Trending  
#esther
1:11-20
to bring Queen Vashti before the king [adorned] with the royal crown, to show off to the people and the officials her beauty. for she was beautiful of appearance. But Queen Vashti refused to come at the king's command [conveyed] by the hand of the chamberlains; the king therefore became very enraged and his wrath burned in him. Then the king spoke to the wise men, those who knew the times (for such was the king's procedure [to turn] to all who knew law and judgement), those closest to him - Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena and Memucan, the seven officers of Persia and Media who had access to the king, who sat first in the kingdom: "By the law, what should be done to Queen Vashti for not having obeyed the bidding of the King Ahasuerus [conveyed] by the hand of the chamberlains?"
Memucan declared before the King and the officials, "Not only against the King has Queen Vashti done wrong, but against all the officials and all the people in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus. For the Queen's deeds will go forth to all women, making their husbands contemptible in their eyes, when they will say, 'King Ahasuerus said to bring Queen Vashti before him, but she did not come!" And this day the princesses of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen's deed will speak of it to all the king's officials and there will be much contempt and rage. If it pleases the king, let there go forth a royal edict from him, and let it be written into the laws of Persia and Media, that it not be revoked, that Vashti never appear before King Ahasuerus; and let the king confer her royal estate upon another who is better than she.

---------------------------------------------------
BUT QUEEN VASHTI REFUSED.
Not because of modesty. Megillah 12b
When Ahasuerus sent for her, "Vashti, the Queen" implying that her title was of secondary importance. He was suggesting that she was simply, "a vashti," a commoner, who had been elevated to the throne because it pleased him to do so. She, on the other hand, referred to herself as "Queen Vashti" to make it plain that she was of royal blood even before her marriage, and that her dignity was not to be trifled with. Further on when he wished to spare her, Ahasuerus referred to her a Queen Vashti reminding his advisers that she was a queen - the daughter of a great ruler, a royal personage in her own right. Vilna Gaon

TO THE WISE MEN
The Talmud (Megillah 12b) understands this to be the Rabbis.

WHO KNEW THE TIMES
That is, who knew how to calculate the timing of leap years and fix new moons. Megillah 12b

Ibn Ezra, however, interprets this as referring to astrologers or those familiar with the historical precedents of earlier monarchs.
Ahasuerus, seeking impartial and trusted counsel, turned first to the Jewish sages and asked them to pass sentence on his queen. The sages thought to themselves: "If we condemn the queen to death we shall suffer for it as soon as Ahasuerus becomes sober and hears that it was upon our advice that she was executed. If we advise clemency and advise him to pardon her, he will accuse us of not paying due reverence to the majesty of the king." They therefore resolved to take a position of neutrality.
They said to him, "From the day the Temple was destroyed and we were exiled from our land, we lost the powers to give judgment in capital cases. Better seek counsel with the wise men of Ammon and Moab who have dwelt at ease in their land." Thereupon he sought advice from his seven officials, as we read "those closes to him - Carshena, etc." Megillah 12b

MEMUCAN DECLARED
A Tanna taught: "Memucan is Haman. Why was he called Memucan? Because he was destine for destruction. Rav Kahana said: 'From here we see that an ignoramus always thrust himself to the forefront'" [Memucan is mentioned last in verse 14, yet he speaks first] Megillah 12b; Midrash
Everywhere else he is referred to as mem*mem*vav*Kuf*nun but here he is called mem*vav*mem*Kuf*nun a combination of the two words kuf*nun and Mem*vav*mem, meaning "a blemish is here." The blemish is his discourtesy in speaking out of turn. The Torah is not tolerant of boorishness. Mesoras HaBris
From a member:

A little late, but wanted to share this anyway.

Rabbeinu Bahya on Exodus 21:24...

עין תחת עין, “an eye for an eye.” Mechilta Nezikin section 8 understands these words as “the value of an eye for an eye,” and not that the guilty party is being deprived of his own physical eye. Proof that this interpretation is correct can be deduced from verse 19 where the Torah had legislated financial compensation for injuries caused to a fellow human being. If we would inflict upon a person who had struck and caused injury to another person a similar injury to the one he had inflicted, what would there be left for him to pay? He himself would then be in need of medical attention and he himself would then suffer loss of income while laid up?
Furthermore, if we were to apply the principle of “an eye for an eye” literally, this would often not be justice at all. If a man ruins the only eye of a one-eyed individual and he had an eye of his removed as a penalty, the former would remain blind whereas the guilty party would still have a good eye to see with. What kind of justice would this be? Moreover, a weak individual might not survive having his eye gouged out so that he would pay with his life for having ruined a strong person’s eye. Surely this would not be justice! The only way a semblance of justice could be arrived at in the situations described in verses 24-27 is to make financial compensation for the damage caused.
Furthermore, the Torah writes in Leviticus 24,19-20: “and if a man inflicts a wound on his fellow, as he did so shall be done to him; fracture for fracture, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; just as he will have inflicted a wound on a person, so shall be inflicted upon him!” It is quite impossible to carry out the instructions in this verse except by accepting the ruling of our sages that what is meant is financial compensation.
You may well ask how it is possible to fulfill an instruction such as “as he has done so shall be done to him,” unless we inflict the same kind of injury that the guilty party has inflicted? Surely giving someone money in compensation for experiencing pain and suffering is not what the Torah had in mind when writing: ”as he has done so shall be done to him?”
We need to answer that the meaning of the words: “as he has done so shall be done to him” is: “as he did something evil, so something evil shall be done to him.” The proof that this is what the Torah had in mind can be appreciated through the words of Shimshon who said: “as they have done to me so I have done to them” (Judges 15,11). When you read up you will find that the Philistines had stolen Shimshon’s wife and he had paid them back by burning their crops! There was no comparison at all between what the Philistines had done to Shimshon to the type of revenge he took upon them. The meaning of his words is obviously: “just as they have caused me personal harm and grief, so I have caused them plenty of harm.” We find something similar when the prophet Ovadiah (Ovadiah 1,15-16) prophesied about Esau “As you did, so shall be done to you (Esau). Your conduct shall be requited. That same cup you drank on My Holy Mount, etc.” You have now had a variety of ancient sources all proving that our sages never interpreted this verse of “an eye for an eye” to be understood literally. Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel.
The verse mentions injury of seven different kinds: 1) eye; 2) tooth; 3) hand; 4) foot; 5) burn wounds; 6) פצע, an “injury.” 7) חבורה, “a bruise.” Each of this injuries contains at least one element not contained in all the other six, thus making it impossible to omit any of these seven examples. An eye is something we have from birth; teeth we are not borne with; their loss might be considered as less serious. Teeth are also not included in the 248 organs which make up man as a healthy specimen. All the 248 organs are covered with tissue and flesh whereas the teeth appear in our mouth completely exposed. The function of the teeth is not to help man survive as a viable human being, but they are merely a tool to break down the food we eat. Just as we could not have assumed that the legislation contained in our verse applies to teeth unless the Torah had made a point of writing it, so the loss of none of the seven examples cited by the Torah would have been presumed to be a cause for the freeing of a slave forthwith.
Flag This! 0
This is so good, regarding this week's Parashah, Terumah. By Rabbi Jonathan Saks. It had me thinking about what all of us are building, here at A-T, a community, a family.

Why We Value What We Make
Terumah 5778

The behavioural economist Dan Ariely did a series of experiments on what is known as the IKEA effect, or “why we overvalue what we make.” The name comes, of course, from the store that sells self-assembly furniture. For practically-challenged people like me, putting an item of furniture together is usually like doing a giant jigsaw puzzle in which various pieces are missing, and others are in the wrong place. But in the end, even if the item is amateurish, we tend to feel a certain pride in it. We can say, “I made this,” even if someone else designed it, produced the pieces, and wrote the instructions. There is, about something in which we have invested our labour, a feeling like that expressed in Psalm 128: “When you eat the fruit of the labour of your hands, you will be happy, and it will go well with you.”[1]

Ariely wanted to test the reality and extent of this added value. So he got volunteers to make origami models by elaborate folding of paper. He then asked them how much they were prepared to pay to keep their own model. The average answer was 25 cents. He asked other people in the vicinity what they would be prepared to pay. The average answer was five cents. In other words, people were prepared to pay five times as much for something they had made themselves. His conclusions were: the effort that we put into something does not just change the object. It changes us and the way we evaluate that object. And the greater the labour, the greater the love for what we have made.[2]

This is part of what is happening in the long sequence about the building of the Sanctuary that begins in our parsha and continues, with few interruptions, to the end of the book. There is no comparison whatsoever between the Mishkan – the holy and the Holy of Holies – and something as secular as self-assembly furniture. But at a human level, there are psychological parallels.

The Mishkan was the first thing the Israelites made in the wilderness, and it marks a turning point in the Exodus narrative. Until now God had done all the work. He had struck Egypt with plagues. He had taken the people out to freedom. He had divided the sea and brought them across on dry land. He had given them food from heaven and water from a rock. And, with the exception of the Song at the Sea, the people had not appreciated it. They were ungrateful. They complained.

Now God instructed Moses to take the people through a role reversal. Instead of His doing things for them, He commanded them to make something for Him. This was not about God. God does not need a Sanctuary, a home on earth, for God is at home everywhere. As Isaiah said in His name: “Heaven is My throne and the earth My footstool. What house, then, can you will build for Me?” (Is. 66:1). This was about humans and their dignity, their self-respect.

With an extraordinary act of tzimtzum, self-limitation, God gave the Israelites the chance to make something with their own hands, something they would value because, collectively, they had made it. Everyone who was willing could contribute, from whatever they had: “gold, silver or bronze, blue, purple or crimson yarns, fine linen, goat hair, red-dyed ram skins, fine leather, acacia wood, oil for the lamp, balsam oils for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense,” jewels for the breastplate and so on. Some gave their labour and skills. Everyone had the opportunity to take part: women as well as men, the people as a whole, not just an elite.

For the first time God was asking them not just to follow His pillar of cloud and fire through the wilderness, or obey His laws, but to be active: to become builders and creators. And because it involved their work, energy and time, they invested something of themselves, individually and collectively, in it. To repeat Ariely’s point: We value what we create. The effort that we put into something does not just change the object. It changes us.

Few places in the Torah more powerfully embody Rabbi Yohanan saying that “Wherever you find God’s greatness, there you find His humility.”[3] God was giving the Israelites the dignity of being able to say, “I helped build a house for God.” The Creator of the universe was giving His people the chance to become creators also – not just of something physical and secular, but of something profoundly spiritual and sacred.

Hence the unusual Hebrew word for contribution, Terumah, which means not just something we give but something we lift up. The builders of the sanctuary lifted up their gift to God, and in the process of lifting, discovered that they themselves were lifted. God was giving them the chance to become “His partners in the work of creation,”[4] the highest characterisation ever given of the human condition.

This is a life-changing idea. The greatest gift we can give people is to give them the chance to create. This is the one gift that turns the recipient into a giver. It gives them dignity. It shows that we trust them, have faith in them, and believe they are capable of great things.

We no longer have a Sanctuary in space, but we do have Shabbat, the “sanctuary in time.”[5] Recently, a senior figure in the Church of England spent Shabbat with us in the Marble Arch Synagogue. He was with us for the full 25 hours, from Kabbalat Shabbat to Havdallah. He prayed with us, learned with us, ate with us, and sang with us.[6] “Why are you doing this?” I asked him. He replied, “One of the greatest gifts you Jews gave us Christians was the Sabbath. We are losing it. You are keeping it. I want to learn from you how you do it.”

The answer is simple. To be sure, it was God who at the dawn of time made the seventh day holy.[7] But it was the sages who, making “a fence around the law,” added many laws, customs and regulations to protect and preserve its spirit.[8] Almost every generation contributed something to the heritage of Shabbat, if only a new song, or even a new tune for old words. Not by accident do we speak of “making Shabbat.” The Jewish people did not create the day’s holiness but they did co-create its hadrat kodesh, its sacred beauty. Ariely’s point applies here as well: the greater the effort we put into something, the greater the love for what we have made.

Hence the life-changing lesson: if you want people to value something, get them to participate in creating it. Give them a challenge and give them responsibility. The effort we put into something does not just change the object: it changes us. The greater the labour, the greater the love for what we have made.

Shabbat Shalom,


[1] On the pleasures of physical work generally, especially craftsmanship, see Matthew Crawford, The Case for Working with your Hands, Viking, 2010; published in America as Shop Class as Soul Craft. Among the early Zionists there was a strong sense, best expressed by A. D. Gordon, that working on the land was itself a spiritual experience. Gordon was influenced here not only by Tanakh but also by the writings of Leo Tolstoy.

[2] Dan Ariely, The Upside of Irrationality, Harper, 2011, 83-106. His TED lecture on this subject can be seen at:


[3] Megilla 31a.

[4] Shabbat 10a, 119b.

[5] Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man, Farrer, Straus and Giroux, 2005.

[6] He was not, of course, obeying all the Shabbat laws: both Jews and Christians agree that these are imperatives for Jews alone.

[7] As opposed to the festivals, whose date is dependent on the calendar, that was determined by the Sanhedrin. This difference is reflected in the liturgy.

[8] Halakhically, this is the concept of Shevut, that Ramban saw as essentially biblical in origin.

LIFE-CHANGING IDEA #19
The effort you put into something does not just change the object:
it changes you. The greater the labour, the greater the love for what you have made.

Flag This! 0
 
 / 40