A Seemingly Simple Rashi

By On · Add Comment

וַיְדַבֵּר ה’ אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר נְקֹם נִקְמַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֵת הַמִּדְיָנִים אַחַר תֵּאָסֵף אֶל עַמֶּיךָ וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל הָעָם לֵאמֹר הֵחָלְצוּ מֵאִתְּכֶם אֲנָשִׁים לַצָּבָא וְיִהְיוּ עַל מִדְיָן לָתֵת נִקְמַת ה’ בְּמִדְיָן (Matos 31:1, 31:2, 31:3)

God spoke to Moshe saying,”Take revenge for the children of Israel against the Midianites; afterwards you will be gathered to your people.” So Moshe spoke to the people, saying, “Arm from among you men for the army, that they can be against Midian, and carry out the revenge of God against Midian.”

Rashi says, וידבר משה וגו’: אף על פי ששמע שמיתתו תלויה בדבר עשה בשמחה ולא איחר: Moshe spoke: Although he heard that his death depended on the matter, he did it joyfully, without delay.
The Chanukas Hatorah explores this Rashi further. He explains that Hashem told Moshe to avenge the Jews against the Midianites, after which he would pass on. When Moshe spoke to the people, he told them to avenge God against Midian. The Midianites needed to be punished for desecrating the Jews and heaven by causing the Jews to sin. However, Moshe changed the wording of Hashem’s statement because if he were to tell them to avenge themselves, they would forgive Midian in an effort to keep Moshe alive. Moshe purposely told them to avenge Hashem; we can’t forgive on His behalf, so they would have to attack Midian and through that, cause Moshe to die as he was supposed to.

The Importance of Controlling Your Temper

By On · Add Comment

Matos, 31:14 says, וַיִּקְצֹף מֹשֶׁה עַל פְּקוּדֵי הֶחָיִל שָׂרֵי הָאֲלָפִים וְשָׂרֵי הַמֵּאוֹת הַבָּאִים מִצְּבָא הַמִּלְחָמָה: Moshe became angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had returned from war. The following verse continues, וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם מֹשֶׁה הַחִיִּיתֶם כָּל נְקֵבָה: Moshe said to them, “Did you allow all the females to live?

From the first verse, we know that Moshe is angry and it is therefore logical for us to assume that he would be the one speaking the the next verse? Why specify that it was Moshe who spoke?

Rav Zalman Sorotzkin tells us that if one is angry, he should refrain from speaking until the anger settles. The long pause between vayiktzof and vayomer indicate a different/new person (as it were) due to break.

Rav Elya Lopian would never punish a talmid (student) at the time of an incident. He once waited two weeks to deal with a particular incident.

The Alter of Kelm had an “angry suit” that he would change into each time he was angry, delaying reaction and allowing himself to calm down

The Peleh Yoietz tells us that keeping quiet when angry is like pouring water on the base of a fire. It extinguishes the flame at its source.

Rav Yechiel Meir of Zlotchov had special tefillin (phylacteries) from his father. People wanted to buy these special tefillin from him, and bid huge amounts of money to have the the merit of possessing them. One Succos there were no esrogim (citrus fruit used as one of the four kinds) to be found in their town. After searching desperately, he heard that a man in another town had a spare esrog. He sold his tefillin and bought the esrog. When he returned home and told his wife what had happened, she became furious and as a result, she broke the esrog. Rav Yechiel Meir stayed calm. When asked how he was able to stay calm, he replied, “I lost my tefillin and I lost my esrog; I will not lose my shalom bayis (marital harmony) as well.” That night, his father appeared to him in a dream and told him that in shomayim (the heavenly spheres), his shalom bayis was worth much, much more than the tefillin or the esrog.

A childless couple once came to Rav Chaim Kanievsky begging for a brocha (blessing) for children. They had been childless for many years and there was no other solution except Divine Intervention. Rav Chaim told them that he couldn’t bless them. Devastated, they asked what else they could do. Rav Chaim told them to get a brocha from someone who had been publicly embarrassed and did not respond. Many months passed and they were still not successful in tracking such a person down. Two years later they attended a wedding. At the wedding, the host started shouting at a guest invited by other side, in middle of the crowded hall. Seeing their chance, the couple ran over to the person being shamed and begged him to keep quiet. When things calmed down, the couple broke down in tears and begged the shamed person to bless them with children. Nine months later, twenty four years after their marriage, this couple was blessed with a child.

Controlling ones temper is an extremely crucial tool that is a life-long struggle for most. Still, one must never give up; each time he succeedes in controlling his temper and holds back from retorting, it makes it easier for him the next time around, not to mention the mountain of reward he will reap, both in this world and the next.

Forgiveness – Big deal?

By On · Add Comment

When the brothers apologise to Yosef, he rebutted this by saying “אַל תִּירָאוּ כִּי הֲתַחַת אלֹהִים אָנִי – “Don’t be afraid, for am I instead of God?” (50:19). It is unclear what exactly he means, but certainly he is not annoyed.

The Baal Haturim suggests that this is is poetic justice as this is precisely what his mother had been told when she begged for children from their father, at which point he said “הֲתַחַת אֱ־לֹהִים אָנֹכִי אֲשֶׁר מָנַע מִמֵּךְ פְּרִי בָטֶן - “Am I instead of God, Who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?” (30:2)

The Maharil Diskin wonders why a simple yes/no answer isn’t enough, and we can (and have) explained that he did not actually forgive them, but did not say this. We can look deeper into his words: In Parshas Matos (30:7-9) the pasuk describes a woman who makes a vow, but then her husband annuls it. In an event where she did not know he had annulled it, and she thinks she is deliberately breaking it, the pasuk says “‘והֹ יִסְלַח לָהּ“ – “…and the Lord will forgive her.” This is astounding – she has technically done absolutely nothing wrong – her vow had been annulled at the time of her actions, and yet there is a certain something that requires forgiveness! And the same thing was true here:

The brothers thought they had committed a horrendously evil act to their brother, and even though circumstantially it turned out for the best in the end, and the family were reunited – just as in the case of a woman who circumstantially did nothing wrong – there was still a certain something that required forgiveness. The Maharil Diskin suggests an alternate explanation to that which the Baal Haturim suggested, that this is exactly what Yosef was saying here.  Due to the turn of events they had done nothing wrong, but he was not in the place of Hashem, because as we said by the woman, they needed G-d’s forgiveness.

In layman’s terms, the ends do not justify the means. Yosef was telling his brothers that they were only circumstantially sorry.

Rabbeinu Bachaye  shares a frightening thought that is brilliant. He takes the concept of Yosef not forgiving his brothers a step further, and suggests that this resulted in the Asara Harugei Malchus, one of the greatest tragedies in Jewish history, and one died in lieu of each of the group who’d sold Yosef. Yaakov was not told, as an oath was made as a group of 10 (a minyan) to not tell him, and such an oath cannot be annulled.

But why were there 10 martyrs then, as there weren’t 10 men present at the sale? Binyamin was not there, Reuven had gone home, and we can’t include Yosef as part of such a minyan? There is a concept that a minyan can take place with 9 as Hashem joins in – Hashem was the 10th member of this group.

R’ Shamshon Ostropolier points out that we can expand the pasuk in Bechukosai - “וְכָל מַעְשַׂר בָּקָר וָצֹאן כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ לַהֹ – Any tithe of cattle or flock of all that pass under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to the Lord” (27:32)- and there is a deeper meaning to this pasuk, in reference to Rabbi Akiva - וכי למא מת עקיבא, שהוא רואה בקר וצאן הכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ לַהֹ – Why did Akiva die? He was just a shepherd! When he passed under the staff (judgement?) he was the tenth, holy for G-d.

There is another allusion to this in Parshas Vayigash (45:15), that “וַיֵּבְךְּ עֲלֵיהֶם – and he cried on them” – we can break up עֲלֵיהֶם and read it על י ה”ם - for the ten Harugei Malchus.

Scary. So not that any of us are like Yosef and his brothers, but it’s clear that we should be more forgiving to people for what they may do to us.

What Goes Around…

By On · Add Comment

The Pasuk says ” ….עֵד הַגַּל הַזֶּה – This pile (of stones) shall be a witness…”(31:52)

Many Midrashim mention that Yaakov thrust a sword into the wall as a second witness. The Da’as Zkeinim mentions this and then points out that Bilam ben Be’or’s downfall was with these two, a wall and a sword. Why is this relevant?

He quotes a Gemara in Sanhedrin (105.) that “תנא הוא בעור הוא כושן רשעתים הוא לבן הארמי – Be’or is the same person as Lavan the Aramean and Kushan Reshasaim (an evil king in judges)”, both of whom were mockers and scoffers who caused great difficulties for the Jews. Bilam was Lavan’s son.

Bilam was damaged by a wall, (Numbers 22:25) as it says “וַתִּלְחַץ אֶת-רֶגֶל בִּלְעָם, אֶל-הַקִּיר – and his foot was crushed against the wall”, and killed by the sword (ibid. 31:8) “וְאֵת בִּלְעָם בֶּן-בְּעוֹר, הָרְגוּ בֶּחָרֶב – also Bilam son of Be’or was slain by the sword”.

There is a terrifying story in the Gemara quoted by Rashi and Tosfos (Taanis 8.) that a young boy found a girl who’d fallen into a deep pit, and promised to rescue her on the condition that she marry him. She consented, and they made the pit she was in and a passing animal witnesses. He rescued her and they went their separate ways, and years later he married another woman, who bore him two sons. Unfortunately, one died falling into a pit, and another was killed by this animal. The woman asked why these bizarre misfortunes had befallen them, and he remembered the witnesses and his vow. His wife told him to divorce her and find this girl, which he did.

This is similar to the case of Bilam in that the witnesses came back to “remind” them of their duties, a clear demonstration of measure for measure.

Perhaps we can suggest an additional point to ponder: when Yakov entered Lavan’s house, he clearly did not have sons, as otherwise why would he send his daughters to tend the sheep, surely a man’s job? (We see this too by Yisro’s daughters). Yet in this week’s Sedra he clearly has sons (31:1). Lavan only had daughters until the blessing that Yakov brought with him gave him sons, and his own son broke his vow that nothing should befall his daughters.

These are a fulfilment of the Pasuk “יַד הָעֵדִים תִּהְיֶה בּוֹ בָרִאשֹׁנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ – The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death”.