The very first laws…

By On · Add Comment

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.

Money and Power – Worthy of Respect?

By On · Add Comment

We find that Yosef has two vivid dreams, that had trappings of prophecy:

וַיַּחֲלֹם יוֹסֵף חֲלוֹם, וַיַּגֵּד לְאֶחָיו; וַיּוֹסִפוּ עוֹד, שְׂנֹא אֹתוֹ. וַיֹּאמֶר, אֲלֵיהֶם: שִׁמְעוּ-נָא, הַחֲלוֹם הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר חָלָמְתִּי. וְהִנֵּה אֲנַחְנוּ מְאַלְּמִים אֲלֻמִּים, בְּתוֹךְ הַשָּׂדֶה, וְהִנֵּה קָמָה אֲלֻמָּתִי, וְגַם-נִצָּבָה; וְהִנֵּה תְסֻבֶּינָה אֲלֻמֹּתֵיכֶם, וַתִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶיןָ לַאֲלֻמָּתִי. וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ, אֶחָיו, הֲמָלֹךְ תִּמְלֹךְ עָלֵינוּ, אִם-מָשׁוֹל תִּמְשֹׁל בָּנוּ; וַיּוֹסִפוּ עוֹד שְׂנֹא אֹתוֹ, עַל-חֲלֹמֹתָיו וְעַל-דְּבָרָיו. וַיַּחֲלֹם עוֹד חֲלוֹם אַחֵר, וַיְסַפֵּר אֹתוֹ לְאֶחָיו; וַיֹּאמֶר, הִנֵּה חָלַמְתִּי חֲלוֹם עוֹד, וְהִנֵּה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְהַיָּרֵחַ וְאַחַד עָשָׂר כּוֹכָבִים, מִשְׁתַּחֲוִים לִי. וַיְסַפֵּר אֶל-אָבִיו, וְאֶל-אֶחָיו, וַיִּגְעַר-בּוֹ אָבִיו, וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מָה הַחֲלוֹם הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר חָלָמְתָּ: הֲבוֹא נָבוֹא, אֲנִי וְאִמְּךָ וְאַחֶיךָ, לְהִשְׁתַּחֲו‍ֹת לְךָ, אָרְצָה. וַיְקַנְאוּ-בוֹ, אֶחָיו …

And Yosef dreamt a dream, and told it to his brothers, and they continued to hate him. And he said to them, “Listen to this dream I dreamt! We were binding bundles in the field, and my bundle arose, and also stood upright, and then your bundles encircled and prostrated themselves to my bundle.” So his brothers said to him, “Will you reign over us, or will you govern us!?” And they continued to hate him for his dreams and for his words.

And he dreamed another dream, and he related it to his brothers, and he said, “I have dreamed another dream; the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were prostrating themselves to me.” And he told [it] to his father and to his brothers; and his father told him off and said to him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Will we come; I, your mother, and your brothers, to prostrate ourselves to you to the ground?” And his brothers envied him… (37:5-11)

The dreams were not empty visions – they were prophecies.

The Beis Halevi explains how the bundled grain dream related to the physical; Yosef’s incredible future rise to governor of Egypt, future owner of all the grain stores in the empire, and subsequently, his vast amounts of wealth. The dream about the stars and heavenly bodies correlated to spirituality – Yosef is called Yosef HaTzaddik, the righteous, the foundation of the universe.

R Ezra Hartman explains how this differentiated his brothers reactions to each dream. Wealth is external to a person; it does not define him, is not a part of him. This is related very subtly, where they did not bow to him, but to his bundle – אֲלֻמֹּתֵיכֶם, וַתִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶיןָ לַאֲלֻמָּתִי. Perhaps this is why they hated him, that they misunderstood him and though that somehow great wealth would mean he ought to rule them – אִם-מָשׁוֹל תִּמְשֹׁל בָּנוּ. The dream about the bundles engendered hatred – וַיּוֹסִפוּ עוֹד שְׂנֹא אֹתוֹ.

But with the stars, they did not bow to a representation of Yosef, but rather, כּוֹכָבִים, מִשְׁתַּחֲוִים לִי – they bowed to him, himself. This dream about the stars, hinting to his holiness and the spiritual attainments he would achieve, engendered jealousy – וַיְקַנְאוּ-בוֹ, אֶחָיו.

It seems that the dream about wealth did not engender jealousy, only hatred, perhaps as described above. The dreams about spirituality were not something to hate him for – they could use their jealousy as a motivational tool. But regarding his immense wealth, there was nothing to be jealous of – wealth doesn’t make someone better, hence their retort.

There was no such retort to the dream about spirituality. Bettering oneself is the only currency that counts, and they knew it.

Why circumcise, and What is man’s mission in life?

By On · Add Comment

Avraham enters into a covenant with Hashem, that his descendants will be many, they will be great, and they will inherit the land. The sign of the covenant, is circumcision, the bris milah.

At the beginning of the parsha of milah, the pasuk says:

וַיֵּרָא יְהוָה אֶל-אַבְרָם, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֲנִי-אֵל שַׁדַּי–הִתְהַלֵּךְ לְפָנַי, וֶהְיֵה תָמִים – And Hashem appeared to Avraham, and said to him; “I am The Omnipotent, be before me, and be perfect”. (17:1)

The Beis HaLevi explains that people who deny fundamental precepts of Judaism, or even Hashem, can sarcastically ask that “if God can do everything, why do we have to do anything? Let Him have made the world perfect!”. They feel that the existence of imperfection disproves God. In the context of milah, the question is the same, that “if God wanted you circumcised, why didn’t He make you that way?”.

The Beis HaLevi points out that the name Hashem appears to Avraham with is אֵל שַׁדַּי. Chazal teach that this means the Omnipotent, that Hashem could have kept creating and building from Creation, but said דַּי – “enough”. Had Hashem not chosen to stop, creation would manifest itself perfectly, where all living things would give birth to adult offspring, food would not need processing or cooking, etc.

But Hashem said “enough”. Creation is not meant for us to enjoy in perfection, as the Torah tells us at the onset of Shabbos, the transition from Creation to existence, כִּי בוֹ שָׁבַת מִכָּל-מְלַאכְתּוֹ, אֲשֶׁר-בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים לַעֲשׂוֹת – for on that day did Hashem refrain from all His work, which He made to be done. (2:3). The point of existence is לַעֲשׂוֹת – to be done by man. Our instruction of וֶהְיֵה תָמִים, to be perfect, is our own responsibility.

Circumcision, and everything else in life, do not come naturally. They require input of effort and hard work, but it is the end goal of being here – to be perfect.

Making favorable judgments

By On · Add Comment

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? Read Full Dvar Torah →

As the Lord said to Moses

By On · Add Comment

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!

From The Beis HaLevi

By On · Add Comment

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 Read Full Dvar Torah →

The Battle of Opinions

By On · Add Comment

The Gemara in Shabbos 21b teaches that the mitzva of lighting candles is to light them in the entrance of the house – in the doorway.

Rashi says that even in a house with a courtyard or driveway, one lights at the front door of his house, not the courtyard. Tosfos comments that a courtyard with two gates needs two menorahs. One at each gate – seemingly not at the ‘front doorway’ at all.

But the Gemara said ‘פתח’ – door, so although Tosfos say that the mitzva has nothing to do with a door, he also says that only in a house with no courtyard would one light at the door.

What’s is the basic logic that led Rashi and Tosfos to such opposite ideas?
They were arguing what the focal point of the statement in the Gemara was: Was it חוץ (outside), to accomplish the mitzvah of publicising the miracle as the key goal or בית (the house) to accomplish להדליק as the key goal.

So according to Rashi you should light inside a house as the primary mitzva, but lighting at the door satisfies the secondary mitzva of publicising the event.
Tosfos is of the opposite opinion in both aspects. The primary function of lighting a menora is to publicise the event – and as such Tosfos says that one should light as close to the public as possible, and the בית aspect is secondary.

The Beis Halevi asks: According to the respective views regarding the meaning of ‘פתח’ – do you light inside of door, or outside?
Again Rashi and Tosfos have opposite opinions:
Tosfos says that it means inside of the courtyard door while Rashi says it means outside of the front door.
Their reasoning being as follows:

Rashi says that lighting inside a house is not public at all, thereby serving a house’s primary function, but if so then there is no Pirsumei Nisa; to achieve this, lighting must be done outside.
Tosfos says that it needs to be inside the courtyard, as an outside courtyard is the public domain. It also needs to be connected in some way to the בית the Gemara referenced, and be lit on private property.

The Pri Chadash asks a new question: What if a house has a door and a window, and the house has no courtyard – where would one light their menora?
Yet again Rashi and Tosfos have converse opinions. According to Tosfos you do it at the window which is following the idea of Pirsumei Nisa as a window is more public than at the door. However, Rashi uses the idea of בית and says it should be by the door.

Next question: What would happen if one lit in the courtyard of their house? – Tosfos says that one has fulfilled the mitzva l’chatchila (the way it’s meant to be), whereas Rashi says one would not be fulfilling the mitzva at all.

There are 2 ברכות – להדליק נר (the Bracha on the mitzva to light), and שעשה ניסים לאבותינו (the Bracha commemorating the miracle).
In conclusion there are two concepts: First, lighting like they lit. With the lighting, we commemorate the chanukas habayis (re-inauguration event) of removing the impure foreign elements from the Beis Hamikdash, Second, is remembering the great miracle.
The miracle is a symbol of the Yom Tov’s historical re-inauguration event, but the main goal was lighting the Menora itself.

The question is asked: Was it, in fact, the lighting or was lighting the Menora special because of the miracle that occurred, demonstrating G-D’s valuation of our actions?

If we follow Rashi’s reasoning, the primary mitzva is commemorating the re-inauguration, and the main goal is ‘להדליק נר של חנוכה’ in your house and to light inside. Publicizing the miracle and the miracle itself is only a symbol of the main event of inauguration and as such Pirsumei Nisa is secondary to the mitzvah of actually lighting the Menorah.

If we follow Tosfos’s reasoning, the miracle was the main event of Chanuka – the re-inauguration – so publicising is essential, and done as closely as possible to the public domain. There was a secondary part that the miracle itself came about through the lighting of the menora, so we satisfy that aspect of it and light a menora too.

Dying of Embarrassment

By On · Add Comment

There is a Midrash that says that when we eventually go up to Heaven and are put on trial to account for our lives, we will be as embarrassed as the brothers were in front of Yosef. The Beis Halevi shares a marvellous idea on this.

On a superficial level, we can understand this Midrash by simply saying that we cannot bluff someone who sees the bigger picture. The brothers claimed that their brother was not with them, but Yosef knew why he wasn’t really with them, and when he revealed himself to them, they actually died of embarrasment according to some commentators. Even if we don’t learn this, it’s clear what the metaphor is trying to portray. There was nothing they could say.

But we can look at it in a deeper fashion, and admire the nobility Yosef displayed. For one: וְלֹא יָכֹל יוֹסֵף לְהִתְאַפֵּק לְכֹל הַנִּצָּבִים עָלָיו וַיִּקְרָא הוֹצִיאוּ כָל אִישׁ מֵעָלָי וְלֹא עָמַד אִישׁ אִתּוֹ בְּהִתְוַדַּע יוֹסֵף אֶל אֶחָיו – Now Yosef could not bear all those standing beside him, and he called out, “Take everyone away from me!” So no one stood with him when Yosef made himself known to his brothers.

On which Rashi remarks that whatbYosefncould not bear was that some Egyptians would stand beside him, and hear his brothers being embarrassed when he would reveal his true identity to them.

We must not forget that at this point, from the brothers perspective at least, they had been harrassed and interrogated by a foreign ruler, and they had him on their own; he was unguarded. There was every possibility they’d have murdered him and escaped (Shimon and Levi in particular had a track record…), but he could not bear to embarass them publicly.

But moreover, from 44:20, Yehudah explains that they have an old father and attempt to explain that they did not want to bring Binyamin to Yosef for their fathers sake.

וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹסֵף אֶל אֶחָיו אֲנִי יוֹסֵף הַעוֹד אָבִי חָי וְלֹא יָכְלוּ אֶחָיו לַעֲנוֹת אֹתוֹ כִּי נִבְהֲלוּ מִפָּנָיו – And Yosef said to his brothers, “I am Yosef. Is my father still alive?” but his brothers could not answer him because they were startled by his presence.

The Beis Halevi points out that the first thing he said to them after telling them who he was, was “is my father still alive?”. Clearly he knew Yaakov lived, as Yehudah had spoken at length about him. The fact he asked this question regardless is telling, heartrending and completely ironic. It means “Is he not my father too? Was he not alive back then for you to not have abandoned and disowned me? Is he only alive to you now?”. And they could not say anything, because of course he was right, their hypocrisy had been revealed, which caused them to die of embarrassment, whether we take that literally or figuratively. This is tochacha in its true form (tochacha, usually translated as rebuke, is a form of the word l’hochiach, to prove).

There was nothing they could say, but instead of shouting at them he simply said גְּשׁוּ נָא אֵלַי וַיִּגָּשׁוּ – “Please come closer to me,” and they drew closer (45:4). He hugged them all, and it is simply unfathomable for any of us to have acted in such a way, even when faced with lesser evils than he’d suffered, and it is no small wonder we call him Yosef HaTzaddik with character traits such as these.

Out of Context

By On · Add Comment

וַיַּעַן אַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמַר הִנֵּה נָא הוֹאַלְתִּי לְדַבֵּר אֶל אֲדֹנָי וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר – And Abraham answered and said, “Behold now I have commenced to speak to the Lord, although I am dust and ashes.”

The Gemara in Chulin says that for displaying such humility, his descendants would earn the mitzvos of the ash of the Para Adumah – Red Heifer; and dust of the Sotah – a woman brought to the Temple accused of adultery was forced to drink a concoction which had dust from the foot of the Altar in it.

There is an obvious yet superficial connection of dust todust, ash to ash; yet how are Sotah and Para Adumah a relevant reward to his humility for saying Afar v’Efer?

The Dubner Maggid tells a story of an upstanding member of society who made a wedding for his son, and the townsfolk and leaders were invited. There was a top table for the family, and next to it, another for the rabbis. A rabbi invited arrived, wished congratulations, but when taking his seat, felt unworthy of sitting in the presence of the other rabbis; and quietly sat in the corner elsewhere. The host felt that the rabbi had not been accorded due respect, and he requested that the whole table of rabbis move to the table in the corner to join this great rabbi. He manipulated the context to make the supposedly less worthy corner into one worthy of having the great rabbis sit there.

The Dubner Maggid explains that this is precisely what Hashem did; He took what Avraham said, and changed the context from dust and ash with all their negative connotations, to dust and ash as Mitzvos, the essence of the Torah, the absolute opposite of dust and ash.

Another explanation is suggested by the Beis HaLevi: Dust of the earth has no past, but immense potential for the future, it is the cradle of life; it grows plant life, which in turn sustain animal life etc. Ash has no future whatsoever, but has a detailed past, being the charred remains of something that once lived. Avraham intended to mean that he had no past, like earth, and and no future, like ash.

Hashem inverted this, by giving the Mitzvah of Sotah, which cleans the woman’s past through dust, and Para Adumah which purifies the persons future through ash.