"Behind the Bed of the Murdered in the Land of Israel" (instead of a lament)

Things I said in the synagogue, Saturday, May 15, 2018. Written on Saturday.

This is what Agnon called the opening of the Kaddish for the fallen IDF soldiers on Memorial Day. And I, the little one, am not capable of writing elegies. And yet my heart wants to lament for these young men, who are the slain of the Land of Israel. Although Shabbat is not a time for eulogies, God Almighty will have to forgive me for departing from the rules, since, by the way, he also did not act according to the rules here.

I would like to say that these young men fell for the sanctification of His name, but that is not true. Their fall is a terrible blasphemy. Torah scholars fall at the hands of murderers, for no wrongdoing on their part.

I would also like to say that someone who is murdered because they are Jewish is sanctifying God, but I don't believe that either. There is no real source for this, and this explanation cannot be true either. This is fool's comfort. A person who dies for sanctifying God is a person who gave his life out of awareness of sanctifying His name, but these were simply murdered without any intention on their part.

So why? What was the point of them falling? Was there any benefit in it? To them, to Israel, to the Land of Israel, or to the Knesset? Nothing. They just fell, without taste or smell. After all, this is the most terrible blasphemy that can be. "What are its horrors?"[1]

What do we do in the face of a terrible event that has no meaning, no value, no reason, no benefit? What do we say, what do we think, and what do we explain?

Aaron the priest also faced the death of his two sons. The Torah describes that they sacrificed strange fire, but the sages and commentators offer dozens of excuses for their deaths, none of which are very good (and they have already said that there are dozens of excuses for why the Book of Ruth is read on Shavuot, but there is only one excuse for why the Book of Esther is read on Purim). It seemed to Aaron that they too died for no real reason.

A death without a reason is a much greater tragedy than a death that has any benefit, or any value. Aharon stands before this tragedy, and is astonished (without words). He does not ask, and yet his brother answers him:

And fire came out from before Jacob, and devoured them, and they died before Jacob. And Moses said unto Aaron, Is it he that spake unto Jacob, saying, In my presence will I be holy, and before all the people will I be glorified? And Aaron said,

Aharon is silent. Some describe this silence as accepting judgment with love. And I, the little one, am not sure about that. Does the death of the righteous bring any sanctification of God? If so, then perhaps it is in the realm of nobility. I hear Aharon say (again without words) that if God has no better excuse than this, then there really is nothing more to say. "What are His horrors?"

At the beginning of theSafra Baraita 33 cites the qualities of Dr. Ishmael, and at the end the quality of 'two scriptures that deny each other.' Then the following example is cited:

"Two scriptures that contradict each other until the third comes and decides between them," how? One scripture says, "And the Lord descended upon Mount Sinai to the top of the mountain," and another scripture says, "From heaven He made you hear His voice to guide you," the third verse says, "For from heaven I have spoken to you." This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, bowed down the heavens of the highest heavens on Mount Sinai and spoke to them, and so David said in the Book of Telim, "He bowed the heavens and came down, and a mist was under His feet."

This measure tells us that when we are faced with a paradox, two contradictory scriptures, then the third scripture can help us find a solution to the contradiction.

Then another example is given there, taken from our parsha (Pekudi). I will give here a parallel midrash fromTrivia books, P. In your elevation:

5. And Moses came to the Tent of Meeting, one scripture says, And Moses came to the Tent of Meeting, and one scripture says, And Moses could not come to the Tent of Meeting. How were these two scriptures fulfilled except at the time when the Divine Presence was touching the land? Why does it say, And Moses could not, because it gave permission to the terrorists to attack, and at the time when the Divine Presence was departing from the land? Why does it say, And Moses came to the Tent of Meeting to speak with Him, since He would enter and speak with Him.

Here it is stated that Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting. In the Book of the Ascension it is stated that he entered to speak with God, the Blessed One. Here too there are two texts that contradict each other. Here they agree even without a third text: this is when the Shekhina is below (then Moses cannot enter) and this is when the Shekhina is above (then he can enter). When the cloud rests on the Tent, Moses our Rabbi is not permitted to enter.

Where is the third verse in this midrash? Here the settlement is without a third verse, because we can look for excuses even without help. Here we don't need Midot from the LBM. We would do the same even without the tradition of Midot.

And indeed, this is what the Rabbi writes in his commentary onSafra, whose words are also quoted in the book Application of wisdom To Mahari Hagiz:

And from what decision the third scripture decided and corrected two scriptures that contradict each other, the sages taught in another place in two scriptures that contradict each other and the third did not come to decide, like the one we read in the Suta chapter on the same day: "One scripture says two thousand cubits, and one scripture says a thousand cubits. How is that? A thousand cubits is the boundary of the Sabbath." So they decided between them according to their own understanding according to their evidence, as they learned from the Book of Mormon, etc. And did you not wait until the third scripture comes and decides between them? The same is true for two scriptures that contradict each other. Are you not allowed to reject them and hold them in disarray, not to excuse them again as much as you can until the third scripture comes and decides between them, and then you will do as the decision you see.

The Rabbi explains that this measure teaches us to reconcile the two contradictory readings in ways that seem to us even without finding a third scripture that will decide between them. In other words, the measure of two scriptures that deny each other means finding a logical solution that will remove the contradiction, even in the absence of a third scripture. This is a reasonable and obvious conclusion from the understanding of this measure in the Rish's study.

In contrast, in the R.A. we find a completely different manifestation of the quality of 'two scriptures that deny each other'. And so it is inContain Here is section 4:

Rabbi Akiva says: One scripture says: "And you shall sacrifice a Passover to the Lord your God, a sheep and a cow, and another scripture says: "You shall take from the lambs and from the goats." How can these two scriptures be fulfilled? You said this, "This is a measure of the Torah. Two scriptures are opposite to each other and contradict each other, and they remain in their place until a third scripture comes and decides between them. You learn to say: "Go and take sheep for your families and slaughter the Passover." Sheep for the Passover, not cattle for the Passover. Rabbi Yishmael says: "On the celebration that comes after Passover, the scripture speaks."

The Rabbi brings two contradictory texts, and is left with the contradiction. One text says sheep and cattle, and the second text only says sheep. Here we must rely on a third text, since there is no solution to the contradiction. The third text simply instructs us to take sheep (which the first verse is 'justified'). And what about the verse about sheep and cattle? The Rabbi, in his opinion, explains it in terms of a celebration, but the Rabbi prefers to remain silent, in the sense of "with Aaron's hands." If you don't have reasonable explanations, it is better to remain silent.

For the Rabbi, the criterion of 'two denying scriptures' is a criterion that instructs us on practical conduct, while for the Rabbi it is an interpretive criterion. The Rabbi uses it to explain and resolve the contradiction, while the Rabbi leaves it as it is. The question is only how to act in practice. For this, he brings a third scripture.

The wording of the measure in the R.A.'s work (and it is the same in all its appearances in the Akiva Midrashim) also differs from that of the R.S.H.'s. The R.S.H. writes:

And so are two scriptures that contradict each other until a third scripture comes and decides between them.

While R.A. writes:

This is a measure in the Torah: two scriptures that are opposed to each other, and contradict each other, remain in their place until a third scripture comes and decides between them.

The R.A.'s formulation clearly indicates that without a third verse, each of the two denied verses holds in its place. He also emphasizes the fact that they contradict each other. Furthermore, he is careful (and this also always appears in his midrashim) that this is a 'measure in the Torah.' The R.A. reconciles contradictions. This is not really a measure in the Torah but an accepted form of human thinking. The R.A. stands in the face of the contradiction and remains silent. This is a measure in the Torah, in which there are sometimes things that are incomprehensible, and even contradictory.

RA also refers to reality as 'written' in such a contradiction. And so we find blows at the end:

And already the G-d and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah and Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva were walking on the road, and they heard the sound of the Roman counter from a distance of one hundred and twenty miles, and they began to cry, and Rabbi Akiva laughed. They said to him: Why are you laughing? He said to them: And why are you crying? They said to him: These are the blacks who bow down to idols and burn incense to idolatry, living in security and peace, and we, the footstool of our God, are burned with fire, and we do not weep? He said to them: For this I laugh, and what about those who transgress His will, how much more so those who do His will.

Once again, there were pilgrims to Jerusalem, and when they reached Mount Scopus, their clothes were torn. When they reached the Temple Mount, they saw a fox coming out of the Holy of Holies, and they began to cry and the Rabbi laughed. They said to him: Why are you laughing? He said to them: Why are you crying? They said to him, where is the place where it is written: +In Numbers 1+ and the stranger who comes near shall be killed and now foxes walk over it and we do not weep? He said to them: That is why I laugh, as it is written: +Isaiah 8+ and I have faithful witnesses to testify for me, Uriah the priest and Zechariah the son of Jebarekiah, and what does Uriah have to do with Zechariah? Uriah in the First Temple and Zechariah in the Second Temple! Rather, the Scripture hangs the prophecy of Zechariah on the prophecy of Uriah, in Uriah it is written: +Micah 3+ Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed up a field [and] in Zechariah it is written: +Zechariah 8+ Old men and old women will still sit in the streets of Jerusalem, until the prophecy of Uriah is fulfilled – I was afraid that the prophecy of Zechariah, now that Uriah's prophecy has been fulfilled – it is known that Zechariah's prophecy is being fulfilled. In this language they said to him: Akiva, our comfort! Akiva, our comfort.

Rabbi Akiva stands before the sharpest and most difficult contradictions, and fills his mouth with weariness. He is content with what he knows, and he is not willing to get involved in contradictions in order to resolve the contradictions. If there is no resolution, it is God's problem, not his. He is only looking for answers about what he should do now.

The Rabbi is faced with a similar situation when his flesh is combed with iron combs, and there too his disciples say to him: "Rabbi, is this far?", and he answers them (Midrash Esher Harogei Malchut, Eisenstein):

And when they took him out to be killed, it was a time of 100 days, and they would comb his flesh with iron combs, and he would receive upon him the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, God of his disciples, our Master, until now? He said to them, "My son, I have always regretted this verse, and you have loved the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, even if he takes your life, and I would say, 'When will he come to me and I will protect him?' And now that he comes to me, I will not protect him." He prolonged it by one, and his soul departed by one. The Blessed One came out and said, "Blessed are you, Reb, that your body is pure and your soul departed in one breath of purity, and you are ready for the life of the world." They said about him, what is the difference between the first generations and the last generations? The first generations, even those who lived in sorrow, loved and honored the name of the Blessed One, such as Reb and his companions, who were completely righteous and would accept the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven upon them with love. They said about him, when he was confined in the prison house, Yehoshua the Harasi was his servant. One evening, on the eve of Yom Kippur, he stood up and took permission from Reb and went to his house, and Eliyahu, the deceased, met him and knocked on the door of his house. "God, who are you? God, I am Eliyahu. God, what do you want? God, I have come to inform you that Reb, your master, is dead." Immediately, the two of them walked all night until they reached the prison house and found it open and the rabbi of the prison house was asleep and all the people were asleep. At that moment, Eliyahu strengthened himself and took care of him and carried him on his shoulder. "God, Yehoshua, Rabbi La Are you a priest? God has no impurity in the righteous, nor in the wise and the disciples, and when they came out of the prison, there were groups of ministering angels praising Him and saying, "The righteousness of the Lord has done and His judgments with Israel" (Deuteronomy 33), and the path shone before them like the brightness of the firmament. When they reached Caesarea's pavilion, they descended three flights and ascended six flights and found a cave in which was a table, a chair, a chair, and a lamp. When they came out, Joshua did not want to leave. He said to him, "I will not leave here until you tell me whose table this is." God said to the wife of the wicked Turnus Rufus, when they came out of the cave, her mouth was stopped, and they praised and thanked Him who said, "The world was made." They said, "Blessed are you righteous, blessed are you followers, blessed are you workers of Torah. What is stored up for you and what is hidden for you, as it is written, "How great is your goodness, which you have laid up for those who fear you," etc. (Psalms 31:20).

(See also the parallel in Yom 19:2, on "For in the cloud I will appear over the cover," and look carefully.)

Although Rehmat had another explanation. He truly died for the sanctification of God, and gave himself up for it. And what did Avtariya answer?!

The Sages describe a dialogue between Moses and God about the death of Re'a (Menachot 29b and parallels):

Rav Yehuda said, Rav said: When Moses ascended to heaven, they found the Blessed One sitting and tying crowns to letters. He said before him: Rabbi Sha'ar, who is hindering you? He said to him: There is a man who is destined to be at the end of several generations, and his name is Akiva ben Yosef, who is destined to teach about every thorn and thorn, line by line, of the laws. He said before him: Rabbi Sha'ar, show him to me. He said to him: Go back. He went and sat down at the end of eight lines, and he did not know what they said, and his strength was exhausted. When he reached one word, his disciples said to him: Rabbi, where did you get it from? He said to them: The law came to Moses from Sinai, and his mind was settled.

He returned and came before God, Blessed be He, and said before Him: Master of the Universe, do you have such a person and do you give Torah through him? He said to him: Be silent, that is what came to my mind.

He said before him: Master of the universe, show me His Torah, show me His reward, he said to him: Go back. He went back, saw that his flesh was being weighed in pieces, he said before him: Rabbi Sha'a, is this Torah and this is its reward? God: Be silent, that is what came to my mind.

When God is asked, "Is this Torah and is this its reward?" He replies: "Be silent! That is what occurred to me."

After the death of the great silent one, silence is lacking in the world. There is no longer a voice that emerges from the silence (see Rashi, 1 Kings 1:59, 12), since the great voice of the Rebbe has already been added (=decreed. See in the translations of Deuteronomy, 5:18). Therefore, the Blessed One is trying to continue the silence of the Rebbe (='added' in the second meaning), and He commands us to remain silent even after the end of the Rebbe's silence.

And we have no choice but to fulfill His commandment, and to remain silent. We will remain silent loudly, and we will continue to remain silent until His lips are exhausted from saying enough is enough for us, in the form of a "great voice (that comes out of the silence) and does not add." May it be fulfilled in us that 'The words of the rabbi and the silence of the disciple, words of whom will we hear?!'

When the cloud covers the Tent of Meeting, it is probably impossible to enter there. This is a situation in which "permission has been given to the terrorists to sabotage." While some may try to push their way in, explain, and disperse the cloud, this scripture tells us that in these cases one must remain outside, as "with Aaron's hand," and not seek explanations and excuses. Not even the 'excuses' of God Himself.

And Wittgenstein already wrote about this at the end of his Tractatus:

And what cannot be spoken about, one must remain silent about…

Generally, the Jewish ethos is to seek meaning and significance for everything that happens to us, according to the Rish and not the R'a. This is probably the reason for all the explanations and excuses we hear for every such incident. But the R'a teaches us that sometimes when we don't have a good explanation, it is better to remain silent. These explanations are probably the ones that God, the Almighty, is supposed to provide us. And a narrow explanation, or a disconnected and unconvincing explanation, is better not to be said at all.

One scripture says: "She is a tree of life to those who hold her fast." And reality screams and says the opposite: "What are her horrors?" We have no third verse here, neither to interpret nor to guide. We have already had enough of the narrow and learned explanations. "This is a measure in the Torah"...

Appendix (now attached, 5771)

We are accustomed to attributing everything that happens to us in this world to God. Naturally, a believing Jew levels his claims and complaints against his Creator. Sometimes he is also silent towards his Creator, and utters a voice towards him that comes out of the silence, in the form of "Vaidum Aharon." So much for the thesis, and now the antithesis.

It is important to understand that when people choose to do evil, to murder or harm, it is their decision and not God's, and the responsibility is on them and not on Him (except that He does not intervene and prevent it). God decided to give us the responsibility for our actions, and the ability to manage the world with our actions and choices. If He were to intervene and prevent us from doing evil, then de facto the choice would be taken away from us (since we could only do good).

Chazal in Tractate Makot (10b) explain why the punishment of exile is imposed on an unintentional murderer:

Rabbi Ben Lakish opened the chapter with a verse from this passage: +Exodus 21+ and he who did not hunt, and God was near him, etc., +1 Samuel 24+ When the proverb of the ancients says, "From the wicked comes the wicked," etc., what is the scripture talking about? In two people who killed a soul, one killed unintentionally and the other killed intentionally, there are no witnesses to this and there are no witnesses to this, God, blessed be He, invites them to one inn. The one who killed unintentionally sits under the ladder, and the one who killed unintentionally descends the ladder and falls on him and kills him. The one who killed intentionally is killed, and the one who killed unintentionally is exiled.

The Sages explain that the punishment of exile imposed on the murderer is the result of a previous act. God caused him to commit an accidental murder in order to impose a punishment of exile on him. On the other hand, it is unlikely that in order to impose a punishment of exile on a person, God would kill another person who did not deserve to die.

If so, the picture that emerges from this is that everything that happens to a person is in the hands of God. This is contrary to the claim above. It is indeed a bit puzzling why the Sages do not explain the same thing about intentional murder, since both the murderer and the murdered apparently deserved death, and therefore God, blessed be He, rolled it over on them in this way.

From this it seems that it is truly incorrect to conceive of intentional murder in this way. If Reuven intentionally murdered Shimon, it is not necessary that Shimon deserved to die. And indeed, we explicitly state this in the issue of Hagiga 5:1, which discusses the question of whether 'one perishes without trial.' And here the Rabbi writes a short sentence there, which says this:

And the solution is "some perish without justice" – such as a man who killed his friend.

This sentence is a bit confusing. Why does the Rabbinic Rabbinate connect the situation of death that does not come to a person (=without trial) with murder? Why not a car accident, or death from an illness?

It turns out that he means to say that only in murder is it possible for a person to die without trial. Any other death that comes to a person is a death that he deserves. But if Reuven decides to murder Shimon, Shimon may die even if he does not deserve to die. He is what I said above.

And the question really arises here: what is the difference between intentional murder and any other death (accidental murder or death from disease, etc.)?

The answer lies in understanding the essence of choice. Every event in the world occurs through the action and direction of God. The only exception is a person's action out of choice. Here, God does not determine what will happen, but He lets the person determine it. If a person dies a natural death, this is the work of God, and then there is probably a reason why he deserved to die. But if a person is murdered by his friend, this can also happen without him deserving to die. If his friend chose to murder him, God gave him free rein, even to choose evil.

And what about accidental murder? Here, although it is an action of a person, it is an action without intention. Precisely because of this, it is clear that the murderer is not the real perpetrator, but rather the one who turns the course of events, namely God. Therefore, it is clear that in accidental murder, the person who died should have died, and God turns it around through the accidental murderer. This is probably why the Sages explain the matter of the inn specifically with regard to an accidental murderer.

The conclusion is that a person's action that is done out of free choice and decision is his action. Any other action (such as an accidental action) is not considered his action, but rather that of God, who guides and directs him. Therefore, we are not usually punished for an accidental action (unless there is negligence). And even where we find punishment for an accidental offense, it is punishment for the negligence and not for the consequences (the death of the other person).

So, while murders like this are incomprehensible, we have no explanation for them, what and why God did this to us. But in reality, it was not God who did this, but those murderous savages.

[1] Of course, the blasphemy is not their fault. The situation itself is blasphemy.