Musar על ברכות 109:19

ראה קראתי בשם בצלאל בן אורי בן חור. Anyone who is a leader of the Jewish people has to be endowed with superior wisdom and needs to be approved for his task by both G–d and the people whom he represents. Rabbi Yochanan made the appointment of communal leaders subject to a referendum (Berachot 55). He based this ruling on the verse quoted above (31,2). If the leader has found G–d's approval, why would he also need the people's approval? The Talmud describes there that G–d asked Moses if Betzalel was acceptable to him to which Moses replied "If he is acceptable to You how can he not be acceptable to me?" G–d explained that Betzalel must also have his approval. When Moses subsequently asked the Israelites if Betzalel was acceptable to them they answered that if he was the choice of both G–d and Moses he must certainly be their choice also. Israel's response seemed to lack logic, especially the statement that if a leader was acceptable to G–d he must be even more acceptable to them!

On the same folio of the Talmud as that mentioned above, Rabbi Yochanan said that there are three fateful events which G–d announces personally. They are: "famine, good harvests, and the name of a good economic leader of the people." He brings scriptural proof for each one of these three. The verse cited to support the announcement by G–d of a suitable economic leader is our verse appointing Betzalel.

לא תכבה . The reason that the Torah legislates that the fire on the altar should be kept going, never to go out (6,5), is to ensure that whenever our perennial accusers seek to be paid off by the life of some Jew or Jews there be an alternate fire handy to satisfy their demand to burn someone. The fire, in other words, acts as a "bribe" to Satan, much like the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement. Nowadays, when we have no altar, man's table fulfills the function of the altar. If we sit down to eat without at least saying some word of Torah during our meal, we may not have succeeded in extinguishing the fire of purgatory by keeping the fire on the substitute altar going. Inasmuch as תורה is a term used in connection with every category of sacrifice, all the destructive waters in the universe do not have the power to extinguish the flame of Torah, the flame of love.

You will now understand that if someone eats tissue from a living animal (one that is not completely dead) he may possibly be practicing a form of cannibalism, i.e. eating tissue of a fellow human being whose soul was re-incarnated in that animal. This is the mystical dimension of the Torah telling us : "Do not eat the soul with the flesh" (12,23). The entire legislation about domestic animals, free roaming beasts, or even birds which are "impure," is connected to the possibility that such animals harbor a spark of holiness by being host to a soul which had once inhabited a human body, a soul which had originated in the Celestial Spheres. It is irrelevant in this respect whether the soul in question originated in the "left" or the "right" side of the emanations. I have written more about the latter aspect in my commentary on פרשת שמיני. It is when the Israelites conduct themselves in a spirit of sanctity that the promise of Exodus 25,8: "They shall make a Sanctuary for Me and I will dwell among them," will be fulfilled. The people themselves are the Sanctuary within whom G–d promises to reside provided that they lead consecrated lives. Man's three major parts, i.e. the head, the heart and the bowels, correspond to the קדשי קדשים, Holy of Holies, the היכל, Sanctuary, and the חצר הקודש the Holy Courtyard surrounding the Temple, respectively. We have discussed this at length in פרשת תרומה. When a Jew consumes consecrated food he is considered as if he were the sacrifice offered on the Altar. Concerning this aspect of our lives, the Rabbis have said that nowadays our table serves as the altar.

השלחן. Our sages have said that in the absence of the Table in the Sanctuary, seeing that to-day there is no Sanctuary, our own individual tables are the instruments for our atonement (Chagigah 27) when they serve as vehicles to feed the poor, i.e. when one is hospitable. I have elaborated on this theme in my article on קדושה.

They further said: "Woe to rulership for it buries (slays) its possessor" (Pesachim 87b). From where do we learn this? From Yosef, for because he conducted himself in rulership, died before his brothers (Berachot 55a).

The construction of the Tabernacle may be compared to the construction of the universe itself of which it is written: ה' בחכמה יסד ארץ, כונן שמים בתבונה, בדעתו תהומות נבקעו, "The Lord founded the earth with wisdom; He established the heavens with understanding. By His knowledge the depths were broken up" (Proverbs 3,19-20). We find a parallel statement when the Torah describes the appointment of Betzalel as the architect in charge of building the Tabernacle. Exodus 31,3 tells us that G–d endowed Betzalel with "a divine spirit of skill, ability, and knowledge in every kind of craft; to make designs for work in gold, silver, and copper, to cut stones, etc." Our sages in Berachot 55 say that Betzalel knew how to combine the letters of the Torah, the method by which the universe had been created by G–d. It follows that the Tabernacle was in effect the creation of a microcosm, a duplication of מעשה בראשית. [except that this creation did not start ex nihilo. Ed.] We expect to come back to this in detail when explaining the פרשיות of ויקהל and פקודי.

The author brings a few more examples of the principle just mentioned. Among them he mentions that the use of the word חכמה in the plural, i.e. חכמות in Proverbs 9,1 alludes to the need to employ our physical as well as our mental faculties when building the "house," i.e. when Betzalel built the Tabernacle.

We must appreciate that when G–d created different worlds, He named, i.e. formed and defined them by means of a combination of the letters of the alphabet. Our sages say that Betzalel understood the mystery of the combinations of all of these letters which make up the names [definitions] of all things found in this world (Berachot 55 based on the word שם in Exodus 35,30). Early man, who was still בצלם אלוקים, was still able to understand the significance of the names of G–d, and used these names to serve Him in holiness and love in order to cleave to Him. This condition came to an end with the generation of Enosh, as we have explained earlier based on Bereshit Rabbah. When we read in Genesis 4,26 that during the lifetime of Enosh אז הוחל לקרא בשם ה', "then one began to profane the name of the Lord," the meaning is that people no longer used His Name in holiness but desecrated it. The expression הוחל indicates something that is profane, חולין. This situation continued until the advent of the deluge. When the Torah speaks about המה הגבורים אשר היו מעולם אנשי השם, "they were the heroes of old, men of the "Name" (Genesis 6,4), this means that these people used the name of G–d to manipulate the universe, as described in the Zohar, Sullam edition page 209. The expression אנשי השם in Genesis, and the expression ויקוב את השם in Leviticus 24,11, where the Torah refers to the blasphemer, suggests a similar misuse of the Holy Name of G–d in both instances. It was the ability of these people to use G–d's name in order to manipulate it that made them disregard the warnings of an impending deluge. All this is described at greater length in the Zohar. We find that the people of Jerusalem are described by the prophet Ezekiel 12,19 as also having displayed misplaced optimism concerning the prophecies of doom by Jeremiah. The people's very knowledge of G–d's name was what misled them. This is the justification for the reference in Ezekiel to these people as "dwellers in ruins" when in fact they were still dwelling in Jerusalem.

The two verses commencing with ויקומו, and ending with the words על קהל ה' by (16,3), lend themselves to two different interpretations. When Korach and Datan and Aviram spoke these words, they were criminal words. When the two hundred and fifty men spoke the same words, their intentions were honourable. In the case of Korach and Co. it means they elevated themselves, rose against Moses and Aaron. Targum Yonathan interprets: they spoke with חוצפה. Rashi says that they claimed there was no cause for Moses and Aaron to feel superior since the entire nation had heard G–d speak the first two of the Ten Commandments directly. Their evil intention was to deny Moses' standing as a prophet. They sought to prove that the whole nation qualified for the same spiritual level, and that anything over and beyond Moses had said in the name of G–d had really been his own invention. They argued that if all these other pronouncements had really emanated from G–d, G–d Himself would have communicated them to the people directly. It follows that Moses had also acted high--handedly when he appointed Aaron as High Priest. The appointment of Elitzafan as head of the Kehatites had been at Moses' own initiative. Even though Korach and Datan and Aviram respectively agreed in this particular denial of the truth, the latter's agreement was still not identical to that of Korach. Korach spoke out against the prophetic status of Moses and at the same time he also spoke out against G–d, suggesting that since G–d had only spoken the first two commandments, He had obviously only had His own honour and glory in mind. When Kidushin 31a described the nations of the world as approving of the Ten Commandments, according respect to G–d, such respect was based on G–d commanding us to honour our parents. Since Korach did not allow that the commandment to honour father and mother was of Divine origin, he obviously distorted G–d's intentions when revealing the first two commandments. We see that Korach only scoffed when he referred to what the people had heard from the mouth of G–d. Afterwards he proceeded to deny the prinicple as well as the details. Datan and Aviram, though denying basic truths, did not do so to the extent Korach had done. They only suspected Moses of having appointed Aaron, his sons, and Elitzafan without having been instructed by G–d to do so. They believed that if these appointments had been at the command of G–d, He would have told Israel about it, just as He had told them about His own position as Lord and Master of the Jewish people. Moreover, we have a principle אין ממנים פרנס על הציבור אלא מדעת הציבור, "one must not appoint an administrator for the community unless that community had approved of that appointment" (Berachot 55). At any rate, both of them made common cause with Korach, challenging Moses.

What I have explained so far may also help to answer a very serious question concerning Joseph's conduct when he interpreted Pharaoh's dream. Having explained the meaning of the dream, Joseph next volunteered a piece of advice to Pharaoh (41,33) which he introduced with the words: ועתה ירא פרעה איש נבון וחכם, "Now let Pharaoh appoint a wise and understanding man, etc." What business did Joseph – a slave and a prisoner to boot – have to offer gratuitous advice to Pharaoh? Clearly Joseph had aspirations to attain a position of authority in order to be able to further Divine plans and to replace the position of the שרו של מצרים, the regular spiritual patron of Egypt.