(All rights reserved to Keren Yishai)

We are on the eve of reading Parshat Emor that leads us into the topic of the omer and the two loaves of bread that are relevant in our times, too. Our issues include the omer that we harvest "on the day after the day of rest" and the counting of the omer that begins then and goes on until the new meal-offering at your feast of weeks - on Shavuot. Over the course of this process we find that our parshah is also that of Israel Independence Day, which we have had the privilege of seeing added during our generation to the counting of the omer period, into the nexus between Pesah and Shavuot. These are the two issues I wish to discuss — that of the omer and the two loaves of bread, on the one hand, and the singing on Independence Day, on the other. But I wish to begin my lesson with a continuation of what we began to deal with last week. Previously, we dealt with the downfall of Sennacherib and with the haftarah that we read in the Diaspora on the final day of Pesah and here in Israel on Independence Day. The haftarah of "This same day at Nob he shall stand and wave his hand. O mount of daughter of Zion.." (Is. 10:32–12:6). This is the haftarah that deals with Hezekiah's great victory over Sennacherib and the great dream that Hezekiah was worthy of being made the Messiah of Israel. We left over for this session the issue of the omission of the singing of hymns of praise, this is the gap which meant that the great redemption by Jerusalem's victory and by Hezekiah's vanquishing Sennacherib and the Assyrian kingdom did not turn into the final redemption of the messianic era. This huge failure to take advanatage of the opportunity begins with the absence of song, of hymns of praise, and it is this lack that I wish to treat in this opening section.

Our Sages understood from the verses dealing with Pele Yo'ez Avi Ad Sar Shalom ("Wonderful counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, of the Prince of peace") that the name of the child who was born that they are speaking about is Hezekiah, about whom it is written, "For the increase of the realm and for peace there without end" (Isaiah 9:6)

R. Tanhum said: Bar Kappara expounded in Sepphoris, Why is every mem in the middle of a word open [without a dagesh[, while this is closed? — The Holy One, blessed by He, wished to appoint Hezekiah as the Messiah, and Sennacherib as Gog and Magog, whereupon the Attribute of Justice said before the Holy One, blessed be He, "Master of the universe, if you did not make David the Messiah, who uttered so many hymns and praises before You, will you appoint Hezekiah, who despite all the miracles you performed for him did not utter hymns before you, the Messiah? So it [the mem] was closed. Immediately the earth declared, "Master of the universe, let me recite hymns before You instead of this righteous person [Hezekiah] and make him the Messiah." So it broke into song before Him, as it is written, "From the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs, even glory to the righteous." [Sanhedrin 94a]

The land means nature, all living things. We saw that with the victory over Sennacherib all the nations begin to give recognition to everything, and the entire world begins to recognize the greatness of Jerusalem and they come to the Temple. And then comes the haftarah that describes "This same day at Nob he shall stand" and extends the issue not only to the redemption of the coming days, but also to the redemption of the leopard living with the kid, and the wolf with the lamb and all existence . Here it is given even greater expression, "from the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs, even glory to the righteous." But Hezekiah does not produce any hymn, any song, and nature rebels against this decision, and the angels take umbrage against the idea that they want to make him the Messiah.

Then the Prince of the Universe said to him, "Master of the universe, it [the earth] has fulfilled your desire [for songs of praise] on behalf of this righteous man." But a heavenly voice called out, "It is my secret, it is my secret." To which the prophet said, "Woe is me, woe is me; how long [must we wait]? The heavenly voice cried out, "The treacherous have acted treacherously, verily, the treacherous have acted very treacherously," which Raba, others say [it was] Rabbi Isaac, interpreted, "until there come spoilers and spoilers of spoilers. Brigands and brigands of brigands come to Jerusalem after Sennacherib has fallen, and the kingdom of Assyria has already collapsed, and Hezekiah's kingdom will fall, and he will not be made Messiah. Why? Because he did not come forth with a hymn of praise.

Why did he not utter a hymn? There is a midrash that tells that he did not utter a hymn, for after Hezekiah thought, he said, "With Pharaoh in Egypt when they were victorious, that was the place for songs of praise, but here?" There is an approach that says that Hezekiah saw all the miracles and was already intensely involved in them, yet he said nothing. All of these things are still missing, for the only thing missing is the singing of praise, and one must understand the issue. King David still recited hymns and praises, Hezekiah produced no hymn. I would have thought that Hezekiah's not reciting a hymn might, heaven forbid, have stemmed from being a person of little faith, from lack of erudition in Torah, for being little interested in these things. But our Sages have taught us just the opposite. " And it shall come to pass on that day, that his burden will be taken away from your shoulders, and his yoke form off your neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed because of the oil" (Is. 10:27 quoted in Sanh. 94b). Thus prophesies Isaiah, when you will be victorious over Sennacherib and the Kingdom of Assyria. "R. Isaac Napha said: [This means] the yoke of Sennacherib shall be destroyed on account of the oil of Hezekiah that burned in the synagogues and schools." The oil that Hezekiah burned was the reason for the great victory over Sennacherib. What was the oil? "He planted a sword by the door of the schoolhouse and proclaimed, 'He who will not study Torah will be pierced with the sword. They searched from Dan to Beersheba, and no ignoramus (am ha-aretz) was found; from Gevat to Antipris, and no boy or girl, man or woman was found who was not thoroughly versed in the laws of cleanliness and uncleanliness."

So what do they actually want from this generation? What do they really want from Hezekiah? So why didn't Hezekiah know to come forth with a hymn of praise? He takes care that all the young children from Dan to Beersheba and from Gevat to Antipris deal with the ritual laws of cleanliness and uncleanliness, that there be no ignoramus from Dan to Beersheba. Have you ever thought of this concept that there was no am ha-aretz from Dan to Beersheba? From this must we now understand that one is supposed to utter hymns? If so, how could it be that they did not do so? And let's assume that Hezekiah had some kind of weakness on this, so why didn't the generation rise up and break out in songs of praise? There is a midrash that says that Hezekiah was worthy of being made the messiah but that his generation was not. Does this contradict the other midrash? We shall see that on the surface, the response is yes. If any generation would seem worthy, it would be that generation in which every young boy and girl, man and woman dealt with the laws of cleanliness and uncleanliness. So perhaps the situation might be that an entire generation discusses the ritual laws of cleanliness and uncleanliness and is still deemed not worthy? This sounds a bit strange; how do these two images accommodate each other? What is the meaning of the first midrash, that all of nature comes and says, we will save Hezekiah, but no, he does not utter a hymn. What do the flowers mean by "From the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs, even glory to the righteous"? All flora want to sing together. But this is of no avail, Hezekiah does not produce a hymn of praise.

By the way, the concept of shirah, the great singing by the nation, occurs twice in the Bible. The first is when the children of Israel are leaving Egypt and they see the meaning of "This is my God and I shall glorify him" at the parting of the Red Sea, and the second is forty years later when they stand at the well "The well which the chieftains dug, which the nobles of the people started with maces, with their own staff" (Numbers 21:18) and sing the song of the well. Shirat ha-Yam that they sing at the Red Sea is a mighty swelling of song, Moses joins in or makes then all sing, Miriam is there and she sings together with everyone, Aaron is certainly there, he is not explicitly mentioned but all of them sang together. This is the song that concludes with "The Lord will reign for ever and ever!" Forty years go by between this singing and the next — the entire generation of the desert. At the next singing the setting is exactly the opposite. Aaron is dead, Miriam had died, Moses has already been punished, the mei merivah, the Waters of Quarrel, are behind us, a severe crisis for the nation, and then a miracle happens, this miracle is described in a song at the brook of Arnon, and it is not written there "Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song," even though Moses is still there. What is written is "Then Israel sang this song: Spring up, O well—sing to it." This is very strange, where is Moses? The first song expresses a nation in the midst of the mighty forcefulness of the miracle, it sees Egypt dead on the shore of the sea. The second song expresses a nation is a condition of severe decline, the fortieth year in the desert, we remember all the complaints and all the backsliding. A nation that has finished burying those who died in the desert, interrint them year by year along the way. A generation on the verge of entering the Land of Israel, and it is worn out from facing Moab, Sihon, Og, Edom and everything else. There is no leadership, and it suddenly finds a wellspring of internal strength and sings a song.

I wish to devote a bit of time to these two items, because they are the only two songs in the Torah —singing by the public, the songs of the people. These two songs have something in common despite the great differences. In both of these songs the people see before them the total collapse of systems, with all the vast differences that exist between the systems. At the Red Sea the people see the system of the horse and its rider, the system that no one believed could be vanquished, the system that had suppressed the human race, and had allowed no one a springtime, a chance, a light at the end of the tunnel, the possibility to escape this hierarchy of horse and rider, horse and rider, horse and rider, and Pharaoh on top. When we see Egypt dead on the sea shore, it is not the Egyptians who are dying, as we always stress, but the Egyptian ideology that had ceased to function. Egypt died with its horses and its riders, and then some kind of internal song bursts forth from the deepest well of their being. What does this song say? This song says "I will sing to the Lord for he has triumphed gloriously," because "horse and his rider he hurled into the sea." To sing in Hebrew (la-shir) is to be a link (le-sharsher), to reach the source, to trace the beginning of everything and to combine all together. So a song connects past, present, and future. Whoever looks for a source for the resurrection of the dead in the Torah, the source is "Then Moses and the Israelites" (az yashir Moshe u-venei yisra'el), az — past, yashir — future. The entire song deals with the past, present and future, ongoing and permanent "the place you made to dwell in"."you will bring them and plant them." But it does not deal only with the nation, it deals with all peoples, with Pleshet, with whoever is here, and the entire world comes forward to now recive the true kingdom that provides each one his place. When the He has hurled horse and rider into the sea, then I am able to sing to the Lord, to join together with him anew. The total collapse of the system that did not give me nor to any one else to express themselves now suddenly yields to a mighty outburst of all the men and women with drums and dances — "Sing to the Lord for he has triumphed gloriously.""

Song is not something that is willing to accept any limitation, singing from the depths is not a song with a few rhyming stanzas that appear together. Song is an entity not bound by time, not given to limitations. Our Rabbis differentiate between shirah and zemer. The root of zemer is li-zmor, to cut, this is a specific reference to something. In contrast, all of the Torah is called shirah. By the way, the verse by which all of the Torah is called shirah is "Therefore, write down this poem and teach it to the people of Israel; put it in their mouths." (Deut. 31:19). This shirah is that song at the end of parshat Vayelekh and the song of Ha'azinu, singing that contains past, present, and future. How does Nahmanides put it there in Ha'azinu? This is all of the Torah for it includes everything from the creation of the world to the resurrection of the dead — from "Give ear, O heavens, let me speak" to "O nations acclaim His people" to "and cleanse the land of His people." Shirah vanquishes limitations, Egypt expressed limitations that could not be overcome. The collapse of the system gave shirah the chance to come to fruition.

And turning everything upside down, topsy turvy and in total contradistinction, 40 years later it happens from a totally unexpected direction. We would have anticipated a complete crisis with the people of Israel. Aaron is dead, Miriam is dead, the Clouds of Glory have departed, the well does not rise, Moses is at the tag end of his life. A turnover, a crisis, everything has stopped. Moses no longer has the strength to stand at the center of the singing, it does not even appear in his name. The system has again crumbled, of course not the great system in which I was a slave, but the one that I followed for 40 years, the entire structure has collapsed, there is no leadership, who will carry on? We would expect a national crisis here and a crisis does occur, the entire 40th year was a crisis. And precisely out of this crisis there suddenly bursts forth a song that vanquishes the system and reveals strengths that could not have been seen when the system was working. Psychologically this is very interesting. And it is just Joshua bin Nun who succeeds in leading an entire nation in such a move. For if you remember the final chapter of Joshua, you see a whole nation dedicating itself in the name of the Lord, Joshua is the one who succeeds in leading the conquest and to all the mighty achievements. After that, in the Book of Judges, come the downfalls and backsliding. But from Joshua bin Nun to Othniel ben Kenaz at the beginning of Judges, there is a tremendous rise that appears precisely when the great leadership is lost. Just when the great system is gone, then each individual can give expression to his own great song

From then on we do not encounter public singing. We do find individual songs, we see David singing, but we do not meet the people singing. Joshua carries out the conquest, there is great activity, but there is no song. With Hezekiah there occurs something for the first time in history. This time we have not been victorious over Egypt, nor seen how a system has collapsed and then naturally broken out in song. This time, also, we have not just come out of the desert, where we are singing because of dreams for the country which are entering. In our case we have bested Sennacherib, vanquished Assyria, we are in Jerusalem. On the one hand, this is a much greater achievement, but on the other, we are in Jerusalem and Jerusalem is the city of all the policies and network of arrangements and the whole system is working. We are supposed to broadcast to the world some kind of tremendous strength, but this might has to be translated into the practical words of a state, of a system. This power must be translated into the most basic terms.

We sometimes forget. Hezekiah's times and his generation were, on the one hand, a mighty generation. On the other hand, when the prophets Isaiah, Micah, and others describe his government, his princes, or his political system, it is in the harshest terms. Do you remember the difficult chapter we read on Shabbat Hazon, "Your princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves" (Isaiah 1:23)? And the continuation, all the description of the great revolution, "And the daughter of Zion is left like a shelter in a vineyard, like a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, like a besieged city," "your cities are burned with fire; as for your land, strangers devour it in front of your eyes…as if overthrown by strangers." Radak writes that all this refers to the times of Hezekiah. The days of Hezekiah when the great miracle regarding Sennacherib arrives. Chapter 30 begins (verse 1–2) "Oh, disloyal sons! —Declares the lord — Making plans against my wishes, weaving schemes against my will," again the same kind of expression as "rebellious princes sinful children," on which Radak comments: "For it is written at the beginning of the book that Isaiah prophesied in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and we saw only kings who asked for assistance from Egypt…and this does not seem to fit the issue of the chapters when he comes later to tells of the great salvation performed in the time of Hezkiah, so it stat that this was in the days of Ahaz, even though it was not written so in the Book of Kings…or in the days of Hezekiah himself, , for the princes of Judah were not good but with great persuasion Hezekiah returned them to the straight path. And then the king of Assyria attacked all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them, and if they had been good, it would not have happened to them thusly. And this applies to the issue of adjacent parshiyyot" and so on and so forth. ..." And Radak on Chapter 1: "'And the daughter of Zion is left like a shelter in a vineyard': For most of cities of Judah were destroyed and in the time of Hezekiah all the fortified cities were taken by the kings of Assyria and only Jerusalem remained by itself like a shelter." This is a description of the moral level in Hezekiah's days, it's shocking, but it belongs to the period before the victory.

What happens after the victory? Sennacherib falls and the entire world now is able to see the great victory, but let's see what actually happens the day after in Jerusalem. I note that Sennacherib waves his hand over Jerusalem. "And Hezekiah the king and Isaiah the prophet the son of Amotz prayed because of this, and cried to the heaven. And the Lord sent an angel, who cut off all the might men of valor, and the leaders and the captains, in the camp of the king of Assyria. Thus the Lord saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib the king of Assyria, and from the hand of all, and guided them on every side" (II Chronicles 32:20–22). As with the Exodus from Egypt, "Thus the Lord saved on that day." And what happens in the world, "And many brought gifts to the Lord to Jerusalem, and precious things to Hezekiah king of Judah; so that he was exalted in the sight of all nations from then on" (II Chronicles 32:23).

Nu, what is needed now? Song, hymns of praise! And what happens then? "In those days Hezekiah was sick even unto death; and he prayed unto the Lord; and He spoke to him, and gave him a sign" (II Chron. 32:24). And now comes the main point, "But Hezekiah rendered not according to the benefit done unto him; for his heart was lifted up; therefore there was wrath upon him, and upon Judah and Jerusalem" (II Chron. 32:25). This is not simply that he did not utter a song. "Nothwithstanding Hezekiah humbled himself for the pride of his heart, both he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the wrath of the Lord came not upon them in the days of Hezekiah" (II Chron. 32:26). Indeed, his heart was lifted up but only a bit, he was all right, better than all the other kings, so it is written.

Let us see what happened politically. "And Hezekiah had exceedingly great richer and honor; and he provided him treasuries for silver, and for gold, and for precious stones, and for spices, and for shields, and for all manner of goodly vessels; store-houses also for the increase of corn, and wine, and oil; and stalls for all manner of beasts, and flocks in folds. Moreover he provided him cities, and possession of flocks and herds in abundance; for God had given him much substance. This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper spring of the waters of the Gihon, and brought them straight down on the west side of the city of David. And Hezekiah prospered in all his works" (II Chron. 32:27–30). Look at the contrast, everything prospers, so then what is the problem? For you taught all of them about uncleanliness and cleanliness, and all the children know all the laws, and there is no am ha-aretz from Dan to Beersheba. What is missing now? How do they suddenly fall? Verse 31 reveals all, though it not be so clearly understood: "Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent to him to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land, God left him, to try him, that He might know all that was in his heart," and so on and so forth.

What happened there with the princes of Babylon? In II Kings we find the following: "At that time," after the victory, after everything, "At that time Berodach-baladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent a letter and a present to Hezekiah; for he had heard that Hezekiah had been sick. And Hezekiah listened to them and showed them all his treasure-house, his silver, and gold, and the spices, and the precious oil, and the house of his armor, and all that was found in his treasures; there was nothing in his house, nor in all this dominion that Hezekiah did not show them. Then came Isaiah the prophet to king Hezekiah and said to him: 'What did these men say? and from where did they come to you' And Hezekiah said: 'They are come from a far country, even from Babylon.' And he said: 'What have they seen in your house?' And Hezekiah answered: 'All that is in my house have they seen; there is nothing among my treasures that I have not shown them.' And Isaiah said to Hezekiah: 'Hear the word of the Lord. Behold, the days come, that all that is in your house, and that which you fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left, says the Lord'" (II Kings 20:12–17). What happened? We vanquished Assyria, everything fell. Have you paid attention to how little Babylon is known in relation to Assyria, when he asks him, "Who are these men?" He says to him, 'They are come from a far country, even from Babylon,' there is a spot on the globe. They have come. How do you call the man? Berodach-baladan the son of Baladan. When a king is well known you do not have to call him by so many names, they call him Sennacherib, everyone knows what they are talking about and not with all kinds of genealogy, who is the brother of some fellow named David. The faraway Babylon. What did I do? I showed him my treasures. And once again in Chronicles, "And Hezekiah prospered in all his works. Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent to him to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land, God left him." What happened? It says there, "to try him, that He might know all his heart." What is the trial? Isaiah says, "Behold, the days come, that all that is in your house, and that which you fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left, says the Lord. And of your sons that shall issue from you, whom you shall beget, shall they take away; and they shall be officers in the palace of the king of Babylon" (II Kings 20:17–18). This is a horrifying tragedy, for Hezekiah is worthy of being Messiah. "And said Hezekiah to Isaiah — and here we see his might — 'Good is the word of the Lord which you have spoken,'" accepting the judgment. "He said, moreover, 'Is it not so, if peace and truth shall be in my days?' (II Kings 20:19). One may interpret this as praiseworthy or as disdainful, the main thing that things will turn out fine for me, or perhaps the opposite. And again, "Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah and all his might, and how he made the pool, and the conduit...are they not written in the book of the chronicles...and Hezekiah slept...." (II Kings 20:20–21). To me it seems, as far as I can understand, that here we have reached the crux of the issue.

In the Bible we have seen two public singings, both of them taking place at times when it was not so difficult to sing. The people sing, as we have said, the first time when they are liberated from the enemy. We shall remind ourselves of this people who stand up after it sees Egypt dead, "and the people of Israel went up armed out of the land of Egypt," saved from the sword, and the singing bursts forth. They understand that this rescue from the sword was not only for now and not only for us, but was for the entire world. The second occurrence is also understandable. A nation is finally standing on the ramp of the airplane on the way to the airport in the Promised Land. The period of attrition is finally over. Okay, the systems have collapsed, but perhaps just because of that we believe, we will succeed, we will not be broken. This time a difficult situation occurs. A people is in its country, there is no economic problem, there is wealth, and dignity and property, the description of such wealth such as we find with Hezekiah is rare, there is everything. The king is ill so all the kings come, and that one, too, from the faraway land, the one called Baladan the son of Baladan comes; he also comes to visit the sick king who must be visited. Everyone brings precious gifts, "My house is a house of prayer," and Hezekiah shows them all his treasures, but where is the name of the Lord?" The state, the apparatus, the system that works so well, that is so smooth, you can now bit by bit believe in this even without its content. "His heart was lifted up," the Lord left him so that He might know all that was in his heart, that is the expression in the verse, it is a terrible verse, "that was done in the land, God left him, to try him, that He might know," not what was in his hear but "to know all that was in his heart." In order to sing you must, with all your being, belong to the source.

Hezekiah succeeded in raising the level of an entire nation. He trained all the children from Dan to Beersheba, but how did Hezekiah really do this? I have always found this interesting. If I had such a curriculum that I could organize things such that from Dan to Beersheba there was no am ha-aretz, I would invest everything in it, from Dan to Beersheba there was no child who did not know the laws of uncleanliness and cleanliness. How did this come about? We already mentioned once that there was no boy or girl, except for the one at home, this is a tragedy. Menashe himself and perhaps even Rabsheka were not included in this. But how did this work? It is written, "R. Isaac Napha said: [This means] the yoke of Sennacherib shall be destroyed on account of the oil of Hezekiah that burned in the synagogues and schools. What did he do? He planted a sword by the door of the schoolhouse": (Sanh. 94a). This did work, everyone learned, but this did not come from within! There was a sword and whoever would not learn would be pierced. Everyone understood, everyone cooperated, everything was all right, but the revolution was too extreme. Yesterday they said about this entire system, "your princes are renegades," and suddenly, all at once, they put a sword in the bet midrash and there is no am ha-aretz from Dan to Beersheba. This singing where all are joined together and flow together and prospering together is very difficult to achieve. Hezekiah was worthy of being made the Messiah, since this was the first time that the war was about Jerusalem, and all the world knows Jerusalem, and slowly at the end of the way, we see how Hezekiah himself had not completely linked himself. Isaiah is angry at him. He asks Hezekiah, what did they come to see? You do not understand from the verses what he is aiming at, they saw treasures. And what did you do there? I showed them everything. Nu, and ...then comes the Diaspora, because you did not succeed in forging this link.

At the end of Shirat ha-Yam there is a verse that we always recite in our prayers before we reach the Amidah, "The Lord will reign for ever." This seems to be some kind of extra verse, a certain interpolation within the poem. Interestingly, when we are close to the Amidah we say, With a new song the redeemed people offered praise to Your name at the sea shore; together they all gave thanks and proclaimed Your sovereignty," and here it is natural to continue "I will sing to the Lord, for He has been highly exalted; the horse and his rider he has hurled into the sea…the place that you have made for You to dwell in. But that is not the case! Instead comes, together they all gave thanks and proclaimed Your sovereignty." "The Lord will reign for ever." Rabbi Tzevi Yehuda Kook, zt"l, makes a very short comment in Or le-Netivati, which I will first paraphrase. What they were singing was not about Egypt's loss, and not about the collapse of contemporary structures, and not about what the maidservant saw now at the sea. Rather, "The essence of the innovation of the Song of Redemption in Israel is the praise and crowning [of the Lord], not only the material act." (Or le-Netivati 33b). Not simply that just now something concrete happened, "of the awesome wonders of the Divine rule." Not only, "The people have heard it; they tremble." "But of his everlastingness and the constant continuation of his all-inclusive, unceasing future which is unique to the Lord, God of Israel, in the trend of his Providence and guidance." With a new song the redeemed people," this means that if you ask any child what people are singing about in Shirat ha-Yam, he will say that they did not only sing about the victory, but they sang about everything. The upshot of the song is that we will prosper and this will be continuous, that we will succeed and this will happen always, not only in the current situation of great heroics of the splitting of the Red Sea. This is the conclusion and aim of this song. Concerning this link, this connection, we were not tested at the splitting of the Red Sea nor at the second singing. Regarding this link, we were first tested with Hezekiah the king.

King David uttered songs and praises, that's great. But he was only at the beginning of the way, he had not yet been tried with this connection to the Temple, and he had not yet been deemed worthy of building it in the Land of Israel to which all the nations granted recognition. A kingdom of a state with an apparatus, a system, politics, with all this reality, all of whose content is holy. The power to recite a poem/song within this reality, this was the function of Hezekiah. It may be that all of nature did not understand why "from the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs, even glory to the righteous." But here we still have contradictions between the wonderful situation prevailing in the schools, and the situation rife in the state, not everyone said "the Lord will rule for ever." In the end this will find expression also with you, Hezekiah yourself. I showed them my treasures, my house, my great things, my wealth, my honor. Just two verses earlier, we saw how God destroyed all of the Assyrian camp, and you were the one who prayed, you were the one who declaimed the greatest speeches of faith ever made before the people. What was it that you said to the people of Israel in Jerusalem? "For there are more with us than with him; with him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our God to help us, and to fight our battles." (2 Chron. 32:7) So why did you not say that now to Berodach-baladan the son of Baladan? Was that more difficult to do?

Rabbi Kook wrote an article that gives expression to all the story of Passover and Shavuot precisely on this point. I noted that we are also worthy of celebrating these great holidays in our generation, thank the Lord, but we first have the counting of the omer. The counting of the omer comes between the bringing of the omer on the day following the festival, of 15 Nisan, and the two loaves of breads. The definition in the mishnah (Menahot 68b) is that "the omer rendered [the new grain] permitted throughout the land, and the two loaves rendered it permitted in the temple." The explanation is is simple, after 15 Nisan it might be that it had blossomed or new grain had sprouted, but it was still forbidden to eat the new wheat or to sacrifice meal offerings from the new wheat as long as the omer had not been waved on the day following the festival. The opening sign for eating and sacrificing using the new grain is the act of waving. This applies to the entire country. The omer was not an activity that took place mainly in the Temple at all, the main activity took place outside of the Temple. They used to go out to distant fields on the outskirts of Jerusalem and there the priest WAVED the omer, and from there they would take the omers, wave and asked, "Is this grain, …is this a sickle …is this an omer …is this reaping," and wave the omer, and then the new produce was permissible for use. But there were meal offerings that did have to be sacrificed in the Temple as well as from the new grain sacrificed as the two breads, that is, from the meal offering brought on Shavuot. Until now, we have discussed the halakhah. Our Sages called this "new is forbidden from the Torah." New is forbidden from the Torah means that it is prohibited to use the new wheat until I wave the omer. The expression "new is forbidden from the Torah" became a well-known phrase, as if there were a world view that says new is forbidden from the Torah. Rabbi Kook grapples with this concept wondrously in the first part of the article he wrote about the Pesah and Shavuot.

18
"New in the Country and the Temple" (Rabbi A. I. Kook, Ma'amarei ha-Ra'yah, p. 181)

"The omer made [the grain] permissible in the country, and the two breads, in the Temple." — The country and the Temple are of very great interest to him. Perhaps the country is connected to Passover, to the holiday of the emergence of nationalism, the Temple is Shavuot.

"One soul it is that sustains the country and the Temple in Israel, not through artificial links." And it is not artificial that we include in every state ceremony a reading of a chapter from Psalms, and this is not just some technical game. "Not with artificial connections do we link the overall lives of our people with all their characteristics, but only because so we are instructed from the source of our life." We have no life without this connection between state and Temple or Temple and state. "And this is the total nature of the soul of our nation. There are no halfway measures, no partial ones, and there are no elements of separation in the essence of that great soul of the nation for which the holiness of unity is all of its life, all of its foundation and existence, "You are one, and Your name is One and who is like your nation Israel, one people in the land." We must understand well this verse that we recite in minhah of Shabbat. We do not say your nation Israel is one people because they are all friends now, but rather we mean that they are one in the sense that You are one. You are one, Master of the Universe, not because, heaven forbid, you manage to resolve contradictions masterfully, but because for you this is one, for you are the source of everything. For you this is truly one, for God it is not that He integrates in a really exceptional manner both the state and the Temple, for he is the source of the state and the source of the Temple. Thus, "who is like your nation Israel, one people in the land," one for whom the unity of all topic of state and Temple are the core of life, it is real him, it is not external to him. He does to have a country without a Temple and he has do Temple without a state.

Now Rabbi Kook begins to deal with the voice of Jacob since the Shabbat minhah service is the prayer of Jacob, arvit is Abraham's, shaharit is Isaac's, and minhah is Jacob's. The continuation of ""You are one, and Your name is One and who is like your nation Israel, one people in the land. Glorious greatness, You have given Your people: — Abraham was glad, Isaac rejoice"," and now we are dealing with Jacob, "Jacob and his sons rested on it: a rest granted in generous love.," the entire theme is the dealing with Jacob and his sons in minhah, the topic is the rest, the menuhah, of the sons. One nation, by the way, is called "one nation in the land/on the earth." It is possible to explain the phrase "one nation in the land," and this seems to be the peshat for "on the earth" — in the world they are one nation. As Haman says, "a certain people," one nation. As the Zohar puts it, "In the Land of Israel they are called one people, but outside of Israel they are not called one." Because outside of Israel the state and the Temple are not connected, while here, there can be no treatment of Shabbat without dealing with the omer, for what do you do with the omer on Shabbat? The omer is purely agriculture. Here we do not have a situation of dealing with the Temple while not involved with the state or vice versa. All of this division, all the artificial attempt to divide it into two parts and to sometimes link the two is some kind of imported Diaspora artifice from which we have not freed ourselves.

And Rabbi Kook continues, "Thus it is Jacob's voice that breaks through and rises in its unified form from all the avenues in general motion, and its aspirations in Israel are the voice of the vintner and the farmer on the soil of Israel and the voice of Torah and prayer in the tents of Jacob to the voice of exquisite singing in the Temple of the Lord," all this, "but one single voice in the innards of our experience." This is amazing, "whether it is known and familiar to the people with the voices making them heard to many others and to themselves, or whether it is so effacing that it is totally unknown." Whether we want to or not we are playing the notes of one tune. We can [choose] to not recognize this unity, we can choose not to appreciate our fellowman's part in this concert, but we all play the same tune. "From the midst of the general voice and source of its life, there comes forth two sides stressing the essence of the notion that when sizable and structured, they are large and well built, and when small and in ruins, they are diminished and destroyed." And these two sides "are the state and the Temple."

Now Rabbi Kook explains why this is so for us and different for the other nations, "among all those nations whose spirit of life is of a composite nature," the composition differs from unity, we must understand the difference between the concepts. "Composite" is a lovely word, but here it is used versus "unity." I can put two things together and make do with their combination. But I can conceive of the two as stemming from the same source, and then there will never be a state without a soul nor a Temple without a physical side. This is not a combination of two totally different things. This is one thing split into two parts. How does this fit in with the omer making the new permissible? Please, give me a minute. "Among all those nations whose living spirit is of a composite nature, they, at times, also have a certain content causing them to draft the plan of their state and of their temple in a certain institutional form," which it will bind with bands of unification." But this unification as a single entity is unnatural. "Since this unification is unnatural for them, so they must always be chasing after new content to serve as a base for reinforcement of the existing situation...and since the treasures that the old property, which unifies their existence, are not everlasting," so, "the passion after new content is connected to the nature of their existence."

And the desire to renew, the drive for something different, the wish for the modern, the longing to divest oneself from the old, the ancient, the worn out, the impetus for this disassociation comes from the fact that I naturally strive continuously for something truly additional, for something truly new. And then he reaches the main point. "The eagerness for any new content is connected to the nature of their existence," for the striving towards the material appears their on its own account. The communist ideology was not really the nature of each nation living in the USSR, it was the result of a 70-year-old social revolution. Marxist ideology, capitalist ideology are actually the essence of a nation that has lived for three thousand years with the ideal of state and temple together, that is the result. Now I have a social aspiration that constantly moves forward and I have values, ethical content, to maintain the spirit, yes, but the desire to move forward at all times is rational. The one comes to a new concept. "Among them the new does not need permission [to be adopted], for exclusive of changing content and renewing form, there is no standing to institutional composition," the aim at all times is renewal, this is the ambition of modern man, something new, to uproot the old, to get rid of the old style, that is, what was current yesterday or this morning, to move forward. We have always noted that "kadimah" in Hebrew is a word that is a bit unpleasant for translation, since the root of the word kadimah in Hebrew is k-d-m, namely, kadum ("ancient"), to the east, that is, from the source from which all begins. This is a complicated word. We have a tremendous innovation, we pray, "Renew our days as of old." For among us this is not separate, for this is not an artificial combination of two ideas. Masoret ("tradition"), from the root m-s-r, li-msor (to hand over), means as in other languages to proceed forward. What can we do? That's the way it is. To proceed forward means to receive forces from the east. For us there is new, and new is permitted from the Torah, but one needs a permit to reach the new, we cannot eat from the new without permission. This is astounding, a Jewish person who learns Gemara says every day, "When will my deeds match the level of the deeds of my forefathers?" My progress is 3,000 years backward, yet forward at the same time, not backward, by all concepts, with all the progress. This does not even work well in Hebrew since everything is the same thing, it is one.

Modern man does not have a striving to return, the modern, western, American person has no ambition to return to what was 350 years ago in Washington, because he does not want to be an Indian. He has totally other aspirations, they belong to the new, he needs no permission for the new. The opposite, what is good, is to move to the new. We also want the new in our spring holiday, but we need a permit to reach the new. The omer makes the new permissible in the state. "for exclusive of changing content and renewing form, there is no standing to institutional composition, since it has no self-sustaining source of life, and the passage of time continually erodes it." It is impossible to lag behind, people say the world over. "And, essentially, they are always in the stage of 'choosing a new god,'" so they pick up new ideas. Not in negation, they do not change them in disdain, but rather because they are progressing. And this aspiration to progress is natural for us, since we are human beings.

Here is the fascinating interweaving, "Unlike this is the portion of Jacob, the essential unity of the state and the Temple, is inherent in our very soul." The attempt to separate the state from the Temple, to create a state without a Temple or a Temple without a state will be of no avail. We do not have religious prayer, such as, for example, "and to Jerusalem Your city You will return in mercy," this is certainly a national prayer, or "Forgive us our Father," this is certainly religious. So what do we do, pray with politics or without politics? Neither, the process is actually unified. One understands where the attempt to split this process comes from, and this is how Rabbi Kook continues, "only the dross that has clung to us from the ways of the non-Jews, they have caused those who stray from our path to think for a short time that we can have a plan of state that does not include the plan for a Temple, of a plan for a Temple that does not belong to a state." And Rabbi Kook comes out against both sides in equal measure. A plan for a Temple without a plan for a state, this is what happened with Hezekiah when he stuck the sword in the bet midrash. The economic situation was terrible. Then came the miracle with Sennacherib who was brought low and the economy reached the highest levels. There was a country and there was a Temple, and the ability to join them together fully and to produce a song of praise that everything, but everything, belongs to God was not achieved. So "From the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs, even glory to the righteous, " but : For the increase of the realm and for peace there without end."

Rabbi Kook concludes his article, "only the dross that has clung to us from the ways of the non-Jews, they have caused those who stray from our path to think for a short time that we can have a plan of state that does not include the plan for a Temple, of a plan for a Temple that does not belong to a state, according to the depth of their spirit and creative base...because of that we have a questioning approach to anything new." We run after the new, yes, but before that we ask for permission. Some have said new is forbidden from the Torah, and they made certain decisions regarding the state, on their attitude to the state. Rabbi Kook says that is not our way. New is permitted from the Torah, but anything new needs permission, and the omer makes the new permissible. One who knows how to rise above this physical existence, to lift the omer high, can now begin to eat from the new. We move all the time towards the new, while we are continuously linked to the Temple.

"Because of that we have a questioning approach to anything new, and we need content that makes the new permissible and which shows in actuality that what is derived from the new is in its external form," it must be the most beautiful and the most modern that can be, "it is truly exceedingly ancient, atik atika, an Aramaic phrase, but it must look like the newest of the new. If you cannot present it as new you have a weak point, and if the new does not makes you feel the connection to the old, then you do not have your new.

You have imported new and it will last only as long as any import. "And then it is received with love and becomes bound up with the holy connection of nation's elemental unity in all phases of its life." So Rabbi Kook says that in a year, too, on which Pesah ends on Friday— something that cannot happen with our calendar, but might have been possible before the calendar was se t— then when would 16 Nisan occur? On Shabbat. And they would go out on Shabbat and harvest the omer in the field and ask, "Is this the Shabbat day?" And they would answer, "yes." "And should I reap?" And the priest replies, "Shabbat and I shall reap Shabbat and I shall reap Shabbat and I shall reap, as if he had succeeded in doing it. He had succeeded to do something simple, he had succeeded in coming to Canaan and to reveal how the Shabbat and the reaping of the omer come together, this is what he had waited for all his life, this is his independence. "And a sign of this, 'the omer rendered [the new grain] permitted throughout the land, and the two loaves rendered it permitted in the temple," that this is the same meal offering of wheat, and fine flour, hametz, but already made from wheat and not from barley, not food for animals.

I think there is no better way to conclude than with Rabbi Kook's summation here "And from the old light, the light that the Lord has created since the creation," this is essentially the entire Torah. The Lord created light, as it is written "Let there be light," and then we find, "And the Lord separated the light from the dark," so what happened to the first light? Our Sages taught us, and we all remember that the light that the Lord created was hidden for the righteous in the days to come. When we make the blessing "creator of the lights" we do not always pay attention to the content. The Tur asks a wonderful halakhic question there. On what are we reciting a blessing in this instance? "Blessed are thou, o Lord our God, king of the universe, creator of the light and dark, maker of the peace and creator of all, who lights the land and for all who dwell upon it."

What are they talking about? They are talking here about light. And how to they conclude according to one version? "Cause a new light to shine on Zion, and may we all be worthy soon to enjoy its brightness. Blessed are You, Lord, Creator of the lights." The Tur asks, surprised, is it possible to finish with something that is not related to the content of the blessing? For this new light does not mean physical lights here, it does not refer to the sun and moon but to the hidden light. The Tur says, "Cause a new light to shine on Zion," all our lives we are working to replenish the hidden light. There is a most ancient hidden light that we must reveal, we must renew. And Rabbi Kook concludes, "And from this old light, the light that the Lord created from the time of creation, and "in which the Holy One, Blessed be he, wrapped himself as with a cloak and shined flashes of his glory, from one end of the world to the other' from this ancient light, that was hidden in the soul of Israel in the light of Torah, from this old light will shine forth for us a new light, that will shine on Zion, and may we all be worthy soon to enjoy its brightness." Here is the beauty of his words. There is a controversy on how to make the blessing over fire at the conclusion of Shabbat. Beth Shammai says, "Creator of the light of the fire" and Beth Hillel says, "Creator of the lights", light has many shades. And the ruling was "lights." For the light when it is revealed, that very same light reveals that all the shades are expressions of this light, this is not two things that came together artificially. And thus Rabbi Kook's ending words, "With its various and unified shades originating in the light of total life," may we be worthy that all this "will engulf all of our existence and unite all our separate parts in the country and the Temple that will be built together speedily in our days. Amen." May we all be worthy, with the help of the Lord, of complete independence and total redemption.