I have explained in my introduction to the eight portions שובבי"ם ת"ת that this portion deals with the attribute of חסד, loving-kindness.

I have already explained at length in Parshat Terumah how the Tabernacle was a re-enactment of the work of creation, i.e. a microcosm, and that it served as man's rehabilitation for the damage to G–d's universe brought about by Adam's sin. We have also explained that there was a parallel Tabernacle in the Celestial Regions. Aaron, as High Priest, symbolised the rehabilitation of man who had become distant from G–d as a result of Adam's sin. Concerning Aaron, the Torah writes: ואתה הקרב אליך את אהרון אחיך, "As for you (Moses), bring close Aaron your brother etc." (28,1) Here the Torah expresses a mystical dimension of the verse in Leviticus 16,17: וכל אדם לא יהיה באהל, "No man shall be inside the tent." This is a reference to original Adam. The universe was created under the aegis of חסד, loving-kindness, as we know from עולם חסד יבנה, "The universe was built with loving-kindness" (Psalms 89,3). The בנין של מעלה, "The structure corresponding to the physical universe in the Celestial Regions," contains the secret of the seven days of creation and commences with the emanation חסד down to the emanation מלכות, i.e. seven emanations. We find that in connection with Aaron, the Torah (Deut. 33,8) speaks about תומיך ואוריך לאיש חסידך, that Aaron represented the attribute of חסד. We have explained that the three groups of Israelites, i.e. the כהנים, לוים, ישראלים, corresponded to the three emanations חסד, גבורה, תפארת, respectively.

The original "jewelry" had been taken from Man due to the powerful impact of Adam's sin. At that time Man's original vestments were exchanged from כתנות אור, garments made of light, for כתנות עור, garments made of hide (Genesis 3,21). The Torah, in our portion, orders that כתנות, tunics, be made for Aaron's sons (28,40) who had to be dressed in sacred vestments. They put on שמן משחת קודש, holy anointing oil, on their bodies before they dressed in the sacred vestments. By following this procedure, the priests ceased being זרים, strangers or "outsiders," before putting on garments which could not be worn by non-priests. When Adam became a זר, outsider, this was due to the pollutant with which the serpent had infected him. It was this pollutant from which he had to be purified. Aaron was the human being through whom this rehabilitation of Man was achieved. He had to be separate to sanctify his body. He thereafter dressed in the sacred vestments which conferred upon him כבוד ותפארת, the very kind of visible distinction that Adam enjoyed while dressed in garments made of light. The pollutant present in Man because of the serpent's infection was converted into something positive by means of the breastplate Aaron wore on his heart. The Ineffable name of G–d was engraved on the stones of the breastplate The names of the 12 tribes as well as the names of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were engraved between the 12 gemstones set in it. The latter represented the מרכבה, whereas the former represented the twelve possible ways of arranging the letters of the Ineffable Name.

While Aaron and his sons were thus sanctified, the people were sanctified by restrictions in their diet as outlined in Leviticus chapter 11. This was parallel to G–d telling Adam in גן עדן that Man was allowed to eat from all the trees in that garden except from the tree of knowledge. Concepts such as פיגול, נותר, and טמא, [various types of disqualifications of sacrificial matter] all derive from the tree of knowledge from which Adam ate. Just as the priests were separate in sanctity, their clothing was separate and their food and drink were separate. In order to enable them to eat and drink some of the things that had been sanctified and offered on the altar, the place where such service was performed also had to be separate and sanctified so as to lend an additional level of sanctity to the service they performed. This element of sanctity of the site applied both to the general area of the Tabernacle, i.e. the courtyard surrounding it, the Sanctuary, the Holy of Holies, as well as to different levels of sanctity of the different types of sacrifices. Sacrifices offered on the "outer" copper altar possessed a different degree of holiness from the incense which was offered on the golden altar within the Sanctuary. The latter was the offering dearest to G–d and drew G–d's goodwill down to His creatures on earth. The Aramaic word for קשר, connection, is the same as the Hebrew word for קטר, smoke, incense. The smoke created the connection. Since the essence of the incense offering consisted of the fragrance it exuded, something that is closest to רוח, spirit, i.e. a spiritual concept, it was especially close to G–d Who is pure spirit. It can be appreciated only by the soul, not by the body. It was therefore uniquely designed to establish close communion with the שכינה. This is why it was offered inside the Sanctuary. Most animal offerings could not be offered inside the Sanctuary; even incense could only be offered inside the Sanctuary when it was the incense of the public. Private incense offerings were not offered there. It was considered קטורת זרה, incense of an alien nature. Even Aaron only had the right to enter the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, once a year, as stated by the Torah: ואל יבא בכל עת אל הקודש, "He must not enter at will into the Shrine behind the curtain, in front of the cover which is upon the Ark, lest he die" (Leviticus 16,2). Our sages comment on this that it was only Aaron who was not allowed into the Holy of Holies whenever he wanted; Moses, however, was allowed to enter at will (Sifra on Leviticus 16,2). We must understand that Moses was not a זר, stranger, alien, because the raw-material he was made of had been so refined that it was itself pure and holy, similar to being garbed in garments of light. This is why according to Sotah 12, at his birth, the house of his parents was filled with light. The material Aaron's body was made of did contain some parts tainted by the residue of the pollutant of the original serpent; it was incumbent upon him to rid himself of that element, something that he was able to do only with the help of the holy oil of anointing. Even with the help of that holy oil he did not attain the level of Moses [and required the advent of the Day of Atonement so that he might be free, at least temporarily, of foreign elements. Ed].

Keeping this in mind we can answer the question how Moses could have performed service in the Sanctuary during the seven days preceding the eighth day of Nissan mentioned in Leviticus 9,1. Our sages answered this question saying that Moses went in wearing a white shirt (Taanit 11). At first glance the question does not seem to fit the answer. If the questioner wanted to know whence Moses had taken the sacred vestments to enable him to perform the service in the Sanctuary -because he presumed that such service could not be performed without the sacred vestments- then the answer simply skirts the issue. If, on the other hand, the questioner did not consider the wearing of the sacred vestments as an absolute prerequisite before such service in the Tabernacle could be performed, what was the point of the question?

We therefore have to assume that the questioner presumed that the sacred vestments were an absolute prerequisite for such service to be performed. This is why he wanted to know where Moses took such garments from, seeing the Torah had not mentioned anything about sacred vestments at that point in time. He was told that Moses performed the service wearing a white shirt because there was no requirement for him to wear sacred vestments. The reason Moses did not need them was because he had never been a זר, had never been alienated from his original level of sanctity as had all the other human beings including his brother Aaron. The "white shirt" mentioned by the Talmud is an allusion to the garments of light worn by Adam prior to his sin. Since Moses personally was of distinguished material, כבוד ותפארת, he did not need sacred garments to achieve such an image.

To return to the main issue that Aaron, the man of חסד, rehabilitated original Adam and that the universe is built on חסד. Since the world was constructed during the seven days of Creation, which in turn paralleled the seven emanations employed in its construction, seven days of inauguration of the Tabernacle were required before it commenced functioning as a microcosm in the fullest sense of the word. The Zohar quotes Rabbi Yitzchak on Isaiah 30,26: "The light of the moon will equal the light of the sun in brilliance, and the brilliance of the light of the sun will be seven times greater than during the seven days of creation." Rabbi Yuda said that the prophet referred to the seven days during which the Tabernacle was inaugurated. The world had been plunged in darkness so that it might re-emerge bathed in light on the occasion of the inauguration of the Tabernacle. On that occasion the moon shone brilliantly as it had done before it was diminished so as not to embarass it at a time when the universe had been rehabilitated. Rabbi Yuda based himself on the verse: ונרגן מפריד אלוף, "A quarrelsome one alienates a friend" (Proverbs 16,28).

Aaron was anointed with the anointing oil which alludes to the mystical dimension of the holy oil in the Celestial Regions which has its roots in the emanation בינה. Pardes Rimonim in the chapter dealing with the meaning of various terms has this to say on the definition שמן, oil: "There are many different kinds of oil. The anointing oil is an expression denoting שפע, abundance, otherwise known as שמן, as we will explain. When Royalty is anointed by the oil it originates in the emanation חסד and is called שמן המשחה, anointing oil. The reason is that it is called משחא דרבותא, oil of greatness in Aramaic. This is an allusion to חסד. When this oil originates in the emanation תפארת, however, it is called שמן המאור, oil for lighting. The reason for this is that the emanation תפארת symbolises the "great luminary." The שכינה employs this light when shining. The oil is called שמן משחת קודש, "holy oil of anointing," when it originates in the emanation גבורה. This is why the Torah speaks of וקדשת את הלוים, "You shall sanctify the Levites." [I have not found this verse. Maybe the verse in Numbers 3,12 is meant. Ed.] When G–d's שפע is absorbed through the emanation גבורה and therefore also includes an element of the emanation חסד, the Torah reflects this by describing such oil as שמן משחת קודש. This indicates that such oil is not derived exclusively from the emanation גבורה. The word קודש is a hint of the emanation גבורה, whereas the word משחת alludes to the emanation חסד.

When the source of the oil is the emanation יסוד, it is called שמן כתית. This is the domain in which the olives are "pounded" into fragments from which the oil is extracted and in turn is channelled to the emanation מלכות. Two different stages of "pounding," i.e. כתת and כתש are required to produce the required type of oil for the מנורה. When human beings mate the process is one of כתישה, as is well known. This process eventually results in the formation of a new life, a baby. When the parallel process occurs in the Celestial Regions the result is the שפע we enjoy at the hands of G–d. When the oil is the product of the emanation יסוד, i.e. שמן זית זך כתית, this is equivalent to שמן רענן (cf. Psalms 92,11) because the emanation יסוד is also known as the region of רענן. The שפע by itself is known as זית אחת, a single olive. שמן without any adjectives describing it is an allusion to the שפע which is provided by the emanation בינה, having originated in the emanation חכמה which is part of the "right" side of the scheme of emanations, the side from which G–d's goodness is revealed. The emanation בינה is also known as the seat of G–d's name א-ה-י-ה. We find this word repeated in Exodus 3,14, where G–d refers to the abundance He will supply. When the three basic letters י-ה-ו are used it does not matter in which order they are spelled. The letters י-ה-ו are also alluded to in the word בינה, because the word בינה is a combination of בן and י-ה. The letter ו alludes to "combination," i.e. when you place it together with the letters י-ה, you have י-ה-ו. When you apply the system of exchanging letters in the alphabet known as א-ת, ב-ש, the result is ב-י-ט as the alternative spelling of the שמן. This word ביט is a sacred name of G–d and in numerical value equals the holy Name א-ה-י-ה or י-ה-ו. This is what I have heard." Thus far the quotation from the Pardes Rimonim.

These vestments were garments of distinction, reminiscent of the garments made of light worn by Adam prior to his sin. They were made לכבוד ולתפארת, in order to reflect the תפארת extant in the emanation תפארת, abode of G–d's שכינה, which radiates from there in all six possible directions. It exerts its influence on the emanation מלכות, uniting with that emanation.

Nachmanides has this to say on the expression of לכבוד ולתפארת, in 28,2: "As far as the mystical dimension of these instructions, i. e. ועל דרך האמת, is concerned: They should make prestigious garments for Aaron so that he could perform service in them to the G–d who represents true glory and splendour and who dwells amongst the Israelites. The might and glory of the Jewish people is their G–d, as we know from Psalms 89,18: כי תפארת עוזמו אתה, "For You are their strength in which they glory." We also know this from Isaiah 64,10 בית קדשנו ותפארתנו אשר הללוך אבותינו, "Our Holy Temple and the site of our glory where our forefathers praised You." The word קדשנו refers to our כבוד, honour, the word תפארתנו to the glory of Israel. We also have a verse in Psalms 96,6: עוז ותפארת במקדשו, "Strength and glory in His Sanctuary." Isaiah 60,13 speaks of לפאר מקום מקדשי ומקום רגלי אכבד, "To glorify the site of My Sanctuary and the place where My feet rest." The prophet evidently describes that the site of the Temple is to reflect G–d's splendour and honour. G–d is glorified through Israel viz: Isaiah 49,3: ישראל אשר בך אתפאר, "I glory in you Israel."

What applies to the vestments of the High Priest also applies in some measure to the vestments of Aaron's sons as we read in 28,40. Isaiah also uses this expression when referring to the value of the sacrifices offered up by Israel, such as Isaiah 60,7: יעלו לרצון על מזבחי ובית תפארתי אפאר, "They will be welcome offerings on My Altar, and I will add glory to My glorious House." The Altar represents G–d's goodwill, the Sanctuary His glory. These vestments had to be made for the express purpose of serving as the priests' garments. This is why G–d prefaced His instructions with the words: "You shall instruct all those whose heart is endowed with wisdom and whom I have endowed with a spirit of wisdom, etc." (28,3). All those participating in the weaving, sewing, etc. of these garments should be aware of what they were doing and why they were doing it. We have already been told in Yuma 69 that an image of the High Priest Shimon Hatzadik dressed in his sacred vestments appeared to Alexander the Great when the latter engaged in battle. Alexander was convinced that he had had a vision of a holy angel. Thus far Nachmanides.

We have stated earlier that G–d's name appears in connection with the Sanctuary both as the Ineffable four-lettered Name, and in the form of the name א-ד-נ-י. Perhaps this concept is also reflected in the fact that there were four garments made of gold, and four garments made of white linen. The white garments symbolised the Ineffable Name, the mystical dimension of the attribute of Mercy, whereas the four golden garments represented the mystical dimension of the name א-ד-נ-י. We find the expression ממשבצות זהב לבושה, "her dress embroidered with golden mountings" in Psalms 45,14. The Psalmist uses the name א-ד-נ-י for the name of G–d in that chapter.

[At this point the author launches into a speculation he has found in a book called תיקון השם about how the various garments which -according to our tradition- each contributed to the attainment of atonement by the High Priest for the Jewish people's sins, paralleled a specific letter of the 2 times four letters in the two names of G–d. It is too lengthy to copy these speculations in detail. Ed.]

Rekanati sees the following allusions in the composition of the breastplate and the ephod respectively. "You must appreciate that the breastplate symbolises the splendour which is Israel, whereas the ephod reflects the presence of G–d's might. This is the reason the breastplate was not to be loosened from the ephod. Seeing that the breastplate symbolised Israel's splendour, it is only logical that it had two golden rings on it. They alluded to the זרועות עולם, the arms supporting the universe, parallel to the cherubs on top of the lid of the Holy Ark. You are also aware that some of the priests' garments were made of gold and some of silver. [Surely the author uses the word silver in lieu of white. Ed.]. This too referred to the two "arms" supporting the universe. Different vestments were worn for the performance of different kinds of duties in the Tabernacle.

The reason for the bells on the rim of the robe of the High Priest is specifically spelled out in the Torah. His voice (approach) should be heard when he entered the Sanctuary. This was in the nature of securing permission before entering the Sanctuary. Anyone entering suddenly, i.e. unannounced, was guilty of death. We know of something similar in the palace of Ahasverus (Esther 4,11). I shall explain this in greater detail when I deal with Leviticus 16,17: "No one is to be in the Tent of Meeting when Aaron enters to obtain atonement in the Sanctuary." This is why the Torah commanded that he had to announce his arrival. It is not unlike the time Joseph revealed himself to his brothers. He had instructed that everyone present in the palace had to be removed first, except for himself and his brothers (Genesis 45,1). Service to the King has to be performed with no one else present. When one leaves the king one must also be granted permission so that the king's servants will know when to re-enter the king's presence. An additional dimension which is important when dealing with the presence before the King of Kings is that unless permission has been obtained both before entering and before leaving, G–d's angels are apt to kill the person who acts without permission. The Torah warns Aaron so that we may appreciate that if even a person of the exalted stature of Aaron is subject to such restrictions, anyone on a lower level does not even have to be warned specifically. When the Torah adds the words לפני ה', in 28,39, it adds stature to Aaron who is compared to an angel of the Lord of Hosts. According to our sages the reason there must not be a tear in the robe (28,31), i.e. that it should be constructed in such a way that it is not liable to be torn, is because Satan is jealous of the High Priests's stature and tries to pull him by his robe as warriors do.

I have already alluded earlier to the reason the High Priest has to eat part of the meat of the sacrifices. I will here add another mystical dimension to this requirement. It is all connected with the first statement in the Book of Leviticus about the nature of animal sacrifice, i.e. אדם כי יקריב מכם, that the soul of a person is transferred to the animal he offers as a sacrifice or has the priest offer on his behalf. When the priests eat, they absorb the souls of the owners of the sacrifices for whom they seek atonement. This is achieved through eating of the animals which had been appointed as a substitute for the person offering the animal to G–d.

I have already given a reason for the importance and nature of the incense offering earlier. Rekanati comments on this as follows: "Incense is an allusion to the attribute of Justice, as we know from Deut. 33,10: ישימו קטורה באפיך וכליל על מזבחך, 'They place incense (on the Golden Altar) when You are angry, and total offferings on Your (copper) Altar.' Aaron did this and succeeded in arresting the plague that was consuming the lives of the Israelites (Numbers 17,12-14). We know from Psalms 45,14 that Aaron offered that incense on the Golden Altar: ממשבצות זהב לבושה. To assure the effectiveness of such an offering of incense he had to concentrate on the Ineffable Name while doing so, wishing the incense to become ריח ניחוח, a fragrance pleasing to G–d. We also have a tradition based on Proverbs 27,9: "Oil and incense gladdens the heart." This is because the incense offering as a rule, does not represent an effort to achieve forgiveness for some sin committed, but is an expression of man trying to place a crown on the head of its rightful owner, G–d in this instance. It is an attempt to insure that G–d relates to us in a constantly happy frame of mind. The emanation מלכות is regarded as the heart, לב, of heaven. The Torah writes in Exodus 30,8: "When Aaron lights up the lamps he shall burn it, an incense offering before the Lord." It is interesting that the offering up of the incense offering is made dependent on the performance of the lighting-up ceremony of the candlestick. This is in order to achieve the mystical union with the emanations representing the בנין. We have pointed out in our commentary on פרשת תרומה that the candlestick with its seven lamps symbolised the process of creation, or בנין. At the same time it symbolised the original light which illuminated the universe during the first seven days of its existence, as I demonstrated when I described how everything in connection with the construction of the Tabernacle was a re-enactment of the work of creation. Aaron was the rehabilitation of Adam. All existence is bound up with this תקון, rehabilitation. The incense offering is the clearest indication that the rehabilitation has indeed been completed. The lighting of the candlestick symbolises that the rehabilitation will endure, i.e. that the universe will endure, that the seven days of creation have been found justified.

When commenting on 27,2: ויקחו אליך שמן זית זך, "They shall take for you pure olive oil," the Talmud in Menachot 86 points out that the Torah emphasises the word "for you," not "for Me." The message is that G–d does not need the light of the Candlestick. When the Tabernacle is lit up, however, this reflects glory for the Jewish people. The Table stood in the North, the Candlestick in the South of the Sanctuary. G–d needs neither the bread offered on the Table nor the light of the Candlestick. We read in Kings I 6,4 that Solomon made windows for the House (Temple) שקופים אטומים. This means that the windows were narrower on the inside of the walls than on the outside, emitting light rather than allowing light to come in from the outside. This architectural anomaly reflected the message that whereas G–d does not need our light, we are very much in need of His light, the one that is emitted from the Sanctuary.

The words מחוץ לפרוכת העדות, "outside the curtain of testimony" (27,21) tell us that it was a testimony to the whole world that G–d's Presence rested over Israel. Should anyone assume that G–d needs the light inside the Tabernacle one only had to demonstrate that for the entire forty years that the Israelites marched through the desert they were guided by His light (the pillar of fire) and not vice versa. Rava opined that the "testimony" referred to in our verse is the נר מערבי, the most western, "eternal" flame which, though not filled with more oil than any of the other lamps on the מנורה, burned a whole twenty-four hour period at a time. The other lamps were lit from this lamp and in spite of this it burned the longest (Menachot 86).

The same subject matter is raised in the Talmud Shabbat 22 where the same question is raised and Tossaphot query why the Talmud claims that the proof comes from the forty years the Israelites marched in the desert. Surely, Tossaphot ask, we also require G–d's light in all our lives ever since? Some answer that Aaron needed the light of the מנורה when he entered the Sanctuary because the pillar of light did not light up the windowless inside of the Tabernacle. This seems to contradict the tradition that during all of the forty years the Israelites were in the desert the pillar of cloud illuminated every last pot in the camp so that nobody ever needed any other source of light. If one merely looked at the outside of a pitcher of water one could see the water-level inside the pitcher! Tossaphot conclude that the principal message of this verse is to tell us that the Tabernacle and the candlestick in it provided proof that G–d's Presence rested over the Jewish people. The Tossaphot in Menachot leave the question of why restrict the fact that G–d provided light for us instead of the other way around open.

I believe that we must on no account leave the impression that there is no answer to this question. After all, not providing an adequate answer is equivalent to diminishing the honour of G–d in the eyes of the reader! I believe that Rashi and also Tossaphot have left me some room to approach the subject. At the beginning of the discussion in Menachot 86 the Talmud mentions that the Table was situated in the northern part of the Sanctuary and the Candlestick was situated in the southern part. This had to be so because the Golden Altar was between them. The Talmud adds that the words מחוץ לפרוכת העדות, "Outside the curtain of testimony," indicate that the שכינה resided amongst the Israelites. Rashi comments that the fact that the Altar was in between the Table and the Candlestick proved that G–d needed neither the food nor the light provided by the priests. One of the problems with this explanation is that the most important ingredient in this explanation, i.e. the Altar is not even mentioned in the text of the Talmud here. Another difficulty is that the altar did not actually stand exactly between the Table and the Candlestick; if you drew a line between the Table, the Altar and the Candlestick you would get a triangle, as is clear from the Mishnah in Midot.

G–d has granted me the insight to find the answer to this problem with the help of a Midrash Tanchuma on our verse. It is customary in civilised countries that when a king places a divan and table in his room that he places the candlestick to the left of the table. In the Holy Temple, however, this was not so. The Candlestick was placed on the right side of the Table to make it plain that G–d is not in need of any light supplied by us. The purpose of the Candlestick is to light the way for you to the World to Come at the time when darkness will sweep the Gentiles, for we know from Isaiah 60,2 that at that time החשך יכסה ארץ וערפל לאומים ועליך יזרח ה' וכבודו עליך יראה, "The darkness will envelop the earth, and thick clouds the nations; but upon you the Lord will shine and His Presence will be seen over you." Thus far the Midrash.

It is spelled out then that the Table stood in the North and the Candlestick in the South, which proved that the Candlestick was not needed for the sake of its light nor the table for the bread it provided. Had they been needed for mundane purposes their positions should have been reversed.

Having in mind the words of this Midrash, we can answer the question raised by Tossaphot of what need there was for the Candlestick, seeing that G–d did not need its light, nor did He need the Table because of the food offered on it. The Talmud had answered that in view of this the Torah indicated that the provision of such furnishings in the Tabernacle was evidence that G–d's Presence rested above Israel. [Why would furnishings be provided for an absentee resident? Ed.] The Tanchuma answered the question by saying that it was an acknowledgment of Israel's merit. The presence of these furnishings was designed to help Israel during the interval between the onset of the coming of the Messiah and the eventual emergence of the new world-order called עולם הבא, the World to Come.

Both the Talmud and the Midrash have provided legitimate answers. Both answers reflect similar ideas. Let me first say a few words of introduction. The mutual and intimate connection between Israel and G–d is a well known fact. We are the cause of this great attachment between us and G–d through our "awakening down here," i.e. through our initiating this relationship. G–d reciprocates, pouring out over us His abundance from the Celestial Regions. This fact answers a difficulty in Rashi on Exodus 23,20: ולהביאך אל המקום אשר הכינותי, "and to bring you to the place that I have prepared." Rashi- in his Midrashic commentary- says that it means that 'My place' is already visible opposite this place. This is one of the verses from which we can learn that there is a Celestial Sanctuary opposite the Sanctuary on earth." This poses the question as to what is primary and what is secondary? Does the Celestial Sanctuary have to await the building of a terrestrial Sanctuary by Israel, or vice versa? Under normal circumstances the junior partner is always dependent on the senior partner. In accordance with that rule Rashi should have described the terrestrial Sanctuary as dependent on the existence of the Celestial Sanctuary. The site of the Sanctuary on earth should have been described as opposite the Celestial Sanctuary! Another difficulty is the wording of Rashi in the first half of his comment. He says: "its place was already recognisable." Afterwards Rashi speaks of the terrestrial Sanctuary having already existed before the Celestial Sanctuary came into being!

The answer is simply that the Sanctuary in the Celestial Regions preceded the Tabernacle on earth. G–d commanded the Sanctuary on earth to be built in such a way that it would correspond to the Celestial Sanctuary. The performance of the service in the Tabernacle would prepare it to absorb G–d's bounty from the Celestial Sanctuary. This bounty is unable to descend from Heaven until there is evidence of our rousing ourselves in an effort to ascend spiritually. Once Man or Israel has demonstrated such a spiritual intiative, i.e. has prepared a throne for G–d in our world, then G–d in His turn can rest His Presence over us.

Our sages conveyed the same message when they explained that although the sacrifices on the Altar were consumed by Heavenly fire, yet the priests had to prepare the fire on the Altar on an ongoing basis. When man prepares the fire, G–d's fire will descend and consume the offerings, a sign of goodwill from G–d. The fire on earth "awakens" the Heavenly fire (Eyruvin 63). This is a rule which applied to everything in the Sanctuary with the exception of the Table and the Candlestick. The Candlestick with its seven lamps alludes to the ongoing existence of the universe which was created in seven days and alludes to the super-natural light that the universe was bathed in during those days and until Adam's sin. The Table teaches that G–d provides bread for all creatures, for His kindness is everlasting. The Table was not placed in the location which we would have expected in order to show that G–d neither needs our light nor our bread. What this means is that whereas in spiritual matters man must make the first move to come closer to G–d, G–d will make the first move when it comes to providing our physical needs such as food and light. We see that G–d continues to provide the universe and its creatures with its needs even though the Sanctuary is in ruins. We acknowledge this daily when we say grace after our meals. This is what the sages meant when they quoted G–d as saying: "I do not need the terrestrial Sanctuary either to enable light to be dispensed from Heaven or for food to be provided by My grace. If G–d nonetheless commanded the construction of a Candlestick and a Table, and commanded how they were to function, this was to attest that G–d's שכינה rested over Israel. It was an an assurance that even if there no longer were a Sanctuary this would not mean that G–d would withdraw His Presence, as we know from השוכן אתם בתוך טומאותם, "Who dwells amongst them in their state of defilement" (Lev. 16,16).

The testimony consisted of the נר המערבי, i.e. G–d's decree that the Western (wailing) Wall should never be destroyed even when the rest of the Temple was laid waste. In this way we retain a glimmer of our former glory and an indication that G–d has not abandoned us even at a time when the lights of the Candlestick no longer burn and we dwell in relative darkness. It serves as encouragement that light will emerge from the darkness that we find ourselves in during exile, and this light will outshine any that existed in former times. The "darkness," the persecutions we suffer during exile act as the catalyst that triggers penitence and spiritual rebirth. I have already explained the positive aspects of exile on several occasions.

Suffice it to say that this is what the Midrash Tanchuma had in mind when it said that the function of the Candlestick is to light up for us the period of darkness preceding the ultimate redemption. "When that time arrives it will be those who have darkened our lives who will experience darkness whereas Israel will experience an abundance of light and the universe will undergo a complete rejuvenation. This eventual rejuvenation of the universe was already hinted at in the first words of the Torah's report about מעשה בראשית, the work of Creation, where the Torah speaks about , תהו, ובהו, חושך, על פני תהום, and our sages see in this an allusion to the four exiles the Jewish people would experience before there would be an ideal type of universe (Bereshit Rabbah 2,4). The Table also alludes to the future as indicated in Isaiah 65,13: "Here My servants will eat whereas you will starve; My servants will drink and you will thirst."

This then is the meaning of "I do not need its light, etc.," that nowadays, when the Tabernacle is standing, you have to make preparations concerning a more distant future after the destruction of the Temple when these symbols will become of crucial importance to us.

Rabbi Avin the Levite is quoted in the Midrash Tanchuma as saying that when people make windows they make them wide on the inside of the wall and narrow on the outside so that they will bring as much light as possible into the house. All the windows in Solomon's Temple were built according to the opposite pattern, narrow on the inside of the walls and much wider on the outside. This was to illustrate that the Temple is a source of light for the outside world and not vice versa. The deeper meaning is that the light which originated inside the Temple and illuminated the world outside would remain in the universe also after the destruction of its source, the Temple, in order to eventually light the way for a better world.

The "light" which will be preserved in the universe at large after shining forth from the Temple is the light of Torah learning, as already explained in Bereshit Rabbah 3,5: "Rabbi Symon said that the word אור, light, occurs five times in the report of the first day of creation (Genesis 1,3-5). This corresponds to the five books of the Torah."

The construction of the Tabernacle, first reported in Parshat Terumah, commences with the Torah's instruction to make the Holy Ark, the repository of the Tablets, symbol of the light of Torah. When you invert the letters in the word ארון, Ark, you have אורן, "their light." This alludes to the fact that the Torah in the Ark is the source of light for all of us. Parshat Tetzaveh, on the other hand, commences with the commandment to provide the oil for lighting up the lamps of the Candlestick. When we look at the adjective used by the Torah for the olive oil to be used, i.e. זך, we note that the word זך has a numerical value of 27, i.e. the number of different letters used in the written Torah when we include the five "final" letters as separate letters. The word כתית which describes the pounding the olives have to undergo before they yield the oil, is an allusion to the way in which a potential Torah student has to "pound himself" in order to study with the proper kind of dedication. We find an allusion to this in Esther 8,16: ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר, "The Jews enjoyed light and gladness, happiness and honour." The word אורה is a reference to Torah. They emerged from the darkness caused by Haman into a great light, the light of Torah."

This Midrash requires further analysis. I have explained it in various sermons delivered on the occasion of פרשת זכור on different occasions during my younger days. In most years we read פרשת זכור on the same Sabbath as we read the portion תצוה. I will append here some of the material I used in such sermons.

ואתה תצוה את בני ישראל. The word ואתה, occurs four times in connection with the construction of the Tabernacle and in each instance it appears to be superfluous. In Exodus 27,20, the word could have been omitted without changing the meaning of G–d's instructions to Moses. In 28,1 the Torah could have simply written: Karev! In 28,3 the Torah could have written: Dabber, and in 30,23 the Torah could have written: Kach lecha. We will concede that on the fifth occasion the Torah uses the word אתה, i.e. in connection with the commandment not to build the Tabernacle on the Sabbath (Exodus 31,13), there is some justification for use of the word אתה. G–d referred to the fact that Moses had a special standing relative to the Sabbath because it had been he who had chosen the Sabbath legislation while the Israelites were still in Egypt, something we mention every Sabbath morning in our liturgy when we recite: ישמח משה במתנת חלקו, "Moses rejoiced when he received his share, etc." The other four occasions when the Torah writes ואתה, present a serious difficulty.

Rabbi Shemuel bar Nachmeni tells us in Menachot 86 that the reason the Torah emphasises the word אליך, for you, in 27,20 is that otherwise the impression would have been created that the light of the מנורה serves G–d's needs. We have already quoted this passage earlier and explained that this was the meaning of ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר, as discussed in the Talmud Megillah 16. [In that connection the presumption is that after being saved from the threat of annihilation at the hands of Haman, the Jews accepted upon themselves the commandments alluded to in these words. Ed.]

The word אורה is understood to refer to the spiritual illumination provided by Torah; the word שמחה to יום טוב, a holiday; the word ששון to circumcision, whereas the word ויקר is a reference to the phylacteries. The scriptural proof for the latter statement is derived from Deut. 28,10: "All mankind will see that the name of the Lord is on you and they will be in awe of you." Rabbi Eliezer the Great said that this is a reference to the phylacteries worn on the head.

We have a problem with these statements: Why did the Book of Esther single out these four commandments from all the others, seeing all would have been nullified if Haman had been able to achieve his aim in wiping out all the Jews? Rashi comments that Haman specifically wanted to ensure that these commandments would no longer be practised [and this is why he had to wipe out the Jews to attain his end. Ed.] What is Rashi's source? Another problem is that according to a tradition quoted in a book called Manot Ha-Levi, Mordechai and twenty-two thousand students were engaged in Torah study prior to Haman's decree! There was therefore hardly anything new in the Jewish people accepting the principle of Torah study!

I therefore believe that the Jews re-dedicated themselves to the practice of these four commandments as something they would place more emphasis on than before Haman's decree. Our sages (Shabbat 85) comment on Exodus 19,17: "They stood underneath the Mountain," that G–d had threatened that if the Jewish people would not accept the Torah the Mountain would crush them to death. This proved that acceptance of the Torah by the Jewish people at Mount Sinai was an act performed under duress. Not until after the decree of Haman was cancelled did the Jewish people accept the Torah on an entirely voluntary basis. This is what is meant when the Book of Esther describes that תורה had now become אורה, that what had previously been a burden now became like a ray of light for them. An allusion to this revolutionary change in the Jewish attitude to Torah is found in the words והדת נתנה בשושן הבירה, "and the law (religion) was really given in Shushan the capital" (Esther 3,15).

When the Talmud explains that the word שמחה in the Book of Esther refers to יום טוב, a holiday, festival, this is obviously a reference to the holiday of Purim which was established as part of the Jewish calendar as a result of the Haman episode. Our sages have stated that this holiday is such a fixture in our calendar that even if all the other holidays were to be cancelled Purim would never be cancelled (Esther 9,28). It follows that the kind of holiday the Jews received as a result of the cancellation of Haman's decree was on a higher spiritual plateau than the previously existing holidays.

The Talmud described the word ששון in our verse from the Book of Esther as a reference to circumcision. This was a commandment which had not been practised joyfully prior to the cancellation of Haman's decree. It could now be celebrated again. According to a view expressed at the beginning of chapter 19 in Shabbat 130, all commandments which the Jewish people accepted joyfully continue to enjoy popularity amongst the Jewish people One such commandment was the rite of circumcision because it was performed to the accompaniment of a feast. As a source for this statement Tossaphot quote the verse describing Abraham making a feast on the day Isaac was weaned. The extra letters ה and ג in the word הגמל serve as the basis that it was on the eighth day after Isaac was born that this feast took place (cf. Genesis 21,8). When Haman's decree was published Esther and Mordechai had decreed a three-day (72 hour) fast on the entire Jewish population of Shushan. Presumably there were many thousands of circumcisions during those days without a feast being prepared honouring performance of this commandment. Now that Haman's decree had been cancelled this commandment could again be performed amid a joyous celebration.

The Talmud had described the word יקר as alluding to the wearing of the phylacteries. On the 14th of Nissan, the first day of the fast, the Jews did not put on their phylacteries since they observed mourning. Anyone who is of disturbed mind is not allowed to put on phylacteries. Now that the decree had been cancelled the Jews were again able to put on their phylacteries. I believe that this is the plain meaning of the Talmud's comment on our verse.

Perhaps the four expressions of joy mentioned in our verse have a bearing on the disagreement between four scholars as to from where one starts reading the מגילה in order to have fulfilled one's duty. The opinions range from the requirement to start at the beginning, in order to demonstrate the full extent of Ahasverus's power, and an opinion that we must only read from the paragraph describing the night the king could not sleep and had the book of Chronicles read before him, i.e. the description of Mordechai saving his life. It is quite unlikely that the reason a scholar demands that the מגילה be read from start to finish is to enhance the reputation of Ahasverus. The exact wording in the Talmud is תוקפו של אחשורש. I do not think we err if we understand this to mean that the whole era of Ahasverus was one during which Jews accepted the Torah voluntarily. Since the Talmud indulges in a variety of attempts to prove that all that happened was alluded to in various hints in the Torah thousands of years previously, such exegesis is not far fetched. I have listed some of these allusions in my treatise on פרשת שקלים.

[The author connects four questions raised in Chulin 139 concerning where the Torah had alluded to future events as corresponding in some way to the four expressions used in Esther 8,16. He also draws parallels with the expressions used in the Torah for G–d's relationship with the Jewish people such as חשק, חפץ, דבק, i.e. different levels of liking for the Jewish people. The expression דבקות is used as applying to the Israel/G–d relationship in a reciprocal manner, thus creating a fourth expression of G–d's relationship with Israel. Those who are interested in studying these allusions in greater detail are referred to the original text. The author uses statements in the Talmud such as that we have an allusion to Mordechai in the Torah because the Torah says in Exodus 30,23 מר דרור, as his justification for finding similar allusions to the Purim i.e. Amalek episode in our portion. I will continue quoting his commentary concerning such allusions. Ed.]

We are told in 28,12 that Aaron was to wear the two gemstones on which the names of the twelve tribes were engraved on the shoulder-pieces of the ephod לפני ה' על שתי כתיפיו לזכרון, "on the two shoulder-pieces for remembrance before the Lord." This is an allusion to the events surrounding Purim of which we read in Esther 9,28 that "these days will be remembered and celebrated." This is a clear reference to the commandment to remember and never to forget what Amalek did to the Jewish people after they had crossed the sea and found themselves in the desert. The reason that the verse speaks both about נזכרים and נעשים is that the commemoration must precede the celebration. Even when Purim, i.e. the 14th of Adar, occurs on a Friday, so that the cities such as Jerusalem who celebrate Purim on the 15th of Adar celebrate it on the Sabbath, we cannot read פרשת זכות on that day, but must read it on the Sabbath preceding the 14th of Adar in order to comply with the sequence indicated in the Book of Esther. There is a dispute about this in Megillah 30 between Rav and Shmuel. The former holds that the paragraph commemorating the attack of Amalek on the Jewish people must be read in the Synagogue on the Sabbath prior to Purim, whereas Shmuel is of the opinion that it may be read even after Purim (i.e. the 14th). He reasons that since there are people who observe Purim on the 15th of Adar, in such an event the remembrance and celebration would coincide. In view of the fact that we accept the view of Rav, we need to understand why it is important to read פרשת זכור before the 14th of Adar.

In this connection I find the words of Rabbi Yitzchak Arama, the author of עקדת יצחק, most astonishing. The author of this book [chapter 90, see my translation. Ed.] questions how the Torah can command us to remember something at all; after all, man is subject to lapses of memory, and therefore such a commandment is beyond his control to observe! How can the Torah command us to perform acts beyond our control? Torah precepts involving vision do not apply to the blind because they cannot see, neither do Torah precepts involving hearing apply to the deaf since they cannot hear! The same rule should apply to precepts involving memory. Rabbi Arama answers this question saying that every remembrance has been preceded by an actual happening. It is the happening which triggers one's memory, and therefore the Torah is entitled to command us to use our memory. He quotes as an example the remembrance of the Sabbath legislation in the Kiddush. The mere fact that one observes the commandment of שמירת שבת, abstains from work, etc., acts as a memory jogger. It is therefore not true to say that the Torah commands only our memory. When we put on the phylacteries, that very act helps us to remember what the phylacteries stand for, as demanded by the Torah (Deut. 6,8); the same is true when we wear the ציצית, another commandment which the Torah has linked to memory (Numbers 15,39-40). The sages of the Great Assembly acted in consonance with this principle when they wanted to insure that the miracle which occurred in the days of Mordechai and Esther should be commemorated for all times. Since the Torah had not fixed a specific day for remembering Amalek, they decided to anchor this remembrance by some easily recognisable act and they instituted the reading of פרשת זכור in conjunction with the holiday of Purim. As long as the commandment was not connected with the anniversary of an anti-Jewish act committed by a descendant of Amalek, the commandment itself was in danger of being forgotten. According to the explanation by the Baal Akeydah the question is why the sages of the Great Assembly did not arrange to have the reading of פרשת זכור after Purim, after we had all remembered what the evil Haman had planned?

In Megillah 19 we find an argument as to how much of the Megillah has to be read. Four views are mentioned as we have already stated earlier. The views are based on whether תקפו של אחשורוש, or תקפו של מרדכי, or תקפו של המן, or תקפו של נס i.e. the power of Ahasverus, Haman, Mordechai or the extent of the miracle, determines from which point the story has to be read in order to fulfil the commandment. The view mentioned last, that of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, states that the extent of the miracle is what determines from which part of the Megillah one has to start reading. Why would his colleagues of the Mishnah disagree with such a viewpoint?

We know that the cause of Haman's decree was that the Jewish people at that time were guilty of two sins. One was a sin committed with their bodies, the other sin was committed with their souls. The sin committed with their souls was that they prostrated themselves before the image Nebuchadnezzar had constructed. The sin of committing idolatry is always considered as committed with one's soul, though one's body may have demonstrated it. As soon as one has made a conscious decision to make an obeisance to the idol, one's soul has already become guilty as if one had physically perpetrated the act. This is the only instance known in which G–d holds us culpable for the intention even though the act has not yet been committed. Our sages have derived this from למען תפוש את בית ישראל בלבם, "In order to take hold of the Family of Israel in their heart, etc." (Ezekiel 14,5). No such principle operates concerning any other kind of sins. Idol-worship is something that is committed primarily by the heart accepting an alien deity.

The sin the Jews committed with their bodies at that time was their free-will participation in the feast Ahasverus had prepared in Shushan. The two sins combined were of sufficient gravity to prompt G–d to bring about the decree of Haman to wipe out all the Jews. Rashi spells this out in his commentary on Esther 4,1 "Mordechai knew all that had taken place." He was shown in a dream that Haman's decree enjoyed Heavenly approval. We are told in Megillah 12 that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai's students asked him why the Jews during the time of Mordechai had all become guilty of death. The Rabbi suggested to the students that they themselves should come up with the answer. The students attributed the decree to the Jews having enjoyed the feast to which Ahasverus had invited them. Their teacher immediately demurred saying that if this were so only the Jews of Shushan would have been guilty! Thereupon the students asked Rabbi Shimon to provide the answer. He told them that it was because they had prostrated themselves to the idol. The students wanted to know if an obeisance which was only for show carried such a severe penalty? Rabbi Shimon told them that just as the Jews had not really worshipped that idol in their hearts so G–d had not really intended for them to be annihilated. The author of Manot Halevi writes in his introduction that we can learn from the principle espoused by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai that the decree was indeed due to the two sins committed by the Jewish people, but that there is a difference between decrees which have been sealed with a seal of blood and those which have been sealed with a seal of clay. The question had also arisen as to which of the two sins had brought about the sealing of the decree.

When the Talmud asked how we know from the Torah that there would be a Moses, a Haman, a Mordechai and an Esther, these are not idle questions. From the answer the Talmud gives it is evident that there must be a deeper reason for such enquiries. In the case of Moses, the Talmud cites Genesis 6,3 בשגם הוא בשר, that G–d indicated that He made an allowance for the spiritual inadequacies of man inasmuch as part of man is physical. The letters in the word בשגם have a numerical value of 345, the same as the numerical value of the name משה. The Torah alludes to an eventual Haman with the words המן העץ in Genesis 3,11. The letters of Haman are the same as the word Ha-min. When answering the question where Esther is alluded to in the Torah, the Talmud cites ואנכי הסתר אסתיר את פני, "I will keep My face hidden" (Deut 31,18). We have an allusion to Mordechai in the Torah, as we mentioned earlier, based on Exodus 30,23 ואתה קח לך בשמים ראש מר דרור, "And you, take yourself choice spices Mor deror." The translation of this spice in Aramaic is מירא דכיא.

We know that Moses played a crucial part in rehabilitating the Jewish people who had served the golden calf by standing up single-handedly against 600,000 people and judging them. The forty days and forty nights that Moses went without food and drink when he was on Mount Sinai were part of the rehabilitation process; he abstained from that which was permitted in order to atone for the partaking of that which was prohibited If someone were to say that because Moses possessed exceptional spiritual powers as documented by the Torah, and therefore was able to do what he did in bringing about the rehabilitation of his people and that ordinary people whose raw material dominates their personality could not do this, the Torah answers him by alluding to the fact that Moses was also made of flesh and blood as per the verse cited from Genesis. Therefore ordinary people can also accomplish what Moses accomplished if they want to live to be 120 years old like Moses. Moses achieved this because he spent three times 40 days on the Mountain, i.e. a total of 120 days. During all those 120 days he abstained even from basic physical needs that are perfectly permissible for one to enjoy.

It is significant that the allusion of the Torah to Haman quoted by the Talmud is found in connection with the eating of forbidden food. This is exactly what happened during the days of Haman when the Jews participated and enjoyed the feast given by Ahasverus. Although the Jews were the guilty party, it was Haman who wound up on the gallows. The allusion of the Torah draws our attention to this anomaly.

The verse in which Esther is alluded to, i.e. הסתר אסתיר פני, deals with the sin of idol worship as the cause for G–d withdrawing His benevolent Presence from the Jewish people. It is therefore not only the letters but also the context in which they appear that prompted the Talmud to see in them a forecast of the role Esther would play in Jewish history. Although the Jews of her era had bowed to Nebuchadnezzar's image she became the instrument used by G–d to save the Jewish people.

The Talmud's discovery of an allusion to Mordechai in the Torah can also be viewed in this light. The passage in the Torah dealing with the various ingredients of the incense offering is written after the tax of the half shekel was imposed which every male Jew above the age of culpability, i.e. the age of 20, had to give to the Temple treasury as part of the expiation for his share in the sin of the golden calf. The Torah anticipated that Haman would offer an amount of 10,000 talents of silver (600,000 half shekels) to Ahasverus to secure permission to kill the Jews. The amount that Haman offered equalled the amount contributed by the Jewish people in Moses' time in expiation of their sin. There is therefore a conceptual bridge between the place in the Torah where we find a reference to Mordechai, and to the happenings during his lifetime. The whole subject of the half-shekel the Jewish males had to contribute to the building of the sockets of the Tabernacle as a symbol of their expiation could be explained in terms of the Mazzalot, the signs of the zodiac. The system of the zodiac signs presupposes that history is predetermined, i.e. הכל קצוב, שקול לומדוד ומנוי, "everything has been pre-cut, weighed, measured and counted." Haman drew lots in order to find out under what zodiac sign the Jews were most vulnerable. He miscalculated, for he did not know that if someone had paid כופר נפש, the name used by the Torah for this half-shekel payment of atonement, he would be immune to the horoscopic constellations governing his fate. Isaiah 43,4 refers to this ואתן אדם תחתיך ולאומים תחת נפשך, "I give men in exchange for you and peoples in your stead." The prophet continues by telling us not to be afraid since G–d is near us, etc. We have proof of G–d's protection during the Haman period from Psalms 124,2: לולא ה' שהיה לנו בקום עלינו אדם, "Were it not for G–d who was on our side when man assailed us." The verse does not mention persecution by a king or kingdom but by אדם, in this case Haman who was not a king. Here we have the mystical dimension of how the כופר נפש, the soul's ransom paid by the Jewish people frees them from the influence on their fate exerted by the signs of the zodiac. Instead of Haman governing our fate, a "king," i.e. G–d, took our fate in hand. This is why the legislation of the half-shekel contribution had to precede Haman chronologically. The Mishnah Shekalim 1,1 tells us that on the first of Adar each year people were reminded to contribute the shekels. The plural of the word shekel used here is indicative of the fact that these contributions covered both of the sins the people were guilty of during the reign of Ahasverus.

The rehabilitation also required two instruments i.e. Mordechai and Esther. Mordechai symbolised atonement for the sin, by refusing to bow to Haman's image, symbolised atonement for the sin of idol worship; Esther, by frightening Israel who were watching her inviting their arch-enemy to a feast with her husband-king, expiated the sin of partaking of forbidden food and enjoying it. Our sages (Megillah 15) cite several reasons why Esther did this, Rabbi Nechemyah saying that she wanted the Jews to do תשובה, repentance. The Jews did not turn to G–d and repent as long as they felt that a Jewish queen would protect their political interests. Esther wanted the fear generated among the Jewish people by her invitation of Haman to the meal to foster feelings of penitence amongst them. This is why she demanded that Mordechai decree a three-day fast for all the Jews of Shushan and asked that they assemble i.e. pray in their synagogues. The word כנוס, assemble, was the opposite of the characterisation of the Jews Haman had used when he described them to the king as מפוזר ומפורד, "scattered and dispersed." Haman counted on the dispersal and fragmentation of the Jewish people to help him defeat them.

Esther realised that the Jews were more fragmented than they had ever been in their history, and she considered this a major cause of the disaster facing them. This is why she counteracted Haman by calling for the unification of her people. She was certain that the fragmentation of the Jewish people stemmed from their laxity in religious observance. We are told in the Midrash Esther Rabbah 7,18 that eighteen thousand five hundred Jews of Shushan participated in the feast king Ahasverus gave for the population of Shushan. According to this Midrash, Mordechai had warned the Jews not to attend the feast, and had told them that they had only been invited in order that their free-will participation would be used by Satan as an accusation against them before the Celestial Tribunal. The Jews did not heed Mordechai's warning, however. This demonstrated that whereas the Jews were fragmented in their relations with G–d and the Torah, they were united when seeking rapprochement with their Gentile rulers and neighbours. We know from Sanhedrin 103 that eating and drinking creates separation between those who had been close prior to their feast, whereas it brings together people who had previously been strangers. This is why the sin of the Jews who attended the feast was many times greater than it had been before when they were estranged from G–d without having become particularly close to the Gentiles. The only way to rehabilitate themselves was by means of another meal, the one Esther prepared for Ahasverus and Haman, which aimed at reversing the process of becoming close with the Gentiles. This is why the miracle of Haman being hanged occurred during the meal.

This is also why we are commanded to have a festive meal on Purim. This meal is not to be understood as merely a commandment to indulge our bodies. The mystical dimension of this commandment concerns the attachment of body to soul. Israel had sinned separately with body and soul; the festive meal on Purim is to bring together body and soul in the performance of G–d's commandment and thus to atone for the sins which led to our almost being destroyed by Haman.

If you wish to understand the deeper meaning of the דבקות, attachment of body and soul and how this is achieved through the meal, examine what I have written in my treatise on the significance of the various letters in the Aleph Bet under the heading of the letter ק, where I have dealt with the קדושה, sanctity, element of eating. The meal is also somewhat reminiscent of the meal G–d is reputed to pepare for the righteous in the World to Come, when He will serve the Leviathan. I have also written about this in connection with the reason why Isaac was ready to bless his son Esau. I have written about the deeper meaning of the statement in Avodah Zarah 11 that the tables of Antoninus (the Roman Governor of Palestine) and Rabbi Yehudah Ha-Nassi did not lack certain kinds of legumes either in summer or winter [although they were out of season and unobtainable to the population at large Ed.]. I have also written about the deeper significance of the Mitzvah of sending food-gifts to one's friends and of giving alms to the poor on Purim. I have devoted considerable space to discussing the question of how drunk one may or should get on Purim. On the one hand we have many statements of our sages warning against getting drunk and the dangers of excessive drinking, whereas on the other hand the Talmud seems to invite drunkenness on Purim when it says: חייב אינש לבסומי בפוריא עד דלא ידע בין ארור המן ובין ברוך מרדכי, "one needs to get intoxicated sufficiently so that one does not longer know the difference between 'cursed be Haman,' and 'blessed be Mordechai" (Megillah 7). I have commented on this at the end of the next sermon delivered on the occasion of פרשת זכור, where I indulged in a more jocular explanation of that statement.

Basically, we are confronted here with two difficulties. 1) How is it possible that the sages have not only permitted but have encouraged indulgence in the evil practice of getting drunk? 2) Tossaphot wonder how it is possible for a Jew to become so drunk that he forgets the difference between cursing Haman and blessing Mordechai? We have quoted the entire line from the Talmud because of this question of Tossaphot. We also need to examine the language used in the Talmud to describe this degree of drunkenness. Real drunkenness is never referred to as בסומי, but rather as מבוסם (an expression describing the feeling of exhilaration resulting from drinking alcoholic beverages). It follows that a person who is not really drunk is called בסומי. I therefore believe that the sages -rather than encouraging excessive drinking- encouraged a minimal intake of wine or other alcoholic beverage. Since it is impossible for a Jew to fulfil the condition that he should forget the distinction between "cursed be Haman,” and "blessed be Mordechai,” the entire statement of the sages regarding the amount of drink on Purim becomes null and void. Nonetheless there remains the commandment to drink some intoxicating beverage.

The purpose of our joy on Purim is to achieve harmony of body and soul, as we have mentioned. Our sages read this into the words ליהודים היתה אורה i.e. Torah, and ששון, i.e. joy that we have accepted Torah voluntarily in the fullest sense of the word. Torah is good for both body and soul, it has revealed as well as hidden meanings. The Torah contains elements that address themselves to the sphere of action and elements that address themselves to the sphere of meditation. Haman intended to wipe out the Jews bodily as well as spiritually. This is why the Book of Esther describes his plan as a dual one, i.e. להשמיד ולהרוג. The word להשמיד with its connotation of Shemad, alludes to the destruction of the Jews as a spiritual force, whereas the word ולהרוג, refers to the physical destruction of the Jews. This is the way the author of Manot Ha-Levi explains these words.

To come back to the statement of our sages that the Jewish people accepted the Torah voluntarily only because of their miraculous salvation from Haman's decree. I can think of three reasons why this acceptance occurred at that particular time in Jewish history. The sin they had committed at the time when they went to participate in the feast given by king Ahasverus was one committed totally voluntarily. The Jews had not been under any physical or political pressure to attend that feast and eat forbidden foods. The Book of Esther 1,8 goes to some length to stress that there was no religious compulsion regarding the drinking of non-kosher wine, nor was there any compulsion to eat treif: on the contrary, the Megillah emphasises that the king had given orders לעשות כרצון איש ואיש, to comply with every guest's wishes" (ibid.). Our sages (Megillah 12) comment on this that the king had given orders to comply both with the wishes of Mordechai and those of Haman; this is the meaning of איש ואיש in the verse. The Jews, having sinned voluntarily, now resolved to accept Torah voluntarily as an act of rehabilitating themselves.

A second reason may be the revolutionary change in the political configurations of the Persian Empire as a result of the toppling of Haman. Details of this are described in a book called Ma-amatz Koach in which the author examined the nature of the miracle in connection with his commentary on פרשת זכור. He comes to the conclusion that the miracle consisted of the extraordinary political revolution which resulted in the Torah-true Jew Mordechai becoming Prime Minister. The Jews realised that G–d could have performed a miracle on a much smaller scale in order to save them. There certainly had been no need to allow the Jews (with Royal assent) to kill antisemites to the tune of 75,800 people. When the Jewish people realised that they were no longer under anyone's rule except G–d's, it was certainly appropriate for them to reciprocate by accepting the yoke of Heaven without reservation.

You could counter that when the Jews left Egypt they found themselves beholden only to G–d and to no other political power. They therefore had every reason to accept the Torah without any mental reservation! They were not in exile as were the Jews of Persia even after Mordechai's becoming Prime Minister. In fact the very fact that we do not recite the Hallel prayer on Purim is proof that we remained in exile. The remarkable thing about the political reversal during the Purim episode was that although the Jews were subjects of a foreign nation, G–d demonstrated that He did not forsake His people even in exile, and that even the mightiest king who ruled over the greatest empire was forced against his will to appoint Mordechai and reverse the decree against the Jews he himself had signed. While Ahasverus was worried about how many more antisemites the Jews had killed in various provinces of his Empire (Esther 9,16), he was forced to acceed to Esther's request to allow the Jews of Shushan to seek out their enemies and kill them on the morrow of the 13th of Adar.

Another remarkable thing which did not escape the notice of the Jews was that Haman's decree had been promulgated after a careful astrological analysis of when the Jews would be most vulnerable, and after his drawing of lots that seemed to have confirmed that on that day the fate of the Jews would be sealed, yet there came this astounding reversal. All of these realisations contributed to the total change of heart of the Jews at that time and their enthusiastic acceptance of G–d and His Torah. I have found most of these remarks in Manot Ha-Levi. The author of that book draws some interesting comparisons with the astrological signs prevailing at the time of the Exodus.

A third reason why the Jews accepted the Torah with alacrity after the fall of Haman will become clear after we first explain some of the differences between acting under compulsion and acting without any kind of duress. The author of Kliy Chemdah writing in the name of his father in his commentary on פרשת יתרו describes the acceptance of the Torah by the Jewish people at Sinai as an act of compulsion since it was an act of gratitude for all the supernatural miracles G–d had performed for them. He defines a voluntary acceptance of the Torah as an appropriate description of Jews embracing the Torah because they find themselves in dire straits. This is alluded to in Song of Songs 2,5: חולת אהבה אני, "For I am sick with love (when bereft of Your Presence)." Israel loves G–d and holds on to the Torah even when sick, i.e. when in distress such as in exile. This is in direct contrast to the Canaanites of whom it is recorded that they curse their deities when in trouble, as we know from Isaiah 8,21: "and he curses his god." I have seen this interpretation in a book called Shoshanat Amukim on the above quoted verse from Song of Songs. In view of this it is perfectly understandable that, due to their extreme distress the Jews under threat of annihilation from Haman embraced the Torah more than they ever had in their entire history. When such acceptance is contrasted with the normal human reaction of resentment and rebellion against protective powers which have failed one, one can truly describe such acceptance of the Torah as being totally voluntary.

Having said all this, we can better understand the disagreement between the first three sages in the Mishnah Megillah 19 dealing with which parts of the Megillah a person must have heard or read in order to have discharged his minimal duty to hear the Purim story. All three sages are agreed that the part in which G–d's goodness is displayed after the Jews had embraced the Torah voluntarily is an essential part of such a reading. This is why none of these three sages accepts the view of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai that it suffices to read from the point where the king could not sleep (Esther 6,1), an event which took place after the first feast Esther gave for the King and Haman, i.e. after the Jews did תשובה. The view that the Megillah has to be read from the very beginning, i.e. describing the power of Ahasverus, is easy to understand. It points out that the treatment of the Jews by Ahasverus at that meal contrasted sharply with his treatment of his queen whom he had tried to force to display herself in front of his ministers. The king displayed self-control in his dealings with the Jews at the time, i.e. his תקף, consisted of what our sages have described in Avot 4,1: "Who is a hero? He who can control his passions." Since the king had displayed the ability to conquer his natural urges, the Jews likewise could do no less but overcome their reluctance to accept the yoke of the Torah and embrace the Torah voluntarily, joyfully. The sage who believes that it suffices to read the Megillah from the point where the outstanding personality of Mordechai is described, i.e. from where the text introduces Mordechai in Esther 2,5, appears to hold that the reason the Jews accepted the Torah voluntarily at that time is similar to the second reason I have listed, the revolutionary change that occurred in the political constellation and which brought Mordechai the Torah-true Jew, member of an exiled nation, to a position of such great power. We are to appreciate that the half-shekel contribution which is described in the Torah in connection with the allusion to the name Mordechai was the key to Haman's failure and Israel's survival. Once they realised this, the Jews naturally embraced Torah enthusiastically. The third view, which holds that it is sufficient to read from the part in which Haman's rise to power, i.e. the troubles he caused the Jews, is described (Esther 3,1), considers the failure of the Jews to offer to change their religion as tantamount to accepting the Torah voluntarily. Rabbi Yossi, the sage who held this view, assumed that wholesale conversion by the Jews would have saved them from Haman's decree.

We note that all these sages were alert to the remarkable phenomenon of the free-will acceptance of the Torah by the Jewish people at that time. We therefore understand the nature of the joy we are commanded to experience on Purim. When the Megillah 9,15 describes the royal vestments Mordechai wore after he had been appointed Prime Minister, this was an expression of joy that the Jews had been saved, and has nothing to do with the need to serve G–d in fancy clothing. I have explained at length that the laws of שעטנז, the prohibition of wearing a mixture of wool and linen, may include an exhortation not to indulge in fancy dress, that a modest person refrains from wearing such attire.

Although the salvation from Amalek in the days of Mordechai was great, it does not compare to the extent of the salvation in the future when the messianic age will be ushered in. As a result of this future battle between the forces of Amalek and G–d, G–d's name will emerge restored to its full glory, i.e. not י-ה, but י-ה-ו-ה. According to Manot ha-Levi this is the reason that the name of G–d is not mentioned at all in the Megillah. The absence of G–d's name is meant to bring home to us how incomplete the salvation of Purim was compared to what will occur in the future. We have to read פרשת זכור before Purim. This is equivalent to praying for the annihilation of Amalek, reminding ourselves that, all other evidence notwithstanding, the forces of Amalek are still around. One normally is asked to first think about what one hopes to accomplish before launching a project, in this case the final extinction of Amalek.

When Aaron was told to wear the gemstones on the two shoulder-pieces of the ephod לזכרון, "as a remembrance before G–d," this is an allusion to the last two letters in the Ineffable Name, the letters ו-ה. At a time when Haman, a powerful descendant of Amalek, was utterly defeated, we must remember before celebrating this defeat that a still greater defeat of Amalek is needed to usher in the messianic age.