~Thoughts on The Parsha~
Parshas Vayakhel-Pikudei
Years to Make, Seconds to Break
By: Daniel Listhaus
וַיֹּאמֶר
משֶׁה אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל רְאוּ קָרָא ה' בְּשֵׁם בְּצַלְאֵל בֶּן אוּרִי בֶן
חוּר לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה
“Moshe said to the
Children of Israel,' See Hashem, has proclaimed by name, Bezalel son of Uri son
of Chur, of the tribe of Yehuda.”
-Vayakhel 35:30
After
being commanded to construct the Mishkan and getting over the
catastrophe of the eigel ha'zahav, it was time to start building the Mishkan.
Moshe told B'nei Yisroel that Hashem has proclaimed by name: Bezalel son
of Uri son of Chur as the person in charge of building the Mishkan and
its keilim.[1]
The Medrash[2] comments
on this passuk (verse) that the passuk is telling us how great a
good reputation is. Shlomo Ha'melech tells us in Koheles, [3] “Tov
shem m'shemen tov”, a [good] name is better than good oil. As Rashi[4] points
out, good oil could be poured on one's head and run down one's body whereas a
good name raises a person to limitless heights. The Medrash continues to
give the following case-in-point: Nadav and Avihu, who were anointed by the
Holy oil in the midbar (desert) and were the sons of Aharon Ha'Kohen
Gadol, entered into the Mishkan to offer unwarranted karbanos to
Hashem and they ended up being burnt to death. Chananya Mishael, and Azariah on
the other hand, were men with a good name and although thrown into the Nevuchadnetzar’s
furnace, were able to walk out completely unscathed.
The
difficulty with this Medrash is that the comparison seems unfair. Nadav
and Avihu were far from being “nobody’s”. As a matter of fact, they were even
more than “merely” the children of Aharon HaKohen and the nephews of
Moshe rabbeinu, they were next in line as successors of Moshe and Aharon!
Why is the Medrash picking on them and choosing them to be what Shlomo Ha’melech
had in mind when he wrote in Koheles, “tov shem m’shemen tov”? If
the purpose is to demonstrate that being born into a chashuv family
is not as good as someone who achieves a good reputation, why not bring an example from Yishmael or Eisav –
who despite coming from a prestigious family, anointed with oil in a figurative
sense, went far off the derech with descendent who forever hate us?
Furthermore,
not only does the Medrash not offer such an example of a clear rasha born
into a chashuv family, but Rashi[5]
even makes it sound that the Medrash specifically chose Nadav
and Avihu to make its point even more drastic. Rashi asks: Why is it
that the passuk uses the metaphor of “good oil” as opposed to good wine
or any other liquid? And Rashi answers that the passuk specifically
uses the example of oil because oil separates and remains on top of water. It
seems like Rashi is saying that the passuk is coming to teach
that even if you have good oil – meaning even if one has more than just a good
lineage but is even a tzaddik in his own right - forever floating on top
of the water, still all that is not as good as having a shem tov. How
could we understand this? Nadav and Avihu were tremendous tzaddikim in
their own right; more than just coming from good stock like good wine which
could mix in water, but like good oil which remains head and shoulders above
the general public. What is included in a good name that Nadav and Avihu were lacking?
Moreover, if we go back and consider that this
whole Medrash is coming for Betzalel who Hashem called “by name”,
this becomes even more difficult to understand. Sure, Betzalel played a
vital role in the construction of the Mishkan, but at best he is a
behind-the-scenes main character for the duration of these few obscure parshiyos.
Nadav and Avihu on the other hand were known quantities, popular individuals,
and mentioned both before and after their deaths. If we take “good name” to
mean “good reputation” it is hard to understand why that would be more of a
description of Betzalel than of Nadav and Avihu. So what exactly is meant by
having a “good name” and why was in not true of Nadav and Avihu?
The mishna[6] states,
“Rebbe Shimon says, ‘There are three crowns: The crown of Torah, the crown of kehuna
(priesthood), and the crown of malchus (kingship); but the crown of
a good name rises over all of them.’” Rashi[7] writes that
the crown of a good name is not really a separate crown, for if it were than
the mishna should say that there are four crowns. Rather, what the mishna
means is that by achieving any of these three crowns properly, one is capstoned
with the keser shem tov. One who delves in Torah receives keser shem
tov. A Kohen who is careful in doing his avodah properly
receives a keser shem tov. And a king who rules B’nei Yisroel with
proper tzedek and mishpat receives the keser shem tov.
Rashi
seems to saying that achieving a basic keser is not necessarily a
hard thing. After all, one who is born into kehuna or malchus are
“crowned” automatically, and anyone who learns Torah is viewed as having a keser
Torah. However, those three crowns are incomplete without a keser shem
tov; and that only comes if someone is devoted to the klal and uses
his keser properly. Being born into kehuna takes no effort,
however doing the avodah with purely the correct intentions – not only
intentions of Who the avodah is for but also on behalf of who the avodah
is from. A kohen could easily get carried away in his own personal
connection to Hashem while doing the avodah and forget that he is really
only rightfully there as a representative of the entire B’nei Yisroel. A
kohen who does avodah indeed has a keser kehunah, but a kohen
who does the avodah carefully and correctly has a keser shem tov.
A king who is born into royalty of the house of Dovid HaMelech certainly
has a keser malchus. However, to use the position for any purpose other
than serving the k’lal and making sure that society is getting along
perfectly is improper. Only the king who rules and leads with proper tzedek and
mishpat could achieve the keser shem tov to validate his keser
malchus. Similarly, one who learns Torah. As long as a person is learning
and becoming closer to Hashem he will indeed grow tremendously and obtain a keser
Torah. However, only one who extends and applies his learning to be able to
do good for the tzibbur will merit to achieve the keser shem tov.
Rabbeinu
Yonah gives the following example. Imagine someone has good smelling oil in
his house. He and his family will definitely be able to appreciate it, and
perhaps even some of his really close neighbors. However, someone sitting in
his house with a good reputation could have an impression on the entire world.
Someone who works hard
but does not step up to the plate when he is needed for the tzibbur, might
be a good smelling oil, but his effects will remain very local. Whereas, one
who does things for the tzibbur when his talents are needed will be
crowned with the keser shem tov and leave a lasting impression on the
world and be positively talked about by everyone.
The Maharal[8]
takes this idea a step further and explains that although the Aron represents
the keser Torah, and the Shulchan represents the keser malchus,
and the Mizbe’ach represents the keser kehuna, the reality is
that no kli could represent the keser shem tov because being
represented by a kli implies that it has dimensions and limits, but a keser
shem tov has no limits.[9]
Perhaps
now we could understand the Medrash’s designation of Nadav and Avihu to
contrast Betzalel and Chananya, Mishael, and Azariah. Although Nadav and Avihu
were tremendous tzadikkim – the best of oils which remain above water –
they were lacking in their keser shem tov. The fact that they were willing
to enter the Beis Hamikdash and offer unwarranted karbanos demonstrated
that there was a level, no matter how small, of personal avodah. Their
going overboard trying to do avodah at a time it was not called for
showed that their ratson was not aligned properly with ratson Hashem.
Their job was to represent B’nei Yisroel and offer the avodah they
were commanded. However, their actions showed that they were using their keser
kehuna improperly. It was an act of using a public position to achieve
personal growth. Betzalel on the other hand, although not born with a keser
kehna nor a keser malchus, still understood when it was his responsibility
to step forward and offer his talents on behalf of klal Yisroel, Hashem therefore
personally presented him with the keser shem tov.
Being
a part of klal yisroel demands one to never forget this idea, that
besides for everyone having a responsibility for one’s own personal growth and
connection to Hashem, that one must always be ready and willing to offer his or
her talents to the k’lal. The fact that one comes from yichus could
be helpful, but if that is the extent of it then it is meaningless. Who could
claim a better yichus than Nadav and Avihu? And yet Shlomo HaMelech
writes, “tov shem m’shemen tov”. Good oil is a wonderful thing, but by
itself it remains a local thing which even has the potential of being misused. Having
a shem tov is better and is a higher level. Not only that, but one does
not even need yichus to achieve a keser shem tov. All that one
needs is to see himself as part of the tzibbur and act accordingly.
[1]
Shemos 35:30
[2]
Medrash Shemos Rabbah 48:1 on passuk 35:30
[3]
Koheles 7:1
[4]
Ibid.
[5]
Ibid.
[6]
Avos 4:17 (could vary based on
edition)
[7]
Ibid. This Rashi is brought down in the Maharal’s Sefer Derech Chaim
on Pirkei Avos
[8]
Sefer Derech Chaim on Pirkei Avos 4:17
[9]
The Maharal brings a Medrash which actually says that the Menorah represents
the keser shem tov and the Maharal gives a number of differences between
the menorah and the other keilim and why the menorah is a
fitting kli to represent the keser shem tov. However, in the end
the Maharal says that that Medrash is not necessarily a real medrash and
that in fact no kli could possibly represent the keser shem tov.
Photo Credit: http://www.vectorportal.com/subcategory/128/TEAM-SWEDEN-VECTOR-LOGO.ai/ifile/3956/detailtest.asp
No comments:
Post a Comment