Chaim | Geshmack Torah

Author Archive

The True Firstborn

The pasuk at 4:22 says: “וְאָמַרְתָּ אֶל פַּרְעֹה כֹּה אָמַר ה’ בְּנִי בְכֹרִי יִשְׂרָאֵל”- “You shall say to Pharoah, so says G-d: My firstborn son is Israel”

Rashi writes: “ומדרשו כאן חתם הקב”ה על מכירת הבכורה שלקח יעקב מעשו” - “Here G-d had agreed to the fact that Yaakov had taken the firstborn right from Esav”.

What is the connection here?

The Lev Aryeh explains with the following: The next Pasuk, (verse 23) writes that eventually a plague would come in which the firstborn of each Egyptian household would die.

If we look at Makas Bechoros (plague of the firstborn) in Parshas Bo (12:30) it says: ”כִּי אֵין בַּיִת אֲשֶׁר אֵין שָׁם מֵת” – “In every house there was a death”

Rashi asks, how could every household have a firstborn son? He goes on to explain that the Egyptian wives would commit adultery and have sons with other men, each of these sons would be the oldest to its father, hence when the Torah said that the firstborn would die, it referred to the firstborn of the father not the mother.

“דבר אחר מצריות מזנות תחת בעליהן ויולדות מרווקים פנויים, והיו להם בכורות הרבה, פעמים הם חמשה לאשה אחת, כל אחד בכור לאביו”

Now look at the Pasuk about the famous birth of Yaakov and Esav, in Parshas Toldos (25:26): “וְיָדוֹ אֹחֶזֶת בַּעֲקֵב עֵשָׂו וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ יַעֲקֹב”- “His hand was holding unto the heel of Esav, and they called him Yaakov”

Rashi writes:

“נמצא עשו הנוצר באחרונה יצא ראשון, ויעקב שנוצר ראשונה יצא אחרון, ויעקב בא לעכבו שיהא ראשון ללידה כראשון ליצירה, ויפטור את רחמה, ויטול את הבכורה מן הדין” – “Yaakov was created first, but was only born second, so he claimed that he deserves the firstborn rights, because he was created first, therefore he clutched onto the heel of Esav as if to hold him back.”

Rashi explains that Yaakov was created first; i.e. he was the firstborn of his father, but Esav; who was born first, was firstborn to his mother.

So from the plague of the firstborn where we see that “firstborn” refers to the firstborn of the father, and we can bring a proof that Yaakov deserved the right of the firstborn, as he was also firstborn of his father. That is the link with our original Rashi, showing because of Makas Bechoros, Yaakov was the true firstborn, in that Hashem passed judgment based on the formula Rashi presented at Yakov’s birth of being the father’s first son.

Amazing!

True Modesty

In (37,21), “Reuven heard and saved him from their hands.

“כא וַיִּשְׁמַע רְאוּבֵן וַיַּצִּלֵהוּ מִיָּדָם וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא נַכֶּנּוּ נָפֶשׁ

The Medrash writes on this : “Had Reuven known that the Torah wrote about him “Reuven heard and saved…” , he would have immediately taken Yosef on his shoulders and returned him to his father.”

We must understand what is the pshat in the Medrash of why would Reuven suddenly return Yosef?

Also, how does the Passuk write that Reuven “saved” Yosef when he threw Yosef into a pit with snakes and scorpions?

The Toras Nesanel explains beautifully: The Mephorshim explain that the brothers had sentenced Yosef to death because he was a morid bemalchus; i.e. he had rebelled against the kingdom of Yehuda and had claimed that he was the one destined to be king, as they said to him “do you think you can rule over us?” They assumed that Yosef was a dreamer, and that he wanted to have the kingdom instead of Yehuda.

The Gemara in Brachos 62a writes: כל הצנוע בבית הכסא נצול משלשה דברים מן הנחשים ומן העקרבים ומן המזיקין ויש אומרים אף חלומותיו מיושבים עליו

“One who is modest when he goes to the bathroom, he gets 3 rewards: He is saved from snakes and scorpions and demons, and additionally his dreams are destined to be true.”

With this all becomes clear; Reuven was unsure of whether Yosef was dreaming to rebel against Yehuda, or whether his dreams were really the truth, and Yosef really would be king.

This would depend on whether Yosef was modest in the bathroom or not as the Gemara states.

In order to test whether he was modest or not, Reuven threw Yosef into a pit with snakes and scorpions and waited to see whether he would be injured or would be saved:

If he would be saved, then this is a sign that Yosef was modest as the Gemara states. In which case he receives the other reward that his dreams are true and so doesn’t deserve to die in the first place as he isn’t rebelling against Yehuda; for he dreamt the truth.That was the intention in Reuvens actions, if Yosef wouldn’t be harmed, this proves he is innocent. In this way he saved Yosef.

And now the Medrash can be understood. Had Reuven known that the Torah wrote about him that he “had saved Yosef” by throwing him into the pit, then that proves that he wouldn’t be injured by the snakes, in which case his dreams are also true, in which case he is completely innocent, therefore he would have immediately returned Yosef to his father.

Good Shabbos.

Angel Combat

כו. וַיַּרְא כִּי לֹא יָכֹל לוֹ וַיִּגַּע בְּכַף יְרֵכוֹ וַתֵּקַע כַּף יֶרֶךְ יַעֲקֹב בְּהֵאָבְקוֹ עִמּוֹ

26. “When he saw that he could not prevail against him, he touched the socket of his hip, and the socket of Jacob’s hip became dislocated as he wrestled with him.” (32:26)

The Yalkut Reuveni writes: “He saw that he couldn’t beat him, so he hit the socket of his hip” - He (Esav’s angel) set his eyes on the descendants of Yaakov; this refers to Nadav and Aviyhu.

This Yalkut needs simple understanding. Why couldn’t the angel beat Yaakov because of Nadav and Aviyhu and what is the connection between them?

The Divrei Yosef explains with a hint of genius: Esav’s angel fought with Yaakov over the brachos that Yitzchak had blessed him. When Yitzchak blessed Yaakov, his intention was to bless Esav as the pasukim in P’Toldos explain. However, in actual fact, Yaakov received the blessings from his father. So the “machshavah” (thought) indicated that Esav should receive the brachos, however the “ma’aseh” (action) indicated that Yaakov should receive the brachos. This was the argument between Yaakov and the angel of Esav.

Regarding the sin of the egel (golden calf), Rashi writes that because Aharon sinned, his two oldest children; Nadav and Aviyhu, died. However, in Vayikra (32,5), Rashi writes that Aharon only took part in the egel to stall the rest of Bnei Yisroel, but he was still punished eventually.

Over there, Aharon’s intentions were good, but the actions themselves seemed bad, and overall he lost Nadav and Aviyhu, so we see that when “machshavah” and “ma’aseh” clash, we go after the “ma’aseh.”

If so, from Nadav and Aviyhu we have a proof that Yaakov was right, and he received the blessings from his father, because “actions speak louder than words.”

This is the pshat in the Yalkut, once Esav’s angel saw the death of Nadav and Aviyhu, he realised that he couldn’t beat Yaakov, because Yaakov was right, therefore he had to dislocate Yaakov’s hip socket.

The Yalkut asked, why did the angel especially hit Yaakov on his “kaf yeracho”?

He answers that the angel set his eyes on the “yotzei yerachoi” of Yaakov (those that stemmed from Yaakov’s loins); these are Nadav and Aviyhu. Therefore he specifically hit Yaakov at that spot.

The question is, what do Nadav and Aviyhu have to do with this fight, why does the passuk say that “he saw he couldn’t beat him” because of them? And the Divrei Yosef explains their interference in this fight, and this caused the angel to lose to Yaakov.

To Run or Not To Run

א. וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו יְ־הֹוָ־ה בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא וְהוּא יֹשֵׁ בפֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם

1. Now the Lord appeared to him in the plains of Mamre and he was sitting at the entrance of the tent when the day was hot

ב. וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים נִצָּבִים עָלָיו וַיַּרְא וַיָּרָץ לִקְרָאתָם מִפֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אָרְצָה

2. And he lifted his eyes and saw, and behold, three men were standing beside him, and he saw and he ran toward them from the entrance of the tent, and he prostrated himself to the ground.

Why are the words “from the entrance of the tent” repeated in verse 2, what is the torah trying to teach us?

The Gemoro in Brachos 6b says:

אמר רבי חלבו אמר רב הונא היוצא מבית הכנסת אל יפסיע פסיעה גסה – One who leaves shul shall not take large steps while leaving.

The reason for this is that he shouldn’t be happy when leaving a mitzvah.

The Shulchan oruch in Orach Chaim Siman 90 Seif 12 writes: It is a mitzvah to run towards a shul, or to do any other mitzvah.

Now, if someone is running from one mitzvah to a second, should he run or not? If he runs, he is “embarrassing” the first mitzvah. If he doesn’t run, then he isn’t doing the mitzvah of running to perform the second mitzvah!

Rather we must say: If the first mitzvah is greater than the second, then he shouldn’t run; so as to not embarass the first and greater mitzvah. If the second mitzvah is greater, the he should run in order to fulfill the second greater mitzvah with Zerizus (alacrity). What if the 2 mitzvos are equal? He should walk the first half of the journey and run the second half, in this way he fulfills both his obligations.

The Gemoro in Shabbas 127a writes:

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב גדולה הכנסת אורחין מהקבלת פני שכינה - Taking in guests is greater than speaking to Hashem.

If this is true, then when Avraham went to take in guests although he was speaking to Hashem, then since the second mitzvah was greater than the first, Avraham had to run the entire journey, as we learnt before.

Therefore the passuk writes that ”He ran towards them from the entrance of the tent “, because he had to run towards the second mitzvah the entire journey; from the entrance of the tent

(Kehilas Yitzchak)

39 vs 40

ב. וְהָיָה אִם בִּן הַכּוֹת הָרָשָׁע וְהִפִּילוֹ הַשֹּׁפֵט וְהִכָּהוּ לְפָנָיו כְּדֵי רִשְׁעָתוֹ בְּמִסְפָּר .

‘and it shall be, if the guilty one has incurred [the penalty of] lashes, that the judge shall make him lean over and flog him in front of him, commensurate with his crime, in number.’

ג. אַרְבָּעִים יַכֶּנּוּ לֹא יֹסִיף פֶּן יֹסִיף לְהַכֹּתוֹ עַל אֵלֶּה מַכָּה רַבָּה וְנִקְלָה אָחִיךָ לְעֵינֶיךָ

‘He shall flog him with forty [lashes]; he shall not exceed, lest he give him a much more severe flogging than these [forty lashes], and your brother will be degraded before your eyes.’

This is the famous parsha of malkos (flogging or lashes).

The Gemara in Makkos 22a asks “How many times do we flog the receiver? – Because the passuk writes, “be’mispar arboim” (in the number 40) and so we understand that the number must be close to 40 – therefore we give him 39 strokes. However, R’Yehuda follows the line of the pasuk and says that he receives 40 strokes for a complete flogging.
When the Chiddushei Ha’rim was young, a man asked him the following question: Is there a chance that one day a person will receive the same amount of lashes according to both R’Yehuda and the Chachomim ?

The young bochur gave a brilliant answer: A Shliach Beis Din (someone who works for the Beis Din and carries out the punishments) transgressed 39 issurim in the Torah and therefore deserved 39 floggings. However, before receiving his punishments, he was still doing his job in Beis Din and was flogging someone else. He gave the person 40 strokes. Now, according to R’Yehuda, who says that a person receives 39 strokes, this Shliach Beis Din has given too many, therefore he has transgressed the issur of “Lo Yosif Le’hakoso”(in passuk 3), and he now must receive a further set on top of the 39 he deserves already. So, altogether, he is obligated to receive 40 sets of 39 strokes.

According to the Chachomim, who says that a person receives 40 strokes, this Shliach Beis Din has not given too many, and therefore, he is obligated to receive his original 39 floggings, each consisting of 40 strokes. When calculated it works out that 39 floggings times 40 strokes = 40 floggings times 39 strokes; so according to both R’Yehuda and the Chachomim, he receives the same amount.

Upon hearing this answer, the man was so impressed with the sheer genius of the young man that he took the Chiddushei Harim to be his son-in-law.

On that note – Good Shabbos!

Torah Connotations

Targum Yonasan (7:79) states that the silver bowl (ka’aroh) had “Gidloh Smich“, which are thin walls. The silver basin (mizrok) had “Gidloh Klush“, which are thick walls. How does he know this?

The Gra (Vilna Gaon) comments on Maseches Yumoh 62b. The word ‘shnei’ (two) always means the two are equal, like the two goats on Yom Kippur that had to be exactly the same. Since ‘shnei’ is written three times, we know that they were the same in appearance, height, and value.

Similarly, the Gemara in Bereshis (1:16) explains that the sun and the moon were once the same size, but then the moon complained that it was impossible for there to be two kings (the sun and the moon) with one crown, and therefore, he was made smaller. The Gemara learns this from the fact that at first, its written that the sun and moon were ‘gedolim’ (plural for big), but later on, its written that one was ’gadol‘ (big) and one was ‘katon‘ (small). Tosfos asks how we can assume that the moon became smaller; perhaps both the sun and the moon were big, but one was bigger than the other, in which case, the moon never became smaller.

Tosfos answers that the passuk says “shnei hamo’oros” (both of the luminaries). Based on the previous paragraph we know that ‘shnei’ connotes equality, so we know that they must have been the same size originally. Thus, the answer of the Gemara is validated.

Knowing these concepts, we can understand the Targum Yonason. ’Shneihem’, implys that they were the same size, but surely this can’t be true; the bowl weighed 130, whilst the basin weighed 70. Rather, the two utensils must have had the same capacity, as it says ‘shneihem melayim’ (the two of them were filled to their capacities). We also know that ‘shnei’ connotes equality, so we know that they must have been the same size. How could this be? The bowl had thick walls , whilst the basin had thin walls, so they both could hold the same capacity.

Food for Peace

וְהִשִּׂיג לָכֶם דַּיִשׁ אֶת בָּצִיר וּבָצִיר יַשִּׂיג אֶת זָרַע וַאֲכַלְתֶּם לַחְמְכֶם לָשֹׂבַע וִישַׁבְתֶּם לָבֶטַח בְּאַרְצְכֶם- Your threshing will last until the vintage, and the vintage will last until the sowing; you will eat your food to satiety, and you will live in security in your land.

וְנָתַתִּי שָׁלוֹם בָּאָרֶץ וּשְׁכַבְתֶּם וְאֵין מַחֲרִיד וְהִשְׁבַּתִּי חַיָּה רָעָה מִן הָאָרֶץ וְחֶרֶב לֹא תַעֲבֹר בְּאַרְצְכֶם - And I will grant peace in the Land, and you will lie down with no one to frighten [you]; I will remove wild beasts from the Land, and no army will pass through your land. (26:5-6)

Rashi remarks:

ונתתי שלום: שמא תאמרו הרי מאכל והרי משתה, אם אין שלום אין כלום, תלמוד לומר אחר כל זאת ונתתי שלום בארץ – Because somebody might proclaim:There is food and drink, but if there is no peace then there is nothing. Therefore the passuk reassures us with a blessing of peace

This is hard to understand – why does Rashi relate the blessing of food to that of peace, does it not seem more likely that they are both written in reference to the condition of אִם בְּחֻקֹּתַי תֵּלֵכוּ - ”if you will go in my statutes..” – what does the blessing of peace have to do with food and drink?
(more…)

Toras Cohanim

The pasuk writes:

כִּי אִם לִשְׁאֵרוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֵלָיו לְאִמּוֹ וּלְאָבִיו וְלִבְנוֹ וּלְבִתּוֹ וּלְאָחִיו - except for his relative who is close to him, his mother, his father, his son, his daughter, his brother (21:2)

This is written regarding a cohen hediot (junior) to teach us that he may impurify himself if one of his close relatives were to die. Notice that the mother is mentioned before the father. On this the Ramban explains that in that era it was more prevalent for the mother to die before the father because she was weaker, therefore she is mentioned first in the pasuk, because the cohen hediot would have to become impure for her first.

However, later in the pasuk writes:

וְעַל כָּל נַפְשֹׁת מֵת לֹא יָבֹא לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ לֹא יִטַּמָּא – And he shall not come upon any dad bodies; he shall not defile himself for is father or his mother. (21:11)

This is written regarding a cohen gadol, to teach us that he may not impurify himself if one of his close relatives were to die. However, why is the father mentioned before the mother here? What happened to the explanation of the Ramban?
(more…)