Adar--The Herald of Dawn

Rav Aharon Kahn, Rosh Yeshiva and Rosh Kollel Elyon

Nissan is both month and season. It is the month of Pesach and the season of ge’ulah. , Nissan, springtime of the earth, suggests spiritual rebirth and national renewal. We know Nissan well. Less known is that Adar too is a month of renewal and redemption. Purim appears in the very center of Adar exactly thirty days before Pesach. Purim and Pesach are jewels encased in their own vernal matrices, their springtime months. Like Purim itself, with its images of ayeles hashachar, of the transforms from Veho’ir Shushan novocho to vehoir Shushan tzohalo vesomeycho, the month of Adar is nexus of darkness and dawn, it is winter’s end and springtime’s promise. Adar is Nissan’s ayeles hashachar. Adar breaks our long-held assumptions and delivers us from our banalities and commonplaces. Adar insists that, in darkness, light is possible. Adar talks of change, of transformation. Adar denies us our inertia and demands that we begin to dream again. Adar teaches us not to be afraid to dream of ge’ulah. It is only after Adar’s initiation that we can embrace Nissan and accept ge’ulah’s gifts.

It is quite remarkable that HaShem has to coax the messenger who will preach the redemption. But this is what we read in Yeshayahu 40:9. Al har govo’ah ‘ali loch mevaseres Tzion, horimi bako’ach kolaych mevaseres Yerushalayim, horimi, al tiro’i, imri le’oray Yehudah hinei Elokeichem. Ascend upon a high mountain, O herald (fem.) of Tzion, raise your voice with strength, O herald (fem.) of Yerushalayim. Raise it, fear not; say to the cities of Yehudah: Behold, your G-d. Al tiro’i--do not fear. What is there to fear? The message is so precious, so wonderful, so luminous. The ge’ulah is here, Moshi’ach is coming. Imagine the red carpet that will be rolled out for the mevaseres! Why, then, will she afraid?

This mevaseres (note the feminine!) has an alter ego. In Yeshayahu 52:7: Mah novu al hehorim raglei mevaser (note here the masculine!) Mashmi’a sholom mevaser tov, mashmi’a yeshu’ah, omayr leTzion molach Elokoyich. How pleasant are the footsteps of the herald (masc.) upon the mountains, announcing peace, heralding good tidings, announcing salvation, saying unto Tzion: Your G-d has reigned! HaShem does not need to coax the mevaser, why is not the mevaser afraid? Why should the mevaseres be afraid?

The answer, I believe, lies in the roles of the mevaseres and the mevaser, respectively. They both announce the ge'ulah, but whereas the mevaser develops an already evident reality, the mevaseres must introduce, afresh, the idea of ge’ulah to a skeptic, tired people. There is a vast difference between: Hineh Elokeychem and Molach Elokoyich. Molach, He has reigned, is past tense. HaShem’s rule is a tangible, tested reality. The mevaseres calls forth from the darkness of golus that the ge’ulah is almost here, the mevaser comes after and says that the ge’ulah is changing everything.

The ge’ulah is coming? Haven’t we heard that before? Will it last? Is it really true? Can it be true? And it is so dark outside and Eisav is so menacing. Yes, there will be resistance and doubt. There will be doubt which the mevaseres must overcome, and there will be resistance which the mevaseres must ignore. The mevaseres knows there will be no red carpet, no reception committee. She will be lucky if a handful of enthusiasts greet her on the tarpaulin. So the mavaseres is afraid.

And what of those who refuse to be redeemed, who are so of a piece with their golus surroundings that they call golus home and build to stay. "What," queried the villager’s wife of her husband, "the Rabbi said that when Moshi’ach comes we have to go to Eretz Yisroel?" "Yes my dear." "And what about the goat?" "I don’t know. He didn’t say anything about taking the goat." "Go back and tell your Rabbi, if the goat stays, I stay."

So the mevaseres is afraid, and lonely. Alone in her knowledge of ge’ulah, trying to sell ge’ulah in the marketplace of false jewels and spurious charms, she will discover that her wares entice few, excite few. She is a harbinger, an ayeles hashachar. But for all her preaching it is still dark outside. And so she needs desperately the encouraging word of her Master. Horimi, al tiro’i. Say to the cities of Yehudah: Behold, Hashem is here! Do you not see Him? But He is here, and it is time. And you will see. You will grow new eyes and feel with a new heart. And then it will be so obvious, so eternally implicit. You will read your history all over again and it will be a different history.

When the mevaser comes, the path has been paved by that mevaseres, the light has dawned already, and he, this mevaser, gambols from hill to mound and excites everyone with the implications of a ge’ulah which they know and want.

The mevaseres, Esther, Ayeles HaShachar, she is the women of all our generations. She is the mother who waits with inner joy her nine month’s gestation, carrying the future in an adumbrating womb. She is the mother who suffers even more the pangs of life-giving labor. Al tir’i ki gam zeh loch ben. The mevaseres is a Miriam who refutes her father’s paralyzing pessimism and opens a window to yetzias mitrayim. The mevaseres is a generation of women who know that Moshe is coming and who refuse to succumb to the temptations of yi’ush. They will not join in the making of the golden calf. The mevaseres is the woman who hears the meraglim and laughs them off. She knows. HaShem has promised. They will not anguish in the meraglim’s panic, in the national despair. To this mevaseres HaShem says: horimi al tiro’i.

The mevaseres is the Adar to the mevaser’s Nisson. And it is Megillas Esther. Not megillas Mordechai. The mevaseres is a feminine perception. (See also Rashi to Yeshayahu 40:9.)

Purim itself teaches this message of a dawn still implicit in the darkness, of a ge’ulah that seems to come out of the most unlikely circumstances. Purim’s recipe for a redemption-torte seems to demand bitter ingredients. And on-the-brink, shifting-fortunes, elements of surprise are everywhere present in the megillah. The whole of the megillah seems to resonate with this one message: to see Me you must have faith! So HaShem’s name is not written into the megillah even once! It is the mevaseres’ message out of the darkness of near despair: Hineh Elokeychem! Nothing can be spelled out. It is all implication, all forcing the reader to be the careful student, the attentive explorer. The mevaseres is like the desperate sailor who shouts from high up on the crow’s nest: "Land ahoy." And we are like his mates below, who, because they are on the ship’s deck, see nothing but the endless sea. Now the test: If the mevaseres comes, will we say, with the mevaseres, Hineh Elokechem?

Sifrei Minhogim bring the custom of placing a plaque with the words Mishenichnas Adar Marbim Besimchah in one’s house, at the beginning of Adar. Exactly where should this plaque be placed? Over the amoh by amoh section of wall which every Jew leaves unfinished as a zecher lechurban. Though still in a profound golus, we mask the darkness that surround us by the light of our emunah and we march on to greet the mevaseres, eager to hear: Hineh Elokeichem. And when do we do this? Mishenichnas Adar. Adar, the month of ayeles hashachar, when all things are possible and yet to happen.

Nice Threads

Elly Gamss

Following the directives on building the Mishkan, Hashem informs Moshe of the specifics for producing the priestly vestments, the Bigdei Kehunah. In Shemos 28:2 the need for these garments is outlined: L’chavod U'lesifares, for honor and glory. The commentators seem troubled by the implication of these words. Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh understands the passuk as relating to Aharon's honor. Seforno chooses to interpret that these vestments would be to Hashem’s honor and glorification. Rambam explains that by clothing the Kohanim in these, the Beis HaMikdash would be exalted. Ramban explains the passuk as having duel connotation, for the honor of Hashem as well as for the Kohen. Another suggested explanation is that, as the spiritual leader of Klal Yisrael, the Kohen Gadol must be adorned in these clothes because his honor is linked to Hashem’s.

It is clear that the importance of the priestly garments resulted from their inclusion in the service in the Beis Hamikdash. Their centrality to the Avodah is manifest in the fact that a Kohen is deserving of Heavenly punishment for serving without them. (see Rambam Klei Hamikdash 8:10) Chazal, in many places, allude to the special capabilities bestowed upon these garments, also reflecting their importance. Through them, Bnei Yisrael were able to ask questions of Hashem, be healed from sickness, and receive atonement for sin.

This power was sometimes misused, utilized for personal motives. Gemara Megillah 12a explains through a gzeira shava that Achashveirosh donned the Bigdei Kehuna. Kli Yakar (Shmos 28:39) explains that Achashveirosh was aware of the powers of the garments and was mistakenly convinced that they would save him from Hashem’s wrath. Based on a Medrash Chazal (Megilla 12b), Kli Yakar further explains that Achashveirosh arranged certain aspects of his banquets to parallel the sacrifices of the Beis Hamikdash in order to ensure his absolution. He mistakenly thought that successful performance of a mitzvah hinges solely on action, irrespective of context and therefore believed that merely wearing the Bigdei Kehuna outside the Mikdash would save him.

Achashveirosh was oblivious to the fact that one is successful only by performing mitzvos as Hashem has dictated. As the pressures of school begin to mount as midterms approach, we must continue our active pursuit of a deeper relationship with Hashem. Let our efforts merit a hurried reinstitution of the Bigdei Kehuna in the Beis Hamikdash, Bimheira B'yameinu.

Order in the Mishkan Court

Noam Silverman

We find ourselves in the midst of the parshiyos discussing the Mishkan. The Torah goes in to great detail concerning the measurements and exact details of the Mishkan. However, the Torah never mentions if God always desired the Mishkan be built or if the worship of God by way of the Mishakan was not meant as a lechatchila venue. This question becomes stronger in light of the strange order of the parshiyos. Parshiyos Yisro and Mishpatim deal with Matan Torah. Then in Parshiyos Terumah and Tetzave, the Torah moves on to deal with the Mishkan V'keilav. However in parshas Ki-Tisa the Torah describes the Golden Calf and then in parshiyos Vayakhel and Pekudei the Torah reverts back to the Mishkan and discusses the actual building of the Mishkan. In what order did these events occur: the commandment to build the Mishkan, Matan Torah and than Cheit HaEgel or did the latter precede the former chronologically?

Rashi, in order to resolve this question invokes the problematic rule "ein mukdam umeuchar baTorah"(Shmos 31:18) to suggest that really Cheit HaEgel is not in its chronological place. The tzivui for the Mishkan, according to Rashi, had to come after Matan Torah and Cheit HaEgel.

The Ramban disagrees with Rashi for two reasons. He generally does not like using "ein mukdam umeuchar". More fundamentally, however, the Ramban is unwilling to accept the tzivui for the Mishkan to have occurred only after the Golden Calf. The Ramban explains in the beginning of parshas Terumah that the Mishkan was meant to reenact Gilui Shchina on a daily basis but on a smaller scale. For Ramban, the Mishakan was to serve as an ideal venue for avodas Hashem.

However, Rashi, who explains that the tzivui for the Mishkan occurred only after Cheit HaEgel, views the command to build the Mishkan as a direct outcome of the sin. The Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim III:32) clarifies this point. He explains that the ideal form of avodas Hashem is not through ritualistic means, but by way of intellect alone. However, when Am Yisrael worshipped the egel it became apparent that they were not on a high enough spiritual level to serve God in the originally intended mode. In essence, the worship of the egel was directly influenced by the pagan nations of that time. Everyone else's worship of their gods through rituals appealed to Am Yisrael. Therefore, the command to build the Mishkan was only an outcome of Cheit HaEegel.

May we be successful in becoming true Ovdei Hashem as was originally intended.

Halachic Discussion

Magen Avraham, Mitznefes, and Me
Menachem Schechter

Rashi (Shmos 28,37) cites the fact that a space was present between the tzitz, the Kohen Gagol’s golden headband, and the mitznefes, his turban. The gemara (Zevachim 19a) notes that this spot was the location of the Kohen Gadol’s tfillin shel rosh. Using this fact, the gemara explains why the Kohen Gadol is prohibited from wearing tfillin shel yad, which constitutes a chatzitza between his priestly clothes and his priestly skin, while is only exempted from donning tfillin shel rosh. Despite the necessity for direct apposition of turban to head, as commanded in the parshah V'Samta HaMitznefes Al Rosho (29,6), the tfillin could theoretically be placed between the tzitz and mitznefes.

The Rosh (Hilchos Tfillin 18, Tshuvos 3:4, see Beis Yosef) infers that the tfillin shel rosh could not have been worn on top of the mitznefes, necessitating the Kohen's narrow placement. The Rashba (Megilla 24b; Tshuvos 3:282) disputes the point, maintaining that the mitznefes would not have presented a separation between tfillin and head. The Shulchan Aruch (O.Ch. 27:4) rules that a person who, due to a susceptibility to the cold, could not otherwise fulfill the mitzvah of tfillin shel rosh could lay his tfillin on a thin hat or head covering. The Magen Avraham, who extends the law to laying tfillin atop a bandage, reiterates the Shulchan Aruch’s limitation to a thin head covering, which would still allow the wearer to position the bayis on the correct area of the skull. Oddly, the origin of the Shulchan Aruch’s leniency, the Rashba, referred specifically to the mitznefes of the Kohen Gadol, a decidedly not thin hat, according to pictures and Purim costumes.

In truth, the Rishonim debate the precise appearance of the mitznefes. Ramban (Shmos 28:31) disputes Rashi's description (28:4) of the Kohen Gadol's headgear as a tall meshed hat and maintains that mitznefes refers to a wrapped turban. If the Rashba adopted the Ramban's opinion, the Shulchan Aruch's proposed limitation can be justified. Interestingly, the Rambam (Klei HaMikdash 8:2) details the varience of the mitznefes from the Kohen Hedyot's migba'as by describing the Kohen Gadol's headgear as similar to the dressing of a head wound; The Magen Avraham's example of bandaging may, in fact, be implicit in the Rashba's psak.

Current Issue | Archives | Subscribe Now | Editors & Credits | Back Home


© Publication of the Student Organization of Yeshiva University - March 5,1998
Parsha Picture designed by Ephraim Shapiro (eshapiro@ymail.yu.edu).

Last updated: 02/25/99 Comments: lehmann@ymail.yu.edu
Disclaimer    Webmaster     Web Policy     Copyright (c) 1999 Yeshiva University