It’s magic you know

By On · Add Comment

The men selected to scout out the land of Israel were no ordinary men. They were chosen because they held stature among the nation – they were great people, yet they gravely erred. One of the reasons Chazal understand to have motivated their plot was that life in the desert was simple and beautiful. God did everything for them, and the people were exposed at all times to the Almighty.

They had the manna to eat, which would be sent based on worthiness and potentially taste of anything they desired. They had a wellspring that moved with the camp. They had Clouds of Glory which marked travel movements and shaded them from the harsh desert sun; and according to Midrash, flattened obstacles, cleared wild beasts, and possibly cleaned their clothing too.

The spies concluded that this was an ideal way of life and engineered a report that would get the people to clamour to stay in the wilderness.

The Sfas Emes notes that immediately afterward the story of the spies concludes, three mitzvos are revealed: separating challa, Tzitzis, and nesachim – wherein all sacrifices require additions from the mineral water 0, among them salt and spring water.

The Sfas Emes notes that the sin of the spies was that they presumed to instruct God how things ought to be. These specific mitzvos show the flaw in their argument. God did not want us to live in the desert indefinitely, eating miraculous manna, drinking from the miraculous well, under the miraculous Clouds – the training wheels have to come off eventually.

What man is independently capable of is elevating the mundane and material into spiritual . These mitzvos capture the concept.

The manna was the bread that God sent to their doorsteps. The mitzva of challa requires that when baking a loaf of bread, a small section is set aside to remind that God is the true provider. The entire loaf is called “challa”, although the mitzva only pertains to the small bit set aside. The bread that has been planted, grown, cultivated and processed becomes more.

The Clouds surrounded sheltered them and reminded them of God’s immanence and presence. Similarly, tzitzis ensconce and shroud a person – the stated aim is to remind the wearer of all mitzvos. Physical shelter and protection become more.

The wellspring that followed them around was how they drank. Similarly, the nesachim of minerals and spring water accompanied every sacrifice. The literal translation of Korban is to draw close – things mundane as minerals become more.

God does not want to give things to us for free, as this makes them cheap. The spies presumed to know that a life devoid of physicality was perfect, but these mitzvos serve indicate otherwise.

Mankind has the potential to elevate everything into something spiritual – with just a little direction.

Boldly going where no man has gone

By On · Add Comment

On specials occasions, a blessing called שהחיינו is made, that thanks Hashem for the opportunity of living to see a momentous event. The completion of the Torah cycle on Simchas Torah seems to fit the criteria needed to say the blessing, so why don’t we say it?

It isn’t said on Shavuos, commemorating the Torah being received, because it marks the beginning, and the blessing of שהחיינו is only said at conclusions – otherwise nothing has happened yet!

R Shlomo Farhi points out that the first word in the Torah is בראשית, and the last, ישראל. The first and last letters in the Torah spell out the anagram לב – heart. What Hashem wants from us is an emotional commitment.

But in the correct order, it also spells out בל, as in בלבל or מבלבל, meaning “confusion” or “mixed up”. When we look at the ocean of Torah looking forwards, it is בלבל, uncharted and unknown territory. But looking back, it is לב. A cycle is never isolated – every new cycle lends further light on previous cycles, and new insights always discovered.

Truly, this lends light on the adage that the Torah never finishes, and we immediately start again from the beginning. There is truly no end, only a constant battle against בלבל by way of לב, finishing again. And again. And again.

The job is never done, never finished, and as such, no שהחיינו is made – or in other words, there’s no והגיענו!

Yisro heard – heard what exactly?

By On · Add Comment

After the Jews left Egypt, and experienced the miracle of the Red Sea, we are told how people from all over heard about it, but particularly one man:

וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ כֹהֵן מִדְיָן, חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אֱלֹהִים לְמֹשֶׁה, וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמּוֹ: כִּי-הוֹצִיא יְהוָה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִמִּצְרָיִם – Now Moshe’s father in law, Yisro, chief of Midyan, heard all that God had done for Moshe and for Yisrael, His people; that Hashem had taken Yisrael out of Egypt. (18:1)

This seems rather strange – the Torah tells us twice that Hashem did something to the Jews – first אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אֱלֹהִים לְמֹשֶׁה, וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמּוֹ, and then immediately after כִּי-הוֹצִיא יְהוָה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִמִּצְרָיִם. How are we to understand the repetition?

On hearing wonders the Jews experienced, he sought out to their encampment, along with Moshe’s family, and Moshe came out to greet them. We then find that:

וַיְסַפֵּר מֹשֶׁה, לְחֹתְנוֹ, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה לְפַרְעֹה וּלְמִצְרַיִם, עַל אוֹדֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל – And Moshe told his father in law all that Hashem had done to Pharoh and to Egypt, on behalf of Yisrael. (18:8)

Immediately after Moshe tells Yisro what happened, Yisro praises Hashem; בָּרוּךְ ה, עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי, כִּי-גָדוֹל ה מִכָּל-הָאֱלֹהִים. This ought to be perplexing – we were first told how וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ – Yisro heard what had happened, he knew; what was there for Moshe to tell, that caused Yisro to react so?

I want to suggest an explanation.

Yisro was a man who believed in the idea of a god; he was a priest himself. What he heard was that אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אֱלֹהִים לְמֹשֶׁה, וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמּוֹ – there had been an act of אֱלֹהִים, an act of god, that happened to the Jews. He came to investigate.

What Moshe told him was that this wasn’t just an act of god, but rather it was עָשָׂה ה לְפַרְעֹה וּלְמִצְרַיִם – it wasn’t just אֱלֹהִים, but rather, Hashem (we do not say His name). Moshe identified that God was Hashem, whom we have a name for and whom we have a relationship with. On hearing this, Yisro reacted the way he did, by praising Hashem specifically, not just the idea of a god.

This explains our difficulty in the first pasuk. וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ כֹהֵן מִדְיָן, חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה

    אֱלֹהִים

לְמֹשֶׁה, וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמּוֹ – he heard what

    God

had done, but the remainder of the pasuk is not what he heard, but what actually happened -כִּי-הוֹצִיא ה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִמִּצְרָיִם. The second part is why he heard it, but not what he heard. He hadn’t heard of Hashem, only the general concept of god, and the pasuk tells us that he heard what god had done. Why did he hear it? כִּי-הוֹצִיא ה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִמִּצְרָיִם.

To illustrate: Steve was told to be somewhere. The reason, unknown to Steve, was that his friends had organised him a surprise party. But all Steve knew was to be somewhere. So we can say how Steve went somewhere, for his surprise party, but Steve only knows the first bit.

It’s for the Best

By On · Add Comment

Upon meeting Pharoh for the first time, Yakov and Pharoh have this conversation:

וַיֹּאמֶר פַּרְעֹה, אֶל-יַעֲקֹב: כַּמָּה, יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיֶּיךָ. וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב, אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, יְמֵי שְׁנֵי מְגוּרַי, שְׁלֹשִׁים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה: מְעַט וְרָעִים, הָיוּ יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיַּי, וְלֹא הִשִּׂיגוּ אֶת-יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי אֲבֹתַי, בִּימֵי מְגוּרֵיהֶם – And Pharaoh said to Yakov, “How many have been the days, the years of your life?” And Yakov said to Pharaoh, “The days of the years of my sojournings are one hundred thirty years. The days of the years of my life have been few and miserable, and they have not reached the days of the years of the lives of my forefathers, in the days of their journeys.” (47:8-9)

Yakov lived a tremendously difficult life. He had fled his family to live in hiding from his brother; been cheated and overworked by his father in law; been denied marriage to the love of his youth, been betrayed by his firstborn son; seen the rape of his daughter; seen his sons bickering result in Yosef’s disappearance and presumed death for 22 years; and seen Rachel die in childbirth. This was not the future he had sought to create for the Jewish people.

Mishlei 3:2 advises that תורתי אל תשכח….. כי אורך ימים ושנות חיים – my son, don’t forget the Torah… Because it lengthens days and years of life. Life is lived through peace, wholeness and Torah – pain and suffering are not true living. It therefore stands to reason that Yakov says מְעַט וְרָעִים, הָיוּ יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיַּי – “The days of the years of my life have been few and miserable,”.

However, the opening of Parshas Vayechi, which addresses the conclusion of Yakov’s life, states:

וַיְחִי יַעֲקֹב בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, שְׁבַע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה; וַיְהִי יְמֵי-יַעֲקֹב, שְׁנֵי חַיָּיו–שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים, וְאַרְבָּעִים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה – And Yakov lived in Egypt for seventeen years, and Yakov’s days; the years of his life; were a hundred and forty seven years. (47:28)

The Torah asserts that at this juncture, just 17 years after “few and miserable”, that וַיְחִי – Yakov truly lived, “living” being the thing he had lacked his whole life, what with all his suffering.

This marks a significant change. Before reuniting his family, he felt his life had been a failure. Now they were together, living in harmony, fulfilling Yakov’s ambitions for creating a nation, יְמֵי-יַעֲקֹב, שְׁנֵי חַיָּיו – Yakov’s days and years became years of life, to the extent that שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים, וְאַרְבָּעִים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה – he could look back, and his entire life had been worth it in the end, having achieved the harmony he sought his whole life.

The Midrash and Gemara in Shabbos say that a real exile begins in chains and handcuffs; Yakov was spared this in his exile because of his merits. The Nesivos Shalom explains how the brothers could attempt to murder Yosef and then sell him, whilst seeming incredibly evil, was actually their bodies expressing what Hashem wanted, that they eventually wind up in Egypt. The people Yosef was sold to we’re traditionally salesmen of foul scented products, but Yosef was “fortunate” that they were carrying sweet smelling spices on that day.

But it was not just “fortune”, and it was the same with Yakov

There had to be an exile to Egypt. Everything had been calculated precisely. Yakov recognised at the end of his life, that every event in his life had led him to where he was.

Having recognised that all his negative experiences brought him to where he was, he was finally content, satisfied and fulfilled.

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.

Leaving your past behind

By On · Add Comment

The parsha opens with:

ויאמר ד׳ אל אברם לך לך מארצך וממולדתך ומבית אביך אל הארץ אשר אראך – And Hashem said to Avraham, “Go for yourself, from your land, your homeland, and the house of your father, to the land which I will show you”.

This pasuk is loaded with inferences. Rashi points out that Hashem was telling Avraham that this journey would be לך – for his own benefit and growth, which seems difficult to understand. Did Avraham need a personal gain to do what Hashem had instructed?

Further, the pasuk uses an expression of leaving from, rather than exiting to, which seems odd, if the actual goal was to arrive at the land Hashem would show him.

Lastly, the requirement to go “from your land, your birthplace, and the house of your father, to the land which I will show you”, seems redundant – the goal is אל הארץ אשר אראך, the land he would be shown. Why include where he was leaving from at all?

Avraham is commanded to go first from his country, then his homeland, and lastly, his father’s house. Shouldn’t the sequence be reversed? When travelling internationally, you leave the house first, then the area and then the country. So why is the command in this order?

The Nesivos Shalom explains that Hashem was telling Avraham to leave his negative traits which he acquired in these locations. Our environment is instrumental to developing who we are as people. The more localised the environment, the greater the affect it can have.

As such, a home environment is more persuasive than a homeland, which in turn is more influential than a country. The command is brought to greater light; Hashem was telling Avraham to leave, abandon even, the negative influence he picked up from his country, homeland and father’s house. The order is listing in ascending difficulty.

This further bring to light that לך לך means “Go fro yourself”. Avaham understood that ultimate happiness is becoming close to Hashem, echoing the Mesilas Yesharim, that the supreme joy in this world is the joy of serving Hashem; acknowledging one’s purpose in life and fulfilling it. Hashem told him that in order to grow further, he needed to totally separate himself from the negative culture he’d lived his whole life in – מארצך וממולדתך ומבית אביך.

It’s not enough for a person to try to be the best they can be, where they are. To reach full potential, he also has to remove himself from the bad midos of his environment because they still have an affect on him.

Once Avraham abandoned his past, he could achieve אל הארץ אשר אראך.

This further answers why the command was to “go” from somewhere, not just to somewhere. He had to leave where he was to get where he was going.

What was the point of the flood?

By On · Add Comment

The entire incident of the Flood seems perplexing. Humanity had started populating the world, and initially fulfilled Gods mission, until suddenly, things came to a bottleneck, and society degenerated to a point where God decided to “start over” from Noach. But why?

The Malbim observes that the Torah writes:

צֵא, מִן-הַתֵּבָה–אַתָּה… כָּל-הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר-אִתְּךָ מִכָּל-בָּשָׂר, בָּעוֹף וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל-הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ–הוצא (הַיְצֵא) אִתָּךְ; וְשָׁרְצוּ בָאָרֶץ, וּפָרוּ וְרָבוּ עַל-הָאָרֶץ – Leave the Ark – you… Every living creature with you. Every creature, bird, animal and insect that creeps on the earth, should leave with you, and they will multiply and infest the earth. (8:16-17)

Malbim explains that the salvation of life on earth was through Noach, and the psukim say as much, by emphasising כָּל-הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר-אִתְּךָ – he was the instrument through which they were saved, because they were “with him”.

The Malbim explains the undercurrent in the sequence of events that led to the Flood, and what it repaired. When Adam was created, he had the potential of all Creation within him. Every possible characteristic and outcome was seeded within him, including those of animals. The way he behaved; nature reacted. We see this somewhat today, to a small degree, in how pets reflect characteristics of their owners.

The generation of the Flood squandered and destroyed their potential to be good, and had no positive characteristics. Nature reacted accordingly, and animals became evil too, with all species mingling with others, to a point where the Torah (6:12) writes כִּי-הִשְׁחִית כָּל-בָּשָׂר אֶת-דַּרְכּוֹ, עַל-הָאָרֶץ – that every living creature had lost its way.

Noach reclaimed decency, and “humanity” – in the true sense of the word, by being honest and good. He reclaimed the potential to be good. He was the sole being that had not corrupted itself, and as such existence was perpetuated solely for his sake. This is why he was chosen of all men – existence owed itself to him.

צֵא, מִן-הַתֵּבָה–אַתָּה… כָּל-הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר-אִתְּךָ מִכָּל-בָּשָׂר, בָּעוֹף וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל-הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ–הוצא (הַיְצֵא) אִתָּךְ; וְשָׁרְצוּ בָאָרֶץ, וּפָרוּ וְרָבוּ עַל-הָאָרֶץ – Leave the Ark – you… Every living creature with you. Every creature, bird, animal and insect that creeps on the earth, should leave with you, and they will multiply and infest the earth. (8:16-17)

Nature owed Noach a debt – it was preserved through him. In the beginning of the very next chapter, God permits man to eat meat for the very first time – as a direct result of this.

A Blessing, a Curse, and being a better person

By On · Add Comment

When the Bnei Yisrael assembled on Har Grizim and Har Eival for the blessings and curses, different tribes ascended the different mountains as instructed by Moshe. The people on each peak all spoke in unison to the other peak, in a kind of very loud conversations spanning mountains.

The pasuk tells us that:

אֵלֶּה יַעַמְדוּ לְבָרֵךְ אֶת-הָעָם, עַל-הַר גְּרִזִים, בְּעָבְרְכֶם, אֶת-הַיַּרְדֵּן: שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי וִיהוּדָה, וְיִשָּׂשכָר וְיוֹסֵף וּבִנְיָמִן. וְאֵלֶּה יַעַמְדוּ עַל-הַקְּלָלָה, בְּהַר עֵיבָל: רְאוּבֵן גָּד וְאָשֵׁר, וּזְבוּלֻן דָּן וְנַפְתָּלִי – These tribes will ascend to bless the people, from Har Grizim, (…), and these are the tribes that will ascend for the curse, on Har Eival (…). (27:12-13)

From the above translation, it is evident that the construct of the commands is subtly different, wherein the people on Har Grizim were actually going to bless everyone, whereas the people on Har Eival were going to be passive, to be there “for the curse”.

Why the disparity?

The Kli Yakar explains that curses only come due to an individuals actions, that cause Hashem to distance himself from a person. The people went up the mountain weren’t going up to affirm that Hashem would curse, as an action, but rather, to affirm that without Hashem’s blessings, that is a curse. But these curses are not fixed.

In Moshe’s opening to the people at the mountains, he says:

הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מְצַוְּךָ לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת-הַחֻקִּים הָאֵלֶּה–וְאֶת-הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים; וְשָׁמַרְתָּ וְעָשִׂיתָ אוֹתָם, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשֶׁךָ – On this day, Hashem your God has commanded you to keep these statutes and laws, and you will guard them and perform them, with all your heart and soul. (26:16)

This pasuk is monumental in its context, but equally to all of us today. Rashi points out that this is written in the present tense, that we have the same obligations every day as when we accepted the Torah and mitzvos.

In the past, we may not have been all we could have been. But we can always draw a line, and start afresh, and say הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, today is a new day. There is always an opportunity to do become a better person and do Teshuva, most apt as we approach Rosh Hashanah.

To keep giving charity

By On · Add Comment

The pasuk tells us with a double statement that:

עשר תעשר – you shall tithe (14:22)

Gemara in Taanis 9a derives from this pasuk that עשר בשביל שתתעשר – one who gives ma’aser, the tithes, will become wealthier. This applies to all other forms of tzedaka, charity, too.

The Vilna Gaon explains that this highly unusual affirmation from the Gemara is due to a difficulty. The standard explanation of a double statement is that it means “to surely” do it, an unlimited amount of times. The difficulty is that the Gemara in Kesubos 50a states that a person is not allowed to give away more than 20% of his income. This would seem to indicate a flaw that a double statement cannot mean to do something with no limit, as it does not apply here – a person is not allowed to give an unlimited amount of money away.

The Vilna Gaon therefore teaches us that this still applies, even to giving charity, wherein a person will have more than he did prior to giving tzedaka, that he will be able to keep giving more, and never give an amount that he wasn’t allowed to. The reward for giving charity is the ability to give more, and it won’t hinder the giver, because we learn that עשר בשביל שתתעשר – a person will be able to keep giving charity.

On “Stuff”

By On · Add Comment

A man named Tzlafchad died in the wilderness with no male heirs, leaving his family’s assets and prospective plot in Israel in limbo. His daughters pointed out this legal grey area to Moshe:

לָמָּה יִגָּרַע שֵׁם אָבִינוּ מִתּוֹךְ מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ כִּי אֵין לוֹ בֵּן תְּנָה לָּנוּ אֲחֻזָּה בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵי אָבִינוּ – Why should our father’s name be eliminated from his family because he had no son? Give us a portion along with our father’s brothers. (27:4)

Rashi explains that this was not an emotional request, rather, a halachic one. If they would not inherit him, then their mother ought to perform yibum – levirate marriage, passing on the assets in this way. If they were considered progeny enough to avoid yibum, they ought to be progeny enough to inherit the plot in Israel. If they had had a brother, they would not have made a claim.

This seems very straightforward – what was so intelligent about this?

R’ Yehoshua Hartman explains that they demonstrated their understanding of property’s place in life, and the function of inheritance.

The conventional wisdom is that when someone dies, assets are transferred. It is a default process – assets cannot lie unclaimed. This is misguided.

What they understood was that all property is simply tools God grants a person to accomplish what they are meant to. The tools assigned are specific to an individual. Ownership means the use of an article to further the users goals. The Gemara notes that the righteous are meticulous with their possessions – for this reason.

When someone dies, the re-allocation of assets is only to perpetuate the name of the deceased, which lives on their property. The people who continue their legacy inherit, usually their children.

The daughters said if they weren’t continuations of their father’s legacy with regard to inheritance, then they ought not to be a continuation to absolve their mother of yibum. They understood that the function of both is the same – to continue the legacy of a father.

The association was so piercingly accurate, that Hashem told Moshe that they had intuited an unknown law. This displayed their intelligence.

This is very different to how society values possessions today. People are measured by the size of their driveway and its contents, as though that is the measure of a man, and not their character. This episode clearly articulates that property is given to people as tools. All “stuff” is value neutral. A million dollars says nothing about you. What you do with it says everything.

How to change the world

By On · Add Comment

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

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

Our performance of mitzvos has a very real effect on the world – the mitzvos dictate Read Full Dvar Torah →

I’ve got to break free

By On · Add Comment

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

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

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

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

What is the basis of the dispute?

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

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

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

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

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

5. A woman who gives birth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counting Consequences

By On · Add Comment

The parsha begins, “Eleh pekudei hamishkan, mishkan haedus asher pukad al pi Moshe…”. The Medrash refers this pasuk to the pasuk in Mishlei (28:20) “Ish emunos rav brachos”. The Sfas Emes explains that the Ish emunos is Moshe Rabbeinu and what the Medrash is telling us is that although counting something is not a siman brocha when the counting is done by an Ish emunos then brocha will be bestowed on the counted subjects.

The Kli Yakar in the beginning of parshas ki sisa explains the idea behind why one should not count and why counting brings ayin raah. When one counts something he is in essence giving this object its own individual importance, thereby creating additional awareness of it in shamayim. This awakens the debate as to the rights of the object, and all the relevant zechuyos and chovos are judged.

The Sfas Emes this week expounds this idea and with it beautifully explains the Medrash. All the good bestowed upon this world comes from a single higher source and as you distance from the source the good is diminished. From this shoresh hayachid hashmeymi branches out big then smaller and smaller branches, and the smallest furthest branch profits the least from the goodness supplied by those roots. When somebody counts something the individuality and importance that he applies to it separates it further from the source as it now has its own new identity. It is a new branch of its own. Before it was counted it was a part of the bigger branch, closer to the roots. This is why counting usually brings less brocha.

In many places the Sfas Emes explains that the root of the word emunah means connecting the subject back to its real true source. With this the medrash becomes beautifully clear. The medrash is explaining the pasuk as follows. Why does the pasuk mention that the counting was done by Moshe? 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!

Mechanics of a Nation

By On · Add Comment

After the Golden Calf, Moshe gathers the people for a discourse:

וַיַּקְהֵל מֹשֶׁה אֶת כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה’ לַעֲשֹׂת אֹתָם’ – Moses gathered the whole community of Israel to assemble, and he said to them: “These are the things that the Lord commanded to do” (35:1)

He tells them certain laws of Shabbos, and collection for and initiation of construction of the Mishkan.

This occurred the morning after the Yom Kippur Moshe returned with the second Luchos. It seems likely that his first public appearance upon his return would include a notable message regarding their conduct. Yet he gathered them together to discuss Shabbos and the Mishkan. The Nesivos Shalom notes out how usually, an act, speech or instruction initiate an episode; this is the sole instance where וַיַּקְהֵל , getting people together, starts a story.

The Noam Elimelech explains that mitzvos were given to the nation, not individuals. This means that when a person sins, it is an act of rebellion, splintering from the nation, albeit momentarily. Redemption and forgiveness is attained by blending back into the nation. In the same way a harmony is a beautiful sound where no single voice is discernible, a tzibbur, the collective, is safe because an individual does not stand out.

Moshe defended the Jews to God, and argued that the Golden Calf was the act of rogue individuals, not the nation. Sin is an individual act – how could the nation be held accountable, regardless of how many had indeed sinned?

On his return, he saw to it that what he said was indeed true. The nation was whole and not fractured – he united them – וַיַּקְהֵל. This makes וַיַּקְהֵל unique as an opening.

The Nesivos Shalom proves this from what Moshe told them. He said of the laws that לַעֲשֹׂת אֹתָם – but the instructions for Shabbos that he mentions are to not light fire, and to not work. How is not doing something called לַעֲשֹׂת – to do?

Perhaps the instruction wasn’t discussing Shabbos at all; having conceded to Moshe’s argument, he received the instruction לַעֲשֹׂת אֹתָם – to make them, the Jews, into a united nation once again – וַיַּקְהֵל. Moshe was told to back up his claim!

This concept recurs over and over. When the spies were sent, the nation could not be absolved. They were sent in the capacity of the people’s representatives, and the generation died out. The Purim rescue occurred once the divided nation fought stood as one לְהִקָּהֵל וְלַעֲמֹד עַל-נַפְשָׁם. Korach’s error was not believing that the nation was more potent than the individual, claiming כולם קדושים.

Not to say that the laws Moshe spoke about were incidental to the purpose of gathering them. Far from it. They were chosen as both are incumbent on the nation, serving the same function, in contrast to more personal mitzvos,

The Midrash says that Hashem said to Shabbos that כנסת ישראל is its pre-ordained. כנסת ישראל is the Jewish national identity and consciousness, the supersoul of the nation. Shabbos observance is not down to the individual alone – it requires everyone’s input. Shabbos intrinsically unites Jews.

The Mishkan was selected for the discourse for the same reason. Everyone was required to make donation, buying a small stake in it. Covering the project costs with a few individual sponsors would not have served it’s purpose.

Both demonstrate the potency of a group over an individual. The parts in a machine are unremarkable – but together they achieve complex and sophisticated goals. Note how many mitzvos require groups to be adequately performed. The Nesivos Shalom says that we refer to Hashem as אבינו – our father – conceptually, obviously. If we identify with the nation, we can say אבינו.

We say in the Amida every day: ברכנו אבינו כולנו כאחד באור פניך – when everyone gets along, we can proudly say אבינו.

Is there a “right” way to get to the Torah?

By On · Add Comment

Parshas Tetzaveh is an anomaly in the Torah. It is the only parsha in the narrative of the Jews of that time in which Moshe Rabbeinu’s name does not appear at all, from his birth until the end of the Torah (barring certain parts of Devarim, where he was the person speaking).

The Ba’al HaTurim comments on the first pasuk in Tetzaveh (27:20) that in Parshas Ki Sisa, after seeing the Golden Calf and subsequently Hashem’s wrath through the plague, Moshe pleaded that “ וְעַתָּה אִם תִּשָּׂא חַטָּאתָם וְאִם אַיִן מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ אֲשֶׁר כָּתָבְתָּ – And now, if You forgive their sin But if not, erase me now from Your book, which You have written.” (32:32). The Ba’al HaTurim explains that although Hashem did indeed refrain from destroying the nation, a tzaddik’s word is always fulfilled.

The parsha in which Moshe’s name does not appear is about the kehuna, the priesthood, which was given to Ahron. R’ Yakov Minkus explains that there are 2 ways for Torah (representing Heaven) and mankind (representing Earth) to intersect:

1. The first way is that the Torah descends from Heaven. Moshe embodied this, as exemplified when he brought down the luchos from the mountain to the people.
2. The second is that we elevate become elevated ourselves. Ahron embodied this, as the ultimate “people’s person”. He was אוהב שלום ורודף שלום – a lover and pursuer of peace. The entire priesthood was based on helping the people interact with Hashem through the services.

The Gemara in Sanhedrin concludes that there are two ways to settle litigation, through din emes (an actual judgement), or a pshara (a compromise). The fact that both are valid settlements shows that both are equally powerful at achieving their goal, settling a dispute.

The role of the kohen is to play the arbiter, the middle man. As a man of the people, he is meant to feel their emotions, guide them through the services in the Beis HaMikdash, and follow the path that Ahron set.

If we are to say that this way of getting to the intersection of people and Torah is equally valid, Moshe almost had to be left out, to show that here is another, equally valid way.

There are various incidents in the Torah where Ahron and Moshe are mentioned, with Ahron preceding Moshe, as opposed to the usual Moshe first, and Ahron second. This is meant to show their equality. But as pointed out in many places, Moshe was the greatest man to have ever lived, without equal, so to what ends can we suggest their equality?

Knowing what we now know, the answer is simple. Their equality was not as people, as indeed Moshe was without equal, but rather, their equality was in the validity of their approaches in how to get the Torah to the people.

Good lighting

By On · Add Comment

There were four keilim that were kept inside the Mishkan – the Shulchan (table), the Aron (Ark), the Mizbeach (altar) and the Menora.

וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר מִבַּיִת וּמִחוּץ תְּצַפֶּנּוּ וְעָשִׂיתָ עָלָיו זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב – And you shall overlay it with pure gold; from inside and from outside you shall overlay it, and you shall make upon it a golden crown all around. (25:11) – Aron

וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב – And you shall overlay it with pure gold, and you shall make for it a golden crown all around. (25:24) – Shulchan

וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר אֶת גַּגּוֹ וְאֶת קִירֹתָיו סָבִיב וְאֶת קַרְנֹתָיו וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב - You shall overlay it with pure gold, its top, its walls all around, and its horns; and you shall make for it a golden crown all around. (30:3) – Mizbeach

The  Aron, Shulchan, and Mizbeach all had “crowns”, a gold design that bordered their edges, whereas the Menora is the odd one out, it had no crowns. What is the cause of this discrepancy? Read Full Dvar Torah →

Ins and Outs

By On · Add Comment

In Parshas Teruma we are instructed regarding the construction of the Aron (Ark). The Torah tells us that it should be covered from inside and out with gold ‘מבית ומחוץ תצפנו’ Rashi on the pasuk (25:11) explains, in accordance with the Gemara, that three separate boxes were made – a central wooden box, and inner and outer golden boxes. Rashi says that they put the wooden box into the larger golden box and then the smaller golden box inside of it.

The pasuk says they covered the inside of the box first, and only then the outside, whereas Rashi first says that they covered the outside first, and worked their way inwards. Why does Rashi change the order of the pasuk? Read Full Dvar Torah →

Evoking Sinai

By On · Add Comment

Why does Parshas Mishpatim begin with the laws of an עֶבֶד עִבְרִי – a Hebrew servant? What is the significance of this topic that marks it out as the first of the laws after receiving the Torah?

The Gemara in Bava Metzia 10a introduces a key concept to Jewish law; that a hired worker can stop in the middle of the job for whatever reason he chooses, so long as he compensates the lost labour, ensures a replacement etc. He cannot be made to work. This is in contrast to an עֶבֶד  who is a slave, and is bound to his work.

The psukim say: כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד וּבַשְּׁבִעִת יֵצֵא לַחָפְשִׁי חִנָּם - Should you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall work [for] six years, and in the seventh [year], he shall go out to freedom without charge. (21:2)

וְאִם אָמֹר יֹאמַר הָעֶבֶד אָהַבְתִּי אֶת אֲדֹנִי אֶת אִשְׁתִּי וְאֶת בָּנָי לֹא אֵצֵא חָפְשִׁי – But if the slave says, “I love my master, my wife, and my children. I will not go free,” (2:5)

וְהִגִּישׁוֹ אֲדֹנָיו אֶל הָאֱ־לֹהִים וְהִגִּישׁוֹ אֶל הַדֶּלֶת אוֹ אֶל הַמְּזוּזָה וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת אָזְנוֹ בַּמַּרְצֵעַ וַעֲבָדוֹ לְעֹלָם – his master shall bring him to the judges, and he shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever. (2:6)

There is a basic rule in the Gemara that the term “עֶבֶד” alone demarks a Canaanite, a slave, which is a permanent service, whereas an עֶבֶד עִבְרִי is a temporary status, which is why it must be specified.  My rebbi pointed out to me that when he begins his service (21:2), he is an עֶבֶד עִבְרִי whereas after the allotted time has passed at which he is meant to go free, should he remain to say, he has become an עֶבֶד – a slave, with no עִבְרִי – the Jew has become a Canaanite slave. Although this is not halachically accurate, this is certainly hashkafically accurate.

But what has he done that is so reprehensible, that he is pierced, a form of branding of property? Read Full Dvar Torah →

Pubs, Climbing Ladders and Divine Retribution

By On · Add Comment

The Rambam states in that there are three distinct types of unintentional killers:

1.) One who kills b’shgagah. This is defined as the state of mind possessed by one whose act is completely unforeseen. This category is referred to states in Sh’mos 21:12: v’asher lo tzadah–who did not lie in ambush. The punishment that applies to such a person is galus, whereby he is exiled to one of the arei miklot in order to receive a kaparah for his actions and to find refuge from the goel hadam who would not be penalized for exacting vengeance.

2.) One who kills b’shgagah korov l’oness, which describes the mental state of one who could not only not foresee the death as an outcome of his actions, but the killing was a wonderment which would not have occurred in the same circumstances in the majority of cases. This person is exempt from galus and if the goel hadam were to kill him, the avenger would be sentenced to death by the beis din.

3.) One who kills b’shgagah karovah l’zadon. This pertains to a person who acted with an attitude of wanton recklessness. His sin is considered too great for galus, he is prevented from receiving a kaparah and is not afforded any protection from the goel hadam, who is permitted to exact retribution without fear of capital punishment.

There exists a fundamental condition attached to the law of the pure shogeg (category 1), as taught by the Mishnah in Makkos 6b. The general rule is that if this type of unintentional killer was travelling in a downward direction at the time when the cause of death was set in motion, he is liable to be sent to galus since such an action is deemed to have been committed b’shogeg. However, if the offender was not descending at this time, he is exempt from galus. The Mishnah exemplifies this principle with several scenarios, one of which is involves a man who was climbing down a ladder when a rung broke causing him to fall on top of the victim below, who perished as a result. This is considered to be a case of shogeg and the defendant is sentenced to galus. However, if the killer was ascending when he slipped and fell he is exempt. The Gemara explains that the reason for this distinction is the verse in Bamidbar 35, where the Torah states that an inadvertent killer who is liable for galus is one who, ‘V’yapeil alav v’yamus’—And he fell on him and he died. Chazal expound this phrase to teach that the killer must be moving in a downward direction in a derech nefillah (the way of falling) in order to be liable for galus.

The Rambam provides a rationale for the Torah’s distinction between descent and ascent. He submits that the reason why the one who was ascending the ladder is exempt is because it is as if he were coerced, thus falling under category 2. Indeed, in most cases, that fatal outcome would not have occurred. Therefore, the killer’s culpability is beneath the threshold required for the punishment of galus.

In contrast, if the killer was descending the ladder at the crucial moment, the Rambam reasons that in such a case there is a greater risk of injuring others because it is a rule of nature that weight is pulled in a downward direction with rapidity. (It is interesting to note that the Rambam, writing approximately 200 years before Newton, was not that far away from the theory of gravity!) Therefore, if someone did not take proper care at the time of his descent, he will be liable to galus.

What is the correct perspective in terms of defining the culpability of one who kills b’shogeg? We have learnt that such behaviour is sufficient to deserve galus; however, galus is more of a refuge and a kaparah zone, rather than a brutal onesh. Moreover, the Rambam describes the shogeg mindset as totally blind to the outcome of his actions. Nonetheless, there appears to be some level of criminal negligence and blameworthiness associated with a shogeg. We are left with the question, what proportion of blame may be attributed to one who kills b’shogeg, requiring a kaparah, and to what extent is the death the result of Divine intervention?

Perhaps the answer can be found in Parashas Mishpatim, 21:12-13, wherein the Torah declares that, ‘makeh ish va’meis mos yumas; v’asher lo tzadah v’ho’elokim inah l’yado v’samti l’cha makom asher yanus shamah.’ – ‘One who strikes a man and he will die, he (the killer) shall be put to death; and if he did not lie in ambush and God placed it in his hand and I shall place for you a place to where he may flee’.

As Rashi interprets, the pasuk is referring to the laws pertaining to intentional and inadvertent killing; the one who murders deliberately receives the death penalty, whereas the individual who did not intend to kill is exiled. Philosophically, a most striking element within the verse is that we are being taught that Hashem arranges for such inadvertent killings to take place. Onkelos translates inah as it’m’sar, to transmit or to hand over, while Rashi writes that it is an expression akin to zaman, to invite or summon (this is an example of a word in lashon hakodesh upon which the English equivalent is based). This demonstrates that, at times, G-d deliberately causes a person’s death via human agency.

To explain this notion, Rashi cites a Medrash that depicts a saying of David HaMelech. The Medrash reports that the monarch stated that the Torah tells us ‘m’rashaim yeitzei resha’- from evil-doers comes out evil. Where does the Torah convey this? From our posuk: ‘v’ho’elokim inah l’yado’, which refers to a situation involving two people, one who killed inadvertantly and one who killed on purpose. However, in both cases there were no witnesses to enable the prosecution of either offender. Consequently, the unintentional killer was not ordered to go to galus and the murderer did not receive the death penalty. The Medrash, quoted by Rashi, continues by teaching that, in such a case, Divine intervention may arrange for these two killers to arrive at the same public house. The one who killed deliberately ends up sitting below a ladder and the inadvertent killer climbs up the ladder and subsequently falls on top of the killer beneath him with fatal consequences. Conveniently, on this occasion there were witnesses, thus enabling the beis din to send the shogeg to galus, which he was liable for anyway, while the intentional killer has already received his just deserts.

The glaring question is, how can Rashi quote the Medrash as teaching that the shogeg was climbing up the ladder (oleh ba’sulam) before he fell onto the person below. Surely it is the clear ruling of the aforementioned Mishnah in Makkos that in such a case, the individual is in fact exempt from galus. This problem is compounded by the actual reading of this Mechilta, as quoted in the Gemara in Makkos 10b. There, the text reads that the shogeg killer was descending the ladder (yored b’sulom) at the time of his fall. In that case, with what licence did Rashi not only alter the text of this Medrash, but give a misrepresentation of the correct halachah? This cannot be a simple mistake for we are dealing with Rashi, who the Meiri dubs greatest of the commentators.

The Sifsei Chachomim and the Mizrachi both opt for a rather ‘lav davka’ approach to resolve this conundrum by concluding that of course Rashi meant that when the killer fell he was moving downwards. Rashi merely refers to the fact that the shogeg went up the ladder so that it was possible for him to descend before falling. This may be true but it remains perplexing as to why Rashi so conspicuously deviates from the text of the Medrash as quoted by the Gemara and thereby risk halachically misleading the reader.

Enter the Maharal in his opus, Gur Aryeh. He contends that the sole message of the Medrash was to convey the extent of Divine intervention into human affairs. Therefore, Rashi deliberately changed the text in order to emphasize that the man’s ascent up the ladder was not the result of his own free choice, but rather, was entirely engineered by the Celestial chess player. The descent down the ladder however, was not the outcome of Divine programming and is thus irrelevant to the Medrash’s agenda. This approach not only absolves Rashi, but provides a scintillating insight into the Yad Hashem which clandestinely arranges earthly goings on in order to bring out justice and retribution.

Furthermore, this yesod assists us in our inquiry as to the correct understanding of the shogeg killer. This person is certainly subject to the Divine master plan, who leads him up the ladder. Nonetheless, the act of killing must contain an element of moral blameworthiness and G-d does not force you to sin under duress. It is within this person’s bechirah to be watchful of his actions, as it is axiomatic that he would not be exiled without deserving it. Thus, his descent must have been the result of his autonomous free will. These insights not only alert us to the penetrating truths of our holy Torah, but reveal extent of Hashem’s awesome jurisdiction over our existence.

To Know

By On · Add Comment

.י: וַיֹּאמֶר יִתְרוֹ בָּרוּךְ יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֲשֶׁר הִצִּיל אֶתְכֶם מִיַּד מִצְרַיִם וּמִיַּד פַּרְעֹה אֲשֶׁר הִצִּיל אֶת הָעָם מִתַּחַת יַד מִצְרָיִם  :

10. [Thereupon,] Jethro said, “Blessed is the Lord, Who has rescued you from the hands of the Egyptians and from the hand of Pharaoh, Who has rescued the people from beneath the hand of the Egyptians.

יא: עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי גָדוֹל יְ־הֹוָ־ה מִכָּל הָאֱ־לֹהִים כִּי בַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר זָדוּ עֲלֵיהֶם:
11. Now I know that the Lord is greater than all the deities, for with the thing that they plotted, [He came] upon them.” (18:10-11)

What is it that he now knew?

There is a well-known Midrash that Pharaoh had 3 advisers during the episode of the Jews slavery in Egypt – Bilam, Iyov (Job), and Yisro. When Pharaoh sought to annihilate the Jews by drowning the Jewish boys in the river Nile, Bilam supported this and Iyov abstained, whereas Yisro advised against this and subsequently had to flee to Midyan to escape Pharaoh’s clutches.

With regard to our question, (what did Yisro ‘now’ know) I heard a fabulous explanation on a pshat level. What he now knew was Hashem’s system of hashgacha – oversight – the system of midda k’neged mida, measure for measure.

Pharaoh had sought to destroy the Jews by drowning them, and the reverse had happened to him and the entire Egyptian army.

. יא: עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי גָדוֹל יְ־הֹוָ־ה מִכָּל הָאֱ־לֹהִים כִּי בַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר זָדוּ עֲלֵיהֶם
11. Now I know that the Lord is greater than all the deities, for with the thing that they plotted, [He came] upon them.” (18: 11)

So now he saw that Hashem delivers justice, he realized that he was in a bad situation. Although he had fled Pharaoh when it became clear that official Egyptian policy was genocide, what had he done up until that point? The entire enslavement episode occurred whilst he was in Pharaoh’s cabinet government, and what had he advised then? Nothing in the Jews favor, as it was only when he did that he had to flee. So Yisro realized he had erred and required a tikkun, a solution, to achieve teshuva, repentance.

His solution to the bad advice he had given was to offer good advice.

‘13. It came about on the next day that Moses sat down to judge the people, and the people stood before Moses from the morning until the evening.’ (18:13) – after which he offered the solution of having elders judge as well, solving the inefficiency of the judicial system in the state it was in.

The True Firstborn

By On · Add Comment

The pasuk at 4:22 says: “וְאָמַרְתָּ אֶל פַּרְעֹה כֹּה אָמַר ה’ בְּנִי בְכֹרִי יִשְׂרָאֵל”- “You shall say to Pharoah, so says G-d: My firstborn son is Israel”

Rashi writes: “ומדרשו כאן חתם הקב”ה על מכירת הבכורה שלקח יעקב מעשו” - “Here G-d had agreed to the fact that Yaakov had taken the firstborn right from Esav”.

What is the connection here?

The Lev Aryeh explains with the following: The next Pasuk, (verse 23) writes that eventually a plague would come in which the firstborn of each Egyptian household would die.

If we look at Makas Bechoros (plague of the firstborn) in Parshas Bo (12:30) it says: ”כִּי אֵין בַּיִת אֲשֶׁר אֵין שָׁם מֵת” – “In every house there was a death”

Rashi asks, how could every household have a firstborn son? He goes on to explain that the Egyptian wives would commit adultery and have sons with other men, each of these sons would be the oldest to its father, hence when the Torah said that the firstborn would die, it referred to the firstborn of the father not the mother.

“דבר אחר מצריות מזנות תחת בעליהן ויולדות מרווקים פנויים, והיו להם בכורות הרבה, פעמים הם חמשה לאשה אחת, כל אחד בכור לאביו”

Now look at the Pasuk about the famous birth of Yaakov and Esav, in Parshas Toldos (25:26): “וְיָדוֹ אֹחֶזֶת בַּעֲקֵב עֵשָׂו וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ יַעֲקֹב”- “His hand was holding unto the heel of Esav, and they called him Yaakov”

Rashi writes:

“נמצא עשו הנוצר באחרונה יצא ראשון, ויעקב שנוצר ראשונה יצא אחרון, ויעקב בא לעכבו שיהא ראשון ללידה כראשון ליצירה, ויפטור את רחמה, ויטול את הבכורה מן הדין” – “Yaakov was created first, but was only born second, so he claimed that he deserves the firstborn rights, because he was created first, therefore he clutched onto the heel of Esav as if to hold him back.”

Rashi explains that Yaakov was created first; i.e. he was the firstborn of his father, but Esav; who was born first, was firstborn to his mother.

So from the plague of the firstborn where we see that “firstborn” refers to the firstborn of the father, and we can bring a proof that Yaakov deserved the right of the firstborn, as he was also firstborn of his father.  That is the link with our original Rashi, showing because of Makas Bechoros, Yaakov was the true firstborn, in that Hashem passed judgment based on the formula Rashi presented at Yakov’s birth of being the father’s first son.

Amazing!

Optimum Kindness

By On · Add Comment

Regarding the extent of the severity of the flood, we are told:

וימח את כל היקום אשר על פני האדמה מאדם עד בהמה עד רמש ועד עוף השמים וימחו מן הארץ וישאר אך נח ואשר אתו בתבה – Hashem blotted out all existence on the face of the Earth – from man; to animals; to creeping things; and to the birds of the skies; and they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah survived, and those with him in the Ark.” (7:23)

Rashi quotes the Midrash that teaches that Noah was once late to feed a lion, and it bit him in the leg. The Midrash extrapolates this from this verse, from the word “אך” – “only,” which implies a limitation – an exception. The “limitation” was Noah himself, that he was more limited; a part of him was missing – having been bitten off by the lion.

What is the goal and function of this teaching? What is the significance of this account?

The Gemara in Bava Metzia states that whenever R’ Chanina and R’ Chiya were in a dispute, R’ Chanina would say to R’ Chiya; “If the Torah were to be forgotten in Israel, I would restore it using my argumentative ability.”

R’ Chiya would reply to R’ Chanina: “I already made sure that Torah should not be forgotten in Israel. I  planted flax and made nets from it, trapped deers with the nets. I fed their meat to orphans, and prepared scrolls from their skins, upon which I wrote the five books of Torah. Then I went to a town which contained no teachers and taught each of the five books to five children, and the six orders of the Talmud to six children. And I instructed them: ‘Until I return, teach each other the Torah and the Mishna;’ and thus I preserved the Torah from being forgotten in Israel.”

The obvious question is why he didn’t just buy some parchment ready-made. Was it necessary for R’ Chiya to go through all the entire manufacturing process just to obtain some parchment?

The Maharsha explains that in commencing something, one must be sure that it starts out fundamentally sound. Thus, R’ Chiya intended to ensure that the continuation of Torah would spread from solid foundations. There was no room for financial impropriety leading to the emergence of the parchment in the marketplace; they needed to be secured in holiness from the outset. He could only do this if directly under his own supervision.

However, this itself begs extra clarification. Why was all this necessary? The Mishna in Avos 1:2 teaches: “Shimon HaTzadik used to say: ‘The world is stands on three things: On Torah, on Service (Prayer), and on Acts of Kindness”. Rabbeinu Yona explains that “the world stands” on these three things means that these are the purpose of creation; creation happened in order to bring these things into being.

It is evident then, that if one of these three things were removed from the equation, creation would have no reason for this world to exist. To this end, R’ Chaim of Volozhin writes regarding the study of Torah, that if not a single Jew across the globe were to learn for even one second, the entire universe would cease to be.

It is for this reason that R’ Chiya needed to take extreme measures to insure the future of Torah learning. One of the three foundations of the world certainly requires impeccable establishment.

With this insight we can explain the Midrash’s story of Noah being attacked.

The Midrash teaches that until the Torah was given and the Mishkan built, Torah and Prayer were not required; and the sole foundation the world stood on was Acts of Kindness. Rashi quotes the Gemara in Sanhedrin that explains that although the generation of the flood was guilty with all sorts of activity, it was only due to their “חמס” – corruption, theft and extortion – that their fate was sealed. Because the world at that point stood only – or was created only – for the perpetuation of kindness. By going to the opposite extreme, by robbing and cheating each other, they doomed themselves. Without standing up for the purpose of the world, they retained no purpose in existence.

Noah and his family had a very particular job to accomplish in the Ark. Rashi suggests another interpretation of the word “אך” : that Noah was himself, less. This means that he started out eager and excited, but then sighed and groaned about the burden of his duty to care for the animals. Chazal teach that for all twelve months in the Ark, Noach and his sons did not sleep, for there were always more animals to feed. (This poses a slight difficulty – as if he was always at work, he could never be “late” per se.) But this certainly seems odd – if Hashem found Noah to be righteous among his generation – at least enough to warrant his survival – why trouble him for the duration of the flood to such an extent that he was overworked? Why not simply allow him to enjoy the cruise?

As the Midrash said; at that time there was but one purpose to the world: Acts of Kindness. That generation had destroyed their foundations, resulting in their annihilation. It is not a stretch then, to say that Noah’s “job” was to rectify and restore Kindness; to rebalance the world on its single, shaky leg. He could not sit back and enjoy the cruise; of course he had work to do!

In rebalancing the world with Noah, Kindness required that he not just feed one animal from time to time, but to go to great lengths – to the extent of not sleeping for an entire year – to feed all animals, all the time. All this was necessary to counter the severity of the destruction to the pillar of Kindness caused by his generation. This is congruent to the story of R’ Chiya who also exhausted great efforts in establishing the pillar of Torah.

So the Midrash tells us; at one point Noah slacked, or came late. This was a disaster – given the magnitude of his task. He was the one chosen to perpetuate Kindness, and his performance needed to be perfect – being late was not an option. The lion delievered this message to Noah by biting him.

To balance the world, imperfections were intolerable and could not be afforded. It is implied that the lion bit Noah in the leg, as we are told that he left the Ark limping – and the symbolism is clear; in reestablishing the “leg” of the world there must not be any fault.

There is an old joke: “Why do flamingos stand on one leg? Because if they lift it, they’ll fall.” In causing Noah to limp, he was reminded of just how delicate his world was, standing on it’s one “leg,” it’s one purpose – Kindness. It may only be one “leg” but it would be enough to give life to the world. The world needed Noah’s Kindness on the Ark to be done to a perfect level. The lion bite was a rectification for his infraction, however slight.

But the world got its’ leg to stand on, a purpose, in his חסד – Kindness.

Real meaning behind Heaven and Earth

By On · Add Comment
As heard from R’ Yakov Minkus
 
ז. זְכֹר יְמוֹת עוֹלָם בִּינוּ שְׁנוֹת דּוֹר וָדוֹר שְׁאַל אָבִיךָ וְיַגֵּדְךָ זְקֵנֶיךָ וְיֹאמְרוּ לָךְ
7. Remember the days of old; reflect upon the years of [other] generations. Ask your father, and he will tell you; your elders, and they will inform you.
  
טז. יַקְנִאֻהוּ בְּזָרִים בְּתוֹעֵבֹת יַכְעִיסֻהוּ
16. They provoked His zeal with alien worship; they made Him angry with abominations deeds.

Ha’azinu is a repetition of history and everything that happened in the Torah so far for example:
 
The first letters in the first 4 psukim are:
ה = הַאֲזִינוּ
י =  יַעֲרֹף 
כ = כִּי
ה = הַצּוּר 
 
These four letter equal a gematria of 40, corresponding to the letter מ.  The 5th pasuk starts with a  שֶׁ and the sixth starts with a ‘ה’.     
מ + ש + ה = משה 
 
The Midrash Tanchuma says that an author usually writes his name at the end of his book. If we apply this here then Ha’azinu seems to be the end of the Torah, even though on first glance it seems that the parsha of V’Zos Habracha is the final parsha. However, if we look into it then we will see that in fact, V’Zos Habracha is not a halachic or historical parsha, it is ’merely’ Moshe’s farewell speech to the Jewish People and his Brachos to them.

In last week’s parsha, Nitzavim-Vayelech, it says, ‘כִּתְבוּ…הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת’.

In this weeks parsha it says, ‘הַאֲזִינוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם…וְתִשְׁמַע הָאָרֶץ’ Finally, in the beginning of the Torah, parshas Bereishis it says, ‘ א. בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱ־לֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ: The Sefer Yetzira says that the end of an era, or in this case, the Torah, reflects the beginning.

There is an argument as to whether the instruction of ‘כִּתְבוּ…הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת’ is on Ha’azinu, or the whole torah. However, if we bring in the fact that the end should reflect the beginning, it is not a question, or an argument because they are inextricably linked and, essentially, one and the same.

There is a ‘יסוד’ – a ‘secret insight’ about the importance of Heaven and Earth, of שמים וארץ. In their essence, they interact through גשם – rain and the water cycle reflects this interaction, as we will now explain:

 
ג. כִּי שֵׁם יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶקְרָא הָבוּ גֹדֶל לֵאלֹהֵינוּ
3. When I call out the name of the Lord, ascribe greatness to our God. (Devarim 32:3)
The Rambam explains, ‘כִּי שֵׁםה’ is in שמים and ’הָבוּ גֹדֶל’ is on the ארץ. Effectively, this means that we have בכירה - a free will to see the physical in this world, elevate it in our own way and aquire the ability to be spiritual. Creating our own spirituality through the pre-existing physicality of the world.
Rain, in its being, improves, fixes, nourishes and revitalises everything it ’touches’  and this is the ’שפע’ – ‘goodness’ from שמים that provides production in the world.

We, in our own way, can connect to שמים through two different mediums - תורה and תפילה.

Why do we daven for rain? For the obvious reason that we are not looking for the physical aspect – but for the recognition of Hashem’s hand and part in our day to day physical lives.
Through תפילה, we connect to שמים and bring it down to ארץ, and through תורה we elevate the world and bring it up to שמים
Rain has two states of being. One of them being the vapor state, where moisture evaporates and ‘rises’ into the sky, and it condenses and ‘descends’ to earth.

Ha’azinu is the summary of the purpose of creation - history has proven that when we acheive this function of linking שמים וארץ, life unfolds pleasantly, and when there hasn’t been a link, there has been devastation and destruction.

 
אז הוחל: (לשון חולין) לקרא את שמות האדם ואת שמות העצבים בשמו של הקב”ה לעשותן עבודה זרה ולקרותן אלהות:
Then it became common: הוּחַל, is an expression of חוּלִין – profaneness: to name people and idols with the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, to make them idols and to call them deities. (Bereishis 4:26)
During the time of the דור ענוש there was a lot of עבודה זרה. Shamayim was ‘stopped’ and as a result the seas swelled and consumed a third of the earth – thus proving that when we sin through שמים/ תפילה we get punished through the ארץ. 
 
On the other hand, during the דור המבול the Jews sinned through the land and therefore, suffered punishment through the שמים – it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Thus proving that when we sin through ארץ  we get punished through שמים.
 
The Zohar says that the דור המבול should have received the תורה.    
 
120 years of שת’s life was taken in order for נח to be able to wait 120 years.  Then there was the 40 days of rain which was נגד הר סיני, and when הר סיני happened, people thought there would be another מבול.

‘Vatishaches ha’aretz’ - The תורה was there to be able to elevate the physical.

Hashem broke up the world into nations, and the Jews were the link בין שמים וארץ.
In the מדבר, and when we had the ananei hakavod with us, we were with hashem, and truly experienced שמים on the ארץ on our level. When we got to ארץ ישראל, we experienced an ארץ elevated closer to שמים.
If or when we lose ארץ ישראל, we lose the connection between שמים וארץ, and the other nations will have the power to overtake and dominate us.
 
To conclude, the pasuk says, ‘הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת’  and we asked, ’is it ספר תורה or תפילה?’, the answer is that it is both. When we sing it as a prayer, its שמים בארץ. When we learn it, its ארץ לשמים.

Interconnected

By On · Add Comment

When Moshe recounts to the people in his repetition of the Torah, he tells them how each Jew is important:

וְהָיָה עֵקֶב תִּשְׁמְעוּן אֵת הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים הָאֵלֶּה וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם וְשָׁמַר ה’ אֱלֹ-ךָ לְךָ אֶת הַבְּרִית וְאֶת הַחֶסֶד אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ – It will be because you heed these ordinances, keep and perform them, that the Lord your God will keep for you the covenant and the kindness that He swore to your forefathers. (7:12)

Moshe addresses the audience but changes from תִּשְׁמְעוּן, the plural, to לְךָ, the singular. Why?

There is a famous story in Gemara Shabbos. A non-Jew approached Shamai and offered to convert if Shamai would teach him all of Torah while he was standing on one leg. Interpreting the gentile’s words as mockery, Shamai threw a piece of rubble from a building at him. He approached Hillel and put forward the same request. Hillel said, “Love your neighbor as yourself. The rest is commentary, go study.”

What was the premise of the man’s request? Clearly, the request to learn Torah on one leg is absurd, let alone to ask it of the greatest rabbis of the era. Hillel’s response is curious too. How does his answer incorporate mitzvos such as Shabbos, tefillin, bris mila, mezuzah etc.?

It is said in the name of the Arizal that every Jew must perform every single one of the 613 mitzvos, or their soul returns in another form, a gilgul, to complete what is missing. But it is impossible to accomplish all 613 mitzvos; many are mutually exclusive. Some are specific to gender, age, caste eg Kohanim and Leviim, kings, during the time of the Temple etc. Does this mean that everyone comes back as a gilgul many, many times so that they could fulfill each and every mitzva in the Torah?

This was precisely what the gentile was asking – teach me Torah on one רגל – in one lifetime, with no gilgul. רגל can mean “time” as seen when Bilam strikes his donkey: וַיִּפְתַּח ה’ אֶת פִּי הָאָתוֹן וַתֹּאמֶר לְבִלְעָם מֶה עָשִׂיתִי לְךָ כִּי הִכִּיתַנִי זֶה שָׁלֹשׁ רְגָלִים: The Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and it said to Bilam, “What have I done to you that you have struck me these three times?” (22:28) Alternatively, Kabbalistic interpretation aside, he simply wanted to perform all mitzvos, resulting in the same difficulty that an individual cannot possibly do so. Shamai beat him with construction material. This alludes to a building, that has many floors. Without multiple components, it’s not a building. Torah has many levels, and many mitzvos. Without them all, the soul is incomplete.

Shamai was telling the gentile that the Torah cannot be actualised in a single lifetime; it is paradoxically impossible to fulfill each and every mitzva.Hillel proposed an answer through unity. His directive of וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ meant that once unity was achieved, the rest of the Torah would follow. The benchmark of unity is כאיש אחד בלב אחד – one man with one heart. It is not a man’s that have shoes, but the man. Similarly, of one Jew performs a mitzva, the entire nation tap into the mitzva. With three simple words, Hillel explained to the gentile how to perform Torah directives.

Back to Moshe’s speech, he says וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם וַעֲשִׂיתֶם – keep and perform them in the plural form, which is said to the entire nation. But nonetheless, in spite of the inability of being able to actually do them all, וְשָׁמַר ה’ אֱלֹ-ךָ, Hashem will protect you – the individual. That is, each person should keep what they are able, and will be rewarded as such. This explains why it was necessary to be united at Sinai; without unity, there would be no point in receiving a Torah that could not be fulfilled. R Yitzchak Lande points out that the Torah switches from plural to singular many times, because although there is a communal responsibility, this doesn’t assuage the individual’s duty to pitch in – even if the job is done!

Everyone has to pull their weight – Jewish unity will ensure each individual gets included in what they can’t manage.

Sting in the Tail

By On · Add Comment

When Bilam attempts to curse the Jews, he is foiled, and attempts to bless them, which is accepted.

It is not clear why his failed curse compels him to bless them. Rashi explains Bilam’s situation with a metaphor – it is best to avoid a bee’s sting and it’s honey too. The parable and dialogue are not readily understood; honey is great if you can avoid getting stung! What is wrong with his blessing?

The Giznei Yosef explains that people’s speech is powerful. A righteous person’s speech is potent, but an evil persons too, albeit for a different reason. Rivka was blessed by Lavan to have many descendants – and she became barren. An evil person’s blessings are not only not fulfilled, but as a result are potentially a curse.

This is the metaphor of the bee. Bilam’s blessing was not as noble as it seems – it had a “sting” in its tail. This sheds light on the dialogue. Hashem had already chosen and blessed them, so Bilam‘s “blessing” couldn’t not supersede it or take affect.

This sheds light on what Hashem had told him at the outset:

לֹא תָאֹר אֶת-הָעָם, כִּי בָרוּךְ הוּא – Do not curse this people, for they are blessed.

It was not a warning – it simply noted the futility of the journey. The sting and the honey were of no use!

In The Clouds

By On · Add Comment

The Clouds of Glory marked travel movements for the Jews in the desert, and according to Midrash, flattened obstacles, cleared wild beasts, and possibly cleaned their clothing too. The Chag of Succos is dedicated to commemorating them. There is no equivalent display of appreciation for the manna or Miriam’s well, which are all along the same line of supernatural providence for the nation. Why are the Clouds remembered, and not the well or manna?

The Chida explains that food and water are the basic requirements for survival. Taking the Jews into the wilderness of the desert necessarily meant God would provide nourishment from somewhere; what could otherwise be expected? The Jews had their own shelter through tents and huts. But Clouds that protected the camp from the harsh sun, and according to Midrash even more, is far beyond what could have been expected – לפנים משורת הדין.

Secondly, they were a gift that showed God’s love for the people. This is proven by the fact that people outside the camp – such as the Egyptian stragglers and people forced out due to tzaraas – did not benefit.

Thirdly, the Clouds were appreciated far more than the manna and the water. The Jews complained and gave orders regarding the food and drink on offer in the desert – but they never complained about the Clouds. The Clouds were the perfect gift.

The Chida notes that perhaps these are hinted to:

לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי הֹ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם – In order that your ensuing generations should know that I had the children of Israel live in booths when I took them out of the land of Egypt. I am the Lord, your God. (23:43)

לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתי – I gave it to you as a gift; and they were enjoyed perfectly
אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל – I gave it to the Jews; not the Egyptian stragglers.
בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי ה’ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם – I took you out of Egypt; so I fed you, but didn’t have to provide the Clouds.

The Clouds were an incredible, and totally unwarranted display of affection to the Jews. This is commemorated on Succos.

Arguing with the Priest

By On · Add Comment

Based on a shiur by R’ Yehoshua Hartman

After Korach’s uprising is quashed, God issues instructions:

אֵת מַחְתּוֹת הַחַטָּאִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּנַפְשֹׁתָם, וְעָשׂוּ אֹתָם רִקֻּעֵי פַחִים צִפּוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ–כִּי-הִקְרִיבֻם לִפְנֵי-יְהוָה, וַיִּקְדָּשׁוּ; וְיִהְיוּ לְאוֹת, לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל… 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 לו – The pans of those who sinned at the cost of their lives, shall be flattened into plates as an overlay for the altar, for they brought them before the Lord, and have become sanctified. They shall be a reminder for the children of Israel … so that no outsider – not of the seed of Aaron – will 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. (17:3,5)

Rashi notes that the use of ‘by the hand of Moshe’ is – 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!

Inauguration

By On · Add Comment

In the topic of Kodshim – the section of Torah that addresses Beis HaMikdash protocol, sacrifices, priesthood and the like – there is a procedure for designating utensils and tools for service. This made them Hekdesh – separate, and not for personal use or benefit. Historically, the procedure was done with שמן המשחה – anointing oil. It is said that the flask of oil that Moshe first used never ran dry, and the same oil was used to coronate kings of Israel.

Before the Second Temple, however, this oil was lost, along with numerous other artefacts. The Gemara in Menachos queries how they brought new utensils into service if they hadn’t been properly designated by the oil, and concludes that their use as holy items intrinsically made them holy – “avodoson mechanchosom”.

This was necessitated by circumstance. But perhaps there is a source in the Torah.

Ahron, Korach and his followers, all men of great stature, were instructed to take brand new pans, put on the same incense recipe, and God would display preference. Ahron’s was accepted, and Korach and the lead revolutionaries fell into the earth, while the remaining revolutionaries were consumed by a fire. The pans used for the test fell to the ground. Korach’s property went down into the void with him, but the pans of the great men, who had righteous intentions, remained. Their memory was not destroyed, because they truly wanted all Jews to have equal access to the holiness of the service.

God recognised this:

אֱמֹר אֶל אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וְיָרֵם אֶת הַמַּחְתֹּת מִבֵּין הַשְּׂרֵפָה וְאֶת הָאֵשׁ זְרֵה הָלְאָה כִּי קָדֵשׁוּ. אֵת מַחְתּוֹת הַחַטָּאִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּנַפְשֹׁתָם וְעָשׂוּ אֹתָם רִקֻּעֵי פַחִים צִפּוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – Say to Elazar son of Ahron that he should pick up the pans from the burned area and throw the fire away, because they have become sanctified. The pans of these who sinned at the cost of their lives; they shall make them into flattened plates as an overlay for the altar (17:3)

Their use had sanctified them, excluding the possibility of anyone using them privately ever again. They were Hekdesh – personal benefit was prohibited, and they necessarily had to become part of the Mishkan as a result.

But all things considered, they didn’t really become part of the service – they weren’t used in a capacity of pans. Is the cover for the altar part of the service? Is this a Torah proof of the concept that using an item inaugurates it?

Probably not. But there is one pan which has been overlooked – Ahron’s. Korach, Dasan and Aviram’s plunged into the depths of the earth, and the 250 men’s became a cover for the altar, but what of Ahron’s?

Ahron’s was fine where it was and did not need instruction. It was in the Ohel Moed, right where it belonged – in the Mishkan – and became a part and parcel of the service. Conclusive.

Jumping to conclusions

By On · Add Comment

A puzzling event takes place, wherein people start prophesying in the main camp when the ‘spirit of Hashem rests on them’. Two men in particular continue after the others stop. A lad runs to Moshe to report that אלדד ומידד מתנבאים במחנה – “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp”. Yehoshua leapt up and advised Moshe to imprison them. Moshe retorted that he wished everyone were a prophet. End of episode.

What exactly is the issue? Moshe’s reaction seems like a no-brainer? What is wrong with prophecy? And why the extra word במחנה – where else would they be?

Rashi quotes the Gemara in Sanhedrin that re-frames what transpired. They foresaw that משה מת, יהושע מכניס – “Moshe will die and Yehoshua will take the lead into Israel,”. Yehoshua took great umbrage at their outrageous claim, and Moshe calmed him by pointing out the prophetic nature of their words.

But where does the Gemara get the idea that these were the words of Eldad and Medad?

The Maharil Diskin explains that a look at Moshe’s beginning hints at his downfall. When the abandoned Moshe is found by Pharaoh’s daughter, she names him Moshe – כי מן המים משיתהו – “for I drew him out of the water”. There is an emphasis on the definite article – “the water”. Naming him משה was contingent on משיתהו – it wasn’t specific to “the” water. In other words, she could well have said ממים משיתהו – “for I drew him from water,”. The letters נ and ה seem extra as a result.

Returning to Eldad and Medad, the Torah stresses their prophecy was במחנה – which can literally be rendered מח-נ-ה – “erase the נה”. Erase the נה from how Moshe was named, and it says ממים משיתהו – the word ממים has the initial letters of משה מת יהושע מכניס. The emphasis of במחנה perhaps explains how Chazal understood what they truly foresaw – re-framing our understanding of the episode.

Antagonists

By On · Add Comment

Avraham is blessed by Hashem after the Akeida:

כִּי בָרֵךְ אֲבָרֶכְךָ וְהַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה אֶת זַרְעֲךָ כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם וְכַחוֹל אֲשֶׁר עַל שְׂפַת הַיָּם וְיִרַשׁ זַרְעֲךָ אֵת שַׁעַר אֹיְבָיו – I will bless you, and I will greatly multiply your descendants, like the stars of the heavens, and like the sand on the seashore; and your descendants will inherit the cities of their enemies. (22:17)

Years later, Lavan blesses Rivka as she leaves to marry Yitzchak:

וַיְבָרֲכוּ אֶת רִבְקָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ לָהּ אֲחֹתֵנוּ אַתְּ הֲיִי לְאַלְפֵי רְבָבָה וְיִירַשׁ זַרְעֵךְ אֵת שַׁעַר שֹׂנְאָיו – And they blessed Rebecca and said to her, “Our sister, may you become thousands of myriads, and may your seed inherit the cities of those who hate you.” (24:60)

Rashi notes that Lavan is quoting the blessing received by Avraham, that she’d “inherit the cities” of her antagonists. But the quote is not identical.

What is the difference between אֹיְבָיו – enemies and שֹׂנְאָיו – those who hate you?

R’ Yehoshua Hartman points to where the two are used in conjunction to note the difference.

וַיְהִי בִּנְסֹעַ הָאָרֹן וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה קוּמָה ה’ וְיָפֻצוּ אֹיְבֶיךָ וְיָנֻסוּ מְשַׂנְאֶיךָ מִפָּנֶיךָ – So it was, whenever the Ark set out, Moses would say, “Arise, Lord, may Your enemies be scattered and may those who hate You flee from You.”

Rashi says that אויביך is enemies who are assembled for battle, and that וינסו משנאיך are pursuers. There is a distinction between an enemy and a pursuer. The word אויב is is similar in root to the word אוהב – to love. Both verbs are a result of closeness. A שונא however, is someone whose hatred transcends proximity, and will pursue. Eisav is referred to as שונא ישאל, and Yishmael is referred to as אויב ישראל, and circumstances on the ground reflect this – if a Jewish State had been set up in Uganda, there would be no problems with the Palestinians and neighbours, inheritors of the mantle of Yishmael – the situation is a result of being together.

Conversely, the Nazis had little to do with Jews worldwide, and yet their extermination campaign spanned the globe; truly the definition of רודף. But how does this insight correlate to the different terminology Rivka and Avraham were blessed with? R’ Hartman explains that at Mt. Moriah, the blessing was to Avraham, for Yitzchak, regarding his Yishmael – the אויב, therefore the pasuk says שַׁעַר אֹיְבָיו. In contrast, Rivka received a bracha that was for Yakov, regarding Esav, and Esav is a שונא, and therefore the pasuk says שַׁעַר שֹׂנְאָיו.

Deeper meanings

By On · Add Comment

A woman accused of adultery without evidence is put through an ordeal, wherein she is made to drink an odd concoction:

וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מַיִם קְדֹשִׁים בִּכְלִי חָרֶשׂ וּמִן הֶעָפָר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן יִקַּח הַכֹּהֵן וְנָתַן אֶל הַמָּיִם – The cohen shall take water in an earthen vessel, some earth from the Mishkan floor, the kohen shall take and put it into the water. (5:17)

וְכָתַב אֶת הָאָלֹת הָאֵלֶּה הַכֹּהֵן בַּסֵּפֶר וּמָחָה אֶל מֵי הַמָּרִים – Then the kohen shall write these curses (containing God’s name) on a scroll and erase it in the bitter water. (5:23)

To recap, the ingredients she is made to drink are water, earth, and the ink of God’s name. Is there any significance to these components?

The Mishna in Avos (3:1) says:

עקביה בן מהללאל אומר, הסתכל בשלושה דברים, ואין אתה בא לידי עבירה–דע מאיין באת, ולאיין אתה הולך, ולפני מי אתה עתיד ליתן דין וחשבון: מאיין באת, מליחה סרוחה. ולאיין אתה הולך, למקום רימה ותולעה. ולפני מי אתה עתיד ליתן דין וחשבון, לפני מלך מלכי המלכים הקדוש ברוך הוא – Akavia the son of Mahalalel would say: Reflect upon three things and you will not come to the hands of transgression. Know from where you came, where you are going, and before whom you are destined to give a judgement and accounting. You came from a putrid drop of liquid – correlating to water; where you are going – the grave, a place of earth; and before whom you are destined to give an accounting – before the supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He.

This clearly correlates to God’s name. The Torah is like a prism – different parts reflect different levels, layers and sections, but they contain the same blueprint.

Silence is golden

By On · Add Comment

The princes of each tribe are identified in the census of the nation. But the lists are not identical, when they probably ought to be:

לְגָד אֶלְיָסָף בֶּן דְּעוּאֵל – For Gad, Elyasaf, son of De’uel. (1:14)

וּמַטֵּה גָּד וְנָשִׂיא לִבְנֵי גָד אֶלְיָסָף בֶּן רְעוּאֵל – The prince of the children of Gad was Elyasaf, son of Re’uel. (2:14)

His fathers name has changed. Why?

It is important to note that the names of the Nesi’im are not listed for historicity – all are written for deep rooted reasons – what follows is just one.

The Chida explains that the tribe of Gad merited Moshe Rabeinu being buried in their portion, as they kept silent in the face of Reuven’s instructions. Reuven and Gad were encamped next to each other, and Reuven was “Rosh HaDegel” – leader of their formation, in charge of all camp movements. Reuven was a firstborn of Leah, as was Dan of Bilhah, and both tribes were “Rosh HaDegel”, whereas Gad, a firstborn Zilpah was overlooked. The tribe of Gad did not protest to Moshe that they weren’t given this privilege, and as such merited for Moshe buried in their portion.

This trait is characterised in the saying of R’ Shimon Ben Gamliel in Pirkei Avos לא מצאתי לגוף טוב אלא שתיקה – I’ve not found anything better for the body than silence. Self sacrifice in the interest of the greater good was prevalent in Moshe’s personality too. Moshe is occasionally referred to as ריע א-ל – friend of G-d – the name of the ancestor of the Nasi of Gad – רְעוּאֵל.

There is a story told about the Sdei Chemed, who was already known for his diligence and sharpness as a young man. There were two young men who attempted to get into the yeshiva he studied in, but were rejected. Feeling bitter, one of them hatched a plot to get back at the institution, by disgracing its star student, the Sdei Chemed. The Beis Midrash was prepared every morning by a local village lady. Knowing that the Sdei Chemed was there by sunrise every morning, the plotter offered her money to falsely accuse the Sdei Chemed of molesting her one morning. She flatly refused, insisting that she would lose her job and income. The plotter assured he’d hire her if she lost her job, to which she agreed. Word got out that the Sdei Chemed had “molested” this woman, and the whole town was in outrage and uproar.

Knowing the Sdei Chemed’s character, the Rosh Yeshiva was adamant and refused to believe her, and she lost her job, and would hear no more of the matter. Not days after the incident, the plotter who had paid off the woman passed away. She saw the young man had gotten his come-uppance, and he had died without getting her anew job. Tearful and contrite, she approached the Sdei Chemed on his way home and begged forgiveness, and told him the truth of what had happened, and asked that he go to the Rosh Yeshivah and try to get her old job back. The Sdei Chemed accepted her apology on the spot; “I have no problem helping you get your old job back, I’ll sort that out. But I forbid you from disgracing the memory of the deceased by mentioning his involvement!”

Chazal say המעביר על מדותיו, מעבירים לו כל פשעיו. Overlooking personal inconvenience to preserve what’s right is a phenomenally difficult thing to achieve, but its worth it.

Food for Peace

By On · Add Comment

Bechukosai contains God’s assurance of blessing for observing the Torah, and the inverse.

וְהִשִּׂיג לָכֶם דַּיִשׁ אֶת בָּצִיר וּבָצִיר יַשִּׂיג אֶת זָרַע וַאֲכַלְתֶּם לַחְמְכֶם לָשֹׂבַע וִישַׁבְתֶּם לָבֶטַח בְּאַרְצְכֶם. וְנָתַתִּי שָׁלוֹם בָּאָרֶץ וּשְׁכַבְתֶּם וְאֵין מַחֲרִיד וְהִשְׁבַּתִּי חַיָּה רָעָה מִן הָאָרֶץ וְחֶרֶב לֹא תַעֲבֹר בְּאַרְצְכֶם – Your threshing will last until the vintage, and the vintage will last until the sowing; you will eat your food to satisfaction, and you will live in security in your land. I will grant peace in the Land, and you will lie down with no one to frighten you; I will remove wild beasts from the Land, and no army will pass through your land. (26:5-6)

Rashi explains that a little bit of food will provide as much nourishment and satisfaction as a far larger around. Also, that since some might remark that quality consumption without peace is worthless, the bracha assures peace too.

This is hard to understand – why is the peace aspect consequential of the consumption aspect? Does it not seem more likely that they are each independently written in reference to the condition of אִם בְּחֻקֹּתַי תֵּלֵכוּ – “If you will go in my statutes…”? What is indicated by the blessing of peace being associated with the blessings of good consumption?

The Panim Yafos explains the difficulty. The Gemara in Brachos tells that the angels queried Hashem regarding a contradiction in the Torah:

אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יִשָּׂא פָנִים, וְלֹא יִקַּח שֹׁחַד – God… does not show favour and does not accept bribes. (Devarim 10:17)

Whereas it also says: יִשָּׂא ה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ, וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם – God will show you favour and grant you peace. (Bamidbor 6:26)

Hashem answered that He must show favour to the Jews, because He only commanded ואכלת, ושבעת, וברכת – “You should eat and be satisfied and bless…” (Devarim 8:10); but Jews are careful to say Birchas HaMazon after any significant quantity.

The Panim Yafos explains that this means is that by the letter of the law, we are obligated to bless only once satisfied, but by going beyond the call of duty, we earn a blessing of favour and peace that by law itself is not required or due. If the blessing of וַאֲכַלְתֶּם לַחְמְכֶם לָשֹׂבַע – “You shall eat your bread to satiety” means that a person would eat only a little, and it would still fill his stomach; they would now be obligated by law to say Birchas Hamazon, and wouldn’t haven’t done anything extra to earn the blessing of יִשָּׂא ה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ, וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם – that God will show favour and grant peace.

Therefore, the blessing of eating food to satiety obstructs the blessing of peace, therefore the Torah reassures that nevertheless we receive the blessing of peace; and it is in fact consequential, and not independent.

Kiddush on Yom Tov

By On · Add Comment

On the kiddush of the festivals, we say the following:

דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם מוֹעֲדֵי ה’ אֲשֶׁר תִּקְרְאוּ אֹתָם מִקְרָאֵי קֹדֶשׁ אֵלֶּה הֵם מוֹעֲדָי
שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תֵּעָשֶׂה מְלָאכָה וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ כָּל מְלָאכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ שַׁבָּת הִוא ה’ בְּכֹל מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם – Speak to the Children of Israel, and tell them these are the Festivals that they shall keep holy. For six days, work may be performed, but on the seventh day, it is a complete rest day, a holy occasion; you shall not perform any work. It is a Sabbath to the Lord in all your dwelling places. (23:2,3)

Why is Shabbos inserted into the middle of the Festivals?

The Vilna Gaon explains that on all the Festivals certain types of food related activity are permitted, whereas on Shabbos all melachos are forbidden. However on one Yom Tov no melacha is permitted – Yom Kippur – which is also known as שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן – the same terminology that the Torah uses for a regular Shabbos. Thus the pasuk can be rendered:

שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תֵּעָשֶׂה מְלָאכָה – On six days melacha is permitted – the first and last days of Pesach (2), one day Shavuos (3), one day Rosh Hashana (4), one day Succos (5), one day Shmini Atzeres (6).
וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ כָּל מְלָאכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ
However the seventh is the holy of holiest – no melacha is permitted – Yom Kippur!

Special occasions

By On · Add Comment

The Musaf prayer of the every festival delineates and substitutes for their respective sacrifices. At both Pesach & Succos the concept of offering the sacrifice on the Mizbeach is introduced before the mention of Mikra Kodesh – a Holy Convocation, wherein the day become holy – literally “holiday”.

Regarding the Pesach offering, the sacrifice is mentioned in Bamidbar 28:18, and Mikra Kodesh is mentioned in the following pasuk. On Succos, the offering is mentioned in Posuk 29:12 and the Mikra Kodesh follow. When it comes to Shavuos it mentions the offering first in 28:13 and later declared Mikra Kodesh. Why does the order change by Shavuos?

There is a big difference between the festivals of Pesach and Succos in contrast to Shavuos. By the Festivals, we have power over the times of the festivals – מקדש ישראל והזמנים. Not so with Shabbos, which is set in stone from Creation, whereby every 7th day is holy. Festivals are based on when Rosh Chodesh falls, which are entirely flexible, based on when the Sanhedrin decided to start the new month.

Pesach and Succos are based on Rosh Chodesh – the 15th day of the Rosh Chodesh proclaimed by the Sanhedrin is called Mikra Kodesh – because we have said when Rosh Chodesh is, the 15th day becomes set aside. To honour the day we bring an offering – the offering follows the holiness of the day.

However, Shavuos is not based on Rosh Chodesh Sivan at all; it is based on the 49 days of Sefira. The Torah says that the moment the counting is complete, an offering is brought. Distinct from Sukkos and Pesach, there is an obligation to bring an offering, and the day becomes holy as a result.

This explains the order events perfectly. By Pesach and Succos, Mikra Kodesh is based on Rosh Chodesh, and the offering is subsequent. But on Shavuos, the offering is the primary feature which is based on counting the Omer, and Mikra Kodesh is secondary.

The Ramban writes that Shavuos is to Pesach as Shemini Atzeres is to Succos, and the 49 days of sefira in the middle are like it’s Chol haMoed. Knowing that Shavuos is not made holy by the day itself, but by the counting of the days from Pesach, the meaning of this is clear.

Exemptions from being Respectful

By On · Add Comment

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!
Read Full Dvar Torah →

Torah as part of creation

By On · Add Comment

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

Rashi comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The Wicked Son

By On · Add Comment

In the Haggada, the Rasha asks a question, and the father rebukes him, and the Haggada remarks that the father should הקהה את שניו – knock out his teeth – and rebuke him that אלו היה שם לא היה נגאל – if he had been in Egypt at the time, he would not have been redeemed.

What do his teeth and potential non-redemption from Egypt have to with each other, as part of a cogent reply?

R’ Shlomo Freshwater explains that prior to Matan Torah, people who were evil stayed that way – Yishmael, Esav, all the Jews who died during the 9th plague. Before Matan Torah, the only people God would choose to save were the people who chose God.

After Matan Torah, this changed – Hashem had chosen us unconditionally! This enabled everyone to be saved – even if they weren’t righteous – and any and everyone could do teshuva, as opposed to falling by the wayside like Yishmael, Esav etc.

So what the father tells his son is that if he had been in Egypt, he simply would not have had the merit to be redeemed. But after Matan Torah, anyone can do teshuva – even a Rasha! But a puzzle remains – we just have to “knock out his teeth” – what does this mean?

רשע is gematria 570. If we “knock out” שניו – gematria 366 – we are left with 204. What is gematria 204?

צדיק!!

The 4 sons are meant to be allegorical, but clearly this section of the Haggada is an inpirational piece about teshuva – no matter what we have done, we can always make amends, we just need to want it and remove the negativity.

Embittered Lives

By On · Add Comment

Hashem told Avraham that his children would be enslaved in a land not their own for 400 years. Yet we find that they left after just 210 years of actual enslavement. Where are the missing 190 years?

There is an answer suggested that Egypt treated the Jews much worse than they should have, so as we say in ברוך המקום during Seder night:

ש”הקבה חשב את הקץ – Hashem calculated the end. What “end” is this talking about? Hashem hastened the גאולה and reckoned off קץ – 190 (from 400)- leaving us with 210.

In the Haggada we read how וַיְמָרְרוּ אֶת חַיֵּיהֶם – They embittered their lives (Shemos 1:1)

The Vilna Gaon points out how this is very subtly hinted to by the notes. The notes on וַיְמָרְרוּ אֶת חַיֵּיהֶם are קדמא ואזלא, which literally means “they got up and went”. Additionally, the numerical value of this is 190! They were over-embittered to a value of 190, so they got up and went!

R’ Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld points out that the redemption from Egypt was only completed 7 days after it began, when the Red Sea parted and when Paroh and his army were destroyed, so where is this reflected in historical events?

He answers that the 400 years were counted from Yitzchak’s birth. The extra week is found at his circumcision. Yitzchak was only circumcised 7 days after his birth – so only became Jewish then, and only 400 years from then were the Jews genuinely free.

Addition

By On · Add Comment

The Pasuk says:

וְשִׁלַּם אֹתוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וַחֲמִשִׁתָיו יֹסֵף עָלָיו – ….he shall pay its main, adding its fifths to it… (5:24)

Chazal teach us that all expenses are calculated and apportioned from Rosh Hashanah to Rosh Hashanah, with the the exceptions of monies allocated for: – Shabbos, –Yom Tov, –teaching Torah to one’s children, and the Medrash Rabbah adds Rosh Chodesh to the list as well.

The Tzemach Tzvi says that this is alluded to in this Pasuk.  וְשִׁלַּם אֹתוֹ- all his money, whatever he pays and whatever he earns, is earmarked בְּרֹאשׁוֹ – on Rosh Hashanah – וַחֲמִשִׁתָיו יֹסֵף עָלָיו – and his fifths will be added to him. What are these חֲמִשִׁתָיו of which which we speak? חוץ מהוצאות שבת, תורה, יו”ט, ור”ח – with the exception of expenses for Shabbos, Torah, Yom Tov and Rosh Chodesh. These will be יֹסֵף עָלָיו – added to him as the year goes on, subject to his actions.

(This is my addition, feel free to disagree)

It is worth pointing out that the וְ of ור”ח is used as part of the initials, rather than the ר of Rosh chodesh, and the end result is that the initials are a perfect reflection of the way (diyuk) the Medrash Rabba explained this concept, that Rosh Chodesh too is part of the list.

(end of my addition)

There is a story told about the Pnei Menachem, who once sent his son to school with an envelope for his Rebbe. The Rebbe refused to accept the envelope, as he did not feel he could take money from the Pnei Menachem. A few nights later, the Pnei Menachem called up his son’s Rebbe, and said that he was obliged to accept it, as זה נהנה וזה לא חסר , (literally, this one gains, and the other does not lose) a mechanism that enables someone to use something that the owner is not using and had no use for, for free. He explained with this Dvar Torah that this money was not normal money and could come into reckoning, as money spent on teaching your son Torah is not included in your “annual salary”. Presumably, the Rebbe accepted the envelope.

 

Shabbos Kodesh

By On · Add Comment

A fantastic piece from the Meshech Chochma, R’ Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (bigraphy here).

The Pasuk says: וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הִוא לָכֶם מְחַלְלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת כִּי כָּל הָעֹשֶׂה בָהּ מְלָאכָה וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִקֶּרֶב עַמֶּיהָ – Keep the Sabbath, for it is a sacred thing for you. Those who desecrate it shall be put to death, for whoever performs work on it, that soul will be cut off from the midst of its people. (31:14)

The concept of being put to death for breaking Shabbos is odd from a logical perspective – one is commanded to break Shabbos to save another Jew’s life, and even in a case where there is only a possibility of there being a danger to someone, one is still commanded to break Shabbos. So it is clear that a human life is more precious than Shabbos, but this being the case, how can we put someone to death who breaks it? Isn’t this counter-intuitive?

R’ Meir Simcha explains the answer beautifully. Shabbos is less sacred than a Jew, as without a Jew observing Shabbos, Shabbos essentially isn’t there. As such, everything about Shabbos, including the very purpose of Creation, is solely remembered by a Jew who observes it, and this means that Shabbos is “indebted” to the Jew, and we therefore forego it to save a Jew’s life.

Not so by someone who desecrates Shabbos. Such a person cuts himself off from the the connection to Hashem and the Torah, and it is better for this person to die and get atonement like that than for him to survive and continue in his ways.

So this is what the Pasuk is telling us: “וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הִוא לָכֶם – Keep the Sabbath, for it is a sacred thing for you“, ie it is vitally important for Jews to honour and observe Shabbos, because if they don’t, who will? Therefore ” מְחַלְלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת - Those who desecrate it shall be put to death”, because someone who desecrates it has lowered themselves to below the level of Shabbos, the sign Hashem gave us. “כִּי כָּל הָעֹשֶׂה בָהּ מְלָאכָה וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִקֶּרֶב עַמֶּיהָ - for whoever performs work on it, that soul will be cut off from the midst of its people” – this person has lowered himself beneath Shabbos by desecrating it, and has therefore alienated himself from what made his people special – that their lives were holier than Shabbos, by keeping it. Only a person who cuts himself off by desecrating Shabbos is suitable to be put to death in the name of Shabbos, so we see that it is not counter intuitive at all to put someone to death in the name of Shabbos.

This shows the level of detail in the Pasuk, that the Torah explains the mechanics of why someone is put to death for breaking Shabbos.

Geshmack!

Tribal lands

By On · Add Comment

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.

What is money for?

By On · Add Comment

In the part of the Parsha that discusses the way one should treat others, the monetary law mentioned explains that one must take care of the needy. The pasuk (22:24) says אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי אֶת הֶעָנִי עִמָּךְ…… – When you lend money to My people, to the poor person with you….

There is a slight difficulty in interpreting the word עִמָּךְ - with you – in the context.

The Alshich explains that money is not ours, it is merely deposited with us by G-d. We are given the privilege of having money in order to share it with people who are less fortunate. He explains that the pasuk is telling us that אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי – when we lend money – אֶת הֶעָנִי עִמָּךְ - it belongs to the poor, it just happens to be with you. This is a lesson we can certainly take on board, that nothing is really “ours”, and we should therefore take great responsibility and care of it.

The Vilna Gaon explains that the pasuk is alluding to a standard monetary law: loans are done before witnesses to prevent unscrupulous activity, whereas charity is done in solitude, and no-one needs to know. אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה – When you lend money - אֶת עַמִּי – do so before My people – אֶת הֶעָנִי – the poor however – עִמָּךְ - do it alone. This is certainly the correct way to give charity – in secret.

The Kli Yakar explains that when a person gives charity or a charitable loan, all good deeds and benefits resultant from it are credited to the person who financed the good deeds and actions. אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי אֶת הֶעָנִי - If you lend/give money to my people or the needy – עִמָּךְ (all the merits that result) are with you too!

We can certainly incorporate all these ideas when we give charity, that the money is not ours to begin with, that we should do it in secret, and that the merit of charity does not stop once you’ve given it, you still receive all resultant merits performed as a result of your kindness.

Night-night!

By On · Add Comment

וַיָּקָם פַּרְעֹה לַיְלָה, הוּא וְכָל-עֲבָדָיו וְכָל-מִצְרַיִם, וַתְּהִי צְעָקָה גְדֹלָה, בְּמִצְרָיִם: כִּי-אֵין בַּיִת, אֲשֶׁר אֵין-שָׁם מֵת. – 30 – And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.

וַיִּקְרָא לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְאַהֲרֹן לַיְלָה, וַיֹּאמֶר קוּמוּ צְּאוּ מִתּוֹךְ עַמִּי–גַּם-אַתֶּם, גַּם-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וּלְכוּ עִבְדוּ אֶת-ה’, כְּדַבֶּרְכֶם - And he called for Moses and Aaron by night and said: ‘Rise up, get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve the Lord, as ye have said.
(12:30-31)

As made abundantly clear by the bold letters, there is a repetition of the time the sequence of events that took place in light of the imminent arrival of the 10th plague. If Paroh only wanted to tell them to “rise up and go forth from among my people”, then there was no need to repeat that this occurred at night, as obviously it is established from the previous Pasuk that this is the case. So why the repetition?

An intriguing answer by the Griz, R’ Yitzchak Ze’ev Soloveitchik (biography here) and the Ohr Hachayim, R’ Chaim ibn Attar (biography here) that shows how the various Psukim link.

The previous time that Paroh had met Moshe and Ahron, their meeting did not go well. It (10:28) concluded וַיֹּאמֶר-לוֹ פַרְעֹה, לֵךְ מֵעָלָי; הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ, אַל-תֹּסֶף רְאוֹת פָּנַי–כִּי בְּיוֹם רְאֹתְךָ פָנַי, תָּמוּת - Pharaoh said to him, “Go away from me! Beware! You shall no longer see my face, for on the day that you see my face, you shall die!”‘ Pretty bad meeting, but it got worse. After his final prophecy after this event, the Pasuk (11:8) says וַיֵּצֵא מֵעִם-פַּרְעֹה, בָּחֳרִי-אָף “And he went out from Pharaoh in hot anger.” In Zevachim 102a Resh Lakish explains that this means that Moshe slapped Paroh.

With their prior meeting fresh in his mind Moshe would understandably have been loathe to see Paroh, “for on the day that you see my face, you shall die”. If they hear him calling them, they weren’t going to come running.

Paroh understood this, and shouted “לַיְלָה“!! “It’s night-time!”. His threat had been “for on the day that you see my face, you shall die”, and perhaps was suggesting that he did not want to see them by day, but by night it was different.

So to answer our original question of why לַיְלָה is repeated, the answer is, it isn’t! If we add punctuation:

“!וַיִּקְרָא לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְאַהֲרֹן “לַיְלָה - And he called Moshe and Ahron saying “It’s nighttime!”- {my threat isn’t relevant now!}

So in fact, the second time isn’t a description of the setting, it is actually what he said!

Me too!

By On · Add Comment

A wonderful idea from the Sifsei Cohen, a student of the Arizal.

After Hashem sends down the hail that destroyed all the vegetation of Egypt, Paroh calls for Moshe and Ahron and says “ה’ הַצַּדִּיק וַאֲנִי וְעַמִּי הָרְשָׁעִים” This is generally translated as– Hashem is righteous, וַאֲנִי וְעַמִּי הָרְשָׁעִים – and I and my people are wicked. But this pasuk can be split up in a different way, which results in a change in its meaning; !ה’ הַצַּדִּיק וַאֲנִי -וְעַמִּי הָרְשָׁעִים – Hashem is righteous – as am I! וְעַמִּי הָרְשָׁעִים – and it is my people who are wicked!” . Paroh is faking innocence – and attempting to side with Hashem, and claims it is his people whom are wicked, not he!

In addition, if we take out וַאֲנִי, the roshei teivos (initials) of the remaining four words spell Hashem’s 4 letter name. The וַאֲנִי is in the center of this; it is interrupting the shem Hashem. He is claiming parity with G-d, and within G-d’s Name itself!

Paroh proceeded, and told Moshe that he will allow the Jews to go, so Hashem stopped the hail, yet Parah did not keep his word, and did not allow them to leave. Hashem says to Moshe in the first pasuk of next week’s sedra “בֹּא אֶל פַּרְעֹה כִּי אֲנִי הִכְבַּדְתִּי אֶת לִבּוֹ וְאֶת לֵב עֲבָדָיו לְמַעַן שִׁתִי אֹתֹתַי אֵלֶּה בְּקִרְבּוֹ - The Lord said to Moses: “Come to Paroh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, in order that I may place these signs of Mine in his midst” (10:1).

There is a problem with this that is not evident from a translation. Why does Hashem say כִּי אֲנִי הִכְבַּדְתִּי? The אֲנִי is superfluous , as הִכְבַּדְתִּי is in the first person, so there must be more to it than meets the eye. Literally, כִּי אֲנִי הִכְבַּדְתִּי means because of אֲנִי I have hardened – Hashem is saying that it is because of Paroh’s arrogance and usage of the word אֲנִי in 9:27 that הִכְבַּדְתִּי – I have hardened his heart so that שִׁתִי אֹתֹתַי אֵלֶּה בְּקִרְבּוֹ. Except, אֹתֹתַי can mean My signs or My letters. Hashem hardened Pharoah’s heart so that he can see ‘My letters’ in his midst. Which letters are we talking about? The letters that make up the name of Hashem which Pharoah had previously attempted to infiltrate!

So in essence, “because of אֲנִי, I have hardened their hearts to show my letters {ie G-d’s name, with all His power,} and showing it in their midst”.

This only goes to show how brilliant the Torah is, that it has so many levels of interpretation by just reading the words again.

Cross posted on http://thelivingtorahweekly.blogspot.com/

Why Moshe?

By On · Add Comment

Shemos starts by explaining how Yakov’s children thrived in Egypt, and only once the brothers had died, did the slavery begin. It then continues with the process of how the enslavement began.

Before Moshe is introduced, the Torah tells us:

וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֵוִי – A man of the house of Levi went…

This man is Amram, Moshe’s father, and the leader of the Jews at the time. But why doesn’t the Torah start with the part that matters; Hashem contacting Moshe the shepherd? Would it not make more sense to say, “A shepherd of the house of Levi, called Moshe…”?

From the Torah’s description of Moshe’s early life, perhaps there is a subtle description of his nature and personality, that directly led to his selection as being suitable to lead the Jews out of Egypt.

When Moshe is first found by Batya, she says “ וַתִּרְאֵהוּ אֶת הַיֶּלֶד - and she saw him the child“, but then the next words are “וְהִנֵּה נַעַר בֹּכֶה – and behold, he was a weeping lad“. He went from being a baby to a lad (a term to describe someone older). Various commentators note that it was a mature cry i.e. a cry for others, his suffering brethren, that subsequently led her to conclude “ מִיַּלְדֵי הָעִבְרִים זֶה- “This is one of the children of the Hebrews.” (2:1)

We must note that it is clear that although he grew up in an Egyptian palace, and Batya was like a mother to him, he knew that he was a Jew, as we are told ” וַיְהִי בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וַיִּגְדַּל מֹשֶׁה וַיֵּצֵא אֶל אֶחָיו וַיַּרְא בְּסִבְלֹתָם וַיַּרְא אִישׁ מִצְרִי מַכֶּה אִישׁ עִבְרִי מֵאֶחָיו – Now it came to pass in those days that Moshe grew up and went out to his brothers and looked at their burdens, and he saw an Egyptian man striking a Hebrew man of his brothers“ (2:11). Rashi points out that looking at their burdens distressed him as it was his own brothers suffering, and yet he was a prince of Egypt!

This undoubtedly placed him in turmoil. Here he was, an Egyptian prince, yet he empathised with Hebrew slaves, who were his brothers. He was neither an Egyptian, nor a Jew.

We are told how he noticed his brothers suffering, and intervened when he saw a Jew being abused:

וַיִּפֶן כֹּה וָכֹה וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין אִישׁ וַיַּךְ אֶת הַמִּצְרִי וַיִּטְמְנֵהוּ בַּחוֹל – He searched this way and that way, and he saw that there was no man; so he struck the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.” (2:12).

He made the decision to stand with his brothers, and murdered an Egyptian, which inevitably meant that he had cut himself off from those that had nurtured him.

R’ Nathan Lopez Cardozo explains how this pasuk describes the conflict Moshe had. “Moshe searched (within himself), this way? (Egyptian?); that way? (or Jew?) and saw there was no (complete) man (i.e. he was neither). So he struck the Egyptian (within himself) and hid him in the sand.”

Whether or not he actually killed an Egyptian police officer, he chose to side with the Jews, thereby alienating Egyptian society culture within him, as he would be rejected by them (for siding with the Jews and/or for murdering a police officer)!

The point we can draw from this is that Moshe’s past made him into who he was. He was a product of Egypt, and he knew Egypt. In a way, he was Egypt! And he made the choice to become a Jew and severed his ties with Egypt, and this choice made him who he was. It is telling that G-d only speaks to Moshe after these events unfold.

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.

Vayigash – A New Approach

By On · Add Comment

ויגש אליו יהודה ויאמר בי אדני – And Yehudah approached him and said, ‘please my master…’ (44:18)

Another insight into the brilliance of the ta’amei hamikra (cantorial notes): The Vilna Gaon points out that if you look at the notes on these words, you’ll see something astonishing – kadma ve’azla, Revi’i, Zarka, Munach and Segol. But what is so amazing about this? Surely these are standard notes in a pretty standard format?

If you look back to Parshas Miketz (43:9), Yehudah guarantees Binyamin’s safe return by saying, ‘If I don’t bring him back to you and place him before you, then…וחטאתי לך כל הימים – I will be sinning against you all the days‘. The Midrash explains this last phrase to be referring to Olam Haba.

Now let’s have another look at our notes and we will get an insight into what the Vilna Gaon was referring to – firstly, kadma ve’azla, Revi’i – Yehudah, the fourth son (revi’i) went and stepped forward (קדם ואזל) to confront Yosef. Surely Reuven should have been the one to step forward – why Yehudah?
Because he threw himself into a situation where he would be ‘rested from being parted from the Am segula, in Olam Haba – (זרק את עצמו מלנוח בתוך עם סגולה). This is Zarka, Munach and Segol – and Yehudah is prepared to give up everything for his brother.

Geshmack!

Postscript: I do intend at some point, to explain my comment from a previous post, where I suggested that the ta’amei hamikra might be the genius of Chazal, as opposed to the widely accepted view (from the Gemara) that they are Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai…

Random searches?

By On · Add Comment

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!

Cow Spirituality. What?

By On · Add Comment

וְהִנֵּה מִן הַיְאֹר עֹלֹת שֶׁבַע פָּרוֹת יְפוֹת מַרְאֶה וּבְרִיאֹת בָּשָׂר וַתִּרְעֶינָה בָּאָחוּ – And behold, from the Nile were coming up seven cows, of handsome appearance and robust flesh, and they pastured in the marshland. (41:2)

(Rashi)
יפות מראה: סימן הוא לימי שובע, שהבריות נראות יפות זו לזו, שאין עין בריה צרה בחברתה – of handsome appearance: This was a symbol of the days of plenty, when creatures appear handsome to one another, for no one envies his fellow. — [from Gen. Rabbah 89:4]

This describes Pharaoh’s dream as he sees it. But why does Rashi interpret the dream, isn’t Yosef about to do that, and differently? Where did Gen. Rabba (source) get this from?

It is interesting to note that the words יְפוֹת מַרְאֶה are used, which we translated as having “handsome appearance”. This is an imprecise translation. If we look to 29:17, “וְעֵינֵי לֵאָה רַכּוֹת וְרָחֵל הָיְתָה יְפַת תֹּאַר וִיפַת מַרְאֶה – Leah’s eyes were tender, but Rachel had beautiful features and a beautiful complexion.” What is the difference between תֹּאַר and מַרְאֶה? Rashi explains that תאר: הוא צורת הפרצוף לשון (ישעיה מד יג) יתארהו בשרד, קונפ”ס בלע”ז [מחוגה]: – features: That is the form of the countenance, an expression similar to (Isa. 44: 13)“he fixes it (יְתָאִרֵהוּ) with planes (בַשֶׂרֶד) ,” conpas in Old French, outline, shape.

So תֹּאַר is a physical beauty. But what is מַרְאֶה ?
מראה: הוא זיו קלסתר – complexion: That is the shine of the countenance.

So מַרְאֶה is more of a spiritual aura/radiant beauty. However, when Pharaoh dreamed he dreamed of יְפוֹת מַרְאֶה cows, spiritually beautifully cows. If the idea of spiritual cows sound absurd to you, you’re not alone: so did Pharaoh! When he recounted his dream to Yosef (41:18), he changed what he saw to וִיפֹת תֹּאַר, physically beautiful cows, rather than what he’d seen, יפות מראה spiritually radiant cows!

But Rashi and Gen. Rabba that we quoted (“when creatures appear handsome to one another, for no one envies his fellow”) worked out what the dream was when we knew that really they’d been spiritually beautiful. Cows don’t have spirits: people do. So clearly, the cows are metaphors for people. This is also how Pharaoh knew that Yosef’s interpretation was right, as he saw that this interpretation accurately describes the nature of people, something he’d seen in his dreams and failed to recount.

But we can answer our original question: why is Rashi interpreting the dream? So the answer is, he isn’t! He’s pointing out to us that יְפוֹת מַרְאֶה should not theoretically be there, and the fact it is shows that there was more than meets the eye, he is telling us to question this.

This Dvar Torah should be a Zchus for the Neshama of Rut Nechama bat Noam Shlomo (v’Revital)

Geshmack!

What Goes Around Comes Around

By On · Add Comment

Lavan caught up with Yakov after he and his family escaped Lavan’s ranch, and they agreed a pact to not harm each other. The pact was to have a signature:

….עֵד הַגַּל הַזֶּה – This pile of stones shall bear witness… (31:52)

The Midrash adds that Yaakov also thrust a sword into the wall, as a second witness. The Da’as Zkeinim points out that Bilam ben Be’or’s downfall was through these two, a wall and a sword. What does Bilam have to do with Yakov and Lavan’s agreement?

There is a Gemara in Sanhedrin that the figure called Be’or is in fact the same person as Lavan, and Kushan Reshasaim (a wicked king in Judges). Simply put, Bilam was Lavan’s son.

Bilam was injured by a wall, and died by the sword, as it says in Bamidbar:

וַתִּלְחַץ אֶת-רֶגֶל בִּלְעָם, אֶל-הַקִּיר – his foot was crushed against the wall. (22:25)

וְאֵת בִּלְעָם בֶּן-בְּעוֹר, הָרְגוּ בֶּחָרֶב – also Bilam son of Be’or was slain by the sword. (31:8)

There is a story told by the Gemara in Taanis that a boy found a girl who’d tripped into a pit, and agreed to rescue her on the condition that they marry. She consented, and they made the pit and a nearby animal witnesses. They went their separate ways, and years later he married another woman, who bore him two sons. But one died by falling into a pit, and another was killed by an animal. His wife asked lamented the bizarre misfortunes that had befallen them, and he recalled the vow and his witnesses. His wife told him to divorce her and find the 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.

When Yakov entered Lavan’s house, Lavan clearly had no sons, as otherwise he would not send his daughters to tend the sheep, a man’s job. Yet by Yakov’s departure, he has since had sons: וַיִּשְׁמַע, אֶת-דִּבְרֵי בְנֵי-לָבָן לֵאמֹר – he listened to Lavan’s sons… (31:1). Lavan only had daughters until Yakov arrived. Years later, Bilam, his own son, broke the pact that nothing befall his daughters.

The witnesses to the pact upheld it, and he was crippled by a wall, and killed by the sword. These are a fulfillment of the law that when witnesses give key testimony that sentence someone to death that יַד הָעֵדִים תִּהְיֶה בּוֹ בָרִאשֹׁנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ – The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death.

Why did G-d “relent” to Isaac and Rivka’s prayers?

By On · Add Comment

When it was clear that they would be unable to have children, Isaac and Rivka prayed, and the Pasuk (21:25) says:

“וַיֶּעְתַּר יִצְחָק לַיהוָה לְנֹכַח אִשְׁתּוֹ, כִּי עֲקָרָה הִו וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה – And Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and He relented to him”.

A gentleman once told R’ Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld a short Dvar Torah on this. Why does the Pasuk say “and He relented to him”? Does this not seem an odd way of saying that G-d heard and heeded his prayer?

The gentleman explained that there is a tradition that all the Patriarchs were meant to live until the age of 180. Yet Avraham died aged 175 (25:2). We can work this out: Avraham was 99 when he circumcised himself, 100 at Isaac’s birth, 137 at the Akeida, at which point Isaac was obviously 37. Isaac was 40 at his marriage, and 60 at the birth of Yaakov and Esau (25:26), making Avraham 160 at their birth. Esau first murdered aged 15, making Avraham 175. There is a Rashi that Avraham would live to see Yishmael repent (25:9), but die before Esau killed someone for the first time (25:30). If he died aged 175, where are the missing 5 years?

The gentleman said to R’ Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld that “וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה” is the answer. There was never any doubt that Isaac would have children; his father had been promised “nations”. Certainly then Isaac would have children, and Rivka would certainly be their mother as she was the one deemed worthy, as evidenced by the miracles Eliezer witnessed. “וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה” can be interpreted to mean that G-d did not want to give them children just yet, but simply wanted them to wait a bit longer so Avraham would not live to see his grandson become a murderer.

When R’ Yosef Chaim heard this, he jumped up and exclaimed that this was certainly true, because the numerical value of “וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה” is 748 (686+36+26), the same Gematria as חמש שנים – five years – 748, which represents G-d relenting to their prayers to have children – at the expense of חמש שנים from Avraham Avinu’s life.

R’ Yosef Chaim also said that we say “רְצוֹן-יְרֵאָיו יַעֲשֶׂה; וְאֶת-שַׁוְעָתָם יִשְׁמַע, וְיוֹשִׁיעֵם – He will fulfill the desire of them that fear Him; He also will hear their cry, and will save them”. Isn’t this in the wrong order? Doesn’t Hashem fulfill their desires to placate their cries? R’ Yosef Chaim explains that the prayers of a devout person are able to change what is meant to happen to people, which explains fulfilling their desires. But people don’t know what’s best for them, and sometimes suffer as a consequence of getting what they desire. The pasuk teaches that Hashem will even repair this later cry of suffering that is of their own doing.

What did Avraham buy?

By On · Add Comment

The Pasuk describes how Avraham purchased the land from Ephron:

” וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָהָם, אֶל-עֶפְרוֹן, וַיִּשְׁקֹל אַבְרָהָם לְעֶפְרֹן, אֶת-הַכֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר “בְּאָזְנֵי בְנֵי-חֵת–אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף, עֹבֵר לַסֹּחֵר -” And Abraham listened to Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the hearing of the children of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant.” (Gen. 23:16)

How much did he get for 400 shekels? Why are we told about all the specifics in the story, such as the price/negotiations, surely they don’t really matter? You’ll have to bear with me, as this answer is all literally over the place.

We will go on a tangent for a second, to Kesubos 17, where we are told that since the Torah was given to 600,000 adult men, this is the appropriate amount of people to have at a funeral. The Vilna Gaon proves that the land Avraham bought has this capacity.

First, I need to prove to you how much a se’ah is. A se’ah is a measurement of land size. The perimeter of the Mishkan courtyard was 100×50 amos (cubits – roughly 60 centimetres). It is known sometimes as “Beis Se’asayim”, or 2 se’ah. The Mishkan was 100×50. A se’ah is therefore half of this, 50×50 amos. The amount of amos in a se’ah is 50×50, = 2500 square amos.

I now need to explain how much a kur is. It is also a meausrement of land, and is 30 times the size of a se’ah. 30×2500 amos = 1 kur = 75,000 square amos.

In Succah 7 the Gemara informs us that the amount of space a person occupies will standing is 1 square ama. If we are going to say that Avraham purchased land that could hold 600,000 people, it would need to be at least 600,000 square amos.

There is a Gemara in Erchin 25, that explains that when people want to retract donations to the Temple fund (hekdesh), they must pay a fee to redeem the item. The price set by the Gemara for land donations is 50 shkalim per kur.

Avrhaham Avinu spent 400 shkalim, which at the Gemara’s price mean he bought 8 kur of land from Efron. We said that a kur is 75,000 square amos. 8 kur = 8×75,000 amos = 600,000 square amos.

This proves there was enough room on the land for 600,000 people to attend the funeral in keeping with the Gemara, but moreover, it further shows there is not a spare word in the Torah, the details of the narrative including the price were not written purely for the story’s sake.

(This also proves how lucky we are to have the decimal system! :) )

Breaking the chain

By On · Add Comment

There are just four appearances of a שלשלת (Shalsheles), a rare cantor’s note in the entire Chumash– in Lech Lecha 19:16 – in Chayei Sarah– 24:12, in Vayeshev 39:8 and in Tzav 8:23. The Shalsheles is a tremendous literary device

In Chayei Sarah, we find that Eliezer, Avraham’s most trusted servant, is charged with finding a wife for Yitzchak. He is not allowed to take a wife from Canaan. The Midrash tells us that Eliezer had a daughter and it could have been that he might ‘just not have found’ a suitable wife outside Canaan. This could have left the path open for his daughter. Nevertheless, Eliezer overcomes any personal attachments and prays that Hashem heed his master’s request. This triumph over his own desires is signified by the Shalsheles on the word ויאמר – the opening word of his prayer.

In Vayeshev we see the tremendous personal struggle that Joseph had to overcome. Indeed, by running out and leaving his coat behind in the hands of his master’s wife, he got himself into more trouble in some ways. But on a personal level, he could not afford to be in the house a moment longer, refusing his master’s wife’s advances. That very word – וימאן (and he refused), has a שלשלת on it, denoting the breaking of his own potential negative desires.

As for the final appearance – in Tzav – the Midrash tells us that Moshe Rabbenu was the Kohen Gadol until the end of the Miluim, the first week of the Mishkan’s use, at which point he had to hand over the position to his brother Aharon (according to various sources, because he had argued at the burning bush). It must have been hard for him. Yet he overcame any personal desires and handed over the baton wholeheartedly. His final act as High Priest was וישחט…no surprises about the musical note on this word, at the point of his breaking with his own emotion.

Looking back at Lech Lecha, we see from Rashi that the Torah tells us that the angels had to grab hold of Lot because he was tarrying… leaving behind all his possessions. The first word of the Pasuk, which means he hesitated, contains a שלשלת – he overcame his physical desire for wealth and grabbed reality with both hands… literally.

It is no accident that Shalsheles actually means a chain. Furthermore, if you listen to its sound, it is elongated (3x a פזר – Pazer, another musical note – which is long already), yet comes to an abrupt end, thus breaking the chain. The person it is used about has transcended. See how wise Chazal are, even when ascribing the musical notes to the words.

Drinking Problems

By On · Add Comment

When Eliezer enters Aram, searching for a bride for his master’s son, he is thirsty, and devises a test to see if a prospective girl is suitable. Rivka offers him a drink, but also to his camels, meeting the terms of his test:

ותאמר שתה אדני ותמהר ותורד כדה על ידה ותשקהו. ותכל להשקותו ותאמר גם לגמליך אשאב עד אם כלו לשתות – She said, ‘Have a drink, sir!’ and quickly lowered her jug to her hand and gave him a drink. When she finished giving him to drink, she said, ‘I’ll also draw water for your camels, until they have finished drinking.’ (24:18, 19)

Parenthetically, Devarim 11:15 says, ונתתי עשב בשדך לבהמתך ואכלת ושבעת– “I shall provide grass in your field for your cattle, and you will eat, and you will be satisfied.” The Gemara in Brachos learns from the fact that the Torah addresses animal concerns before human, that one must feed their animals before having a meal.

But what about drinking?

The Sefer Chassidim learns from Rivka’s kindness that humans come first – the Torah records the story in a very deliberate way, to delineate the extent of her kindness as a paradigm for the reader. She gave Eliezer to drink, and only afterwards the camels; presumably then, this is conduct we are meant to emulate.

The Shulchan Aruch says that if a person has already made a bracha on food, and before beginning to eat, says something that is of the interests of the meal, it is not an interruption per se, and one would not need to make a new bracha. One of the examples the Shulchan Aruch gives is that one asks someone else to feed his animals. This too is considered part of the requirements for his own meal, as his own meal is not allowed to begin until they are fed, as the Gemara says one must feed their animals before sitting down to eat.

The Magen Avraham contrasts this with drinking. If someone asked a friend to give his animals a drink, one might have to make a new bracha, as it was interrupted. This is based on the Sefer Chassidim’s observation of Rivka’s kindness, that since humans come before animals regarding drinking, it would not be in the interests of the meal underway to discuss giving animals a drink first.

The Yad Ephraim points out theat there may be a better proof to that regarding drinking humans come before animals, from when Moshe drew water from the rock for the Jews in the desert:

והוצאת להם מים מן הסלע והשקית את העדה ואת בעירם – You shall bring forth for them water from the rock, and give drink to the assembly and to their animals. (20:8)

This proof is presumed better since it was happened after Sinai.

The Ohr HaChaim rejects both instances, since both are cases where the people were particularly thirsty. Under such circumstances, it is obvious that the humans would quench their thirst before addressing their animals needs. However, had they been, under normal circumstances there is no difference between food and drink; animals come first.

Others are bothered with the Sefer Chassidim’s halacha for a simpler reason. How can we learn laws regarding one’s conduct towards their animals from Rivka, when the animals concerned didn’t belong to her?

It is obvious that the halacha to take care of animals first is only if belong to you. There is no notion that one would have to feed every stray cat on the block before sitting down for lunch. So Rivka did not actually have a duty to give the camels to drink, and naturally, she gave Eliezer first. And as part of her great altruistic characteristics, she gave the camels too, meeting the conditions of his test. But how is this story a proof for who drinks first between man and animal?

The Chasam Sofer explains that the halacha is not like the Sefer Chassidim, and animals come first for food and drink. He explains Rivka’s actions based on the Gemara Bava Metzia, that one can be transfer a small gift verbally just by saying so. There is no requirement for a physical handover for the transfer to take effect. That is why she said, “Drink, my lord,” and quickly gave him to drink even before mentioning giving to camels to drink. She had been transferred just enough water to him to quench his own thirst, but no more, in order to insure that he was not required to give to the camels. Had she said, “I will give you and your camels to drink,” Eliezer would have taken enough water for himself and the camels, and would have had to give the camels first, despite his thirst. In other words, Rivka chose her words wisely in order to insure that Eliezer got before the camels.

The Ksav Sofer uses, the Chasam Sofer, his father’s, interpretation to illuminate Moshe’s action. Why was it necessary for Hashem to tell Moshe והשקית – “give the people to drink”? It should have been sufficient to produce water; once released from the rock, wouldn’t the people have been perfectly capable themselves?

The Ksav Sofer answers that if that had transpired, then every individual would have drawn water themselves, necessitating they give their animals first. In order to ensure that the people quench their thirst first, Hashem instructed Moshe that he was to give them to drink. Meaning that the water was in Moshe’s possession, as the supplier,. Thereby they were not required to give their animals first. After their thirst was quenched, they were allowed to have more for their animals. Clearly, the Chasam Sofer and the Ksav Sofer did not learn the pasukim as the Sefer Chassidim did.

In defense of the Sefer Chassidim, Rav Moshe Feinstein indicates that Rivka was obligated to do tzedaka towards Eliezer. Her requirement was to act in the form that Eliezer himself would have had to do. Meaning, had Eliezer drawn his own water, he would have had to give the camels first due to his obligation toward the animals (if you disagree with the Sefer Chassidim), similarly then when Rivka was to give water to Eliezer, she was to distribute it the same way he would have. Her mitzvah of tzedaka toward Eliezer required her to dispense his obligations in the correct order. That is, to give to the camels first, despite the fact they were not her own. Since we see that she instead gave to Eliezer first, the Sefer Chassidim deduced from here that man comes before animal.

R’ Moshe Feinstein notes that question that arises from this is let alone the camels were not Rivka’s, they weren’t Eliezer’s either! They belonged to his master Avraham. Inasmuch as the halacha did not apply to him, how could Rivka be fulfilling her obligation via his obligation if he didn’t have such an obligation to begin with? The answer seems to be that all the duties of feeding animals are incumbent not on the legal owner of the animal, but rather to the one responsible out the feedings. Eliezer, although not the legal owner, was entrusted with their care. It was therefore his duty to the camels, and thus Rivka’s requirement to act accordingly; and therein, a legitimate source for a Halacha, and not just a story about kindness.

The same concept explains Moshe’s actions. It was Moshe’s duty to give the Jews to drink, congruent to their very own obligation towards their animals. Thus, by first giving the people to drink and only then to their animals, we see that when it comes to drinking, man comes before animals.