Printed fromJewishMC.com
ב"ה

Rabbi Shaya's Thoughts

The Scent of Commitment

When we sit down to a meal, we usually judge the food by a few specific factors: how it looks, the way it tastes, its texture, and, very importantly, how it smells. In fact, an unpleasant smell is often the quickest way to turn us off from a dish entirely. 

That is why it is so striking to read in this week’s Torah portion, Vayikra, that the aroma from the sacrifice of the animal offerings were a “pleasing aroma to G-d.” If we look at this purely physically, it’s hard to understand. While a backyard barbecue smells great, burning an entire animal—including the flesh, the organs, and the bones—could produce a smell that is quite foul. 

How can a smell that is physically repulsive to us be described as “pleasing” to G-d? 

The answer must be that the "aroma" isn't about the how the smoke smells at all. It’s about something much deeper. 

In our own lives, we find that when we do something for a friend that we actually enjoy doing, their appreciation is often limited. They know we did it, in part, because it made us happy, too. But when we do something for someone that is difficult, inconvenient, or even unpleasant for us, their appreciation grows. They realize our only motivation was our connection to them. 

This helps us understand the Korbanot (offerings). The Torah is incredibly sensitive to the welfare of animals; the law of Tza'ar Ba’alei Chayim strictly forbids causing them unnecessary pain. We are generally only allowed to slaughter an animal for the purpose of eating. Yet, with the Olah (the burnt offering), the animal was placed entirely on the altar and consumed by fire. There was no physical benefit for the person who brought it. 

Most people have no desire to kill an animal just for the sake of it. We do it for food because we have to, and we follow strict laws to be as humane as possible. But the act of the Olah feels counterintuitive. We don't do it because we understand it; we do it even though we don't. This creates a sense of profound discomfort. 

But we perform mitzvot anyway, even if they are unpleasant to us, simply because G-d asks us. By doing so, we prove that our commitment to Him is more important than our own logic or our own comfort. 

This act, doing something solely for G-d’s sake, is what is truly pleasing to Him. The "aroma" is the scent of our devotion.  

This is a lesson that the offerings teach us, and it is a powerful psychological truth: The highest form of devotion often comes from the things that make us the most uncomfortable. 

Life is not about being comfortable, but about doing for others and for G-d.  

Let’s become comfortable being uncomfortable.  

Shabbat Shalom 

The Third Temple

 It was Tucker Carlson, a known purveyor of anti-Semitic ideas, who strongly suggested that the Chabad helped initiate the war in the Middle East because it wants the Third Temple rebuilt on the Temple Mount. While this is true, the method he described is not. It will not be accomplished through war, but through our good deeds.

So why do we want to build a Third Temple?

In the Torah, we learn about the Mishkan (the temporary Tabernacle) built in the desert, which traveled with the Jewish people to the Holy Land. It was the center of Jewish spiritual life until the permanent Temple was built in Jerusalem. Seventy years after its destruction, the Second Temple was built. The prophets told us about the eventual Third Temple, which will be built when Moshiach comes.

The concept of Tikkun Olam, repairing and perfecting this world, is our preparation for welcoming the Messianic Era. When Moshiach comes, the Third Temple will be built. This is not a uniquely Chabad idea; it is a foundational principle of Jewish faith. In fact, Maimonides lists it as one of the Thirteen Principles of Faith.

The unique rule that the Temples have in Judaism is worth exploring a little more deeply. Are the three different types of Temples a coincidence?  Perhaps each one has uniqueness to them. Is there a reason why the Mishkan was temporary while the Temples were proper structures? Why wait until Moshiach comes to build the Third Temple?

There is a Midrash on this week's Torah portion, Pekudei, which discusses the building of the Mishkan. It teaches that when the Ark was placed in the Holy of Holies, it sang out in praise to G-d. A second opinion holds that it was not the Ark, but the Jewish people who sang. A third opinion is that it was G-d Himself who sang, rejoicing that the Ark had finally found a resting place.

These are not merely three opinions. They represent three stages in creating a dwelling place for G-d in this world:

  1. The Ark sings. The Ark housed the Torah and therefore represents it. When it was placed in the Holy of Holies, and when the Torah is placed in our hearts through study, it finds a true home.
  2. The Jewish people sing. Having a permanent home in which to serve G-d, the people rejoice. This service represents the Mitzvot we perform.
  3. G-d sings. When He sees the Jewish people studying Torah and observing the Mitzvot, G-d declares that He has finally found a home in this world.

These three ideas are also reflected in the three sacred structures:

• The Mishkan/Tabernacle represents Torah, as the Ark was its focal point.

• The Temples represent Mitzvot. The Ark was hidden toward the end of the First Temple period and absent during the Second, so the emphasis shifted to the service itself.

• The Third Temple will be a testament that G-d has found His home. His presence will be felt openly in our world.

 

Let us do our part and help G-d fulfill His wish, to feel that He truly belongs here.

Shabbat Shalom 

Giving credit where credit is due

 

Often, we quote a saying without giving it much thought. “Giving credit where credit is due" is one such example. 

This saying can have more than one meaning. It is said when someone does something for you, and although you could have done the same yourself, you offer credit to the one who performed the act. This saying also applies when sharing an idea. If you hear a concept from someone, you should attribute it to them. This is commonly done when giving a lecture or writing a paper, when citing the source is of utmost importance. 

However, it is worth asking, why is that so? Do we always have to give attribution? Imagine if, in every conversation you have, you must say which teacher shared each thought with you or which book or article cited what you shared. You could go crazy. 

On Purim, in the scroll of Esther, we read, “And Esther told the king in the name of Mordechai" (Esther 2:22) The Talmud (tractate Megillah 15a) teaches that from that quote we can learn a fascinating lesson: Sharing information using the name of the person who spoke it first can bring redemption. 

You see, Esther shared with the king very important information. Mordechai, she said, uncovered a plot to poison the king! Once the king’s investigation was complete, and it turned out to be real, Mordechai was rewarded. Imagine if Esther had not cited her source? The whole downfall of Haman might have never happened. 

Yet, we see that not every time someone shares a lesson do they quote the source. Practically, it can be annoying. How do we reconcile the two approaches?

Here is a good rule to follow: If the information is novel, and it was said to you specifically, you should share from whom you learned it. However, if it is something that you have studied, read, or heard and then thought about until you internalized the idea and now you are ready to share it, the idea has now become yours.  

The greatest compliment that you can give your teacher is to internalize their teaching and make it your own. As the saying goes, “Plagiarism is the greatest form of flattery.”

Shabbat Shalom

PS – Before making this idea your own, let me share my source with you. I learned this from the Lubavitch Rebbe, printed in Likkutei Sichos, vol 36.

 

Looking for older posts? See the sidebar for the Archive.