikvah. Interestingly, R. Samson Raphael Hirsch notes that just as the
newborn boy is freed from his tumah after seven days by undergoing Brit
Milah, the woman’s tumah similarly ends by divine decree – reflecting their
respective and equally binding covenants with HaShem.46

But why is the period of tumah longer for a mother upon the birth
of a baby girl? Is it a chok, a commandment lacking an obvious
explanation? Or HaChaim and many other major commentators do not
address this issue, but there are responses, nonetheless. The Midrash
Rabbeinu Bachya,47 for example, observes that the seven-day tumah period
after the birth of a boy is reminiscent of the seven-day-long rites associated
with many Jewish holidays and traditions, including Sukkot and Sheva
Berachot. Considering niddah, he notes that one translation of this term is
“distant,” which in the Jewish world requires a woman who is a niddah to
distance herself from her husband sexually as well as physically; many
Orthodox couples refrain from sleeping in the same bed, passing objects
directly to one another, seeing each other in a state of undress, or engaging
in flirtatious conversation.48

However, as R. Bachya adds, the “blood of purification” that
follows a birth is ritually pure, while the blood of niddah is ritually impure.
Why is this so? Because the former is intrinsically linked to the korbanot,
or sacrifices, that must be brought after the birth of a child. But why is
there a requirement to bring korbanot at all; and how does that requirement
impact the discrepancy in the tumah period following the birth of boys and
girls?

R. Bachya offers a profound response. One might have expected
HaShem to have commanded the mother to bring a todah, or thanksgiving
offering. But, not so; the offerings are required “leChaper alehah,” to atone

46 See Hirsch Chumash, trans. Isaac Levy (Gateshead, England: Judaica Press, 1989), Vayikra,
Parashat Tazria, p.17.
47 R. Bachya Ben Asher, Midrash Rabbeinu Bachya, trans. Eliyahu Monk (Brooklyn, NY;
Lambda Pub., 2003).
48 The laws relating to the niddah comprise some of the most fundamental principles of the
halachic system. They constitute one of the few remnants of Biblical regulations pertaining to
ritual impurities that survived in Jewish life following the destruction of the Second Temple.
Among the most difficult and intricate in the entire range of the halachah, these laws are
elucidated in tractate Niddah which is quite complex.

The historical development of the relevant halachot through the centuries is
likewise extremely complicated. The complex laws of niddah are codified in the Shulchan
Aruch, Yoreh De’ah §§183–200, and many other places.

70 Rei’ach HaSadeh

for her. As he observes, this korban, like the tumah and niddah that follow
childbirth, are also vestiges of Chavah’s double sin at the Etz Hada’as. He
suggests that the offering is meant to atone for Chavah, the mother of all
mankind; had she not committed transgressions, HaShem would not have
decreed that women would suffer through painful childbirth, and Jewish
women would not have become subject to the ritual impurity of the
niddah.49 Moreover, because Chavah sinned twice, and the mitzvah of Brit
Milah applies only to male newborns, the woman who gives birth to a girl
must undergo two periods of tumah. Crucially, however, the seven-day
niddah period suffices for the resumption of marital relations, just as it does
following the birth of a boy. 50

Brit Milah and Shabbat

As noted above, Parashat Tazria emphasizes that the Brit Mila of
a baby boy is to occur on the eighth day after birth, irrespective of whether
that day is a Shabbat or not. That unexpected commandment raises many
questions that ultimately reveal the deep connection between Brit Milah and
Shabbat.

The starting point for this discussion of Brit Milah vis-à-vis Shabbat
is why the mitzvah of Brit Milah is repeated in Tazria, after having
previously been commanded in Parashat Lech Lecha (Genesis 17:10-14).
And why is the eight-day requirement mentioned in connection with the
new mother’s tumah period of seven days?

49 Niddah 31 takes another, more practical approach and observes that the reason for the sin
offering is because a woman in labor may have sworn off marital relations with her husband
due to the pain of childbirth. By doing so, she deprives her husband of the opportunity to
partake in the (further) mitzvah of peru uRevu (having children). See Sefer haHinnuch, Mitzvah
#1. Her offering atones for that lapse.

Regarding the connection between the original sin and niddah, in the Talmud
(Shabbat 31b) we find that women have been commanded to observe three commandments
specifically for them. These three commandments, R. Bachya observes in Midrash Rebbeinu
Bachya, are to help undo the spiritual damage caused to the species of mankind by their
mother. They are: 1) Observing Niddah; 2) Separating challah; 3) Lighting the Shabbat
candles. The Talmud relates that for failing to meticulously observe these three requirements
a woman may die during childbirth. Why specifically at childbirth? Because it is at that time
when a woman is most vulnerable, and due to the original sin of her mother, the risk is
exacerbated.
50 See Midrash Rebbeinu Bachya at Vayikra, Parashat Tazria, p. 1637-1639. For another point of
view, see Ramban, Graff-Rand Ed. (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Pub., 2010), at Vayikra, Parashat
Tazria 12:3-4, pp. 290-295.

Avi Borenstein 71

Multiple responses are offered for the placement of the eight-day
provision in this precise place in Tazria. Some answer that the Torah
declares the Brit Milah must occur on the eighth day, to indicate that
the Brit process must be undergone during the daytime and not at night.51
A further teaching is that the Brit Milah must be performed on Shabbat,
even though ordinarily a voluntary surgery would violate Shabbat
restrictions.52 Still, why is all of this information included in this Parashat
Tazria?

It is commonly stated that delaying circumcision until the eighth
day provides health benefits for the newborn. There are those who contend
there is less sensitivity at this point in a baby’s development, and that God
wishes to spare the child needless pain. According to the midrash
(Devarim Rabbah 6:1), HaShem takes pity on the baby so that he can gain
more strength, in the same way that HaShem is merciful to an animal,
which may not be brought as a korban before it is eight days old. This view
is challenged, however, in the Talmud (Shabbos 135b) by those who note
that the Torah commands immediate circumcision for a newly purchased or
newborn Canaanite slave, even on the date of his birth. Since HaShem
would never cause undue pain to any creature, it is more reasonable to
assert that the Brit Milah is instead tied to the seven-day period of tumah that
the mother experiences; as explained by R. Shimon Bar Yochai
in Niddah 31b, the delay is intended to ensure that the mother and father
will be in a joyful state due to the resumption of full marital relations.53

What, then, is the connection of the Sabbath to the newborn?
One view is that the baby must enjoy at least one Shabbat before

51 See Shabbos 132a.
52 Inflicting a wound generally is a Biblically forbidden melachah on Shabbat, as a subcategory
(Toladah) of the melachah of shocheit, slaughtering. The Torah here teaches that Brit Milah on
the eight day overrides this prohibition. See Or HaChaim at Vayikra 12:3, Parashat Tazria,
p. 344 n.42. See Rambam, Sefer Hamitzvot (Book of Commandments), trans. Charles Chavel
(Brooklyn, NY: The Soncino Press, 1967), pp. 230-231 (noting that “The rite of
circumcision, if performed on the eighth day after the birth of the child…overrides the
Sabbath and all holidays.”)
53 Another perspective for the eight-day wait is that the mother typically is tumah from her
menstrual flow for seven days. That why the tumah period after birth of a male child is
seven days, equals a standardized period of tumah for a woman every month. Just as she must
routinely count seven clean days, so too the son, who descended from her birth canal, shares
the automatic seven day tumah period, and can become purified only upon eight days
passing, and in his case by the Brit Milah process. That distinction is because, as described in
Chullin 58a, there is a legal construct that a fetus is like the ‘thigh of its mother,’ which
dictates that whatever happened to the mother, happened to the fetus as well. Thus when
the baby comes out of the uterus it is tamei as is the mother. See Or HaChaim at Vayikra
12:3, Parashat Tazria, p. 355-356.

72 Rei’ach HaSadeh

undergoing Brit Milah, so that he can absorb the life force conferred on the
world on Shabbat day, and thus build up his viability and strength.54 Indeed,
the Sages observed (Bereishit Rabbah 10:9) that before the onset of the very
first Shabbat, the world was ‘frail and shaky.” Once Shabbat arrived,
the Midrash states, the world became strong and stable. So too, Shabbat has
the capacity to provide the vitality required by a newborn.55

Another perspective we have discussed is that Shabbat is an “os” or
sign, between the Jew and HaShem (Shemot 31:31). Shabbat has an intrinsic
holiness, yet the holiness of the soul is said to be greater than the holiness
of Shabbat; this is why it is permissible to violate Shabbat to save a life
– that is, to set aside one holiness (Shabbat) in favor of a greater holiness,
a life.56 Or HaChaim adds that Shabbat is an “ot” representing the manifold
gifts of Shabbat to the Jewish People, among them rest, pleasure, and
strengthening of the body. 57 Significantly, on a Kabbalistic level, the
strengthening experienced by each Jew who properly observes Shabbat is
not merely a physical gift; it also strengthens the soul. The Talmud
(Rosh Hashanah 31) describes Shabbat as a foretaste of the World to Come;
similarly, in Tehillim (92:1) it is described as an “olam sheKulo Shabbat,”
“a world that is entirely Shabbat.” The Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 25:12)
is emphatic that keeping Shabbat is equivalent to observing the entire
Torah.58 Thus keeping each Shabbat is preparation for the World to Come.

Jews also experience a taste of a more elevated Shabbat by means
of the neshamah yeserah, or additional soul, which visits every observing Jew
on Shabbat (Beitza 16a; Ta’anis 27b). The neshamah yeserah is not a reward for
any particular act, but rather a gift for observing Shabbat properly. It comes
from the higher worlds and imbues each Jewish soul with light and joy;
therefore, it cannot appear in a place of sadness or worry or mourning.59
Changing one’s mindset from work and worry and even grief allows for the
aspect of Shabbat called “Oneg.” This experience of Oneg is manifested in
the individual by means of the arrival of the neshamah yeserah, which inhabits
a person in the space where work and worry and mourning have departed.60

54 See Id. at Vayikra 12:3, Parashat Tazria, p. 347.
55 Ibid. See also, Id.at Bereishit 2:2, Parashat Bereishit, pp. 138-139.
56 Id. at Shemot, Parashat Ki Sisa, pp. 385-386.
57 Id. at p. 394.
58 Note that if keeping Shabbat is indeed equivalent to keeping the entire Torah, a person
can fulfill all 613 mitzvot by keeping Shabbat, although this physically is impossible in day-
to-day life. A non-Kohen cannot keep the mitzvot ascribable to a Kohen. Other laws cannot
be kept outside of Eretz Yisra’el. Still other laws cannot be kept by men or by women, and so
on. Thus Shabbat is a very special opportunity for each person to keep kol haTorah kulah.
59 See the ArtScroll Siddur at p. 619.
60 Or HaChaim, at Shemot, Parashat Ki Sisa, p. 412.

Avi Borenstein 73

Indeed, one cannot achieve the higher worlds without having experienced
a neshamah yeserah.61

Thus it is critically important that a newborn boy be the recipient
of this gift of Shabbat, as a means of elevating his soul before undergoing
his Brit Milah on the eighth day. Exploring this concept further, it is well
worth noting that HaShem refers to Shabbat as “brit olam” (Shemot 31:17), as
another kind of “ot.” The gematria of Brit is 612, which refers to the sum
total of all the mitzvot other than the mitzvah under discussion, Shabbat.
The completion of all mitzvot into the full unit of 613 mitzvot is
conditioned on adding the one missing ingredient, Shabbat. We can now
understand that Shabbat equals 613, the total number of Scriptural mitzvot.
This gift of Shabbat and the neshamah yesairah to a baby who cannot help but
observe Shabbat, is a gift that pays it forward to the child for the rest of his
life.62

Conclusion

The Covenant HaShem made with his People embodied in the Brit
Milah of the infant boy is the beginning of a process of rectification that
each person must undergo. The removal of the orlah serves as a reminder,
going forward, that the person is to cherish, guard and advance the
Covenant.

The Brit Milah: if performed with the proper intent, and if followed
by ever-greater efforts at spiritual elevation, will be the kindest cut of all.63

Avi Borenstein grew up in Brooklyn and attended Torah Vodaath, the
Mirrer Yeshiva, Yeshiva University and Brooklyn Law School, before establishing and
managing a law firm with offices in New Jersey and New York. As a basketball coach
in the Metropolitan Yeshiva High School Athletic League, he has led teams to four
championships; as a theatrical producer, he has won six Tony Awards; and he has
provided individualized training for bar mitzvah and tefillah to seventy-three kids and
adults – and counting. He and his wife Sharon joined CIS in 1978 and raised their
children Alec and Amanda in Springfield; they now live nearby with lovely families of
their own.

61 Id. at p. 394.
62 Id. at p. 414.
63 Stylistic paraphrase of William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 2, 181-186, available
at https://www.enotes.com/topics/julius-caesar/text/act-iii-scene-ii#root-71641-64/81120
(“This was the unkindest cut of all.”).



Essays



77

ONE CANNOT BE TWO

BY: BEN HOFFER

LEILUI NISHMAS CHANAH TEMAH BAS CHAIM, A”H

“Connections,” the theme of this year’s edition of Rei’ach HaSadeh,
is an extremely fascinating and timely topic. However, the premise that
there are “connections” or that we need to “connect” implies that there are
“divisions” or a “divide” that we need to overcome. Herein lies the fallacy
that is at the root of our world’s problems and which this essay will
ultimately hope to address.

The desire to connect to G-d, at its core, stems from the desire to
feel close to G-d. There are two primary facets involving being close to
G-d: one, the value of feeling a tangible and vibrant closeness with G-d;
and two, the means by which one can develop such a feeling of closeness.

The sefer Mesilas Yesharim, one of the most influential books on
Jewish philosophy and written by Rav Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, offers
a penetrating insight into the value of being close to G-d. He begins by
addressing “man’s duty in the world” and states simply that “man was
created for the sole purpose of rejoicing in G-d and deriving pleasure from
the splendor of His presence…”1 The Ramchal, as the author is known,
explains that “only union with G-d constitutes true perfection as King
David said (Psalms 73:28), ‘But as for me, the nearness of G-d is my
good.’”2 The author goes on at length to discuss that there is no joy, no
pleasure, nothing of any value at all, that one can obtain or experience that
compares to being truly close to G-d. At the end of the first chapter, the
author closes the discussion on the subject with the following:

Anything that might possibly be a means to acquiring this
closeness, he should pursue and clutch, and not let go of; and
anything which might be considered a deterrent to it, he should
flee as from fire. As it stated (Psalms 63:9), “My soul clings to
You; your right hand sustains me.” For a man enters the world
only for this purpose – to achieve this closeness…3

Thus, the Ramchal clearly establishes the primacy that pursuing closeness
to G-d should play in the life of each and every person.

1 Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, The Path of the Just (Jerusalem, Israel: Feldheim Pub., 1966), p. 19.
2 Ibid.
3 Id. at p. 27