Although I have already referred to a number of verses of פרשת שמיני in the aforegoing, I have copied here some lectures on this פרשה delivered during my younger days:

ויהי ביום השמיני . Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 42,4) have taught us a rule that whenever the Torah uses the expression ויהי, this is a reference to a painful experience. The sages are sometimes hard-pressed to demonstrate the validity of this dictum. Our question is why the Torah chooses to use an expression which points at something unpleasant when we are taught that elsewhere (Genesis 7,2) the Torah spent additional verbiage such as הבהמה אשר לא טהורה, "a category of animal which is not ritually pure," instead of simply saying בהמה טמאה, "an impure animal," merely to avoid referring expressly to something unpleasant?

קרא משה לאהרן ולזקני ישראל – Moses called to Aaron, his sons, and to the elders of Israel . Rashi explains that this was in order to announce to them that the appointment of Aaron as High Priest was decreed from above, and that Moses had not used his prerogative in this matter. This is strange. We have already heard this in the previous פרשה where the Torah reported in 8,4: "And when the community was assembled at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting." This had been in response to G–d's command to assemble the whole congregation at that entrance. Why, in that instance, was mention made of the whole congregation being assembled?

Rabbi Abba son of Kahane in Vayikra Rabbah 11,2 quotes Proverbs 9,1-3: "Wisdom has built her house, when she has hewn her seven pillars. She has slaughtered the meat, mixed her wine; she has also set her table. She has sent out her maids, she cries out." He explains these verses as referring to the Tabernacle. He understands the words חכמות בנתה ביתה, "wisdom built her house," as a reference to Betzalel, concerning whom the Torah (Exodus 31,3) says: ואמלא אותו רוח אלוקים בחכמה בתבונה, "I have filled him with the spirit of G–d, with wisdom, etc." Rabbi Abba understands the words חצבה עמודיה שבעה, "she has hewn her seven pillars," as referring to the seven days of מלואים, consecration, during which Moses performed the service and Aaron and his sons prepared themselves for their holy task. The words טבחה טבחה, are understood as referring to the animals which served as the sacrifices, the words מסכה יינה refer to the drink-offerings; the words: אף ערכה שלחנה, refer to the לחם הפנים, the show breads. The words: שלחה נערותיה תקרא are a reference to Moses. The first verse in our פרשה reports that Moses called on Aaron, etc. Thus far the words of Rabbi Abba.

It is difficult to understand the point of this Midrash. We have a principle that one does not show man visions of what was in the past. Besides, why is the whole procedure described in the feminine gender [hence the Midrash's reference to Proverbs which constantly contrasts the woman of valor with the seductress Ed.]?

On the day the terrestrial Tabernaclde was erected a parallel Sanctuary was established in the Celestial Regions. This is the reason that the word משכן is repeated in Exodus 38,21: משכן, משכן העדות. G–d displayed as much desire for that which is in hidden regions as for what is revealed in our world. Rabbi Shimon (ben Gamliel) stated in the Midrash Nasso 16 that at the time G–d created the universe, He wished to have a residence in the terrestrial world similar to His residence in the Celestial Regions. This is discussed at length. The reason that G–d did not establish such a residence at that time was the damage caused to the universe by Adam and subsequent generations through their sins. Now a time had come when G–d related to the Jewish people with goodwill and it had become possible to establish His residence in the terrestrial world and to simultaneously establish its counterpart in Heaven. The Tabernacle is perceived as a microcosm and the process of building it was comparable to the steps involved in creating the universe. Midrash Tanchuma on פרשת פקודי explains this in detail. We know that when G–d created the universe, He created everything both male and female (Baba Batra 74b). The commentators explain that this means that G–d created both משפיע, and מושפע, active forces as well as their passive counterparts. This can alternatively be described in terms of the visible forces containing invisible forces. Or, to put it differently: There is constant interaction between cause and effect.

Man is the ultimate purpose of the universe. This is something that all our commentators have been at pains to prove. It is the reason we say in our prayers on Rosh Hashanah זה היום תחלת מעשיך, "This day (the date on which Adam was created) is the beginning of Your works." The author of Kley Chemdah says that this is the meaning of Psalms 66,3: אמרו לאלקים מה נורא מעשיך, "Say to G–d how awesome are Your deeds." Significantly, the Psalmist does not speak about מה נוראים G–d's works in the plural, but sums them all up as a single deed נורא although the word מעשיך "Your deeds" is in the plural. What the Psalmist means is that all of G–d's deeds had but one aim, אדם, Man. This is why Man is a combination of terrestrial and celestial elements. Rashi explains this in his commentary on Genesis 2,7. This established a permanent linkage between terrestrial and Celestial creatures. It helped remove jealousy between the creatures of the "upper" world and the creatures of the "lower" world (Rashi ibid.). There remains a complaint [by the Celestial Forces] inasmuch as only man is at home on earth. This subject bears further investigation.

Man is composed of body and soul, a visible as well as an invisible part. This is the deeper meaning of Exodus 25,8: ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם, "They shall make for Me a Sanctuary and I shall dwell among them." The difficulty here is that the verse speaks about the Tabernacle. Our Rabbis in Shavuot 16 tell us that the expression Tabernacle and Sanctuary may be used interchangeably. This was not the only difficulty in the verse. Why, if the Sanctuary is a single unit, does the Torah report G–d saying that He will dwell among them (pl)? The Torah should have written בתוכו!

We have here an allusion to the fact that the cause is fond of the effect, i.e. the hidden longs for the revealed. Our sages (Pesachim 112a) articulated this thought when they said that more than the calf desires to suckle on the teats of its mother, the cow is anxious to nurse its calf. In פרשת ויקהל 36,1 the Torah writes: אשר נתן ה' חכמה ותבונה בהמה, "whom G–d had given wisdom and insight." Shemot Rabbah 48,3 states that the word beheimah in the above verse is to teach us that it was not only man whom G–d imbued with wisdom but also the animals. Betzalel was the only one who was privy to the wisdom possessed by the animals. Perhaps the Torah wants to hint at the proverb we quoted earlier that the mother cow is more anxious to nurse its calf than the calf is anxious to be nursed. It is all an allusion to the close connection between cause and effect. We are taught a lesson in reciprocal attachment and unity, i.e. that nothing exists outside of G–d Himself, that He is inextricably involved with all that He has created. It is this lesson the Rabbis wanted to teach us when they said that מקדש and משכן can be used interchangeably; the exterior, visible part, is called משכן, whereas the interior, invisible part, is called מקדש. We have a further clear allusion to this relationship between cause and effect, the visible and the invisible, when the Torah describes the way the קרשים, planks of the Tabernacle, were joined together. The Torah (Exodus 26,24) uses the term "תאמם, twins," when describing the manner in which these planks were joined to each other. When ??? they are described as תמים, perfect. We have here a description of the essence of the Tabernacle, i.e. that it was a microcosm.

I have already written about Man being the essential part of the universe. This premise of the Zohar has been quoted in treatise שער קדושה of ראשית חכמה at the beginning of chapter seven. It is stipulated there that Man is a microcosm, and that there are allusions to compare Man to both the universe and to the Sanctuary. The author says that the heart corresponds to the Inner Sanctuary, the קדש קדשים. Maimonides, in a letter to his son Rabbi Abraham quoted at the beginning of the above named book, compares the Tabernacle and its furnishings to a distinguished body. When G–d said "I will dwell among them," He meant inside their essence, something more essential than the mere interior of the Tabernacle, the part called also the משכן העדות, the Tent of Testimony i.e. the Torah. This תוכיות is the source of everlasting life, as we know from אורך ימים בימינה. Yet even the "left side" of Torah, i.e. the life in this world is filled with wealth and honor (Proverbs 3,16) as part of the benefit of our having the Tabernacle in our midst. Our sages (Baba Batra 25b) paraphrased this thought when they taught: "If someone wishes to acquire wisdom let him turn southward" i.e. towards its symbol, the candlestick; if on the other hand, he wants to become wealthy, let him turn northwards," i.e. towards the symbol of wealth, the Table (both in the Sanctuary). This is the meaning of "Tent of Testimony." The מזבח העולה, the altar for the burnt-offering, is the site whence one achieves closeness with G–d.

The expression קרבן לה' which we invariably find when the offerings to be presented on this altar are mentioned, reflect the purpose of these offerings to achieve closeness, קרבן, with G–d. The Torah constantly repeats the expression לי-ה-ו-ה in connection with these קרבנות in order to stress the profound value of this spiritual rapprochement and unification with the Celestial Regions by means of these offerings. All this is explained by the Zohar. This too is the reason that the Torah stresses in Deut. 8,3 that "Man does not live on bread alone but on everything that originates from G–d." Man lives also on the spiritual dimension of food. This is why the legislation of forbidden foods in chapter eleven follows immediately after the legislation of who and under what circumstances the priests may enter the Tabernacle. The Torah wanted to establish a conceptual linkage between food consumed by man and food consumed by the altar In chapter 15 of the above cited שער הקדושה the author – again basing himself on the Zohar – writes that the impure spirit of the חיצונים rests on the מאכלים טמאים, forbidden foods, and that anyone who eats them ingests this spirit and that his own נפש is thereby detrimentally affected. Consumption of מאכלים טהורים, pure foods, however, confers upon the person eating them some of the spirit of purity and holiness resting on those foods. This is what is meant by צדיק אוכל לשובע נפשו, "The righteous man eats to satisfy his soul" (Proverbs 13,25). The entire chapter in ראשית חכמה is relevant to our פרשה, including the prayers mentioned there.

The objective of those prayers is to ask G–d that one may be influenced by the "Heavenly Table." Chagigah 27a teaches us that as long as the Temple was standing the altar, i.e. the sacrifices offered on the altar, were the instruments of atonement for the Jewish people. Nowadays, when we do not have a Temple and an altar, it is our table which has to serve as the instrument for our atonement. The author of Emek Ha-Berachah also states that a heavenly sanctity rests on foods which are pure and permitted.

This is alluded to in 11,2: זאת החיה אשר תאכלו … אך זה לא תאכלו. Our sages say that Moses had difficulty understanding this paragraph and that G–d showed him what the various categories of animals looked like (Chulin 42). In Vayikra Rabbah 13,4 we are told that G–d showed Moses a head of fire, explaining that if the protective skin around the brain was pierced such an animal was unfit to eat regardless of the size of the hole. It is difficult to understand what Moses' problem was. We could have understood his problem if the chapter would have listed free-roaming animals which Moses had never seen. After all, Moses was not a hunter. However, the Talmud meant that Moses had difficulty understanding the reason for this legislation. He wanted to know why certain categories of animals were permitted, whereas others were prohibited. G–d showed Moses the positive spiritual impact which consuming certain animals would have on the people eating them, and the negative spiritual impact of certain other animals. He showed Moses the respective influence of those animals in the higher regions. Thereupon Moses understood why some categories of animals are termed "pure," whereas others are termed "impure." This is the mystical dimension of Deut. 14,23: ואכלת לפני ה' אלוקיך, "You shall eat in front of the Lord your G–d;" this is a reference to the "Table", i.e. a reference to the sacred element of the act of eating. Psalms 104,1: "Bless the Lord, O my soul," as well as Exodus 24,11: "They ate and drank and had a vision of G–d," are reminders of the impact consumption of food has on our spiritual faculties. This means that even when the Israelites consume food which has not first been specifically sanctified as a sacrifice, such meals are considered as if an act of spiritual significance had been performed. When Gentiles eat, on the other hand, this is a totally profane activity.

At the conclusion of this whole chapter the Torah writes: להבדיל בין הטמא ובן הטהור, "In order to make a distinction between what is impure and what is pure," etc. When we recite the benediction of הבדלה, at the conclusion of the Sabbath, the formula is: המבדיל בין קדש לכל, בין ישראל לעמים, "Who separates between the sacred and the profane, between the people of Israel and the other nations." This means that there is a vital difference between (even) ordinary Israelites, non-priests, and members of the Gentile nations.

It is this thought which Vayikra Rabbah quotes in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish when the latter saw in the words (11,9): את זה תאכלו a warning to the Jewish people that if "you merit it, you will consume the Gentile nations, if not, you will be consumed by them. In Vayikra Rabbah 13,5 we are told that the reference of the Torah to the גמל, "camel which is chewing the cud" in 11,4 is an allusion to the kingdom of Babylonia which praised the Lord. Nebuchadnezzar, as reported in Daniel 4,31, praised the Lord for giving him back his sanity. The Talmud also reports that this king once made a runner run for 4 miles after a scribe to retrieve a letter to King Chizkiyahu in which he had greeted the king before greeting G–d Almighty. He changed the form of address, realizing that it would be an insult if he mentioned G–d only in second place. In 11,5 the Torah uses extra words to describe that the שפן, daman, also chews the cud though it does not have split hooves. This is an allusion to the empire of the Medes whose king Cyrus praised the Lord as reported in Ezra 1,2. The reference of the Torah to the ארנבת, hare, in 11,6 which is similarly chewing the cud, and to which the Torah allots a whole verse, is an allusion to the Greek empire whose emperor Alexander the Great also paid homage to the Lord. The Talmud Yuma 69 reports how this emperor deferred to the High Priest Shimon Ha-Tzaddik, praising the Lord. When referring to the חזיר, pig, in 11,7, the Torah mentions that it does not chew the cud; it is an allusion to the Roman empire none of whose rulers paid homage to the Lord. Not only did the Romans not pay homage to G–d, but they blasphemed against Him, as we know from the sarcastic remark in Psalms 73,25: "Who is there for me in Heaven?" which is attributed to the Romans.

We must ask why the four empires , hosts of Israel in its various exiles, are mentioned in this Midrash at all? Our sages have described the Jewish people as serving idols in purity while in exile. Pardes Rimonim explains this by pointing out that G–d's bounty to Israel while they are in exile is directed via the respective שר, celestial representative of our host nation. G–d (16,16) is on record that: אני ה' השוכן אתם בתוך טומאתם, "I remain their G–d while dwelling amongst them in their impurity" (cf. Rashi on this verse). This is proof that sanctity still adheres to the Jewish people even in exile. The reasons for this, partially, is that G–d's praises emanate from the mouths of the Jewish people by reason of the food they consume. The Jewish people realise that it is G–d Who orders all food to grow in order that it may become the instrument of the people's sanctification.

Edom, on the other hand, is impure, his food habits are worse than those of other nations, as had already been demonstrated by their patriarch Esau when he wanted the lentils Jacob had cooked (Genesis 25,30). He said to Jacob: הלעטני נא מן האדם האדם, "Please pour some of this red, red (food) down my throat." The exile the Jewish people suffer under the dominion of Edom is by far the worst. The Torah uses the pig as a symbol of the abominable manner in which this animal pretends to be pure, displaying its cleft hooves as proof, while refusing to chew the cud, symbol of paying homage to G–d.

The mystical dimension of all this is described in Deut. 33,2: וזרח משעיר למו … כל קדושיו בידך והם תכו ברגלך. When food descends in a beneficial manner and is sacred in nature it is described as: "G–d You open Your hand" (Psalms 145,16). Nowadays we are under the dominion of Edom; Jews residing in countries belonging to the Moslems are also considered as in the exile of Edom, as explained by Nachmanides on Numbers 24,20. Nachmanides questions whence the Edomites have acquired sufficient sanctity to enable them to lord it over Israel. He explains that this stems from the time described in Deut. 33,2, when "G–d shone forth from Se'ir," (the land of Edom). Esau, or rather the שר של עשו, its celestial representative, at that time hosted the שכינה for a very brief time. The Zohar explains this at length in connection with the above verse. The sanctity of Israel is personified by the ten fingers of its hands [symbolizing the ten emanations. Ed.] as anyone who has studied some Kabbalistic texts is aware of. When Deut. 33,3 speaks about אף חובב עמים … הם תכו לרגלך, this is an allusion to the pig stretching out its cleft hooves as explained. Although it is true that only a minute amount of sanctity can be found in ordinary foods (non-sacrifices) of the emanation מלכות, (our physical world), yet G–d recognizes the great distinction in this regard between the Jewish people and the Gentile nations.

In other words, the foods consumed by Jews are almost on the same spiritual level as the sacrifices offered on the altar in the Tabernacle. When the Torah urges us in 11,44: והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים, "If you strive to sanctify yourselves you will become holy," the first expression is addressed to our souls, the hidden aspect of our personalities, whereas the last expression addresses our bodies, the visible part of our personalities. This is parallel to the מקדש-משכן relationship. The consecration of the Tabernacle embraced both these aspects at the same time. Concerning consecration of the hidden part, נפש, the Torah (9,4) said: כי היום ה' נראה אליכם, "For on this day the Lord appears to you," whereas concerning the visible part, גוף, the Torah (10,3) said: ועל פני כל העם אכבד, "I shall be honored in the presence of the whole nation." This revelation would take place by means of the Heavenly fire which consumed the sacrifices on the altar.

The Heavenly fire is alluded to in Song of Songs 2,5: סמכוני באשישות, "Sustain me with fires," which the Zohar explains as a reference to the two fires on the altar, the man-made one as well as the fire coming down from Heaven to consume the offerings. In our context the reference would be to the physical fire, representing the body, and the spiritual fire, representing the soul.

When G–d began the work of Creation, He said: "Let there be light," the foundation of fire. There is both visible and hidden fire. This is the mystical dimension of the Torah's commandment in Exodus 35,3: לא תבערו אש בכל מושבותיכם ביום השבת. "Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day." The Torah singled out this prohibition of work (whereas none of the other 38 basic prohibitions of work is named).

I believe that the first act of creation, the creation of light, already included elements of all the other activities involved in creating the universe. The first act was the Creation of the root of fire. When the Torah forbade the lighting of fire on the Sabbath, this too included all the other types of work prohibited on the Sabbath because the Sabbath-rest is testimony to all the work the Creator rested from on that day. By observing this commandment we testify to the fact that G–d preceded the universe not vice versa. When the priests performed the service in the Tabernacle the use of fire on the Sabbath was permitted. The reason is that the very service was testimony that G–d had created the universe, that He is the Master and we are His servants. According to the author of Ginat Egoz, the lessons derived from the prohibition to light a fire on the Sabbath are the same as the lessons learned from Temple-service performed on the Sabbath involving the use of fire. The author elaborates on that theme.

Personally, I believe that this idea is alluded to in the words: מחלליה מות יומת, "Those who desecrate it will be put to death" (Exodus 31,14). The Torah legislates (Numbers 28,9) that on the Sabbath day two sheep be offered as an additional public burnt-offering, i.e. שני כבשים The fact that these two sheep are lumped together in one expression [unlike the frequently used expression פרים … שנים. Ed.] requires analysis.

The author of Ginat Egoz continues as follows: "Logic would dictate that [the mere] handling of fire ought to be prohibited on the Sabbath so that by refraining from its use we could remind ourselves of the fact that G–d's existence preceded that of the universe. However, in view of the fact that we perform a sacrificial service before Him which is specifically known as תמידים, daily offerings, this already emphasises that G–d presides over the world at all times and ensures the continued existence of Heaven and Earth and all the "fires" of the universe. What is different on the Sabbath then? The additional sacrifices on the Sabbath are to testify that the Sabbath is a fixture needed by the universe, a day of the calendar around which all other days revolve. The active performance of the sacrificial service before Him is more potent testimony than any other testimony implied by the laws of nature.

The prohibition of handling fire is a testimony for us that G–d created the world ex nihilo. The fact that handling fire on the Sabbath before Him in the Tabernacle is permitted is a testimony for G–d. We have therefore two witnesses -in accordance with the dictum of the Torah that in order for testimony to be valid we need two witnesses- (Deut 17,6). The dual nature of this testimony is that A) We testify to G–d's leadership of the universe by the performance of the sacrificial service in the sacred domain of the Tabernacle; B) We testify -by not lighting fire on the Sabbath in our own domain- that G–d created the universe ex nihilo. When there is testimony by two witnesses which seems to contradict the testimony of a single witness, we do not offset one witness against another, but disregard the testimony of the single witness completely (Yevamot 88). The "testimony" by the two sheep which form the additional Sabbath offering, and which are burnt on the fire specifically on the Sabbath, therefore overrides any contrary "testimony" by the prohibition of lighting a fire in our private dwellings. This is also in line with the statement by our sages: אלמלא התמידים לא נתקיימו שמים וארץ, "were it not for the daily public offerings Heaven and Earth would not have endured" (Zohar 1,58). Thus far the Ginat Egoz.

The matter of the fire is a mystical dimension of the whole process of Creation, the "light" available in our "lower" world, and the "light" concealed and stored in the "higher" world. The latter may be perceived as the "fire" which descends from "above" to consume the burnt-offerings on the altar. This in turn is a mystical aspect of the attachment between what we have termed cause and effect. The students are perceived as the effect, the teacher as the cause. When we said previously that the cause wants to exert influence, whereas the effect wishes to become influenced, this now leads to the tragic occurrence involving Nadav and Avihu. The latter, by presuming to teach a הלכה, religious ruling, in the presence of their teachers Moses and Aaron, reversed the role of cause and effect. As a result "fire" descended from Heaven and consumed their souls as part of the incense-offering they were carrying.

The incense-offering is the mystical element which establishes the connection between the "lower" and the "upper" domains of this universe. Rashi also explains the word קטורת as identical with the alternate name of Hagar, i.e. קטורה, to mean that her deeds were comparable to an incense offering because she "tied up" her door [euphemism for her vagina Ed.] and did not remarry until Sarah had died and Abraham was free to marry her (Genesis 25,1). Our sages suggest that Nadav and Avihu entered the Holy of Holies in order to teach a lesson concerning the mystical dimension of the incense-offering. They wanted to demonstrate that G–d anxiously awaits the prayers of the righteous. All of these notions are alluded to in Psalms 141,2: תכון תפלתי קטורת לפניך, "Take my prayer as an offering of incense before You." The subject of prayer teaches us the mystical dimension of the משפיע and the מושפע The latter prays with his eyes facing downwards while his heart is turned upwards toward G–d, the cause who turns His attention to what happens "down" here in our world. We in our hopes pour out our hearts heavenwards for He is the עילה, cause, whereas we are the עלולים, effects.

G–d has granted me an insight enabling me to find that the word עלול is an acronym for עיניו למטה ולבו למעלה. We find a difference of opinion among the sages about the sin committed by Nadav and Avihu. One sage claims that they entered the Sanctuary while intoxicated with wine, whereas another claims that they taught a הלכה which it was not their place to teach (Rabbi Eliezer in Eiruvin 63). The two sages do not disagree with one another. One of them looks at the נסתר, hidden aspect of the matter, i.e. the מקדש aspect, whereas the other looks at the נגלה aspect, i.e. at the aspect of משכן. We have explained that the two sons of Aaron strove for the most intimate relationship possible with G–d, i.e. the מקדש aspect. According to this view their death was actually occasioned by too close an affinity to G–d. They died בקרבתם לפני ה', because they came too close to G–d. We have explained this problem when we discussed the אצילי בני ישראל, another description of these sons of Aaron. They are reported in Exodus 24,11, as having seen the Lord and eaten and drunk. Their souls were so much exposed to the hidden "fire" of holiness that they died because of their being too close.

This is why the Torah in 16,1 did not write בהקריבם, "when they brought close (their offering)" but בקרבתם לפני ה', when they came close to G–d. This "coming close" was of a spiritual, conceptual nature. Their death was an example of what the Psalmist meant when he said: "The death of His pious ones is something very precious to the Lord" (Psalms 116,15). Rabbi Abraham Saba, author of the Tzror Hamor, in his commentary on Genesis 13,5 already wrote that the experience of Nadav and Avihu paralleled the four sages – of whom Rabbi Akiva was one – who נכנסו לפרדס, entered the orchard, [euphemism for study of the mystical aspects of Torah. Ed]. The four were Rabbi Akiva, Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma and Elisha ben Avuyah (who emerged as an heretic). These four sages had already been preceded by Adam, Noach, Abraham and now the two sons of Aaron in their desire to probe the mysteries of the מעשה מרכבה. The word פרדס used in this story related in Chagigah 14 means a place in which grapes and pomegranates grow. Adam sinned regarding both the נגלה, revealed aspect of Torah legislation, as well as against the נסתר, hidden aspect of G–d's commandments. The Talmud describes him as קצץ בנטיעות, having mutilated the young saplings in the garden of religion, and having turned into an heretic. The same thing happened to his counterpart Elisha ben Avuyah. Noach too drank from the wine, became drunk, and as a result temporarily of unsound mind. Ben Zoma reportedly beheld something he was not spiritually prepared to understand and as a result suffered insanity.

Abraham planted an אשל, (another word for orchard); he entered and emerged spiritually whole. Abraham traversed the whole land of Canaan (Genesis 12,6) descended into the land of Egypt, a country filled with all sorts of impurities. He was saved from being affected by any of them, and the Torah reports him as having ascended again from Egypt "southward" (Genesis 13,1). [The term "southward" is geographically incorrect as the land of Canaan is situated north of Egypt. Ed.] All of Abraham's ascents were "southward," in line with the statement of our sages that he who wishes to acquire true wisdom should turn "southward." (Baba Batra 25b). Rabbi Akiva, too, entered the orchard spiritually whole and emerged whole.

The sons of Aaron entered while intoxicated, took a look and died. The same happened to ben Azzai. Both of them illustrate the truth of Psalms 116,15, quoted earlier. Although normally death is perceived as the result of Man having failed to live up to G–d's demand, as we know from Psalms 49,13: "Man could not even remain sin-free for a single night before becoming mortal" [freely translated], in this case death was not due to sin, but was precious in the eyes of the Lord as it was the result of rapprochement to G–d.

We can utilize this thought to answer a problem in the wording of the first Mishnah in tractate Avot. The author says: משה קבל תורה מסיני ומסרוה ליהושע, "Moses received the Torah from Sinai and handed it over to Joshua." Why does the Mishnah change from the term קבל to מסר when describing the transfer of the tradition? Another difficulty is that there is no word of how the transfer from Joshua to the elders, and from the elders to the prophets took place, whereas we find the term מסר used again when the Mishnah describes the transfer of the oral tradition from the prophets to the members of the Great Assembly. A further difficulty is the statement in Eiruvin 54: "How did the oral tradition get taught? Moses learned it from G–d. Then Aaron entered and Moses would teach it to him. After that Aaron's sons entered and Moses taught it to them. After that the elders entered and Moses taught the elders; finally the people at large entered and Moses taught all of them. We do not hear one word in this sequence about Moses handing over the oral tradition specifically to Joshua, as was mentioned in the Mishnah.

We must assume that the Mishnah speaks about the hidden aspects of the Torah and describes four categories of people, Joshua, the elders, the prophets and the men of the Great Assembly entering the aforementioned פרדס in order to acquire these secrets of the Torah. These four categories of people were not all on the same spiritual level. The men of the Great Assembly did not match the groups mentioned before them. Moses, of course, towered above them all spiritually, and it was not appropriate to describe him as "entering" the orchard. He was at home there, as G–d had testified (Numbers 12,7), בכל ביתי נאמן הוא. When someone enters or leaves his own home one does not bother to mention it. His ability to enter and leave his home without suffering spiritual harm is taken for granted. Joshua entered the orchard and returned from it unharmed. This is alluded to in Exodus 33,11 when the Torah describes Joshua as never departing fom the "tent," i.e. the Tent of Testimony (home of Torah). Our sages described the face of Moses as like that of the sun, whereas the face of Joshua, by comparison, is described as like that of the moon. The former radiates its own light, whereas the latter only reflects light received from another source.

The author of the Mishnah therefore described Moses as קבל תורה, receiving the mysteries of the Torah as it were in a container, a covered box. The word בית קבול, suggests that the contents of the container are hidden. Anyone who merely looks at the container does not automatically see what's in it. The term מסירה, handing something over, which the Mishnah uses in connection with the way Moses transferred the oral Torah to Joshua implies that it is transferred from hand to hand, in a visible manner. This indicates that matters which were of a mystical nature appeared so clear and simple to Moses that he did not bother to treat them as if they were secrets.

Let us now return to these four groups of people who entered the פרדס. Joshua accomplished more in the פרדס than Rabbi Akiva; the Talmud in Chagigah 14 reports that the angels were about to attack Rabbi Akiva, and only G–d's intervention enabled him to re-emerge from there spiritually unharmed. Joshua, on the other hand, had been endowed with some of Moses' glory (Numbers 27,20), and Moses had demonstrated his power to prevail over the angels while he had been in the Celestial Regions and had brought down the Torah to the Jewish people from those regions in spite of the angels' objections. The elders deserted Moses on his first mission to Pharaoh (cf. Rashi on Exodus 5,1). G–d paid them back for this at the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai when they were not allowed to come close to the Mountain, as distinct from Aaron (Exodus 19,24). G–d had said to Moses: ועלית אתה ואהרון, "you and Aaron (alone) will ascend."

When G–d gave the Jewish people the Torah at Mount Sinai, the people said to Moses: ואת תדבר אלינו, "You speak to us," that Moses should be the intermediary between G–d and them because they were afraid they would die if they would be exposed to G–d's voice any longer (Deut. 5,20-25). We may assume that the Israelites did not speak about this concern of theirs to the elders [which would have been the normal channel of communication with Moses at that time. Ed.], but, since they were afraid to look and die, they turned to Moses directly. Their concern was that the very fact that they had achieved such a high level of insight had brought them so close to G–d that their souls would return to their Creator and remain there due to the affinity established with Him. Such a "death" achieves far more in the way of תיקון, rehabilitation, than any ordinary death meant to atone for sins committed. It would have been a greater תיקון even than that achieved by Ben Azzai's death as a result of his entering the פרדס, even though his death was of the category described in Psalms 116,15. The elders mentioned in the Mishnah outlived Joshua.

The prophets mentioned there all experienced a weakening or complete loss of their bodily functions at the time they received prophetic insights. This process has been described by various commentators. This is the reason a prophet is frequently called mentally disturbed, משוגע, a description of the sage Ben Zoma who entered the פרדס "had a look" and was hurt, i.e. became of unsound mind. The prophets were on a higher level than Ben Zoma because of the cumulative nature of their prophetic insights. The mental disturbance experienced by prophets or the death experienced by the elders are basically of the same order, the result of visions by the soul when the body has not reached a spiritual level to match that of the soul. This is why the Mishnah puts the elders and the prophets in the same category.

The Mishnah continues that the prophets מסרוה, handed over the oral tradition to the men of the Great Assembly. The men of the Great Assembly rehabilitated Israel from the sin of idol worship as reported in Sanhedrin 64, and Yuma 69. They did this by succeeding in vanquishing one part of the evil urge within us, the יצר הרע של עבודה זרה the natural urge of Jews to serve idols.

Let us return to the subject of Nadav and Avihu. These two sons of Aaron did not restrain themselves and, as a consequence beheld a vision that was beyond the capacity of their bodies; this was what caused their death. Theirs was the death described as precious to the Lord in Psalms 116,15. Their "death" should not be considered a regular death, and we must not think of it in terms of their being punished for a sin and having to die. On the contrary, they had achieved such a close affinity with G–d that their souls simply remained in the Celestial Regions, i.e. בקרבתם לפני ה'. This is the reason Moses told Aaron that theirs was an example of בקרובי אקדש, "I will be sanctified through those who are close to Me" (10,3). What this means is that their very death was the beginning of their life in the Hereafter. They may therefore be perceived as having entered the פרדס and having emerged unscathed. Since their departure from earth occurred when they were publicly preparing to enter into the most intimate relationship with G–d, it was of the "על פני כל העם אכבד" type, viz. 10,3. Rabbi Akiva suffered a similar fate when he died on קדוש השם, a martyr at the hands of the Romans. He sanctified G–d's name after having emerged from the פרדס, albeit sometime later. When the angels demurred about the fate of Rabbi Akiva and the other nine Martyrs, [cf. the liturgical prayer אלה אזכרה in the Mussaph service of the Day of Atonement. Ed.] G–d silenced them by saying that this was His decision. Here too we find that Aaron remained silent after Moses had explained the nature of his sons' "deaths" to him. This then is the explanation of the first Mishnah in Avot.

We find a little later in the same chapter of Avot that Rabbi Shimon son of Rabban Gamliel said that, having grown up amongst Torah scholars, he had not found anything better for the body than silence. He added that it was not the exegesis of Torah which was of primary importance, but practicing its precepts. He further added that anyone who indulged in too many words was bound to commit some sin sooner or later. We find several difficulties in this series of statements. 1) Why did the Rabbi say that the benefits of silence are primarily for "the body?" 2) Why did he interrupt his statements extolling the virtue of silence by saying that action was more important than teaching by word of mouth?

Midrash Shemuel on Avot quotes the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Tzadok to the effect that the Rabbi Shimon who told us about the advantages of silence in the above quoted Mishnah was one of the Ten Martyrs. All these martyrs sanctified not only their souls but also their bodies. There are two methods of sanctifying the body. 1) The way of Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues who died on קדוש השם, a martyr's death.This kind of holiness is referred to in the Torah as: והייתם קדושים (11,45). The second method of achieving holiness of the body is referred to in the Torah as: אני ה' מקדשם (21,23). Nadav and Avihu acquired holiness of the body via the second method, i.e. their souls were burned whereas their bodies remained intact. Their departure from this world was similar to that of Chanoch (Genesis 5,24), and Elijah (Kings II 2,11). This is why I believe that the reason their bodies remained intact was that their death was due to the intimacy they had established with G–d. When Rabbi Shimon said that he had not found anything better for the body than silence, he alluded to the instruction given to Rabbi Akiva and the other Martyrs to be silent and accept G–d's decree without question. Only after having made this point does Rabbi Shimon explain in detail what this silence is all about. The Talmud (Berachot 61b) reports that when he was about to die, Rabbi Akiva told his students that he had wanted to fulfill the instruction (Deut. 6,5) to "love your G–d with all your heart, all your soul and all your might," as we recite three times daily. He had wondered when he would finally be able to fulfill the part of "loving G–d with all your soul." By dying a martyr's death he was satisfied that he had finally been granted the opportunity to also fulfill that dimension of loving G–d. It was in this connection that Rabbi Shimon – who was also to become a martyr – said: "study is not of the essence whereas practice is." He referred to the difference between displaying one's love for G–d in theory and displaying it in practice. He also wanted to teach that when the practical opportunity to die a martyr's death does not arise (as in 99% of all lives), G–d will consider the intention to do so, i.e. the fact that one has mentally and emotionally prepared oneself to love G–d to the point where one is ready to die for His Name, as if one had actually done so. This is the deeper meaning of: אני ה' מקדשם "I, the Lord, sanctify them."

Concerning the other method of sanctifying the body, the method described in the Torah by the words: והייתם קדושים, Rabbi Shimon said that when one indulges too much in words, דברים, one is bound to commit a sin sooner or later. Rabbi Meir says in Avot 6,1 that כל העוסק בתורה לשמה זוכה לדברים הרבה "Whosoever studies Torah for its own sake will merit many דברים." In view of Rabbi Shimon's statement about the potential problems arising out of דברים הרבה, we seem to have a contradiction between the statements of these two sages. We also wonder what these דברים הרבה can possibly be in view of the long list of benefits listed in that same Mishnah as accruing to people whose preoccupation with Torah is totally altruistic. It seems that the answer may be found in something the Rivash (Rabbi Yitzchak ben Sheshet) wrote in a responsum about prayer. Concerning the ability to understand mystical dimensions as alluded to in Psalms 37,5: גול על ה' דרכך ובטח עליו והוא יעשה, "Leave all to the Lord, trust in Him; He will do it," the Rivash explains that G–d will arrange and reveal, יגלה, these hidden aspects of Torah to you. These hidden aspects are called דברים הרבה. The reason they are called this is that whatever is revealed in our world is only a little, whereas the ramifications of these hidden dimensions of Torah in the Celestial Regions are many. This is why the sages said: מקדש עצמו מלמטה מעט, מקדשין אותו מלמעלה הרבה, "If someone sanctifies himself a little in our world one will add a great deal more sanctity to him in the "higher" world." These are the דברים הרבה which Rabbi Meir referred to in Avot 6,1. This is also what Rabbi Shimon referred to when he said that if one is involved in such דברים הרבה it will lead to one's soul being out of step with the development of the body. One's soul will cleave to G–d whereas one's body will cease to function normally and one will have caused its death. Since we believe that there is no death without sin of some kind, the sin in such a case would be the unbalanced progress toward דבקות ה'. It is also possible that when Rabbi Shimon mentioned the word חטא, he equated it with חסרון, a deficiency. A biblical example of this would be אני ושלמה בני חטאים, in Kings I 1,21 where Bat Sheva reminds king David of his oath that Solomon would be his successor. She tells the king that unless arrangements for Solomon's succession to the throne are made prior to his death, both she and her son will be deprived of his promise. The word חטאים in that context can certainly not mean that Bat Sheva and Solomon would be sinners because David died. It means rather that the "physical aspect,” i.e. גופנית, of the promise that Solomon would rule would go unfulfilled. The word may also allude to the fact that when the revealed and the hidden do not go hand in hand, when the משכן and מקדש aspects of the Tabernacle do not work in unison, something will go awry. Man was created בצלם אלוקים, a combination of the physical and the spiritual; the two parts must work in tandem.

The author brings a few more examples of the principle just mentioned. Among them he mentions that the use of the word חכמה in the plural, i.e. חכמות in Proverbs 9,1 alludes to the need to employ our physical as well as our mental faculties when building the "house," i.e. when Betzalel built the Tabernacle.

The principal components of our food are bread, meat, and wine. The Torah's legislation concerning these foods is comprehensive, and when one has observed all the various observances necessary to ensure that one consumes only what has been approved by the Torah, one may consider the act of eating as similar to the altar consuming a sacrifice. One's body will acquire varying degrees of sanctity in accordance with the care taken in selecting what one eats. When the Psalmist (Psalms 84,3) speaks about: לבי ובשרי ירננו אל-אל חי, "My body and soul shout for joy to the living G–d," the לב, heart, is perceived as the home, משכן, of the soul, as I have already explained. The soul has seen much חכמה. The body, בשרי is described as being on a par with the soul in this Psalm by the sons of Korach.

An alternative explanation would be that the Psalmist speaks of both body and food as symbols of matter, the latter sustaining the former. When both achieve a degree of sanctity they express their joy to G–d. The word לבי is also an acronym for לחם-בשר-יין. The Midrash quoted which examined Proverbs 9,1-3 in detail saw in these three kinds of food something very important. In other words, the verse speaks about two worlds, the נגלה, as well as the נסתר, the visible and invisible world.

We have explained on several occasion that the שר העולם, the angel to whom G–d has entrusted the proper allocation of the food- supply in our world, is called Mattatron, or נער. Moses' function too, was to provide for the needs of his people. He is already referred to as נער when the daughter of Pharaoh found him, although normally he should only have been referred to as ילד (Exodus 2,6). Our commentators have said that Moses' voice was like that of a נער. The very name משה is also an acronym for מטטרון שר הפנים. On Exodus 24,1: ואל משה אמר עלה אל ה' our sages comment that Moses' name was Mattatron, just like the name of his teacher. When the Torah commenced the Book of Leviticus with the words ויקרא, this is a choice expression for all those who are מושפעים, direct recipients of G–d's favor. This is another dimension of Proverbs 9,1-3 which we discussed on page 739, i.e. נערותיה תקרא, that Moses called out to Aaron and his sons, etc. The latter were also comparable to angels, as pointed out by Malachi 2,7 that the priest is an angel of the Lord. Every time the Torah refers to a girl as נערה, the word is spelled without the feminine ending, i.e. it is written נער, although we read it as נערה. The description of Moses as נער then is an allusion to his function being similar to that of Mattatron.

The Torah reports here that Moses called Aaron, his sons, and the elders of Israel. The Talmud Eruvin 54b describes the procedure of Moses explaining the Oral Tradition in the words: "How did Moses teach? Aaron entered and Moses expounded the Torah to him. Afterwards Aaron's sons entered and the procedure was repeated. After this the elders entered and the procedure was again repeated. Finally the whole of Israel approached to be taught the Torah." Here Moses called on the three choicest categories, ignoring the rest of the people for the time being. This was because the paragraph commences with the words ויהי, which – as we have stated – introduces an episode marred by tragedy. Moses knew that the Sanctuary was going to be sanctified through one of the outstanding personalities of Israel. He thought that it might be either himself or his brother Aaron (Torat Kohanim on 10,3). The kind of death experienced by Nadav and Avihu is an excellent death because it testifies to the high degree of sanctity they had achieved. Moses invited the choicest of the people to be taught the Torah first so as to signify that when the need arises to sanctify the name of G–d, i.e. to die for the glorification of His Name, it will be the spiritual leaders of the people who will be chosen for this distinction (sacrifice). When G–d announced the instruction to build the Tabernacle, He said that when all would be completed ושכנתי בתוכם (Exodus 25,8). The building of the house that we read about in Proverbs 9,1-3 refers to the גן עדן of the future when this "house" will have an enduring existence. It refers to the residence of humans at that time.

The "seven pillars that she has hewn" refers to seven categories of righteous people (Sifri Devarim 1,10). These groups occupy different levels in גן עדן, one above the other. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai comments on Psalms 16:11: שבע שמחות, "full of joys," [i.e. satisfied, from Sova] that the word should be read as שבע, "seven." It would then refer to the seven facets of the various righteous people who would be similar to the moon, the sun, the firmament, the stars, lightning, שושנים, [a reference to the righteous as per Psalms 45,1, see my translation of the Alshich's commentary page 315. Ed.], and the candlestick in the Temple.

Yalkut Shimoni on Parshat Shoftim understands the repeated reference טבחה, טבחה in Proverbs 9,2, as an allusion to Leviathan and the שור הבר, the "wild ox," auroch, whose meat will be served by G–d to the righteous in the Hereafter (Baba Batra 74b). According to the Aggadah, G–d slaughtered the female Leviathan and salted away its meat in order to serve it in the future at a festive meal for the righteous.

The reference to מסכה יינה in the same verse is to the יין המשומר, the wine which has been preserved in its grapes ever since the days when Adam was in גן עדן, as we have mentioned repeatedly.

When Solomon continues in the same verse of Proverbs to speak about אף ערכה שלחנה, he refers to the angels who grind the manna for the righteous in this World of the Future. The reason he uses the term אף, "also," is because once before, when the Jewish people were in the desert manna had descended for them from Celestial Regions. This is a hint of what would be in store for them in an idyllic future. The words: נערותיה תקרא, in Proverbs 9,3 are an allusion to the expression in Esther 2,9 where Esther is described as entitled to and receiving the services of seven maid-attendants. The number seven –according to Kabbalists – ensured that her soul would acquire a level of holiness every day of the week. May we all soon merit such a level of sanctity in our own lives, Amen.