TORAH PORTION: TETZAVEH (Shushan Purim)
|
|
Parashat Tetzaveh (Shushan Purim)
February 27, 2021, 15 Adar 5781
Torah: Exodus 27:20-30:10; Triennial 28:31-29:18
Haftorah: Ezekiel 43:10-27
Jerusalem: Maftir Exodus 17:8-16; Haftorah: I Samuel 15:2-34
|
|
In this week's Torah Sparks, you'll find a Dvar Torah on Parashat Tetzaveh by Ilana Kurshan called "Dress and Redress". Vered Hollander-Goldfarb poses questions titled "An Adversary and an Enemy! But Who is He?". And Bex Stern Rosenblatt writes about "Picking Priests" in the Haftorah.
|
|
|
|
D'var Torah: Dress and Redress
Ilana Kurshan
|
|
Parshat Tetzaveh describes the sacred vestments worn by the priests while serving in the Temple. The regular priests wore four garments – linen breeches, a fringed tunic, a sash, and a turban. These are the basic items, described sparingly in the Torah. But then there are the four additional garments worn by the high priest, which are described in the Torah in great ornamental detail: a linen vest with a decorated band, a breastplate with mounted stones, a long robe trimmed with pomegranates and bells, and a golden frontlet. The various biblical and rabbinic associations with these items of clothing are a reminder not just of the distinctiveness of the priestly class, but of the transformative power of all the clothing we wear.
Our parsha offers various explanations for the purpose of the priestly garments. The breeches served to “cover the nakedness” (28:42) of the priests, while the tunic, sash, and turban were “for dignity and adornment” (28:40). As the Torah reminds us, clothes are both functional and ornamental, natural and sociocultural. They protect us from the elements and cover what would be indecorous to bare, but they also dignify us, enabling us to feel presentable and attractive and identifying us as part of a community of those with similar sartorial standards and styles.
Several of the priestly garments, though, served an additional function, as the Talmud teaches (Zevachim 88b). Rabbi Inni bar Sasson explains that just as sacrifices atone for sin, so too did the various priestly garments serve to effect atonement. For instance, the tunic atoned for bloodshed, since Joseph’s brothers dipped his colorful striped tunic in blood to trick their father into thinking he’d been killed. The linen breeches atoned for forbidden sexual relations, since they covered the sexual organs. The sash over the chest atoned for inappropriate stirrings of the heart, the robe hemmed with ringing bells atoned for the sounds of evil speech, and the frontlet worn on the forehead atoned for the haughtiness of a head held high.
These associations between clothing and atonement recall the associations between sin and the parts of the physical body in the Al Chet prayer recited on Yom Kippur: “For the sin which we have committed before you with the prattle of the lips, for the sin which we have committed before you with a glance of the eye, for the sin which we have committed before you by confusion of the heart.” The Torah’s term for atonement, Kapparah, also means covering. If our sins are inscribed on our physical body, then atonement is achieved by covering those body parts. Like the clothing God made for Adam and Eve after their sin and punishment in the garden, our clothing is a way of covering it all up and moving on.
Clothing, then, is not just functional and ornamental; it also plays a spiritual role, reconciling between humanity and God. During Temple times, the priests served to atone for the sins of the people: they slaughtered sin offerings brought to the Temple on a regular basis, and once a year on Yom Kippur, the high priest would confess the people’s sins. The Talmud (Zevachim 17b) teaches that the priest is not a priest unless he is wearing his sacred vestments, based on a verse from our parsha: “And you shall gird Aaron and his son with sashes, and so they shall have the priesthood on them at all time” (29:9). The rabbis conclude that “when their vestments are upon them, the priesthood is upon them; but if their vestments are not on them, the priesthood is not on them.” A priest could not just roll out of bed and serve in the Temple; the act of getting dressed transformed him from an ordinary person into a functionary engaged in divine service.
I have been thinking about the priestly garments because my son recently started sleeping in the clothes he will wear the next day, so as to save time in the morning. Instead of pajamas, he goes to bed in his school uniform—long pants and a solid-colored t-shirt imprinted with the school symbol. These are like the basic four items worn by all the priests, but they are not the entirety of his wardrobe. Every evening he places on his nightstand his tzitzit, kippah, and glasses, and sets his sneakers by the door – these are the additional items he must put on in the morning, like the four additional garments worn by the high priest. And yet even putting on these items is a struggle – he runs into the kitchen for breakfast without his glasses, or without his tzitzit, or with sneakers untied, and I have to remind him quite a few times before he gets it all right. “What’s the matter?” he tells me, “It’s not like I’m naked.” He’s right, but as our parsha reminds us, that’s not the point.
I want my son to understand all these roles that clothing can play. Yes, clothes are about not being naked. But they are also about the care we take to transform ourselves in the morning from a creature asleep to a human being engaged in divine service. When we sleep we are like animals – our souls, that part of the divine that sets us apart from other creatures, are entrusted to God. When we wake, our souls are restored to our bodies and we become once again not just creatures of nature, but also individuals with culture and inner spiritual lives. By getting dressed, we symbolize that transformation. Our clothing attests to the divine soul placed within us, and reminds us of the responsibilities incumbent upon us as beings created in the image of God.
|
|
|
|
An Adversary and an Enemy! But Who is He?
Vered Hollander-Goldfarb
|
|
Text: Esther 3:5-11
5And when Haman saw that Mordecai would not kneel nor bow down to him, Haman was filled with fury. 6But was disdainful in his eyes to lay hands on Mordecai alone, … So Haman sought to annihilate all the Jews, the people of Mordecai, throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus.
… 8And Haman said to King Ahashverosh, “There is a certain people scattered and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom. Their laws are different from those of every other people, and they do not keep the king’s laws, so that it is not to the king’s profit to tolerate them. 9If it please the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed, and I will pay 10,000 talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the king’s business, that they may put it into the king’s treasuries.” 10So the king took his signet ring from his hand and gave it to Haman the Agagite, the son of Hammedatha, the enemy of the Jews. 11And the king said to Haman, “The silver is given to you*; and the people do with them as it seems good to you.”
* The writer was probably fluent in Persian, but somewhat awkward in Hebrew. According to Dr. Thamar Eilam Gindin, an expert in ancient Persian, this would be understood in Persian as ‘the silver is yours to give’, meaning Haman would give it to Ahasuerus. This is in line with the beginning of the passage.
- What is Haman’s motivation?
- From Haman’s arguments we may figure out what the king’s objections should have been. What do you think that the king should have said upon hearing the plan? Why do you think that he does not do so?
- What is King Ahashverosh’s role in this plan?
- Who is the evil character here? Why?
Commentary: Talmud Bavli, Megilah 16a
[In response to the question of who wants to annihilate the Jews:]
“And Esther said: An adversary and enemy! this wicked Haman!”
(Esther 7:6). Rabbi Elazar said: This teaches that she was pointing toward Ahashverosh and an angel came and pushed her hand toward Haman.
- According to R. Elazar, who is responsible for the decree to annihilate the Jews? How could he support this claim?
- Why was it necessary, at that moment, to point to Haman and allow Ahashverosh to avoid blame? (The events in chapter 8 might help you.)
- How should we teach about Ahashverosh nowadays? Why?
“Indifference to evil is more insidious than evil itself; it is more universal, more contagious, more dangerous.” (Heschel)
|
|
|
|
D'var Haftorah:
Picking Priests
Bex Stern Rosenblatt
|
|
In our parasha, Aaron and his descendants are granted the responsibility of serving as kohanim forever. In great detail we are told of rituals to be enacted in order to secure this status for them, to set them apart from the rest of the nation as those who can work in the tabernacle. Every time we encounter chosenness in the Tanakh, there is a question of why the person or people are chosen, of what makes them deserving of this special attention. Our haftarah, Ezekiel 43:10-27, explores what it is that makes people worthy of the priesthood.
Ezekiel sets up a contrast between the general population of Levitical kohanim and the descendants of Zadok. Whereas all Levites are permitted to be guards and keepers of the Temple, only those who descend from Zadok can approach the mikdash, the sanctuary. This honor is withheld from the majority of the Levites in Ezekiel 44 because of the sins they have committed.
So who is this Zadok and what makes him and his descendants special? We first meet Zadok as part of King David’s administration in 2 Samuel 8. Zadok and Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar from the line of Eli, both serve David as kohanim, along with the military men and the scribes in his administration. Zadok and Abiathar appear again in 2 Samuel 15, when David is forced to flee from Jerusalem, from his son, Absalom, who is leading a rebellion against him. Zadok brings the ark of God with him, determined to keep it with David. However, David makes him bring it back to Jerusalem, confident that he will be returned to it if God wants him to be. Abiathar’s role in this story is unclear. He seems to be included in the actions of Zadok, but we are also told that he ‘went up,’ which Zadok did not do. In the Talmud, Tractate Sotah 48B, this is interpreted as Abiathar losing the ability to interpret God’s will from the urim and thummim, and thus losing his status as the high kohen. Zadok, however, retains his abilities and is perfectly loyal to God and to David.
The competition between Zadok and Abiathar comes to a head when another of David’s sons rebels against him. Abiathar chooses to join Adonijah, David’s son, in trying to overthrow David. Zadok continues to support David and advances the cause of David’s son, Solomon. As a reward for his loyalty, Zadok is made the only high kohen. And as a result of his betrayal, Abiathar is banished back to his hometown and stripped of his position.
When the line of Zadok appears again in our haftarah, hundreds of years have passed. This portion is usually understood as having been written in exile after the destruction of the Temple, with an eye towards the world we would construct when we re-entered the land. In the ideal world we chose to build, we chose the line of Zadok to carry on the duties of the kohanim. We chose the descendants of someone who had proved his reliability and his loyalty, to God, to king and to service rather than to personal gain. May we continue to hold up those who serve as those worthy of being placed in positions of responsibility.
|
|
Do you love Torah Sparks? It's brought to you by The Fuchsberg Jerusalem Center and we rely on your contributions to keep the learning going. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
