The second half of this week’s Parshah is the listings of the offerings that each tribe leader bought at the conclusion of the setting up of the Tabernacle. It’s a rather monotonous part of the Torah – we repeat the exact same six verses twelve times over – that’s 72 verses – almost as long as many Sedras. Each tribal prince brought the identical offering as the previous day. On the surface this may seem a bit unoriginal and uninspiring. However the Medresh goes to great length to explain how each prince had his own unique and exclusive intentions. Each and every component of their offering corresponded to something different.
But does that really justify 72 verses? Why not write it once and then just say that each prince brought the same as above but each one was totally stimulated by different intentions than their forerunners?
Perhaps we can suggest that in these seemingly superfluous 60 odd verses lies a most fundamental idea. What may seem as an identical action can actually be something completely different! Twelve princes doing a seemingly identical external action but with different intentions cannot be classified as the same action twelve times albeit with different intentions, rather it is twelve different actions. Hence the need to repeat each and every one individually. Not one action was in any way similar to that of their counterparts. Intentions determine actions!
This type of thoughtfulness behind actions can be seen in the following story:
There once was a simple Jew, an innkeeper of an inn where the great R’ Bunim of P’shischa would frequent. One late night as the Jew told R’ Bunim how his business was going so bad that he was on the verge of closing down the inn and declaring bankruptcy a knock was heard at the door. “Finally some business” thought the Jew out loud. The innkeeper is greeted by a pauper, “I’m tired and hungry, and I have no money but maybe you could give me a meal and a place to sleep?” he begs desperately. The innkeeper begrudgingly agrees to help out a fellow Jew, and off he goes to get the meal.
After the meal the pauper asks for some vodka to warm him up. Again the innkeeper agrees. With a little ‘crechtz’ and somewhat hardheartedly he takes a cup to the barrel and pours a cup, but then he unexpectedly empties it on the floor. Again the innkeeper fills the cup only to once more pour the vodka on the floor. This sadistic game repeated itself a couple more times. Then, on the fifth cup the innkeeper looks up and almost triumphantly hands the glass to the pauper.
A rather bemused R’ Bunim who had been watching the proceedings from afar came over to ask the innkeeper to explain his strange actions. “The first four times” he answered, “the cup was full of resentment and bitterness; how could I give such a cup for him to drink. I was going to blow the act of Chessed by giving it begrudgingly. It took me five cups to muster up the correct feelings that befit such a Mitzvah – so only then did I gave him to drink!”
We also read about the Nazarite who abstains from drinking wine. After he has completed his term of abstention and brought the relevant offerings the verse says, “and afterwards the Nazarite may drink wine”. But why is he still called a Nazarite – he has finished, it should have just said, “and afterwards he may drink wine”?
Explained Reb Yisroel Rakow; after completing his time as a Nazarite and abstaining from certain indulging and thereby re-evaluating the whole purpose of materialism in this world – when he now partakes in a drink of wine he is not like a regular person who is having a drink. He is a ’Nazarite’ with a whole new perspective on this cup of wine.
Our ex-Nazir can have a ‘l’chaim’ with his friend but how different the acts of drinking wine can be. Based on what we have said we can fully appreciate what is the difference, after all they are both having the same drink? No! The thoughts and intentions behind each ones drink makes the drinking a whole different drinking! The Nazir is drinking his ‘l’chaim’ with feeling of gratitude to Hashem over the ‘simcha’ at hand. In his mind he is thinking how the wine is just a means to help facilitate and express his joy. Whereas his friend is drinking with no such thought process, he just enjoys drinking wine, and today he has an excuse to do so. His drinking wine is a mere physical animalistic act, just to satisfy his desire.
Good Shabbos, Yaakov
