Tag Archive for Moshe and Aharon

Opposites attract

This article was constructed with the help of either writings, lectures or shiurim of Rabbi’s Naftali Ganzvi,  Lori Rodin,  Asher Herzberg, Yossi Bilus, Yitschak Adlerstien, Mendal Kalmanson, Uri Sklar, Ilan Feder

Look at how time flies! This week we conclude the book of Shemot, and wow! we haven’t even had Purim yet, due to the leap year, two months of Adar. In this week’s Torah portion, the Mishkan -Tabernacle has been completed and the inauguration immanent. Moshe and Aharon, two brothers, the leaders of the Jewish people, probably, the most successful brothers that have taken a leadership role in the history of civilization, have guided the Jews in becoming a nation. Actually, for that matter, Moshe is considered the greatest leader ever. This was accomplished by their tremendous love to the Master of the Universe.
There is a tremendous lesson one can learn from these intriguing two brothers, Moshe and Aharon and how they were able to gel together, have the utmost respect for each other, even though they were raised in different setting. Moshe grew up in prominence, a prince in the house of Pharaoh. Aharon was reared amongst his brethren, the slaves. Even more challenging, how they were able to be so productive and run a nation.  Although, it was a time of open miracles and the fact that the two had enormous fate helped elevate their effort to a supernatural way we still have to examine the relationship between the greatest leader and the charismatic and holy Kohen Gadol, Moshe and Aharon.
 Their relationship was a delight; it was a far cry from some of the previous sibling relationships which we learned about in the book of Bereshit; Yaacov and Eisav, Yishmael and Yitzchak, Kayin and Hevel, and Yosef and his brothers. And if we examine the Parshiot and Medrashim closely we can see the difference in personality was very apparent. It seemed like Moshe and Aharon were opposites.
 The relationship between man, wife and G-d is intriguing and we can learn a tremendous insight, which is also is found in these last parshiot.  The Mishkan, which is discussed in all of the last four parshiot, was constructed on the donations of the Jewish nation. One of the vessels, the Kiyor was made out of copper and was donated by the Jewish women. The wives gave their mirrors through which they prepared and beautified themselves for their husbands.
 Moshe at first was reluctant and even verbally opposed to accept the mirrors citing that it came from lust and passion. These type of subject matters should be left in the private bedroom not the holy temple.
 However G-d interceded and told Moshe to accept the Mirrors. On the contrary it would be an honor considering the self-sacrifice and courage of these women who devised a plan to persuade their husband after a grueling day of being tortured and overworked by the Egyptians to have relations for the sake of having children and ensure Jewish continuity.
 The question posed: Granted if it was such a commendable and courageous act orchestrated by our holy mothers, then why wasn’t Moshe able to come to the same conclusion himself?   It is made more intriguing by the fact that Moshe just returned from the heavens after spending a total of 120 days there.  One would figure if you spend time with G-d one might have an edge and be proficient in these matters.
 Secondly, where was Aharon? He was a man of peace, a man who understood all the marital difficulties. Considering he felt and witnessed the pain of the people during the morbid time of servitude, he should have spoken out as well!
Aharon was Moshe right hand man.  A closer reading of the Torah’s account reveals the leadership of Israel to have been a team effort: ever present at Moses’ side is his older brother, Aaron. At times Aaron’s role is strongly pronounced, at times it is scarcely discernible, but he is always there.
When Moshe confronts Pharaoh, it is together with Aaron, who plays a major role in performing the miracles and bringing on the plagues that force the release of the Israelites. When G-d commands His first mitzvah to the Jewish people, it is addressed “to Moshe and to Aaron”-a phrase that often appears in the Torah amidst the many “G-d spoke to Moses” introductions to its laws. When the people complain, it is “to Moshe and to Aaron” that they address their grievances; when Korach challenged Moshe’s leadership, it was a rebellion also (indeed, primarily) against Aaron’s place in the leadership.
What is the difference between the two? There are two ways to get a sinner to repent: Through words of reproach, or through a hug.
 Moses’ first recorded words in the Bible, uttered upon seeing a Hebrew fistfight, are: “Why are you beating your fellow [even if he is wicked like you]? Moses didn’t beat around the bush. He reprimanded his brethren out of concern.
If Aaron had been there he might have said it differently. As the Midrash recounts: “When Aaron would pass a wicked man, he would greet him warmly. The next day, when the wicked man would want to engage in sin, he would think to himself, ‘Woe is to me! How will I be able to look upon Aaron tomorrow when he greets me with love?'” Aaron transformed people through love and his confidence in them.
The different approaches of Moshe and Aaron are summed up in the Midrashic statement: “Aaron would never mention a person’s sin to them, while Moses would rebuke them.”
It’s not that Aaron didn’t care about their spiritual wellbeing. Nothing could be further from the truth. “Hillel said: Be of the disciples of Aaron, who loved his fellow creatures and drew them close to Torah.”
Aaron shared Moshe’ passion for drawing people close to G-d. His modus operandi, however, was his all-embracing attitude, directed even at those whose only redeeming factor was that they were G-d’s creatures.
Moshe was a man of truth, Aaron of peace. Moshe sought justice, Aaron sought resolution to conflict. There is a real difference between these two approaches. Truth, justice, law: the Moshe approach. Mediation, conflict resolution, compromise, the Aaron-type virtues. With these two approaches a nation was born. Perhaps we have to think similarly, in our lives. How to be productive and how to accomplish it in the optimal way. We have to find people weather a wife, business partner or a mere friend that do not possess the same qualities as us but quite the contrary.
 Besides for Moshe and Aharon, the Torah bring a classic example of a relationship right at the start of the Torah, Adam and Eve.
The Torah stated that “It is not good for man to be alone”. What was “not good” about Adam’s condition without Chava that led to her creation? Our first reaction assumes that Adam desperately needed Chava, because without her, he could not continue humankind beyond his own lifetime. It was “not good” that he found himself unable to reproduce. It is impossible, however, that the Torah meant that Chava was created to allow Man to procreate. Why would Man have been created any differently from any other animal species, whose reproductive capacity was assured with its creation?
 The Torah must mean something quite different. The females of other species make themselves available to mate, but not for anything substantially more. They do not enter into a life-long identification with a single male.
This state of affairs was “not good.” G-d therefore announces that He would make the human female different from the female of other species. Woman will be at Man’s side throughout his life.
This turns out to be a complex change from the prevailing model in the animal kingdom, and not a simple one. Man carries within him many capacities which vary enormously between individuals. No single skill set would enable Woman to complement Man, to help him in all his pursuits, at all junctures of his life. Woman was therefore given flexibility and plasticity. She would be able to partner with her mate in whatever he pursued. Standing “opposite him” is a perfect way of expressing this. She would not fill a particular need or group of needs, but would round out his activity and personality in myriad ways. “Opposite him” is not a vague description of assigned role, but testimony to her possession of many talents. It means that she was created to be opposite him, to offer a different voice and perspective from his, particularly when he acts out on some deficiency.
A person whose behavior at a given moment is shaped by some character flaw might enjoy and appreciate the full support of his wife. This, of course, is short-sighted and counterproductive. His real interests are much better served by a wife who is critical of him, when her criticism is delivered for a constructive purpose. He won’t learn unless someone is there to point out his errors and deficiencies. He might wince in pain at her opposition, but by preventing him from acting inappropriately, she acts as his true helper. Her opposition is the best assistance he can receive; it is no genuine opposition at all
This is precisely what Sages mean. If he merits, her opposition itself will help him. If he does not merit the good wife, she will not oppose his baser behavior, but go along with all he does, including activities that are harmful to him. The cheerful assistance of the yes-woman may bring a short-sighted smile to his face, but it gets him nowhere in the long run. Her apparent help and assistance are inconsistent with his best interests.
 It’s a misconception that while dating one is looking for similar qualities to themselves. Interestingly, many lectures plead not to pursue that thought pattern. I don’t think they needs to plea, or beg, for naturally subconsciously, one is looking for what they lack.
 The construction of the Tabernacle and the service in it is a case in point. In the Parshah of Tetzaveh we read how G-d assigns to Aaron and his sons the responsibility of conducting the service in the Tabernacle: they are to represent the people in the endeavor to approach and interact with G-d by offering sacrifices to Him and performing the other services in the Sanctuary. This would seem to designate the Tabernacle as Aaron’s “domain.” Yet, as mentioned above, it is Moses who must construct the Tabernacle. And it is Moses who must initiate Aaron into the priesthood. For seven days, Moses is to serve as a Kohen (in effect assuming Aaron’s role), offering the sacrifices brought by Aaron and his sons. The Tabernacle is indeed Aaron’s domain-after the seven-day initiation period. Why then didn’t Aharon assume the position from the beginning?
The reason is Moshe is ISH ELOKIM man of G-d. Whereas Aharon is the man of the people. The initial jump start, the bridge between man and G-d is best suited through Moshe. However thereafter it’s the man who identifies with the people who will be best suited for the position.
One can understand Moshe’s view as to why the mirrors would be inappropriate for the Mishkan services, however, G-d overturned the decision; Moshe was incorrect in his assessment of the matter. Nevertheless there was no complaint at all towards Moshe. There was no reprimand as to how he did not know the answer even though he was with G-d for 120 days in the heavens. Moshe was concerned about our holy mother’s intention, perhaps it was physical desire that led them to be with their husbands. If that was the case, although they would be perfectly in the right to live with their husbands and bond with them especially in this great difficult time, it, though, would not be appropriate for the temple services. However G-d is G-d and he knows what is in everybody’s heart and examined the holy righteous mothers and knew that their intentions were pure. The wives wanted to build a family, a nation. Moshe would have never have known this for it is only G-d who examines the intentions of living being.
The classic pasukim in the Torah describing two brothers who love each other are in Tehillim: “A Song of Ascents to David: Behold how good and how pleasant is it when brothers dwell together in unity. Like the precious oil upon the head running down upon the beard, the beard of Aharon, running down over his garments.” [Tehillim 133:1-2]. The phrase “brothers dwelling together in unity” (sheves achim gam yachad) refers to Moshe and Aharon. They are the quintessential “sheves achim gam yachad”. Aharon was happy for Moshe’s success and his elevation to leadership status and then when Moshe Rabbeinu saw that Aharon faltered, he nullified himself to ensure that Aharon retained the glory due him. Moshe and Aharon’s relationship is what we would all like to see among brothers — among our children and our siblings, namely the state of “Behold how good and pleasant is it when brothers dwell together in unity.”

 

Sibling Rivalry

This article was constructed with the help of either writings, lectures or shiurim of  Rabbi’s Yisschar Frand, Berel Wein  Baruch Dopelt, Yossi Bilus, Dr. Abba Goldman and Mr. Shmuel Yosipov

Siblings’ rivalry.  A number of years ago in the most coveted sport events of the year, where 100 million viewers tuned in, Footballs highest honor, the two best teams that played the Ravens and the 49ers had an interesting twist in their story line. Baltimore Ravens head coach John Harbaugh and his younger brother Jim, head man of the San Francisco 49ers, became the first pair of brothers to coach against each other in the Super Bowl. If one thinks that’s super, in the early 1960’s President John F Kennedy needed help to run a super power and named his younger brother Robert -the Attorney General. Here are two brothers heading the most powerful country in the world.
 Whether it be the Marx brothers,  Groucho, Chico, Harpo and Zeppo making the world laugh or watching the parents of the Williams sisters, who competed against each other on Tennis’s grand stage, uncomfortably not knowing who to cheer for, siblings can put the best performance, on the highest level, out there!!!.
There is something very interesting in this week’s Parshiot that one should take note.  Parshat Acharei-Mot contains the list of forbidden sexual relationships. Vayikra 18:18 contains the Biblical prohibition for a person to marry his wife’s sister. In expressing this prohibition, the Torah uses the word “litzror” [to make a co-wife].
The Ramban comments: This verb expresses the reason for this prohibition. Most of the forbidden relations (e.g. — mother-in-law, daughter-in-law, etc.) were simply forbidden without stating a reason. However, the Torah does state a reason by a sister-in-law, namely that it is inappropriate to make two sisters into co-wives of the same husband. These two women should ideally love one another. Placing them into a situation of rivalry will inevitably cause those who should have been best of friends to have a hostile relationship with one another.
The Ramban continues: The Torah does not state this regarding a daughter or mother of one’s wife, because they remain to be forbidden even after his wife’s death (unlike the situation with the sisters, where a sister is permitted to marry her brother-in-law if her sister — his first wife – dies). The Ramban distinguishes between the “ervah”-forbidden relations of two sisters and that of other relations. Here the Torah did not forbid the marriage because of “ervah” but because of the social harm it would bring to the sibling relationship, which at any rate is subject to rivalry. To avoid aggravating that natural sibling rivalry to intolerable levels, the Torah forbade a man to simultaneously be married to two sisters. The proof that this prohibition is different than all the others (and that it is not because of “ervah” or “she’er basar” [close relationship] but for some other reason) is the very fact that the prohibition expires upon the death of one of the sisters.
We learn two novel ideas from this Ramban.
First, we see from the fact that the Torah includes this prohibition in the chapter of forbidden relationships (arayot) that the Torah treats the matter of causing sisters to hate one another with the same severity as it treats the cardinal sin of arayot.
Second, we see how important it is in the eyes of the Torah for children to get along with one another. The Torah bans two sisters from marrying the same person for the simple reason that the Torah does not want siblings to fight with each other. Whether we are ourselves siblings or whether we are parents who have children who are siblings, we all know that this is indeed a very big challenge.
As a matter of fact, the book of Bereishit, which comprises a substantial part of the entire written Torah, contains within it almost no commandments and is basically a book of narrative tracing the development of one family – eventually seventy in number – and of the difficulties that this family encountered over generations, purposely waits till the very end, till we finally correct the flaw we’ve had throughout the book, where then the family is elevated to a nation.
One has to realize the first man, Adam’ sons, Kayin and Hevel did not get along. Moreover, the pattern continues, Yitzchak and Yishmael, Yaacov and Eisav, Leah and Rachel, Yosef and his brothers didn’t see eye to eye either.
It wasn’t till the end of the book, where we see that Menashe, Yosef’ eldest son, not bothered by his grandfather Yaakov placing his right hand over his younger brother Efraim where he gave a more important blessing. It’s no coincidence that the optimal blessing is, one should be like Efraim and Menashe.
The book concludes with Yosef and his brothers at peace with each other. Unity is in place with the fine end taste of Efraim and Menashe – the ultimate “giving” brothers.
When we start the next book, Shemot, it’s no coincidence that we find nation is led by two brothers Moshe and Aharon. We learn in the beginning of the story line, one of the reasons, that Moshe was not willing to take the mantle of leading the Israelites out of Egypt was that his older brother Aharon might be slighted. It wasn’t until G-d reassured him that quite the opposite – Aharon will be elated with Moshe being chosen over him. It seems like a healthier family structure: where the respect and sensitivity replaces jealousy and strife, found all too often in Bereishit.

There is a famous Midrash (a body of interpretations of Torah texts along with instructional stories as taught by Chazal (Rabbinical Jewish sages of the post-Temple era) that provide an intrinsic analysis to passages in the Tanach.) where there were two brothers, a rich man, who was married with a big family, and a poor man who was not married who were concerned about the other’s well-being. They lived on the opposite side of the mountain. The rich man, at night, secretly placed grains in his brother’s property; knowingly he would be too ashamed and not accept his kindness. He rationalized my brother is too poor and has nobody to look after him. While the poor man, at night also secretly placed grains in his brother’s possessions reasoning my brother has a big family and would find it difficult, for he has too much on his mind, to  fetch the grains himself.
One night as the both, covertly, were going to the other, they unexpectedly collided on the top of the mountain. Startled and surprised, they realized it was the other who were placing the grain at the other one’s property where then they joyfully embraced. G-d loved the moment and the tremendous affection they showed one another so much that He proclaimed this site, on top of the mountain, is where the Temple will be built.
 My Mother had mentioned that when she and my father migrated to this country, basically without family, they were joined by another couple whom they arrived together with on the same ship. She mentioned fondly that she had such an intense friendship with her, Nurit Alibayof, the first year, not surprising since they had no family and difficulty in language and culture. Although I wasn’t born yet, however, when I did experience how they interacted years later, I could not imagine their friendship any better for it was very strong for 50 years until Nurit’s death. However, it seems the closeness my mother has with her sister is quite different in nature. That too is one of extreme closeness. The common bond of having the same parents, same gender, similar of age and same upbringing translates to a very powerful closeness which I’ve experienced and observed over the years. Similarly, my wife and her sister have a relationship that has that sibling/of the same gender great intensity.

However, for the most part siblings of the same gender are more prone to fighting sometimes in the most vicious and extraordinary way. Despite the odds though, we have to look at the flip side, the same gender sibling relationship could positively be translated as extremely productive and for that reason, perhaps, the Torah does not want to tamper with that relationship.
What are the measures to prevent the “bad blood” between the two siblings? One has to realize as Dr. Goldman says, that “it’s all up to the parents, they set the stage; the atmosphere is in their hands”. He mentioned one method often used to motivate a child to excel is to belittle his actions by showing the other sibling doing better. Although it might be a motivation, however, animosity, jealousy and tension will develop among the siblings. An inevitable common thought will be “Mommy and Daddy love you more than me” enraging the rivalry. The mother and father as well as teacher and camp counselor are leaders and set the tone. The mother and the father have to show that they enjoy their children’s company. Often parents come home from work not wanting to be disturbed. They are doing an injustice to their children. A happy “I want to come home to my family” attitude has to be presented!
It’s very important that a child not feel slighted in any way. I met a parent who is sending one of his twins to one school and another to a different school. I asked him, “wouldn’t just sending them to different classes in the grade be sufficient? Why go to the extreme of a different school altogether? He answered, his wife is a twin and she often felt slighted even in separate classes. Besides, he continued, often schools don’t have same level grades, it’s the “A” class and the “B” class.
The main message of the “midrash” of the two bothers on the mountain is one of brotherly love and ahavat chinam. The pasuk in Tehillim (Psalm 133:1) states: “Hinei matov u’mah naim, shevet achim gam yachad, Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity. There is something very primal about brotherly love, which may explain why it is so difficult to achieve, and why it is such a rare, valuable gem when find it. Dovid HaMelech wrote about the very thing Yaakov wanted to do: settle among “settled brothers.” Alas, the fulfillment of his dream was premature, not achieving completion in his lifetime, the lifetime of Yosef, or even, within the lifetimes of his surviving brothers.
In fact, we’re still waiting……..
May we speedily in our day have the unity that will lead to the Temple being rebuilt on Mount Moriah.