Archive for the ‘03. Sefer Vayikra’ Category

The Torah explains how to diagnose a metzora, someone stricken with tzaraas: וְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה כִסְּתָה הַצָּרַעַת אֶת כָּל בְּשָׂרוֹ וְטִהַר אֶת הַנָּגַע כֻּלּוֹ הָפַךְ לָבָן טָהוֹר הוּא – The kohen should check the white mark. If it has cleared from his skin, it is purified. If it has spread and infected his entire body white, he too is purified. (13:13)

If the mark was not purified, the man was sent away from the city for a week.

Tzaraas should not be thought of as a physical disease, for which the metzora was quarantined. If it were so, what of the man whose entire body was stricken? Think of it as a spiritual shortcoming that is physically manifest, for which the metzora is isolated through solitary confinement.

The isolation is a critical part of being cured, but why?

The cause of tzaraas is gossip, which the Torah is highly sensitive to. Gossip is a highly destructive force, tearing apart the fabric of society by planting harmful ideas, destroying perceptions and relationships. The metzora must leave the community because tzaraas can be hidden otherwise – symbolic of how the gossip himself is able to blend into society when he is actually destroying it. This person is not what he seems – or in other words, a fake – and since he can blend, people are not on their guard. The Rema explains that this is not the case with the person whose entire body is stricken – their physical condition matches their spiritual condition – people know to steer well clear of such a person, and this metzora can therefore stay in the city.

Solitary confinement may seem a little extreme, but R’ Yisrael Salanter explains that the punishment fits the crime; the gossip – if telling the truth – is exacting over the finer details of other peoples lives. Such an expert is forced to confront his own character flaws by being exposed to only himself for a week, to rectify his own wrongdoings.

Later on, where the parsha addresses tzaraas affecting the clothing, the Torah reveals a fundamental idea, key to the entire portion of the metzora: וְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן (…) וְהִנֵּה לֹא הָפַךְ הַנֶּגַע אֶת עינו – The kohen should check, and if the eye of the mark had not reverted… (13:55).

The point of the purification process of a metzora is for the eye to revert. Figuratively speaking, the character flaw that causes tzaraas is the eye that looks at others. At the end of his isolation, his eye should be fixed firmly on his own actions and dealings.

The Divrei Shaul points out how this reflects the Mishna in Avos, that identifies a person with a favourable eye as one of the students of Avraham Avinu, and an evil eye as a student of Bilam. If the metzora’s eye has not been fixed, he cannot end his isolation, because he is not ready to integrate into society.

Around the time the State of Israel was founded, many Jews were fighting and dying every day. A student exclaimed to the Brisker Rov how, “It’s the secular people’s fault! If they kept Shabbos surely no one would die!”.
The Brisker Rov dismissed his foolishness, “When the prophet, Yonah, fled rather than chastise the Jews’ sins – he blamed himself and preferred to be thrown off a boat – בשלי הסער הגדול הזה! Even if the entire nation were idol worshippers like then, we don’t look to others for accountability, we say בשלי הסער הגדול הזה – this great storm is all my fault. A Jew’s job is not to judge, but only to say, “How can I make it better?”".

The parsha opens with אִם בְּחֻקֹּתַי תֵּלֵכוּ וְאֶת מִצְוֹתַי תִּשְׁמְרוּ וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם – If you follow My statutes and observe My commandments and perform them (26:3)

Rav Shach quotes a pasuk from Neviim, Chabakuk 3:6 that הליכות עולם לו – that the ways of the world are Hashems. We say this when we say korbanos at the end of davening, and we quote the ma’amar Chazal that expounds אל תקרי הליכות אלא הלכות – Read it not as ways, but as laws. The הלכות, the Torah, that we bring in to the world, dictates the הליכות, the ways, of Hashem’s world.

Our performance of mitzvos has a very real effect on the world – the mitzvos dictate (more…)

One of the curses in the parsha is וְכָשְׁלוּ אִישׁ בְּאָחִיו – Each man will stumble over his brother (26:37)

Rashi remarks that apart from the obvious physical tripping, the pasuk is also referencing tripping over the sins of our brothers. Rashi utilises the famous maxim of כל ישראל ערבין זה לזה – which means that all of Israel are accountable for one another.

R’ Yehoshua Hartman explains that the Maharal inquires how this is the case (more…)

Why is there suffering in the world? More specifically, why does the Torah give the tochacha, the list of all the curses that will afflict the people if they do not keep the Torah properly?

In this world, we have a body and a soul. The Yetzer Hara – the evil inclination – exists in the soul, and the Yetzer Tov – the positive inclination – exists in the body. Ideally, אִם בְּחֻקֹּתַי תֵּלֵכוּ וְאֶת מִצְוֹתַי תִּשְׁמְרוּ – the soul transcends the physical of the world, and the person becomes separate from the world, different, holy.

However, אִם בְּחֻקֹּתַי תִּמְאָסוּ – if the body sins, it comes to the fore, and it supersedes the soul, to the point where soul is almost strangled, as it were. If the soul were to die, the body would be no different to that of animal – lead by sense and impulse.

Suffering is an emergency safety measure that kicks in to avoid this. It minimises the physicality the body partakes in. It prevents the body from getting addicted to what will eventually destroy the soul. In this way, suffering cleanses us.

This applies to all suffering, including the Holocaust.

The victims were martyrs. Whatever they were in life, they were קדושים, holy martyrs, in death. They died על קידוש ה. The Gemara in Sanhedrin explains that in dying על קידוש ה, the victim becomes a figurative and actual korban, a sacrifice. All suffering is smaller degree of this, all suffering is in some way a קרבן לה. The Bluzhever Rebbe used to tell people to get a bracha from a Holocaust survivor for the very same reason.

All suffering reduces the domination of body over soul, of matter over mind,

People usually suffer most in their old age, toward the end of their lives. This is when they are older, and thus free from the sins of their youth. Hashem postpones suffering in the elderly in order that the person may greet his Creator in the most pure and direct way.

Parshas Behar and Bechukosai frequently appear together – Behar teaches about the Torah at Sinai, and Bechukosai is the blessings and curses. R’ Yaakov Minkus explains that they are together because they both take us to Har Sinai – Torah and suffering both.

Suffering removes the framework the Yetzer Hara operates and thrives in. It brings a person closer to Sinai and Hashem by breaking the hold his body has over his soul, purifying and cleansing him.

Regarding Shemitta, the sabbatical year, the pasuk says : וַיְדַבֵּר יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶל מֹשֶׁה בְּהַר סִינַי לֵאמֹר – (25:1)

Rashi explains that in the same way that Shemitta was taught in detail at Sinai, all other mitzvos were taught in the same way.

Shemitta is a key mitzva, much like Shabbos, which is a reference point for other mitzvos. Through the performance of key mitzvos, we find a gateway to the performance of all others. The Sfas Emes explains that Shemitta here is truly the reference point for all mitzvos, utilising the above Rashi.

The pasuk (25:2) says כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל הָאָרֶץ – When you come to the land. The Torah says this many times in Chumash – that is to say that when the Jews get to Eretz Yisrael, the reason the land is given is to fulfil God’s will.

The way the Jews have freedom in the the land is solely in this way – through marginalising themselves and their egos, by subjugating themselves to Hashem. In the case of Shemitta, the subjugation manifests itself that we are told to refrain from working the land. The reason this is so is that people become enslaved by their work – it consumes them, and it becomes them. These people do not and cannot stop. The Sfas Emes explains that this concept enables us to serve Hashem – from being released from all consuming work, we can devote our strength to the same extent to His service.

This is why we were sent to Egypt, and why we were released. There must be a burden in order for us to realise how much we can carry – one the burden is removed, we can carry our faith freely. The Sfas Emes compares this to our eternal struggle with the Yetzer Hara, and why it starts immediately. In the same way, Eretz Canaan had to have idolatry and immorality to the degree that it’s inhabitants had to be destroyed, in order for it to become Eretz Yisrael, containing the Beis HaMikdash. This concept manifests itself freely.

The point of Shemitta and Shabbos is to bear witness that Hashem sustains existence anew every day. We say every morning that Hashem is ברוך אומר ועושה – Hashem says, and Hashem does. The Sfas Emes explains that Hashem said, and created something from nothing – but Hashem also does, every day, now that Creation exists, maintains it. 

The Sfas Emes develops this further, and says that the same is true of mitzvos. Every mitzva we do should arouse and inspire us – every day. The life we get from a mitzva’s performance should be anew each time, and the same with Torah. The Sfas Emes teaches us that the preparation and freshness, of everything, only serves to enable what comes after.

There is a very basic question one can ask about Olam Haba – the World to Come. It is our reward for being Jews, and as such, central to Jewish life. But if it so important, why doesn’t the Torah mention or discuss it anywhere?

The Maharal explains that the question is flawed. To promise something that is not empirically true or provable is cheap, and moreover, useless. The Rosh says that הרוצה לשקר ירחיק עדותו – about one who wants to lie, distance his testimony. We could be promised 72 golden cows, or similar, but the promise is essentially worthless, in the same way that a pop-up or scratch card assure you have won a billion dollars.

Hashem doesn’t have a problem telling us to keep the Shemittah, the Sabbatical year. It comes with a guarantee that for the farmers who keep it faithfully, the sixth year will yield a triple harvest – וְצִוִּיתִי אֶת בִּרְכָתִי לָכֶם בַּשָּׁנָה הַשִּׁשִּׁית וְעָשָׂת אֶת הַתְּבוּאָה לִשְׁלֹשׁ הַשָּׁנִים – I will command My blessing for you in the sixth year, and it will yield produce for three years. (25:21). There are countless stories even in recent years of farmers who have miraculously experienced a triple yield in spite of difficulties, such as drought, crop failure or insects plaguing neighboring fields. This is the strength of Torah.

It is no weakness in Judaism to not discuss Olam Haba. It is the strength of Torah to tell us about what is relevant in our lives, which Olam Haba is not.

בְּצֶדֶק תִּשְׁפֹּט עֲמִיתֶךָ – You shall judge your fellow with righteousness (19:15)

Rashi paraphrases the appropriate ma’amar Chazal on this, from the Gemara in Shabbos 127b, that ת”ר הדן חבירו לכף זכות דנין אותו לזכות – that the Rabbis taught that one who judges his fellow favorably is judged favorably in return.

The Ba’al Shem Tov explains the mechanism through which we are judged when we leave this world. When a person gets to Heaven, he will be ushered into a courtroom, and will be told he is required to pass judgment on a case. They bring the case before him, and the prosecution speaks, then the defense. This new-comer-come-judge pounds the gavel and declares the defendant guilty.

The angels pull him aside, and they say to him, “R’ Yid, the man we are judging is you. Don’t you remember that time you…”. They then list the amount of times he was guilty

R’ Yisroel Reisman points out that this is why we call this process דין וחשבן – a ruling and accounting. The ruling comes before the accounting.

R’ Reisman asks a poignant question – this mechanism will work on everyone. Everyone that is, except people who already know this. When it is eventually and inevitably their turn to judge, and they declare everyone and everything innocent, when they are informed “R’ Yid, this man is you” – will they feign surprise and truly be absolved? (more…)

קְדֹשִׁים תִּהְיוּ כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אֲנִי ה’ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם – You shall be holy, because I, the Lord, your God, am holy. (19:2)

The Midrash in Vayikra Rabba points out that Hashem did not say “Be קָדוֹשׁ, like I am קָדוֹשׁ”, but rather, “Be קָדוֹשׁ , because I am קָדוֹשׁ”. Hashem cannot tell us to be like Him, as Hashem’s קדושה is greater than ours.

Rav Shach quotes the Rambam which explains that we are instructed to perform the mitzva והלכת בדרכיו (Devarim 28:9) – to emulate Hashem’s ways. It would seem that since the pasuk said אֲנִי ה’ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם , the instruction was to be קָדוֹשׁ specifically because we are meant to attempt to be more spiritually inclined, which is what the Midrash addresses.

Rav Shach then contrasts this with a later halacha, which clarifies the previous one. The Rambam states that a person who removes himself from day to day life, refrains from eating meat or drinking wine, and has limited contact with people, is still following the wrong path, and it is forbidden to behave in such a manner.

As such, even though we are meant to emulate Hashem’s ways, we are incapable of being separate from existence in the way Hashem is. As the Midrash said; “Hashem’s קדושה is greater than ours.” Our ability to be קָדוֹשׁ is confined to this world, and it is only through this world that we can attain קדושה . R Shach thus explains that our attempts at והלכת בדרכיו with regard to קדושה is only because Hashem is קָדוֹשׁ , but we are incapable of being like Hashem.

The Aruch HaShulchan wonders why the subsequent pasuk is juxtaposed to אִישׁ אִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו תִּירָאוּ וְאֶת שַׁבְּתֹתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ אֲנִי ה’ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם – Every man shall fear his mother and his father, and you shall observe My Shabbosos – I am the Lord, your God. (19:3)

The Aruch HaShulchan explains that in the Ten Commandments, כבד את אביך and שמור את יום השבת were followed by כאשר צוה ה – As Hashem commanded. The reason this is so is that the people who gave you life, cared for you, and made you as a person, are logically deserving of respect. Equally, a day off of work makes a lot of sense too! A rested, happy, worker is more productive. The pasuk therefore stresses that we are not to perform these actions as logical decisions, but rather, kasher tziva hashem.

[It is worth noting that the first set of Luchos did not contain these last few words. The first set of Luchos were made entirely by Hashem (as opposed to hewn from actually rock by Moshe, like the second ones). It seems that Torah learned from the first set of Luchos would never be forgotten, and the people would become like angels. This is why Moshe did not forget the Torah, and why his face shone when he came down the first time at Har Sinai. The first set of Luchos was meant for people who would become like angels – there was no need to tell them כאשר צוה ה.]

This is why the pasuk also attached כאשר צוה ה – through doing these mitzvos purely because כאשר צוה ה, and אֲנִי ה’ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם ,we become קְדֹשִׁים תִּהְיוּ. This can be a reference point to us for all mitzvos – when we want to become קָדוֹשׁ, it is not purely through spirituality that we can do so, echoing what Rav Shach taught. By “taking a day off”, and observing Shabbos Kodesh, we become קָדוֹשׁ. This further brings the words of the Midrash to life, that “Hashem’s קדושה is greater than ours” – precisely because our קדושה is to be found in the physical,

Before the commandments regarding the arayos, forbidden relationships, the pasuk begins with:

דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אֲנִי ה’ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם – Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: I am the Lord, your God (18:2).

This is a pasuk that appears frequently in Chumash. Rashi here explains that it is a paraphrase of Sinai, and this rings true for every occurrence of this pasuk and similar:

אני ה’ אלהיכם: אני הוא שאמרתי בסיני (שמות כ:ב) אנכי ה’ אלהיך, וקבלתם עליכם מלכותי, מעתה קבלו גזרותי – I am the Lord, your God: “I am He who said at Sinai (Shemos 20:2) I am the Lord, your God – and there you accepted my Kingship, now you accept my decrees.”

God is instructing Moshe to tell us that in the same way we accepted the yoke of heaven at Mount Sinai, we should now accept His decrees. The instruction to perform mitzvos is based solely on our acceptance of Hashem.

The Sfas Emes explains that this is not just an idea – this is practical advice that can be applied to all mitzvos. The intent upon doing any mitzva needs to be to accept the yoke of heaven. This is the very purpose of the mitzvah. Doing as Hashem instructs confirms that we defer to Him.

With this concept, the Sfas Emes explains why it is that Nadav and Avihu died. The pasuk says: וַיִּקְחוּ בְנֵי אַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא אִישׁ מַחְתָּתוֹ וַיִּתְּנוּ בָהֵן אֵשׁ וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלֶיהָ קְטֹרֶת וַיַּקְרִבוּ לִפְנֵי’ ה’ אֵשׁ זָרָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה אֹתָם – And Ahron’s sons, Nadav and Avihu, each took his pan, put fire in them, and placed incense upon it, and they brought before the Lord foreign fire, which He had not commanded them. (10:1)

וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי ה’ וַתֹּאכַל אוֹתָם וַיָּמֻתוּ לִפְנֵי הֹ – And fire went forth from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. (10:2)

The Sfas Emes explains that אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה אֹתָם, that they weren’t commanded, was the cause of their deaths, as it was their attitude that led to to the אֵשׁ זָרָה .  This should be astounding – they were held responsible not for what they had done, that they offered a foreign fire, but because of their outlook, what they had done represented – they were expressing themselves in a way that God had not asked, and for this they died. It is therefore clear from this episode that our key aim in doing a mitzva should be to do G-d’s will, and the performance of said mitzva should stem from this alone.

Accepting the yoke of Heaven and deveikus, cleaving to Hashem, are interchangeable. When one does a mitzva, their soul moves closer to Hashem, and this develops our relationship with Him. Our relationship grows stronger through the performance of mitzvos, and vice versa with sins. As our perception and feeling to Hashem grows, Hashem comes closer to us too, as it were.

The Sfas Emes explains that this is the translation of the pasuk: וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת מִשְׁפָּטַי אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם אֲנִי ה - You shall observe My decrees and My laws, which a man will do and live by them. I am the Lord. (18:5).

וָחַי בָּהֶם is not an instruction, it is a statement. Since the mitzvos are the mechanism through which we draw life into this world, it follows that we can draw life to everything by transforming every action into a mitzvah. Chazal allude to this concept when they say that the wicked, even as they live, are considered dead. This is because they are without mitzvos. וָחַי בָּהֶם – by doing mitzvos, there will be life.

Significantly, the pasuk is in the future tense, “אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם – which a man will do,”. The Torah is teaching us to be constantly prepared to do God’s will. Hoping for an opportunity to do God’s will is what this pasuk calls, keeping “My decrees and My laws”. With this approach, when the opportunity arises, we will perform the mitzvah properly and it will have the greatest positive effect on ourselves and our surroundings. Following the beginning of the pasuk leads us to the end result of וָחַי בָּהֶם. Looking for the opportunities to do God’s will is the path to life and happiness.

The Sfas Emes has shown that doing mitzvos is the way we accept Hashem’s kingship. Mitzvos encompass all human activity – there is a way to do everything in a halachically prescribed manner. Hence, by doing mitzvos we can bring all creation closer to Hashem. By doing HaShem’s will, we are accepting His authority, and in so doing we can bring life and joy to the world.

With korbanos, the sacrifices, there is a concept within certain categories of korban called olah v’yored – where the animal offered will vary, dependent on the person’s status. For example, Parshas Tazria deals with a woman who gives birth – olah v’yored applies, and as such, a woman from a wealthy family offers a חטאת and עולה of sheep, and a woman from a poor family offers a חטאת and עולה of doves.

But what if a poor person decides to save up, and instead of bringing the doves, he chooses to offer a wealthy man’s offering of sheep/cows? In other words; are people confined to their social status?

The halacha according to all is that if a wealthy man were to bring a poor man’s offering of doves, he has definitely not fulfilled his obligation. So the, olah v’yored applies to the animals, and it applies to the supplicant if he attempts to downgrade his responsibility. So the question becomes: can a person upgrade their responsibility?

The Sefer Hachinuch says that a poor person who upgrades his sacrifice from the birds to the cows has not fulfilled his obligation. The Rambam disputes this, and says that he has.

What is the basis of the dispute?

There is a story told about R’ Meir Schapira, at a gathering of all the pre-war Gedolim. He presented this very question, and asked how the Sefer HaChinuch could suggest he hadn’t fulfilled his obligation, possibly contradicting various Gemaras.

Present at the gathering, was the Imrei Emes, the Gerrer Rebbe. He simply muttered, “there is a missing korban”. Those gathered were puzzled what the Rebbe had meant. Among his attending disciples was R’ Menachem Zemba of Warsaw, a renowned genius, who took the floor. “Let us analyse where the Sefer HaChinuch says his halacha. There are 6 applications of the concept of olah v’yored:”

1. A ritually impure person who enters the area of the Beis haMikdash

2. A ritually impure person who eats kodshim (produce set aside for kohanim)

4. A person who falsely swears he did not witness an event, thereby avoiding needing to testify

5. A woman who gives birth

6. A person stricken with tzara’as (a metzora)

“5+6 are different. The wealthy person brings one animal, as does the poor person. Not so in 1-4, delineated in Parshas Vayikra, wherein the wealthy person only bring the חטאת , and no עולה , thereby only needing one animal. The Gemara that the Sefer HaChinuch seemed to go against, that a poor person who brings a rich mans offering has indeed fulfilled his obligation, was regarding 5+6, where there were two animals, brought by both the rich and poor.”

“However, in Parshas Vayikra, where the pasuk discusses cases 1-4, it is insufficient for a poor person to bring a wealthy man’s offering – he’s missing an animal!”

“The Ibn Ezra discusses the possible causes for the discrepancy in how many animals a person would bring, based on his social standing.”

“1. A poor man would by definition be unhappy with his standing in life, and he would bear a grudge against Heaven for his misfortune. This necessitates an additional animal.”

“2. A wealthy person’s offering has a large enough portion to burn on the Mizbeach by itself, a cow is a very large animal. Not so with a bird, with a woefully small portion to burn. It is disrespectful to offer such a miniscule portion, and this necessitates a whole new animal to satisfice the demands of the Mizbeach.”

The genius continued; “So the Sefer HaChinuch would agree with the first possibility. It doesn’t help for a poor person, who must bring the second to atone for his grudge against Heaven, to bring one animal. He has not addressed this feeling within, and as the Rebbe said, there is a korban missing.”

However, the Rambam would hold with the second option, that the second animal is not brought because of the person, but rather, by the nature of the animal being offered. If he were to bring a cow, there would be no need for a second animal, and he would indeed have fulfilled his responsibility!

אֵשׁ תָּמִיד תּוּקַד עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לֹא תִכְבֶּה – A continuous fire shall burn upon the altar; it shall not go out. (Vayikra 6:6)

עשרה ניסים נעשו בבית המקדש (…) ולא כבו הגשמים את עצי המערכה – Ten miracles occurred in the Temple: (…), and the rains did not extinguish the logs on the fire (of the Mizbeach). (Avos 5:5)

It seems odd that the miracle that occurs here is supernatural. Miracles are meant to seem as natural as possible, and it would have been simpler to manipulate nature, so that rain wouldn’t fall on the Mizbeach at all, rather than have rain fall on the fire but not extinguish it. What is the purpose of the miracle being deliberately more complicated than need be?

R’ Chaim Volozhin suggests that there is a very powerful message we can learn from this.

Sometimes we wish that the circumstances around us would just change, that our “rain” would just stop. But it is evident from the Mishna that the circumstances won’t just change to suit our individual needs; just as אֵשׁ תָּמִיד תּוּקַד עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – the fire burnt on the Mizbeach cotinuously– even in the pouring rain, it would not go out.

We can have all the excuses in the world to stop and falter from what is required of us as Jews. But we have a clear role model in how to conduct ourselves in the Mizbeach. Instead of shying away from our responsibilities, we need to persevere. People pray for miracles, when they don’t see that they need to their hishtadlus – their part. This hishtadlus is the part we play in solving our problems, and thus our problem’s solution is in our own hands. If we keep at what we’re meant to, we will be our own miracles. Our miracles won’t come on their own.

The fire on the Mizbeach was not allowed to be in a state of not being lit – if this was done through a miracle, what is the need for an instruction to not extinguish it? Perhaps we can explain in a similar vein that the fire wasn’t “magic”. It didn’t burn on it’s own with nothing there. It required constant replacement of logs of wood, and over hundreds of years, did not go out.  The pasuk says as much: אֵשׁ תָּמִיד תּוּקַד – it never stopped. This is a further indication we need do our part to see G-d’s hand. It won’t play itself.

We can further say that the Kohen Gadol went into the Kodesh Kadashim once per year, on Yom Kippur. He performed the service, and said one prayer. The sole prayer that as ever said in the Kodesh Kadashim was this. The most holy prayer of the year was that Hashem should not listen to the travellers and tourists that it shouldn’t rain, and that it should rain as much as possible. Through rain we see the hand of G-d, and this further shows the importance of “letting it rain” and working around it, rather than having it not rain at all.

(זאת התורה לעולה למנחה לחטאת ולאשם וגו’     (צו ז:לז

“This is the law of the burnt-offering, the meal-offering, the sin-offering, and the guilt-offering;” (Parshas Tzav 7:37)

The Gemara (Menachos 110a) extrapolates from this pasuk that one who toils in the parsha of the Korban Olah is considered as if he has brought a Korban Olah. One who toils in the parsha of the Korban Chatas considered as if he has brought a Korban Chatas, etc.

Rabbeinu Bachayei writes: “The idea [behind this Gemara] is that a person should contemplate and recognize the explanation of the Parsha [which he is learning] and to what it alludes. As a consequence of this, he will fathom and understand wonders from the Torah of Korbanos which will result in increased efforts in performing Torah and Mitzvos, and atonement for his sin as if he brought korbanos. For one cannot say that the intent [of this Gemara] is that a person should simply read the words of the Parsha without understanding them.

Similar to this, Chazal say [Gemara Brachos 4a]: ‘Anyone who says Tehila L’David [Ashrei] every day is promised to be a Ben Olam Habah.’ The intent being that by contemplating and recognizing what the pasukim teach and to what they allude, one will recognize the wonders of Hakadosh Baruch Hu and strengthen his heart with emunah in Hashem and His service, with which he will merit Olam Habah.”

Our great leader and sage, Rabbeinu Bachayei, student of the holy Rashba, has set down for us a significantly important cornerstone in our faith. The dissemination of this point is a mitzva. The Jewish religion is not one of superstitions. Rather, the objective is fairly simple: by doing what Hashem wants of us, like keeping the Torah and doing Mitzvos, we find favor in Hashem’s eyes and merit Olam Habah. And if not, chas v’shalom…

In Judaism there are no tricks or shortcuts or anything of that sort. On the contrary, practicing “segulas” makes Judiasm appear primitive and childish. The only reason why shaking a palm branch on Succos does not appear as such is because Hashem told us to do it. Had He not, but had there been some “tradition” that doing so would make the “shaker” wealthy or bring rain, this would not prevent him (not to mention the religion) from looking very foolish. Even when Chazal make statements that imply a guaranteed positive result to one who does or says a certain thing, Rabbeinu Bachayei is explaining to us that Chazal’s intention was in recognizing and working on the meaning behind the act or the saying. Avodas Hashem is just that: serving Hashem; it involves a cognizant (thinking and knowing) relationship, not just habitual acts.

Although there are certain things which can help our avoda (like looking into a siddur when davening to improve concentration), they are not “segulas” in the classic sense, but rather experience-tested methods which are basically guaranteed. A wilder example would be what Rabbi Akiva Eiger writes in his glosses to Shulchan Aruch (Yorah Deah 336:1): “The Maharil said, ‘We are forbidden to attempt any of the medical advice that is mentioned in the Talmud since we are unable to fully understand them. They will not be effective, resulting in criticism and mockery of the words of our Sages. This is not including the advice mentioned in the Gemara Shabbos (67a), the one who has a bone stuck in his throat shall bring from the very same type, that is to say the same type of bone, and place it on his forehead and say, ‘Chad chad nachis bula bula nachis chad chad.’ This incantation is guaranteed, therefore only this one are we allowed to continue to practice, and not a single one more.’” This tool is not simply “hocus pocus,” but rather an example of the medical knowledge of Chazal which even we are not inadequate enough to botch.

The bottom line is – we need to drum it into ourselves that the only way to serve Hashem is with full awareness and cognizance (see Isaiah 29:13-14 regarding “lip-service” in Avodas Hashem). If we do our part and try, Hashem will help us continue in the right path (see Menachos 29b בא לטהר מסייעין אותו). May we merit serving Hashem b’emes.

It’s a very basic question, and there are many approaches to take. The Ramban on Vayikra 1:9 discusses various approaches we will analyse, and is widely considered one of the fundamental parts of the Ramban’s commentary on the Chumash.

The Ramban quotes the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim as the first approach. The Rambam writes there that the idea of Jews using animal sacrifice was necessary for the people as they needed a physical method of worship, having been a part of the pagan culture in Egypt and other such places. To battle and rectify the idol worship in the world, the Jews would do the same action for a sacred purpose.

The Ramban disagrees strongly with this on many facets. If we base an entire method of service to Hashem on the actions of fools and sinners, why would Hashem gain anything from it at all? Vayikra 1:9 says that the korban creates אשה ריח ניחוח ליהוה – Hashem “enjoys” the fact that we bring korbanos. The implication of the Rambam is that the korbanos are more for man than Hashem, but  if the korbanos were for man, why would Hashem enjoy it? We must find a suitable explanation for bringing korbanos that also explains why Hashem instructs it of us, rather than why why we ought to do it.

The Ramban points out that if the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim is correct, that Jewish animal sacrifice only exists to battle idol worship, then we would not find instances of korbanos before an instance of idol worship. But this is not so – Adam was the first human – there were obviously no other people around to worship idols – yet he brought korbanos nonetheless, and so too with Noach; his family were the sole survivors of the Flood – so again, there could be no idol worshippers – and we find that nonetheless he did bring korbanos. How would the Rambam explain these instances where there was no idol worship to fight?

He further asks why the solution to idol worship would be to do the same thing in a different way – this seems to lend credibility to the idolatry the korbanos are trying to fight, chas v’shalom. It would seem that it would be better to just eat animals and not have sacrifices at all if we were indeed trying to fight the credibility of idol worship, as eating them shows we don’t consider them to be worthy of special attention.

R’ Yakov Minkus explains the solution to this issue. The Rambam in his magnum opus, the Mishneh Torah (Hilchos Me’ila 8:8) writes explicitly that the yesod – the distilled, fundamental, reason to bring korbanos is a חוק – there is no reason to do it other than the fact we were told to. The Moreh Nevuchim explains the inverse of this – once the mitzva exists, there is a spillover effect that we can relate to more, but the underlying reasoning remains a חוק. With this knowledge at hand, of course Noach could bring a korban, and the question about the non-existence of idol-worship falls away. Battling idol worship isn’t why there are korbanos as a starting point, rather, it helps explain it after the fact.

With this knowledge of the Rambam’s true approach to korbanos, we can suggest an answer to the question of why the countering of idol worship would take a similar form, rather than denigrating it, by simply eating all animals regularly, without any sacrifices at all.

Korbanos have their blood sprinkled on the Mizbeach, by a kohen, in the Beis Hamikdash. The Korban Pesach had none of these key functions, so why is it called a korban at all? R’ Moshe Shapiro explains that the key to understanding this issue is that idol worship is not nothing. Paganism and idol worship have a כח הטומאה – they usurp and corrupt spirituality. Eating an animal doesn’t battle the the negative of idol worship, it just nullifies it. The nullification does not require the Beis Hamikdash, or sprinkling of blood by the kohen.  This is why the Pesach could be brought publicly in Egypt. The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim was saying that all korbanos have this nullifying the negative aspect to which we can relate, but we now see this isn’t the full spectrum of his opinion.

The Ramban then offers a second approach. There is an intrinsic good on man’s part in having korbanos. The idea of a korban is that a person should see the animal as being his substitute, and really, he ought to be sacrificed. The animal takes his place and atones for his sins, and this is the reason to have korbanos.

There is a mighty flaw with this approach too however. Most korbanos are donated, rather than obligated of people, so the Ramban’s approach doesn’t explain the existence of donated korbanos at all.

The Ramban offers a third solution, that is beyond the scope of this site to explain properly. The word קרבן, the root of which is the word קרב, means “closeness”. Offering a korban engenders closeness with Hashem. This is a difficult concept to explain, let alone understand, but to illustrate: we perform mitzvos to emulate Hashem’s ways, but we are not emulating Hashem by bringing korbanos – we are doing something else: we are interacting with Hashem. We are provoking a reaction in Hashem, as the pasuk says; “אשה ריח ניחוח ליהוה” – on which Rashi remarks “נחת רוח לפני, שאמרתי ונעשה רצוני”. This is difficult to illustrate, but there is a difference between doing Hashem’s will, and making it. When we bring a korban, we bring more of Hashem’s will into the world. One could suggest there is an element of creation here.

The Ramban brings a proof from Isaiah 60:7 that says: יַעֲלוּ עַל רָצוֹן מִזְבְּחִי וּבֵית תִּפְאַרְתִּי אֲפָאֵר – the Mizbeach is the expression of Hashem’s will.

So in bringing a korban, a person intentions are going to correlate to how they have extended G-d’s will in the world. This is why there is a concept of pigul, (a lengthy concept regarding what happens in the event that all the actions of a korban were carried out correctly, but someone in the porcess was thinking about something mundane, like the weather. Around 40 pages of Meseches Zevachim are devoted to this) – because the physical animal isn’t what matters – there is a transfer of spirituality here, from potential/theoretical to physical in this world. It’s a very big deal. The improper thoughts mean one can’t interact with what he’s trying to, and the korban has served it’s purpose, as the whole idea is not the physical at all.

So in answer to why we bring korbanos: there is the simple Moreh Nevuchim approach that we are counteracting paganism, the Ramban’s simple approach that we can atone our sins, and the Ramban’s esoteric Kabbalistic approach. We can suggest though, that perhaps the חוק aspect that the Rambam referred to was this third approach, and perhaps all the opinions harmonise together. Admittedly, this doesn’t answer why we bring korbanos, but it does explain what the function of the korban is.

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…)

מ. וּלְקַחְתֶּם לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר כַּפֹּת תְּמָרִים וַעֲנַף עֵץ עָבֹת וְעַרְבֵי נָחַל וּשְׂמַחְתֶּם לִפְנֵי יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם שִׁבְעַת יָמִים:

40. And you shall take for yourselves on the first day, the fruit of the Hadar tree, date palm fronds, a branch of a braided tree, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for a seven day period. (Vayikra 23:40)

This pasuk, in parshas Emor, contains the commandment for each Jewish Man to use his own Esrog on Succos – specifying ‘לָכֶם’, ‘for yourselves’.

. יט. וְעַתָּה כִּתְבוּ לָכֶם אֶת הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת וְלַמְּדָהּ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שִׂימָהּ בְּפִיהֶם לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה לִּי הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת לְעֵד בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

19: And now, write for yourselves this song, and teach it to the Children of Israel. Place it into their mouths, in order that this song will be for Me as a witness for the children of Israel.   (Devarim 31:19)

This next pasuk, in Parshas Vayelech, commands every Jewish man to write a Sefer Torah using the same specification  ‘לָכֶם’, ‘for yourselves’. However,the Halacha for the second usage of “לָכֶם” is not the same as the one for ‘פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר’ – the Esrog. When performing the Mitzvah of writing a Sefer Torah, people can write them בשוטפות – in a group. A group of people share the writing of one Sefer Torah and each person is considered to have fulfilled their individual obligation to write a Sefer Torah.

How do we explain the difference between “לָכֶם” by the מצוה of esrog and “לָכֶם” by the מצוה of Sefer Torah? How do we justify the commonly accepted custom of sharing the great financial commitment of the writing of a Sefer Torah?

R Ahron Leib Shteinman explains in reference to the מצוה of esrog:  “לָכֶם” (in Gemara Succos 35a) is used to teach that financial ownership (בעלת ממון) of an esrog is not enough to fulfil the mitzva. There needs to be the possibility of extracting maximum productivity ie a היתר אכילה – the ability to eat it and use it up (destroy it). With shared ownership, a partner has the right to use the asset, but not deplete or destroy it; as this would deprive the co-owners of their rights. , In this case they require recompense. So in the case of the Esrog, if it cannot be used to the fullest extent ie eating it,then there is a deficiency in “לָכֶם” Thus it is clear that since a jointly owned esrog cannot be fully used by an individual partner, one cannot perform the mitzva with it.

However, with the mitzvah of Sefer Torah, the fullest use of the shared item consists of reading it and learning from it. This does not depreciate the asset nor detract from another owner’s share at all. If one partner were to read and learn from it, he is certainly using it to its fullest extent, so there is no deficiency in “לָכֶם”, and all of the participants can fulfill their full obligation even with only a partial share. Indeed, all can use it together to the same extent as it is used individually – so the “לָכֶם” aspect is equal both individually and collectively.

This then answers both our questions, showing that many people can share equally in the great Mitzvah of writing a Sefer Torah but each man must purchase his own individual esrog.

For all posts on Chukas click here

The Torah seems to make a big deal about the Ananei Hakavod (clouds of glory) and commands us to commemorate them with the holiday of Succos. There seems to be no big deal about the manna or Be’er  Miriam (well of Miriam). Why are the Ananei Hakavod given more ‘attention’ than the manna or Be’er Miriam, which were also great miracles?
There are three answers given to the above question:

1. Food and water are the barest of necessities for survival. Hashem took us out to a desert; of course He would feed us! Shelter is not crucial for survival and could therefore be classified as ‘lifnim meshuras hadin’ (above and beyond the measure of the law).

2. The clouds were exclusive. They were a special gift from Hashem to His Chosen nation, but only those who were worthy, benefitted. (The Erev Rav and people inflicted with tzora’as (leprosy)did not benefit)

3. The clouds, the manna, and the water from Be’er Miriam were all given as free gifts. The Jews complained and made requests regarding the water and food (ie-slav) but they never complained about the clouds. The clouds were the perfect gift.

The Chida says that these three answers are hinted to in Parshas Emor 23:43: לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי הֹ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:  In order that your ensuing generations should know that I had the children of Israel live in booths when I took them out of the land of Egypt. I am the Lord, your God.

לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתי – I, (Hashem) gave it to you as a gift.
אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל- I gave it to the Jews (not the Erev Rav).
בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי ה’ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם- I took you out of Egypt, so I was obligated to feed you.

Other posts on Bechukosai:

Fogiveness – Big deal? (Must see!)

Food for Peace

וְכִי יָמוּךְ אָחִיךָ וּמָטָה יָדוֹ עִמָּךְ וְהֶחֱזַקְתָּ בּוֹ - If your brother becomes destitute and his hand falters beside you, you shall support him (25:35)

The interpretation of the words “וְהֶחֱזַקְתָּ בּוֹ - you shall support him”, although this is not reflected in English, in Hebrew it is in the present tense. This is taken to mean that no mater how may times someone needs help, we must continue to offer the guiding and helping hand. Our Yetzer Hara may tell us that this person is wasting our time, and we’re worse off for helping him, he’s getting in the way of your life etc, but the pasuk is telling us these aren’t legitimate excuses, we must persevere.

There is a story told about the Chafetz Chaim, who went to the first Aguda convention in Vienna in 1923, and he stayed in the house of one R’ Akiva Schreiber. Naturally there was a crowd permanently camped outside the house clamouring to get an audience with the holy tzaddik. An English Jew had travelled to Austria to get advice on an issue from him, and he told the the host about the urgency of the issue, so the host invited him for a meal, at which the Chafetz Chaim would be present, and they could meet afterwards.
(more…)

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

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

Rashi remarks:

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

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


וְכִי תֹאמְרוּ מַה נֹּאכַל בַּשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁבִיעִת הֵן לֹא נִזְרָע וְלֹא נֶאֱסֹף אֶת תְּבוּאָתֵנוּ-  And if you should say, “What will we eat in the seventh year? We will not sow, and we will not gather in our produce!”

וְצִוִּיתִי אֶת בִּרְכָתִי לָכֶם בַּשָּׁנָה הַשִּׁשִּׁית וְעָשָׂת אֶת הַתְּבוּאָה לִשְׁלֹשׁ הַשָּׁנִים - [Know then, that] I will command My blessing for you in the sixth year, and it will produce yield for three years. (25:20-21)

There is a famous question asked by many – the way the Torah wants to placate the Children of Israel, that they will not lack any food if they leave their fields fallow is entirely legitimate, although the question and answer form found in these two pesukim is rather strange, considering this style of dialogue is not found elsewhere. Why is the dialogue style only suitable for this specific mitzvah?
(more…)

וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם מִנְחָה חֲדָשָׁה לַה - ‘you shall bring a new mincha offering to Hashem’ (23:16)

Why does the Torah never refer explicitly to Shavuos or Rosh Hashana for their main themes, Shavuos being ‘matan Torah- the recieving of the Torah’ and Rosh Hashana being ‘משפט- the day of judgement’?

The Kli Yakar (biography here) explains that the answer for both is the same; learning Torah brings every day with it a new experience, a new understanding or a deeper insight. A person cannot learn the Torah as a monotonous study with no freshness or renewal. It is incumbent upon each of us to feel each day as though today we received the Torah from Mt.Sinai. Hashem did not want to limit the day we receive the Torah to one specific day a year, as each and every day we are able to receive the Torah from Sinai. Therefore the Torah limits the description of ‘Shavuos’ to a day where ‘you shall bring a new mincha offering to Hashem’.
(more…)

The pasuk writes:

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

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

However, later in  the pasuk writes:

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

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

The pasuk says regarding Yom Kippur:
שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן הוּא לָכֶם וְעִנִּיתֶם אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּתִשְׁעָה לַחֹדֶשׁ בָּעֶרֶב מֵעֶרֶב עַד עֶרֶב תִּשְׁבְּתוּ שַׁבַּתְּכֶם -      It is a complete day of rest for you, and you shall afflict yourselves. On the ninth of the month in the evening, from evening to evening, you shall observe your rest day (23:32).
The Gemara in Pesachim 68b wonders since when do we fast on the 9th; we only fast on the 10th? The Gemara answers that it’s a mitzva to eat on the 9th. The Torah views someone who eats on the 9th as if he fasted on the ninth and the tenth.
There is a famous question asked by many: what is the Gemara’s diyuk (problem and solution)? We have this style of date in the Torah previously (i.e.בָּרִאשֹׁן בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ בָּעֶרֶב תֹּאכְלוּ מַצֹּת עַד יוֹם הָאֶחָד וְעֶשְׂרִים לַחֹדֶשׁ בָּעָרֶב – In the first [month], on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, you shall eat matzos, until the twenty first day of the month in the evening. (Exodus 12:18) ), and the Gemara did not see fit to question why it says that we should eat matzos on the 14th if we really eat them from the 15th. So why only by Yom Kippur?

Rabbi Shlomo Gantzfried (author of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, biography here) answers with another famous question: how could the Patriarchs keep the whole Torah if they were still technically non-Jews, and there is a halacha that a non-Jew may not keep Shabbos?

One of the more accepted answers is by R’ Pinchas Halevi Horowitz (biography here) in Kiddushin 37b. He explains that there are two types of time spans: the Jewish calendar, where the night precedes the day, and the secular calendar, where the day precedes the night. The issur for a non-Jew to keep Shabbos, as explained in Sanhedrin 56b, is keeping Shabbos for a full 24 hours (not even necessarily on Saturday; it may even be a Monday). However, the pasuk in which this issur is mentioned is from Genesis 8:22 וְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה לֹא יִשְׁבֹּתוּ - “day and night shall not recede”. We see that their calendar starts from the morning. Therefore, the Patriarchs kept Shabbos as we Jews keep it-Friday night and Saturday day. However, on Motzaei Shabbos, they did a melocho, when it is still considered Shabbos for a non-Jew, as his Shabbos would only start in the morning. Thus, they never fully kept a Shabbos of a non-Jew.
With this wonderful concept, R’ Gantzfried explains how we can understand why the Gemara is specifically bothered with Yom Kippur and not with Pesach.  Pesach was mentioned before Matan Torah (the pesukim about Pesach are whilst the Jews were still in Egypt); therefore, 14th at night means the night that actually comes after the day. However, when the Torah commands us about Yom Kippur, we are already in the Jewish calendar mode, thus 9th at night really means a full 24 hours before Yom Kippur.

Therefore, the question from the Gemara is entirely legitimate!

דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם מוֹעֲדֵי ה’ אֲשֶׁר תִּקְרְאוּ אֹתָם מִקְרָאֵי קֹדֶשׁ אֵלֶּה הֵם מוֹעֲדָי – Speak to the Children of Israel and tell them these are the Festivals that they shall keep holy (23:2)

שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תֵּעָשֶׂה מְלָאכָה וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ כָּל מְלָאכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ שַׁבָּת הִוא ה’ בְּכֹל מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם - [For] six days, work may be performed, but on the seventh day, it is a complete rest day, a holy occasion; you shall not perform any work. It is a Sabbath to the Lord in all your dwelling places. (23:3)

Rashi wonders why Shabbos is inserted into the middle of the parsha of the Festivals (moadim).

The Vilna Gaon comes up with a fascinating explanation that explains the pasuk in a different vein. On all the Festivals certain types of melachos are permitted (‘ochel nefesh‘), whereas on Shabbos all melachos are forbidden. However on one yom tov no melacha is permitted – Yom Kippur  - which is also known as שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן – the same terminology that the Torah uses for a regular Shabbos. Thus the Vilna Gaon explains the pasuk like this;

דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם מוֹעֲדֵי ה’ אֲשֶׁר תִּקְרְאוּ אֹתָם מִקְרָאֵי קֹדֶשׁ אֵלֶּה הֵם מוֹעֲדָי – Speak to the Children of Israel and tell them these are the Festivals that they shall keep holy (23:2)

שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תֵּעָשֶׂה מְלָאכָה וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ כָּל מְלָאכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ -  six days “of these” a melacha is permitted ( “these” are first and last days of Pesach(2), one day Shavuos (3), one day Rosh Hashana (4), one day Succos (5), one day Shmini Atzeres (6) [these are the days that are Yom Tov 'mideoraisa' which are still observed today in Israel]) however the seventh is the holy of holiest – no melacha is permitted (yom kippur [not even ochel nefesh])!

Geshmack :)

If we take a look at the Musaf prayer of the 3 festivals we see a difference in the Korbonos (sacrifices). At both Pesach & Succos the concept of offering the sacrifice on the Mizbeach is introduced before the mention of Mikra Kodesh- a Holy Convocation, whereby the day itself becomes holy. Regarding Pesach offering the sacrifice is mentioned in Bamidbar 28:18, and Mikra Kodesh is mentioned in the next Posuk 28:19, and at Succos Mikra Kodesh is mentioned in Posuk 29:12 and the offering is in 29:13. When it comes to Shavuos it mentions the offering first in 28:13 and later in the same pasuk Mikra Kodesh. Why does the order change by Shavuos?

This is also reflected in this week’s sidra too. Pesach:

בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם - On the first day, there shall be a holy occasion for you… (23:7)

וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם אִשֶּׁה לַה - And you shall bring a fire offering to the Lord… (23:8)

Succos:

בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ כָּל מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ - On the first day, it is a holy occasion; you shall not perform any work of labor. (23:35)

‘שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תַּקְרִיבוּ אִשֶּׁה לַה – [For] a seven day period, you shall bring a fire offering to the Lord. (23:36)

Succos and Pesach have the day called “a holy occasion” before the offering is mentioned. But by Shavuos:

עַד מִמָּחֳרַת הַשַּׁבָּת הַשְּׁבִיעִת תִּסְפְּרוּ חֲמִשִּׁים יוֹם וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם מִנְחָה חֲדָשָׁה לַה- You shall count until the day after the seventh week, [namely,] the fiftieth day, [on which] you shall bring a new meal offering to the Lord. (23:16)

וּקְרָאתֶם בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם – And you shall designate on this very day a holy occasion it shall be for you (23:21)

This (Vayikra) in consistent with the order given in Bamidbar, but why the marked difference by Shavuos to other Yomim Tovim?

There is a big difference between the festivals of Pesach and Succos in contrast to Shavuos. By the Festivals, there is a concept called מקדש ישראל והזמנים – whereby Hashem tell us that we have power over the times of the festivals. This is not a concept found by Shabbos, which was set in stone from Creation, whereby every 7th day is holy. Festivals are based on when Rosh Chodesh, which is entirely flexible, based on when the Sanhedrin decided to start the new month (more info here).

Pesach and Succos are based on Rosh Chodesh – the 15th day of the Rosh Chodesh proclaimed by the Sanhedrin is called mikra kodesh – because we have said when Rosh Chodesh is, the 15th day automatically becomes set aside. It follows that to honour this day we bring an offering. The offering follows the holiness of the day.

However, by Shavuos, 23:16 says that the moment you finish counting you bring an offering. Since there is an obligation to bring an offering, the day becomes holy as a result. But it is not based on Rosh Chodesh Sivan at all, rather it is based on the 49 days of counting.

This explains the order of the psukim perfectly. By Pesach and Succos, (the primary) mikra kodesh is based on Rosh Chodesh, and the offering is the follow up. But by Shavuos, the offering is the primary feature which is based on counting the Omer, and mikra kodesh is the follow up.

There is a Gemara in Shabbos about Kabbalas HaTorah that Shavuos can occur on either 4th,5th,6th of Sivan. How can this occur at any juncture, and not be specified in the Torah (ie 15th of the month). As we have explained, Shavuos is based entirely on the counting and not on a calendar day at all.

The Ramban writes that Shavuos is to Pesach as Shemini Atzeres is to Succos, and the 49 days of sefira in the middle are like it’s chol hamoed. The commentators wonder what this means, but now that we know that Shavuos is not made holy by the day itself, but by the counting of the days from Pesach, we understand the meaning of this Ramban.

The Ibn Ezra says that the word “Chamishim” is like the Yom HaShmini. The commentators have difficulty understanding the meaning of this Ibn Ezra and try to explain it according to Kabbalah. According to what we said it’s exceedingly simple; just like Shemini Atzeres is an automatic follow up from when the first day of Succos is, so is Shavuos solely based on the passage of time from when we start counting the Omer.

אִישׁ אִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו תִּירָאוּ וְאֶת שַׁבְּתֹתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ אֲנִי ה’ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם - Every man shall fear his mother and his father, and you shall observe My Sabbaths. I am the Lord, your God. (19:3)

Here are two Rashis:

איש אמו ואביו תיראו: כל אחד מכם תיראו אביו ואמו, זהו פשוטו. ומדרשו אין לי אלא איש, אשה מנין, כשהוא אומר תיראו, הרי כאן שנים אם כן למה נאמר איש, שהאיש סיפק בידו לעשות, אבל אשה רשות אחרים עליה – Every man shall fear his mother and father: Every one of you shall fear his father and his mother. This is its simple meaning. Its Midrashic explanation, however, [is as follows]. Since the verse literally means, “Every man shall fear…,”] we know only [that this law applies to] a man; how do we know [that it applies to] a woman [as well]? When Scripture says, תִּירָאוּ [you shall fear, using the plural form], two are included [in the verse, namely, men and women]. But if this is so, why does the verse say, “Every man…?” Because a man has the ability to fulfill this [commandment without restriction, since he is independent and thus obliged to fear his parents], whereas a woman is [sometimes] under the authority of others [namely her husband]. — [Kid. 30b; Torath Kohanim 19:3]

אני ה’ אלהיכם:[....] איזהו מורא, לא ישב במקומו ולא ידבר במקומו ולא יסתור את דבריו. ואיזהו כבוד, מאכיל ומשקה, מלביש ומנעיל, מכניס ומוציא – I am the Lord, your God: [....] Now, what constitutes “fear” (morah)? One must not sit in his place, speak in his stead [when it is his father’s turn to speak] or contradict him. And what constitutes “honor” (kavod)? One must give [the father and mother] food and drink, clothe them and put on their shoes, and accompany them when they enter or leave. — [Torath Kohanim 19:3; Kid. 31b]

There would appear to be a contradiction in the sources Rashi brings. How can we say woman is exempt from morah, based on the premise she doesn’t have time? This means that she can argue with parents and be disrespectful doesn’t have the time to be do what she’s asked. Clearly this premise is absurd. If it’s not time consuming then she does have to keep the mitzva of morah!
(more…)

דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ - Speak to the children of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives…. (12:2)

Rashi comments:

אשה כי תזריע : אמר ר’ שמלאי כשם שיצירתו של אדם אחר כל בהמה חיה ועוף במעשה בראשית, כך תורתו נתפרשה אחר תורת בהמה חיה ועוף – If a woman conceives: Rabbi Simlai said: “Just as in the Creation, man was created after all domestic animals, wild beasts, and birds, so too, the law [concerning the cleanness] of man is stated after the law [concerning the cleanness] of domestic animals, wild beasts, and birds.”- [Vayikra Rabbah 14:1]

Theoretically, man should have been created before animals, as man is the focus of existence.

The Gemara (Sanhedrin 38a)  gives 4 reasons why man was created after everything else: 1. That if man becomes haughty and arrogant, he can be told that even the insignificant mosquito too precedence in creation. 2. People might speculate that since man would have preceded everything, he is somehow on par with G-d. 3. It is not fitting for man, the focal point of existence, to come into an emtpy world. 4. It is fitting for man’s existence to start with the observance of Shabbos.

R’ Simlai says that כשם – just like - man was secondary to the creation of animals at Genesis, here too. But the problem is, it’s not just as at all! We can’t say that the reason that the laws of man are secondary to the laws of animals in our parsha due to it being fitting to begin existence with Shabbos (4), or that the world should not be empty (3). The reasons given for Creation don’t seem relevant at all here, so how is it כשם – just like ? R’ Simlai should have said כיון – since - which simply indicates they are reflecting each other superficially ie in order.

R’ Yehoshua Hartman expounds on how the Maharal explains this. In Bereishis, (and kiddush) we say יום השישי - and Rashi there wonders why the definite article – ה - is used there, and not by any of the other days. There are two explanantions Rashi provides: 1. the ה (numerical value 5) is what are attention should be drawn to, the 5 books of the Chumash – that creation was completed, and there was a condition that the Jews had to accept the Torah. 2. The definite article is drawing attention to what we are defnining –  שישי - the sixth, of Sivan, Shavuos, the day the Torah was given to us. That sixth day was the completion of creation, and up until that point, existence was not ascertained yet, and risked being undone if the Jews had not accepted the Torah. So what’s the difference between these two explanations? Both say that existence is dependent on accepting the Torah?

Not at all. The first possibility meant that creation was over 6 days from when it started. The second possibility means that creation was finished when we accepted the Torah – this means that Torah is the quintessence of Beriah – it is the crescendo of creation. This means that whatever happens in the Beriah happens in the Torah, as the two are inextricably linked – existence depends on the Torah as an anchor.

It is logical to say that the world was incomplete until the Torah was given – there was a Yetzer Hara, yet no Torah with which to fight it.

This means that the word כשם – just like is exactly the right word to use, as whatever is applicable to creation is applicable here, because Torah is part and parcel of existence.

 

The Parsha begins with elaborations on laws pertaining to human purity:

דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ - Speak to the children of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives…. (12:2)

Rashi comments:

אשה כי תזריע : אמר ר’ שמלאי כשם שיצירתו של אדם אחר כל בהמה חיה ועוף במעשה בראשית, כך תורתו נתפרשה אחר תורת בהמה חיה ועוף – If a woman conceives: Rabbi Simlai said: “Just as in the Creation, man was created after all domestic animals, wild beasts, and birds, so too, the law [concerning the cleanness] of man is stated after the law [concerning the cleanness] of domestic animals, wild beasts, and birds.”- [Vayikra Rabbah 14:1]

The Gemara (Sanhedrin 38a) explores why the creation of man followed the creation of birds and beasts. It concludes that “אחור קודם צרתני – you were formed first and last” (Tehillim 139:5). What does this mean? If a man is worthy, we say he preceded Creation, but if he is a sinner, we say that even a mosquito was created before him, so he has nothing to be arrogant about, given that even minuscule entities such as the mosquito were created before him.

However, this is difficult to comprehend – “If a man is worthy, we say he preceded Creation” – if we examine the reality, man was created last, on the 6th day of Creation, so how are we to understand the Gemara?
(more…)

At the inauguration of the Mishkan, there was a handover process where Moshe gave the post he had filled for 7 days to Ahron, where Ahron offered sacrifices on the Mizbeach on the Jews’ behalf.

וַיִּשָּׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת [ידו] יָדָיו אֶל הָעָם וַיְבָרְכֵם וַיֵּרֶד מֵעֲשֹׂת הַחַטָּאת וְהָעֹלָה וְהַשְּׁלָמִים – Ahron lifted up his hands towards the people and blessed them. He then descended from preparing the sin offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offering.

וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וַיֵּצְאוּ וַיְבָרֲכוּ אֶת הָעָם וַיֵּרָא כְבוֹד הֹ’ אֶל כָּל הָעָם – And Moshe and Ahron then went into the Tent of Meeting. Then they came out and blessed the people, and the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people. (Vayikra 9:22-23)

There seem to be two distinct blessings; both before and after going into the Tent of Meeting.

The pasuk seems to emphasise וַיֵּרֶד – that Aaron descended, but what else would we expect? At no other service does the Pasuk tell us he descended, only this one. No blessings were given from on top of the Mizbeach, so he would have already descended when he blessed the people. So for וַיֵּרֶד to not be out of place, it cannot refer to a physical descent.

Rashi explains that the first blessing was Birchas Kohanim, and the second was וִיהִי נֹעַם אֲדֹנָי אֱלֹהֵינוּ עָלֵינוּ וּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֵינוּ כּוֹנְנָה עָלֵינוּ וּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֵינוּ כּוֹנְנֵהוּ - May the pleasantness of the Lord our God be upon us and our handiwork (…?…).

So what of Ahron’s descent? Ahron experience an emotional descent – his joy fell into sadness.

There is a Kri/Ksiv, which is where a word is pronounced differently to how the spelling would indicate. We read “yadav”/יָדָיו - his hands, plural, but the word written is “yado”/ידו –  his hand, singular.

Aaron’s first offering was not accepted in Heaven, as he felt accomplished that  by his own hand (ידו) he had reached the position he held. He lost sight of the fact that his hands were meant to serve the people (יָדָיו).

When he saw his offering rejected, וַיֵּרֶד - he literally “became down”,i.e. miserable, at which point Moshe, who had already performed the duties for 7 days, came and showed him how to do the service properly . When they came out again, they blessed the people again - וּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֵינוּ כּוֹנְנָה עָלֵינוּ וּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֵינוּ כּוֹנְנֵהוּ – that only when we understand that our hands don’t work except to serve G-d can we work properly; precisely what Ahron had just learned.

It is worth noting that even performing the actions correctly was not enough for the service to be accepted; even the intentions had to be perfect too.

My zaide says that we say in davening each day הללוהו בנבל וכנור - they praise Him with a guitar and harp. Why is a harp called נבל - from the same root as the word “corpse”, used as a rather rude word? My zaide explains that a harp makes such a beautiful sound it makes other instruments sound bad in comparison. The inherent negativity in a harps makes it disgraceful – Chazal teach that someone who gains honour at someone else’s expense has no portion in the World to Come.

To be truly perfect, it is imperative not just that the right thing be done, but that it be done the right way.

The Pasuk says צַו אֶת אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת בָּנָיו לֵאמֹר זֹאת תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה - Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering. (6:2)

But there is a problem with this – the Pasuk is not talking about the olah at all! It’s talking about burning the cheilev (fats) etc, that are not burnt with the rest of the korban, and this is done at night. It is hardly תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה !
(more…)

The Pasuk says:

וְאֵת כָּל הָעֵדָה הַקְהֵל אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד – And assemble the entire community at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

on which Rashi writes:

הקהל אל פתח אהל מועד: זה אחד מן המקומות שהחזיק מועט את המרובה – Assemble [the entire community] at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting: This is one of the instances where a small [area] accommodated a large [number of people]. — [Lev. Rabbah 10:9]

The Panim Yafos wonders what’s going on here. The courtyard to the Mishkan was 100 x 50 amos, half of which was behind the entrance, so to have been at the entrance, the entire male population of Jews aged 20-60 (603k + 22k Levites) had to fit into an area of 50 x 50 = 2,500 square amos. A person takes up 1 square cubit standing up, and 4 cubits to bow down, which they did. if 625k people needed 4 amos each, then really they needed an area of 2.5 million to congregate in, and yet the Pasuk says they fit into an area 0.1% of the size needed. (2,500 into 2.5m goes 1,000 times).

What’s going on? The Panim Yafos explains:

In the Midrash Rabbah of Toras Cohanim, R’ Meir says that ה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵכֶם יֹסֵף עֲלֵיכֶם כָּכֶם אֶלֶף פְּעָמִים וִיבָרֵךְ אֶתְכֶם – May the Lord God of your forefathers add to you a thousandfold.

2.5k x 1k = 2.5m!

 

ראש חודש ניסן

Categories