PARSHA BEREISHIS
“THE CHOICEST CHOICE”
Barry Waldman
(based on the writings
and shiurim of Rav Matis Weinberg, www.thelivingtree.org)
In this
week’s parsha, both Kayin and Hevel present offerings to G-d. Hevel’s is
accepted and Kayin’s is rejected. This
confuses and annoys Kayin exceedingly:
“He thought to himself:
‘I sacrificed first, and my offering should have been accepted first.’”
(Tzror HaMor)
Chazal,
however, were sensitive to the subtle differences in the descriptions of the
sacrifices offered:
Kayin: “brought an offering to Hashem of the fruit of the
ground.”
Hevel: “he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and
from their choicest.”
Whereas
Hevel brought the best of what he had, and no such mention is attached to
Kayin’s offering, Rashi follows the midrash and deduces that Kayin’s was
rejected because he brought inferior produce:
“of
the fruit of the ground” – from the poorest
But Rashi
offers an alternative explanation that does not appear in most editions (though
a similar explanation can be found in the Rome ed. 1470):
“of the fruit” – From
whatever came to his hand, not the best and not the choicest.”
The
difference between these two Rashis is subtle.
Yet, understanding this difference – and, indeed, the nature of subtlety
itself – yields deep insights into the essence of man’s avodah, his life’s work and purpose on earth.
Our exploration
begins with the observation that many words and phrases from the story of Kayin
and Hevel are echoed in one other parsha – Korach:
I
Kayin was the first whose “face fell” in response to sin:
Bereishis 4:6 - וְלָמָּה נָפְלוּ פָנֶיךָ
Moshe
and Aaron “fall on their faces” numerous times in response to the sin of Korach
and company – for example:
Bamidbar
16:4 - וַיִּשְׁמַע
מֹשֶׁה, וַיִּפֹּל עַל-פָּנָיו
II
Kayin
“rose up” against his brother: וַיָּקָם קַיִן אֶל-הֶבֶל
Just
as Korach and company “rose up” against Moshe: וַיָּקֻמוּ לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה
III
Kayin is told that sin crouches at the “door”:
Bereishis 4:7 - לַפֶּתַח חַטָּאת רֹבֵץ
In Korach, the sinners Datan and Aviram stand at the “door”:
Bamidbar
16:27 - וְדָתָן
וַאֲבִירָם יָצְאוּ נִצָּבִים, פֶּתַח אָהֳלֵיהֶם
IV
Kayin was very annoyed: וַיִּחַר לְקַיִן מְאֹד
And so was Moshe: וַיִּחַר לְמֹשֶׁה מְאֹד
V
Moshe tells Hashem to turn away from Korach’s “offering”:
Bamdibar 16:15 - אַל-תֵּפֶן אֶל-מִנְחָתָם
It seems odd that Moshe refers to Korach’s ketoret offering as a “mincha” – but could this be an illusion
to Kayin’s mincha to which G-d did
also not turn?
וְאֶל-קַיִן וְאֶל-מִנְחָתוֹ, לֹא שָׁעָה
VI
The
earth opens its mouth to receive Hevel’s blood:
וְעַתָּה, אָרוּר אָתָּה, מִן-הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר
פָּצְתָה אֶת-פִּיהָ, לָקַחַת אֶת-דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ מִיָּדֶךָ
And
the earth opens its mouth to swallow Korach and company:
וְאִם-בְּרִיאָה יִבְרָא יְהוָה, וּפָצְתָה
הָאֲדָמָה אֶת-פִּיהָ וּבָלְעָה אֹתָם
VII
Hevel
brought the “first” and “best” of his flocks as an offering to Hashem:
וְהֶבֶל הֵבִיא גַם-הוּא מִבְּכֹרוֹת צֹאנוֹ,
וּמֵחֶלְבֵה
The
gifts given to the Kohen, as described at the end of parsha Korach, are the
“best” of the oil and the wine, and the “first” of the fruits:
כֹּל חֵלֶב יִצְהָר, וְכָל-חֵלֶב תִּירוֹשׁ
בִּכּוּרֵי כָּל-אֲשֶׁר בְּאַרְצָם
The second
of R. Yishmael’s 13 rules by which the Torah is elucidated reads: “similar
words in different contexts are meant to clarify one another.” Rabbi David Fohrman uses the analogy of binocular
vision to describe how two separate sections of Torah can provide a “depth
perception” that would be lacking if each were viewed independently (shiur on
Unataneh Tokef www.alephbeta.org). Thus, the many linguistic parallels between
the story of Kayin and Hevel and parsha Korach are an indication that they are
meant to be studied together in order to focus on deeper insights that would be
missed otherwise.
A key
linkage between the two parshas can be found in a midrash that depicts the
primal argument between Kayin and Hevel as a struggle for the kehuna, over who would serve in the Beit
HaMikdash:
But about what did
they quarrel? One said, “The Temple must be built in my area,” while the other
claimed, “It must be built in mine.” (Bereishis Rabbah 22:7 )
Korach, too,
tried to wrest the priesthood from Aharon.
He did so by asserting:
“For the entire assembly – all of them – are holy and Hashem
is among them. Why do you exalt
yourselves over the congregation of Hashem?”
Ironically,
in this bid for the kehuna, Korach
exposes himself as the “anti-kohen.” He
presents holiness as generic – the exact opposite of kedusha. By definition, kedusha
requires distinguishing one entity from another, separating it for a dedicated
purpose. Thus, holiness is an exercise
in havdalah, just as we do at the
conclusion of Shabbat:
Blessed are You, Hashem our G-d, King of the universe, Who
separates (hamavdil) between holy and
secular, between light and darkness, between Israel and the nations, between
the seventh and six days of labor…
Moreover,
the holiness of the Kohen is derived from this fundamental havdalah intrinsic within Ma’aseh Bereishis:
“And he spoke unto Korach…in the morning.” What reason had he for saying, “in the
morning?” Moses said to them: the Holy One, Blessed be He, has assigned
certain boundaries in His world. Can
you, for example, fuse day and night? Scripture,
in reference to this, says at the very beginning, “And there was evening and
there was morning,” “And God divided the light from the darkness” in
order that it might be of service to this world. And just as He divided the light from the
darkness in order that it might of service to the world, so He separated Israel
from the nations…In the same manner also He set Aaron apart; as it says, “And
Aaron was separated, that he should be sanctified as most holy.” [Divrei
Hayamim I 23:13] (Bamidbar Rabbah 18:7)
Therefore,
it comes as no surprise that the main function of the Kohen is:
“to differentiate (lehavdil)
between the sacred and the profane, between the pure and impure, and to rule [in Torah]…” (Vayikra
10:10)
No comments:
Post a Comment