Part III
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 their 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 Shor's Horn was Damaged in the Cheit HaEigel
It is still left for us to explain why the Greeks decreed to
carve on the shor's horn and not on some other part of
its body.
"All shofaros are kosher except for a cow's, since it
is a keren (horn). R' Yossi said: But all the
shofaros are called a keren" (Mishnah Rosh
Hashonoh 3:2). The gemora (Rosh Hashonoh 26a),
after initially acknowledging R' Yossi's kushya as
being correct, answers: "All shofaros are called a
shofar and are also called a keren, but that of
a cow is called only a keren and not a shofar .
. . Ulla said . . . The Cohen Godol does not enter the
Kodesh Kodoshim with his golden clothing to do
avodoh, since a prosecutor cannot become the defending
advocate (a defender). [Rashi explains: `A cow's
shofar is a prosecutor since it is from an
eigel'] . . . Abayei said . . . The Torah wrote "a
shofar" and not two or three shofaros, and
since the growth of a cow's horns is noticeable, it looks
like two or three shofaros. — But the Tanna of
the Mishnah said the reason is because the cow's horn is
called a keren and not a shofar! — The
conclusion is that there are two reasons. First the Torah
said one shofar and not two or three, and also the
cow's horn is called a keren and not a
shofar."
The Ritvo explains that as far as the kashrus of the cow's
horn is concerned it lacks nothing, and would have been fit
to be used as a shofar. It was disqualified only
because of its being called a keren by the Torah. Even
after it was prepared for use by removing the marrow it
cannot become a shofar like all other shofaros
but it remains a keren.
The Ritvo asks why the Mishnah writes that the cow's
horn is disqualified "since it is a keren" when, after
it is prepared for blowing, it is not substantially different
from other shofaros, and its disqualification is
actually only because "it is called a keren" and not
because it really is one. He answers that since the Torah
called it a keren therefore nothing will change it,
and it will always remain a keren and not a
shofar.
The Ritvo also explains that Abayei and Ulla therefore added
another reason to what the Tanna wrote ("since it is a
keren"), since that reason is weak and they wanted to
strengthen it. (The Ritvo, who cites this explanation in the
name of the Ramban, needs further clarification.)
The cow's horn, as far as its physical nature is concerned,
could have been used for the mitzvah of blowing a
shofar. However, since there is an imperfection in it
as a result of its involvement in the cheit ha'eigel,
the Torah called it a keren to teach us that a person
cannot elevate and purify it by the mitzvah of shofar
because "a prosecutor cannot become a defender."
Abayei's reason also alludes to the cheit ha'eigel.
The reason given that "it looks like two or three
shofaros" seems to mean that really it is one
shofar but it only looks like more than one. This must
be explained. Where do we find something disqualified because
it "looks like" something else? The Tziyunim LeTorah
(chap. 10, and in Table of Contents) of HaRav Yosef Engel
zt'l discusses this issue.
In Shabbos 28b: "R' Yehuda said: The shor that
Odom Horishon sacrificed had one horn on its forehead, as is
written, `And it shall please Hashem better than a bullock
that has horn and hoof" (Tehillim 69:32).'" The
Maharal of Prague (Chidushei Aggodos, ibid.)
explained, "Anything that is first is an individual, and this
shor that Odom Horishon sacrificed was the first of
all animals to be sacrificed. Since it was first it had to be
one . . . so it was fitting that it have one horn on its head
to show that it was one."
The Torah wrote "a shofar," (a single one) showing us
that its being one is what makes it special. Abayei hints to
us that because of the cheit ha'eigel the cow's
spiritual level had so deteriorated that its horn seemed to
look like two or three shofaros. Because of that sin
it no longer has the distinction of being "one
shofar." The Torah called its horn a keren to
teach us that it has become posul for use on the level
of a shofar.
Accordingly, the reasons of Abayei and Ulla are the same.
Against Ulla's reason that the cow's horn is a prosecutor the
gemora could equally have asked, "But the Tanna of the
Mishnah said the reason is because the cow's horn is called a
keren and not a shofar!"
The gemora's answer applies to both Abayei and Ulla.
"Since the Torah called it a keren" is not a weak
reason. It means that the Torah purposely called it a
keren to disqualify it, since its level was ruined by
the cheit ha'eigel. (See the Midrash Rabbah,
parsha 8, that all shofaros are kosher even
when they come from animals whose level is lower than the
shor, the most important of all beheimos. Since
in the cheit ha'eigel the shor was marred for
all generations it is no longer fit for the mitzvah of
shofar.)
Now we understand the Greek decree of writing on the cow's
keren, since it alludes clearly to the imperfection of
the Jews at the cheit ha'eigel when they lost their
lofty singular level.
The Explanation of "Afterwards Plow With It"
Brochos (35b): "`And you shall gather your grain'
(Devorim 11:14). What is the Torah coming to teach us?
Since Scripture says, "This sefer Torah shall not
depart from your mouths" (Yehoshua 11:8), I might
think it should be understood literally [that you should
study Torah the whole day without working for livelihood].
The Torah therefore wrote, `And you shall gather your grain'
to teach us that we should deal with them in a way that
allows for us to provide a livelihood — so said R'
Yishmoel. R' Shimon bar Yochai asked: If a man plows at the
time of plowing, sows at the time of sowing, harvests at the
time of harvesting, threshes at the time of threshing,
winnows when there is wind — what will be with his
Torah studies? Rather, when Yisroel do Hashem's will, their
work is done by others, but when they do not do His will they
have to do their work themselves, as is written, `And you
shall gather your grain.' "
The Nefesh HaChaim explains: "R' Yishmoel did not mean
that a person is permitted to, chas vesholom, refrain
from studying the Torah even for a short while and occupy
himself completely with his livelihood. R' Yishmoel, by
writing, `deal with them in a way that allows
providing a livelihood' implied by using the words `with
them,' with Torah studies. Even in the short time a person is
occupied in his livelihood to obtain the necessities of life
he must be thinking only of Torah."
R' Shimon bar Yochai admits that it is difficult for the
general populace to study Torah the entire day instead of
engaging in working for their livelihood. R' Shimon, however,
argues with Yishmoel. He teaches that "we should deal with
them in a way that allows providing a livelihood," cannot be
considered "doing Hashem's will." The truest and highest
level of doing Hashem's will, according to R' Shimon, is
total detachment from all mundane affairs, just as when the
Jews wandered in the Sinai Desert. If Yisroel act in such a
way they are guaranteed that "strangers will arise and feed
your flocks" (Yeshayohu 61:5).
R' Yishmoel concedes that an individual who can engage in
Torah studies and avodas Hashem constantly his whole
life long is obligated to do so and not to depart from it
even for the shortest time to engage in something else. He,
however, believes that Hashem's main will is that the
populace in general be engaged in working for their
livelihood, and this too is considered a complete fulfillment
of "doing Hashem's will" (see Nefesh HaChaim 1:8,9 at
length).
Certain Torah scholars have told me that the following can be
added: Why does R' Shimon bar Yochai not express his opinion
in a shorter way by saying "Can a person plow, sow, harvest .
. . what will be with his Torah studies?" Another striking
point is that the posuk, "And it will come to pass
that if you continually hearken to My mitzvos that I command
you today, to love Hashem your Elokim and to serve Him with
all your heart . . . then I will provide rain for your land
in its proper time . . . that you may gather your grain"
(Devorim 11:13-14), appears to relate to a time when
Yisroel were definitely doing Hashem's will. Still another
difficulty is that many of the Torah's mitzvos apply within a
normal life routine. If all of Klal Yisroel were to
act according to R' Shimon bar Yochai's ruling, why was this
world created and for whom were all the Torah's mitzvos
given?
The explanation is that R' Yishmoel maintains that, on the
contrary, a Jew's highest level is studying Torah and
devoting some time to his material needs. By becoming
sanctified with Torah, he can deal with all physical matters
with kedushoh. For instance, when he is plowing or
sowing he should meditate on divrei Torah relevant to
plowing and sowing. He should be careful to fulfill all the
halochos and their details, and by doing so will
undoubtedly cause a tikkun for the world. As noted in
the name of HaRav Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, the Divine command
of, "You shall be holy" (Vayikra 19:2) means that
"even his physical acts become actually sacred."
R' Shimon bar Yochai admits that acting in such a way is the
highest possible level, but he maintains that the masses
cannot reach such an elevated level of clinging to Hashem to
such a degree when they are engaged in their livelihood. For
that reason he asked, "Can an odom plow in the time of
plowing?" Meaning: Can a person remain on the level of being
an odom (which according to the Vilna Gaon is the
highest level, a level higher than being a ben odom)
when he is plowing?
When plowing, a person usually descends from his previous
level of odom and his entire physical reality has
become that of plowing, a choreish. Or when he sows he
has become an entity sowing fields, a zore'a, but not
an odom who is sowing his field.
Now we understand why R' Shimon bar Yochai wrote at length.
He wanted to emphasize to us that a person who was before on
the lofty level of an odom descends into becoming a
choreish or a zore'a when engaged in physical
work. If someone, on the other hand, occupies himself only
with Torah studies it is easier to remain on the level of an
odom. This certainly was Hashem's will — our
remaining on the level of an odom as He created us.
The gemora continues: "Many did like R' Yishmoel and
were successful, [many did] like R' Shimon bar Yochai and
were unsuccessful."
R' Yishmoel believed that when a person studies Torah while
also working for a livelihood for his essential needs and is
careful to fulfill all the Torah's laws, he is unquestionably
considered an odom. He is not required to be on a
level of intense clinging to Hashem. Even in this way he is
zocheh to sanctify the physical world and make a
tikkun in Hashem's kingdom.
R' Shimon disagrees and argues that an odom must cling
completely to Hashem. Since people in general cannot
accomplish this "they were unsuccessful."
"When R' Shimon bar Yochai and his son R' Elazar emerged from
the cave where they hid for many years and saw people plowing
and sowing, this upset them. They said, `They are forsaking
eternal life and are engaging in momentary life!' Every place
they looked would go up in flames. A Bas Kol descended
from heaven and rebuked them: `Have you emerged [from the
cave] to destroy My world?' They had to return to their cave.
When they emerged again, they saw an elderly person running
with two hadas branches on erev Shabbos. They
asked him why he needed those branches. The old man answered
that he needed to honor the Shabbos with them. R' Shimon and
his son again questioned why one branch was insufficient. The
man answered that one branch symbolizes zochor and the
other shomor. R' Shimon cried out, `How precious are
the mitzvos for Yisroel,' and they were comforted"
(Shabbos 33b).
Initially, R' Shimon and R' Elozor assumed that a person
cannot remain an odom while plowing, and therefore
plowing cannot be a tikkun for the world. The Bas
Kol, however, attested that it is a tikkun and
that, on the contrary, R' Shimon and his son are the ones who
are destroying the world. When they again emerged from the
cave and saw an elderly person for whom one hadas was
not enough to honor Shabbos, they again thought he was
needlessly engaging in the matters of this world. After he
answered them that one symbolized zochor and the other
shomor, they were comforted. They then realized how
precious the mitzvos are for the Jews. R' Shimon and R'
Elozor saw that even a simple person can sanctify the
physical and elevate it by engaging in matters of this
world.
End of Part III
The author is the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Radin in
Netanya.
