Archive for the ‘Brisker Rov’ Category

Out like a leper

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?”".

Print/Pdf

Tribal lands

Twice in our history Hashem has said He wanted to destroy the Jews, and twice Moshe “argued” with Hashem and won: by the Golden Calf and the spies.

The Midrash (Shemos Rabbah 44:9 + Bamidbar Rabba 16:22) have 4 stage conversations with Moshe and Hashem:
1. Hashem says He wants to destroy the Jews
2. Moshe says that Hashem made a promise to the Patriarchs
3. Hashem says that He will let Moshe be the sole survivor, and fulfil the promise through Moshe

Here is where they differ – at the Golden Calf Moshe says that he cannot become a nation, as he only represents one tribe – Levi! Moshe says that all the Tribes have an assurance, at which point Hashem concedes the argument and lets the Jews live.

By the spies, this fourth point is different – Moshe says that letting the nation continue through him would be a Chillul Hashem – a desecration of G-d’s Name – that people would speculate that Hashem could not sustain them in the desert, and so they died. Hashem replies that these people will have heard of His miracles in Egypt, so this would have no basis! Moshe counters by saying that perhaps people will say that the kings of Canaan were too great for the G-d of the Jews, at which point G-d concedes the argument and lets the Jews live.

R’ Yehoshua Hartman points out that it is clear that the Golden Calf argument was better – life continued as normal. The spies arguments clearly wasn’t so great – all the Jews of that generation died out and they wandered in the desert for an additional 39 years as a result! Why didn’t Moshe use the tried and tested winning argument, that the Tribes also had an assurance?

In our Parsha, Ki Sisa, Moshe says: זְכֹר לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לָהֶם בָּךְ וַתְּדַבֵּר אֲלֵהֶם אַרְבֶּה אֶת זַרְעֲכֶם כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמָיִם וְכָל הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר אָמַרְתִּי אֶתֵּן לְזַרְעֲכֶם וְנָחֲלוּ לְעֹלָם – “Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your very Self, and to whom You said: ‘I will multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens, and all this land which I said that I would give to your seed, they shall keep it as their possession forever’” (32:13)

Where is the assurance about the Tribes? And why mention the promise about the land, out of all the promises He had made to the Patriarchs?

The Gemara (Bava Basra 122a) discusses how the land was divided up, and concludes that it was divided up amongst the tribes. The Brisker Rov points out that mentioning the land is therefore a mention of the tribes, which answers a point that may be bothering the more astute reader – what assurance to the tribes were we referring to?)

Armed as we are with this knowledge, the Ramban (14:17) answers why Moshe could not winning argument that had worked so well by the Golden Calf again when he argued with GHashem about the spies – he could not mention the land – as the spies had explicitly stated that they did not want it!

R’ Yehoshua Hartman points out the difference between the question and answer stage. When we asked why Moshe could not use the winning argument, we thought that the assurance was independent of anything, at the answer stage we realised that the assurance is tied and intrinsic to the land.

Print/Pdf

Is there a hidur mitzva after the mitzva is done?

There is a concept called hidur mitzva, which means that we enhance mitzvos we do to make them beautiful. Examples of this principle include using beautiful esrogim on Succos, using larger tefillin and arranging for a megillah to be written by the best scribe.

The basic mitzvah of Chanukah is that the householder will light one candle each night on behalf for all the residents. The next stage is where another candle is progressively lit as the holiday progresses. The ideal method of performance is where each resident lights progressively

The Brisker Rav quotes the Rambam as codifying the act of lighting in the singular, indicating his view that there is no such step as the final one mentioned above, and that therefore the best mitzvah one can do is for the householder (but not each member of the house) to light progressively, which Sefardi Jews do.

This is at odds with the Rema, whom Ashkenazi Jews tend to follow, who maintains that each person lighting is ideal. What is the disagreement over?

The Gemara in Shabbos discusses a Bris Milah, where the Mohel realises afterwards that he has left a small piece of skin. There are two types of this skin, one that leaves the baby considered uncircumcised, and the other does not matter; and therefore the mitzvah has been fulfilled. The Gemara concludes that there is no need for the Mohel to repeat the Bris if it is the type which does not matter.

Rashi explains that it is only when the circumcision takes place on Shabbos that the Mohel does not return, but that on weekdays he would. The Rambam disagrees, and says the Mohel would not perform the operation again even on a weekday.

The Brisker Rav sheds light on the issue: after the time of the mitzvah has gone, the mitzvah cannot be improved. There is no doubt that this is the case on Shabbos, where there is universal agreement that one does not break it for the hidur, but the Rambam says that once the Mohel has finished the Bris, he cannot make it any more beautiful than it was, as the mitzvah has been completed and therefore gone.

The Rema and Rashi disagree, and say that yes, you can! This is the difference with regard to lighting menorahs. The Rambam says that once the householder has lit, there is no further possibility for the rest of the household to perform a hidur, as the basic mitzva was already completed when the householder had lit the first light, so the hidur stops once he has lit additional lights. Any further attempts at beautification by doing more, eg everyone else lighting, are after the mitzva has passed, so are redundant.

Ashkenazim follow the opinion the Rema and Rashi, that we can enhance something after the main mitzvah has been completed, which is why each of us lights our own menorah.

Print/Pdf

Random searches?

The Pasuk says “וַיְחַפֵּשׂ בַּגָּדוֹל הֵחֵל וּבַקָּטֹן כִּלָּה וַיִּמָּצֵא הַגָּבִיעַ בְּאַמְתַּחַת בִּנְיָמִן - He searched; he started with the eldest and finished with the youngest, and the goblet was found in Benjamin’s sack” (44:12). You would think this means he searched from Reuven’s bag until Binyamin’s bag. Not so. The Midrash Rabba says that the eldest referred to was in fact Shimon. Therefore Yosef only searched this eldest and the youngest, Binyamin. The Griz, the Brisker Rav asks how the Midrash reached this conclusion.

He answers in the name of the Maharil Diskin that in 44:8 the brothers said a kal v’chomer, one of ten in the Torah, that “ הֵן כֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר מָצָאנוּ בְּפִי אַמְתְּחֹתֵינוּ הֱשִׁיבֹנוּ אֵלֶיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וְאֵיךְ נִגְנֹב מִבֵּית אֲדֹנֶיךָ כֶּסֶף אוֹ זָהָב: – Behold, the money we found in the mouth of our sacks we returned to you from the land of Canaan; so how could we steal from your master’s house silver or gold?”. However, there are two people who did not make this kal v’chomer: Shimon and Binyamin! Binyamin was not there so he could not say he was as honest as his brothers who returned Yosef’s gold, and in 44:24 it says “וַיִּקַּח מֵאִתָּם אֶת שִׁמְעוֹן וַיֶּאֱסֹר אֹתוֹ לְעֵינֵיהֶם – And he took Simeon from among them and imprisoned him before their eyes”.

So the pasuk is actually telling us that the only people who were searched were the oldest and youngest of the people whose honesty had not been proven, Binyamin and Shimon!

Print/Pdf

Because That If….?

Whilst imprisoned, Yosef sayid the following to the butler:” כִּי אִם זְכַרְתַּנִי אִתְּךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר יִיטַב לָךְ וְעָשִׂיתָ נָּא עִמָּדִי חָסֶד וְהִזְכַּרְתַּנִי אֶל פַּרְעֹה וְהוֹצֵאתַנִי מִן הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה – Remember me when things go well with you, and please do me a favor and mention me to Pharaoh, and you will get me out of this house.” (40:14).

The words כִּי אִם do not really belong here, as the translation above clearly shows – they do not add or change any meaning in the Pasuk. כִּי אִם translates loosely as “because that”. Certainly this translation is not helpful in understanding the Pasuk What is it then there for? As we have seen many times, it must be because we have not understood the context clearly enough.

There is a story told by the Brisker Rav in the name of his father R’ Chaim Brisker about the Rav of Kovno. The story occurred at the time that Napoleon’s armies were marching through Eastern Europe.The lords and gentry wanted to please Napoleon as his armies passed through their lands, and they wanted to honour him by making a lavish evening whereupon they would bestow gifts and treasures to him. The province’s leaders each took their turn to present him and his delegation with their offerings, and after a while, he noticed none of the Jewish community were represented. He was relatively good to the Jews, and was involved in their emancipation, and questioned why there were no Jewish leaders at the gathering. The pronvince’s leaders shuffled around uncomfortably, and explained that they did not feel the Jews to be members of society worthy of honouring Napoleon. He flew into a rage and insisted they bring a Rabbi, and the gentry grew nervous. They sent for the Rabbi from the nearest town, who happened to be the Rav of Kovno. He was rushed to the ball and Napoleon requested that he say something truthful, something he considered was lacking in the previous speeches. The gentry were quaking at this point.

The Rav referred to that week’s Torah portion, Vayeshev, and said that he had never understood why the Pasuk had said כִּי אִם until the sequence of events that had unfolded that night had enabled him to have an audience requested by Napoleon. He explained that without context, we do not see the bigger picture, with regards to what Napoleon was doing in this far flung corner of Europe. He said that things do not just happen coincidentally. Everything is ordained, everything is planned in Heaven. Yosef was saying to the butler that he was innocent, and certainly that was the case: how does one prevent a fly falling into the wine as it is being drunk? But nevertheless he was imprisoned. For what purpose?

כִּי אִם, “you are here because (I.e. – in order) that you must remember me when things go well with you”.

The Rav then proceeded to tell Napoleon that the reason he was near Kovno was because the Jews were being oppressed terribly, and he was here to save them. Napoleon applauded, and he saved them by removing the gentry’s stewardship over the Jews (albeit temporarily!).

Everything happens for a reason, sometimes we only realise this at the end.

Print/Pdf

ראש חודש ניסן

This Weeks Parsha

Israel: Bechukosai

Categories