The space upon which torah hinges by Julian Ungar-Sargon

THE SPACE UPON WHICH THE TORAH HINGES : Moses as magistrate (darosh darash), (Lev.10:16) and the divine atonement.

•

Taken from Coral Towers Observatory using an Astrophysics 130 at F/5 and Skynyx camera. The crescent moon to the left is from Sept 26, when it was 39 hours before new moon. The crescent moon to the right is from Sept 29, when it was 45 hours after new moon.

Rabbi Shim'on ben Pazzi pointed out a contradiction between two sources. It is written: "And the Lord made the two great lights" (Bereishit 1) and it is written: "The greater light and the lesser light!" Said the moon to The Holy One, Blessed Be He: Master of the Universe, can two kings wear the same crown? He replied: Go and diminish yourself. She retorted: Master of the Universe, because I made a just claim, I am to diminish myself? He replied: Go and rule day and night. She said: What has been added? What benefit is there to a candle at midday? He replied: Go, Israel will reckon days and years by you. She retorted: The seasons cannot be reckoned without the sun, as is written, "And they shall be for signs and appointed times, and days and years". Go, the righteous will be called with your name, as is written (Amos 7) "Yaakov... is so small" (I Shmuel 17) "David, the smallest". Seeing that He was unable to satisfy her, The Holy One, Blessed Be He, said: Bring an atonement offering for me for having diminished the moon! And this is what Resh Lakish had in mind when he said: Why is the goat offering of Rosh Chodesh different, for the Torah says "And there shall be one goat as a sin offering for the Lord?"

2 Â

Said The Holy One, Blessed Be He, This goat shall be atonement for me for having diminished the moon. Talmud Chullin 60b

The Torah maybe read in different ways. Literally, allegorically and mythically. Over millennia students have struggled with making sense of the biblical text, one of the ways of which maybe counting letters and words. Early on scholars attempted to see in the counting of words an intended codified meaning. I remember as a child visiting with the Sephardi scholar Solomon David Sassoon in Letchworth (a distant cousin Schisha was his librarian). He spoke of counting every 9 words from Genesis and finding an allusion to covenant. In Leviticus 10 we find that the Torah has arrived at the halfway mark- in terms of word count. Another location signifies the halfway mark in letters (the letter vav). This mile marker is found immediately following a tragic passage, the loss of Aaron’s elder sons. In an enigmatic passage in Leviticus we are introduced to the impact of the events surrounding the death of Aaron’s sons.1 Rabbi Ezra Bick describes the opaque nature of the passage and unclear meaning. In the immediate aftermath of their fiery death, we find an incident involving Moshe and Aharon that appears to be incomprehensible. Not only is the exact nature of the conversation between them unclear, but also it is even more unclear what is the meaning of the entire incident. It is clear that something of the nature of a halachic dispute is taking place, but we are given no hints what the importance of these Halachot are in the context of the story.2 1. Moshe commands Aharon, Elazar, and Itamar to eat the 1

http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/parsha65/26-65shemini.htm

Rabbi Ezra Bick, VBM Torah, Parshat Shmini

remainder of the meal offering (mincha). (12). 2. He adds that they are also to eat parts of the animal sacrifices, though it is not explicit which sacrifices are meant (13-15). 3. Moshe investigates and discovers that the sin-offering goat (seir ha-chatas) has been burnt. He is incensed and rebukes Elazar and Itamar for not eating it (16-18). 4. Aharon asks Moshe whether it would be acceptable to God had he eaten a sin offering under similar circumstances (19). 5. Moshe "hears and it was good in his eyes" (20). This whole episode begs for interpretation. The Midrashim comply but leaves us with more questions. They differ as to the specific questions and what in fact made Moshe so angry. 3 Rabbi Bick continues: Rashi summarizes for us the understanding of the issue as explained by Chazal (Zevachim 101). The underlying Halacha is that an onen, one who has suffered the death of a close relative, is forbidden to eat kodashim, meat that has been sanctified. This halacha has not been stated as of yet in the Torah; and, in fact, is derived from a verse concerning the eating of maaser sheni by an onen that appears only at the far end of the Torah, in parasha Ki Tavo (Devarim 26,14). Chazal assume that both Moshe and Aharon were aware of this Halacha. Moshe tells Aharon that this Halacha does not apply to him or his sons at this time, and hence they are to eat the mincha and other portions left over from the sacrifices of the "eighth day." In other words, the command in section 1-2 above is an exception, a temporary revoking of the usual Halacha. In fact, the sacrifices are eaten by the sons of Aharon. However, one sacrifice, identified in verse 16 (section 3 above) as a chatas, a sin offering, is not eaten but is burnt. Moshe is upset at this apparent breach of his instruction. However, Aharon argues (in section 4) that the exception rule of section 1 is meant to apply only to the special sacrifices that were brought as part of the dedication ceremony of the mishkan. These are not regular sacrifices and therefore it is plausible that special rules 3

See Menachem Kasher’s Torah Shleima for a comprehensive list of midrashim.

apply to them. However, there was also a korban Mussaf Rosh Chodesh, a Mussaf sacrifice that was brought at the same time because the "eighth day" was the new moon. Aharon argued that the exception to the prohibition of an onen eating from a sacrifice applies only to the exceptional one-time sacrifices (kodshei sha'a), but not to a regular permanent sacrifice (kodshei olam). The sin offering that was burnt rather than eaten is identified by the Sages as the Mussaf Rosh Chodesh, and that explains why Aharon ruled that it should not eaten by those who were onen. Moshe accepts this explanation. In the middle of this periscope, at the heart of the section lies the verse regarding Moses’ investigation: Verse 16: "And the sin-offering goat, Moshe thoroughly investigated (darosh darash), and behold, it was burnt." The double verb form (darosh darash) indicates special emphasis, an investigation on top of an investigation, as it were. Moshe, after conveying the command to eat the sacrifices in the holy place, initiated a special, intense, investigation to see what had happened with the chatas. Yet the Midrash informs us that despite the investigation Moses remained uncertain of the legal ruling. In fact the Midrash recount a total of three episodes where Moses was angered and forgot the law: “Rabbi Hunah said, “in three places Moses was angered and the law was hidden from him. The episode of the Sabbath, the copper vessels and the law of animus (with Aharon the high priest in mourning in our episode)”…namely, that an onein is forbidden to eat of sacrificial kodshim.” Leviticus Rabba 12. It is not accidental that the double expression of “darosh” lies along a textual fault line. The Torah maybe divided into two halves, either based on the number of words or the number of letters. Counting words finds us at the halfway mark, between two repetitive words “darosh” meaning interpretation, or the explication of halachic rulings

from the narrative. The Talmud (Kiddushin 30a) records that the reason the “rishonim” are called “sofrim” is because they count the letters of Torah. Darosh darash is also the exact midpoint of the Torah, as measured in words (the gloss in printed editions of the Torah reads, "darosh on one side, darash on the other"). It seems no accident then that the very investigation by Moshe as to the halachic ramifications of the Sair haChatas should cross the very midsection of the Torah in its literal sense, the very materiality of the word count. It is also no accident that the ruling escapes hi in his anger. Everything appears mysterious, the death of Aaron’s sons, the absence of a clear ruling by Moses and the need to repeat the word darosh twic across the fault line of the halfway mile marker of the Torah’s words. Rabbi Bick continues with Aaron’s reply to Moses: Aharon, according to the explanation of Chazal, answers that the chatas was not burned because of a deficiency in the mishkan, but because of the personal status of the kohanim as onenim. This factor completely reverses the relationship between the dedicatory sacrifices, kodshei sha'a, and the regular sacrifices, kodshei olam. Precisely because the chatas is a regular sacrifice, whose eating symbolizes the dwelling of the Holy Presence within Israel, it cannot be eaten by an onen. This does not indicate a problem with the mishkan, but with the kohen. In fact, not eating the sacrifice by an onen might be taken as a sign that the sacrifice does indeed have full sanctity. Hence, not only does Moshe accept this answer but it "was good in his eyes," he is reassured and his mood changes from anger and frustration to pleasure. The goal has, in fact, been accomplished. Moshe is not angry that they have not eaten the sacrifice as an act of transgression on their part, but rather that in not doing so, they have damaged Israel by not atoning for them. This statement of Moshe is the basis for the conclusion of the Sages that "the kohanim eat and the owners (of the sacrifice) achieve atonement," as indicated by Rashi. Aaron answers him appropriately: “And Aaron replied to Moses: 'Behold, this day have they offered their

sin-offering and their burnt-offering before the LORD, and there have befallen me such things as these; and if I had eaten the sin-offering to-day, would it have been well-pleasing in the sight of the LORD?' The loss of his sons prevented him from officiating and mediating the atoning sacrifice. This sacrifice in unique in being called “chatas Lashem” an atonement Of God, but alternatively read “an atonement on behalf of God”. What kind of atonement would the divine require? Can the divine sin as it were? The Midrash regarding God’s offending the moon is found at the very beginning of the creations story filling in the gaps in the text:4 God made the two great lights: the great light for ruling the day and the small light for ruling the night, as well as the stars.

Genesis 1:16: The puzzlement comes from the sudden switch in adjectives modifying light. In the first statement God makes two great lights; suddenly, without explanation, these two great lights become one great light--for ruling the day--and one small light—for ruling the night. What transpired between the making of the lights and the appointment of their sovereignties? Why did one become small? And why the great one set to rule the day and the small one made ruler of the night? Three traditional sources, the Talmud, Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews, and Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, proffer anthropomorphic explanations for this seeming textual inconsistency, whereby the moon is given a voice that challenges the divine as to the very heart of His creative endeavor. Barbara Rosenblit asks us to consider the three texts, which follow. 4

MIDRASH ON THE MOON: IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT : Barbara Ellison Rosenblit in Response, Winter 1995, 101-105.

I. Talmud, Chullin 60b: R. Simeon b. Pazzi pointed out a contradiction [between verses]. One verse says, And God made the two great lights, and immediately the verse continues, The greater light...and the lesser light. The moon said unto the Holy One, blessed be He, "Sovereign of the Universe! Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?" He answered, "Go then and make thyself smaller". "Sovereign of the Universe!" cried the moon, "because I have suggested that which is proper must I then make myself smaller?" He replied, "Go, and thou wilt rule by day and by night." "But what is the value of this?" cried the moon. "Of what use is a lamp in broad daylight?" He replied. "Go. Israel shall reckon by thee the days and the years." "But it is impossible," said the moon, "to do without the sun for the reckoning of the seasons, as it is written, And let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and for years." "Go.The righteous shall be named after thee as we find, Jacob the Small, Samuel the Small, David the Small." On seeing that it would not be consoled, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "Bring an atonement for Me for making the moon smaller." This is what was meant by R. Simeon b. Lakish when he declared, "Why is it that the he-goat offered on the new moon is distinguished in that there is written concerning it unto the Lord? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "Let this he-goat be an atonement for Me for making the moon smaller."5 In this passage, Rosenblit suggests, the moon's seemingly innocent question provokes God's strong Over-response ("Go then and make thyself smaller"). Recognizing the undue severity of the response, God attempts to soften the initial reply in several ways, but none 5

Talmud, Chullin 60b.

consoles the moon. In this remarkable interpretation, God repents for this insensitive rebuke. The Talmud employs this verse to justify why the he-goat sacrifice offered at the time of the new moon is the only festive sacrifice which includes the phrase "unto the Lord" (Nu.28:15), for this is God's own atonement for this harsh action. II. Midrash Rabba The fourth day of creation produced the sun, the moon, and the stars. These heavenly spheres were not actually fashioned on this day; they were created on the first day, and merely assigned their places in the heavens on the fourth. At first the sun and the moon enjoyed equal powers and prerogatives. The moon spoke to God, and said: "O Lord, why didst Thou create the world with the letter Bet?" God replied: "That it might be known unto my creatures that there are two worlds." The moon: "O Lord, which of the two worlds is the larger, this world or the world to come?" God: "The world to come is the larger." The moon: "O Lord, Thou didst create two worlds, a greater and a lesser world; Thou didst create fire and water, the water stronger than the fire, because it can quench the fire; and now thou hast created the sun and the moon, and it is becoming that one of them should be greater than the other." Then spake God to the moon: "I know well, thou wouldst have Me make Thee greater than the sun. As a punishment I decree that thou mayest keep but one-sixtieth of thy light." The moon made supplication: "Shall I be punished so severely for having spoken a single word?" God relented: "In the future world I will restore thy light, so that thy light may again be as the light of the sun." The moon was not yet satisfied. "O Lord," she said, "and the light of the sun, how great will it be in that day?" Then the wrath of God was once more enkindled: "What, thou still plottest against the sun? As thou livest, in the world to come his light shall be sevenfold that light he now sheds." 6 6

Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Bible (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1992), p.12.

While similar to the Talmudic account of the moon's initial query, Ginzberg's explanation of greater and lesser employs a different tone. Here the moon, trying to build her case, establishes lawyer-like precedents for her request before pressing home her point ("...it is becoming that one of them should be greater than the other...."). God, angered by this tactic, and further enraged by the moon's refusal to be pacified, punishes the moon by diminishing her light henceforth and forevermore. III. Pirke DeReb Eliezer. On the fourth day He connected together the two luminaries, of which one was not greater (in size) than the other. They were equal as regards their height, qualities, and illuminating powers, as it is said, "And God made the two great lights" (Gen 1:16). Rivalry ensued between them, one said to the other, I am bigger than thou art. The other rejoined, I am bigger than thou art. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do, so that there should be peace between them? He made the one larger and the other smaller, as it is said, "The greater to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night and the stars He also made." 7 Here is a case of sibling rivalry at its most recognizable. God, as frustrated parent to these two jealous children, simply removes the issue of contention that caused the carping. It is neither the subtlest nor the most sophisticated of parenting techniques, but it is familiar. While these accounts all differ in tone and temperament, all three picture the moon as manipulative and complaining, punished for not being satisfied, and possessed by the accompanying bad judgment to continue questioning long after a more quiescent figure would have had the sense to stop. 7

Pirke deReb Eliezer, trans. Gerald Friedlander (New York: Herman Press, 1965) p.31.

For Rosenblit in these three accounts, greatness and importance are equated with size, power, and domination, and it is the moon's desire for size, power, and control that ultimately leads to her downfall. Because of her immodest request for dominance, she is made smaller, and this diminution, this weakening, is her punishment. Interpreted through a less domination-oriented lens, could this punishment be, instead, a reward? Could the seemingly greater be, in fact, the lesser? Harav Ofner Livnat struggles with the meaning behind the aggadah found in the Talmud Chulin. The Gemara deals with the Chatas sacrifices (sacrifices brought as atonement for sins) that are offered on holidays as part of the Mussaf sacrifices. In this context, the Gemara quotes a very puzzling Midrash. The intent of the Midrash is so unclear that even Rishonim who usually addressed only Halachic issues addressed this Midrash. The Talmud notes the special expression that appears in the Torah regarding the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh, but does not appear regarding other holidays. Regarding the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh, the Torah (Bamidbar 28, 15) states "LeChatas Lashem"- a Chatas for Hashem. For the other holidays it just says "Leachates." To explain this, the Talmud Chullin (9a) quotes the following Midrash: "Reish Lakish said: Why is the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh different in that regarding it, it says "Lashem?" Hashem said: may this Chatas be an atonement for Me for diminishing the moon." Therefore, the Torah states that the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh is "for Hashem," as it comes to, so to speak, atone for Hashem. Our Talmudic reference states that, at first, Hashem created the sun and the moon with equal light. However, the moon approached Hashem and said "can two kings wear the same crown?" In response, Hashem made the moon smaller. The moon was very upset at this, and Hashem tried to appease it in different ways but was unsuccessful. At last, Hashem requested that Am Yisrael bring a sacrifice to atone for making the moon smaller. How is it possible to say that Hashem needs atonement for anything? The Rif (daf 1) explains that the Chatas comes to atone for Am Yisrael. However, the reason that Hashem instituted that it be brought Â

11 Â

on Rosh Chodesh is to honor the moon and appease it. The Tosfot Rosh (d"h Se'ir) explains that the Torah is teaching us proper behavior, that if a person was forced to punish another person, even though it was justified, he should appease him afterwards. The Meshech Chochma (Bamidbar 28, 15) suggests an original explanation to this Midrash. One type of idolatry that was once common in the world was the worshipping of the sun. The Meshech Chochma explains that what led to this mistaken belief is the fact that the sun is the strongest light. If the moon had remained equal to the sun, people would not have seen the sun as something special and would not have worshipped it. By making the moon smaller, Hashem created the possibility for humans to mistake the sun for a God. Therefore, Hashem turned to Am Yisrael and commanded that they correct this error and teach mankind that only Hashem should be worshipped. The very notion of the divine accepting responsibility for the diminution of the moon allows for the radical notion of a flaw in creation, holographically represented in every detail of creation in time and space. In this excerpt, the midrash deals with the explication of two texts. The first is from the Book of Bereishit, and is dealt with in the beginning of the Midrash. On the one hand, the text reads "the great lights" and on the other hand, the text has one light big and one light small. This serves the author of the Midrash as a starting point. Perusal of the Midrash can easily draw our attention to such issues as relations between majority and minority, between the strong and weak, and perhaps even to examination of the author's modus operandi, which does not preclude imaginary discourse between the moon and its Creator. There is no doubt that the writer's literary and theological stand - allowing himself to develop the image of the Lord as a "literary figure", fully conscious of his creation and in full control of the behavior of his literary image - is extremely audacious, possibly raising questions about the author's attitude to many texts in which God is the central figure. I find the moon’s query not impudent at all but merely audacious in pointing out to the Creator that there is a flaw

whereby two suns cannot function together. Two kings wearing the same crown is a description of the reality of physics and light, not a criticism. All the more surprising is the response, “Make yourself small” as if that solves the problem, for the moon in the presence of the sun has no role in providing light. This then triggers the divine response, seeking another role for the moon as consolation. Is seems, however, that the more daring, creative, and innovation idea appears in the Midrash on the second verse. This verse is from our parasha, from the section dealing with the festival offerings, specifically with Rosh Chodesh: "And one hairy goat as a chatas offering for God as well as the regular offering is to be sacrificed, and its poured offering." (Bamidbar 28:15). The text would seem to indicate that God - as it were - were the offender, whose transgression and atonement require a chatas offering. The Midrash reads: Said Resh Lakish: Why is the goat offering of Rosh Chodesh different, for the Torah says "And there shall be one goat as a sin offering for the Lord?" Said The Holy One, Blessed Be He, This goat shall be atonement for me for having diminished the moon. (Also appears in Bavli, Sh'vuot 9a) For Yossi Penini, the midrash seems to “assert that God can sin, and that He did indeed sin by reacting to the moon's criticism about the lights' equality by diminishing her light. The Lord sinned at a critical moment, during the process of creation of the universe. His sin - an irreversible sin - changed the face of reality, for the reality of two equal lights is not that of two unequal lights (certainly there is difference in the allegorically-derived reality). Because of His admission of this sin, every month a hairy goat is offered in atonement for diminution of the moon. [And it seems that another reference to God's sin may be found in our prayer books, our 'service of the heart, in the Mussaf service of Rosh Chodesh, "for the atonement of sin, and the forgiveness of transgression, the expiation of wrongdoing" of The Holy One, Blessed Be He, as it were.].

If such be the case, we have before us another stratum of divine attributes. God is not only "great and powerful, and awesome" or "good and forgiving" or "father of mercies"; He is also "God who sins and owns up to his sin", "God who errs and acknowledges his error". It would seem that a "god who sins", "a god who errs" who knows the feeling of error and sin and compunction, is a different kind of god, communicative with man, perhaps even arousing empathy. Man - at whose gate, even at his core, lie sin and error - fights them, sometimes successfully and sometimes not; he resembles God and God resembles him.” Likewise my father in law suggested that provides human beings created in the divine image, for another example of how to imitate the divine, by fully owning up to a “mistake” and making restitution. The mystical interpretive strand picks up the daring midrash and finds a cosmic flaw in the very fabric of creation, a flaw that allows for human freedom, and the possibility of evil. The great 20th century mystic scholar who spent his life interpreting the kabbalah of the ARI according to the Lithuanian mitnagdic school of the GRA, the Lashem 8 exposes the cosmic flaw in this narrative. Exploring the very question as to why the divine would require the moon’s diminution and the holographic incarnation of this flaw into every aspect of injustices in life, he radically moves the interpretation to include the very origin of evil and suffering. The diminished moon represents the cosmic dark side of the world and the forces of evil allowed to run free. 9

Shlomo Elyashiv (Eliashoff ) (January 5, 1841 [12 Tevet 5602] - March 13, 1926 [27 Adar, 5676]) (Hebrew: ‫‬אלישיב חייקל חיים בן שלמה‬‎), also known as the Leshem or Ba'al HaLeshem, was a famous kabbalist, who lived in Šiauliai, Lithuania. He emigrated to Palestine in 1924 with the help of Rav Kook. HDYH, MIYUT HAYAREACH, section 3,4.‬ 9 For further discussion see The Evolving Feminine: And Enlightened View from Kabbalah: Sarah (Susan) Schneider, Jason Aronson Inc. (June 1, 2001). Schneider also discusses the Talmudic aggadah regarding Rabbi Akivah and his martyrology (Menachot 24 b).

I wanted to suggest that the very implications mystically felt in the sources for the diminution of the moon and the midrashic trope of the divine bringing a sacrifice for a guilt offering are linked to our split halfway mile marker point in Torah. It appears that the very division of the Torah into two halves with the space between two identical words “darosh” invites the interpretation of Moses‘s halachic investigations. Here we find, both halacha, midrash and aggadah as well as mystical interpretations all bearing down on this periscope. It goes to the heart of Jewish theology and theodicy. The space between the two

See larger image Share your own customer images Publisher: learn how customers can search inside this book. Tell the Publisher! I'd like to read this book on Kindle Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App. Kabbalistic Writings on the Nature of Masculine and Feminine , Sarah Schneider

words “darosh” allows for the space between the investigative activities of Moses as to the meaning of the sin offering. It allows for the introduction of the notion of divine guilt into this crack or space between the two halves of Torah, as if the very materiality of the written word, the document, the scroll given by the divine is hinged at the very flaw of creation. The space between the two identical words allows for the secret behind the permission for evil to exist, for the mystery of the diminution of the moon/Knesset Yisrael /Schechina as equivalences. The split between the sun and the moon, the divine and the human as well as the perfect and imperfect. In this space we live, we humans, we Israelites, we sinners. We are given a model for divine sinning (kivyachol!) and divine restitution so that we too can forgive, make restitution after the sin. In this space we can breather. In this space where the Torah literally hinges on itself, on its “drasha” on its very interpretation, we are invited to make sense of Torah and our very lives, of divine justice and injustice. Like Moshe Rabbeinu our lives “hinge” on our drasha, our interpretive strategies, the differences between the first darosh and the second because of the space between them. That space, our lives, that absence, the white fire, the silence of our screams, makes the crucial difference upon which hangs all of Torah. Moshe the magistrate struggles with the very flaw in creation and instructs Aaron the High Priest to officiate at the very divine atonement offering/sacrifice. The Izshbitser Rebbe, author of the Mei Hashiloach10 suggests that Aaron refuses the on the grounds that having lost his sons, beyond the halachic issues of being an onein, he felt he could not act as High Priest and the medium by which the divine received the monthly atonement (in the Sair haChatas) for diminishing the moon. The very flaw inherent in creation that allowed for injustice and evil, needed atoning but how could he be the instrument of such a sacrifice, even it were to be brought by the divine, having suffered from the very flaw earlier that day in the loss of his beloved sons. The Chasam Sofer comments on the verse “And Aaron was silent” (vayidom Aharon) that Aaron was silent because he could not meet the very standards of say Job who accepted his suffering and the loss of his sons with a blessing! “blessed be the 10 Mei Hashiloach Vol Parshat Shmini

One who gives and blessed be the one takes”. Aaron could not somehow reach this level of acceptance so remained silent. In both the Izshbitser as well as The Chasam Sofer see a darker side to Aaron the high priest’s response. Rather than the ambiguous response “and such and such as this happened to me” they see the silence as a pregnant silence, a screaming silence (a la Reb Nachman). In this pregnant silence we too find ourselves screaming as bearers of the worst flaw of creation that of man’s inhumanity to man, of genocide, and divine silence. In the space between darosh and darosh, in that hinge upon which the Torah is suspended, that iota11 upon which lies the very balance of its two halves, in the screaming and begging for interpretation we too seek some meaning and response. It is as if the Torah itself is split by the very guilt and flaw built into the creation itself. The Torah is pointing us to the need for us to make the hermeneutic move of interpretation at precisely the point at which the Torah is fractured in half. The point at which even the Torah remains silent and invites us to complete the gap in its understanding. The Torah as equivalent to Knesset Yisrael and the Schechina, the split divine, and Malchut is itself split into two as if mystified by the divine intention in the diminishing of the moon, and the suffering of the Schechina and Am Yisrael. In this space were are invited, in the silence of the absent divine, in the screaming presence of its absence, to force ourselves to confront the vacated space of silence. We too are confounded by loss like Aaron “'Behold, this day have they offered their sin-offering and their burnt-offering before the LORD, and there have befallen me such things as these” and we too cannot officiate in the aftermath of deadly silence, we too cannot pray and perform rituals as if nothing had happened. And we too need a Moses to affirm and validate “Vayitav Beynei Moshe” In seemed appropriate in Moses’s opinion.

11 The way the letter iota is the middle letter in the Greek alphabet and the dot of the iota suspends both halves

on its point, its dot, like a fulcrum, so too here the fulcrum is an absent presence of any letter. (for further use of letters in religious symbolism see: http://ehbed.witnesstoday.org/Church/Tradition/Symbols/Symbols.htm