02. Sefer Shemos | gTorah

Archive for the ‘02. Sefer Shemos’ Category

The very first laws…

The first parsha after receiving the Torah addresses a Jew who steals, and is sold into temporary slavery. The Beis Halevi is bothered by this.

The Parsha opens with ואלה המשפטים – And these are the laws… Rashi points out how ו – “and” – is a point that continues something that came first, in this case that these laws are a continuation of the Torah just given at Sinai.

But why then, is this the very first instruction the Torah teaches us on becoming fully fledged Jews; why aren’t we first charged with being good, kind and responsible for society, such as the parsha after, which addresses distributing money to the poor?

The Beis Halevi explains that the Torah has a prerequisite for kindness and charity. The money has to be kosher. When people want to demonstrate their kindness, they have to ensure that the ingredients are properly sourced.

The Jew who steals becomes a slave. Although he must be treated exceptionally well, and is not the permanent property of his owner, he is not a fully fledged Jew. He is devoid of responsibility to Hashem, and is responsible to his master. He is allowed to marry a non-Jew in this state, and create a family of slaves for his master. This is what the Torah proscribes as the solution to theft. The Torah terms these things as less bad than one who steals.

The Torah impresses upon us the severity of theft, that it is a prerequisite to being capable of aiding society. The Torah demands high standards of people involved in society, as a prerequisite for all laws.

Yisro heard – heard what exactly?

After the Jews left Egypt, and experienced the miracle of the Red Sea, we are told how people from all over heard about it, but particularly one man:

וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ כֹהֵן מִדְיָן, חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אֱלֹהִים לְמֹשֶׁה, וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמּוֹ: כִּי-הוֹצִיא יְהוָה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִמִּצְרָיִם – Now Moshe’s father in law, Yisro, chief of Midyan, heard all that God had done for Moshe and for Yisrael, His people; that Hashem had taken Yisrael out of Egypt. (18:1)

This seems rather strange – the Torah tells us twice that Hashem did something to the Jews – first אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אֱלֹהִים לְמֹשֶׁה, וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמּוֹ, and then immediately after כִּי-הוֹצִיא יְהוָה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִמִּצְרָיִם. How are we to understand the repetition?

On hearing wonders the Jews experienced, he sought out to their encampment, along with Moshe’s family, and Moshe came out to greet them. We then find that:

וַיְסַפֵּר מֹשֶׁה, לְחֹתְנוֹ, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה לְפַרְעֹה וּלְמִצְרַיִם, עַל אוֹדֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל – And Moshe told his father in law all that Hashem had done to Pharoh and to Egypt, on behalf of Yisrael. (18:8)

Immediately after Moshe tells Yisro what happened, Yisro praises Hashem; בָּרוּךְ ה, עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי, כִּי-גָדוֹל ה מִכָּל-הָאֱלֹהִים. This ought to be perplexing – we were first told how וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ – Yisro heard what had happened, he knew; what was there for Moshe to tell, that caused Yisro to react so?

I want to suggest an explanation.

Yisro was a man who believed in the idea of a god; he was a priest himself. What he heard was that אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אֱלֹהִים לְמֹשֶׁה, וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמּוֹ – there had been an act of אֱלֹהִים, an act of god, that happened to the Jews. He came to investigate.

What Moshe told him was that this wasn’t just an act of god, but rather it was עָשָׂה ה לְפַרְעֹה וּלְמִצְרַיִם – it wasn’t just אֱלֹהִים, but rather, Hashem (we do not say His name). Moshe identified that God was Hashem, whom we have a name for and whom we have a relationship with. On hearing this, Yisro reacted the way he did, by praising Hashem specifically, not just the idea of a god.

This explains our difficulty in the first pasuk. וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ כֹהֵן מִדְיָן, חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה

אֱלֹהִים

לְמֹשֶׁה, וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמּוֹ – he heard what

God

had done, but the remainder of the pasuk is not what he heard, but what actually happened -כִּי-הוֹצִיא ה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִמִּצְרָיִם. The second part is why he heard it, but not what he heard. He hadn’t heard of Hashem, only the general concept of god, and the pasuk tells us that he heard what god had done. Why did he hear it? כִּי-הוֹצִיא ה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִמִּצְרָיִם.

To illustrate: Steve was told to be somewhere. The reason, unknown to Steve, was that his friends had organised him a surprise party. But all Steve knew was to be somewhere. So we can say how Steve went somewhere, for his surprise party, but Steve only knows the first bit.

Maidservants and Prophecies

In Az Yashir, sung after being saved when the Red Sea split, the declaration they cried was “זה קלי ואנוהו אלקי אבי וארוממנו - This is my God, and I will glorify Him – the God of my father - and I will exalt Him.” (15:2)

The Mechilta observes how any maidservants at the sea saw things that even Yechezkel, who had the most vivid prophecies, did not.

Who were theses maidservants exactly; and why would there be any servants among the Jews, a newly free people?

The commentaries wonder how Chazal derived their statement regarding the maidservant from the passuk. The Vilna Gaon, the Maharil Diskin and the Maskil L’David accept the same view, with slight variations. Rashi writes that there are two parts to the passuk. The second half, that of “אלקי אבי וארוממנו”, is a reference to Hashem being the God of their fathers, illustrating a relationship begun earlier than those saved at the Sea. The above commentaries explain that the word “זה” is used on both clauses, once for “זה קלי ואנוהו” and then for “זה אלקי אבי וארוממנו”. However, the Jews did not leave Egypt alone. Non-Jewish servants and maidservants, a.k.a. the Eirev Rav, came along in order to convert. Unable to refer to their relationship with Hashem as beginning with their forefathers, substituted “זה קלי ואנוהו” instead. Did the Jews say both statements? Maskil L’David says they did, whereas the Eirev Rav said only “זה קלי ואנוהו”. The Vilna Gaon and Maharil Diskin teach that this passuk was truly split; with the Jews saying”זה אלקי אבי וארוממנו” , and the non-Jewish servants and maidservants saying “זה קלי ואנוהו”.

The commentaries explain how Chazal understood that the maidservant saw “more” than Yechezkel. The word “זה” – “this here” – was used at the Sea to connote something concrete and direct, as opposed to the general “ואראה” – “I was shown” – used in the later prophesies. Chazal saw from this that even this maidservant, essentially any non-Jew who was there, was able to point and say “זה קלי ואנוהו”; and truly saw a greater revelation than even the greatest of the prophets; the Presence of Hashem was manifest in such a great way that one could simply point and say, “This is my G-d”.

Interestingly, there is discussion amongst the Rishonim regarding the nature of Hashem’s “revelation” at the Sea. Rabbeinu Bachayei writes that Chazal do not mean to say that the maaidservant had greater ability to grasp such things, nor were they wiser than Yechezkel. Hashem simply “showed” Himself more at the Sea than He ever did to Yechezkel. The Rambam disagrees; in describing the lofty levels reached by the Jews in the generation of the Exodus and the Desert travels, he writes: “The lowest of them was like Yechezkel, as Chazal say.”. This seems is an obvious reference to the statement of Chazal which is under discussion. Apparently Rambam understood this statement to be descriptive of the nation’s spiritual heights, which enabled them to have as remarkable a revelation as they did.

According to the Rambam, two insights would appear. Firstly, that even the “lowest” Jew at that time was indeed greater than Yechezkal. Secondly, it appears that we need not understand that the maidservant was at least originally non-Jewish. In context, the Rambam is discussing the great level of the Jewish nation at the time, and yet he uses this statement of Chazal as a proof. This leads one to surmise that the Rambam understood that the maidservant in question was Jewish. If this is the case, our original question returns; why is there a “maidservant” in this newly liberated nation?

The Gemara in Sota 11b tells the story of how the pregnant Jewish women in Egypt would go out to the fields to give birth, and would leave their newborns there. To take them home would mean their being captured and tossed into the Nile. Hashem took care of these newborns, sending angels to clean, feed and care for them. When the Egyptians found out about these children living in the fields, they came to kill them. A miracle occurred; the earth would swallow these children deep enough to protect them from Egyptian plows. After the Egyptians left, the children sprouted out of the ground like plants. When they grew up, herds of them would return to their homes. And when Hashem revealed Himself at the Sea, these children “recognized” Him first (having been raised in His presence – see Torah Temima כאן אות ז’), and said: “זה קלי ואנוהו”. Clearly this Gemara understands that the Jews too said “זה קלי ואנוהו”. Now according to the Maskil L’David, that “זה קלי ואנוהו” was also said by the Jews, this Gemara can be congruent with the Mechilta. However, according to the Vilna Gaon and the others, this Gemara too needs reconciliation with the word usage of the Mechilta: “maidservant,”, and all we are left with is our very question.

וצ”ע.

All About Levi – Were All the Jews Enslaved in Egypt?

We find in Parshas Shemos a potentially surprising fact: not all the Jews were enslaved:

ויאמר אלהם מלך מצרים למה משה ואהרן תפריעו את העם ממעשיו לכו לסבלתיכם – The king of Egypt said to them, “Moshe and Aharon, why do you disturb the people from its work? Go to your own burdens”. (5:4)

Rashi quotes a Midrash that the tribe of Levi were not oppressed by the Egyptians, which was why Moshe and Aharon, who were from Levi, were freely able to go where they pleased. But why were they exempt?

Ramban explains how every nation had elders and wise men to teach the nation their respective laws. Pharaoh therefore left Levi alone in order to allow them their role. R’ Simcha Ziesel Broide notes that if a person like Pharaoh could understand and accept that every nation, and even it’s slaves, need spiritual guidance and role models, how much more so do we need to respect and cherish Torah scholars, and help establish Torah as much as we can.

Daas Zkeinim explains how the Egyptians slowly manipulated the Jews into working, rather than a sudden enslavement, which could provoke a revolution. The Jews who participated at first were then forced to continue against their will. Yet the people from Levi, knowing that they were destined to serve Hashem, refused to compromise and cooperate. They did not participate on the first day, and never became committed or obligated.

Maharal questions how, if Hashem told Avraham his descendants would be enslaved, (Bereishis 15:13-14.) how could Levi not be included in the slavery? Maharal answers, that truly Sheivet Levi was not included in this prophesy. Levi are the “portion of Hashem” set aside from the rest of the Jewish Nation, dedicated to His service. Rabbeinu Bachye goes so far as to say that Levi was the “tithe” of his brothers.

Pharaoh knew according to the prophesy, that the nation that enslaved Avraham’s offspring would be severely punished. He interpreted that if he did not enslave the entire Jewish nation, he would be free of the repercussions. He chose Levi specifically out of respect, for even Yaakov honored Levi by not allowing them to take part in his burial. His mistake was that Levi are not counted among the rest of the Jews in that prophesy for the above reason, meaning that he did in fact enslave all of Avraham’s offspring as related to the prophesy, and was therefore punished.

The Mishneh L’Melech proves that inheriting the Land of Israel was only possible through being enslaved in Egypt. Anyone who would eventually get a portion in the Land would have to endure slavery; those who were not going to get a portion need not be enslaved. Esav left Eretz Yisroel for this reason; he wanted nothing to do with enslavement. Levi too, who were not to receive a portion in the Land, did not have a reason to be enslaved.

Maharil Diskin shares a fascinating idea. The prophesy to Avraham was that the oppression would start when his offspring would be “strangers in a land not their own.” Since the land of Goshen in Egypt was originally given to Sarah as a gift by Pharaoh, there the Jewish nation could not be “aliens” in Goshen. As long as the Jews resided in Goshen, the terms of enslavement would not begin. The verse states, “The Children of Israel were fruitful, teemed, increased, and became strong – very very much so; and the land became filled with them” (Shemos 1:7). The Maharil Diskin explains that it is implied by the population increase that the land would become filled with them. Why state the obvious? Rather, the pasuk is teaching that they did not want to stay isolated in Goshen, and instead they branched out into the rest of Egypt and became involved in their society. In leaving Goshen, they allowed for their own enslavement. Levi, however, stayed and served Hashem in Goshen.

The Maharil Diskin is also explaines a Zohar (Beraishis 27a). The Zohar expounds on the passuk in Shemos 1:14, וימררו את חייהם בעבודה קשה בחומר ובלבנים כו’, and says, קשה – זו קושיא, בחומר – זו קל וחומר, ובלבנים – זו ליבון הלכה. The Maharil Diskin enlightens us by saying that the enslavement to Egypt occurred only to those not already “enslaved” to Torah. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 99b) says that every person was created to work. The Mishna (Avos 3:5) says, “Whoever accepts upon himself the yoke of Torah, the yoke of the government is removed from him.” We see that when we fulfill our necessity to work by toiling in learning Torah, it “exempts” us from the necessity of doing other, potentially more physical labor. The Jews in Egypt who did not carry out their requisite work by exerting themselves with Torah, needed to fulfill it with the physical enslavement to Egypt. I heard many times from my Rebbe and Rosh Yeshiva, Rabbi Daniel Lehrfield Shlit”a, that proof of this is that Sheivet Levi was not enslaved. Since they continued to learn Torah at the same strenuous and laborious level as the slave-work of the rest of Klall Yisroel, they fulfilled the decree of slavery prophesized to Avraham by learning, instead of manual labor.

In a similar vein, Panim Yafos says that Sheivet Levi learned Torah and kept the mitzvah of bris milah, whereas the rest of the Jewish nation did neither. Sheivet Levi’s merits protected them, unlike the rest.

Finally, the Maskil L’David interestingly learns that the people of Levi were not fully enslaved due to Pharaoh’s own daughter’s intervention. In raising Moshe as her own, Bisya had an affinity towards him and asked of her father to exclude Moshe’s tribe, Levi.

This explanation is particularly fascinating for it implies that up until Basya took the initiative, Sheivet Levi too was oppressed. The Maskil L’David explicitly writes that Sheivet Levi was subjugated even after Basya’s intervention, the only difference being the intensity of the work. While the rest of the Jews worked unimaginably hard, Sheivet Levi only had to perform regular labor.

This would explain a question that has bothered me for a while. If Levi were not oppressed whatsoever, on Pesach, why would Kohanim and Leviim sit and say, “Avadim hayiinu” – “We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt…”?

[The simple explanation that one could say according to the other opinions that Sheivet Levi was truly exempt from all labor, is that since most of the Jews went through what they did, therefore the Jews as a whole (including Levi) need to recognize and relive this on the Seder night. Another possibility is as the Chasam Sofer writes, there were two types of exiles happening in Egypt. One was physical, the other was spiritual; Bnei Yisrael had reached the 49th level of spiritual impurity due to their Egyptian surroundings and influences. If so, we can suggest that even if Levi was not enslaved physically, they certainly could have been affected and “enslaved” by Pharaoh in the spiritual sense. This would explain why Kohanim and Leviim say “Avadim hayiinu”; spiritual slaves.]

According to the Maskil L’David, however, new light is shed on the matter. Levi too were physically enslaved to Pharaoh.

Even according to the other opinions, that Levi were truly free from enslavement, this does not imply that living in Egypt was a walk in the park for them. Although they may not have been enslaved or worked helpless, their lives were still in danger. This is clear as we see that Moshe’s father, Amrom, went so far as to divorce his wife (Sota 12a). He did so because of the futility in childbirth due to the law that all male newborns be thrown into the Nile. Even after he was convinced by Miriam to take Yocheved back, by which they had their third child Moshe, there came a point when Yocheved could no longer hide Moshe. She was forced to place him in the little boat in the Nile. All this notwithstanding that their family was from Levi. Furthermore, the Meshech Chochma (4:20) writes that Moshe, concerned that the Jewish People would not believe his claims of imminent Heavenly redemption, decided to bring his wife and family to Egypt (a thing he would only do if he was certain that they would not be in danger) in order to heighten Klall Yisroels’ trust in Hashem. Now, if Sheivet Levi were completely above all cruel Egyptian devastation, what proof of Heavenly protection would it be for Moshe to bring his family there?

Furthermore, Yalkut Shimoni says that when Aharon met Moshe on the latter’s way down to Egypt, and saw him bringing his family, he said to him, “We are pained by [the distress of] those Jews already in Egypt, and you want to bring in more?!” Maharal points out that from this we see that clearly life was bitter for Sheivet Levi as well.

After writing all this, and after being bothered for a few years by the question of why Kohanim and Leviim say the Haggada, I was finally shown Simchas

Haregel, the Chida’s commentary to the Haggada. Commenting on the excerpt: “כל המרבה לספר ביציאת יצרים הרי זה משובך” – “All who speak plentifully of story of the exodus is praiseworthy,” the Chida writes that “כל” – “All” is meant to include even Kohanim and Leviim (כל – same initials as כהן לוי). Even they shall speak of the exodus, despite their not being oppressed. The Chida give two explanations for this.

Firstly, even though they were not oppressed, they were not able to leave Egypt of their own volition; so they too were freed by Hashem. Secondly, had the Jews stayed in Egypt but one more second than they did, they would have sunk to unimaginable lows and impurity which would have effected even Levi (similar to the Chasam Sofer quoted above). They too need to recognize and praise Hashem for His salvation. In fact, the Chida writes that he told this over to a Gadol, who replied that he too had thought of this interpretation, and added that converts too are included in “All.” It is for this reason that the next item in the Haggada is the story with R’ Eliezer, R’ Yehoshua, R’ Elazar Ben Azaria, R’ Akiva and R’ Tarfon who sat in Bnei Brak telling over the story of the exodus all night long. Rabi Yehoshua was a Levi, Rabi Elazar Ben Azaria and Rabi Tarfon were Kohanim, and Rabi Akiva came from converts.

From a somewhat historical standpoint, Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky explains at length all these goings-on regarding Levi. As a brief summary, it was all Yosef’s doing. Yosef had a particular wisdom – that of how to stay alive spiritually in a foreign environment. He learned this from Yaakov, who in turn learned it from Shem and Ever in order to survive living with Lavan. This wisdom enabled Yosef to recognize that to insure the spiritual (not to mention physical) survival of the Jewish People, he needed to take measures to isolate and protect Levi. This was in order that they in particular would continue to grow in Hashem’s service uninhibited by anything or anyone, to be a “light” and source of guidance to the rest of the nation. It was Yosef who established the law in Egypt that priests were to be excluded from taxes and other governmental rules and regulations. Due to Yosef’s foresight, Levi played the essential role in the Jewish People’s survival.

Incidentally, there is a fascinating Meshech Chochma in Parshas Vaeira (6:13). The passuk says, “וידבר ה’ אל משה ואל אהרן ויצום אל בני ישראל ואל פרעה מלך מצרים להוציא את בני ישראל מארץ מצרים” – “Hashem spoke to Moshe and Aharon and commanded them regarding the Children of Israel and regarding Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to take the Children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.” The commentaries offer various approaches to understand “ויצום אל בני ישראל” (literally: “to the Children of Israel”); we have translated according to Rashi’s logical interpretation (“regarding the Children of Israel”). The Meshech Chochma, however, learns the pasuk literally. Without quoting all of his proofs and extrapolations, simply put the Meshech Chochma learns that Sheivet Reuven, Shimon and Levi all held places of stature in Egypt. They were also slave-owners. Jewish slave-owners. That is why Hashem commanded Moshe and Aharon to not only tell Pharaoh to release the Jews from bondage, but even to command the Jewish slave-owners to do so as well. The Meshech Chochma writes further that the reason Hashem did not allow these three Shevatim to be enslaved was not because of a positive nature (i.e. some positive distinction that played a role in their protection); on the contrary, it was due to their spiritual weakness resulting from Yaakov Avinu’s strong final words to these particular Shevatim. Had they been enslaved, they would have been lost forever.

Moshe as a representative

In Parshas Chukas, Moshe sent emissaries to Edom, requesting that Bnei Yisrael traverse through their land on their way to Canaan, which Edom decline. Throughout the parsha of sending emissaries, the pasuk alternates between Moshe and Bnei Yisrael as having sent them (21:21 and onwards).
Rashi there explains that the pasuk is demonstrating that the leader is like the entire nation - שמשה הוא ישראל, וישראל הם משה, לומר לך שנשיא הדור הוא ככל הדור.

The Maharal points out a difficulty here. Rashi in Yisro (Shemos 18:1) writes that Moshe is equal to the whole Yisrael.
If this is so, how can we then extrapolate from Moshe to all leaders, that they are like the entire nation, if he was by definition different and greater than they could ever hope to be?

R’ Yehoshua Hartman explains that Moshe being parallel to Yisrael isn’t literal. To illustrate: if he were to eat, they wouldn’t all have to bentch afterwards.

The leader is an emissary, a representative of his people. Moshe was more, in that his being equal meant his actions carried the same weight as the nation itself. Sending emissaries is an act of any leader as a representative, and it is in this regard that we can deduce from Moshe to other leaders.

There is an idea in Chazal that Moshe could have utilised “אָנֹכִי הֹ’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ” as a defence for Bnei Yisrael at the Golden Calf, in that it was only said to Moshe, in the second person singular, so technically, Bnei Yisrael had not violated אָנֹכִי הֹ’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ.
How is this possible?

R’ Hartman explains that the Maharal says that the Patriarchs didn’t receive Torah because they had no nation to speak of. They were individuals, and individuals die. The Torah is eternal, so must be given to a nation, as nations do not fade and die e the way an individual does. An individual represents only potential, whereas a nation has actualised it.
So how could Moshe, an individual, say that he received it alone?

Moshe was a microcosm of Yisrael. There were the 600,000 people at Sinai, and then Moshe, who represented their essence.
Whatever made Yisrael into Yisrael at Sinai, Moshe already was. (This is why his grave is unknown). He was saying that the qualities of Yisrael at Sinai that he represented were not guilty of the Golden Calf, that the people were not the very selves that had accepted it, and as such only he could be said to have heard it, exonerating the Bnei Yisrael.
Moshe was the pinnacle of Yisrael, and represented all that was good in the people of those days. It was in that capacity that he received and delivered the Torah, and the people he represented were not the self-same people who were guilty of the Golden Calf, and thus, the people who succumbed at the Golden Calf ought not to be held guilty at all..

Betzalel

כב. וּבְצַלְאֵל בֶּן אוּרִי בֶן חוּר לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה עָשָׂה אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶת מֹשֶׁה

‘And Bezalel, son of Uri son of Hur, of the tribe of Yehuda, did all that Hashem commanded Moshe.’ (38:22)

The Torah tells us that Bezalel built the Mishkan according to the word of Hashem. Rashi points out that the Pasuk doesn’t say that Bezalel did what Moshe had commanded him to do, rather, he did what Hashem commanded Moshe on Har Sinai. Bezalel had already figured it all out.

Moshe commanded Bezalel to first build the Kelim (vessels/ furnishings) and then build the Mishkan afterwards. Bezalel says to Moshe that the custom of the world is to first build the house and then the furnishings. Moshe responds that he was right and Hashem had commanded him to first build the Mishkan and then the Kalim. Moshe then says ‘B’zal-al’ you were in Hashem’s shadow. (Gem. Brachos 55a)

All the Achronim ask, how could Moshe forget what was supposed to be done first? Moshe had just taught the Torah in its entirety (the day before, Yom Kippur, was the day he came down with the second Luchos and taught Kol Hatorah Kulah to Klal Yisroel except for the Parsha of the Mishkan since the Mishkan couldn’t be done on Yom Kippur) and now he forgets which was supposed to come first?

One could say that Moshe forgot the Halacha, but it would be very difficult to explain that Moshe forgot such a Pashut Din. We can’t say that Hashem never taught Moshe which one to build first because Moshe says clearly, ‘indeed Hashem commanded me to first build the Mishkan’. So what in the world is going on with this Medrash?

The Or Hachayim answers this question back in Parshas Teruma. The Pasuk says, ‘like all that I show you, the form of the Mishkan and the form of its vessels; and so shall you do. They shall make the Aron etc.’ (25:9)

The Or Hachayim explains (using various Medrashim) that Hashem showed Moshe an image of the Mishkan first, and then all of its vessels afterwards. After showing Moshe the overall blueprint He then went on to explain each one individualy starting with the Aron. So it becomes a bit more understandable that Moshe was a bit confused about which one should come first as Hashem had showed him the Mishkan first, but when showing him how to build everything, he showed him the Aron first.

What did Hashem want to be built first? Moshe wasn’t entirely clear until Bezalel explained the logic of how Man always builds the house first. With Bezalel’s answer Moshe was able to understand what Hashem wanted to be built first and thus Moshe called Bezalel ‘Bzal-al’. (When Moshe said, ‘indeed Hashem commanded me to first build the Mishan’, he meant now I understand that Hashem truly wanted the Mishkan first)

The Levush Haorah explains this episode in a different way. (First he says anyone who says Moshe didn’t know the Pshat is wrong and doesn’t know anything etc.) He says that Bezalel and all Klal Yisroel were confused in how Moshe was teaching them how to build the Mishkan. In Parshas Terumah, which Moshe taught first, Moshe started by saying the vessels are to be built first (25:9). However, in Parshas Vayakel (35:10) he first says that the Mishkan should be built first. All of Klal Yisroel were listening to Moshe and they were confused, which one did he want first?

At that time Bezalel gets up and asks, ‘Moshe which one do you want us to do first, for it makes sense to build the Mishkan first etc’. Moshe then responds by saying that Bezalel is a great Chacham, one who knew the answer before Moshe had told him. Moshe didn’t forget or was confused, he was teaching and before he taught which one was supposed to be built first Bezalel jumped up and answered. Moshe didn’t do it in a confusing way, rather he was telling Klal Yisroel that the Aron was really supposed to be first because the main reason for the existence of the Mishkan was to bring the Shechina down to this world. The Shechina began with the Aron, meaning the Torah. (This is the pashut answer. If you have time I highly recommend seeing the Maskil Ledavid (one of the 11 commentators on Rashi) and the Gur Arye for other explanations on this piece.)

Counting Consequences

The parsha begins, “Eleh pekudei hamishkan, mishkan haedus asher pukad al pi Moshe…”. The Medrash refers this pasuk to the pasuk in Mishlei (28:20) “Ish emunos rav brachos”. The Sfas Emes explains that the Ish emunos is Moshe Rabbeinu and what the Medrash is telling us is that although counting something is not a siman brocha when the counting is done by an Ish emunos then brocha will be bestowed on the counted subjects.

The Kli Yakar in the beginning of parshas ki sisa explains the idea behind why one should not count and why counting brings ayin raah. When one counts something he is in essence giving this object its own individual importance, thereby creating additional awareness of it in shamayim. This awakens the debate as to the rights of the object, and all the relevant zechuyos and chovos are judged.

The Sfas Emes this week expounds this idea and with it beautifully explains the Medrash. All the good bestowed upon this world comes from a single higher source and as you distance from the source the good is diminished. From this shoresh hayachid hashmeymi branches out big then smaller and smaller branches, and the smallest furthest branch profits the least from the goodness supplied by those roots. When somebody counts something the individuality and importance that he applies to it separates it further from the source as it now has its own new identity. It is a new branch of its own. Before it was counted it was a part of the bigger branch, closer to the roots. This is why counting usually brings less brocha.

In many places the Sfas Emes explains that the root of the word emunah means connecting the subject back to its real true source. With this the medrash becomes beautifully clear. The medrash is explaining the pasuk as follows. Why does the pasuk mention that the counting was done by Moshe? (more…)

As the Lord said to Moses

In Parsha Pikudei, the phrase “כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה’ אֶת מֹשֶׁה” appears 18 times, at the end of nearly every set of instructions. It would seem obvious that the construction of the Mishkan would take place as commanded, as the preceding parshiyos make painstakingly clear; so why the additional stress on how the work was carried out?

The Beis Halevi explains that the Mishkan was only required as a tikkun for the Eigel HaZahav (Golden Calf) – it was not required prior to then. If the Mishkan was to restore the status quo, it would have to be the polar opposite of the problem it was intended to solve. The Beis Halevi explains that what caused the Eigel was the people’s own ideas about how best to serve Hashem, and this led them to the conclusion they reached, which was decidedly not as they were commanded. As such, at every suitable juncture, the Torah sees fit to emphasise “כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה’ אֶת מֹשֶׁה“, – the reason the people did everything they did was for no reason whatsoever – other than that Hashem had instructed them.

The Ohr HaChayim asks a similar question to the Beis Halevi – the pasuk says “כָּל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה” – rather than the regular “כַּאֲשֶׁר” in the other psukim – in three contexts ie 38:22, 39:42 and 40:16. What is the significance of this specific phrase, that the Torah differentiates between the standard “כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה“?

He explains that the people’s spontaneous actions at the Eigel, there were three problematic issues: the thought, speech, and actions, without which the incident would not have occurred. In transgressing just one of the three, a person was responsible for denying the entire Torah, let alone all three. The antidote to the Eigel would have to be a fusion of thought, speech and action together, which the Mishkan was.

If I may be so bold, I would like to suggest a thought I had after learning the Ohr HaChayim’s pshat.

The phrase כָּל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה appears in three contexts – with regard to the planners, the workers, and Moshe:

-וּבְצַלְאֵל בֶּן אוּרִי בֶן חוּר לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה עָשָׂה אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה’ אֶת מֹשֶׁה – Bezalel, son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, had made all that the Lord had commanded Moshe (38:22)

-כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה’ אֶת מֹשֶׁה כֵּן עָשׂוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת כָּל הָעֲבֹדָה – In accordance with all that the Lord had commanded Moshe, so did the children of Israel do all the work. (39:42)

-וַיַּעַשׂ מֹשֶׁה כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה’ אֹתוֹ כֵּן עָשָׂה – Thus Moshe did; according to all that the Lord had commanded him, so he did. (40:16)

I was bothered by the Ohr HaChayim’s explanation that the Mishkan counteracted the thought, speech and action that led to the Eigel. The pasuk would have to reflect it, and it appears not to – all the above psukim simply refer to actions – וַיַּעַשׂ , כֵּן עָשׂוּ , עָשָׂה . This is problematic as how can we explain now that these psukim reflect a counteraction of the components of the Eigel? Where is thought and speech reflected?

The thought behind the Eigel would be atoned for by ignoring the underlying wisdom of the work done (possibly the Beis Halevi’s pshat). The plans and architecture of the Mishkan were drawn up by Bezalel – about whom Chazal attribute the ability to see the construct of the entire creation down to the Aleph-Beis that composes it. He understood the plans of the Mishkan – but he did not do it because he understood it to be correct, he did it because Hashem told Moshe.

The action behind the Eigel can also be counteracted. The wholde idea of Parshas Shekalim, as the Nesivos Shalom explains, is that in donating to the Mishkan (the Machatzis HaShekel, rare metals and precious stones), they collectively bought into the project as a whole, thus atoning for the actions behind the Eigel.

We must now somehow say that the speech that led to the Eigel would be atoned for by Moshe’s speech for this to work. If we analyse the portion of the Torah portion in which 40:16 appears, we will find:

וַיְדַבֵּר ה’ אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר – And the Lord said to Moshe, to say. (40:1)

בְּיוֹם הַחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ תָּקִים אֶת מִשְׁכַּן אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד – “On the day of the first month, on the first of the month, you shall set up the Mishkan of the Tent of Meeting.” (40:2)

This fits beautifully. The speech of the Eigel was the speech that initiated the incident. This is counteracted by Moshe speaking to initiate the construction of the Mishkan!

To be an individual or a single entity

The opening pasuk in Parshas Vayakhel reads: “וַיַּקְהֵל מֹשֶׁה אֶת כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה’ לַעֲשֹׂת אֹתָם’ – Moses gathered the whole community of the children of Israel to assemble, and he said to them: “These are the things that the Lord commanded to do” (35:1)

The Nesivos Shalom asks three questions.

This is the sole instance of וַיַּקְהֵל – an instruction to gather all the people together – in the entire Torah, where וַיַּקְהֵל is the first thing mentioned in the episode. What is so exceptional about this instruction of וַיַּקְהֵל, that makes it unique?

Secondly, the opening statement was “לַעֲשֹׂת אֹתָם” – to do – the instructions are not to light fire, and not to work. How is not doing something called “לַעֲשֹׂת אֹתָם” – to do?

Furthermore, this episode occurred directly after the Eigel (Golden Calf), as Rashi explains that Parshas Vayakhel occurred the morning after Yom Kippur, when Moshe returned with the second luchos. It seems obvious that his first public appearance upon his return would be a notable message to the people regarding the bridge between G-d’s wrath and appeasement. What was it that atoned for the sin of the Eigel? (more…)

From The Beis HaLevi

At the end of פרשת כי תשא, the פסוק says:

(ויהי ברדת משה מהר סיני וכו’ ומשה לא ידע כי קרן עור פניו בדברו אתו (לד:כט

“When Moshe descended from Mount Sinai . . . Moshe did not know that the skin of his face had become radiant when He (Hashem) had spoken to him”.

The Yalkut Shimoni (רמז תז) explains that when Moshe was up on the mountain writing the Torah, there was a small bit of leftover ink in his quill, which he wiped on his forehead and from that got his radiance. He then adds that when the צדיקים receive their reward in עולם הבא, Moshe will receive his due portion as well.

The Beis HaLevi comments that this medrash obviously needs explanation, especially the end; why would one think that Moshe would not get his just reward? Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda’s explanation of the origin of Moshe’s radiance does not seem to fit with the verse, which implies that Moshe’s radiance was a result of his speaking with Hashem. However, this itself is as well difficult to understand, since Moshe had spoken with Hashem many times before – why specifically now did he shine?

The ילקוט earlier states that when Moshe came down from the mountain with the luchosLuchos in hand, ready to deliver them to the people, he realized that a terrible sin was occurring, that of the worship of the golden calf. At that time he looked at the luchos and saw the writing literally flying off the stone. This resulted in the luchos becoming too heavy to carry, and they fell from Moshe’s hands and broke. This medrash, too, needs explanation.

The Beis HaLevi explains: yet another medrash tells us that Moshe learned all of Torah in its complete entirety, even that which a student will ask of his Rrebbe in the future. Upon asking Hashem if that too should be written down, he was told, “No, because I know that in the future other nations will rule over the Jewish people and will take their Torah. Just the פסוקים (the Written Torah) you may write down, but the משנה , תלמוד ואגד (the Oral Torah) you must transmit orally so that the nations will not be able to have it when they rule over the Jewish people.”

This medrash indicates that the reason part of the Torah needed to be transmitted orally was so that the other nations would not have it medrash Only regarding the Oral Torah does it say כרתי אתך ברית ואת ישראל that Hashem has a covenant with the Jewish people, meaning it is solely the Oral Torah which belongs only to us.

Now, it would seem that this discrepancy (more…)

Is there a “right” way to get to the Torah?

Parshas Tetzaveh is an anomaly in the Torah. It is the only parsha in the narrative of the Jews of that time in which Moshe Rabbeinu’s name does not appear at all, from his birth until the end of the Torah (barring certain parts of Devarim, where he was the person speaking).

The Ba’al HaTurim comments on the first pasuk in Tetzaveh (27:20) that in Parshas Ki Sisa, after seeing the Golden Calf and subsequently Hashem’s wrath through the plague, Moshe pleaded that “ וְעַתָּה אִם תִּשָּׂא חַטָּאתָם וְאִם אַיִן מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ אֲשֶׁר כָּתָבְתָּ – And now, if You forgive their sin But if not, erase me now from Your book, which You have written.” (32:32). The Ba’al HaTurim explains that although Hashem did indeed refrain from destroying the nation, a tzaddik’s word is always fulfilled.

The parsha in which Moshe’s name does not appear is about the kehuna, the priesthood, which was given to Ahron. R’ Yakov Minkus explains that there are 2 ways for Torah (representing Heaven) and mankind (representing Earth) to intersect:

1. The first way is that the Torah descends from Heaven. Moshe embodied this, as exemplified when he brought down the luchos from the mountain to the people.
2. The second is that we elevate become elevated ourselves. Ahron embodied this, as the ultimate “people’s person”. He was אוהב שלום ורודף שלום – a lover and pursuer of peace. The entire priesthood was based on helping the people interact with Hashem through the services.

The Gemara in Sanhedrin concludes that there are two ways to settle litigation, through din emes (an actual judgement), or a pshara (a compromise). The fact that both are valid settlements shows that both are equally powerful at achieving their goal, settling a dispute.

The role of the kohen is to play the arbiter, the middle man. As a man of the people, he is meant to feel their emotions, guide them through the services in the Beis HaMikdash, and follow the path that Ahron set.

If we are to say that this way of getting to the intersection of people and Torah is equally valid, Moshe almost had to be left out, to show that here is another, equally valid way.

There are various incidents in the Torah where Ahron and Moshe are mentioned, with Ahron preceding Moshe, as opposed to the usual Moshe first, and Ahron second. This is meant to show their equality. But as pointed out in many places, Moshe was the greatest man to have ever lived, without equal, so to what ends can we suggest their equality?

Knowing what we now know, the answer is simple. Their equality was not as people, as indeed Moshe was without equal, but rather, their equality was in the validity of their approaches in how to get the Torah to the people.

The Mishkan – Today!

The general idea of the Mishkan is a “dwelling-place,” so to speak, for Hashem in this world.

ח. וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם

“They shall make a sanctuary for me so that I may dwell among them” (Truma 25:8) (more…)

Good lighting

There were four keilim that were kept inside the Mishkan – the Shulchan (table), the Aron (Ark), the Mizbeach (altar) and the Menora.

וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר מִבַּיִת וּמִחוּץ תְּצַפֶּנּוּ וְעָשִׂיתָ עָלָיו זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב – And you shall overlay it with pure gold; from inside and from outside you shall overlay it, and you shall make upon it a golden crown all around. (25:11) – Aron

וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב – And you shall overlay it with pure gold, and you shall make for it a golden crown all around. (25:24) – Shulchan

וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר אֶת גַּגּוֹ וְאֶת קִירֹתָיו סָבִיב וְאֶת קַרְנֹתָיו וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב - You shall overlay it with pure gold, its top, its walls all around, and its horns; and you shall make for it a golden crown all around. (30:3) – Mizbeach

The Aron, Shulchan, and Mizbeach all had “crowns”, a gold design that bordered their edges, whereas the Menora is the odd one out, it had no crowns. What is the cause of this discrepancy? (more…)

Ins and Outs

In Parshas Teruma we are instructed regarding the construction of the Aron (Ark). The Torah tells us that it should be covered from inside and out with gold ‘מבית ומחוץ תצפנו’ Rashi on the pasuk (25:11) explains, in accordance with the Gemara, that three separate boxes were made – a central wooden box, and inner and outer golden boxes. Rashi says that they put the wooden box into the larger golden box and then the smaller golden box inside of it.

The pasuk says they covered the inside of the box first, and only then the outside, whereas Rashi first says that they covered the outside first, and worked their way inwards. Why does Rashi change the order of the pasuk? (more…)

Getting Closer

The pasuk says דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה מֵאֵת כָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִדְּבֶנּוּ לִבּוֹ תִּקְחוּ אֶת תְּרוּמָתִי – Speak to the children of Israel, and have them take to Me an offering; from every person whose heart inspires him to generosity, you shall take My offering. (25:2)

The Midrash says that this pasuk is the same as the pasuk in Mishlei 4:2 כִּי לֶקַח טוֹב, נָתַתִּי לָכֶם; תּוֹרָתִי, אַל-תַּעֲזֹבוּ – For I gave you good teaching; forsake not My instruction.

The Midrash explains that this means that when we were given the Torah, Hashem was included as part of the deal, as it were. There is a parable here to which we can relate.

A powerful king had an only child, the princess. (more…)

Evoking Sinai

Why does Parshas Mishpatim begin with the laws of an עֶבֶד עִבְרִי – a Hebrew servant? What is the significance of this topic that marks it out as the first of the laws after receiving the Torah?

The Gemara in Bava Metzia 10a introduces a key concept to Jewish law; that a hired worker can stop in the middle of the job for whatever reason he chooses, so long as he compensates the lost labour, ensures a replacement etc. He cannot be made to work. This is in contrast to an עֶבֶד who is a slave, and is bound to his work.

The psukim say: כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד וּבַשְּׁבִעִת יֵצֵא לַחָפְשִׁי חִנָּם - Should you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall work [for] six years, and in the seventh [year], he shall go out to freedom without charge. (21:2)

וְאִם אָמֹר יֹאמַר הָעֶבֶד אָהַבְתִּי אֶת אֲדֹנִי אֶת אִשְׁתִּי וְאֶת בָּנָי לֹא אֵצֵא חָפְשִׁי – But if the slave says, “I love my master, my wife, and my children. I will not go free,” (2:5)

וְהִגִּישׁוֹ אֲדֹנָיו אֶל הָאֱ־לֹהִים וְהִגִּישׁוֹ אֶל הַדֶּלֶת אוֹ אֶל הַמְּזוּזָה וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת אָזְנוֹ בַּמַּרְצֵעַ וַעֲבָדוֹ לְעֹלָם – his master shall bring him to the judges, and he shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever. (2:6)

There is a basic rule in the Gemara that the term “עֶבֶד” alone demarks a Canaanite, a slave, which is a permanent service, whereas an עֶבֶד עִבְרִי is a temporary status, which is why it must be specified. My rebbi pointed out to me that when he begins his service (21:2), he is an עֶבֶד עִבְרִי whereas after the allotted time has passed at which he is meant to go free, should he remain to say, he has become an עֶבֶד – a slave, with no עִבְרִי – the Jew has become a Canaanite slave. Although this is not halachically accurate, this is certainly hashkafically accurate.

But what has he done that is so reprehensible, that he is pierced, a form of branding of property? (more…)

Pubs, Climbing Ladders and Divine Retribution

The Rambam states in that there are three distinct types of unintentional killers:

1.) One who kills b’shgagah. This is defined as the state of mind possessed by one whose act is completely unforeseen. This category is referred to states in Sh’mos 21:12: v’asher lo tzadah–who did not lie in ambush. The punishment that applies to such a person is galus, whereby he is exiled to one of the arei miklot in order to receive a kaparah for his actions and to find refuge from the goel hadam who would not be penalized for exacting vengeance.

2.) One who kills b’shgagah korov l’oness, which describes the mental state of one who could not only not foresee the death as an outcome of his actions, but the killing was a wonderment which would not have occurred in the same circumstances in the majority of cases. This person is exempt from galus and if the goel hadam were to kill him, the avenger would be sentenced to death by the beis din.

3.) One who kills b’shgagah karovah l’zadon. This pertains to a person who acted with an attitude of wanton recklessness. His sin is considered too great for galus, he is prevented from receiving a kaparah and is not afforded any protection from the goel hadam, who is permitted to exact retribution without fear of capital punishment.

There exists a fundamental condition attached to the law of the pure shogeg (category 1), as taught by the Mishnah in Makkos 6b. The general rule is that if this type of unintentional killer was travelling in a downward direction at the time when the cause of death was set in motion, he is liable to be sent to galus since such an action is deemed to have been committed b’shogeg. However, if the offender was not descending at this time, he is exempt from galus. The Mishnah exemplifies this principle with several scenarios, one of which is involves a man who was climbing down a ladder when a rung broke causing him to fall on top of the victim below, who perished as a result. This is considered to be a case of shogeg and the defendant is sentenced to galus. However, if the killer was ascending when he slipped and fell he is exempt. The Gemara explains that the reason for this distinction is the verse in Bamidbar 35, where the Torah states that an inadvertent killer who is liable for galus is one who, ‘V’yapeil alav v’yamus’—And he fell on him and he died. Chazal expound this phrase to teach that the killer must be moving in a downward direction in a derech nefillah (the way of falling) in order to be liable for galus.

The Rambam provides a rationale for the Torah’s distinction between descent and ascent. He submits that the reason why the one who was ascending the ladder is exempt is because it is as if he were coerced, thus falling under category 2. Indeed, in most cases, that fatal outcome would not have occurred. Therefore, the killer’s culpability is beneath the threshold required for the punishment of galus.

In contrast, if the killer was descending the ladder at the crucial moment, the Rambam reasons that in such a case there is a greater risk of injuring others because it is a rule of nature that weight is pulled in a downward direction with rapidity. (It is interesting to note that the Rambam, writing approximately 200 years before Newton, was not that far away from the theory of gravity!) Therefore, if someone did not take proper care at the time of his descent, he will be liable to galus.

What is the correct perspective in terms of defining the culpability of one who kills b’shogeg? We have learnt that such behaviour is sufficient to deserve galus; however, galus is more of a refuge and a kaparah zone, rather than a brutal onesh. Moreover, the Rambam describes the shogeg mindset as totally blind to the outcome of his actions. Nonetheless, there appears to be some level of criminal negligence and blameworthiness associated with a shogeg. We are left with the question, what proportion of blame may be attributed to one who kills b’shogeg, requiring a kaparah, and to what extent is the death the result of Divine intervention?

Perhaps the answer can be found in Parashas Mishpatim, 21:12-13, wherein the Torah declares that, ‘makeh ish va’meis mos yumas; v’asher lo tzadah v’ho’elokim inah l’yado v’samti l’cha makom asher yanus shamah.’ – ‘One who strikes a man and he will die, he (the killer) shall be put to death; and if he did not lie in ambush and God placed it in his hand and I shall place for you a place to where he may flee’.

As Rashi interprets, the pasuk is referring to the laws pertaining to intentional and inadvertent killing; the one who murders deliberately receives the death penalty, whereas the individual who did not intend to kill is exiled. Philosophically, a most striking element within the verse is that we are being taught that Hashem arranges for such inadvertent killings to take place. Onkelos translates inah as it’m’sar, to transmit or to hand over, while Rashi writes that it is an expression akin to zaman, to invite or summon (this is an example of a word in lashon hakodesh upon which the English equivalent is based). This demonstrates that, at times, G-d deliberately causes a person’s death via human agency.

To explain this notion, Rashi cites a Medrash that depicts a saying of David HaMelech. The Medrash reports that the monarch stated that the Torah tells us ‘m’rashaim yeitzei resha’- from evil-doers comes out evil. Where does the Torah convey this? From our posuk: ‘v’ho’elokim inah l’yado’, which refers to a situation involving two people, one who killed inadvertantly and one who killed on purpose. However, in both cases there were no witnesses to enable the prosecution of either offender. Consequently, the unintentional killer was not ordered to go to galus and the murderer did not receive the death penalty. The Medrash, quoted by Rashi, continues by teaching that, in such a case, Divine intervention may arrange for these two killers to arrive at the same public house. The one who killed deliberately ends up sitting below a ladder and the inadvertent killer climbs up the ladder and subsequently falls on top of the killer beneath him with fatal consequences. Conveniently, on this occasion there were witnesses, thus enabling the beis din to send the shogeg to galus, which he was liable for anyway, while the intentional killer has already received his just deserts.

The glaring question is, how can Rashi quote the Medrash as teaching that the shogeg was climbing up the ladder (oleh ba’sulam) before he fell onto the person below. Surely it is the clear ruling of the aforementioned Mishnah in Makkos that in such a case, the individual is in fact exempt from galus. This problem is compounded by the actual reading of this Mechilta, as quoted in the Gemara in Makkos 10b. There, the text reads that the shogeg killer was descending the ladder (yored b’sulom) at the time of his fall. In that case, with what licence did Rashi not only alter the text of this Medrash, but give a misrepresentation of the correct halachah? This cannot be a simple mistake for we are dealing with Rashi, who the Meiri dubs greatest of the commentators.

The Sifsei Chachomim and the Mizrachi both opt for a rather ‘lav davka’ approach to resolve this conundrum by concluding that of course Rashi meant that when the killer fell he was moving downwards. Rashi merely refers to the fact that the shogeg went up the ladder so that it was possible for him to descend before falling. This may be true but it remains perplexing as to why Rashi so conspicuously deviates from the text of the Medrash as quoted by the Gemara and thereby risk halachically misleading the reader.

Enter the Maharal in his opus, Gur Aryeh. He contends that the sole message of the Medrash was to convey the extent of Divine intervention into human affairs. Therefore, Rashi deliberately changed the text in order to emphasize that the man’s ascent up the ladder was not the result of his own free choice, but rather, was entirely engineered by the Celestial chess player. The descent down the ladder however, was not the outcome of Divine programming and is thus irrelevant to the Medrash’s agenda. This approach not only absolves Rashi, but provides a scintillating insight into the Yad Hashem which clandestinely arranges earthly goings on in order to bring out justice and retribution.

Furthermore, this yesod assists us in our inquiry as to the correct understanding of the shogeg killer. This person is certainly subject to the Divine master plan, who leads him up the ladder. Nonetheless, the act of killing must contain an element of moral blameworthiness and G-d does not force you to sin under duress. It is within this person’s bechirah to be watchful of his actions, as it is axiomatic that he would not be exiled without deserving it. Thus, his descent must have been the result of his autonomous free will. These insights not only alert us to the penetrating truths of our holy Torah, but reveal extent of Hashem’s awesome jurisdiction over our existence.

To Know

.י: וַיֹּאמֶר יִתְרוֹ בָּרוּךְ יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֲשֶׁר הִצִּיל אֶתְכֶם מִיַּד מִצְרַיִם וּמִיַּד פַּרְעֹה אֲשֶׁר הִצִּיל אֶת הָעָם מִתַּחַת יַד מִצְרָיִם :

10. [Thereupon,] Jethro said, “Blessed is the Lord, Who has rescued you from the hands of the Egyptians and from the hand of Pharaoh, Who has rescued the people from beneath the hand of the Egyptians.

יא: עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי גָדוֹל יְ־הֹוָ־ה מִכָּל הָאֱ־לֹהִים כִּי בַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר זָדוּ עֲלֵיהֶם:
11. Now I know that the Lord is greater than all the deities, for with the thing that they plotted, [He came] upon them.” (18:10-11)

What is it that he now knew?

There is a well-known Midrash that Pharaoh had 3 advisers during the episode of the Jews slavery in Egypt – Bilam, Iyov (Job), and Yisro. When Pharaoh sought to annihilate the Jews by drowning the Jewish boys in the river Nile, Bilam supported this and Iyov abstained, whereas Yisro advised against this and subsequently had to flee to Midyan to escape Pharaoh’s clutches.

With regard to our question, (what did Yisro ‘now’ know) I heard a fabulous explanation on a pshat level. What he now knew was Hashem’s system of hashgacha – oversight – the system of midda k’neged mida, measure for measure.

Pharaoh had sought to destroy the Jews by drowning them, and the reverse had happened to him and the entire Egyptian army.

. יא: עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי גָדוֹל יְ־הֹוָ־ה מִכָּל הָאֱ־לֹהִים כִּי בַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר זָדוּ עֲלֵיהֶם
11. Now I know that the Lord is greater than all the deities, for with the thing that they plotted, [He came] upon them.” (18: 11)

So now he saw that Hashem delivers justice, he realized that he was in a bad situation. Although he had fled Pharaoh when it became clear that official Egyptian policy was genocide, what had he done up until that point? The entire enslavement episode occurred whilst he was in Pharaoh’s cabinet government, and what had he advised then? Nothing in the Jews favor, as it was only when he did that he had to flee. So Yisro realized he had erred and required a tikkun, a solution, to achieve teshuva, repentance.

His solution to the bad advice he had given was to offer good advice.

‘13. It came about on the next day that Moses sat down to judge the people, and the people stood before Moses from the morning until the evening.’ (18:13) – after which he offered the solution of having elders judge as well, solving the inefficiency of the judicial system in the state it was in.

Judgement, Faith and Reward

א: וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם

1. And these are the ordinances that you shall set before them (21:1)

The Yalkut Shemoni in the beginning of this week’s Parsha quotes Rav Alechsandri who gives a parable for this week’s Parsha. Two men, who hate each other, are leading their donkeys who are carrying large loads, along the way. One donkey stops walking, and crouches down, (for its load was too heavy) while the other (man and donkey) passes him by. The one who passes says, ”It’s written in the Torah (23:5), ‘Perhaps you will see the donkey of someone you hate lying under its burden, will you refrain from helping him?’ Immediately, the man returns and helps his brother unload his donkey. The man who is being helped thinks to himself how a moment ago they hated each other and now he is helping him! It must be that they aren’t really enemies at all! They then make peace with each other and all hatred is lost.

This is the meaning to ‘And these are the judgments’. Hashem knows what is moral and ethical, and what it takes to make this world a better place. We just have to do and learn His mitzvos and the rest will fall into place on its own.

There are a lot of different mitzvos in this week’s Parsha, so choosing one was very difficult, but here goes.

‘When you will lend money to my people, to the poor person who is with you, do not act towards him as a creditor; do not place interest upon him. If you will take your fellow’s garment as security, until the sun sets you shall have returned it to him. For it alone is his covering, it is his garment for his skin; in what will he lie down? So it will be that if he cries out to me, I shall listen, for I am compassionate’. (22:24-26)

Here the Torah teaches us three mitzvos. To lend money to poor people, not to act as a creditor when you know he has nothing to pay you with, and not to lend money with interest. The Kli Yakar points out that we refer to this pauper with three different names. In the beginning we call him in the name of ‘my people’, then we call him ‘the poor person who is with you’, then lastly we say ‘your fellow’s garment’. Why do we change his name and not just refer his to the poor person the entire time? Answers the Kli Yakar that the Torah was telling us three reasons why we are required to lend money to a poor person.

1. Since he is part of ‘my people’, that is Hashem’s people. Hashem is the King and whoever gives money and food to the King’s men has a guarantee that the King will pay him back. Thus the Pasuk, ‘Malveh Hashem Chonain Dal’, that he who gives to poor people is considered as if he lent to Hashem.

2. The Gemara relates how Turnus Rufus asked R’ Akiva that if Hashem loves us so much why does our nation have poor people? R’ Akiva answered that it’s so that we can give Tzedakah which will save us from the Din of Gehinnom (hell) (See Gemara Bava Basra 10a for the rest of the discussion). If Tzedakah is so powerful that it could even save a person from the Din of Gehinnom then we see that the poor person does a lot more than the giver. The giver gives money (i.e. Olam Hazeh – this world) for only a small part of this poor person’s life, whereas the poor person gives this giver Olam Haba – the world to come – which is an immeasurable reward. Therefore the Torah’s second lashon of this pauper was, ‘to the poor person with you’. Why was this person poor? So that you could give Tzedakah and go to Olam Haba. Thus he is ‘with you’, meaning this poor person is here for your merit.

The Kli Yakar says that with these two reasons, we can now understand the next two mitzvos in the Torah.

Why should one not act like a creditor towards the pauper? We use reason number one, that since a person should be secure that Hashem is going to pay him back for that which he lent, he must then not act like a creditor thus proving he doesn’t believe Hashem is going to end up paying him back.

Why can a person not take interest for his loans? We use reason number two, that the poor person already gave him a pass through the Din of Gehinnom and now this person wants to make even more money from his loan? He is poor to help you become righteous, and you want to take advantage of him by making more money?

3. If we are dealing with a person who lacks faith that Hashem will pay him back and will therefore ask for a collateral, the end result that he will be will be borrowing his ‘fellow’s garment’. Meaning that he will be this poor man’s ‘friend’ in poverty. So what does Hashem say to this person? ‘If you stray off the straight path you can always come back.’ Give the man back his cloak before ‘the sun sets’.

Derech Eretz

There is a valuable lesson to be learned from the Mitzvos commanded in this week’s Parsha.

The Mishna in Pirkei Avos says: אם אין תורה, אין דרך ארץ; אם אין דרך ארץ, אין תורה – without Derech Eretz there can be no Torah, and without Torah there can be no Derech Eretz.

Rabbeinu Yonah explains that the first time there is a reference to Derech Eretz it means the basic and essential practices that anyone must be in possession of in order to learn Torah. This is the meaning that most people recognize today.

But the second time Derech Eretz is referenced it means a new kind of Derech Eretz. One that is rooted and sourced in Torah alone, about which we say “without Torah there is no Derech Eretz”.

What is the Derech Eretz of Torah? R’ Elya Lopian brings two example from our Parsha:

Within the laws regarding an עבד עברי – a Jewish servant – there is an obligation on the master’s part to address all the servant’s needs in the same regard that he would address his own needs. This is exemplified in a classic case: if there were only one mattress in a household, the servant would take precedence over the master. This is what the גמרא in Kiddushin means when it says ‘קנה לו עבד עברי קנה אדון לעצמו’ – ‘one who acquires a servant has acquired a master over himself’.

With regard to ourselves, if one were to enter a house and saw two people sleeping, one on a mattress and one the floor, a sensible person would surely understand that the person asleep on the mattress is the master and the person sleeping on the cold, hard floor is the servant.

The Torah teaches us that this is not so, that the reverse is true. The master is obligated to give his sole mattress to the servant. It must be pointed out who exactly an עבד עברי is. This is a degenerate man who has brought himself into the situation he is in, he has robbed and stolen, and being unable to return his ill-gotten gains, has had sell himself to pay back his debts. For this man we are obligated to give up our beds.

R’ Elya Lopian explains that such Derech Eretz is uniquely a Torah sourced Derech Eretz. No other wisdom would generate such ethics for such a man.

The second example is:

ח: אִם רָעָה בְּעֵינֵי אֲדֹנֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר [לא] לוֹ יְעָדָהּ וְהֶפְדָּהּ לְעַם נָכְרִי לֹא יִמְשֹׁל לְמָכְרָהּ בְּבִגְדוֹ בָהּ

ט: וְאִם לִבְנוֹ יִיעָדֶנָּה כְּמִשְׁפַּט הַבָּנוֹת יַעֲשֶׂה לָּהּ

8. If she is displeasing to her master, who did not designate her [for himself], then he shall enable her to be redeemed; he shall not rule over her to sell her to another person, when he betrays her. 9. And if he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the law of the daughters [of Israel]. (21:8-9)

Rashi explains that it not only instructs the master to marry her, or let his sons marry her, but its actually a commandment – a mitzvah.

אשר לא יעדה: שהיה לו ליעדה ולהכניסה לו לאשה, וכסף קנייתה הוא כסף קידושיה. כאן רמז לך הכתוב שמצוה ביעוד ורמז לך שאינה צריכה קדושין אחרים

Who had not designated her as his wife: that he should have designated her and should have married her. The money used for her purchase serves as the “money” for executing the marriage. Here the Torah implies that it is a mitzvah for him to marry her. It [also] indicates to you that she requires no other marriage ritual.

The Jewish maidservant refers to the daughter of a man who has sunk from depth to new depth, and ended up in the terrible situation of having to sell his daughter as a maidservant as he can not afford to support her or whatever the reason. Specifically regarding this מיוחסת – “girl of such “noble” descent” – does the Torah instruct the man, who may really be of noble descent, to marry this girl or allow his sons to?

To what degree are we instructed to do so?

R’ Elya Lopian explains further: This girls’ world has been destroyed, and she is in turmoil and despair. She has been sold into slavery by her own father, and has no hope of finding the man she is to marry the way other Jewish girls would do. Therefore the Torah worries for her despair, and so obligates the master to rescue her from the danger that she has for the rest of her days, and marry her.

No cultural or academic pursuits would point one in these directions and draw these conclusions. You won’t find similar ethics elsewhere, only Hashem’s Torah could produce them. This is the “Derech Eretz of Torah”.

Deserving Honor

ה. וַיְהִי בִישֻׁרוּן מֶלֶךְ בְּהִתְאַסֵּף רָאשֵׁי עָם יַחַד שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

5. And He was King in Jeshurun, whenever the sum total of the people were gathered, and the tribes of Israel were together (Devarim 33:5)

This Pasuk teaches us that Moshe was appointed King of Yisroel, ‘בְּהִתְאַסֵּף רָאשֵׁי עָם’, after the Torah was given on Har Sinai.

In the Parsha this week, Yisro comes to Klal Yisroel in order to convert, slaughters a certain offering to Hashem, and makes a lavish feast. Rashi (18:12) says that Moshe didn’t sit and eat during the feast, rather he stood and served everyone.

The Meshech Chachmah asks, how was Moshe able to be forgo his honor by serving the guests? A Rav or Nassi can forgo their honor, but a King can never forgo their honor (see Kedushin 32b)? He answers that there is a Machlokes Tannaim in regards to when Yisro came to Klal Yisroel. One says before Matan Torah and one says after (could even be after the Hashkamas Hamishkan). If Yisro came before Matan Torah then we don’t even have a question because Moshe was only King after Matan Torah. But, if we say Yisro came after Matan Torah then our question stands and how was Moshe able to be Mochel his kovod? Thus the Meshech Chachmah has to answer that according to the one who holds Yisro came after Matan Torah, then the aforementioned Rashi doesn’t exist, that Moshe never served during the meal and he really sat and enjoyed like a King.

The Meam Loez gives a different answer. Gem. Sota 31b says that Agripas Hamelech used to read the Torah on Hakel standing up in the Bais Hamikdosh. Everyone knows that the King is allowed to sit, but Agripas would still stand. The Chachamim said that Agripas was absolutely right and righteous for standing in the Bais Hamikdosh. The Gemerah asks, but Agripas was a King, so how did he forgo his honor? The Gemarah answers that a Mitzvah is different. Meaning that since a Mitzvah was being done (Hakel) Agripas was able to forgo his honor for the sake of doing a mitzvah. Tosofos there asks that we know a King can’t be Mochel his Kovod from a Gem. in Kedushin 32b. There it retells the story how Rav Gamliel (a Nassi) served his guests at a certain Seudas Mitzvah. The Gemarah asks, how can he be Mochel? In which it answers a Nassi can be Mochel his Kovod and that only a King cannot be Mochel. There the Gemarah was dealing with serving his guests at a seudas mitzvah and the Gemarah says that a Nassi can be Mochel, but a King, even by a Seudas Mitzvah, isn’t allowed to be Mochel. So what is the Gemarah’s answer that a King can be Mochel his Kovod if he is doing a mitzvah if the Gemarah in Kiddushin clearly doesn’t hold that way? Tosofos answers that to accomplish a regular mitzvah the King wouldn’t be able to be Mochel his Kovod, whereas a mitzvah which involves the Shechina to come a King could be mochel. Therefore Agripas was able to stand up in the Bais Hamikdosh for the Shechina was there.

The very next Rashi in the aforementioned pasuk 18:12 says that when you eat at a meal with talmidei chachamim its as if you benefited from the ”Ziv Hashchina” (Maharsha says for Torah will be discussed at such a meal. For another reason see Gur Aryeh). Now we have a pashut answer. The meal Moshe was serving was a meal hosting many Talmidei Chachamim. Thus the Shechina was at the meal, (as Rashi pointed out) and even if we were to say that Yisro came after Matan Torah, Moshe could still be Mochel his Kovod for the sake of the Mitzvah which involves the Shechina. (Only question is, why wasn’t the Shechina by the meal of Rav Gamliel? There it was a Seudas Mitzvah with Talmidei Chachamim and yet only a Nasi was able to be Mochel, but not a King? A bit of a Tzarich Iyun. This question could be why the Meshech Chachmah didn’t want to answer like the Meam Loez.)

To Merit

וּפַרְעֹה הִקְרִיב וַיִּשְׂאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת עֵינֵיהֶם וְהִנֵּה מִצְרַיִם נֹסֵעַ אַחֲרֵיהֶם וַיִּירְאוּ מְאֹד וַיִּצְעֲקוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל יְ־הֹוָ־ה:

10. Pharaoh drew near, and the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and behold! the Egyptians were advancing after them. They were very frightened, and the children of Israel cried out to the Lord. (14:10)

The Torah doesn’t say ’ – קרוב he came near’ i.e. that he and his army approached, but ’הקריב - he brought near’. The Medrash says that what he “brought” was the Jews, closer to Hashem.

This is a pretty big merit to have – why is Pharaoh credited with it at all, and what is it he did which deserved such high recognition?

Prior to the Jews leaving Egypt, there was a debate in Heaven as to whether the Jews should be allowed to leave and have their redemption, but the mekatreig (prosecution) countered every argument put forward to absolve the Jews. (Just as the Jews believed in G-d, so did Pharaoh, as it says ‘Hashem hatzaddik v’ani v’ami harshaim’ - a clear recognition of Hashem – and so forth.)

The deciding factor in permitting Yetzias Mitzrayim to occur was when Moshe said “follow me” and they did – in the merit of following their leader faithfully, they were evacuated from Egypt.

Pharaoh sought to remove this merit -וּפַרְעֹה הִקְרִיב (14:10) – and the result was 14:11:

וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל מֹשֶׁה הַמִבְּלִי אֵין קְבָרִים בְּמִצְרַיִם לְקַחְתָּנוּ לָמוּת בַּמִּדְבָּר מַה זֹּאת עָשִׂיתָ לָּנוּ לְהוֹצִיאָנוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם:

’They said to Moses, Is it because there are no graves in Egypt that you have taken us to die in the desert? What is this that you have done to us to take us out of Egypt?’

He severed their attachment to Moshe, and they cried out to Hashem directly but blamed Moshe for their troubles.

So Hashem replies in 14:15 – מַה תִּצְעַק אֵלָי – that the Jews have to have faith in Moshe Rabbeinu again, as that had been the deciding factor in their favor, without which there could be no salvation. What we see here is that Pharaoh bringing the Jews close to Hashem is no praiseworthy at all – his entire goal to bring the Jews close to G-d was at the exclusion of Moshe from the equation, surely dooming them.

So Hashem responds in 14:15:

וַיֹּאמֶר יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶל מֹשֶׁה מַה תִּצְעַק אֵלָי דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִסָּעוּ

15. The Lord said to Moses, Why do you cry out to Me? Speak to the children of Israel and let them travel.

Their salvation is not going to be based on Moshe’s prayers, as that wasn’t the problem.

There is a small side question here – דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִסָּעוּ – what was the need for a dibbur, a speech, to tell them to go, why not just tell Moshe to lead them – rather than him being instructed to tell them that he is to lead them?

As we have established, the problem was that they weren’t interested in Moshe – so Hashem told him the solution דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִסָּעו – their salvation would be as it was on leaving Egypt – through following their leader.

As the Pasuk says upon their entering the Red Sea 14:31: וַיַּאֲמִינוּ בַּי־הֹוָ־ה וּבְמֹשֶׁה עַבְדּוֹ

Appreciating Nature

One of the most incredible miracles of all times occurs, the Splitting of the Sea, and it’s conclusion happens the same way it began:

וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל מֹשֶׁה נְטֵה אֶת יָדְךָ עַל הַיָּם וְיָשֻׁבוּ הַמַּיִם עַל מִצְרַיִם עַל רִכְבּוֹ וְעַל פָּרָשָׁיו – Hashem said to Moshe; “Stretch your hand over the sea, and the water will crash back onto the Egyptians, their chariots, and their horseriders. (14:26)

R’ Shimshon Pinkus wonders why it was necessary for him to lift his hand to “close” the sea, as he did when it came to splitting it. Returning the sea to its normal natural state would seem to be something that just ought to “happen”.

R’ Shimshon Pinkus explains that Hashem was trying to teach the Jews an essential lesson about “natural” occurrences. Quite understandably, splitting the sea requires an action of some sort because it was a miracle; but the returning of the sea to its natural state is a miracle too!

We take the laws of nature and physics for granted – Hashem was expressing that we ought not to. There is no fundamental reason which causes things to happen; it is all Hashem. This was the underlying message of Hashem’s command for Moshe to stretch out his hand, in the same way, to both start and conclude the miracle.

Darkness in a New Light

There are interesting explanations of how the Plague of Darkness actually took place. On one hand, R’ Avraham Iben Ezra learns that it was a fog so tremendously thick that it extinguished any fire lit within it. He writes that he himself saw experienced such a phenomenon many times near the ocean. Yet the Torah Temima understands that the plague meant that the Egyptians were stricken with severe cataracts. The Vilna Goan explains that darkness is not like we commonly tend to think of as simply the absence of light, but rather a creation in its own right. Hashem however set up the light/dark relationship in such a way that light always wins in a “fight” with darkness. By this makkah, though, that relationship was reversed.

Rabbeinu Bachaiyei (Bo 10:21) seems to learn a pshat somewhere in the middle. He quotes the Medrash Shemos Rabba (14:1-3) detailing and expounding upon this plague. He mentions the tangibility of the darkness; this darkness was not just the absence of light. Rather, it was an existence in itself that had substance. So thick was it, that during the last three days of the six day duration of this plague, no Egyptian could move a muscle and was frozen in place. (Ralbag writes that Hashem sealed the Egyptians’ noses and mouths. They could not breathe for three days. That they did not die was a miracle. He did this because had the Egyptians breathed in this new, thick dark air, they surely would have died. Being kept alive without breathing for this time was a source of tremendous suffering for them.) Klal Yisrael, however, had plenty of light, not only in Goshen but even when they entered the Egyptian houses to search for valuables.n

Rabbeinu Bachaiyei explains the nature of this particular darkness. In order for the eye to see light, the light must travel from its source through the air into the eye. This is similar to hearing; the sound waves travel from the source to one’s ear. In other words, air is the medium through which light travels. During the first three days of the plague of darkness, Hashem “sealed” the pathways of the air from allowing passage of light. In the absence of the ability for light to get through the air automatically turns dark. For the last three days, Hashem thickened this dark air so much so that the weight of it did not allow them to move. This was not the case for Klal Yisrael; Hashem did not close the passageways of air for them. They were able to see freely and could go where they pleased.

In understanding this Rabbeinu Bachaiyei, it would seem that one would need to clarify his words as follows. We cannot say that all the air particles in any specific Egyptians house were sealed off to light. For if so, how could the Jew entering to search for valuables be able to see? On the other hand, to say that the air particles were open to light would mean that the Egyptians would be able to see! One must say that the plague of darkness how we tend to envision it. It wasn’t that the land of Egypt was completely dark. Rather, the air particles immediately and in closest proximity to the individual Egyptian were the ones that were sealed off from light (for the first three days, after which this very air became heavy enough to hinder any movement). It was as if every Egyptian had a heavy, dark shell around his body. But during the day, the land of Egypt itself was as bright as any other country.

One could comment, however, that according to this the Plague of Darkness effected the Jews as well. Being that the air directly surrounding the Egyptians did not allow light to pass through, all that a Jew saw in looking at an Egyptian was a thick human-shaped black cloud. The Jew would not have been able to see through due to the sealed air. If, for example, the Jew would want to know the identity of the Egyptian whose house he had entered by looking at him, he would not be able to (and those Jews who were able to tell specific Egyptians about the whereabouts of their valuables would have had to have know their identities by other means)! Possibly one could suggest that the air around the Egyptian worked like one-way glass; one side can see through while the other side can’t. The Jews could see the Egyptians while the Egyptians could not see out. The problem with this might be that if the light could not get in to the Egyptians, then it would not be reflecting back towards the Jews to enable them to see the Egyptians.

The easiest pshat in Rabbeinu Bachayei might therefore be that the air was open for the Jews and closed for the Egyptians. Though this may not make sense in our minds (as we asked above), we can safely throw up our hands and say, “Who is so wise to understand Hashem’s ways!” So writes the Alshich (10:21-23). The Ramban at the end of Parsha Bo explains that all the miracles preformed in Egypt were a testimonial for generations of there being really no such thing as nature, rather everything is Hashem’s doing. The miracles there were a wakeup call to this. After writing this, I found in the Medrash Tehilim (aka Sochar Tov 22:2) exactly this idea. “In the way the world works, can a man light a fire and say, ‘Ploni who is my friend shall benefit from this light, but Ploni who is my enemy will not’?! Rather everyone benefits together. Yet Hashem is not this way. He can shine light to one and place darkness on another.”

Early Redemption?

.ב. הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם רֹאשׁ חֳדָשִׁים רִאשׁוֹן הוּא לָכֶם לְחָדְשֵׁי הַשָּׁנָה

2. This month shall be to you the head of the months; to you it shall be the first of the months of the year. (Bo 12:2)

The word beginning is used to describe the first month of the year and the beginning of the redemption for Yisrael. (M.R)

(Shir Hashirim 2:8) ’The voice of my beloved, behold this (time of redemption) has come’. Answers the beloved, ‘why have you come to this place of impurity’? Answers (the redeemer), get up my friend, my beautiful one, and go’.

Medrash Rabba (15:1) explains that the above Pesukim are a dialogue between Hashem and the nation of Yisrael. Hashem came to Yisrael and said, ‘behold the 400 years of exile is over, the redemption of Mitrayim is here’! To which Yisrael answers, ‘why have you come here? The 400 years of exile are not yet over’. In which Hashem answers, ‘your calculations are incorrect, for the 400 years are indeed over, get up and leave’! Immediately, the Leviim stand up and uncover their heads.

The Nechmad Lemareh goes wild on the above Medrash.

1) If someone is in jail and someone comes to pay his bail, does the inmate say I don’t want to leave my time isn’t up yet? What in the world is Yisrael saying to Hashem that we don’t want to leave because our time of exile isn’t up?

2) What is this argument between Hashem and Yisrael in regards to how long the time of the exile was supposed to last?

3) Why are the Leviim standing up and uncovering their heads?

There are four different ways of understanding how the 400 years of exile (which Hashem had told Avraham was going to have to happen) were completed.

a) Either they never were fully completed in Galus Mitzrayim and the exile would be completed at the end of the 4 exiles (ie until Mashiach comes);

b) They would be completed with the 40 years that we were exiled in the Midbar;

c) The exile of Mitzrayim was so difficult that in 210 years the 400 years was completed (meaning Mitzrayim was worked us so hard that we had the amount of 400 years of pain in 210);

d) The exile started from the time when Yitzchak was born for the Pasuk by the Bris Bain Habisarim (Be’er 15:13) says, ‘for your offspring will be strangers in a land that isn’t theirs’, your children starting with Yitzchak.

When Hashem came to Yisrael and said the time has come to leave Egypt, Yisrael became worried. They thought that perhaps the exile wasn’t over and Hashem was taking them out early. When was the exile supposed to finish? Either in the Midbar or during the next 3000 years during the four exiles. Yisrael said, ‘Hashem we don’t want to leave, we would rather finish the exile here in Mitzrayim and have the final Mashiach!’

The reason they felt that the exile must not have been completed is because: if the exile started at the time of Yitzchak then only the offspring of Avraham would merit to having the redemption. Yisrael was afraid that since they served idols, and stopped giving themselves bris milah (or doing Paruah of the Milah) they were no longer called the offspring of Avraham and would therefore not merit for redemption. In which Hashem answers that there is still a tribe that serves Hashem completely. Throughout all of the exile Shevet Levi never served idols, never assimilated and kept Milah. In fact Chazal say Shevet Levi didn’t do any hard labor, they sat and learned all day in the Beis Medrash. In Shevet Levi’s merit, all of Yisrael is called ‘the offspring of Avraham’; therefore the exile started at Yitzchak and the exile was over.

‘Immediately Levi gets up and uncovers their heads’. They thought the exile in Mitzrayim was because of the extremely hard labor which turned 210 years into 400. If that was the case then Levi didn’t contribute much to the redemption while their brothers had suffered greatly. Thus they covered themselves in shame. Once Hashem said that on the contrary, that Levi’s Torah learning was indeed the reason for the redemption, they immediately got up and uncovered themselves to let their Torah lead the way.

Sages and Frogs

Chananya, Mishael, and Azaria.

During the Exile of Babylon, these three sages were condemned to be burnt to death because they refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar.

Chazal teach us that their knowledge of what they had to do, in terms of sacrificing their lives, came from the plague of frogs in the Parsha this week.

There were some frogs that were not commanded by G-d to jump into the fire and nevertheless, they did. Effectively, they sacrificed their lives to sanctify His name.

We have been commanded by G-d to sacrifice our lives to sanctify His name, and we must do so.

כח. וְשָׁרַץ הַיְאֹר צְפַרְדְּעִים וְעָלוּ וּבָאוּ בְּבֵיתֶךָ וּבַחֲדַר מִשְׁכָּבְךָ וְעַל מִטָּתֶךָ וּבְבֵית עֲבָדֶיךָ וּבְעַמֶּךָ וּבְתַנּוּרֶיךָ וּבְמִשְׁאֲרוֹתֶיךָ:

28. And the Nile will swarm with frogs, and they will go up and come into your house and into your bedroom and upon your bed and into the house of your servants and into your people, and into your ovens and into your kneading troughs. (7:28)

We see above that the frogs were commanded to go into the Egyptian ovens. How could the three great Sages say that the frogs weren’t commanded?
The Baalei (teachers of) Mussar give us the answer. Of course G-d commanded the frogs to jump into the flames, however, it was a general commandment to the whole tribe of frogs that came to plague the Egyptians. However, each frog could have shirked away from the responsibility and just expected his fellow frog to live up to what effectively was G-d’s expectation of them.

This explains why the Sages wanted to learn from the plague of frogs. In spite of the frogs not being specifically commanded to sacrifice their lives, they did not seek to shirk from the opportunity/ responsibility of sanctifying G-d’s name. We, as Jews, are each specifically required to do everything in our power to sanctify G-d’s name and therefore, like the frogs, we must definitely not try in the slightest to avoid the opportunities as they arise.

Outside of Nature

הִנְנִי מַמְטִיר כָּעֵת מָחָר בָּרָד כָּבֵד מְאֹד אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָיָה כָמֹהוּ בְּמִצְרַיִם לְמִן הַיּוֹם הִוָּסְדָה וְעַד עָתָּה

18. behold, I am going to rain down at this time tomorrow a very heavy hail, the likes of which has never been in Egypt from the day of its being founded until now. (9:18)
Rashi says that Hashem showed Moshe a picture on the wall. The picture depicted a scene which showed Moshe that the next day, at a specific time, the sun would be in a certain place and that is when the hail will fall.
On closer analysis we can see a slight ‘technical’ problem. Whenever we have hail or rain, there is generally no sun, so how could Hashem use the sun’s position as a sign for when the hail will fall?
R Shimshon Pinkus provides us with some insight. The concept of Mechitza has 2 parts.

1) To distance – i.e. putting an ‘arguing distance’ between two people.

2) To bring closer – e.g. a Mechitza in a Shul allows women to come and participate in their own way, and makes the Shechina and holiness of Hashem present in a Shul more accessible to them.

The Shechina on Mount Sinai couldn’t have been there without the fence at the bottom. In the same way, nature dictates that rainfall is facilitated through clouds. Rainfall is essentially an enormous blessing, and we ask Hashem every day – ‘ותן טל ומתר’. In order to receive such blessing we must have a ‘Mechitza’, which in this case, comes in the form of clouds. However, the whole essence of the hail is the opposite, it is a punishment. Therefore, there was no need to have clouds to create this barrier. Hence the presence of the sun in place of the clouds.

Qualities of a Leader

The pasuk says in 3:4 : “וירא ה’ כי סר לראות ויקרא אליו אלוקים מתוך הסנה” – “The Lord saw that he had turned to look, and G-d called to him from within the thorn bush”

Moshe Rabbeinu was chosen by Hashem as our leader at the age of 80. It was after Moshe had reached heights that had never before been reached, on his own merit, and had developed the qualities necessary to lead Klal Yisrael out of the גלות – exile.

In fact the Meshech Chochma in his introduction to Sefer Shemos writes that at Har Sinai Moshe Rabbeinu was so elevated that he lost his free will and became something resembling an angel. This was accomplished through his crystal clear understanding of Hashem, as it were. Before this, Moshe was an ordinary man who achieved the extraordinary.

The Torah is short when relating the stories of Moshe before he was chosen. What is the common denominator between the three stories we are told about Moshe Rabbeinu? What is the thread that connects the killing of the Egyptian, to his reprimanding of a Jew, to the help Moshe gave to the 7 daughters of Yisro? Surely if these are the only stories the Torah relates to us about the history of our leader, a message is being taught about the qualities a person must have to be a good leader.

In all 3 episodes Moshe is shown to ‘care’ to step in to a fight that was not his, and to help the weak. When Moshe Rabbeinu saw a Jew being hit, or even gentiles being mistreated he would take action at his own risk. This was his quality and consequently the first trait to look for when selecting a leader. Maybe this is the meaning of the Pasuk:

“וירא ה’ כי סר לראות ויקרא אליו אלוקים מתוך הסנה” – “Hashem saw that Moshe would ‘turn and look’ – ‘כי סר לראות‘ – that is why Hashem chose Moshe as our leader.

But Moshe’s response to turn down the offer to save and redeem the Jews, is seemingly out of character and contradictory to the very reason why he was chosen. So why did he react like that?

It seems that Moshe Rabbeinu was on an even greater level. Moshe, when he helped people, had no ulterior motives, no self-interest. So when Moshe was asked to accept the title of leadership along with all the honor it carries he turned it down. Moshe was a natural helper, a complete giver, he wanted nothing for himself in return. This is the true quality of leader this is exactly what the Bnei Yisrael needed to take them out of Egypt into Eretz Yisrael.

Moshe’s protests were somewhat accepted when Aharon was given the job as the spokesperson of the nation.

The Bigger Picture

The Ksav Sofer at the Hesped of his sister told the following story:

Beruriya (wife of the Tanna R’ Meir) had two children whom their father R’ Meir loved very much. One day when R’ Meir was in the Bais Medrash both the children passed away and Beruriya placed them on their beds and covered them with a sheet. When R’ Meir came home from his studies he asked his wife where his children were. Afraid that the news of the passing of his two beloved children would cause too great a harm to her husband, Beruriya told him that they were probably out the house.

While feeding her husband supper she asked, ‘Rebbe, I have a question.’ R’ Meir indicated that she proceed. She went ahead and asked, ‘If someone gave me a deposit to keep safe, when the time is done do I have to give it back to the rightful owner’? Answered R’ Meir, ‘of course you do!’.

Beruriya then got up, took her husband’s hand, brought him to the room and showed him his two sons. R’ Meir fell on the floor and started crying excessively. Beruriya then said to R’ Meir, ‘My husband, did I not just ask you what to do with a deposit and you answered me that I must give it back to the owner? So too Hashem gave us our children, but when he wants them back we have to give them’. With the words of his Aishess Chayil (woman of valour) , R’ Meir was comforted.

The Ksav Sofer explains that R’ Meir was afraid that his children died early because of his sins and if not for him his children would still be alive. Beruriya needed to comfort R’ Meir and let him know that it wasn’t because of his sins rather simply that their time in this world was done and they accomplished whatever it was they needed to accomplish.

The Ksav Sofer finishes off saying that one must realize that when anything bad happens to an individual it is really still within the Chasdei Hashem (G-d’s kindness). According to our sins we may well deserve much worse, but G-d with his compassion lightens the burden and only gives us a small amount of punishment based on what we can handle.

The Midrash in this weeks Parsha writes that if not for the 22 years of Yosef being in exile, (which caused everyone to have a massive Tikun [rectification] because, as a result, Yosef passed the greatest of tests, and all the brothers did Teshuva.) Yaakov would have been brought down to Egypt in chains and the exile would have started then. But, since Yosef was in Egypt and became King, it led to Yaakov being brought down through his own choice, and the exile of Egypt was able to be delayed.

After Yaakov came to Egypt he clearly saw that the pain and suffering that he had had for 22 years was truthfully the Chasdei Hashem, and that everything had worked out for the best. Ultimately, Hashem knows what’s best for us, it’s up to us to believe in Him.

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!

ראש חודש ניסן

This Weeks Parsha

Israel: Bechukosai

Categories

►00. Yomim Tovim (51)
- ►00. Chanuka (4)
- ►00. Pesach (19)
  - ►001. Kadesh (1)
  - ►002. Urchatz (0)
  - ►003. Karpas (0)
  - ►004. Yachatz (0)
  - ►005. Maggid (0)
  - ►006. Rachtza (0)
  - ►007. Motzi Matzah (0)
  - ►008. Marror (0)
  - ►009. Korech (0)
  - ►010. Shulchan Orech (0)
  - ►011. Tzafun (0)
  - ►012. Berach (0)
  - ►013. Hallel (0)
  - ►014. Nirtzah (0)
- ►00. Pesach 2nd Days (4)
- ►00. Purim (4)
- ►00. Rosh Hashana (5)
- ►00. Shavuos (7)
- ►00. Succos (3)
- ►00. Yom Kippur (5)
►01. Sefer Bereishis (72)
- ►01. Bereishis (8)
- ►02. Noach (8)
- ►03. Lech Lecha (5)
- ►04.Vayera (7)
- ►05.Chayei Sarah (5)
- ►06.Toldos (5)
- ►07. Vayetzei (7)
- ►08. Vayishlach (6)
- ►09. Vayeshev (9)
- ►10. Miketz (2)
- ►11. Vayigash (5)
- ►12. Vayechi (5)
▼02. Sefer Shemos (60)
- ►13. Shemos (11)
- ►14. Vaeira (5)
- ►15. Bo (6)
- ►16. Beshalach (5)
- ►17. Yisro (6)
- ►18. Mishpatim (6)
- ►19. Terumah (5)
- ►20. Tetzaveh (4)
- ►21. Ki Sisa (6)
- ►22. Vayakhel (3)
- ►23. Pikudei (3)
►03. Sefer Vayikra (39)
- ►24. Vayikra (5)
- ►25. Tzav (4)
- ►26. Shmini (2)
- ►27. Tazria (4)
- ►28. Metzora (2)
- ►29. Acharei-Mos (1)
- ►30. Kedoshim (3)
- ►31. Emor (7)
- ►32. Behar (6)
- ►33. Bechukosai (5)
►04. Sefer Bamidbar (38)
- ►34. Bamidbar (4)
- ►35. Naso (4)
- ►36. Behaloscha (3)
- ►37. Shelach (5)
- ►38. Korach (5)
- ►39. Chukas (4)
- ►40. Balak (3)
- ►41. Pinchas (4)
- ►42. Matos (4)
- ►43. Massei (2)
►05. Sefer Devarim (26)
- ►44. Devarim (1)
- ►45. Va’eschanan (0)
- ►46. Eikev (2)
- ►47. Re’ eh (3)
- ►48. Shoftim (3)
- ►49. Ki Seitzei (4)
- ►50. Ki Savo (5)
- ►51. Nitzavim (2)
- ►52. Vayelech (2)
- ►53. Haazinu (3)
- ►54. V’Zos HaBracha (1)
►Sources (368)
- ►Abarbanel (2)
- ►Alshich (4)
- ►Alter of Kelm (1)
- ►Alter of Slabodka (1)
- ►Arizal (3)
- ►Aruch HaShulchan (1)
- ►Ba’al HaTanya (0)
- ►Ba’al Shem Tov (1)
- ►Baal Haturim (4)
- ►Beis HaLevi (9)
- ►Ben Ish Chai (0)
- ►Bikurei Avraham (2)
- ►Brisker Rov (5)
- ►Chafetz Chaim (4)
- ►Chanukas HaTorah (1)
- ►Chasam Sofer (2)
- ►Chazon Ish (1)
- ►Chida (4)
- ►Chiddushei Harim (4)
- ►Chizkuni (1)
- ►D (6)
- ►Da’as Zkeinim (2)
- ►Divrei Shaul (0)
- ►Divrei Yosef (1)
- ►Dubner Maggid (1)
- ►Griz (1)
- ►Hillel & Shamai (1)
- ►Ibn Ezra (4)
- ►Imrei Emes (1)
- ►Kehilas Yitzchak (1)
- ►Klausenberger Rebbe (1)
- ►Kli Chemda (1)
- ►Kli Yakar (7)
- ►Kohelet Yitzchak (1)
- ►Kozhnitzer Maggid (1)
- ►Ksav Sofer (2)
- ►Lev Aryeh (1)
- ►Levush Haorah (1)
- ►Maayonah Shel Torah (1)
- ►Maharal (13)
- ►Maharil Diskin (6)
- ►Maharsha (2)
- ►Malbim (1)
- ►Maskil l’David (1)
- ►Meam Loez (1)
- ►Medrash Raba (1)
- ►Meshech Chochma (3)
- ►Michtav m’Eliyahu (1)
- ►Mishna Lemelech (1)
- ►Mizrachi (1)
- ►N (7)
- ►Nechmad Lemareh (1)
- ►Nesivos Shalom (5)
- ►Netziv (0)
- ►Noam Elimelech (2)
- ►Od Yosef Chai (1)
- ►Ohev Yisroel (1)
- ►Ohr Hachayim (7)
- ►Otzros Hatorah (5)
- ►Panim Yafos (3)
- ►Pardes Yosef (1)
- ►Peleh Yoietz (1)
- ►Pirkei Avos (2)
- ►Pirkei D’Rebbe Eliezer (1)
- ►Pnei Yehoshua (1)
- ►Pri Chadash (1)
- ►R’ Ahron Kotler (1)
- ►R’ Akiva (1)
- ►R’ Chaim Brisker (3)
- ►R’ Chaim Kanievsky (1)
- ►R’ Chaim Shmulevitz (1)
- ►R’ Chaim Volozhin (4)
- ►R’ Chaim Zevin (2)
- ►R’ Daniel Lehrfeld (0)
- ►R’ Eliyahu Dessler (2)
- ►R’ Elya Lopian (2)
- ►R’ Ezra Hartman (4)
- ►R’ Ezriel Hildesheimer (1)
- ►R’ Hai Gaon (1)
- ►R’ Leib Chasman (0)
- ►R’ Mattisyahu Solomon (1)
- ►R’ Meir Premishlan (1)
- ►R’ Meir Schapiro (2)
- ►R’ Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (2)
- ►R’ Mendi Chissick (8)
- ►R’ Minkus (3)
- ►R’ Moshe Feinstein (3)
- ►R’ Moshe Mordechai Epstein (1)
- ►R’ Moshe Shapiro (3)
- ►R’ Moshe Sternbuch (1)
- ►R’ Nathan Lopes Cardozo (1)
- ►R’ Nosson Vachtvogel (1)
- ►R’ Pinchas Horowitz (1)
- ►R’ Shamshon Ostropolier (3)
- ►R’ Shamshon Refael Hirsch (3)
- ►R’ Shimshon Pinkus (1)
- ►R’ Shlomo Ganzfried (1)
- ►R’ Tzadok HaKohen (1)
- ►R’ Tzvi Meir Silberberg (0)
- ►R’ Tzvi Pesach Franck (1)
- ►R’ Yaakov Galinski (1)
- ►R’ Yaakov Hillel (1)
- ►R’ Yaakov Kamenetsky (2)
- ►R’ Yakov Minkus (5)
- ►R’ Yechiel Meir of Zlotchov (1)
- ►R’ Yehoshua Hartman (17)
- ►R’ Yisrael Salanter (2)
- ►R’ Yisroel Reisman (1)
- ►R’ Yissocher Frand (1)
- ►R’ Yitzchak Blaser (1)
- ►R’ Yitzchak Meltzen (1)
- ►R’ Yitzchok Hutner (1)
- ►R’ Yonasan ben Uziel (3)
- ►R’ Yonason Eibeshitz (2)
- ►R’ Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld (2)
- ►R’ Yosef Kaplan (0)
- ►R’ Zalman Sorotzkin (1)
- ►R’ Zushe (1)
- ►Ra’avad (0)
- ►Rabbeinu Bachaye (5)
- ►Rabbeinu Yonah (3)
- ►Radal (1)
- ►Ralbag (1)
- ►Rambam (10)
- ►Ramban (9)
- ►Ran (0)
- ►Rashbam (0)
- ►Rav Alechsandri (1)
- ►Rav Schwab (1)
- ►Rav Shach (2)
- ►Rav Wolbe (0)
- ►Rav Yosef Shwartz (1)
- ►Rav Zalman Sorotzkin (0)
- ►Rema (3)
- ►Ritva (2)
- ►Rogatchover Gaon (1)
- ►Rosh (1)
- ►Sar Shalom of Belz (1)
- ►Sassover Rebbe (1)
- ►Sdei Chemed (1)
- ►Sefer Chassidim (1)
- ►Sefer Hachinuch (5)
- ►Sfas Emes (10)
- ►Sfas Emes 2 (1)
- ►Sforno (5)
- ►Shela Hakadosh (1)
- ►Shem mi’Shmuel (1)
- ►Shir Hashirim (1)
- ►Shulchan Aruch (0)
- ►Sifri (2)
- ►Sifsei Chachamim (1)
- ►Sifsei Cohen (1)
- ►Steipler Gaon (1)
- ►Targum Yonason (1)
- ►Taz (1)
- ►The Shela (1)
- ►Toras Nesanel (1)
- ►Tosfos (4)
- ►Tzemach Tzvi (1)
- ►Vilna Gaon (17)
- ►Yad Ephraim (1)
- ►Yalkut Reuveni (1)
- ►Yalkut Shemoni (2)
- ►Yereim (1)
- ►Zaide (3)
- ►Zohar (2)
►Tefila/Prayer (15)
►Themes (356)
- ►Akeida (1)
- ►All occasions (20)
- ►Asara Harugei Malchus (1)
- ►Bechira (3)
- ►Bikkurim (2)
- ►Birchas Kohanim (1)
- ►Blessings (9)
- ►Bris (5)
- ►Charity (4)
- ►Chesed (2)
- ►Creation (5)
- ►Depth of Infinite Detail (54)
- ►Emunah (15)
- ►Esrog (1)
- ►Fighting Desire (14)
- ►General (4)
- ►Hachnasas Orchim (1)
- ►Hakoras Hatov (8)
- ►Hidur Mitzva (5)
- ►Holocaust (1)
- ►Intellectual (19)
- ►Jewish Identity (15)
- ►Journey (9)
- ►Judgment (2)
- ►Korbanos (4)
- ►Lomdus (16)
- ►Maaseh Avos Siman LeBonim (4)
- ►Marriage (1)
- ►Measure or Measure (10)
- ►Miracles (8)
- ►Mitzvah (8)
- ►Mussar (50)
- ►Neder (1)
- ►Parshas Parah (0)
- ►Parshas Shekalim (2)
- ►Parshas Zachor (1)
- ►Sefer Torah (1)
- ►Sefer Yetzira (1)
- ►Sefira (1)
- ►Seven Noachide Laws (1)
- ►Shabbos (8)
- ►Shabbos Chazon (0)
- ►Shabbos Shuva (0)
- ►Shemittah (1)
- ►Shemona Esrei (2)
- ►Suffering (2)
- ►Ten Martyrs (1)
- ►Teshuva (9)
- ►Togetherness (7)
- ►Tzedaka (4)
- ►Yetzer Hara (9)
- ►Zealousy (3)