Rabbi Mordechai WilligToras Emes

I

The commandment to light the menorah daily in the Beit Hamikdosh follows immediately after the dedication of the Mishkan by the Nesi'im. Rashi comments that these two sections are juxtaposed in the Torah to tell us that Aharon felt badly that he did not take part in the dedication. To console Aharon, God gave him the mitzvah of lighting the menorah, and told him, "Yours is greater than theirs [the nesi'im], for you light the candles daily."

Rashi's comment requires explanation. After all, Aharon was told of the mitzvah of lighting the menorah long before the dedication of the Mishkan (see Shmot, 27:21; Vayikra, 24:3). How was he consoled by God's answer? Furthermore, why was Aharon upset by being left out of the dedication? Certainly, he was not insulted by being excluded from the honor of the ceremonies!

A dedication has a great and lasting significance. The peak of excitement attained at the outset of any undertaking must provide inspiration for the entire lifetime of the person or institution involved. Aharon feared that he and his descendants would lack the excitement that all other Jews had gained through their participation in the dedication. To allay Aharon's fears, God responded that the mitzvah of the menorah would be an even greater source of spiritual invigoration for him and his descendants.

Why was the menorah singled out among all the mitzvot of the Kohanim as an inspiration even more powerful and lasting than that of the dedication of the Mishkan? The answer lies in the symbolism of the menorah. The menorah represents Torah, and the study of Torah, unlike other mitzvot, constantly affords new insights. Because of his involvement with the menorah and Torah, Aharon did not need the excitement of the dedication. For Aharon, every day was new and refreshing, as the words of the Torah are like new to us each day (Rashi, D'varim 6:6). Therefore, Aharon's source of constant spiritual regeneration was, indeed, greater than that of the Nesi'im.

II

Rashi (ibid.) teaches that the words of Torah should be like new to us each day. The Talmud (Chagiga 3a), however, states that Torah is new, and tells us that it is impossible to be in a Beit Medrash without a chiddush. How can we account for the difference between Rashi's teaching, that the Torah should be like new, and the statement of the Talmud, that the Torah is new? Rashi refers to "these words," the written Torah, which is unchanging, but must be in our eyes as if it were new. The Talmud describes the Oral Torah, which is studied in a Beit Medrash. Talmudic discourse inevitably yields fresh insights and, as such, is really new. The Talmud (ibid. 3b) further expresses the freshness and expansion of Torah when it explains the passage (Koheles 12:11) that compares words of Torah to plantings, saying that just as a plant procreates, so to the words of Torah procreate. This metaphor is also utilized in our daily prayers, when we bless God for implanting eternal life within us, "v'chayei olam nata b'tocheinu".

Let us take a moment to further discuss the procreation of Torah by examining the aforementioned phrase in conjunction with two others that precede it in our prayers. The first phrase, which immediately precedes it, states "v'natan lanu Torat Emet", "and God gave us the Torah of truth". The Beit Halevi (Yitro) explains that God giving us the Torah of truth refers to the written law, whose truth is determined by the interpretation of the Sages, which comprises the ever-expanding Oral law. The second phrase, which appears before the two phrases quoted above, states, "Baruch Hu Elokeinu shebra'anu lichvodo vihivdilanu min hatoim", "Blessed is God Who created us for His glory and separated us from those who stray." What does this juxtaposition teach us?

Perhaps the last phrase represents a prerequisite for innovation in Torah. Unchecked creativity can lead to false and even dangerous procreation. In order for a novel interpretation to be part of Torat Emet, ultimate and eternal truth, its author must not stray, and must be separated from those who stray. How can this be assured?

If one recognizes that he was created to serve God and enhance K'vod Shomayim (the glory of Heaven in the eyes of men), then he will not stray. By contrast, if one is interested in greater self-actualization and in adding to his own glory, then he will likely stray from the truth.

In other words, we must begin by stating categorically that our role in this world is to bring honor to God. We will thereby avoid straying from the truth of Torah. And lest one think that, as a result, there is no room for originality and creativity in Torah, we conclude by alluding to the inevitable positive procreation of Torah which is implanted within us.

The modern Western world has strayed from this fundamental principle which is now disparaged as fundamentalism. Modern man and woman are interested in self-gratification and actualization. For the spiritually inclined, this manifests itself not as hedonism but as religious subjectivism. If it feels good, do it, and, if you are Jewish, call it a mitzvah. This unholy procreation of those who have strayed poses a serious threat to authentic Torah study and practice.