Boulder Aish Kodesh

The Gemarra in Pesachim has difficulty with the verse “On that day, G-d will be one and G-d’s name will be one.”  What, G-d is not one now?  Well, says Rebbe Acha Bar Chanina, this world is not like the next world.  In this world, upon hearing fortunate news, we say ‘[G-d] is good and does good,’ and upon hearing unfortunate news, we say ‘[G-d] is the true judge.’  But in the world to come, everything is [G-d] is good and does good.’  When it is clear that what G-d has done is good, we recognize that goodness; when it is not clear, we continue to recognize that goodness, but blindly: I know that, somehow, it is good, but I cannot see it.

When Moshe returns to G-d after the sin of the calf, he asks G-d ‘Let me know your ways.’  Rashi translates it as saying, ‘If I have in fact found favor in your eyes, let me know your ways; meaning, what reward is there in finding favor in your eyes?’  Perhaps this relates to the Gemarra in Brachot 7a, “Moshe said to the Holy One, ‘Master of the Universe!  Why are there righteous people who suffer and righteous people who don’t suffer?  And why are there wicked people who do not suffer, and wicked people who do suffer?”  How is this good, Moshe asks, that good people suffer and wicked people thrive?

According to R’ Tzaddok (Pri Tzaddik Ki Tisa 7), Moshe wants to see the goodness as it happens.  Whereas one can recognize retroactively that what has happened, there is inevitably a period of doubt, or suffering, that precedes that recognition.  Moshe wants to see it as good when it happens.  This is the face of G-d.  ‘One cannot see my face and live’, says G-d.

But one is responsible for finding the actual good in what happens to him.  As R’ Tzaddok writes (Pri Tzaddik, 14^th of Adar I, 1), Rebbe Akiva said, “A person should accustom himself to saying, ‘all that G-d has done, G-d has done for the good.’”  As R’ Tzaddok explains, Rebbe Akiva’s gift was that he could recognize the actual good in everything, and that it was not at all bad, just like we will see in the world to come, where everything is ‘[G-d] is good and does good.

Though there are certainly differences between Moshe’s level of understanding and Rebbe Akiva’s, we should be striving toward both levels.  First, we should insist on finding the good in everything that happens to us, after the fact.  And secondly we should be striving for the level of Moshe, whereas we can see G-d’s goodness as it is happening.

Both of these levels would seem challenging to many people.  It seems that we all-too-readily accept that what G-d does for us is good, without really trying to understand how it is good.  And we certainly would never dream of attaining the level of Moshe, where we could see it as good as it is happening, without having to go through the seemingly requisite period of doubt and suffering.  But we should not idolize Moshe by seeing his level as unattainable.  It is this idolization that leads to the Sin of the Calf.

We should desire and aspire toward the level of relationship with G-d that Moshe wanted to experience.  Let us hope and pray and long with every ounce of our being.  Let G-d have to tell us no, rather than saying no to ourselves.

Perhaps we imagine one who has face-to-face encounter with G-d as some ideal human being, devoid of specific character in the face of G-d.  It is perhaps difficult to imagine a ‘person’ per se attaining such lofty heights.  It may have been this very point that troubled the people Israel as contemplated his absence: “This Moshe, the man, we don’t know what became of him.’  We know where Moshe went, but we have ceased relating to him as a man.

Often our specificity is what troubles us as we imagine a relationship with G-d.  We might in theory accept that, yes, actual people with actual flaws can have relationship with G-d.   And, yes, those flaws can in fact become conduits for deep relationship to

G-d.  But that doesn’t look a certain way.  That phenomenon cannot manifest in me.

This problem of specificity marks the beginning of the Parsha.  Moshe is told ‘when you count (lit. ‘lift up’) the heads of the children of the people, according to their numbers, and each man shall give atonement for himself… This is what they shall give, all who pass through the census - a half a shekel.’  The question arises – why do they need to give atonement for being counted?  If it is negative or harmful, why count at all?   The answer may be that the atonement does not come for being counted – it comes for being specified.  The atonement is for having one’s ‘head lifted’, for being momentarily taken out of the general populace and seen as an individual.  It seems that we are meant to live as individuals as well as members of a populace.

The path to G-d has rules, but none of those rules obviate the personality of the seeker.  In fact, the personality is the rule.  Self is path.

We find Moshe’s personality shining through, even while speaking face to face with

G-d.  We would such moments to be moments of total nullification and loss of independent selfhood.  But we find Moshe arguing, reasoning, persuading, and thinking quickly.  We find Moshe not only in a place of receptivity, but in a place of active pursuit.  He has his own goals and aspirations: Let me know your ways.

Moshe’s expressions of person-ness are solicited and rewarded by G-d.  We find in the Gemarra Shabbat 88b that, when Moshe went up to get the Torah, his mission was met with scorn my the Ministering Angels.  ‘What is this ‘child of woman’ doing among us?’  When they complain that the Torah which is the most sublime of Lights, has no relation to the world of humans. Hashem tells Moshe ‘You give them an answer.’  Moshe goes through each of the ten commandments: ‘I am Hashem your G-d who took you out of Egypt,’ and asks the angels, ‘did you go down to Egypt and work for Pharaoh?  What do you need the Torah for?’  Among the reasons that Hashem has Moshe answer is that he Torah is meant for people who answer, who think creatively and respond.  Torah is not for angels – angels do not have all of the accoutrements of personality.

Further on, Moshe, when he sees the calf, throws down the tablets and breaks them.  We have no indication that he was commanded by G-d to do so.  But we do find in the Gemarra Shabbat 87a G-d telling Moshe, ‘The tablets which you broke – good job (lit. your strength should be straight) that you broke them.’

It is the very sense of Moshe as man that marks the people’s contrite response after the Sin of the Calf.

And Moshe would take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, distanced from the camp, and he called it the tent of meeting.  And anyone who sought G-d would go to the tent of Meeting that was outside the camp.  And when Moshe left to go toward the tent of meeting, all the people would stand, and each man would stand at the entrance of his tent, and would watch as Moshe would arrive at the tent.  And when Moshe would arrive at the tent, the pillar of fire would come down, and would stand at the opening of the tent, and the entire nation would stand up and bow, every man at his tent.

We see Israel finally recognizing that Moshe is, in fact, still very much a man, and they see what a man is capable of achieving.  As Rashi writes on the phrase ‘and they looked after Moshe’: A form of praise, saying ‘Fortunate is this one, born of woman, who is promised that the Divine Presence would enter after him to the opening of his tent.’  Rashi echoes Moshe’s humanity, ‘born of woman’, capable of such relation to the Divine.  Rashi echoes the derision of the angels ‘what is this son of woman doing among us?’

When Moshe has received the second commandments, one of the first subsequent commandments he is given is the commandment to do pilgrimage.  This commandment requires that each of us ‘see (or be seen – see Gemarra Hagigah 2a) the face of The Master, Hashem the G-d of Israel (Shemot 34:23).’  We are required to see and be seen before the face of G-d.  The relationship with G-d is not an option.  We cannot hide behind abstractions.  We must present ourselves as people before G-d, and allow for the possibility of seeing G-d’s face.

The tension between being ‘of one’s time and place’ and being eternal is a palpable one.  When people discuss the great sages of the Talmud and their halachic rulings, they ask whether the rules those sages laid down were meant to be eternal, or were merely speaking to their times.  The answer is that the only way they could speak eternally was to speak to their times.  To pretend to obtain toward the highest abstract good is impossible and a fallacy.  On must recognize that becoming fully conscious of the present moment the fullness of it’s subjectivity is the only way to relate to the eternal G-d.