THE SPACE UPON WHICH THE TORAH HINGES : Moses as

magistrate (darosh darash), (Lev.10:16) and the divine

atonement.

  1  
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  
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

2
Rabbi Ezra Bick, VBM Torah, Parshat Shmini

  3  
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.

  4  
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

  5  
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

  6  
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.

  7  
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.

  8  
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.

  9  
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.

  10  
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

  11  
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

  12  
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.].

  13  
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

                                                                                                               
8
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).

  14  
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

  15  
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  

  16  
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  

  17  
   18