Daf Ditty Yoma 45: Perpetual Fire

"My fire will burn until the coming of Moshiach."

Chayei Mehoran 306

Matthew Arnold1

Empedocles on Etna, and Other Poems

Progress: https://www.bartleby.com/254/69.html

1
§ The Mishna states: On every other day, there were four arrangements of wood there, upon
the altar, but on this day, there were five. The Sages taught in the Tosefta: On every other day
there were two arrangements of wood on the altar, but on this day, there were three: One, the
large arrangement; and one, the second arrangement for coals for the incense; and one, the
additional arrangement of wood, which they add on that day for the incense that is burned in the
Holy of Holies. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

2
Rabbi Yosei says: On every other day there were three arrangements, but on this day there
were four: One, the large arrangement; and one, the second arrangement for the incense;
and one, for the upkeep of the fire, so that if the fire of the large arrangement begins to die
down, wood from this arrangement may be added to it to raise the flames; and one, the
additional arrangement of wood that they add on that day for the incense that is burned in the
Holy of Holies.

Rabbi Meir says: On every other day there were four arrangements of wood on the altar but on
this day, there were five: One, the large arrangement; and one, the second arrangement for
the incense; and one, for the upkeep of the fire; and one, for burning the limbs and fats that
were not fully consumed on the altar the previous evening; and one, the additional arrangement
of wood that they add on that day for the incense that is burned in the Holy of Holies.

The Gemara analyzes the different opinions: At any rate, everyone has at least two arrangements
in their calculations. From where do we derive this? The verse states:

3
 ,‫ָבָּניו ֵלאֹמר‬-‫ַאֲהֹרן ְוֶאת‬-‫ב ַצו ֶאת‬ 2 Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of
‫ ִהוא ָהֹעָלה‬:‫ז ֹאת תּוֹ ַרת ָהֹעָלה‬ the burnt-offering: it is that which goeth up on its firewood
,‫ַהַלּ ְיָלה‬-‫ַהִמְּזֵבַּח ָכּל‬-‫ַﬠל מוְֹקָדה ַﬠל‬ upon the altar all night unto the morning; and the fire of
.‫ תּוַּקד בּוֹ‬,‫ ְוֵאשׁ ַהִמְּזֵבַּח‬,‫ַהֹבֶּקר‬-‫ַﬠד‬ the altar shall be kept burning thereby.

‫ַבד‬-‫ וִּמְכ ְנֵסי‬,‫ג ְוָלַבשׁ ַהֹכֵּהן ִמדּוֹ ַבד‬ 3 And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his
‫ַהֶדֶּשׁן‬-‫ ְוֵה ִרים ֶאת‬,‫שׂרוֹ‬ ָ ‫ְבּ‬-‫ִיְלַבּשׁ ַﬠל‬ linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take
-‫ ַﬠל‬,‫ָהֹעָלה‬-‫ֲאֶשׁר תּ ֹאַכל ָהֵאשׁ ֶאת‬ up the ashes whereto the fire hath consumed the burnt-
.‫ ֵאֶצל ַהִמְּזֵבַּח‬,‫שׂמוֹ‬ָ ‫ַהִמְּזֵבַּח; ְו‬ offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the
altar.

‫ ְבָּגִדים‬,‫ ְוָלַבשׁ‬,‫ְבָּגָדיו‬-‫ ֶאת‬,‫ד וָּפַשׁט‬ 4 And he shall put off his garments, and put on other
-‫ַהֶדֶּשׁן ֶאל‬-‫ֲאֵח ִרים; ְוהוִֹציא ֶאת‬ garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp unto
.‫ָמקוֹם ָטהוֹר‬-‫ ֶאל‬,‫ִמחוּץ ַלַמֲּחֶנה‬ a clean place.

‫בּוֹ ל ֹא‬-‫ַהִמְּזֵבַּח תּוַּקד‬-‫ה ְוָהֵאשׁ ַﬠל‬ 5 And the fire upon the altar shall be kept burning
‫ וִּבֵﬠר ָﬠֶליָה ַהֹכֵּהן ֵﬠִצים‬,‫ִתְכֶבּה‬ thereby, it shall not go out; and the priest shall kindle
,‫ ָﬠֶליָה ָהֹעָלה‬t‫ַבֹּבֶּקר ַבֹּבֶּקר; ְוָﬠ ַר‬ wood on it every morning; and he shall lay the burnt-
.‫ְוִהְקִטיר ָﬠֶליָה ֶחְלֵבי ַהְשָּׁלִמים‬ offering in order upon it, and shall make smoke thereon
the fat of the peace-offerings.

‫ל ֹא‬--‫ַהִמְּזֵבַּח‬-‫ ָתִּמיד תּוַּקד ַﬠל‬,‫ו ֵאשׁ‬ 6 Fire shall be kept burning upon the altar continually; it
{‫ }ס‬.‫ִתְכֶבּה‬ shall not go out. {S}
Lev 6:2

“It is the burnt-offering on the flame on the altar all night” this is referring to the large
arrangement. It states further: “And the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby” this
additional mention of a fire is referring to the second arrangement, which is for the incense.

And from where does Rabbi Yosei learn about the additional arrangement for the upkeep of the
fire? He derives it from the verse: “And the fire upon the altar shall be kept burning thereby”
(Leviticus 6:5), which mentions fire for the third time.

4
And how does Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that normally there are only two arrangements, explain
this third mention of a fire? That additional mention comes to teach about the kindling of the
thin wood chips, which were used to ignite the fires on the altar, as it was taught in a baraita:
Rabbi Yehuda would say: From where is it derived that the kindling of the wood chips should
be done only at the top of the altar, rather than setting them alight at the bottom of the altar and
carrying them up? The verse states: “And the fire upon the altar shall be kept burning
thereby” (Leviticus 6:5), which indicates that the fire that is brought there has to be lit on the altar
itself. Rabbi Yosei said: From where is it derived that an arrangement for the upkeep of the
fire is made? The verse states: “And the fire upon the altar shall be kept burning thereby”
(Leviticus 6:5).

And from where does Rabbi Yosei derive that the kindling of the wood chips should be at the
top of the altar? He derives it from the same place that Rabbi Shimon derives it. As it was
taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the
altar” (Leviticus 1:7), which teaches about the kindling of the wood chips that it may be done
only by a fit priest and one who is robed in the priestly vestments of service; this is the
statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon said to him: There is no need for a verse to teach
that a priest must kindle the chips, for could it enter your mind that a non-priest could
approach the altar? Rather, this verse teaches about the kindling of the wood chips, that they
may be lit only at the top of the altar.

5
Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

There is a disagreement as to how many fires were kept burning on the Altar every day.

Everyone is in agreement that there were at least two fires on the Altar, one large fire where the
limbs of the sacrifices were burnt, and a second fire from which the coals were taken to burn the
incense on the inner Altar every day. (There were two altars. One was in the Temple courtyard on
which the sacrifices were burnt and there was an inner Altar on which only incense was burnt.) In
addition, the was a special fire lit on Yom Kippur where the Kohen Gadol would take coals for the
incense which was offered in the Kodesh Hakodashim (Holy of Holies).

Rabbi Yossi said that there was a third fire which was designated to keep the large fire burning. If
the large fire would dwindle, fire would be taken from this third fire. Rabbi Meir holds there was
a fourth fire where limbs which were not completely consumed on the large fire during the night
would be place the following morning.

The kindling wood for the Altar must be lit on the Altar and not on the Temple floor and carried
up. The verse says that a fire should burn on the Altar. According to Rabbi Yossi, from here we
learn the obligation to have a third fire. According to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there were
only two fires, the verse teaches us that one should light the kindling wood after he has ascended
the ramp to the top of the Altar. Rabbi Yossi learns this obligation from a different verse. “The
children of Aaron should put a fire on the Altar.” Rabbi Yehudah disagrees and says that that verse
comes to teach us that only Kohanim with the priestly garments can light the fire. Rabbi Yossi
holds that it is unnecessary to teach that only Kohanim can light the fire, since only Kohanim are
allowed to approach the Altar. Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is necessary to teach the obligation of
Kohanim, because one might have thought that a non-Kohen can stand on the floor and throw the
fire onto the Altar. In this way, a nonKohen would be able light the fire without approaching the
Altar. The Torah must teach, therefore, that only a Kohen can light the fire.

The fire for the Menorah must be taken from the outer Altar.

The verse says that a fire should constantly burn on the Altar. The Gemora interprets the verse to
mean that the fire that constantly burns should be taken from the Altar. The Torah instructs to
kindle the Menorah constantly. Therefore, the Gemora concludes the light from the Menorah must
be taken from the outer Altar.

2
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Yoma_45.pdf

6
The coal for the Yom Kippur incense must be taken from the outer Altar.

The Gemora wonders whether the coals should be taken from the inner or outer Altar. It answers
by expanding on a verse which says “he should take coals from the Altar before Hashem.” The
Torah instructs us to take the coal from the portion of the Altar that is before Hashem. It is apparent
that the Altar in question has a part of it that is considered before Hashem and part that is not. The
inner Altar is considered before Hashem in its entirety. Therefore we can conclude that the coal
was taken from the outer Altar.

The Additional Ma’arachah

There is a braisa that lists three different opinions of the Tannaim in regards to the amount of
“fires” that were on the altar on Yom Kippur. Each Tanna holds that there was one additional
ma’arachah more than a regular day. They all agree that there were two for the regular korbonos
and the ketores. Rabbi Yosi holds that there was always a third one for the fulfillment of the
mitzvah of having fire on the Altar, and on Yom Kippur there was an extra one added. Rabbi
Yehudah holds that on a regular day there were only two, and on Yom Kippur, one was added.
What was the purpose of this additional makarrata? Rashi states that it was used for the ketores
which the Kohen Gadol would take into the kodesh hakodoshim. The Rambam disagrees and holds
that this was purely to glorify the Altar and to give honor in the eyes of the people. It would seem
from the Rambam that the fire from the second makarrata which was used daily for the ketores
would be used for the special Yom Kippur ketores, as well.

Rav Moshe Mordechai Shulzinger explains that this argument is according to their own reasoning
in regards to the third makarrata which was on the Altar every day. Rashi says that the purpose of
this third makarrata was that if there was not enough fire on the makarrata gedolah, it would be
replenished from this one. The Rambam does not mention this halachah, and seems to hold that it
was there just to fulfill the mitzvah of retaining fire on the Altar at all times.

Rashi is of the opinion that there always must be a significant reason for the fire to be there - either
to replenish the makarrata gedolah or to be used for the Yom Kippur ketores. Conversely, the
Rambam differs and holds that there does not have to be any specific necessity for any korban to
justify the existence of this third makarrata. It is its own independent mitzvah during the year, and
likewise on Yom Kippur, there was an additional one for the sole purpose of giving honor to the
Yom Tov. There is a Tosefta, however, that does explicitly say like Rashi, that the extra makarrata
was for the Yom Kippur ketores. This could be reconciled by saying that the Tosefta is in
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah (as it states there), who holds that there was never
a third makarrata, and when Yom Kippur mandated an additional one, it must be for the ketores of
Yom Kippur.

Ma’arachah…Just in Case…

The Gemora states that the flame of the Menorah was taken from the outer Altar. Tosfos asks that
it should require a makarrata by itself just like the ketores had its own makarrata? He answers that
since it was not necessary to take any coals off the Altar for this (like it was required for the

7
ketores), they only needed to light the wicks, it is not logical for there to be an independent
makarrata just for the Menorah.

The Sfas Emes suggests another answer. When Klal Yisroel merited, the “western candle” did not
extinguish and it was never necessary to get a flame from the Altar, therefore it would not be
proper to set up a special makarrata for the Menorah merely for those instances when Klal Yisroel
did not deserve the miracle. I am bothered by a question from the same Gemora on daf 39. It states
there that when they merited the miracles, the fire on the large makarrata never diminished and
there was no necessity to bring other fire to kindle it (besides for the mitzvah of the two logs of
wood), and nevertheless, there was a special makarrata on the Altar, whose sole purpose was to be
used just in case the fire went out. According to the Sfas Emes, this is illogical and not proper?

No Man shall….

The Gemora states that there were certain changes in the service of the Kohen Gadol on Yom
Kippur that were done in honor of the Kohen Gadol. The Gemora is teaching us that because it
was Yom Kippur, the Kohen Gadol was treated differently. Although this may sound obvious to
us, we must remember that the Medrash states that on Shabbos, the shine of a person’s face is
different than the shine during the week. The Jewish People are always special, but on Shabbos,
HaShem considers His children, the Jewish People, to be extra special, and we must honor HaShem
by properly observing the Holy Shabbos.

The Power of the Chachamim

Our Gemora learns from a verse that the fire for the Menorah must be taken from the outer Altar.
Tosafos asks: Why wasn’t there was a separate fire lit for that purpose just as there was a separate
fire to provide coal for the incense. Tosafos answers that since for the Menorah it was only
necessary to provide a flame and no actual coal, it did not require its own fire. Tosafos concludes
that the Torah left the matter up to the chachamim to determine how many fires were to be burning
on the Altar every day.

This is a remarkable concept. This is not a rabbinic mitzvah. The Torah gave us a commandment
to have fire burning on the Altar, but it left it up to the chachamim to determine the precise details
of the mitzvah. This concept is referred to as “the Torah gave the matter over to the chachamim.”

This is not the only case where such a concept exists. Prohibited work on chol hamoed might be
another example of this. According to many Rishonim, the prohibition to engage in certain work
on chol hamoed is from the Torah. However, it is never explicitly mentioned which work is
prohibited and which work is permitted. The Rishonim explain that the Torah gave the matter over
to the chachamim to decide which work is to be assur. Thus we have a Torah law in which the
Rabbis establish its specific parameters.

8
 THE SOURCE FOR HOW TO LIGHT THE FLAME UPON THE
MIZBE'ACH

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3

The Gemara discusses the verses from which the requirement for the various Ma'arachos on the
Mizbe'ach are derived, according to the different opinions (Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Yosi, and Rebbi
Meir).

Rebbi Yosi maintains that in addition to the Ma’arachos Gedolah and the Ma’arachos for the Ketores,
there was a third Ma’arachos of "Kiyum ha'Esh," which he derives from the verse, "veha'Esh Al
ha'Mizbe'ach Tukad Bo" (Vayikra 6:5). Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that there was no third
Ma’arachos of "Kiyum ha'Esh," says that the verse instead teaches "Hatzasas Alyasa" -- when the fire
of the Mizbe'ach is kindled, the splinters must be ignited on the top of the Mizbe'ach (and not brought
from below). The verse, according to Rebbi Yehudah, does not refer to a new Ma’arachos, but to how
to light the fire on the main Ma’arachos on the Mizbe'ach.

Rebbi Yosi, on the other hand, derives the law of "Hatzasas Alyasa" from a different source, the verse
expounded by Rebbi Shimon, "v'Nasnu Bnei Aharon ha'Kohen Esh Al ha'Mizbe'ach" (Vayikra 1:7),
which teaches that the fire must be kindled on the top of the Mizbe'ach.

RASHI asks that if this verse teaches "Hatzasas Alyasa," why does it mention that the Kohanim ("Bnei
Aharon ha'Kohen") must do it? It is obvious that the fire must be kindled by Kohanim, because it must
be done on top of the Mizbe'ach, and, as Rebbi Shimon argues in the Gemara, a non-Kohen is not
allowed on the Mizbe'ach. Why, according to Rebbi Shimon, does the verse need to say that a Kohen
must kindle the flame if the verse specifies that the kindling must be done atop the Mizbe'ach?

Rashi answers that if the verse would have made no mention of the Kohanim, one might have
understood it to mean that a non-Kohen may light the fire at the base of the Mizbe'ach and throw it
onto the Mizbe'ach. The verse therefore teaches that a Kohen must light it.

Rashi's answer is problematic. In the Gemara, Rebbi Shimon rejects the interpretation of Rebbi
Yehudah, who says that the verse teaches that a Kohen must light the fire on top of the Mizbe'ach,
because "there is no reason to think that a non-Kohen is permitted to approach the Mizbe'ach."
Although Rebbi Yehudah responds that the verse teaches that a non-Kohen may not kindle with a
bellows from below, Rebbi Shimon does not accept this argument. Now, however, Rebbi Shimon
himself says the same thing! That is, although the verse already teaches that "Hatzasas Alyasa" must
be done on top of the Mizbe'ach, Rebbi Shimon finds it necessary to bring an additional source to teach
that a Kohen must perform "Hatzasas Alyasa," and that a non-Kohen may not throw the flame up to
the top of the Mizbe'ach. Why is Rebbi Shimon bothered with Rebbi Yehudah's interpretation of the
verse if he eventually interprets the verse the same way?

3
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-045.htm

9
TOSFOS (DH v'Chi) answers that when Rebbi Shimon says that the fire must be lit by a Kohen on the
Mizbe'ach (and not by a non-Kohen below and thrown up to the Mizbe'ach), he does not refer to the
act of "Hatzasas Alyasa," the kindling of the burning splinters to make the fire strong. It is not possible
to perform "Hatzasas Alyasa" anywhere except on top of the Mizbe'ach, unless one stands below the
Mizbe'ach and uses a bellows to strengthen the flame above. Rebbi Shimon maintains that the use of a
bellows from below is not an option and thus no verse is needed to exclude it.

However, one might have thought that since there is a Mitzvah to bring a flame to the Mizbe'ach
(despite the fact that a heavenly flame always burns there), the initial act of bringing the flame to the
Mizbe'ach may be done by a non-Kohen below and thrown onto the Mizbe'ach. That is why this verse,
which discusses bringing the fire and not kindling the fire, must specify that the act must be done by a
Kohen. Rebbi Shimon understands that although kindling a fire from below with a bellows is not a
practical option, throwing a fire to the top of the Mizbe'ach is a practical option. (The RITVA gives a
similar explanation.)

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4

As we learned on yesterday’s daf (=page), the Mishnah (43b) discusses a number of differences
between the way the ketoret was prepared by the kohen gadol on Yom Kippur and the way it was
done on a regular day. One of the distinguishing features of the machtah – the shovel for
the ketoret – was its color. On a regular day, the golden machtah was yellowish, but on Yom
Kippur it was specially made to be a reddish-gold color.

In our Gemara, Rav Ashi and Rav Chisda discuss the different types of gold that were made, most
of which have sources in the description of the of King Solomon‘s wealth
in Sefer Melakhim (see I Melakhim 10). Their descriptions range from metals that are identified by
their place of origin – zehav ophir – to the quality and purity of the gold – zehav shahut, which is
braided like a hut (=string).

Pure gold has a dark yellow color. It is a very soft metal that can be shaped and stretched very
easily. When it is used to make useable utensils or jewelry, however, it is necessary to add other
materials (e.g. silver, copper, etc.) in order to make pieces that are hard enough to be used. Even
when very small amounts of other materials are added, both the physical quality and the color of
the metal change drastically. The color can range from white as silver
to a blood red to green as grass.

The Me’iri identifies this gold with the type of gold called zehav parvayyim that is mentioned by
Rav Chisda, which is described as being reminiscent of the blood of the bulls that were sacrificed
on Yom Kippur, and was, apparently, the highest quality gold. The Gevurat Ari explains that the
reddish-gold metal used for the machtah on Yom Kippur served to remind the kohen gadol of the
sprinkling of the blood in the Holy of Holies.

4
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_yoma_4450/

10
Our Daf reports that all opinions agree that in addition to the regular woods pyres that were on the
Altar daily, an extra pyre was arranged on Yom Kippur. Rashi explains that the purpose of this
pile was to supply the coals used for the incense which was burned in the ‫ קדש קדשים‬.Rambam
explains that there was no functional purpose for this additional pyre, and it served to adorn the
Altar and to help surround its top for beauty and splendor. We understand, therefore, that Rambam
holds that the coals used for ketores was taken from the “second pile for ketores— ‫קטורת של שניה‬
‫“ הערכה‬,both for the normal, daily ketores, as well as for the special ketores which was burned in
the ‫ קדשים קדש‬.

The problem with the opinion of Rambam is that the Tosefta cites Rabbi Yehuda who states
explicitly that the third pyre was for the ketores of the ‫ קדשים קדש‬.

In his Likutei Halachos, the Chofetz Chaim explains that Rambam, in fact, agrees that the coals
for the inner-ketores (‫ )ולפנים לפני‬were taken from the additional, third pyre of Yom Kippur.

However, Rambam notes that there does not seem to have been any need for this pile. The coals
from the second pile would have sufficed. Why, then, was a third pile of wood constructed just to
provided extra coals? The answer is that is served to beautify the Altar.

Reb Aryeh Leib Malin, zt”l, explains the words of Rambam with a fresh insight. The arrangement
of wood on the outer Altar provided coals which were placed on the inner, gold Altar. The inner-
ketores, however, was brought in a pan, not on an altar. We would not automatically know that we
can set up a separate pile to provide coals for a pan -ketores. The verse of “‫“ והאש‬teaches that we
can arrange a pile on the outer Altar, although the coals are only for a pan-incense, and not for an
altar offering. One pile provided coals for the regular, gold Altar ketores, while the coals from the
other furnished the service for the inner, fry-pan-ketores.

These were distinct, and it follows to reason that the coals from each pile should only be used for
the ketores for which they were designated The specific function of the coals from each pile
differed one from the other.

Our daf discusses the various functions of the ‫ מערכות‬,as well as the need for ‫ האש קיום‬the
maintenance of the Altar’s fire. This is in fulfillment of the Torah’s command: “A constant fire
shall be on the Altar, it must not be extinguished…”

11
Rambam says that this means that one who puts out the Altar’s fire transgresses a Torah
prohibition.

Shem MiShmuel, zt”l, adds another dimension to this principle: We are not allowed to permit
ourselves to “cool off” in our avodas Hashem. The commandment to keep the Altar’s fire burning
highlights the individual’s duty to arouse an inner fervor every single day, and not to rely on the
natural warmth that remained from before. This relates to the dictum of Chazal, that even though
the Altar’s fire descended miraculously from on high, it is nevertheless a mitzvah to make this-
worldly preparations to it receive ‫—להביא מן ההדיוט‬

Mark Kerzner writes:5

The High Priest proceeds with the Yom Kippur service, which in some aspects differs from the
daily one: every day they used a silver shovel to scoop up coals - in order not to waste money had
it been from gold. However, today he uses a golden one throughout, and a light one at that - to
preserve his strength, because it is a hard day for the High Priest, who is also fasting. Every day a
Kohen burned half of incense in the morning and half in the afternoon, but today the High Priest
prepares two handfuls of incense to burn in the Holy of Holies.

There are differences in the way of walking and washing the hands - for the honor of the High
Priest. Finally, every day there were four pyres on the Altar, but today five, with the fifth added
for the coals to burn the incense. The number of pyres is actually a disagreement: all agree that
there were at least two, one of the sacrifices and another one for the daily incense, according to the
verse " it is a burned offering on the flame on the Altar... and the (other) fire of the Altar shall be
aflame ."

Some say though that there is an additional pyre to maintain the large pyre. Finally, those who
require a fourth pyre say that it was used to burn the limbs of the sacrifices that were not consumed
at night.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:6

Mishna Yoma (4:4) teaches that while the incense that was brought each day in the Beit
HaMikdash was finely ground, the incense that was brought by the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur
had been ground even further. As we learn in today’s daf (Yoma 45a), what this means is that once
the incense was ground, it needed to be returned to the mortar and be ground once again.

Reflecting on this, I am reminded of a beautiful insight that I read around 8 years ago – not long
after I moved to Israel - in Rabbi Marc Angel’s ‘But who am I, and who are my people?’ (pp. 5-

5
http://talmudilluminated.com/yoma/yoma45.html
6
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

12
7) about the way in which the incense was ground, and the lessons we can all learn from this
process:

‘During my first few years as a rabbi, I studied...[with] Rabbi Meyer Simcha Feldblum...[and] at
one of our sessions (in the spring of 1971), I confided in him that I was thinking of leaving the
rabbinate. I had only been serving for a few years, but I found the pressures unbearable. I was not
bothered by the actual rabbinic responsibilities; I was quite happy with my work and the people of
the congregation. So what was my complaint? The task was too great. I had in mind a vision of
what a congregation should be in a perfect world. I thought that if I devoted myself selflessly to
achieving these ideals, I would succeed in realizing my vision. But I had worked day and night,
drawn on all my intellect and talent, and nevertheless nothing much was changing. The
congregation was no nearer my ideal of perfection; my work was in vain; perhaps I was simply
inadequate to the challenge.

Dr. Feldblum offered me a rabbinic lesson. In the days of the Holy Temples in Jerusalem, the
Temple ritual required the offering of incense. The priest put together the various spices and
ground them into a very fine mixture. The Talmud (Keritut 6b) states that when the priest was
grinding the spices, someone stood alongside him and said: "Grind it very fine, very fine grind it."
Why was this person obligated to say this? The Talmud explain: "Because the voice is good for
[grinding] spices." Dr. Feldblum asked: "In what way is the voice good for the grinding of spices?
How does this help in the preparation of the incense?" The answer: When the priest is grinding the
spices, he reaches a point where he feels his work is useless. Nothing is happening. The continued
grinding makes no difference. So a person stands alongside him and tell him: keep grinding,
something is happening even if you don't readily perceive it. Stay with the task until it is done
properly.

"So it is," said Dr. Feldblum, "with the work of a rabbi or teacher. You work very hard, grinding
away at your labours, sometimes feeling that nothing is happening, nothing is changing. Someone
needs to stand up and tell you: your work is not in vain. It may seem tedious and unproductive.
But keep your eye on the goal. Have patience. Keep grinding." Dr. Feldblum's voice gave me the
encouragement I needed at that moment. His was the voice that said: keep grinding.’

Since first encountering this insight, I have often thought of the incense as I have dealt with the
grind and challenges in my life, and I have greatly valued those around me who have given me
chizuk and encouragingly told me to ‘keep grinding.’ And for my part, I have also endeavoured to
be mechazek others, and through doing so, I have encouraged them in their journey and in their
mission of ‘grinding their incense’.

Ultimately, while it may be easy to think that the laws and practices found in our daf are distant
from our own, each of us – in our own way – are a kohen; each of us are – in our own way –
grinding our incense, and each of us are able to do effectively – without losing focus or faith in
ourselves - when those around us give us chizuk and encouragement to ‘keep on grinding’.

13
Rabbi Elliot Goldberg writes:7

Ah, gold! That bright, slightly reddish yellow, soft and malleable metal that everyone seems to
love — now and also way back when. Consistently considered a precious element, gold has been
used in coins, jewelry and art throughout human history. Gold was used throughout the Temple as
well. In the Torah, gold is mentioned nearly 50 times in the construction of the mishkan, the
portable sanctuary that was the precursor to the Temple: the great menorah is said to be pure gold,
as are the cherubim that top the gold-covered ark. The high priest himself wears plenty of the
metal, from his breastplate and bells to his headdress. And, likewise, many of the implements used
in the Temple are also made of gold — even those used for tasks we can imagine were somewhat
dirty, as we learn today from a mishnah which describes the process of transferring coals from the
altar into the Holy of Holies:

On every other day, a priest would scoop up the coals with a coal pan made of silver and pour
the coals from there into a coal pan of gold. But on this day (Yom Kippur) the high priest scoops
with a coal pan of gold, and with that coal pan he brings the coals into the Holy of Holies.

One might think that using the gold pan for both scooping and carrying the coals on Yom Kippur
came from a desire to use fancier utensils in honor of the sacred day. But, according to the Gemara,
it has more to do with preserving the strength of the high priest, who is fasting and, as we’ve been
learning, has a long complex list of jobs to complete over the course of the day. Using only one
pan is a small way to preserve his physical and mental strength.

Gold, which in its purest form is too soft to construct an instrument for heavy duty work like
scooping coals, naturally alloys with other metals, like copper, and forms intermetallic compounds,
which can affect its color. The compilers of the Mishnah were well aware of this. In fact, they tell
us that the regular coal pan that was used every day in the Temple was usually greenish gold. On
Yom Kippur, however, one made from red gold was used instead.

While we might look to nature or the chemistry lab to identify the various hues of gold, the rabbis
turned to the Bible to formulate a list of the different types. As Rav Hisda teaches:

There are seven types of gold mentioned in the Bible: Gold, and good gold, and gold of Ophir (I
Kings 10:11), and glistering gold (I Kings 10:18), and beaten gold (I Kings 10:17), and closed
gold (I Kings 10:21), and gold from Parvayim (II Chronicles 3:6).

Rav Hisda’s distinction between gold and good gold is based upon the verse: And the gold of that
land is good (Genesis 2:12). The verse mentions “good gold,” implying that there is another, lesser
variety.

As we’ve come to expect, there is a second opinion. ⁦Rav Ashi believes that there are only five
types of gold, the final five from Rav Hisda’s list. He reads Genesis 2:12 to say that each of the
five types of gold can be found in both “regular” and “superior” quality.

7
Myjewishlearning.com

14
Despite the biblical and rabbinic focus on all the gold that richly adorns God’s house, ultimately
the rabbinic worldview is probably best approximated by Proverbs 16:16 which states: How much
better to acquire wisdom than gold.

The Perpetual Fire

Lev 2:6

15
RASHI

Chizkuni

Ha’amek Davar

Gur Aryeh

16
Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 35:3:2

Variantly: "You may not light a fire in all of your dwellings": From (Leviticus 6:6) "A perpetual
fire shall burn on the altar," I might think, both on the weekdays and on the Sabbath.

17
And how would I understand (Exodus 31:14) "Those who profane it shall be put to death"? As
referring to other labors, other than that of (lighting) the woodpile. (But perhaps, even the
woodpile.) And how would I understand (Leviticus 6:4) "It (the woodpile fire) shall not go out"?

As referring to weekdays, and not the Sabbath. It is, therefore, written "You may not light a fire
in all of your dwellings." For your dwellings you do not light it, but you do light it for the Temple
(woodpile). One of the disciples of R. Yishmael asked: What is the intent of "You shall not light
a fire"? __ From (Devarim 21:21) "And if there be in a man a sin whose judgment is death,
then he shall be put to death," I would understand, both on a weekday or on the Sabbath. And
how would I understand "Those who profane it shall be put to death"?

As referring to other deaths, other than judicial death penalties. __ But perhaps, even judicial death
penalties, and how would I understand "then he shall be put to death"? As referring to weekdays,
and not on the Sabbath. __ Or perhaps even on the Sabbath … It is, therefore, written "You may
not light a fire in all of your dwellings."

Burning was in the general category (of all the forbidden labors), and it left that category (for
specific mention) to teach, viz.: Just as burning, one of the judicial death penalties, does not
override the Sabbath, so, all of the judicial death penalties do not override the Sabbath.

18
 Time to Change?

Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:8

Excitement and consistency: We tend to view these terms as contradictory. Man gets excited
over discovering new things and views variety as the spice of life. Modern man is bored with a
consistent routine and eschews the seeming monotony that accompanies lack of change. It is the
new and exciting that we seek. Even investors find the “old economy” boring and are willing to
pour billions of dollars into new and untested, but “exciting” companies. Yet Judaism demands
that we both get excited about our Judaism while at the same time being faithful to a consistent
routine that often does not change much from day to day, month to month and year to year.
“Today G-d your Lord is commanding you to obey all these rules and laws. You must carefully
keep them with all your heart and with all your soul (Devarim 26:16). Though the Torah was
given well over three thousand years ago we are to relate to Torah each day anew, as if we have
just received it from Sinai. Torah must remain constantly new and exciting. Yet our tradition is
anything but new, dating back to Sinai where a band of slaves accepted the Torah on our behalf.
Change, new approaches must by be assimilated slowly and with great care. We take great pride
in following in the ways of our ancestors. We cling to minhagim, the traditions of those who
came before us often (mistakenly) more so than to actual halacha, and often long after the
rational for them no longer applies [1]. Halacha itself seems to limit new and exciting approaches
to G-d. We must daven daily at fixed times, our patterns of speech, eating, even sleeping are all
regulated by Jewish law.
How does one reconcile the notion of a new and exciting Judaism with a tradition going back
four thousand years? And reconcile it we must. “There shall be a constant fire kept burning
on the altar, without being extinguished” (Vayikra 6:6). Judaism demands that the fire, the
excitement of Torah must never be extinguished though it is burning constantly.
Perhaps unlike modern hedonistic society Judaism sees excitement davka in being heir to a
tradition dating back thousands of years. It is exciting knowing that people have sat at the Seder
tables using the same haggadot for thousands of years or that a Jew walking into any
traditional shul in the world will feel at home. Judaism sees the routine, sees the observance of
Halacha as exciting. Even though many may feel the urge to update our traditions to make them
more relevant to their lives, Judaism says that such tampering, while stemming from admirable
motives, must be handled with caution. Otherwise one is likely to get burned. Human fashions
and interests change from day to day but human nature has not changed one iota since the
creation of man. And since the Torah is a guidebook for human behaviour it is its constancy and
consistency that is so exciting and relevant.
While the Torah is our handbook to daily living, applying its rules to a constantly changing
world takes much effort and originality. New discoveries in science, psychology and medicine,
new political realities, differing economic systems require new insights from our Torah. Just as
scientific discoveries are not truly inventions but rather discoveries of and applications of the

8
https://torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/tzav-time-to-change

19
laws of nature that have always existed, so too new vistas for the application of Torah are just
discoveries of truths that have always existed. The chiddushim, new insights, of scholars, our
Sages teach us were actually revealed to Moshe at Sinai. The mechanism has always existed, it is
the modern sage who discovers it and knows how and when to apply it. Innovation is inherent to
our tradition.
Rav Kook, the first chief rabbi of modern day Palestine, stressed that we must renew the old and
sanctify the new. The application of an ancient system to a modern world is truly exciting.
Excitement and consistency truly can exist together.
[1] Unlike law, minhagim generally, at least in theory, need no formal mechanism to be modified and once the reasoning for
a minhag no longer exists it need not be observed.

The Piacetzna Rebbe, Reb kalonymus Kalman Schapira

20
Dr. Ron Wacks writes:9

The presentation of practical methods for dealing with the manifestation of various desires is one
of R. Kalonymus’s innovations. As in other areas that he addresses, here too we find in-depth,
creative thinking that reflects a profound familiarity with the human psyche. A person has to know
his inner world and all its inclinations:10

In order for a person to be able to repair his thinking, his emotions, his character traits, and other
proclivities and distortions of the mind using advice and strategies… he has to first know them,
their nature, and their workings, and all the inclinations of the mind, in detail, just as a physician
knows every detail of the human body.[1]

R. Kalonymus offers practical advice that provides a person with tools – to use his terminology,
“segulot” – that help him deal more effectively with his wants and desires. But this is not enough
to definitively defeat the evil inclination:

Let it hereby be known, young man – by segula we do not mean to promise that by using it you
will be able to defiantly challenge your evil inclination. For in reality there is nothing that can
completely nullify the evil inclination and free choice. However, we can say that if you are not
lazy but indeed put it to good use, then, with much help from God, it will be of useful benefit to
you.[2]

The main problem in the realm of character improvement and dealing with the evil inclination is
that, powerless to completely uproot the evil from within himself, a person will usually resort to
self-restraint and repression, his aim being to “treat the symptoms” and halt negative
expressions.[3] R. Kalonymus describes people who in their old age have trouble controlling their
desires because in their youth they did not address the challenge properly:

There are people who are hounded by untoward thoughts, desires, and tendencies both during
waking hours and in their dreams; even those thoughts that they would not consciously allow
themselves find entry at unconscious times. In fact, several elderly people have bemoaned to me
that even for things that they cannot anymore physically do; nevertheless, as if to spite, these
thoughts still hound them. Some of these stories are so shockingly shameful, I would not quote
them here in my journal.[4]

As an example, R. Kalonymus cites the case of an elderly man who regularly felt the urge to cross
himself, as Christians do, to be healed of his heart complaint. R. Kalonymus analyses his case:

An elderly peasant came to me crying and screaming; he has a weak heart, but that was not his
complaint. Rather, whenever he gets palpitations, he gets a thought to cross himself and be healed.
So compulsive becomes this thought that he can barely restrain himself.

9
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/publications/books-yeshiva-faculty/publications-philosophy-and-current-affairs/practical-advice
10
Translated by Kaeren Fish

21
I questioned these unfortunate souls and delved into their distant past. I found no wanton lives,
contrary to what even they thought of themselves. Even now, they abhor these thoughts. However,
their entire lives they worked only on their conscious thoughts and emotions to prevent their baser
desires from taking control of them. Their very souls, though, they did not heal. So they were
successful in that their infected souls did not spew up their desires into their minds and hearts, but
this infection continued to fester inside. Now, when they are old and weak and have difficulty
controlling themselves, the inborn drives of their souls explode into their thoughts and emotions.

This is what happened to that old peasant. In his youth, he had heard of many bluff miracle healings
from gentile peasants. Even though he would never convert, nevertheless these stories resonated
in his ignorant and simple soul. He was able to keep them out of his conscious mind and emotions,
but they had affected – infected – the depths of his unconscious soul. Now in his old age, these
phantoms are coming to haunt him. All the much more so with other old people whose present
compulsive thoughts are natural human desires.

These elderly people now see themselves as great sinners… In torment, they now say:… My mind
and inner world have become a den for beastly thoughts and a home for the underworld![5]

A person has to contend with the blemishes of his psyche, and not just with their “symptoms” –
his thoughts and feelings – in order not to end up in the same situation as this unfortunate old man.

So much for the problem – what about the solution? R. Kalonymus tells us that there is no single
solution for the problem. A person has to take responsibility for himself, to seek guidance, and
also to develop his own independent initiatives, rather than being like a beggar who is constantly
dependent on others.[6] Nevertheless, in his writings R. Kalonymus offers various pieces of
advice. Let us consider some of them.

First of all, it is important not to act too hastily:

The Ba’al Shem Tov taught that a person should always act with a settled mind, not out of haste,
and this is the meaning of, “… and you shall perish quickly (ve-avadetem meheira)” – [this should
be read as,] “you shall cause haste to perish.”[7]

The problem that one wishes to address must first be considered and analyzed, with intellectual
honesty, not deluding oneself.

As a second stage, R. Kalonymus notes a rule of human behavior – a principle that, once known
to us, can be used to “strip a soiled and horrid garment from the mind.” The principle is that if a
person experiences some movement of the psyche – imagination, will, feeling, love, awe, etc. –
there are two ways of relating to it. The first is to address the psychic movement directly, with the
result that the movement will be encouraged and intensified. The second way is to treat it
indirectly, “from the outside,” and such thinking will weaken it.

R. Kalonymus illustrates the distinction with examples. Bring to mind the image of someone you
know well, whom you see often. The more you think about him, the clearer the mental picture
becomes, for you think about this person in all his detail: how he eats, what he talks about, etc. But

22
if you think about this person in a different way, and instead of imagining his image you think
“about” him – i.e. you think about whether or not to create a mental picture of him in your mind –
then “the very act of trying to look at that mental picture will serve to blur it, and the more you try
to hold on to it, the further it will slip away and you will find yourself unable to conjure a picture
of this most familiar figure at all.”[8] In this way, you are able to weaken the influence of unwanted
thoughts and images, to look at them and treat them “objectively,” from an impersonal distance.

The same applies to the psychic movement that we call love. When we have a beloved friend, we
seek to benefit him, we occupy our thoughts with how to make him happy, what gifts to give him,
how to do favors for him, and what will happen when we next see each other. Each time we think
in this way, the feeling of love is reinforced and strengthened. But if we divert our thought in a
different direction, and instead of thinking about the beloved friend, we think about the love we
feel for him – asking ourselves, “Do I really love him? Why do I love him, rather than someone
else?” – the very act of thinking “about” weakens the movement of love and blurs the feeling. In
contrast to the previous example, which described a mental picture, here we are talking about an
actual feeling, and a feeling is more firmly planted in the psyche than a picture created in the mind.
Thus, it may be more difficult to weaken the feeling – especially if it starts off very strong.
However, if we need to weaken a feeling, this is the way to do it.[9] Thus we are able to control
and weaken negative feelings that we want to get rid of.

This strategy of diverting a person’s focus from the object itself to a discussion “about” it is not
easy to implement, and it requires skill and practice. R. Kalonymus does not deny there is a danger
of people focusing “on the [psychic] movement and the desire itself, out of lust and stimulation of
the evil inclination, while believing that they are thinking “about” it – and they will not know why
the method is not working and why the desire is not becoming weaker.[10] He cites R. Asher of
Stolin, who said that someone who shouts about his evil inclination along with his evil inclination
does nothing to help his situation, but if he shouts about his evil inclination with God, the evil
inclination flees. In other words, if a person tries to rid himself of unwanted thoughts and desires
by means of thoughts of unwanted desires, he is only reinforcing the problem, rather than solving
it.[11] If he cannot manage to separate himself from the unwanted thoughts, in order to be able to
think “about” them, he should tell himself, “I will take a 20-minute break from thinking about this
improper thought,” and during that time he can observe it without being immersed in it. If he is
altogether unable to break his thoughts away, R. Kalonymus suggests thinking about something
that he really likes or really dislikes – something that is highly pertinent to him, such as his dealings
at work. This new thought might push aside the unwanted thought, allowing him to think “about”
it rather than “of” it.

Since a person wants to be the master of himself and to control his feelings, R. Kalonymus offers
additional suggestions for developing such control. If, for example, a person is presented with two
types of meat, and one appeals to him more than the other, he should take the second kind, not the
first. One should utilize such opportunities to exercise his inner forces on minor issues, so as to
build up the inner strength needed for greater and more important battles.

Another example would be food that is not needed for nutritional value – the person is not hungry
– but rather merely tempting. The solution here would be a form of auto-suggestions, in which the

23
person persuades himself that there are better and more important reasons not to eat the treats than
to give in to temptation:

If you are presented with sweets and treats that are more tempting, and your desire for them is
strong and it is more difficult for you to refuse them, and in order to justify this sin to yourself you
wish to make light of it and brush it off – “What does it matter whether I eat this or not; everyone
is eating it” – then do as above: Start to observe your desire and ask yourself: “It is true that I have
a great desire for this food. I do not wish to debate whether it is proper to eat of it or not; there may
be no transgression involved right now. But what I do know is that I am consumed with desire, to
the point where it is difficult for me to refuse this food. After all, I won’t die if I don’t eat any of
it. Still, how strongly drawn I am to it!” Observe yourself and your desire, and keep telling
yourself: “I know I’m no tzaddik, but to think that I am so pathetic and so consumed with desire
that I am vanquished and overpowered by this food…!”

Consider your desire and repeat this to yourself a few times, and you will be amazed at how, with
God’s help, your desire will be weakened and even disappear.

Thus you should do when it comes to food, and thus you should do with regard to your other
desires, as well…[12]

In the event that a negative character trait makes itself manifest – jealously, for example, or hatred
towards someone – and it is difficult to assuage, a person should tell himself, “Fire shall be kept
burning upon the altar continually.”[13] Another segula that R. Kalonymus cites is brought in the
name of R. Elimelekh of Lizhensk, as recorded in a book about his practices:

Whenever a negative trait began to awaken within him, Heaven forefend… such as stubbornness
or shame that arise from pride, laziness or lethargy that lead to apathy, or the like, he would
immediately declare, with all his strength: “The Canaanites, the Chittites, the Emorites, the
Perizzites, the Chivvites, the Jebusites, and the Girgashites” – and he was saved.[14]

It should be noted that there is no magical act involved here. R. Kalonymus’s approach is based
on a broad understanding of psychology, and this segula may again be explained as a diversion of
the mind, focusing it on content that is meaningful and holy. The meaning of the verse, “Fire shall
be kept burning…” in this context is the burning away of desire, while the meaning of the verse,
“The Canaanites, the Chittites…” is the banishing of thoughts of hatred, etc. R. Kalonymus adds
that this tactic should be used sparingly, not all the time, for after a while it loses its effectiveness
through habit.

If some unwanted and forbidden thought enters a person’s mind during prayer or some other holy
activity that cannot be halted midway, R. Kalonymus suggests making use of one’s imagination
and envisaging the thought in the form of a predatory beast:

Observe the thought and see how this cruel, detestable, filthy beast has invaded your mind and is
now trampling all that is holy within you, with its filthy feet, opening wide its terrifying jaws, to
devour every fiber and sinew of your body and soul.[15]

24
He adds an important comment recalling the guidance above – that one should not think the
forbidden thought itself, in order not to be drawn into it and thereby reinforce it, but rather to think
“about” it, in a more distant, objective way:

Take care and guard yourself not to think the improper thought itself, only about that thought, and
about the evil beast that consumes you, body and soul alike, Heaven forefend.[16]

A person sometimes feels, after eating, that his spirit becomes arrogant, sometimes angry,
sometimes melancholy. R. Kalonymus suggests that this person try to discover when exactly the
change in his mood comes about and what happened after that: Is it because of his eating that his
mood changed? If he discovers what causes it, and he feels shame and says, “Can something so
idiotic influence my mood,” then he will nullify its effect and impact. The sign of this is that if he
has identified the cause of the negative effect, then immediately upon thinking about it, its effect
will dissipate and he will feel relief. If he does not feel this, then the cause is something else.[17]

[1] Hakhsharat Ha-Avrekhim, p. 118.

[2] Ibid.
[3] Tzav Ve-Ziruz, p. 323.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Tzav Ve-Ziruz, pp. 324-325 (= To Heal the Soul, pp. 9-10).
[6] Ibid., p. 326 (= Ibid. p. 11).
[7] Ba’al Shem Tov al Ha-Torah (Jerusalem, 5767), Parashat Ekev #62; Hakhsharat Ha-Avrekhim, p. 119.
[8] Hakhsharat ha-Avrekhim, p. 120.
[9] Ibid., p. 121.
[10] Ibid., p. 124.
[11] Ibid., p. 125.
[12] Hakhsharat ha-Avrekhim, pp. 122-123.
[13] The Shelah Ha-Kadosh writes: “I found a manuscript of the holy R. Moshe Cordovero, who writes: ‘A certain elderly man
taught me how to eliminate an [unwanted] thought: He should repeat several times the verse, ‘Fire shall be kept burning upon the
altar continually; it shall not go out’ (Vayikra 6:6). It seems clear to me that the old man was the prophet Eliyahu, who did not want
to reveal himself out of his great humility.” See R. Yeshaya Horowitz, Shenei Luchot Ha-Berit Ha-Shalem (Jerusalem,
5753), Sha’ar Ha-Otiyot, Lev Tov #7, p. 310.
[14] R. Elimelekh of Lizhensk, No’am Elimelekh (Jerusalem, 5752), Tzetil Katan #5.
[15] Hakhsharat Ha-Avrekhim, p. 124.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Hakhsharat Ha-Avrekhim, p. 130.

25
 EVER BURNING

Rabbi Noah Farkas writes:11

As we move through yet another week of social distancing and the reality that this rhythm of life
is here with us for a while, a type of malaise can easily set in. This past week, I’ve been talking
with many, many people who are dealing with the work-life balance of crisis homeschooling and
trying to be productive. I’ve talked with more and more people being furloughed or laid off as
revenue is drying up and businesses are closing. On a different level, social distancing has meant
compounding difficulties for life’s already complicated twists and turns. Whether a loved one is
sick with COVID-19, or has any other medical condition that hospitalizes them, or if a family
member or friend passes away, the new landscape we inhabit prohibits us from holding them
close. As the days become weeks and the weeks become months, it will become increasingly easy
to feel that our souls are adrift. Unmoored from each other where every day feels like every other
and with no real end in sight, it can easily feel that we are listless with no direction or hope or

11
https://noahfarkas.com/2020/04/01/tzav-ever-burning/

26
favorable wind to bring us home. That’s because the truth is that this virus doesn’t just attack our
bodies, it attacks our souls.

In moments like these, when purpose feels far off, and redemption even farther, it’s important to
reach into the spiritual toolbox and pull out that part of ourselves that helps us
persevere. Typically, our spiritual selves look for a dramatic or dynamic spirituality, where music,
dance, or singing draw us to an emotional plane that sets our souls on fire. This is the kind of
spirituality highlighted most in religious experiences like worship services, or at a great rock
concert or sports arena. In the sway of the crowd, and the unifying feeling of community, we are
elevated and assured. But in our time of social distancing, we can’t feel the press of another against
our backs, the vibration in our chest with the roar of the crowd, or the common flow that gives us
strength in prayer gatherings.

Instead we need a different kind of spiritual tool, one that does not rely solely on the peaks and
valleys of the dramatic kind. This other type of spirituality is of the one who tends to things.
Spirituality of this sort is best defined by the person who has a project they must come back to
again and again. Think of the gardener who tends her flowers, the person who takes pleasure in
cleaning out his house, or the person who repairs their own car. These spiritual tenders are living
with a different sacred cadence that finds elevation not in the dramatic catharsis, but in the small
and essential triumphs of living every day.

Judaism has much to say about spiritual tending. In the classic understanding, we wait for the
Messiah who will come to us in some future time when all will be liberated. While we wait for
that epic redemption in the future, there are an infinite number of redemptions to have right in
front of us. From the myriad of mitzvot to be practiced, to the one hundred daily blessings, Jewish
life is characterized less by apocalyptic drama, but by the daily discipline of everyday
transcendence. So strong is the focus on everyday living, that if we were in the middle of planting
a tree and the Messiah revealed themself to us, our tradition says to finish planting the tree first
before running to greet them. (Avot D’Rabbi Natan 31b)

The essence of spiritual tending is found in this week’s Torah portion, Tzav. Going deeper into the
Book of Leviticus, we find among sacrificial rites a special commandment for the priests to
maintain the sacred fire at the center of the Mishkan, or Tabernacle. “A perpetual fire shall burn
on the altar; do not put it out.” (Lev. 6:6) This special fire was to be kept burning night and day
regardless of the season. The rabbis of the Talmud looked closely at this verse and noticed that the
commandment at the end of the verse to “not put out the fire” is implied in the beginning. That is,
if one is commanded to have a perpetual fire, why include the commandment to not let it
extinguish. They answer by telling us that the verse is teaching us two values, firstly to have a fire
on the altar, and secondly a “mother-fire” from which other lights like the Menorah are to be
kindled. (T.B. Yoma 45b, see also Rashi) So important is this sacred fire that it must be tended to
every day, for without it, no other light can be kindled.

Deeper still, the rabbis ask an arresting question. They ask, if this fire is to be kept going, how is
one to fulfill this spiritual practice on Shabbat when the Torah is clear that “No fire shall be kindled

27
on the Sabbath in your dwelling places,” on the penalty of death? (Ex. 35:3; 31:14) How can one
maintain both of these practices simultaneously? The Midrash answers, stating that the
commandment applies only to regular homes and businesses. In the holy space, the mikdash, the
commandment of Exodus is overridden by Leviticus. The priest keeps the fire going, adding wood
and tending to the flames. (Mekhilta 35:3) So powerful is spiritual commandment of tending this
fire, that one may desecrate the Sabbath to keep it going.
Further still, the spirituality of tending is so strong that priests must maintain the flame even during
their journey across the desert, even if there are no ritually pure priests to make sacrifices upon the
altar. (Bamidbar Rabba 4:17). Nothing is to prevent the fire from going out: not travel, not
sickness, not even the Shabbat.

What begins as a daily task for an ancient priest becomes a powerful lesson for today. In this time
of isolation, when purpose seems lost in the fog of the horizon, and our social fabric is called into
question, we must lean into Leviticus and tend our sacred fires. Find the sacred in everyday
moments by creating intention and purpose. Judaism shares a rich tradition to help shatter the
mundanity with sparks of holiness. Everything we have taken for granted must, for the time being,
become intentional. If you want to find purpose in your life and feel uplifted, you must set before
yourself a sacred task every day.

On the central altar in the center of the Tabernacle which is in the center of the encampment,
Leviticus is teaching that there is a perpetual fire that needs your partnership to keep it going.
Every day that you commit yourself to tending, is a day won against the darkness.

The fire burns. It must be tended. Do not let it go out.

28
 In Mystery, Our Soul Abides
Dr. Erica Brown writes:12

Fire is both attractive and repellent, mesmerizing and useful, an instrument of danger and one of
warmth. The passion embodied by fire has many faces, and it is no surprise that pre-Socratic
philosophers debated if fire was the source of all matter. The enigma of fire is captured in several
verses of Matthew Arnold’s poem, “Mortality:”

We cannot kindle when we will

The fire which in the heart resides,

The spirit bloweth and is still,

In mystery our soul abides.

Arnold points to our inability, at times, to control fire. When fire is at its strongest, it often defies
such calibrated control. Its life-sustaining, life-taking properties lend themselves naturally to
comparison with God’s power.

In Leviticus 6:5-6, in the opening of this week’s Torah reading, Tzav, we are told the details of the
sacrifice of the burnt offering. We learn what the priest must wear for the sacrifice, the duration
of the sacrifice’s burning and where the remaining ashes should be placed. Yet, only one image,
the image of a constant fire on the altar is mentioned repeatedly.

The fire on the altar shall be kept burning, not to go out: every morning the priest shall feed
wood to it…A perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar and not go out.

The priests fuel the fire daily and are in charge of keeping it going. We are not only told twice that
the flame should keep burning; we are also told twice that the fire should not be extinguished.
From this repetition, the sages of the Talmud concluded that someone who puts out the constant
fire of the altar is liable for two punishments and not one since the Torah places particular emphasis
on not putting the fire out. Other commentators are quick to point out that this is why the sacrifice
is called a “tamid ” or constant offering; the fires which it is laid upon should never go out even
though the sacrifice itself burns up and turns to ash.

Legal writers may see in this repetition the addition of a law but commentators with literary
sensitivities saw in these perpetual fires an obvious and important symbol. Fire is a symbol of
God’s presence: divine light, heat and radiance. The sacrifice may turn to ash but the fires on which

12
https://www.wexnerfoundation.org/parashat-tzav-in-mystery-our-soul-abides/

29
these human gifts are placed continue to burn. A medieval French commentator observes that as a
sign of our respect for God the fire must be constant, even, he points out, during Israelite travels.

We all know how difficult it is to walk with a candle; the moment we stop, we find the flame
restored but when we move, we risk putting the flame out altogether. We find ourselves walking
cautiously and slowly in the tender and delicate task of preserving the flame. The external
distractions of movement should not “alter” the importance of keeping the divine in our midst.

There is a significant lesson in Tzav for leaders who can be so distracted by the fast and demanding
pace of leadership that they lose touch with the core values that made them take a leadership role
in the first place. The passion is soon doused by the enormity of the tasks. But with that passion
goes the inspiration that makes all of the tasks worthwhile. External distractions should never keep
us from preserving the flame.

For all of the meetings we run and agendas we promote, the most important task of the leader is to
stay in touch with the essential self. In my book, Inspired Jewish Leadership, I quote John Gardner,
who observed that “by mid-life most of us are accomplished fugitives from ourselves” (Self-
Renewal). Instead of nurturing the flame, we find it extinguished on its own from neglect. Tzav
gives a whole new meaning to the term “burn-out.”

In the Tabernacle, the priests controlled altar fires by fueling them and keeping them alight. They
understood that a small but well-protected flame can once again become a raging conflagration.
That which is constant is not necessarily constant in its appearance or force. Fire is a symbol of
our leadership. It may be tried and tested and may flicker but if well-insulated, it can return to its
former strength. The fires of the altar, we are told repeatedly, must not be put out, and if we walk
slowly and carefully, the flame will stay with us.

Rabbi Ozer Alport writes:13

And G-d spoke to Moses saying, Tzav (command) Aaron and his sons, saying, “This is the law of
the burnt offering; on the flame, on the Altar, all night until morning, and the fire of the
Altar shall constantly be kept aflame.” (Vayikra 6:1-2)

The word “tzav” (command) is the root of the word “mitzvah” (commandment). Rashi notes that
the term tzav is used only when urging is necessary. Rabbi Shimon adds that the term tzav is
needed when a mitzvah involves a financial loss, when an extra measure of nudging may be
necessary.

As a benefit of his service, the Kohen (priest) generally receives a share of the ritually-slaughtered
animal. The burnt offering however was entirely consumed, and the Kohen’s sole reward was the
animal’s hides. This was considered a meager compensation in comparison to other offerings. An
extra measure of urging was thus necessary for the Kohen to perform this service.

13
https://www.partnersintorah.org/parsha-partner/tzav/

30
 1) Why would a gift of any size be considered a financial loss? While the Kohen did not
receive his normal more generous bonus, he still received the hides!
2) Using special language to address the Kohen’s perception of a loss seems to be sending the
wrong message. Are we not supposed to serve G-d without anticipation of a reward?
3) Other commandments seem to have a more tangible financial loss (take Passover for
example!). Why then don’t we find the word “tzav” in regard to every commandment that involves
a financial outlay?

The Parsha begins with the mitzvah of removing the ashes of the consumed sacrifices from the
altar (Vayikra 6:3-4). Although it was necessary in a practical sense to remove the accumulated
ashes, why did G-d make it a mitzvah for the holy Kohen to engage in an activity which was
essentially a form of taking out the garbage and seemingly well beneath his dignity? (Rabbeinu
Bechaye, Shelah HaKadosh by Rabbi Yeshaya Horowitz)

Q: Our parsha begins with the mitzvah of removing the ashes of the consumed sacrifices from the
altar (Vayikra 6:3-4). Although it was necessary in a practical sense to remove the accumulated
ashes, why did G-d actually make it a mitzvah to do so?
A: The Shelah HaKadosh explains that this mitzvah symbolically alludes to the fact that after a
person has repented and brought a sacrifice in the Beit HaMikdash to complete his atonement, his
previous mistakes are to be forgotten and no longer mentioned. By requiring the Kohen to remove
all physical reminders of his offering, the Torah teaches us that from now on he is to be respected
as any other upstanding Jew, as the Gemora teaches (Berachot 34b) that a sinner who repented is
able to stand on a higher level than even the completely righteous.

For the same reason, the Kli Yakar (Vayikra6:9) writes that the Korban Asham and Chatat, which
are brought to atone for transgressions, are referred to by the Torah as “‫ – ”קדש קדשים‬the holiest
of holies. The Gemora in Yoma (86b) teaches that a person who is motivated to repent for his sins
out of love for G-d will have his misdeeds not just erased but turned into merits. Although the
perfectly righteous are considered “holy,” the extra merits accrued through proper repentance
transform a sacrifice ostensibly associated with sin into “the holiest of holies.” (Rabbi Ozer Alport)

Rabbeinu Bechaye writes (Vayikra 6:2) that a bride and groom used to bring a Korban
Todah (Thanksgiving-Offering). The Gemora in Berachot (54b) explains that a Thanksgiving
offering was brought to express one’s gratitude at being saved from potential danger. Were the
bride and groom in danger, and if not, why did they bring this sacrifice?

The Medrash (Medrash Rabba Parsha 7:1) says that Moses prayed on Aaron’s behalf, with regard
to his role in the Priestly service. Why, Moses asked, are the various Priestly services mentioned
in Vayikra (last week’s Torah portion) in the domain of “the sons of Aaron” (as opposed to Aaron
himself)? Is a tree only valued because of its branches? Why isn’t Aaron receiving his due
honor?” G-d replied, “Because of you, I will bring him close (i.e., make him primary and his sons
secondary” as it states (in the opening of this week’s Torah portion), “Command Aaron and his
sons, saying…”.

31
1) In what way was Aaron’s honor diminished by having his son’s perform the service? Wouldn’t
having his children and future kohanim performing the Temple services bring the greatest pride to
Aaron?
2) As inanimate objects, trees do not have a need or a desire for honor. What idea was Moses
conveying by comparing the “honor” of a tree to Aaron’s honor?

Q: Rabbi Yeshaya Horowitz, known as the Shelah HaKadosh, writes in the name of Rabbi Moshe
Kordovero that a person who is being troubled by disturbing thoughts should repeat verse 6:6 from
this week’s parsha “A permanent fire shall remain aflame on the Altar: it shall not be
extinguished”. This will help him remove the troubling thoughts from his mind. Although there
are clearly mystical concepts involved in this technique, how can we understand its basic idea on
a rational level?

A: Nachmanides writes that the entire Torah consists of various Divine names, and every verse
contains names relevant to the concept discussed therein. For example, one of G-d’s names which
is associated with the resurrection of the dead is contained in the episode in which the prophet
Ezekiel revives dry bones (Ezekiel 37:1-14). Similarly, the Chafetz Chaim (Rabbi Yisrael Meir
Kagan) writes that the recitation of the verse (Psalms 51:12) “Create in me, G-d, a pure heart, and
renew within me a proper spirit” can be helpful in restoring purity of mind and heart.

Rabbeinu Bechaye writes that the Burnt-Offering is burnt throughout the night because it comes
to atone for inappropriate thoughts, which are most prevalent during the night. In light of this,
Rabbi Shimshon Pinkus explains that it isn’t surprising that a verse discussing a sacrifice which
effects atonement for thoughts also contains within it a special ability to ward them off. (Rabbi
Ozer Alport)

Q: Although the Korban Todah (Thanksgiving-Offering) is considered to be a variety of Korban

Shelamim (Peace-Offering), some of its laws differ. In contrast to a regular Korban
Shelamim which may be eaten for two days and one night, the Torah prescribes that the Korban
Todah must be consumed in only one day and one night. Additionally, it is accompanied by forty
loaves, ten each of four different types (Vayikra 7:11-15). Why did G-d give such unique rules
for this sacrifice?

A: The Abarbanel and Netziv suggest that upon learning these laws, a person to whom a miracle
occurred will have no choice but to invite friends and relatives to a special “seudat hoda’ah” –
meal expressing gratitude – in order to assist him with the overwhelming task of consuming such
a massive amount of food in such a short period of time. Upon arriving, they will surely query
him about the reason for the gathering, and he will proceed to relate publicly the events of his
wondrous salvation. Through the unusual laws governing the Korban Todah, the Torah indirectly
brings about a publicizing of G-d’s miraculous ways and a sanctification of His Holy Name.

The Medrash states (Vayikra Rabbah 9:7) that all sacrifices will be nullified in the Messianic era
except for the Korban Todah (Thanksgiving-Offering). The Gemora in Berachos (54b) rules that
this offering is brought as an expression of gratitude at being saved from potential danger. How
will it be applicable at a time when all will dwell in peace and tranquility?

32
The sages compare the leavening in bread to the evil inclination within — the yetzer hara — which
influences a person to sin. On Passover, when we commemorate that G-d took us out of Egypt,
away from its culture of rampant sinning, we do not eat chametz (leavened bread)
or se’or (leavening agents, such as yeast or sourdough), symbolizing that we, too, must remove
ourselves from sin. Likewise, leavened bread is forbidden to be used in sacrifices. Sacrifices were
brought after a person sinned (following his evil inclination); therefore, as on Passover, we
avoid chametz in a sacrifice, since the person is now repenting, distancing himself from his evil
inclination. However, there are two sacrifices that do contain chametz: the korban
todah (thanksgiving offering), and the korban shtei halechem which was sacrificed on Shavuot.

1. The korban todah, brought when a person survived a life-threatening situation, includes
leavened bread. Why might the normal consideration of avoiding leaven, associated with
one’s evil inclination, not be necessary for a person who survived a life-threatening
situation?
2. Shavuot celebrates the receiving of the Torah. The offering brought on Shavuot, which
was intended to bring blessing to the upcoming harvest, consisted of leavened bread,
suggesting that we are not as concerned about our evil inclination at that point as we are
on Passover. How could receiving the Torah affect how we relate to the yetzer hara?

Many of the sacrifices described in our parsha are completely voluntary in nature. If
these mitzvot are so important, why isn’t their performance obligatory? If they are not obligatory,
why did G-d give them and what is their purpose? (Birkat Peretz by Rabbi Yaakov Yisroel
Kanievsky)

Q: This is the time of year when we celebrate the holiday of Purim. As there are no coincidences
in the Jewish calendar, what is the significance of the fact that this holiday specifically falls out in
the month of Adar, the last month in the Jewish calendar?

A: Rabbi Gedalyah Schorr notes that as the Jewish months are counted from Nissan, Adar is the
final month of the year. On a spiritual level, Nissan represents renewal. It is the beginning of a
new year and the first month of the spring when the earth begins to awaken from its winter
slumber. It is full of potential and energy, and for that reason was chosen as the month for the
redemption from Egypt. The further a month is from the source of light and energy, the darker
and more hidden it will seem. For this reason, Haman was ecstatic at the choice of Adar, the last
and darkest month of the year (and not surprisingly the month in which Moses was taken from us),
as the most auspicious time for the annihilation of the Jews.

Within the apparent concealment however, a pool of light is hidden away. In fact, this source must
be even stronger than at other times in order to allow it the ability to penetrate the darkness and
not be completely swallowed up. In the midst of the tremendous darkness, the month
of Adar contains within it a tremendous source of radiance. When the Jewish people were inspired
to properly repent, they were able to access and reveal this brilliant light, reversing all of the

33
negative energy into forces for good. This potential energy is present every Adar, available and
waiting for us to tap into it in order to reveal the ultimate light.

The Fire of Love

Dafei Tang writes:14

The Universal Four Elements

14
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/tzav-the-fire-of-love/

34
There are four basic elements in the world:

1. Water

2. Fire

3. Air

4. Earth

Water corresponds to letter Mem, Fire to Shin, Air to Alef, the so-called three mother letters
according to Sefer Yetzirah. Earth would be Alef too, being the first letter of Adamah ‫ֲאָדָמה‬.

Water represents the giver in that water binds all parts into forming a unity, e.g. dust can be unified
into a lump by mixing with water;

Fire consumes and represents the receiver, fire breaks down unity and is antithesis to water that
binds.

Air reconciles the dichotomy between fire and water and represents the intermediate. Fire can’t
act with water except through air as the medium. At the simple level, the heat of the sun (fire) is
transmitted to the water in the earth through the air, by which water evaporates and then
precipitates back to the earth.

Earth is the end product, the remaining ashes when everything is consumed by fire.

Modern physics have now come to the realization of four fundamental forces in the universe, as
follows:

1. Strong force, that which holds nucleus together forming a unity;

2. Electromagnetic force, that consists of like positive charges and repel each other, to
counteract the unity formed by the strong force;
3. Weak force, this is the intermediate force that reconcile the interaction between the strong
force and the electromagnetic force;
4. Gravity force, back to earth.

The four fundamental forces in the universe are essentially the same concept as the four elements,
as follows:

35
 1. Thesis, the giver, be it water or strong force, the first letter Yud of YHVH;

2. Antithesis, the receiver, be it fire or electromagnetic force, the second letter Hey of YHVH;

3. Synthesis, the reconciliation of the dichotomy, be it air or weak force, the third letter Vav
of YHVH;

4. End product, be it earth or gravity, the fourth letter Hey of YHVH which is actually a
repetition of the second letter Hey of YHVH, for fire and earth work as pair in that fire
produces earth (ashes).

The Hebrew dust Afar ‫ ֲﬠַפר‬and ashes Efer ‫ ֵאֶפר‬are cognate, the relationship of vessel (Ayin) and
light (Alef).

The Four Elements of Sacrifice

The sacrifice offering can also be analyzed by four elements, as follows:

1. Sacrifice

2. Fire

3. Fragrance

4. Altar

The sacrifice meat consists of roughly 75 percent water according to biology; and water bonds all
the cells together to form a unity, the same concept as the strong force.

Water is stronger than fire, as water can distinguish fire, and were it not for the meat acting as the
medium, the fire would have been distinguished by the amount of water placed on the altar.

Man by design is a receiver in relation to God as the giver, except in the case of sacrifice offering
where man is given the opportunity to become a giver with God at the receiving end. This is the
opportunity for man to emulate God as a giver.

When the sacrifice is consumed by the fire, the result is “a sweet savour unto the LORD”, -‫ֵריַח‬
‫ ִניחוַֹח ַליהָוה‬, which fragrance represents the intermediate that reconciles the dichotomy of fire and

36
water. Re’ach ‫ ֵריַח‬is cognate with Ruach ‫רוַּח‬, which means wind, i.e. air. This is air and the weak
force.

The whole process takes place on the altar which is made of earth, corresponding to gravity.

While the physicists are yet to find a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) to unify the four fundamental
forces in the universe, the secret for unification is none other than love, Ahavah ‫ַאֲהָבה‬, this is
because the gematria of love is 13, exactly the same as Echad ‫ֶאָחד‬, meaning “oneness”, i.e.
unification. When unification is achieved through love, this is when the name of God YHVH (26
= 13 + 13) is revealed.

37