Part IV
In the first part, HaRav Meiseles first noted that one of
the Greek decrees at the time of Chanukah was that the Jews
had to carve on his ox's horn that they have no part in
Hashem the Elokim of Yisroel and afterwards they had
to plow with that ox. He also catalogued the differences
between an ox and a donkey, noting that the ox symbolizes
high spiritual levels while the donkey symbolizes matter:
chomer. Also, the ox is kosher while the donkey is
not.
Greek wisdom is purely natural science. The Greeks
maintained that all that is in the world, is what can be
experienced with the senses, and there is nothing in the
Creation dependent upon a free will. Since their whole
knowledge base was empirical, they could not know what lies
below the surface. The true "inner" wisdom is the Divine
power in the Creation, a power that is hidden from, and
higher than, our powers of perception, and is thus not
accessible to them.
In the sin of the Eigel, there was an apparent
disproof of the difference between the taharoh of the
ox and the tumah of the donkey, since the same gold
leaf that had been used for a holy purpose in raising the
coffin of Yosef, was used to produce avodoh zora.
Also, an ox is itself kosher and used for sacrifices, and it
is also engraved on the Heavenly Throne of Glory. It has
great potential but it can also cause great damage when this
potential is wasted. The sin of the Eigel indicated
that Yisroel had squandered their own potential, and that is
why the Greeks wanted to recall this failing in the demands
they made.
The reason that the Greeks asked them to write
specifically on the horn of the ox is, we see by the laws of
shofar — that the horn of an ox cannot be used
as a shofar — that the sin of the Eigel
left a permanent blemish on the ox, as it did on the Jews who
lost the unique, lofty level they had achieved at
Sinai.
To understand why they specifically forced the Jews to
plow with the ox, the author referred to the discussion of R'
Yishmoel and R' Shimon Bar Yochai about whether one may
engage in work for a livelihood or should be exclusively
dedicated to avodas Hashem in order to retain the
lofty level signified by the word "odom." The issue in
their machlokes is whether it is generally possible to
maintain the elevated level of odom even while engaged
in worldly pursuits like plowing a field.
*
Now we can understand the depths of the Greek's decree as the
Rambam emphasized, that "he should carve the same [that he
has no part in the Elokim of Yisroel] on his ox's horn
and afterwards plow with it."
The decree's main aim was to rescind Yisroel's advantage over
the nations, that of knowing how to sanctify the physical.
The Greeks therefore commanded that when a Jew plowed, his
declaration of not having a part in Elokim should be
on his ox's horns so that the Jew would understand that it is
impossible to sanctify the physical and that when he is
plowing he is not an odom — at least when he is
plowing he has no part in Elokim.
The Maharal (in Ner Mitzvah) writes that the Greeks
did not primarily oppose the Jews per se. They opposed
the Jew's Torah, and their objective was to show the superior
excellence of Greek Wisdom and deny the Torah's Wisdom. A
strong person is only jealous of an equally strong person.
We understand that the Greeks would not have fought against
the Torah merely because it was a rival wisdom. They opposed,
and were jealous of, its guiding people to sanctify the
physical and to live lives of kedushoh. Success in
sanctifying the physical was proof of the Torah's supremacy
over their wisdom. The Greeks were prepared to accept that an
odom is an odom when he studies, but it
contradicted their entire essence to think that a person can
also or still be an odom when he is plowing.
"On the streets of Athens a person strolled. He stopped every
person he met and asked him the same question: `How should
one live?' He continued to ask this question his whole life,
and asked everyone he came in contact with. The person who
asked this question was Socrates, the greatest of the nations
of the world.
"Another person in a later period held a torch while walking
even during the day. When people asked him why he was
carrying a torch during the day, he would answer:`I am
looking for a man!' This happened in Athens too, and one of
its greatest thinkers was the person searching for a man.
"These two occurrences happened in Athens. People in Athens
asked how to live and searched for men. In Yerushalayim they
did not have to ask such questions. They understood how to
live, and lived there during all periods as legitimate human
beings" (HaRav Shlomo Wolbe, in his introduction to Alei
Shur).
Aristotle, the eminent Greek philosopher, once reportedly
said about himself: "When I am engaged in abstract ideas, my
soul is elevated to heaven. But when I eat, I do not pay
attention to my soul and am not different from an animal."
Write, then, on the ox's horn, so that at least when you plow
you will not have a part in the Elokim of Yisroel.
We Do Have a Part in the Elokim of Yisroel!
Yosef was set apart from the other shevotim by being
called a tzaddik by Chazal. His control over his
yetzer showed righteousness, and therefore he was
called a tzaddik, as is written: "`The righteous one
shall be a ruler over man, since he rules in the fear of
Elokim' (II Shmuel 23:3). Since a
tzaddik controls his yetzer he is chosen to
rule over Yisroel (according to the explanation of R'
Yeshaya, who explains the posuk as referring to
Dovid). Also Yosef was privileged to rule over all of
Egypt."
That a tzaddik rules over others is a law that Hashem
implanted in His Creation. Moreover, a tzaddik even
rules over Hashem: "Who rules over me? A tzaddik! I
make a decree and a tzaddik annuls it" (Mo'ed
Koton 16b). This happened with Yosef, when HaKodosh
Boruch Hu decreed a famine and through Yosef the decree
was annulled. Even if according to nature's laws there should
have been a famine, through him there was food for the whole
world.
The unique quality in Yosef's tzidkus was that at the
time when he was tested by Hashem he was not a tzaddik
through the power of Torah study, since he had forgotten all
the Torah he had previously studied (Bereishis Rabbah
79:5). Instead of Torah Wisdom he had grown in knowledge of
science, which was actually another test. Yosef did not
deteriorate spiritually because of learning science (as did
the Greeks and the Hellenists), but on the contrary, he
strengthened himself more and more in yiras Hashem (as
I explained in my essay on "Greek and Torah Wisdom," that the
foundation of emunoh is contemplating Hashem's
creation). This is alluded to in the posuk, "Yosef is
a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a fountain, its branches
(bonos) run over the wall" (Bereishis 49:22).
The wisdom of nature, called here bonos, is what
elevated Yosef to a supreme level (Netziv in Ha'amek
Dovor).
The same posuk also hints that because of Yosef's
tzidkus he was privileged to establish two tribes
— bonos (see Rashi, Targum Onkelos, and
also see the Targum Yerushalmi).
It seems that Moshe Rabbenu alluded to all this in his
brochoh for Yosef: "His firstborn bullock
(shoro), majesty is his, and his horns are the horns
of the wild ox; With them he shall gore the peoples, all of
them, even the ends of the earth; And they are the ten
thousands of Efraim and they are the thousands of Menasheh"
(Devorim 33:17). As previously explained, a
shor is the subjection of nature for avodas
Hashem. The shor was the easiest animal to be
purified and transformed to ruchniyus — "the
primary korbon."
The shor referred to by Yaakov Ovinu and Moshe Rabbenu
was one. As the Ma'or VaShemesh writes, "the word `ox
(shor)' stems from the Hebrew ashurenu (I will
see him but not now)' (Bamidbar 24:17), and is on a
lofty level. In addition, tzaddikim are called a
shor as we find with Yosef Hatzaddik, who was called a
shor." (This is the substance of the shor in
the above posuk, referring to Yosef. See
Zevochim 118a where it is stated that the
Mishkan of Shiloh, which was in Yosef's territory,
enabled a larger area wherein to eat kodshim, since it
was sanctified in all places from where a person could see
it.)
The Ramban (Bereishis) explains to us the significance
of the "horn" mentioned concerning Yosef. " . . . The
brochoh of Yosef hinted at the two shevotim
that would emerge from him [and this allusion was] the
mention of poros and bonos (and the Targum
Yonoson also explicitly explains the posuk in this
way). Even Moshe in his brochoh compared Yosef to a
shor and a re'eim and also mentioned horns,
since each has one body from which horns divide off . . . and
the Torah explicitly writes, `And they are the ten thousands
of Ephraim and the thousands of Menasheh.' "
Let us examine why Yosef is called a shor by Moshe,
but the horns emerging from Yosef — Menasheh and
Ephraim — are called horns of a re'eim (wild ox)
and not the horns of a shor.
"His firstborn bullock (bechor shoro), majesty
(hodor) is his." Being called a shor is
hodor for the shor. Rashi explains, "Sometimes
bechor means greatness and majesty . . . `Hodor
is his,' as is written And you shall put some of your
hod upon him' (Bamidbar 27:20)." The
Sifrei writes, "This teaches us that hod was
given to Moshe and hodor to Yehoshua."
The Maharal explains hodor thus: "What is separated
from the physical is honorable, but the physical itself is
not fitting to be honored. The horns of a shor [which
are at the spiritual level of a shor] therefore have
no beauty or hodor, and are forever disqualified [for
a shofar]."
We have written at length in order to explain what Klal
Yisroel answered to the Greek's criticism: "You must
write on the shor's horn that you have no part in the
Elokim of Yisroel." As explained, the shor's
horns allude to the imperfection of the cheit
ha'eigel, and indicate that Yisroel had lost their
elevated status. According to the above, the Greek mistake is
obvious. With the cheit ha'eigel, the Jews did not
harm the shor itself but only its "horns," which are
"mere wood" (Chulin 121a), not an intrinsic
imperfection in the animal itself.
In order to complete this subject I will add the following:
"They exchanged their glory for the likeness of an ox that
eats grass" (Tehillim 106:20). The making of
significant tikkunim that reach even until Hashem's
Throne of Glory is a matter alluded to by the image of the
shor carved in the Throne of Glory. Through the
cheit ha'eigel, Klal Yisroel blemished and made
physical the shor, which was thus changed from a
shor carved in the Throne of Glory into a "shor
that eats grass." Although they were immediately forgiven,
did teshuvoh and were atoned, an imperfection still
remained. Although it was only an imperfection in the
shor's horn and not in the shor itself, it was
a serious imperfection. "No oppression happens to the Jews
that does not involve some retribution for the cheit
ha'eigel" (Rashi, Shemos 32:34).
" `But Zion said: "Hashem has forsaken me"' (Yeshayohu
49:14). HaKodosh Boruch Hu said, `How can I forget the
olos of rams that you sacrificed before Me in the
desert?' She said before Him: `Ruler of the World! Since
before the Throne of Glory there is no forgetting, perhaps
You will not forget what I did in the episode of the
eigel?' Hashem said: `And I have forgotten also these'
(Yeshayohu 49:15). Zion said before Him: `Ruler of the
World! Since You can forget, perhaps You will forget the
episode at Sinai?' He said: `I will not forget you'
(ibid.)" — Brochos 32b. Knesses
Yisroel itself cannot correct that imperfection, but
HaKodosh Boruch Hu promises that He himself will make
a tikkun for the imperfection. (Read carefully in
Ner Mitzvah what the Maharal explained.) See also the
Maharsho in his Chidushei Agodos, who wrote that in
the World to Come the image of the shor in the Throne
of Glory will be utterly perfected.
The Greeks intended to criticize Yisroel because of the
cheit ha'eigel, but about that HaKodosh Boruch Hu
had already said, "And I have forgotten also these." Our
receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai will, however, never be
forgotten — "I will not forget you." "His firstborn
bullock (bechor shoro), majesty (hodor) is
his." Yisroel's hodor is overflowing.
By explaining the Greek decree we can understand the essence
and deep significance of Chanukah's miracle. The Beis
HaLevi comments that the entire miracle of the cruse of
pure olive oil was not merited by merely fulfilling a mitzvah
but by doing a hiddur mitzvah.
The Macabbees were permitted according to halochoh to
light the Menorah with thin wicks that naturally would
have lasted eight days. We therefore see in the Chanukah
lights a hiddur not found in other mitzvos.
Hiddur is only required up to a third of the mitzvah,
and when it comes to Chanukah our hiddur is much more
than that (see Chidushei Maran Riz HaLevi Hilchos
Chanukah). Furthermore, there is no mehadrin min
hamehadrin in other mitzvos at all, and with Chanukah the
entire Klal Yisroel fulfills this mitzvah at a level
of mehadrin min hamehadrin.
As we wrote before, the response to the decree, "You shall
write on the shor's horn," is "His firstborn bullock
(bechor shoro), majesty (hodor) is his." On the
contrary, the towering level of Yisroel is that of a
shor — subjecting the physical for the
spiritual.
Hodor is stripping away the physical and revealing the
Divine beauty of the Creation. Every tikkun and
elevation of the physical beautifies the Creation. This is
what is meant by saying of bechor shoro that hodor
lo — for the Creation itself.
We learn hiddur mitzvah from the posuk, "This
is my Lord and I will glorify Him" (Shemos 15:2). To
see Elokus — a revelation of Hashem — in
His Creation is the greatest hiddur. "Splendor and
beauty is a spiritual element found in the created creatures"
(Maharal, ibid.). This was how R' Chanina ben Dosa
looked at the Creation. He saw HaKodosh Boruch Hu
wherever he looked, and said, "Let the One Who said that
oil should burn, tell the vinegar to burn" (Taanis
25a). This type of perspective is actually hodor. It
is a contemplation that rebuffs Greek wisdom and is the
perspective that the Greeks attempted to dislodge from the
Jews. The miracle of the cruse of oil was done to show that
Yisroel's level is that of hodor.
The light in the Mikdosh all year round is "a
testimony to all people that the Shechinah dwells
among Yisroel" (Shabbos 22a). "May Elokim
beautify Yefet" (Bereishis 9:27). The Greeks
possess the wisdom of nature, but it must be used in a
certain way — "And let him dwell in the tents of Shem."
Seeing the Shechinah and Elokus, the
hodor in the Creation, can only be in Shem's tents.
"His firstborn bullock (bechor shoro), majesty
(hodor) is his" — and this is a hiddur
that is mehadrin min hamehadrin.
The author is the rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Radin in
Netanyah.
