Harder than it looks

By On · Add Comment

On Shavuos, Jews have the custom to read the Book of Ruth. The subtext of the book is how crucial it is to pursue a stake in Torah and to want to be a part of the Jews. The conclusion of the story is the genealogy of Ruth’s descendants, culminating in David drawing from her lineage – and Moshiach too.

It is pertinent to note that the story is not a happy one. Boaz died the morning after he redeemed her, leaving her a pregnant widow. She never saw the happy ending, nor did Boaz or Naomi see the vindication of their actions. David’s rise was generations after they had passed.

This clearly indicates that God’s justice is not simple or immediate, but calculated over centuries and generations.

The Chasam Sofer notes that the story of Cain and Abel is included in the Torah, right at the beginning, to teach precisely this lesson. God favoured Abel, and Cain murdered him out of jealousy. Yet Cain is recorded to have lived for 1,600 years, with countless descendants. Where is the justice? The Chasam Sofer notes that every single one of them died in the Flood, long afterward.

Justice is complicated. It is curious to note that the end of the book – the ostensibly happy ending that paints her struggle as having been worthwhile – the genealogy of Moshiach is consistently from apparently odd couplings.

Ruth was descended from Moav, borne of incest between Lot and his daughters. The other child born of this was Amon, of whom Shlomo’s wife Naama was a member.

The line of Yehuda was descended from Peretz, borne of the bizarre story of Yehuda and Tamar. The Gemara says that he lost his free will when he approached the crossroads and spotted her.

Boaz himself fainted at the sight of Ruth in his bed chambers. Everyone castigated him, supporting Ploni Almoni’s arguments. The day after adjudicating Ruth’s case, he died. Certainly the simpletons labelled his death as divine justice, wrath and retribution.

The story of David and Batsheva is equally odd. The Gemara says whoever says David sinned is making a mistake. But whoever says he didn’t sin is also making a mistake!

Moshiach appears through bizarre circumstances. Incest, prostitution, adultery, and promiscuity only track the origin of the house of David!

The reason Moshiach is needed is compelling. Although life is geared towards earning Olam Haba, the World to Come, that alone is not enough. If it were, an individual could take care of themselves, and leave the world to its damned fate, to burn and unravel. Clearly we do not believe this. This world needs repair. We have to do what we can to make it a better place – and Moshiach will finish the job. His origin reflects the nature of his task. Emerging from the ashes of a broken world to fix it.

Shavuos is the moment we were chosen; through which the entire universe was perpetuated. Perhaps Ruth is read to remind ourselves that the responsibilities entailed are hard, laborious, and seem fruitless. They may even be genuinely fruitless for us. But we must persevere and endure, fortified with the knowledge that’s what right isn’t always what’s easy.

The Perfect Favour

By On · Add Comment

We find an argument takes place between Rachel and Leah, apparently over whose tent Yakov is to sleep in.

וַיֵּלֶךְ רְאוּבֵן בִּימֵי קְצִיר-חִטִּים, וַיִּמְצָא דוּדָאִים בַּשָּׂדֶה, וַיָּבֵא אֹתָם, אֶל-לֵאָה אִמּוֹ; וַתֹּאמֶר רָחֵל, אֶל-לֵאָה, תְּנִי-נָא לִי, מִדּוּדָאֵי בְּנֵךְ. וַתֹּאמֶר לָהּ, הַמְעַט קַחְתֵּךְ אֶת-אִישִׁי, וְלָקַחַת, גַּם אֶת-דּוּדָאֵי בְּנִי; וַתֹּאמֶר רָחֵל, לָכֵן יִשְׁכַּב עִמָּךְ הַלַּיְלָה, תַּחַת, דּוּדָאֵי בְנֵךְ. וַיָּבֹא יַעֲקֹב מִן-הַשָּׂדֶה, בָּעֶרֶב, וַתֵּצֵא לֵאָה לִקְרָאתוֹ וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלַי תָּבוֹא, כִּי שָׂכֹר שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ בְּדוּדָאֵי בְּנִי; וַיִּשְׁכַּב עִמָּהּ, בַּלַּיְלָה הוּא – Reuven went in the days of the wheat harvest, and he found flowers in the field and brought them to Leah, his mother, and Rachel said to Leah, “Please give me some of your son’s flowers.” And she said to her, “Is it not enough that you have taken my husband, that [you wish] to take my son’s flowers too?” So Rachel said, “Fine, he shall sleep with you tonight in return for your son’s flowers.” Yakov came from the field in the evening, and Leah came to meet him, and she said, “You shall come to me, because I have hired you with my son’s flowers,” and he slept with her on that night. (30:14-16)

The pasuk then discusses Leah’s children’s births, after which:

וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-רָחֵל; וַיִּשְׁמַע אֵלֶיהָ אֱלֹהִים, וַיִּפְתַּח אֶת-רַחְמָהּ – And Hashem remembered Rachel, and Hashem listened to her,and opened her womb. (30:22)

Rashi explains that what Hashem remembered was Rachel’s kindness to Leah, where the night Rachel was to be married, Yakov provided codes to know he had not been tricked, and Leah would it have know them, and would otherwise have been found out. Rachel passed on the codes, and Leah was not discovered until the next day.

But years had since passed – why does Hashem remember and repay Rachel’s kindness here?

R’ Ezra Hartman explains that in this episode, the Torah teaches us how to treat our fellow man. What was Leah thinking when she accused Rachel of taking her husband? Rachel was the sole facilitator that enabled Leah to have been a member of Yakov’s family – without the codes, Leah would have been left in the cold.

But Rachel does not say this.

R’ Ezra Hartman explains that sometimes, people like to rub in the fact that they’ve done someone a favour, that the other person owes them something. With a real favour, true kindness, the recipient is not aware that they are being done a favour. Rachel mentioned the codes in passing, for example, “Yakov likes to be told X and Y”. Leah was unaware of what Rachel had done for her, hence her question. She actually had no idea.

Rachel did not say a word about what had happened years earlier, and just talked about the flowers. It is very appropriate therefore, that at the perfect moment to silence Leah, her silence was rewarded, וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-רָחֵל – And Hashem remembered Rachel – specifically here, as the Seforno says, Hashem remembered her through the flowers.

Hashem repaid her her incredible kindness at the moment she showed she still stood by it.

And You Shall Teach Your Children

By On · Add Comment

The laws of a Ben Sorer Umoreh, a rebellious son, are given in this week’s parsha:

יח. כִּי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקוֹל אָבִיו וּבְקוֹל אִמּוֹ וְיִסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ וְלֹא יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיהֶם יט. וְתָפְשׂוּ בוֹ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ וְאֶל שַׁעַר מְקֹמוֹ כ. וְאָמְרוּ אֶל זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ בְּנֵנוּ זֶה סוֹרֵר וּמֹרֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ זוֹלֵל וְסֹבֵא כא. וּרְגָמֻהוּ כָּל אַנְשֵׁי עִירוֹ בָאֲבָנִים וָמֵת וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ וְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ

18. If a man has a wayward and rebellious son, who does not obey his father or his mother, and they chasten him, and [he still] does not listen to them. 19. his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, and to the gate of his place. 20. And they shall say to the elders of his city, “This son of ours is wayward and rebellious; he does not obey us; [he is] a glutton and a guzzler.” 21. And all the men of his city shall pelt him to death with stones, and he shall die. So shall you clear out the evil from among you, and all Israel will listen and fear.

The Gemara in Sanhedrin 71a states that a Ben Sorer Umoreh never happened, and never will. Why is it in the Torah then? So that we will analyse it and be rewarded.

The underlying reason that a Ben Sorer Umoreh would ostensibly have a death sentence is that it is better for him to die innocent, than guilty of murder later in life. But the Torah sets an impossible condition – the parents have to be united in every regard that their son be sentenced to death -no parent would out themselves through this. Furthermore, the age at which Ben Sorer Umoreh applies is limited to the three months after his 13th birthday, he needs to have stolen a certain amount of meat, itself cooked a particular way, he needs to have drunk a certain amount of wine, all on his fathers property.

R’ Moshe Mordechai Epstein has great difficulty with the restrictions to the application of Ben Sorer Umoreh. Furthermore, the reward the Gemara discusses cannot be that we will study more Torah – that is not a reason to be in the Torah, in addition to which, even if it were left out, in a thousand years a person could not hope to complete the entire Torah – the Torah was not short on material that it needed “filler”. This compels him to conclude that the mitzvah of Ben Sorer Umoreh has a more subtle reward than the ability to just have more Torah to study.

By studying this episode, one discovers the Torah’s approach to parenting, to raise them correctly, and if they stray, how to correct them.

When a child is overindulged, it is detrimental to him and society. The Ben Sorer Umoreh is someone who is out of control from the outset of adolescence, and the Torah tells us to learn from it. This is what the pasuk means when it says ובערת הרע בקרבך, וכל ישראל ישמעו ויראו -destroy the evil in your midst, and all of Yisrael will see and fear. The Torah wants us to be balanced individuals, and not wild, carefree and selfish, and tasks us with preventing evil in our children, before it is too late. We should learn from the Ben Sorer Umoreh as the paradigm of what not to do – וכל ישראל ישמעו.

If I may, I would like to suggest that the Gemara itself hinted at this. The Gemara said that the function of Ben Sorer Umoreh was דרוש וקבל שכר – analyse it and receive reward. The Gemara did not say למוד, to study it, but דרוש, analyse it. This is itself וכל ישראל ישמעו, that we learn from the Ben Sorer Umoreh to raise balanced children.

Solid Basis

By On · Add Comment

Earlier in sefer Bamidbar, a chunk of the people go to Moshe, and lament that they were impure at the time the korban Pesach was offered, and request inclusion in the mitzvah in the form of Pesach Sheni.
In Parshas Korach, it is clear that Korach too seeks more inclusion. Why are they paradigms of how to and how not to perform diplomacy, when the bottom line for both was the same?

There is a concept that all negative characteristics have a positive application. Rabbeinu Yona writes how a person can be jealous of a tzaddik or talmid chacham. Jealousy is an inherently bad trait – however, the jealousy fosters aspirations, and if they are realised, the person grows from it. In this way, מתוך שלו לשמה, בה לשמה – from which it began without the correct intentions, the actions nonetheless develop into something meaningful.

However, there is a caveat to this rule, that all misguided actions are fixed in the long term – one type of action will never become לשמה – a machlokes – an divide. The Mishna in Pirkei Avos 5:17 says: כל מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים, סופה להתקים. ושאינה לשם שמים, אין סופה להתקים.
איזו היא מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים? זו מחלוקת הלל ושמאי. ושאינה לשם שמים? זו מחלוקת קרח וכל עדתו – Any argument for the sake of Heaven, will endure in the end. One that is not for sake of Heaven, will not endure. What is the paradigm of an argument for the sake of heaven? Hillel and Shamai. What is the paradigm of an argument not the sake of Heaven? Korah and his congregation.

What are the paradigms, exactly? That an argument in Torah will endure, and that politics will not?

R’ Yaakov Minkus explains that there is more to it than that. Adding the mitzvah of Pesach Sheni was not a problem – the Torah was not closed canon yet. Korach however, was looking to destroy (a cursory reading of Rashi illustrates this).

Hillel and Shamai were looking to build halachos, and build a fabric for life. From one’s point of view, we understand the other better. We need both to build and consolidate.
Not so with Korach. His arguments and divisions were not constructive at all. His claims and goals were baseless and without foundation – this was the midd a k’negged midd a of the earth opening up beneath him – he was not fighting for anything or against anything real. The Mishna says as much. What was the paradigm of an argument not for the sake of heaven? “Korach and his congregation.”. If the parallel to Hilel And Shamai were correct, it ought to have said Korach and Moshe. R ‘ Yaakov Minkus uses this to prove that Korach wasn’t really fighting anyone at all – it was just about causing a stir and break down the system that existed.

This is what Rashi and the Targum mean when they say that ויקח קרח – “And Korach took” – What did he take? Himself, to one side (against the other side, of Moshe.)

It was never about Moshe.

Making favorable judgments

By On · Add Comment

בְּצֶדֶק תִּשְׁפֹּט עֲמִיתֶךָ – You shall judge your fellow with righteousness (19:15)

Rashi paraphrases the appropriate ma’amar Chazal on this, from the Gemara in Shabbos 127b, that ת”ר הדן חבירו לכף זכות דנין אותו לזכות – that the Rabbis taught that one who judges his fellow favorably is judged favorably in return.

The Ba’al Shem Tov explains the mechanism through which we are judged when we leave this world. When a person gets to Heaven, he will be ushered into a courtroom, and will be told he is required to pass judgment on a case. They bring the case before him, and the prosecution speaks, then the defense. This new-comer-come-judge pounds the gavel and declares the defendant guilty.

The angels pull him aside, and they say to him, “R’ Yid, the man we are judging is you. Don’t you remember that time you…”. They then list the amount of times he was guilty

R’ Yisroel Reisman points out that this is why we call this process דין וחשבן – a ruling and accounting. The ruling comes before the accounting.

R’ Reisman asks a poignant question – this mechanism will work on everyone. Everyone that is, except people who already know this. When it is eventually and inevitably their turn to judge, and they declare everyone and everything innocent, when they are informed “R’ Yid, this man is you” – will they feign surprise and truly be absolved? Read Full Dvar Torah →

Blurred Vision

By On · Add Comment

We are charged with an eternal war against Amalek:

וַיֹּאמֶר, כִּי-יָד עַל-כֵּס יָהּ, מִלְחָמָה לה’, בַּעֲמָלֵק–מִדֹּר, דֹּר – And God said, “Because there is a hand upon the throne of God; Hashem’s war with Amalek spans all generations,”. (Shemos 17:15)

This prominent statement, the conclusion of Parashas Zachor, cries out profusely for elaboration. Rashi points out that the word used for throne in this verse, כס, has a different spelling to the usual כסא. In addition, the Name of God that is used in this pasuk is י-ה , which contains only half of the letters that comprise Hashem’s full and ineffable four-letter appellation. Rashi concludes that this is part of the Divine oath; that neither God’s Name nor His throne can be complete until Amalek’s name is eradicated.

The Maharal probes the unique essence of Amalek and why he is such a formidable opponent of God, Truth and Yisrael. The Maharal states that unlike other nations, Amalek is an incessant enemy of the Jews, who opposes them across the ages. Indeed, it was revealed in Sefer Bereishis, through the inability of Esav and Yaakov to reside in the same womb, that Amalek and the Jews are incompatible, diametrically opposing entities. If one rises, the other must fall. This conflict was glaringly illustrated when Amalek attacked the Jews as they came out of Mitzrayim. As Rashi comments, Amalek is even prepared to commit suicide if it will dampen the flames of Jewish inspiration. The Amalekim are the original suicide attackers.

It is surely a fundamental Torah precept that God is omnipotent and infinite; his completeness is independent and indestructible. Yet how exactly does Amalek cause Hashem’s Name to be rendered incomplete? Furthermore, how does Amalek seemingly dethrone Hashem? The imagery of the Midrash appears to be equally baffling.

The Maharal explains that Hashem’s name reflects absolute oneness. Indeed, we declare thrice daily the mantra, שמע ישראל ה אלוקינו ה אחד – Hashem’s Name is One. Now, oneness is harmony’s partner and is undermined by discord and disunity, which is exactly what Amalek stands for. Because a partnership between Yisrael and Amalek is impossible, division enters the universe.

This broken world now becomes a place where unity and the Divine Name are concealed since oneness is blurred by Amalek’s obfuscation. Of course, Hashem is impeccably One and is utterly unaffected; it is just that our perception of Him and His oneness is diminished by Amalek’s divisive influence. The word Amalek, which has the numerical value of ספק – meaning doubt, brings exactly that into our realm. Amalek’s existence causes us doubt to ourselves and our better judgment. What was once a clear and vivid appreciation of God’s uniqueness becomes fragile, fractured and belittled.

This also explains how Amalek limits God’s throne. The throne represents the concept of Malchus, Hashem’s undisputed kingship over the world and its inhabitants. This notion is also rooted in the idea of God’s oneness. Only when there is a unique and empowered monarch can true sovereignty reign supreme. That is the reason, writes the Maharal, why we say, ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד – “Praise the glory of His Kingdom for eternity” immediately following the declaration of unity, ה אחד in Shema. This demonstrates that God’s Kingdom is predicated on His uniqueness as king. Amalek’s splinters, contaminates and ultimately destroys the clarity of this recognition.

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

Monetary Law

By On · Add Comment

On Parshas Shekalim, various shuls have a custom to insert Yotzros, additional prayers and piyutim into the Shabbos davening. A recurring chorus is the phrase “ אור פניך עלינו אדון נשא – ושקל אשא בבית נכון – ונשא” – “The light of Your face, shine on us please, our Master, because I will raise a shekel in your glorified house.”

The question is obvious – the Jews were only ever commanded to give מחצית השקל – a  half-shekel – how does the prayer parallel what actually transpired?

The Gemara in Brachos 20b tells us that the angels queried Hashem regarding a contradiction: it is written that: כִּי ה’ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם הוּא אֱלֹהֵי הָאֱ־לֹהִים וַאֲדֹנֵי הָאֲדֹנִים הָאֵל הַגָּדֹל הַגִּבֹּר וְהַנּוֹרָא אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִשָּׂא פָנִים וְלֹא יִקַּח שֹׁחַד - G-d does not show favour and does not accept bribes (Devarim 10:17), however, elsewhere (the bracha of Brichas Kohanim) it is written  יִשָּׂא ה’ פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם - “G-d will show you favor and give you peace” (Bamidbar 6:26).  Hashem answered them that  he must show favour to the Jews, because in the Torah it says that “וְאָכַלְתָּ וְשָׂבָעְתָּ וּבֵרַכְתָּ אֶת ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ” - “you should eat and be satisfied and bless your G-d” (Devarim 8:10), and yet the Jews recite Birchas Hamazon after a much smaller amount (k’zayis/k’beitzah). If the Jews go lifnim m’shuras haDin – above and beyond the letter of the law, how could Hashem not reciprocate?

The general attitude of a G-d fearing Jew is to perform mitzvos with zeal, and exceed the requirements necessary, as essentially all mitzvos are not defined by a legal quantity. But an exception would be the mitzva of מחצית השקל, regarding which the pasuk says that a rich person may not exceed, and a poor person may not claim his poverty as impeding his ability. How would a Jew possibly go lifnim m’shuras haDin? Read Full Dvar Torah →

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.

Arguing with the priest – not the best idea

By On · Add Comment

Based on a shiur by R’ Yehoshua Hartman

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

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

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

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

So where’s the Midah Kneged Midah?

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

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

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

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

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

What Goes Around…

By On · Add Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Out of Context

By On · Add Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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