"The Fewest of All Peoples"

 

“The LORD did not set His love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people--for ye were the fewest of all peoples,” Devarim 7:7.

This verse, as the Torah cites, states that one of the reasons, if not the main one, as to why G-d elected Am Yisrael, gave them the Torah and declared them to be to be His “first born son,” which in Biblical times bore great significance, especially in matters of inheritance.  In a way, it is our smallness, so it seems, that has defined our essence.

In addition to providing the reason for choosing Am Yisrael, the verse is also a prediction, a form of prophecy. Judging by Jewish history, our tiny size is how it has always been and how, so it seems, it was always meant to be, and I doubt that there is a person who would not recognize the reality that Jews are indeed but a small sliver of humanity, a mere speck among the nations.

Before anyone jumps at me and claims that such “choseness” implies some kind of elitism, a religious or “racial superiority” (Mordechai M. Kaplan, Judaism as a Civilization), let me suggest that nothing could be further from the truth. Such an assertion would go against any of the highest ethical values and ideals prescribed by the Torah, which, according to tradition, is the word of G-d. Furthermore, lest some feel superior and conclude that since Yisrael was singled out, others were rejected, the prophet Amos, in an effort to curtail such arrogance, declared, “Concerning the whole family that I brought up from the land of Egypt: You alone have I singled out of all the families of the earth—That is why I will call you to account for all your inequities,” (Amos 3:2).

In my last article, I mentioned the Midrash which explains that G-d peddled the Torah among other nations that existed at that time. As the Midrash further states, they all refused. When He reached Am Yisrael, they responded unanimously, “we shall abide, and we shall listen,” (Shemot 24:3).

Israel Zangvill explains the matter of “choseness” most aptly. According to him, “It is not so much a matter of the chosen People as the choosing People.” This suggests a process of reciprocity. There are strings attached to the “choseness.”

The most important one is invariably linked to a telos, more precisely, a spiritual vocation.

According to Yehezkel Kaufmann, the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah perceived G-d’s choice of Am Yisrael as a means to a final end. The choice, which includes Torah, Shabbat, Mitzvot, sanctity of Life and service to G-d is for the purpose of teaching monotheism, removing idolatry, suppressing human arrogance, ending wars, violence, greed lust and building a better world for all humanity. This is clearly expressed in the directive mentioned in Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:2, “You shall be holy, for I the Lord, your G-d, am holy.” Prior to that, in Shemot 19:2, G-d instructs Moshe to speak to Am Yisrael and tell them: “you shall be to me a kingdom of priests.”

Our wise sages interpreted these two verses to mean, “You must consider yourselves part of the King’s retinue and emulate Him. Just as He is compassionate and merciful, so shall you be.” [Sifra (ed. Weiss), p. 86b]. This is the core of reciprocal holiness. Piety and becoming “G-d - like” requires the chosen to engage in imitatio dei.

Another reason for our minuteness being such an important factor in defining our Divine role rests in the message delivered by the annals of history.

Being so small in numbers, our Jewish People should have, according to laws of logic, history, and nature, disappeared either through persecution or assimilation. Our ongoing presence is a miracle. The fact that we have not only survived all the harsh onslaughts, past and present, but that we have also thrived, impacted, and contributed to world civilization is a living testimony to the existence of G-d and His Divine promise to Jews, in particular, and mankind, in general.

Shavua tov, Am Yisrael and a wonderful week to all.

The Ten Commandments

 

A bird’s eye view of the Torah will reveal to us that there are two sets of the Ten Commandments. One can be found in the Book of Shemot (Exodus), chapter 20, rendering the original version delivered by G-d to Moshe. The other, in the Book of Devarim (Deuteronomy), chapter 5, is where Moshe reviews the Torah and stresses its centrality and the centrality of the Ten Commandments in the life of Am Yisrael.

A closer look at the two texts will show some differences between their versions.

It is important to note that these differences are not merely semantical. Some have very practical implications. For instance, in the Book of Shemot, it states, “Remember the Shabbat.” In Devarim, however, we are required to keep, to observe the Shabbat and abstain from performing certain chores and tasks which may interfere with our rest, the main goal of Shabbat.

Likewise, the tenth commandment, in Shemot, instructs us not to “covet” that which is not ours and not engage in any act to obtain it. In Devarim, Moshe adds the word “desire,” which in addition forbids us from even, covertly, entertaining the thought.

Naturally, one may ask, if Moshe closely and accurately repeats the words of G-d, how did these differences emerge?

Some of them have specific explanations such as the well-known explanation of Chaza”l which states “remember and observe were required in one commandment.” (Babylonian Talmud, Shavuot Tractate, Leaf C, Page B). According to Chaza”l, at Mount Sinai, G-d said both words, miraculously, at once. Chaza”l further add that in documenting the Commandments in the Torah, one of each was selected each time.

Another explanation is given in the Midrash where it states that the two versions are in accordance with the two sets of the tablets that were given to Am Yisrael. The one appearing in Shemot is the one written on the original tablets which Moshe shattered after the sin of the Golden Calf, whereas the one in Devarim is the one carved on the second set given to Moshe when he went back to Mount Sinai to ask forgiveness for Am Yisrael.

Several years ago, I wrote an article where I suggested that the Torah and the Ten Commandments are a manual which is composed of two parts. One part is that which contains the Mitzvot for Am Yisrael only. The other is the moral code it preaches which is both for Am Yisrael and the world.

There is a Midrash that supports my assertion. That Midrash tells us that prior to Mount Sinai, G-d offered the Torah to all nations, and they rejected it, until He reached Am Yisrael who embraced it. On that basis, one may surmise that the original account of the Ten Commandments, in the Book of Shemot, was created for non-Jewish recipients, the nations to whom G-d proposed the Torah first, while the Devarim version was meant for Am Yisrael and Jews only.

This might explain why in Shemot, the commandment regarding Shabbat is to “remember” the Shabbat and in Deuteronomy, the requirement is to “observe” it. Additionally, in the Book of Shemot, the reason given for the requirement to remember the Shabbat is the creation of the world in six days whereas in Devarim, comes, instead, the story of the Exodus from Egypt which is pertinent to Am Yisrael only.

Another reason for the difference, I believe, lies with the fact that forty years have passed between the two versions. During that time, Am Yisrael which started its desert journey as former slaves, has matured, and possibly also become riper and readier to internalize G-d’s message and lesson. Moshe, the great teacher must have grasped it. He probably recognized that the lesson taught on Mount Sinai needed to be processed, and certain parts of it, perhaps, needed stressing, more than other ones, and, thus, edited some of the commandments in order to help facilitate the implementation and execution of the Mitzvot.

Whatever the reason for the differences between the two mentioned versions, one fact remains clear. Moshe understood that any lesson, especially one as important as that of the Torah, needs to be repeated and reinstructed or else no learning will be accomplished.

Shabbat Shalom to you, fellow Jews and Am Yisrael and a meaningful weekend to all

 

Usurpation

 

Dear friends,

While writing this article, I was debating with myself, wondering how, in a world overflowing with Political Correctness, it might be perceived. I felt, however, that my message needed to be shared.
I turned to my dear friend, Roger Froikin, who not only backed me on that but also helped by providing some historical perspective to the issue along with some facts in support of my argument.
Thank you Roger!

Those of you who know me are probably already aware of two principles or fundamentals that are the pillars of fire which guide me along my life’s path. The first, an axiom as far as I am concerned, the undeniable and innate right of Freedom of Choice be it religious, idealistic, economic, sexual or any other forasmuch as it does not encroach or infringe on that of others.

The second one, one I have voiced, on more than one occasion, is my stance against appropriation or usurpation (and thank you, Linda Olmert, for teaching me this term) of that which is unique and dear to one group or another such as flags or other distinctive emblems. I have expressed my displeasure with those who usurp symbols that define us as Jews and are ours only. I have quoted my dear friend Mohammad Kabiya, a Yisraeli Arab who expresses similar views when pro-Palestinian westerner activists, who have no personal or familial connections to the Arab world, wear a Kafiyah, a unique symbol to the Arabic culture, while advocating their cause.

Today, these two principles solidified when I realized that the LGTB flag not only uses the colours of the rainbow, but they also appear on it in the same order. I grasped it while looking at some baby outfits that had this image printed on them. While I saw the LGTB flag in that image, others perceived it as the impression of a rainbow.

On the one hand, as I stated above, under Freedom of Choice the LTGB movement has, just like any other group or faction, a right to define itself and practice its preferences. Like any other group, it has the right to select symbols or colours that it believes delineate its beliefs and are unique to it.

On the other hand, though, just as words have meaning that is best kept clear so we can better understand one another today and across generations, symbols – flags, religious items, or objects to which we have assigned meaning, need to convey that meaning clearly, to communicate their original intent for today and across time as well.

And herein is where my dilemma rests.

The Rainbow of colours, universally, across cultures and across time, has stood for hope, new beginnings, and promise. Already in the Torah, in the story of Noah, the rainbow was selected to signify a fresh start, a new era, and an optimistic outlook for a better future for humanity.

In the USA, at one point, Jesse Jackson adopted the rainbow symbol for his organization. His purpose was to indicate and convey hope in a nation of peoples of all colours and backgrounds as sort of an expression of the American “E Pluribus Unum” (one from many), the motto proposed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, for the Great American Seal of the United States by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson in 1776, suggesting that everyone was equal and part of one new nation.

More recently, I feel, the image of the rainbow has been usurped, yet again, not to be that symbol of hope for all, nor that symbol of diversity in union that Jesse Jackson promoted. It has become a politicized symbol of one group’s agenda,  a tool for political propaganda to which dissent is disallowed.  

I do not mind that the LGTB movement selected the same hues as those of the rainbow. They are bright, beautiful, and cheerful.  The rainbow is a widespread symbol which belongs to each member of humanity.  It should not, in my view, be exclusively associated as the symbol of one specific group or another, and surely not used as a political statement on a child's clothing.  This, I feel, is a usurpation at its purest forms.

Unfortunately, these days, we are witnessing similar trends and efforts to wipe away history and replace it with ideology. Words are changed in meaning. Symbols are discarded or reassigned for political purposes, all in the name of dogma and creed.  Communication is hampered, not facilitated, across generations.  Lenin spoke of doing this in the interests of socialism.  Mao went further saying that the past is gone.  The Taliban blew up statues they claimed were offensive, destroying ancient artifacts, and banning history and literature and even education for girls.  

The rainbow, a universal, and Biblical symbol of hope that belongs to every one of us should not be allowed to be reduced to a political game.

What next, then?  Can or should we expect that the next fashionable movement which comes along to play on the emotions of people will, likewise, use the rainbow, a motif that is, undeniably, affiliated with and belongs to us all, for its own purposes?

למען דיוק היסטורי, השם הוא "פלשתינה," לא "פלסטין."

 

 

 .כל אחד רשאי וזכאי לבחור את השם אשר בו היה רוצה להיקרא. עלינו לכבד זכות זו

אולם, וזה אולם גדול, אם בחירת השם הינה אך ורק למטרת יצירת הוכחה וביסוס לגיטימיות אזי המאמץ המפרך לקביעת תוקף חוקי לשם זה מוטל על כתפיה של אותה ישות אשר בחרה להיקרא באותו שם אשר בחרה.

עיקרון זה חשוב במיוחד כאשר מדובר בעובדות היסטוריות. למען דורות העתיד, עובדות היסטוריות אינן ניתנות וחלילה שיהיו ניתנות לעיצוב מחדש, כראות עינינו, במטרה לשרת מאבק תעמולתי כזה או אחר. אם וכאשר בחירת השם נעשית למטרה זו, ועדיין משאירה מקום לשאלות, אזי היא הופכת להיות נאראטיב מהסוג המעוות ביותר.

.דיוק, במיוחד כאשר מדובר במאבק המזרח תיכוני, הינו בעל חשיבות רבה, ללא קשר לצד אשר בו תומכים

המלחמה האחרונה בעזה, לדעתי, מחזקת את הצורך בדיוק ומחזירה לאור הזרקורים, שוב, את דרישתם של המתגוררים בעזה להקמת מדינה משלהם. מבלי להתמקד בשאלה האם טענותיהם צודקות או שאינן צודקות, ברצוני להתייחס לשם אשר אותה ישות פוליטית בחרה לקרוא לעצמה לעצמה אם וכאשר תוקם.

אותם הקוראים לעצמם "פלשתינאים" אשר, כפי שציינתי, זו זכותם המלאה לבחור בכל שם שיחשקו, עשו זאת, חד משמעית, במטרה להשפיע על דעת הקהל העולמית. מטרתם היחידה בבחירת השם, לאחר מלחמת ששת הימים, הייתה ל"חנך" את העולם שהם היו כאן ראשונים, כאשר האזור עדיין נקרא "פלשתינה" (פ' דגושה), לפני שנתקבלה החלטת עצרת האו"ם על הקמת מדינה יהודית לצד מדינה ערבית ב-1947. זה היה אחד האמצעים של מכונת הפרופגנדה הערבית המשומנת להתחיל בתהליך הדה-ליגטימציה של המדינה היהודית, ישראל.

לאלה מכם אשר אינם מכירים את ההיסטוריה של האזור, הרשו לי לתת לכם מבט ממעוף הציפור, על השתלשלותה, כפי שהיא מתועדת בהיסטוריה ואשר חלקה אף מעוגן במשפט הבינלאומי.

בשנת 135 לספירה, החליט הקיסר אדריאנוס, מתוך שנאה עמוקה לעם היהודי אשר הוגלה מארצו, לשנות את שמה של ארץ ישראל, באופו שרירותי, ל"פלשתינה." המטרה הייתה לנתק כל קשר בין היהודים לארץ אבותיהם.

השם "פלשתינה" נבחר על ידי הרומאים במטרה ברורה לזרות מלח על פצעיה של האומה היהודית המובסת, השבורה והמוגלית. הרומאים קראו לאזור על שמם של הפלישתים, אחד מאוייביו המרים ביותר של עם ישראל, במשך תקופה ארוכה. הפלישתים היו יורדי ים, עובדי אלילים, אשר, כפי שמסביר שמם, פלשו (שורש המילה "פלישתים" הינו פ,ל,ש) לאזור המזרח התיכון במאה ה-12 לפנה"ס.

בשנת 1920, ועל בסיס הצהרת בלפור משנת 1917, החליט חבר הלאומים (אשר החלטותיו הועברו לאו"ם, הגוף אשר ירש אותו) להקים בית לאומי לעם היהודי בארץ ישראל. באותה עת, קבלה בריטניה את המנדט על פלשתינה ובידה הופקדה המשימה להכין את האזור ליעד זה. עם תחילת המנדט, נתווסף השם "ארץ ישראל" באופן רישמי והפך למילה נרדפת ל-"פלשתינה" כפי שמצביעים ראשי התיבות המופיעים בסוגריים על המטבע והבול בתמונה הבאה.

 

מאחר שהאות פ' דגושה אינה קיימת בשפה הערבית, שפתם של אותם אשר בחרו להיקרא על שם האזור,"פלשתינה," נאלצו  האחרונים לבטא את שמם  כ- "פלסטין" (פ' רפה) ולקרוא לעצמם "פלסטינים" (פ' רפה). עיוות רציני של השם המקורי, מסכימים? במיוחד כאשר הם כה נואשים לבנות תדמית של היורשים והבעלים החוקיים של השטח הנקרא, "פלשתינה."

הנושא אינו אלה מותיר  שתי שאלות לאותם אשר, כמוני, מנסים להבין הן את מהות השם והן את אופן ביטויו.

ראשית, אם מישהו חושק בדרישת לגיטימיות והכשרת בעלות על שטח אדמה, מדוע אם כן, מכל השמות בחרו לקרוא לעצמם, דווקא, על שם פולשים, הפלישתים, המתועדים ככאלה בדפי דברי הימים? מוזר, האין זאת?

שנית, אם השם אשר בו מישהו בוחר לאמץ, הינו שם אשר אינו ניתן לביטוי בלשונו ואומץ למען מטרה אחת בלבד, יצירת חוקיות להכרזת בעלות על שטח אדמה או ישות זו או אחרת, מדוע לבחור בשם אשר אינו בר ביטוי בשפתו. בעיני, צעד שכזה נוגד את המטרה, הלא כן?

שוב, אין לי בעיה עם זכותו של כל אחד להיקרא בשם על פי בחירתו. חייבים לכבד זכות זו. אולם, באותה מידה, לא ניתן לגזול מאף אחד את הזכות לתהות, לשאול שאלות נאותות,  שאלות המתבקשות ומתחננות להישאל, גם אם אינן נוחות. זכות זו, אף אותה מוטלת עלינו החובה לכבד.

For the sake of historical accuracy, it is Palestine, not Falestine

Anyone can and should have the privilege to choose the name they wish to be known as. That entitlement needs to be respected.

However, and it is a BIG however, if the choice of name is made for the mere intention of establishing proof of legitimacy, then the onerous task of forming such validation rests entirely on the party that elected to be called by that name.

This principle is, especially, important in the negotiation of historical facts. For the sake of posterity, historical facts cannot and should not be tempered with to win one propaganda battle or another. When they are, they become narratives of the worst, twisted kind.

Accuracy, particularly when it comes to the middle east conflict, is of utmost importance regardless of which side of the conflict one supports.

The recent Gaza war, in my view, not only reinforces this notion, but it also brings to light, yet again, the demand of its dwellers to have a state of their own. Regardless of whether their claim to statehood is right or wrong, I wish to address their designated name for that political entity if and when it is founded.

Those who call themselves “Palestinians,” which, as I stated above, have every right to call themselves by whatever name they wish, did that with unequivocal tendentiousness. The sole intention of adopting that name in 1967, was to “educate” the world that they were here first, before the United Nations General Assembly voted to create the Jewish state, in 1947. It was a means of the well-oiled Arab propaganda machine to start the process of delegitimization of the only Jewish state, Yisrael.

For those who are not familiar with the history of the region, let me give you a bird’s eye view of it.

In the year 135 C.E., a Roman emperor by the name of Hadrian, out of sheer hatred to the Jewish nation, which was exiled out of their home in Eretz Yisrael, decided to arbitrarily change the name of the land to “Palestine,” or more precisely, “Palaestina.” The purpose of such a move was to sever any connection between the Jews and their Homeland.

The name “Palestine” was selected by the Romans in a deliberate effort to add insult to injury to the already beaten, broken and exiled Jewish nation. The Romans named the area after the Philistines, one of the worst enemies of Am Yisrael. The Philistines were heathen sea faring people who, as the meaning of their names suggests, invaded (the root of the word Philistine is “to invade”) the Levant region in the 12^th century B.C.E.

Are you still with me?

In 1920, when the League of Nations voted to establish a National Jewish Home in Eretz Yisrael, Britain was granted a Mandate over the area and was entrusted with the task of preparing the ground for such an eventuality. At that time, the original name “Eretz Yisrael” was officially added and became synonymous with “Palestine,” as the acronym in the parenthesis on both the coin and the stamp below suggests.

 

Since the letter “P” does not exist in the Arabic language, the language of those who elected to call themselves “Palestinians,” they had no choice but to pronounce the original name as “Falestine” and call themselves “Falestinians.” Quite a distortion of the name, wouldn’t you say so, especially when one wishes to establish themselves as the rightful inheritors and owners of a place called “Palestine?”

This leaves inquiring minds such as mine with two questions.

The first is, if anyone wishes to claim legitimate ownership over a territory, why of all names do they choose to be called after invaders, the Philistines, which are recorded as such in the annals of history? Strange, isn’t it?

The second question I have is, if one cannot pronounce the name which one opts to embrace, for the mere purpose of establishing legality of ownership over a territory or any other entity, why use that name? It defeats their goal, does it not?

Again, I have no problem with the right of anyone to be called by the name of their choice. It should be respected. Likewise, though, no one should be denied the right to ask what sounds like valid questions, albeit uncomfortable, questions that are begging to be asked. That, too, should be respected. 

ישראל, כשמו כן הוא

מציעה לאוייבי ישראל ואולי אפילו לחלק מבני עמנו הלוקים בחסר בנקודה זו, לשנן את הפסוק המצויין למטה, הלקוח מבראשית לב, כט.

כט וַיֹּאמֶר, לֹא יַעֲקֹב יֵאָמֵר עוֹד שִׁמְךָ--כִּי, אִם-יִשְׂרָאֵל:  כִּי-שָׂרִיתָ עִם-אֱלֹהִים וְעִם-אֲנָשִׁים, וַתּוּכָל.

 .לקשי ההבנה מביניהם, הרי הוא מתורגם לשפה פשוטה

 היושבים בציון, אוייבים יקרים, כבר אינם יעקב, אותם שהלכו בעקבותיכם (ע,ק,ב) אלפיים שנים, אותם שעשיתם בהם כרצונכם.

 .לא בכדי בחרו מנהיגי המדינה ומייסדיה בשם ישראל

כיום אנו ישראל, אותו עם קשה עורף הממשיך עדיין להאבק, מדי פעם, עם אלוהים כאשר מדובר בקיום עקרונות המוסר (וכאחת שאינה יהודיה שומרת מצוות, אינני מתכוונת לפאן הדתי, אלא המוסרי בלבד), אשר הקנה לנו

לצערי, אנו גם נאלצים להמשיך להלחם כנגד כל העומדים עלינו לכלותינו, ומי כמונו יודע זאת, על מנת להגן על היקר לנו

 ".אולם, אולם, חברים, וזה לדעתי החלק החשוב ביותר בפסוק, " ותוכל

 חברים, ידידים ושונאים יקרים, עם הנצח יצא וימשיך לצאת מכל מאבק על קיומו ועל עתידו, כאשר ידו על העליונה, כפי שמציין הפסוק

ואם, עדיין, אינכם משוכנעים, אז כל שעליכם לעשות הוא ללכת לספריה במורד הרחוב מכם, לקרוא ולהשכיל בנושא ההיסטוריה היהודית.

 וכאשר סוף כל סוף תבינו שמאמציכם החוזרים ונשנים להכחיד אותנו הינם חסרי תכלית, אולי אז, תתחילו להשקיע בעתיד עמכם, ילדיכם, צאצאיהם ובעתיד האנושות 

ולסיכום, בהיותכם בסיפריה, נסו למצוא, בבקשה, עוד עם הנושא שם כה עוצמתי ונבואתי המכיל בתוכו, עבר והווה,  המהולים בפאר, גדולה והדר מחד, וספוגי יגון ודם, לצערי, מאידך  ובעת ובעונה אחת עטור בהבטחה לעתיד מזהיר ומבטיח כגון השם

 

                      י ש ר א ל     

                                                       . 

חג שמח, רגוע ושקט עמי היקר, העם העומד בראש מעייני, העם אשר נתברכתי להיות חלק ממנו. 

 

The Eighth Day

 

                                                                 “And it came to pass on the eight day, that Moses called Aaron and his sons, and the elders of Israel…”

This week’s Parashah (Torah portion) is called “Shmini” (The Eight), Leviticus 9:1 through 11:47. It addresses various topics. Among them, it relates the tragedy that befell Aharon’s two sons.

 The issue I wish to address in this article is the one concerning the consecration of the Mishkan (God’s dwelling place).

The seven days in which Moshe performed all the necessary tasks preparing for the consecration of the Mishkan are over. On the eighth day, he summons Aharon and his two sons to, officially, pass on to them the scepter of priesthood.

I want to share with you, dear readers, a different perspective on this subject, one that the titular name evoked in me.

Years ago, I saw a French movie called “The Eighth Day.” It unfolds the story of a professional man, named Harry who becomes a workaholic. The money he earns affords him the pursuit of many materialistic gratifications. Harry drives a nice car. He buys a spacious and beautiful house full of precious items. Unfortunately, it is devoid of warmth or inviolability. It is just a house, not a home.  His family nucleus begins to disintegrate. His wife leaves him taking their two daughters and he becomes a recluse and very unhappy.

It is at one of his most difficult moments that Harry meets and befriends Georges, a young down syndrome man. Georges becomes his spiritual director. He guides Harry through a healing process. He helps him slow down and teaches him the importance of appreciating the natural world around us. Eventually, Harry reunites with his family and they live happily ever after.

Unfortunately, as is the case with most down syndrome victims, Georges dies at a young age. As the angels are carrying his soul to heaven, the narrator recounts the story of the creation in Genesis day by day. “And on the Sabbath, G-d rested,” he tells us, “looked at his world and thought ‘what is missing in my world?’ So,” the narrator concludes, “on the eight day, He created Georges.”

The eighth day, mentioned in this Parashah, derives its name, “Shmini,” from the very first verse which states: “And it came to pass on the eight day, that Moses called Aaron and his sons, and the elders of Israel…” On this day, The Mishkan is consecrated.

Unlike the narrative presented in the movie that I mentioned above, on the Seventh Day of creation, when G-d rested, he had already known what was missing in His world. He had already known what had to occur on the Eight Day. For six days He had been working on creating a world for us, humans, a perfect dwelling place, a world to satisfy our physical needs and existence. G-d, in his wisdom, did not want us to end up like Harry in the story above. He knew that the physical universe He had created was just a house. It needed to become a Home, a place that would include a spiritual dimension, righteousness and morality, a place where we, its dwellers, would be blessed with an appreciation for the gifts of life bestowed upon us by Him.

What was, therefore, needed to be formed on “The Eight Day” was a dwelling place for G-d, among us. It would have been the missing piece, the one that would make His creation complete.

 Naturally, some may argue that G-d, the omnipotent, could have, himself, created “the Eight Day” merely by speaking, just as he had done on the previous six days. Why, then, didn’t He?

In order to answer this question, let me take you back to the Book of Shemot (Exodus), more specifically Chapter 25 verse 8, where G-d tells Moses, “Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them.” The task of building a dwelling place for G-d, not only amidst them but in them, in their heart, is upon Am Yisrael. ( I refer you to an article I wrote on the subject last year: https://wingnsonawildflight.blogspot.com/2020/02/terumah-building-tabernacle-within-us.html)
Only then would the world be the Home that G-d had intended it to become for us and through us, for humanity.

"The Eight Day" in G-d’s plan, therefore, is the day on which the Tabernacle, which Bezalel, who was blessed with the wisdom of the heart designed and which Am Yisrael together contributed to and jointly built. It is the day in which the spiritual universe, which G-d had planned for us to built for ourselves, bonded and merged into one with the physical world that He had set up in Genesis.

 It is our duty to ensure that the Eighth Day and what it stands for remains an inseparable part of the rest of the week. We need to preserve it as G-d had intended it to be, not just a “house” but a “home,” as well. It is the only means to heal and restore that which has become, in the words of the late Lord Rabbi Sacks, “a fractured world.”

Shavua tov