Archive for the ‘Maharal’ Category

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Print/Pdf

Moshe as a representative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Print/Pdf

On Brotherhood and Accountability

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…)

Print/Pdf

Empty Promises

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.

Print/Pdf

Perceiving the Divine and the Kamikaze Trolls

‘Va’yomer ki yad al keis Y-ah, milchamah l’Hashem ba’amalek midor dor.‘

‘And He (God) said, ‘For there is a hand upon the throne of God; Hashem’s war with Amalek spans all generations’.’ (Shemos 17:15)

This prominent passuk, relevant to Parashas Zachor, cries out profusely for explanation. Rashi, in his awesome genius, teaches that here God is swearing that He wages an eternal war and has a seething enmity against Amalek. Based on the Medrash Tanchuma (Ki Seitzei 11), Rashi also points out that the word used for throne in this verse, כס, has a different spelling to the usual,   כסא. In addition, the Name of God that is used in this passuk isי-ה , which contains only half of the letters that comprise Hashem’s full and ineffable four-letter appellation. Rashi concludes that this is also part of a Divine oath, that neither God’s Name not his throne can be complete until Esav’s name is eradicated. Esav is the antecedent and spiritual underpinning of Amalek.

The Maharal, in his opus Gur Aryeh, takes us deeper, one level at a time. He begins by probing with penetrating precision the unique essence of Amalek and why he is such a formidable opponent of God, Truth and Klal Yisrael. The Maharal states that unlike other nations, Amalek is an incessant enemy of the Jews, who recalcitrantly opposes them in a whirlwind of diabolical antagonism. Indeed, it was revealed in Sefer Bereishis, through the inability of Esav and Yaakov to reside in the same womb, that Amalek and the Jews are incompatible entities, diametrically opposing forces in the supernal spheres. If one rises, the other must fall. This conflict was glaringly illustrated when Amalek attacked the Jews as they came out of Mitzrayim. As Rashi comments, Amalek is even prepared to commit suicide if it will dampen the flames of Jewish inspiration. The Amalekim are the original Kamikaze pilots, the troll-like foot soldiers whose anti-Semitism will stop at nothing.

Yet how exactly does Amalek cause Hashem’s Name to be rendered incomplete? It is surely a fundamental Torah precept that God is omnipotent and infinite; his completeness is autonomous and indestructible. He created Amalek and the notion that a band of Nazis can in some way limit their Creator is doctrinally unthinkable according to Jewish dogma. Furthermore, how does Amalek seemingly dethrone Hashem? This aspect of the Medrash appears to be equally baffling.

The Maharal explains that Hashem’s name reflects absolute oneness. Indeed, we declare thrice daily the renowned mantra, ‘Shema Yisrael, Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad’—Hashem’s Name is Echad – One. Now, oneness is harmony’s partner and is undermined by discord and disunity which is exactly what Amalek stands for. Because a partnership between Yisrael and Amalek is impossible, division enters the universe. This broken world now becomes a place where the Divine Name is concealed since its radiant oneness is blurred by Amalek‘s obfuscating machinations. Of course, Hashem is impeccably One and is utterly unaffected by the rancour of this pernicious yet mortal tribe. It is merely that our perception of Him and His oneness is diminished by Amalek‘s divisive influence. The word Amalek, which has the numerical equivalent (gematria) of safek, meaning doubt, brings exactly that into our realm. Amalek‘s existence causes us doubt to ourselves and our better judgment. What was once a clear and lucid appreciation of God’s uniqueness becomes distilled, fragile and belittled.

This also explains how Amalek limits God’s throne. The throne represents the concept of malchus, Hashem’s undisputed kingship over the world and its inhabitants. This notion is also rooted in the idea of God’s oneness. Only when there is a unique and aloof monarch can true sovereignty reign supreme. That is the reason, writes the Maharal, why we say, ‘Baruch shem k’vod malchuso l’olam va’ed’ immediately following the declaration of ‘Hashem echad‘ in the Shema. This demonstrates that God’s malchus is predicated on His uniqueness as king. Amalek‘s splintering fangs contaminate and ultimately destroy this recognition.

The avodah on Purim is the alchemist’s charge: to turn this turpitude of Amalek into religious gold. When we blur the distinction between Baruch Mordechai and Arur Haman, between good and evil, we revisit a world in which Amalek no longer dulls our senses and numbs our hearts. We catch a glimpse of the Source of all, the King of kings, Whose existence is unlike any other and Who lovingly awaits our reaching out Him.

 

 

Print/Pdf

Mitzvah Multitasking

כט ויֶּאְסֹר יוֹסֵף מֶרְכַּבְתּוֹ וַיַּעַל לִקְרַאת יִשְׂרָאֵל אָבִיו גֹּשְׁנָה וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו וַיִּפֹּל עַל צַוָּארָיו וַיֵּבְךְּ עַל צַוָּארָיו עוֹד

“Yosef harnessed his chariot and went up to greet Yisrael his father… and he (Yosef) fell on his neck (Yaakov) and he wept on his neck excessively” (Vayigash 46:29)

In regard to the above Pasuk, Rashi quotes a Midrash that says, “only Yosef fell on Yaakov’s neck, but Yaakov didn’t fall on Yosef’s, for Yaakov was reciting Kriyas Shema”. The question we have for Yaakov is: ‘Why are you saying Shema now? Wait two minutes, kiss your son who you thought was dead for 22 years and then say Shema? Or, why didn’t you say Shema earlier?

The Maharal in his Sefer ‘Gur Aryeh’ says that when Yaakov saw that his son, Yosef, had become a king he was truly able to comprehend the completion of Hashem’s plan and how everything happens for the good with His Divine Intervention – even though we may not be able to see it immediately. Yaakov understood that in the end Hashem always gives a reward to those that fear and love Him. Yaakov Avinu was at the spiritual level that when something good happened he didn’t forget Hashem just because ‘he doesn’t need him anymore’, rather he used the gift to further attach himself to Hashem. Sadly, on average, when we see that when we need something we turn to Hashem, but when we are actually given what we prayed for, or everything is going well, do we continue to need and turn to Hashem?

In this case, Yaakov was filled with such love and gratitude towards Hashem,  that he needed to attach himself even more to Hashem through this love, so he said Shema – accepting the Ol Malchus Shamayim Veahavaso.

Hagoan Rav Chaim doesn’t like this Vort and says that Yaakov was commanded by Hashem to go down to Egypt. Therefore the ‘going down’ in itself was a Mitzvah from Hashem. Shema is also a Mitzvah, but we have a rule, Osek B’Mitzvah Patur MinHamitzva (when doing one mitzvah one is exempt from doing another mitzvah [not always applicable, consult with your rav]). The entire time that Yaakov was travelling down to Egypt he was patur from saying Shema. The first moment he saw Yosef he was on the outskirts of Egypt. When Yosef ran to him he was already inside Egypt and no longer patur from Shema. Yaakov needed to say Shema specifically then and there because he was supposed to have said it earlier, but was patur. Now that Yaakov was no longer patur he had to say Shema.

Print/Pdf

Arguing with the priest – not the best idea

Based on a shiur by R’ Yehoshua Hartman

זִכָּרוֹן לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִקְרַב אִישׁ זָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן הוּא לְהַקְטִיר קְטֹרֶת לִפְנֵי הֹ’ וְלֹא יִהְיֶה כְקֹרַח וְכַעֲדָתוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה’ בְּיַד מֹשֶׁה לוֹ – As a reminder for the children of Israel, so that no outsider, who is not of the seed of Aaron, shall approach to burn incense before the Lord, so as not to be like Korach and his company, as the Lord spoke regarding him through the hand of Moshe. (17:5)

Rashi says: כאשר דבר ה’ ביד משה לו: ומהו ביד משה ולא כתב אל משה, רמז לחולקים על הכהונה שלוקין בצרעת, כמו שלקה משה בידו שנאמר (שמות ד, ו) ויוציאה והנה ידו מצורעת כשלג, ועל כן לקה עוזיה בצרעת – As the Lord spoke regarding him through the hand of Moshe: So what is the meaning of “by the hand of Moshe”? Why not just simply “to Moshe”? It alludes to those who rebel against the kehunah. They are stricken with tzara’as , as it says, “and he took it out, and behold, his hand was ‘leprous,’ like snow” (Exod. 4:6). For this reason, Uzziah was stricken with tzara’as. — [Midrash Tanchuma Tzav 11]

Hashem said to put pans on the altar to remind us not to be like Korach. Hashem instructs ‘by the hand of Moshe’. Rashi points that this is literal – one who argues with kehuna suffers tzara’as like Moshe did on his hand, and he adds that Uzziah Hamelech offered up spices and got tzara’as too.

Why did Moshe get it? He had spoken Loshon Hora and said the Jews wouldn’t listen. But what’s the comparison? He didn’t get it for rebelling against the kehuna… So why is Moshe’s example mentioned here?… It should have been compared to Miriam’s tzara’as which was the sidra before Korach, not to Moshe’s instance that occurred in Shemos.

So where’s the Midah Kneged Midah?

Rashi (17:1) says on וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח that he seperated himself to argue. The Maharal asks why doesn’t it say וַיִּקַּח at every argument then, if this is it’s actual meaning?

The Maharal says a regular machlokes is one man against another man, but they are equal, are there is no distinct separation between the two. But kehuna, the priesthood, has the entire nation reliant on it. The kehuna do our korbanos, birchas Kohanim, so if one goes against them, they’re really seperating themselves from the nation, as the nation be definition identify with the priesthood.

TheMaharal explains that the method for dealing with tzara’as is to be sent chutz lamachaneh – excommunication. The afflicted is on one side, everyone else on the other (in the camp). Moshe didn’t get tzaraas for arguing against kehuna, but for complaining about the entire Jewish nation and therefore this is the same formula as one who argues against the priesthood! So Moshe is a good source for tzara’as as a punishment for arguing against kehuna!

But what about Uzziah Hamelech, who got tzara’as on his forehead (see Divrei Hayamim). Where’s the midah kneged midah there?

The Maharal says that if all the Jews were one body, the king would be the heart, Sanhedrin the eyes, and the kehuna would be the forehead that has the brain behind it, the Tzitz on it, and soul on it. He brought incense when it wasn’t his place to, thereby challenging the authority of the kohanim – and he got tzara’as, the punishment for this sin, and the place was afflicted was his forehead – the part of the body that correlates to the kehuna!

Print/Pdf

What about me?

Other posts on Bamidbar:
Silence is golden
 United we stand, divided we fall!

וַיְדַבֵּר ה’ אֶל מֹשֶׁה בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית לְצֵאתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֵאמֹר- Hashem spoke to Moshe in the Sinai Desert, in the Tent of Meeting on the first day of the second month, in the second year after tnhe exodus from the land of Egypt, saying. (1:1)

on which Rashi remarks:
וידבר. במדבר סיני באחד לחדש: וגו’ מתוך חיבתן לפניו מונה אותם כל שעה, כשיצאו ממצרים מנאן, וכשנפלו בעגל מנאן לידע מנין הנותרים. כשבא להשרות שכינתו עליהן מנאן. באחד בניסן הוקם המשכן, ובאחד באייר מנאם – The Lord spoke… in the Sinai Desert… on the first of the month: Because they were dear to Him, He counted them often. When they left Egypt, He counted them (Exod. 12:37); when [many] fell because [of the sin] of the golden calf, He counted them to know the number of the survivors (Exod. 32:28); when He came to cause His Divine Presence to rest among them, He counted them. On the first of Nissan, the Mishkan was erected, and on the first of Iyar, He counted them.
(more…)

Print/Pdf

Exemptions from being Respectful

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…)

Print/Pdf

Torah as part of creation

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.

 

Print/Pdf

What does the Korban Pesach signify?

The Maharal writes that the halachos of Korban Pesach all reflect a unity – bones have to be kept whole, – eaten in one group – in one place – at one time – roasted to keep it in one piece etc. All these are meant to reflect that  ה’ אחד - that G-d is one, and His unity is everywhere.

However, this would seem to be at odds with another Maharal, that all Korbanos are meant to reflect the person bringing it. If the Korban Pesach is reflecting Hashem’s unity, how is it reflecting us, the people bringing it?

R’ Yehoshua Hartman explains that as a nation, we reflect the אחדות of Hashem. We have nothing but Hashem, and nothing else on what to fall back. This is not found anywhere else. If we compare to Israel to Egypt, if in Egypt it doesnt rain for years, it’s not a problem, the Nile sustains everything anyway. If in Israel it doesn’t rain for one year, there are serious problems, and people start worrying(and when people start worrying, they start praying). We do not have anywhere else to go, but to Hashem.

When the Jews said נעשה ונשמע – we will do and we will listen – what they were effectively saying is that they did not enter the equation. When Hashem asks something of us, that is all that matters, and this explains why so many Jews in history were willing to be מוסר נפש – self-sacrifice – rather than commit a sin and cause a desecration of Hashem’s name. The rationale behind this is that Hashem doesn’t want you to to do something, and if you do it, it’s the same as dying, as it is antithetical to what G-d wants.

So we can see that really, there is no contradiction between the two Maharals. We say in Aleinu that אין עוד – which means there is no other reality other than what G-d wants. No-one symbolises this more than the Jews.

Print/Pdf

Prayers… work!

The Torah tells of the Jews desperation and anguish when hope seemed lost:

וּפַרְעֹה הִקְרִיב וַיִּשְׂאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת עֵינֵיהֶם וְהִנֵּה מִצְרַיִם נֹסֵעַ אַחֲרֵיהֶם וַיִּירְאוּ מְאֹד וַיִּצְעֲקוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל הֹ – Pharaoh drew near, and the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and behold! the Egyptians were advancing after them. They were very frightened, and the children of Israel cried out to the Lord. (14:10)

ויצעקו: תפשו אומנות אבותם. באברהם הוא אומר (בראשית יט כז) אל המקום אשר עמד שם, ביצחק (שם כד סג) לשוח בשדה, ביעקב (שם כח יא) ויפגע במקום: – cried out: They seized the craft of their ancestors [i.e., they prayed]. Concerning Abraham, it [Scripture] says: “to the place where he had stood before the Lord” (Gen. 19:27). 2 Concerning Isaac, [it is stated] “to pray in the field” (Gen. 24:63). Concerning Jacob, “And he entreated the Omnipresent” (Gen. 28:11).

The way this is first understood is as a wonderful praise of the Jews. No doubt some people this week will focus on the fact that the Jews turned to their heritage, lineage and values in their time of need, and they prayed for salvation. You’d assume that this Rashi is singing the praise of the Jews, that they were so righteous to have prayed as their forefathers had.

There is a problem with this. What is Rashi really saying to us? That prayer should be offered in the way our forefathers did? This is incorrect, as at 2:23 the pasuk says וַיְהִי בַיָּמִים הָרַבִּים הָהֵם, וַיָּמָת מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם, וַיֵּאָנְחוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן-הָעֲבֹדָה, וַיִּזְעָקוּ; וַתַּעַל שַׁוְעָתָם אֶל-הָאֱלֹהִים, מִן-הָעֲבֹדָה – Now it came to pass in those many days that the king of Egypt died, and the children of Israel sighed from the labor, and they cried out, and their cry ascended to God from the labor.

Rashi does not explain that their cry was prayer (it obviously was), and does not explain the tradition of prayer that dates back to the Patriarchs. So what is our Rashi saying? To reinforce the question of what Rashi is trying to tell us by saying their fathers prayed, the very next pasuk is quite possible the most snide and sarcastic in Tanach: וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל מֹשֶׁה הַמִבְּלִי אֵין קְבָרִים בְּמִצְרַיִם לְקַחְתָּנוּ לָמוּת בַּמִּדְבָּר מַה זֹּאת עָשִׂיתָ לָּנוּ לְהוֹצִיאָנוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם – They said to Moses, Is it because there are no graves in Egypt that you have taken us to die in the desert? What is this that you have done to us to take us out of Egypt? (14:11)

followed by

הֲלֹא זֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְנוּ אֵלֶיךָ בְמִצְרַיִם לֵאמֹר חֲדַל מִמֶּנּוּ וְנַעַבְדָה אֶת מִצְרָיִם כִּי טוֹב לָנוּ עֲבֹד אֶת מִצְרַיִם מִמֻּתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר – Isn’t this the thing [about] which we spoke to you in Egypt, saying, Leave us alone, and we will serve the Egyptians, because we would rather serve the Egyptians than die in the desert (14:12)

These people are clearly not the most righteous people; they go from prayer to wishing themselves back into slavery and rejecting G-d and Moshe in a heartbeat.

That is the point Rashi is bringing out here.

They did not pray because it was what they felt they should have done, they prayed because it was what their fathers would have done.

If we re-analyze Rashi’s words, this is explicit, once we think about it from this angle; תפשו אומנות אבותם – They seized the craft of their ancestors? Their prayer was craftsmanship; it was work, not service!

R’ Yitzchok Hutner queries this; we say in morning prayers (in v’Charos, just before Az Yashir) how Hashem listened to our cries. But we have established that these cries were hardly the most noble, so what are we mentioning this for in our prayers?

He answers with a parable, about a king who has a good friend, whose son is close to the prince. One day, whilst visiting the prince in the royal palace, he bursts into the king’s chamber and starts running his mouth off about the area he comes from and things it needs. The king acquiesces, but it’s not because of what the prince’s friend said: it’s because his father is the king’s friend.

This also happens to be an explanation as to why we mention zchus avos in the opening paragraph of Shemona Esrei, that in spite of our lack of merit, our lineage should stand us in good stead.

Print/Pdf

Who we are

After informing the Jews to perform the mitzva of the Korban Pesach, to protect from the final plage, the Torah tells us how וַיֵּלְכוּ וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה’ אֶת מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן כֵּן עָשׂוּ – The Jews went and did as the Lord commanded Moses and Aaron, and so they did. (12:28)

It is quite perplexing as to why the Torah would insert כֵּן עָשׂוּ, which Rashi explains to mean that Moshe and Ahron also performed the mitzva. Would we have expected otherwise?

But why is human input necessary at all? The first nine did not affect Jews, by default. For example, frogs, animals, and hail did not enter Jewish areas. Why by the final plague is there a requirement to perform this Mitzva and smear the door posts and lintel in order to be saved?

Furthermore, the Korban Pesach was not the only Mitzva given that night; circumcision was instituted that night too. What is particularly special about these two mitzvos that they needed to be instructed to perform them on the night of the Slaying of the Firstborn?

In Ezekiel (16:4) the Prophet says that the Jewish People were “born” in Egypt. There are two aspects of the Jewish People – the “doing”, and the “being”, active and passive.

Every person born to a Jewish mother is a Jew from the moment they open their eyes until the moment they finally close them. This is passive, the “being” aspect. There is not a thing that can change this; people can convert or practice other religions, but halacha states that they remain Jews, they can just opt right back in. There is no element of choice in the matter. G-d chose the Jews, and that choice obviously cannot be undone.

The second aspect, of “doing”, is much more down to personal choice, to do as we are told.

Circumcision is a passive mitzva – it is performed 8 days after a boy is born and the child will have no knowledge or choice in the matter. It cannot be undone either. However, Korban Pesach is a personal choice, an active mitzva to be done. It is the only mitzva in the entire Torah where the word עבודה, service, is used in terms of a mitzva. It is not for nothing that these are the only two positive commandments whose punishment for not performing them is Kareis, spiritual excision – being cut off from Hashem.

R’ Shlomo Farhi observes how in Parshas Yisro, Moshe Rabbeinu is described as an Egyptian man. Moshe Rabbeinu! The same would be true of the Jews in Egypt, themselves almost Egyptian. These mitzvos set them apart.

So why did the Jews have to do something to be saved from the 10th plague? R Yehoshua Hartman explaining the Maharal teaches that the difference here is that Hasehm performed it Himself. Hashem says this time, it will be Him; not an angel, messenger, seraph etc. This has an obvious implication that with the other 9, angels and messengers were used. The Maharal explains that angels are not usually able to harm Jews, as Jews are a higher spiritual being. But Hashem is not subject to this instruction; He is above everything! He was looking for people to bind themselves to Him through the Mitzvos He gave them; it wasn’t like the other nine where it had been enough to be born to a Jew. They had to demonstrably show in a visible way they identifed themselves with G-d to be saved, with these mitzvos.

With this in mind, we can answer the first question. If people had to prove they were with G-d, one might think that being G-d’s spokesperson to Egypt and the Jews was enough for Moshe and Ahron; that they’d shown who their lot was cast with. This is inaccurate. Moshe and Ahron only did what G-d asked them when they were asked to fulfil a task, but whenever they weren’t in His service, they were just normal people. So the pasuk said כֵּן עָשׂוּ to explain that actually, Moshe and Ahron also performed the Mitzva, and they too only became servants, עבדים of Hashem after performing the עבודה of the Korban Pesach.

The doing/being has another relevancy to us. The mitzvot of Tfilin וּקְשַׁרְתָּם לְאוֹת עַל-יָדֶךָ וְהָיוּ לְטֹטָפֹת בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ And you shall bind them as a sign upon your arm, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. The brachos we make show this, one is “lehaniach” – on the binding, one is “al mitzvas” – passive, on the mitzva. This is further shown in the fact that if one puts on Tefilin before sunrise, one must retie the arm Tefilin to make the bracha, but does not need to adjust the head Tefilin. The reason for this is that our arms are what we use to do, so they must be active, and perform actions. Our heads are passive, our minds are who we are, and as such no new bracha is required.

Print/Pdf

ראש חודש ניסן

This Weeks Parsha

Israel: Bechukosai

Categories