62 Playing with Matchbox Cars

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses a requirement to have three kohanim perform the inaugurating sacrifices. The Gemara cites Mishle (14:28): “In the multitude of people is the King’s glory.”

We see this principle in many areas of halacha, that when there are more people it brings more honor and intensity to the mitzvah. Such as a blessing out loud for a group eating together is superior to each individual reciting the blessing (Berachos 53a), or to publicly read the Torah on Yom Kippur (Yoma 70a), and reading the Megillah (Mishna Berurah 687:7).

Psychologically it is understandable that, as social animals, humans will tend to be more impressed and motivated by a group experience. There is a natural need for social status and acceptance. When a group is doing something, our wish to belong is a powerful motivator.

From a mystical perspective it is deeper. Since I quoted Nefesh Hachaim, I’ll quote Tanya today. In Part II, Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, Chapter 7, the Rebbe explains that God needed to “make space” for an autonomous material world because there is no king without subjects, and “In the multitude of people is the King’s glory.” God’s honor comes from humans (representing all of the physical world), out of free will, recognizing and connecting to God.

But even this can be only a metaphor because God is complete and needs nothing. The word “need,” or “it brings honor,” is a stand-in for human perception of a deeper truth or force of the universe. It is not that God is a king any more than a Rolls Royce is the same as its Matchbox car model of it.

The idea of the essence of the Rolls Royce can be captured symbolically in the Matchbox car. But if you never knew what a Rolls Royce was, you would have a limited idea of what it is about, even by studying the Matchbox car. So too, we can see that the word, and even the social dynamics of a king and his subjects, act as a symbol of how God and the world relate. But all we can know is that the symbol and metaphor are true enough, and yet give us no idea of the true greatness – because we will never be able to see or drive the Rolls Royce.

We have to settle for playing with Matchbox Cars.

63 Pan-demonium: Flat Faith vs. Deep Fry Piety

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses two kinds of meal offerings that differ in the shape of their vessel and process. One was more of a flat pan (machavas), so it was shallowly fried and dry and crisp. The other was a deep-fry pan (marcheshes), which produced something probably like a sufganiya.

In the Shabbos table liturgy we sing:

“Hashomer Shabbos, Haben Im Habas, La-keyl Yeratzu, ka-mincha al machavas. One who keeps the Shabbos, son and daughter, shall find acceptance like a machavas offering.”

Why did Ibn Ezra (the author of the poem) choose to compare the acceptance to a machavas instead of a marcheshes? Okay, the true pashut peshat is that “Shabbos” and “Ben u Bas” rhyme with machavas. But there might be a deeper meaning.

In our Gemara there is some discussion regarding the symbolic meaning of each vessel but it was ultimately rejected as part of a halachic rationale. However, the Midrashim on this have a different take, and do not reject its possible meanings. The Toras HaOlah (II:28) quotes these Midrashim and explains the machavas versus the marcheshes. The marcheshes is deep, so it represents a person who is pious in some manner but inside he still has corruption. This is represented in the frying noise, like secrets mumbled and hidden. The person who gives such a sacrifice may meditate and be inspired to release and free these bad patterns, as we have been discussing in the past few dappim, of the symbolic nature of sacrifices, and how they work on human psychology. 

The machavas is flat and represents the person who is pious inside and out.

Another interpretation the Toras HaOlah offers is that the deep pan represents the sage who keeps his Torah to himself; a deep pan with a lid. The machavas is flat and spreads what is inside outward.

Either way, the machavas is seen as superior to marcheshes. Therefore Ibn Ezra chose to pray for the acceptance of Shabbos to be as a machavas offering instead of the macrcheshes.

64 Object Relations and Respect

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph describes an interesting scenario. It is considered a requirement to choose a sacrificial animal that is fitting and honorable, and not scrawny. This is based on a verse in Malachi (1:8): “Offer such an offering even to a governor, and would he accept it?” Yet assuming the animal is reasonably fit, it would not be invalid. Still, if it is scrawny relative to another animal that can be obtained, it is wrong to bring the inferior one.

On Shabbos, public sacrifices are slaughtered and burned on the altar just as during the week. The scenario the Gemara discusses is: what if the person had both a fatter, choice lamb and a thinner, not-choice lamb in front of him, and he slaughtered the inferior one. The Gemara rules that even though it is Shabbos, he should still slaughter the superior one (despite post facto having an albeit thinner but potentially valid sacrifice).

In Shu”t Shevus Yaakov (I:37) someone asked: He has a minhag to light Chanukah candles with olive oil, but one day he was not able to procure it, so he set up candles. Just when he was about to light the candles, someone brought him olive oil. The question was: should he stay with the candles so as not pass over the mitzvah since they were already set up, or is the hiddur of olive oil worth the switch, even though there is some disrespect to the candles that were set for the mitzvah?

He rules that one should not pass over the candles once they are set for the mitzvah.

However, the Chacham Tzvi (45) disagrees, and brings a proof from our Gemara above. He says we see that we even override Shabbos to do a mitzvah in a superior fashion.

Others disagree with this proof because in our Gemara both animals were in front of him. Others also add that olive oil is a refinement to the mitzvah (true olive oil reminds us about, and honors the miracle more) but not an actual component of the mitzvah. However, part and parcel of the mitzvah of sacrifice is to choose the finest. That is not an add-on or upgrade; it is built into the mitzvah, and therefore one can slaughter the second, superior animal on Shabbos.

However one decides the halacha, it is impressive to see how much respect one should show for a mitzvah.  These were serious shaalos.

There was a sensitive person I used to see in Shul every Shabbos. One time he was using a siddur that was torn and had coffee spills on it. I decided to bring him a nicer siddur, and he declined, stating: “I feel bad putting back the siddur I took out; it is like hurting its feelings.”

We have within our tradition such models for behavior, such as Moshe, who would not hit the water or other material that saved his life as an infant (see Rashi Shemos 7:19).

Of course, such a code of honor and hierarchy should ideally generate respect and empathy for human beings as well.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)