| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 989.1 | Bereshit | GAON::jem | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Oct 24 1990 20:00 | 138 |
|
SHABBAT SHALOM: B'raishit
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- Rashi, the 11th century rabbi from Worms, is
considered the most important of all Biblical commentators. In
fact, the first Hebrew book ever printed in 1475 was Rashi's
commentary on the Torah. Thus, one could reasonably expect that
when we turn to the first Rashi, we're not only getting an
explanation to questions raised by the opening verse, "In the
beginning, G-d created the heaven and the earth..." (Genesis
1:1), but we're also getting an entire approach to life, to
Torah, to Israel, to Judaism.
Rashi asks why the Torah begins with the creation of the
world instead of the first commandment given to the Jews: "This
month shall be the head month to you." (Exodus 12:1) The answer
is, if the nations ever accuse Israel of having stolen the land
from the original seven nations who inhabited the land of Canaan,
the Jews will then be able to answer that since G-d created the
entire world, He can give portions of it to those He considers
worthy in His eyes.
Generally, this Rashi evokes two responses -- one affirmative
and one skeptical. Some find in Rashi's words a powerful message,
a script applicable throughout the ages when we are confronted by
our accusers; we can always refer to the first Rashi claiming G-d
gave this land to us. In the beginning, G-d created the heaven
and earth...and the Zionist dream. Others find it ironical that
the most universal phrase in the entire Torah -- G-d as creator
of the universe -- is being used for such a particular, even
chauvinistic, message.
Let us examine Rashi's words in depth. At first, he is
concerned that since the Torah is the source of the 613
commandments, the significance of law in Jewish life may get
buried under so many chapters dealing with remote times. Thus, we
ought to begin with the first commandment to make it clear what
the purpose of the Torah is all about.
But is the Torah, first and foremost, a book of laws? The
word Torah itself comes from the root yrh (yud,raish,haih) which
means to teach, or direct. The Torah is nothing less than life's
direction, life's teaching. And since the body of the text is
called Torah -- by the Torah itself -- and not "A Tale of 613
Commandments" or "The Jewish Book of Laws", it is obvious that
this text was never intended to be only a compilation of do's and
don'ts. Rather, the Torah is a complete philosophy of life. And
the first seven words most significantly tell us that there is a
the first seven words most significantly tell us that there is a
Creator of this universe; our world is not an accident, a
haphazard convergence of chemicals and exploding gases - it is a
world with a beginning, and a beginning implies an end, a
purpose, a reason for being. Without the creation of heaven and
earth, could we have survived for an instant? Our very existence
depends on the Creator, and in return for creating us, He has the
right to ask us to live in a certain way and follow His laws.
Thus, this first verse in the Torah sets the foundation for all
that follows.
Furthermore, in the opening verse, we see that G-d created
the entire world, and one of the major themes of the Torah is
that the universe is ruled by one and only one G-d. This is in
contrast to other works of ancient peoples whose annals begin and
end with their own nations (the Greek mythologies or the Egyptian
Book of the Dead). But in the Torah, twenty generations pass
before we get to Abraham, the first Jew. The genealogies of Esau
and Ishmael are right along side the genealogies of the
Israelites. Subsequent books of the Bible, particularly in the
Prophets and the Writings, expand the universal realm in Judaism,
stressing such elements as the ancestress of the future messiah
having been born a Moabite, or Jonah being called upon to
prophesy to the Assyrians, arch-enemy of the Jews. Wasn't
Jeremiah thrown into prison for speaking G-d's word concerning
the requisite ethical and religious behavior necessary to hold
onto the land? It all fits because G-d is ultimately the G-d of
the entire world.
However, to better understand our Rashi, we should not only
look at what he says, but at what he doesn't say as well.
Rashi's words are not a blank check to those of us who believe in
Zion. If we read the words carefully, he doesn't write, "All the
world is G-d's and He gave it to Israel," but rather, "All the
world is G-d's and He gives it to whomever is righteous in His
eyes."
The seven nations were driven off by the Israelites because
they were not morally worthy of staying on the land. When G-d
informs Abraham that the eventual return of his descendants to
this land will have to wait until the fourth generation "...since
the Amorites' sin will not have run its course until then."
(Gen.15:16), we are really being told that the nations who live
there cannot be removed unless they become unworthy of living on
the land -- they have to commit the full number of sins. And the
Jews too, will be allowed to live on this land conditionally,
dependent upon their commitment to G-d's Torah. Otherwise "...
the land will vomit you out." (Lev. 18:25)
The one promise we can count on is that eventually we will be
worthy of the land and it will be returned to us for all times.
This is a promise of the prophets to the Jewish nation never to
lose hope; in the end we will become worthy of it.
In other words, it is not enough to tell the nations that we
suffered for 2000 years culminating in the Holocaust and then
turn around and do what we please in this land. There is only
one answer we can give to the nations: all the world is G-d's
and He gives and takes away depending on the nation's
righteousness in His eyes. And throughout the Bible, the basic
message is that those who live on the land, since this is a very
special land, will have to be worthy of it morally, religiously,
ethically, otherwise we will again be driven into exile. Indeed,
this concept is developed by the Ramban (ad locum) who sees this
as the reason why the Genesis chapters include the tale of the
Garden of Eden: the Torah wants us to know that from the very
beginning, built into the very fabric of creation, is the idea of
exile. Just as Adam and Eve were exiled from the Garden for
their sin, we Jews will also be exiled if we prove ourselves
unworthy of this land.
Rashi could very well be saying that the creation of the
world and the creation of the land of Israel are both universal
acts because this is one land whose bounty will not depend on
might or power or history alone. It is a land whose laws are
universal ones -- morality, ethics, justice. Rashi's answer may
be implying that the world was created because of one special
place which will ultimately transform the entire world.
At first glance, Rashi's answer to the nations appears naive.
After all, if they want us off this land, will they really care
about the first verse in Genesis? Perhaps the deeper message of
this first Rashi is in the beginning, G-d created the heavens and
the earth, but in the end, when the nations point their accusing
fingers, we will answer the only answer we can: this world
belongs to G-d -- G-d can give it to whomever He wants, which
means, to whomever is worthy of it. If the nations will listen
to us, it will truly mean that we are standing in the doorstep of
redemption. After 2000 years, we have returned to this land of
Israel. May it be G-d's will that through our proper actions we
remain worthy of keeping it. According to Rashi, we have no
other choice.
SHABBAT SHALOM!
Copyright Ohr Torah 1989.
|
| 989.2 | Noach | GAON::jem | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Oct 24 1990 20:03 | 129 |
|
SHABBAT SHALOM
Noah -- A Tale of Two Agnostics
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- When it comes to questions of belief, the
agnostic is the loneliest of all. On one side of him, the
atheist rails against religionists, convinced it is the "opiate
of the masses" - that the concept of G-d is an idea invented by
the desperate, unable to grapple with the immensity of the
universe. He speaks his mind and stands in the ring, fists
poised, ready to go ten rounds of heavyweight debating.
Facing him is the religionist, who believes that the universe
is the handiwork of G-d whose relationship to His creatures is
expressed through revelation, who sees the miraculous in nature
and history and studies sacred texts which prescribe a unique
lifestyle. The atheist and the religionist battle with all their
strength. And standing between them, the agnostic argues that
since it is impossible to possess knowledge of anything beyond
material phenomena, supporting G-d's existence or denying it is
not subject to debate. It is all beyond our realm. There may be
a G-d or there may not be, but such knowledge is not ours to
acquire. And even if He exists, how do we know that He has
commanded a specific set of regulations?
In this week's portion, Noah, we find "tales of two
agnostics", and a careful reading of Rashi reveals how the Torah
looks upon the agnostic.
Who was Noah? Despite being described as "...righteous,
perfect in his generation", (Gen. 6:9) Rashi quotes the debate in
the Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 109 which examines Noah's
righteousness based on the extra word "in his generation". Some
see this phrase as great praise because if Noah could achieve
perfection in such a sinful age, imagine the heights he would
have reached in a generation of other righteous people. Others
see the additional word as a slur: only "in his generation"
could Noah be considered perfect, but had he been born in the age
of Abraham, "he would be nothing".
The second view turns out to be the one Rashi focuses on when
we reach the verse, "Noah, along with his sons, his wife, and his
sons' wives, went into the ark because of the waters of the
flood". (Gen. 7:7) Rashi explains that "...Noah had little
faith. He believed and he didn't believe that the flood would
arrive. And he didn't enter the ark until the water pushed him
in; the flood had to start before he made his move."
Rashi's phrase, "he believed and he didn't believe" is really
another way of describing an agnostic who ends the argument by
saying both the believer and the atheist may turn out to be
right. It's just impossible to know for sure.
If Noah is the first "agnostic", the second appears toward
the very end our portion when we come to the brief life of Haran.
"These are the generations of Terach. Terach begot Abram, Nahor
and Haran." (Gen. 11:27)
Lot, the son of Haran and a significant figure in the bible,
will be raised by Haran's brother, Abram, when Haran dies, so
it's certainly important for the text to note Haran's death. But
why should the text specify "and Haran died before his father in
the land of his birth, in Ur Kasdia"? (Gen. 11:28)
When Rashi cites a Midrash describing Haran's death, he not
only answers the textual questions (suggesting that Haran died in
the presence and because of his father, Terach), but he pulls
Haran out of relative anonymity and, in effect, sets him up as a
counterfoil to Noah.
This particular Midrash details how Terach, the father of the
clan and a famous idol manufacturer, brings changes in the court
of King Nimrod against his own son, Abram, an iconoclast who
destroyed his father's idols while preaching "heretical" ethical
monotheism. As punishment, Abram is cast into the fiery furnace.
In the meantime, Haran sits on the sidelines thinking that if
Nimrod's furnace will prove hotter than Abram's flesh, he will
side with the King, but if Abram survives the fire, then it would
be clear that Abram's G-d is more powerful than Nimrod's gods,
and he will throw in his lot with his brother.
When Abram emerges unscathed, naturally Haran is ready to
rally behind Abram, but no miracles await Haran. Thrown into the
fires, he burns to death.
Earlier, we read how Noah was a man of little faith, and yet
he not only survives, but turns into one of the central figures
of human history while Haran, father of Lot, brother to Abram,
hovers on the edge of obscurity, and is even punished with death.
Why is Haran's agnosticism considered so much worse than Noah's?
Rashi's comments on Noah and Haran provides a framework
through which each of them can be better understood. True, they
have something in common, but there is a vast difference. Noah,
despite doubts, built the ark, pounding away for 120 years,
suffering abuse from a world ridiculing his eccentric
persistence. Maybe "he believed and he didn't believe", but he
did it!
Haran, on the other hand, dies because he waits for someone
else to test the fires. Waiting, not accepting G-d, he remains
the idolater. His death affirms how indecision is very much a
decision.
I once asked someone what happened to the long-term
relationship he was involved in. "I couldn't decide, and so she
married someone else." When I heard his answer, I realized how
wrong he was. Of course he had decided - by not proposing, he
had rejected the woman. There are some issues where no decision
is a very clear decision: a drowning man will die if a passerby
who can save him hesitates. Similarly with religious practice.
Not deciding in favor of it is, in effect, deciding against.
Rashi wants us to understand that Noah reached his spiritual
level because he acted, not so much out of faith, but despite his
lack of it. When it comes to Judaism, shunning the Torah
commandments results in a simple fact: a life stripped of Jewish
law, tradition, and the truth is a life where on the Sabbath
morning, there is very little to distinguish between the agnostic
golfer or the atheist golfer.
Noah was a man of small faith but he spent 120 years building
an ark. It required a ton of sweat and no small amount of
splinters and bruised thumbs. Haran, on the other hand, never
joined Abram in his fight against idols. He was always in
between - maybe yes, maybe no. Let's wait and see instead of
let's do and see. Haran was an agnostic who lived like an
idolater while Noah was an agnostic who lived like a believer.
What we learn from Noah's life and Haran's death is that even
if one is unconvinced of the spiritual dimension of existence, of
the divine origin of Jewish law, one will always remain in the
dark unless one lights the Sabbath candles and experiences the
Passover Sedar. Perfect faith is not necessary in order to
conduct your life like a Jew. Belief is never as important as
action. In the heaven of Jews, there is room for all kinds of
agnostics. It depends on what they do on earth.
SHABBAT SHALOM
Copyright Ohr Torah 1989.
|
| 989.3 | Lech-Lecha -- repost | GAON::jem | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Thu Oct 25 1990 18:22 | 125 |
|
SHABBAT SHALOM
Lech Lecha -- The Third Covenant
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- My teacher, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveichik,
speaks of three covenants, the first being between G-d and Adam,
the second between G-d and Noah, and the third between G-d and
Abraham. The process which began with Adam and Noah -- in
effect, a dialogue between G-d and mankind in its struggle
against accepting the divine purpose of creation -- finds in
Abraham the one person who can fix their previous failures.
In the beginning, G-d made a covenant with Adam: "Of every
tree of the garden you may eat, but the Tree of Knowledge of good
and evil, you shall not eat, for on that day...you shall surely
die." (Gen. 2:16-18)
Had Adam kept this one commandment (really a ritual of
kashrut), a creature of dust would have become attached to G-d
forever, embodying the attributes of compassion, truth, and
goodness. In theological terms, the Creator of the universe
nearly achieved in Adam the apex of creation, a creature who
walked on two legs but would be saved from death.
Immorality grows rampant. By the time we get to the grandson
of Adam, idolatry, explains how in the days of Enosh (son of
Seth, Adam's third son), humans began to worship the heavenly
bodies. They didn't deny the existence of a Creator, but they
mistakenly believed these messengers in the sky demanded
supplication. The result was a skyscape of gods torn by
jealousies, kidnappings, rapes, acts of revenge, etc. Nature
teemed with the dark sides of human imagination -- spirits and
forces struggling for power and prestige. Humanity abandoned G-d,
and the price paid was the death of morality and ethics.
After all, if G-d does not endow the human with ultimate value,
why not destroy the person disturbing you similarly to crushing a
mosquito?
Ten generations after Adam, the world is trapped in moral
quicksand, ripe for destruction but one man, Noah, finds grace in
G-d's eyes.
The shadows of the past lift when Noah and his family finally
emerge from the Ark, and G-d command, "Every moving thing that
lives shall be food for you...But, nevertheless, you may not eat
flesh of a creature that is still alive...He who spills human
blood shall have his own blood spilled by man, for in the image
of G-d made He man." (Gen. 9:3-6) The Rabbis in the Talmud in
Sanhedrin, Chapter 7, deduce seven ethical laws from these
verses: Prohibitions, against blasphemy, incest, idolatry,
robbery, bloodshed, eating flesh from a living animal, and the
command to establish court laws. Called the Seven Noachide
commandments, they apply to everyone.
G-d then promises that "...there will never again be a flood
to destroy the earth," (Gen. 9:11) pointing to the rainbow as the
sign of the second covenant. The dream for the future is to live
by the laws of Noah, preventing the return of the depravity which
caused the near-destruction of the world.
But it's only a dream. The survivors of the flood who bear
witness to the miracle of the Ark are unable to impart to the
next generation their teaching. If there is no link to G-d, then
neither is there an ongoing link to morality. Eventually,
corruption rules the heart...and the planet. The tower of Babel
episode reflects how misdirected knowledge can lead to grandiose
views of men pitted against G-d. Mankind grows into a scattered,
disunified flock, each culture trapped in its own immoralities
and xenophobes.
Finally, we come to third covenant with Abraham. "Leave your
country, you birthplace, your father's house and journey to the
land that I will show you...". (Gen. 12:1-2) The part of the
blessing promising that he will turn into a great nation - though
a rare enough achievement for someone wandering among strangers -
goes a great deal further than national aggrandizement, it
embraces a sense of manifest greatness, akin to G-d's words, for
this nation of ethical monotheism has turned out to be a
civilization whose holy writings will outlast the Great Wall of
China, and despite centuries of homelessness, Abraham's
descendants have lived to see the grandchildren of Saxons and
Jutes called Sarah, Leah and Rebecca.
But the promise goes beyond greatness shared with other
nations. The covenant declares, "...I will bless those who bless
you, and he who curses you, I will curse. All the families of
the earth will be blessed through you." (Gen. 12:3)
If the text has already spoken of blessing those who bless
the Jews, why does G-d end with the final declaration: All the
families...will be blessed through you?"
In fact, this is where G-d reveals that the personal good
fortune of Abraham's descendants is but a step toward His
ultimate promise. In the end, all the families of the earth will
be blessed, period! Yes, G-d provides a warning to the nations
to be careful about cursing the Jews unless they want to bring
curses upon themselves, but G-d's plan for the world is that the
seed of Abraham will achieve blessings for all families of
mankind.
After the one commandment given to Adam failed, and the
subsequent failure of the seven ethical laws of Noah, Abraham's
life becomes the final attempt to halt the planets' descent into
pagan labyrinth from which it may never emerge. G-d discloses
through this new stage of history that the world is simply not
strong-willed enough to live by the Seven Noachide commandments,
that fundamental morality alone is not sufficient to create a
truly morally enthused people.
Enter Abraham! Through perfect faith in G-d, he will create
a family, and then a nation born from his seed, and this nation
shall commit itself not to one, nor to seven, but to 613
commandments. They will live and breathe the laws of G-d - this
time comprised of both rituals and ethics, and they will become,
as set forth in the Book of Exodus, a kingdom of priests, a holy
nation.
The election of Abraham was not meant to exclude the world.
On the contrary, the task of this nation of teachers is to bring
the blessing of G-d upon the families of the earth despite all
obstacles thrown in its direction.
Maimonides, in his work Sefer haMitzvot, writes that the
commandment to love G-d doesn't mean we should be satisfied with
the feelings in our hearts; rather, we have to bring the love of
G-d to the entire world, something which neither Adam nor Noah
achieved, and which history had to wait for Abraham's appearance
to teach us all how far one's love for G-d could reach.
SHABBAT SHALOM!
Copyright Ohr Torah 1989.
|
| 989.4 | Vayera -- Our Messiah and Theirs | GAON::jem | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Mon Oct 29 1990 20:40 | 118 |
|
SHABBAT SHALOM
Vayera -- Our Messiah and Theirs
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- In the Judeo-Christian tradition, there are
two contradictory perceptions of the messiah. One way to help us
understand who the Jews are as a people is to examine the
significant distinction between a messiah who has supposedly
already come and a messiah still destined to arrive. Where do
our visions differ, and why?
Describing the future messianic king of Israel, Isaiah
writes, "...And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of
Yishai, and a branch shall grow out of his roots, and the spirit
of the L-rd shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and
understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of
knowledge and the fear of the L-rd..." (Isaiah 11:1-3)
We read in the Book of Ruth that the root of the "stem of
Yishai" was a Moabite woman who followed Naomi, her people and
her G-d, gave birth to Oved, and became the grandmother of Yishai
and the great-grandmother of David; she was the proselyte Ruth.
But is this really possible? Isn't it strange that our
messiah comes from a convert to Judaism? Even more amazing is
that the people of Moab originated from an act of incest,
recorded in this week's portion, Vayera. Moab means "mai-av"
(from father), and the father referred to here is Lot who, given
wine to drink, sleeps with both his daughters. "And the first
born said to the younger, our father is old and there is not a
man in the world to come unto us... Come let us make our father
drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the
seed of our father." (Genesis 19:31-32)
In contrast, the Christian messiah is born out of an act of
immaculate conception, a supernatural spirit descending. The
child, bathed in a celestial aura, then emerges from the womb.
If we think about it, a child born out of an immaculate
conception might very well find our impure world, with its wars,
persecutions, and oppression, too sullied. Despite his best
intentions, the rampant immorality and killings would be too much
for his immaculate beginnings. And isn't that what happened to
the Christian messiah? Did he not, even according to their
account, die with the job undone and the world still tainted,
disappear from the scene after one brief appearance and, as yet,
has not returned?
In contrast, the Jewish messiah's roots reach back toward an
historical moment which could not be more appalling: incest.
And because he emerges from the depth of the depths, is there
anything in this world which could possibly shock him into frigid
immobility? Who would be a better candidate for purifying the
world?
The message behind this act of incest strikes at the very
essence of Judaism. According to Midrash, when Lot's family
alone survived the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, it really
seemed to be the end of the world. All one has to do is visit
the landscape south of the Dead Sea to see how barren this part
of Israel is. Life in all its forms came to a sudden and
cataclysmic end as the sulfurous skied poured forth their fiery
wrath on Sodom, Gomorrah, and all the cities of the plain. This
wasn't merely some local natural catastrophe; it was a judgement
from heaven. And to the survivors it seemed the entire world had
been destroyed, a veritable global holocaust.
Confronted with these conditions, father and daughters find
shelter in a cave outside of Tzoar. While huddling in the
darkness, they easily could have discussed their fate, the fear
of being alone, totally alone, the sole survivors in the world.
Thus the dilemma. The last three people alive in the world,
two females and one male, could theoretically create a new
extension to the life on this forsaken planet. But the strongest
of religious, cultural and tribal taboos - incest - makes the
sexual act impossible. It's unthinkable to break the taboo, but
it's just as unthinkable to sit back and wait for their father to
die, thereby forfeiting the only chance to revive humanity. This
must certainly stand up as one of the great moral dilemmas of the
Bible.
The elder daughter may have begun to feel swayed by her
motherly instincts, and tries to convince her sister that they
simply have no choice but to do whatever is necessary to
guarantee that the world doesn't die out with them. Despite the
taboo, they must turn to their father, and the children born from
the union will become their generations' Adams or Noahs, ready to
revive the world from scratch. Through them the world will be
reborn.
The younger sister is more reluctant; she finds it absurd to
start a new world. "What for, so that it will only be destroyed
again, another holocaust? Haven't we had enough destructions?
First, Adam's world ends with the flood, and even though there
was a second chance, look at the results of Noah's efforts:
Sodom and Gomorrah. If the world has been destroyed twice I'm
sure it will be destroyed again. That's the law of holocausts.
If Adam didn't succeed, and Noah didn't, and even Abraham didn't,
will the children we bring into the world be any better?"
In the end, the eldest daughter's argument quoting "...image
of G-d..." and "...through you shall be blessed the nations of
the earth..." convinces the younger one. And from this act of
incest, the seed of the nation of Moab is born.
Ordinarily, an incestuous act undermines the delicate fabric
of human society. But in the case of Lot's daughters, it was
done to save humanity; it was their statement of faith that
humanity was worth saving, that human nature could be redeemed.
That's why the messianic line starts from the Moabites and
extends to Ruth, on down to Yishai and then to David, king of
Israel and progenitor of the messiah. Our messianic approach is
not so much the leap of faith in the miraculous powers of G-d as
it is a leap of faith in humanity, in the ability of the human
being to redeem himself, despite the shadow of holocausts that
threaten to explode. To believe in the messiah seems, first and
foremost, to be a belief in the human ability to repent, repair,
and eventually, to redeem. May it happen speedily in our day.
SHABBAT SHALOM!
Copyright Ohr Torah 1989.
This essay is distributed by Kesher --the Jewish Network. For information
regarding its use, contact the Kesher BBS at 312-940-1696.
|
| 989.5 | Chayai-Sara -- a somewhat unorthodox interpretation | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Nov 06 1990 00:56 | 133 |
|
SHABBAT SHALOM
Chaya Sarah -- A Modern Midrash
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- Are Abraham and Sarah the perfect couple who
live happily ever after? Of course, we don't ordinarily think of
the founder of the ethical monotheistic revolution, the pivotal
figure of an entire new way of looking at the world, as being
anything but the ideal husband to Sarah, the good humble Jewish
wife, always at her husband's side. But a seemingly extra word
in our portion this week opens up the possibility of a modern
midrash and a daring comment.
"And Sarah died in Kiryat Arba, that is Hebron, in the land
of Canaan: and Abraham came to eulogize Sarah and to weep for
her." [Genesis 23:1-2] If we read the above carefully, we note
that the text says Abraham "...came to mourn and eulogize," when
it could have just as easily said that "Abraham mourned and
eulogized." Why the extra word 'vayauvo' (and he came)?
Rashi [23:2] explains that Abraham came from Beersheva, an
idea reinforced by a text we find at the very end of last week's
portion which reads "...Abraham returned to his young men, and
together they set out and went to Beersheva. Abraham remained in
Beersheva. [Genesis 22:19]
Now if Abraham came from where he had lived with Sarah and
Isaac before the binding, from Beersheva, it is appropriate to
ask: what was Sarah doing in Hebron? Could she actually have
moved to Hebron while her husband was in Beersheva?
Having informed us of Abraham's point of departure when he
set out to mourn and weep for his wife, Rashi then tells us that
the Torah's account of Sarah's death follows in the footsteps of
the Binding of Isaac because one was a cause of the other: "as
word reached Sarah as to what has transpired on Mt. Moriah that
her son was prepared for slaughter - her soul flew away from her
and she died.
The Rambam (1194-1270) does not allow for the possibility of
Abraham's living in Beersheva and "coming" to Hebron because this
implies that husband and wife were living apart when Sarah died.
A temporary solution to this dilemma of two cities would place
Abraham and Sarah effectively in Hebron but that he'd gone off to
Beersheva on personal business; while there, word came to him of
Sarah's death, and he hurried back home, to Hebron, to mourn and
bury Sarah.
This description may solve the problem of how Abraham got to
Beersheva, but it creates another in its wake: if Abraham is a
Hebronite who leaves his city for a few days, then we have to
discard the interpretation of Rashi which says that the death
Sarah followed immediately upon the "binding", because the
"binding" took place whilst Abraham and Sarah were living in
Beersheva.
The Rambam goes on to offer several alternative sequences,
initially citing the Midrash that Abraham came directly from Mt.
Moriah to eulogize Sarah. But if so, what was she doing in
Hebron?
Before I suggest an interpretation, I must preface it with a
word of explanation. There are two distinct approaches to the
personalities of the Bible. One, as illustrated by the holy
Zohar, tends to idealize each of them as being larger than life
with almost divine qualities of greatness. The other, as
illustrated by the Rambam, sees them as great but fallible human
beings, who are prone to sin and weakness despite their unique
qualities. It seems to me that the second method of exegesis
enables us to identify with, and therefore learn from, the
patriarchs and matriarchs to the greatest degree.
To the world at large, Abraham is a great leader who puts
into motion a revolutionary perception of G-d, and man's role in
the universe. He is the absolute idealist, ready to talk to
everyone at anytime, his tent and his heart and his telephone are
always open to all seekers and strangers.
Sarah, however, saw the side of Abraham the public never got
to see, the great teacher who often had no time for his own wife
and child. Often, this G-d -inspired magnetic and extroverted
personality, seemed to take those closest to him for granted.
When they were younger and a famine forced them to travel to
Egypt, Abraham concealed Sarah's identity to mitigate the risk to
his own life because the people always had an eye out for an
addition to the king's harem. "Now I realize you are a beautiful
woman," [Gen. 12:11] Abraham says, which suggests that in the
pursuit of his own ideals, he took little notice of Sarah, not
even of her beauty.
Childless, Sarah offers Abraham her Egyptian slave girl,
Hagar, to become a surrogate mother. Thought she initiated the
step, Sarah's heart may have easily been broken when her husband
so readily agreed. "My wrath is against you," [Gen. 16:5] she
says to Abraham after Hagar's haughtiness grows unbearable.
Abraham survived ten tests given by G-d, and perhaps Hagar was an
eleventh test given him by Sarah which he failed. Sarah wanted
him to say that he would never take another woman because his
love for her was as great as his faith in G-d that a nation would
emerge from his good.
The Binding of Isaac sends not only a father into a direct
confrontation with G-d, but also places the mother in an
impossible situation. I can picture the following scene between
husband and wife on the morning of the binding.
Abraham has risen early and Sarah asks: "Where are you
going?" Abraham answers that G-d is sending him on a special
mission with Isaac. "What kind of mission?" Her husband cannot
reveal the truth so he tried to ignore Sarah's question, which
leaves her with an ominous feeling. "Does it have anything to do
with a sacrifice?" White-faced, Abraham mutters something under
his breath, then tells her the child will be fine. Sarah
responds in righteous anger: "You've sacrificed both of us to
your G-d and your dreams, never a question who was first and who
was second in your eyes, but enough is enough. Don't go off with
the child!"
Abraham, of course, doesn't heed Sarah, and the last word she
cries to him as he disappears in the distance is, "When you get
back, don't think I'll be here waiting for you."
And indeed, when he returns, she's left Beersheva, where
they'd been living, and word reaches him that she has died in
Hebron. The miracle of his son's having been saved at the last
moment is now tarnished by the death of his faithful wife who
stood at his side during the most difficult times - but balked at
the thought of the ultimate sacrifice of her beloved son. After
all, she has not heard the Divine command!
The only woman whose age at her death is given in the Bible,
Sarah's life takes on new meaning as Abraham mourns for her.
Perhaps in the eulogy he spoke of the failings of a leader who
still had to learn how to become a husband and a father first, if
he ever succeeded, the person to thank and bless was his life
soul-mate, Sarah. It is interesting to note that although
Abraham continues to live sixty-five years after Sarah's death,
the Bible does not record a single accomplishment of his without
her.
SHABBAT SHALOM!
Copyright Ohr Torah 1989.
|
| 989.6 | Tol'dot -- Can deception be justified? | GAON::jem | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Nov 13 1990 02:46 | 144 |
|
SHABBAT SHALOM
Toldot
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- Jacob's character is paradoxical. On the
one hand, the figure we know from the Bible is steeped in the
vinegar of deceit and lies, having deceived his father in order
to gain the birthright. Yet, the Jacob we carry within our
breast is that of a righteous patriarch, father of the twelve
tribes of our nation, who is the personification of "truth".
This last characterization is, perhaps to a large extent, a
result of a verse we recite in the prayer service every day of
our lives as part of the "And a redeemer shall come to Zion"
sequence. The words are from the last verse of the last chapter
of Micah's prophecy, "...and you shall give truth to Jacob and
loving kindness to Abraham." [7:20]
Repeated so often -- "titen emet I'Yaakov v'chesed I'Avraham"
-- It has become a 'classic', virtually a formula; just as no one
could argue with Abraham's loving kindness, Jacob's truth is also
self-evident.
In this week's portion, Toldot, the evidence, at least on the
surface, seems to point in another direction. Abraham may be
Two central incidents are narrated. In the first, the
younger Jacob is cooking a pot of lentil soup when the elder Esau
arrives dead-tired, throwing his hungry gaze upon the 'red stuff'
simmering on the fire. Perhaps this scene has occurred many
times in the past; there is no reason why it shouldn't have,
because we've already been told the Esau is a hunter and Jacob
dwells in tents, and it's the nature of hunters to return
exhausted from the chase, just as it's natural for a tent dweller
to tend to the long cooking time needed for lentils to become
edible.
But this one time, the Torah tells us, Jacob does not serve
the elder immediately. Rather, he holds out for the birthright,
which expressed the leadership of the future nation, and
especially the spiritual leadership since the custodian of the
birthright served as priest. Scoffing at the birthright, Esau
willingly swears to sell his spiritual inheritance "for a mess of
pottage". Once the deal is made, Esau eats, drinks, gets up and
leaves, and the Torah declares that Esau "...despised his
birthright." [Gen. 25:34] As if this were not condemnation
enough, Esau then goes and marries two Hittite women, an act of
intermarriage, severely forbidden by Abraham. Once again, the
Bible chides the elder brother, stating that this caused a
"bitterness of spirit for Isaac and Rebecca."
It's from this backdrop that the entire family becomes
involved in acting out a tragic drama. Overhearing that her
husband Isaac has bidden Esau to go out and hunt game so that his
soul will bless Esau before this death, which could come at any
moment, Rebecca springs into action.
Clearly, she favors Jacob. Her reason is clear. Suffering
incredible labor pains after years of infertility, the text had
described how she went to seek G-d, and had been told that two
nations raged inside her womb, the younger eventually ruling over
the elder. And all subsequent incidents merely confirmed the
correctness of this divine prophecy.
Isaac can no longer see -- perhaps he doesn't want to see
because ever since the near-sacrifice on Mt. Moriah he has seen
too much -- and he is subject to Esau's wiles, the hunter who
ensnares people as well as animals.
Knowing the truth, Rebecca commands her reluctant son to
pretend that he is someone he is not. The tasty morsels she
prepares herself, and she then provides Jacob with Esau's
clothes, covering his smooth flesh with goat skins.
Though near death and blind, Isaac is suspicious. He
recognizes Jacob's voice but is confused by Jacob's touch, which
feels like Esau's. In the end, however, Isaac eats and drinks,
drawing his son closely as he blesses Jacob with the "...dew of
the heaven and the fat of the earth..." [Gen. 27:28]
As Jacob departs, Esau arrives, bearing the venison. But it
is too late. Apparently, blessings are not mere words
mechanically uttered. Once blessed, Jacob becomes the possessor
of his blessing. Esau cries out a cry from the depths,
beseeching his father for one leftover blessing, which Isaac
haltingly comes up with, but which fails to appease Esau.
Leaving the tent, he declares his intention of killing Jacob
when their father shall die, and Rebecca, overhearing Esau, sends
Jacob away to her family in Haran.
Why does the Torah see fit to tell us that the founder of the
nation of Israel, the patriarch of the twelve tribes, has a past
mired in the mud of Esau's anger and rage? Why is the patriarch
driven to deceive his father, presented with the characteristic
of truth?
Our world is not perfect. We may know exactly what it takes
to perfect things, but there are dozens of stumbling blocks along
the way. Jacob's nemesis was his twin brother. Certainly, if
Esau had never been born, it might appear that Jacob's task would
have been easier.
But Jacob's life carves out the path his descendants will
face as they flee from their own Esaus. "The acts of the
patriarchs foretell the destiny of their children." The history
of the Jewish people has been filled with one frustration after
another, suffering and rejections, and often lies and deceits in
order to retain a modicum of what they deserved, in order to
survive.
Jacob becomes the epitome of truth not because he is born
with a genetic code which makes him squirm every time he lies,
but because of what he learns in a world which is filled with
deceit.
Prior to the night of the deception, we learn two things
about Esau. He despises his birthright, and he marries two
Hittite women. Undoubtedly, Esau is morally crippled. The
greatest deception would be his being rewarded with the
birthright. Then he would have been a living lie. And if Isaac
was blind to this fundamental truth, then Jacob must wrest what
is rightfully his through an act of deception. No, the end does
not justify the means, and Jacob must bear the consequences of
his trickery. He is in turn deceived by both Laban (who gave him
the elder daughter instead of the younger) as well as by his own
sons, (who tell him that his beloved son Joseph has been
mutilated by wild animals). But the end does necessitate certain
means, a lie which - in an imperfect world - can stand for the
best truth under the circumstances.
Similarly, we cannot yearn for an age of peace, a messianic
era of truth, unless we are willing to wage war against evil and
aggression. Weaponry, we are told in the sixth chapter of
Tractate Shabat, (63a) is a disgrace and we cannot walk into a
public domain on the Sabbath day carrying a weapon as if it were
an ornament. Nonetheless, war, in defense of the life of our
nation, is seen as a divine commandment. The two are not
exclusive. It is no more of a paradox than Jacob's life.
But being human means confronting paradoxes. Rabbi Chaim
Soloveichick of Brisk was once approached with a difficult
question concerning a court case in front of a Gentile Judge.
The plaintiff had just discovered his opponent had bribed the
Judge. If he did nothing, a fair trial was impossible. His only
chance was to give the Judge the same amount the other party had
given.
It may come as a surprise to some, but despite the strong
prohibition against bribery, in this instance Rabbi Chaim ruled
that the plaintiff was required to come up with the payment.
Only with such a lie would both become equalized, and give the
opportunity for truth to emerge.
What Jacob's life teaches is that sometimes the truth takes
on the appearance of a lie. In an imperfect world, we must still
learn to distinguish between to distinguish between a false truth
and an honest lie.
SHABBAT SHALOM!
Copyright Ohr Torah 1989.
|
| 989.7 | Vayetze | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Nov 20 1990 20:07 | 113 |
|
SHABBAT SHALOM
Vayetze -- The True Colors of Laban
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- Is it not ironic that one of the most
devious characters in the Bible, a classical enemy of the Jews,
bears a name which means "white", as if he were pure and
innocent? In fact, this peculiar fact about Laban's name points
to a central part of his character; he is able to pretend one
thing while he feels totally different inside. The man is
greedy, sly, mischievous, and a deceiver, but all of his actions
in this week's portion, Vayetze, can be rationalized away by a
clever rationalizer, Laban's specialty.
To his credit, and even stranger from our perspective, Laban
is central in the formulation of an ancient Jewish law and custom
concerning marriage. We might even refer to him as "Rabbi
Laban", since he teaches us a great deal. When Eliezer, sent on
a mission to find a proper wife for Isaac, decides that Rebecca
is heaven-sent, he makes his offer for marriage, and Laban and
his mother announce, "we will call the damsel and inquire of her
personally, " [Gen. 24:57] which is the Biblical source for the
halacha that young girls cannot be forced or threatened into
marriage. Furthermore, prior to Rebecca's departure with
Eliezer, she is blessed in the following language: "Our sister,
become the mother of thousands of ten thousands, and may your
descendants inherit the gate of those that hate them." [Gen.
24:60] a blessing which has come down to us to this day, repeated
at wedding ceremonies by the groom when he approaches the bride
to cover her face with the veil (the badeken). Why does Jewish
tradition make of Laban a source for religious custom and law, a
Rabbi Laban?
And let us review the actions of this sly deceiver. Jacob
falls deeply in love with Rachel, and offers Laban that he will
work seven years without payment for the younger daughter's hand
in marriage. "The years pass like days because of his love for
her", romantically reports the Biblical text. But on the night
of the wedding, Laban deceives Jacob. The following morning,
Jacob finds himself married to the wrong sister. Now, in
exchange for seven more years of labor, Laban offers Jacob the
younger daughter. And, in justifying his deception, Laban taunts
his nephew, reminding him of his deception. "It is not done so in
our place, to give the younger before the elder."
And Laban's trickery does not end here. When Jacob finally
leaves his uncle, he sums up their business relationship without
receiving any counter-argument from Laban: "By day I was
consumed by the scorching heat, and at night by the frost, when
sleep was snatched from my eyes. Twenty years now have I worked
for your estate...You changed my ways ten times [Gen. 31:40,41]."
And it is apparently largely due to these impossible working
conditions that Jacob and his family must leave Haran and return
to Israel.
But Laban might have offered a most persuasive justification
for his actions, and indeed, when we read between the lines, we
see that he does. After all, his every deception was done for
the sake of the family, for the sake of his children. He does
not want his elder daughter, Leah, with the problematic eyes, to
languish away as an old maid, so he takes advantage of the
opportunity of Jacob's love for Rachel. What further can be
blamed for looking out for a not-so-attractive potential old-
maid. And as for his wage deceptions -- Laban merely wanted
Jacob ever more close to this family, to prevent an independent
Jacob from returning to the land of Canaan and subjecting his
daughter and grandchildren to the wrath of Esau. After all, does
Laban not constantly present himself as the concerned and loving
father and grandfather: "...the daughters are my daughters, the
sons are my sons, the flocks are my flocks. All that you see is
mine [Gen. 31:43];" and why did Jacob steal away in the middle of
the night? After all, "you didn't even let me kiss my grandsons
and daughters goodbye ... I would have sent you off with
celebration and song, with drum and lyre [Gen. 31:28]". And
finally, Laban cuts a treaty with Jacob, gathering a mound of
stones between them to bear witness. Jacob must swear that he
will never degrade Laban daughters or take any more wives.
Again, Laban appears as the good father. And perhaps it is
because his purpose always seems to be the protection of his
family that Laban has become the initiator of wedding customs and
traditions.
But, if indeed Laban's motives are so noble, why does our
subsequent tradition view him as a scoundrel. Does not Jacob
also deceive for a noble cause?
In the end, Laban's excuse is family, a fine, noble
justification, but examining his life reveals no evidence he ever
risked anything for them. His method was to grab as much as
possible. Laban emerges from every deception with an added
bonus: an extra workhand at no cost, scrimping and saving on
salary. Indeed, Laban may be able to brilliantly rationalize,
but his true color is clearly and brilliantly revealed: the
color of greed. Jacob, on the other hand, understood that
entering the tent and pretending to be Esau would lead to
inevitable exile. He was pressed on by his mother, Rebecca, and
her prophetic vision of the future, but the immediate result of
his deception was fleeing into the night toward his own very
uncertain future.
Many years later, when G-d finally commands him to return
home, it would be easier and safer to live out his life under the
umbrella and support of his father-in-law. Back home, the shadow
of Esau's sword awaits him. Did he really need more
confrontations?
Jacob deceives Esau for the sake of heaven; Laban deceives
Jacob for the sake of self, although he may whitewash his actions
by whatever names he chooses. Actually, Laban is the perfect
name for the person who functions as a mirror to Jacob. When we
write the letters of Laban's name backwards, we come up with
'nun', 'bet', 'lamed', spelling 'naval', the Hebrew for
scoundrel, Laban's true self.
Shabbat Shalom.
|
| 989.8 | Three on Vayishlach | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Nov 28 1990 02:21 | 6 |
|
The following three replies are various views on the encounter between
Jacob and Esau and other issues described in the weekly portion,
_Vayishlach_. Enjoy -- and don't hesitate to comment.
Jem
|
| 989.9 | Vayishlach - Is Jacob's behavior to be emulated? | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Nov 28 1990 02:25 | 117 |
| SHABBAT SHALOM
Vayishlach
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- The reconciliation between Jacob and
Esau, Jew and Gentile, is the subject of the first part of this
week's portion, Vayishlach, and two commentators, Nachmanides
(1194-1270) and the S'forno, (1475-1550) provide a fascinating
insight into how one event leads two Torah giants to derive
totally different prescriptions for proper conduct between Jew
and Gentile in Jewish history. Or at least this is how it seems
until a unique reading of the text by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch
(1808-1888) which marvelously harmonizes both views.
"The actions of the patriarchs forebode what will
befall their descendants throughout the generations," is how
Nachnanides sets forth a major principle in Biblical exegesis.
Given that Jacob symbolizes the Jew for all times and Esau
symbolizes the Gentile for all times, when we read of Jacob's 22
year exile from the Promised Land, and of his return and
rapprochement with Esau, Jacob's inner struggle and the choices
he makes become the prototype for all Jewish-Gentile relations in
exile, as well as in Israel. In the 22 years of exile,
much has changed. The penniless Jacob surfaces a wealthy man,
but cautious, frightened and utterly self-effacing. "And Jacob
sent messengers before him to Esau...thus shall you say unto my
lord Esau: your humble servant Jacob says: I have acquired
cattle, donkeys, sheep, slaves and slavegirls, and am now sending
word to tell my lord to find flavor in your eyes..." [Gen. 32:4-
6] In his commentary, [loc. cit.] Nachmanides points out
that every time Jacob calls Esau "my lord", it spells disaster
for the future of the Jewish people. "In my opinion, this hints
that our downfall at the hands of Edom (which is Esau) began when
the Kings of the Second Temple made a treaty with Rome."
Nachmanides believes that fawning to Lord Esau cast Jacob as
history's model for the trembling Jew, frightened and cowering
before the nations, and subject to their merciless swords.
Centuries later, the S'forno takes a radically different
view of Jewish-Gentile relations. On the verse, "And Esau ran
towards (Jacob) and embraced him, fell on his neck, and kissed
him," [Gen. 33:4] the S'forno writes that in a split second
Esau's heart turned around as a result of Jacob's submission. He
goes on to say that the Second Temple would not have been
destroyed had the Zealots acted more like Jacob, i.e., asking
concessions, bringing gifts, and acting docile instead of
engaging in a violent, guerilla campaign against both Romans and
Jews. What makes the S'forno's statement even stronger
is that Rashi, on the subject of Esau's kiss, cites the Sifri's
understanding that the six separate dots above each of the six
letters of the word Jacob with his entire heart. By virtually
ignoring this interpretation of ambivalence in Esau's kiss, the
S'forno underscores to what extent this verse charts Esau's
change of heart, amplifying its message to the descendants of
Jacob on how to deal with the descendants of Esau. On
the surface, the views of Nachmanides and the S'forno seem
irreconcilable, particularly because the very same event -- the
destruction of the Second Temple -- is seen by each one as
historical evidence for different concepts of national Jewish
strategy; according to the one, it was because of our concessions
to Rome and according to the other, it was because we didn't make
the concessions early enough. But if we turn to Rabbi S.R.
Hirsch's (1808-1888) commentary on the Torah, we discover that
the differences between Nachmanides and the S'forno can be
harmonized. Jacob is about to give his blessing to Simon and
Levi, the zealot sons who destroyed Shechem in one fall swoop for
raping their sister Dinah. "Let my soul not enter their plot,
let my spirit not unite with their meeting -- for they have
killed men with anger...Cursed be their rage for it is fierce...I
shall spread them throughout Jacob. I shall scatter them
throughout Israel." [Gen. 49:6-7] Ordinarily, this
blessing can be seen as reprimanding Simon and Levi, but Rabbi
S.R. Hirsch points out that the use of Jacob (Yaakov) and Israel
(Yisrael), "spreading" and "scattering", are not interchangeable
rhetorical devices, but are terms which denote different meanings
and unique significances. Yaakov, Jacob's name before it was
changed to Yisrael, stands for the Diaspora experience, while
Yisrael (Israel) signifies Jacob no longer in exile but living
inside his own land. In the Diaspora, Jacob blesses
Simon and Levi to cause their strength to be spread throughout
so their conduct will be absorbed and adopted by others. Living
among the nations, the proud, bold behavior of Simon and Levi are
a necessary model, and all Jews benefit by learning from their
model on how to resist the powerful Diaspora's influence. In the
exile, the blessing of Jacob is for Simon and Levi to be spread
throughout, for Jewish pride and even defiance, if necessary, to
be shared. But inside Israel, Jacob blesses these two
tribes to be scattered (afitsam), dispersed, and weakened, so
that their shameless behavior will bear little influence and will
be dissipated throughout the land. And indeed from a historical
prospective, the tribe of Simon was totally surrounded and
swallowed up by Judah, and the tribe of Levi, with no land of its
own, was scattered throughout Israel, depleted in national power
and military influence. Distinguishing between Israel
and Jacob, and between spreading and scattering, makes it
possible to embrace both Nachmanides and S'forno under the same
political vision. It depends on the 'where' and the 'when'. The
Nachmanides concept is right when we are in the Diaspora -- we
shouldn't be weak, we shouldn't lower ourselves, crying out to
every foreign power. "Your servant, my lord..." Here the
zealotry of Simon and Levi wield influence, if we are not to
succumb to the powerful forces of Gentile assimilation.
But the S'forno concept is right for the land of Israel,
where we are strong and have sovereign control, so that we can
allow ourselves to be more open, willing to listen to different
ideas, and be conciliatory. And here it becomes necessary to
insure that the zealotry of the Simons and Levis remains
scattered and diffused throughout the land and does not express
Jewish national policy. The question facing modern Israel is
whether we must be tough, saying no to dialogue with Edom and all
their descendants, relatives, cousins. Are 41 years of Jewish
national sovereignty is enough time to soften our exterior,
keeping our heads bowed humbled because we know that in our own
home we are not afraid to risk concessions? It all depends on
how strong we truly think we really are!
Shabbat Shalom.
|
| 989.10 | Vayishlach - Rabbi Alter | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Nov 28 1990 02:48 | 198 |
|
The following D'var Torah was given at Migdal Torah, the Jewish Learning
Center, on Shabbat Vayishlach, December 16, 1989 by Rabbi Avrohom Alter,
and was transcribed by Bruce Krulwich.
---------------------------
In this week's Parsha, Vayishlach, we see Ya'akov [Jacob] meeting his
brother Esav [Esau] for the first time since their dispute over the
birthright [two weeks ago in Parsha Toldos]. Ya'akov is scared of
how Esav will treat him, since when they last crossed paths, Esav
stated his intent to kill his brother, when the opportunity would
allow for it. Several questions arise in looking at the story.
At the beginning of the Parsha, Ya'akov sent messengers to his brother
saying "this says your servant Ya'akov: I have sojourned [garti] with Lavan
until now" [Gen. 32:5]. Rashi explains that Ya'akov was saying two things
in this message. The first is that Ya'akov "was not made a prince or an
important person, but remained a sojourner, therefore, my brother,
you have no reason to hate me because of [our] father's blessing
blessing." This makes sense -- Ya'akov was trying to appease Esav
and reduce whatever anger he still had. By claiming not to be an
important person, Ya'akov was saying that Esav had no reason to want
to fight with him or be jealous of him. Secondly, Rashi points out
that the word "garti" [I sojourned] has the same letters as the word
"taryag," representing the 613 mitzvot [commandments]. Ya'akov was
saying that although he had lived with Lavan for many years, he
hadn't learned from Lavan's evil ways. These both seem to be likely
things for Ya'akov to want to tell Esav, but the next posuk [line]
is confusing. "And I have oxen, and donkeys, and cattle and
servants and maids, and have sent to tell my lord that I may find
favor in your eyes" [Gen. 33:6]. Why, after telling Esav that he
hadn't become an important person, would Ya'akov flaunt his wealth
in this way?
After this, Ya'akov received word that Esav was approaching, and he
divided his people and possessions into two camps so that if Esav
attacked one the other would be able to escape. After praying to
the Almighty for help in his meeting his brother, Ya'akov sent his
camp across the Yabok river. "And Ya'akov was left alone, and
[there] wrestled a man with him until dawn. And when he saw that he
[the man] could not beat him [Ya'akov], he touched the hollow of his
thigh, and the hollow of Ya'akov's thigh was strained as he wrestled
with him" [Gen. 32:25-26]. Rashi explains that Ya'akov was alone on
the side of the river because he had forgotten "small jars" and had
returned to get them, and that the man that he wrestled with was in
fact an angel, who was the guardian angel of Esav. Why would
Ya'akov have crossed the river to get some small jars that he had
forgotten, after moving all of his great wealth across? The Gemorah
[Talmud] explains that "we see from this that Tzadikim [righteous
people] treasure their possessions (with which G-d has endowed them) greatly"
[Chullin 91a]. What does this mean? Why would Ya'akov care more about a
small amount of his wealth than his own safety?
Furthermore, it is clear that the "wrestling" between the angel and Ya'akov
was not literally a physical battle, because from what we've seen elsewhere
an angel could have beaten Ya'akov in an instant. [For example, the entire
destruction of Sodom and Amorah was performed by one angel.] Given this,
why did the angel have to wait until Ya'akov was alone on the side of the
river to attack him? What was it about Ya'akov's being alone that mattered
to the angel? The Midrash explains that being "alone" is one of the
attributes of the Almighty, because everything that exists only exists
because of the will of G-d. If G-d stopped willing everything to exist,
everything would simply fizzle away. Thus only the Almighty is truly
"alone" because everything exists because of his desire. However, the
Midrash says, the person who came closest to emulating this attribute was
Ya'akov, because of his remaining "alone" on the side of the river. What
exactly does this mean, and how does it relate to the angel's fighting with
him at this point?
As yet another question, what does it mean that the angel "touched the
hollow of his thigh, and the hollow of Ya'akov's thigh was strained?" One
explanation which is given is that the hollow of a man's thigh is
figuratively where his future generations come from, and that when the
angel saw that he couldn't beat Ya'akov he caused his future generations to
be hurt. What could this posibly mean?
After the angel left him, Ya'akov saw that Esav was approaching and went to
meet him. After they met and embraced, Esav looked up and asked Ya'akov
"'what did you mean with this camp which I met?' And he [Ya'akov] said 'to
find favor in the sight of my lord.' And Esav said 'I have enough, my
brother, let that which is yours stay with you.' And Ya'akov said ...
'Take ... because I have everything.'" On the surface, this is a simple
enough conversation. Esav is asking why Ya'akov had sent him the gifts and
telling Ya'akov he didn't have to send them, and Ya'akov is saying that he
wants Esav to keep them. Why did Esav have to ask Ya'akov about "this camp
which I met?" Isn't it clear what Ya'akov intended? And, did not
the appointed gift-bearers convey to Esav that indeed "these are
gifts from your brother, Ya'akov." Also, we see again that Ya'akov
says things that may antagonize Esav. When Esav says "I have a lot,
" Ya'akov responds "I have everything." What does he mean by this?
Could he simply be boasting about his wealth?
We can explain this by looking at the idea we discussed two weeks ago [in
parsha Toldos]. Ya'akov and Esav each focussed on the two different
aspects of the world, the spiritual and the physical. Ya'akov's approach
to the world was to take the physical and elevate it to a spiritual level.
This was his only interest in the physical aspects of the world. Esav, on
the other hand, saw physical existance as an end in and of itself, and saw
the spiritual aspects of the world as things to be gotten over so as to
enjoy the physical. When considering what he has, Esav says that "he has
alot" because his focus is acquiring physical enjoyment, and these desires
will never be entirely satisfied. Ya'akov, on the other hand, downplays
his physical possessions and is content with what he has as long as what he
has is enough for his spiritual needs, so he replies that he "has
everything." He has everything because, in essence, whatever
physical possessions he has are not inherently his to use as he
pleases, rather, it all belongs to the Al-mighty, and is available to
Ya'akov only for the purpose of fulfilling the will of the Al-mighty
in whichever way they can be used. Therefore, he inherently lacks
nothing since all that he acquires in this world is never inherently
his own, in any case. This also explains Esav's question "what did
you mean with this camp which I met?" Esav was asking Ya'akov "Wait
a minute. I'm the one who's after physical possessions, and you're
after spiritual ones. Why do you have so much physical wealth?"
Esav didn't understand that Ya'akov's approach to spirituality
[which is now the Jewish approach] wasn't asceticism, the denial of
the physical, but rather the incorporation of the physical into the
spiritual. For Ya'akov to live a spiritual existance, he had to
have physical possessions to elevate to a spiritual level through
actions. Seen in this light, Ya'akov's answer to Esav is a Biblical
play on words -- his gift was "to find favor in the sight of my lord,
" Esav, but all of his physsical possessions were used "to find
favor in the sight of my L-rd," the Al-mighty.
Ya'akov's crossing the river to get a few "small jars" makes much more
sense in this context. If his wealth was merely for his own
enjoyment, there is no reason for Ya'akov to care about a few small
jars when he has an immense fortune, but if he considered all of his
possessions "on loan" from the Al-mighty for him to use and elevate
to a spiritual level, how could he write off even a few small jars?
Indeed, they're not his to forego. These few small jars were given
to him by G-d for a special purpose, and even though their value was
insignificant, still, Ya'akov's responsibility to the Al-mighty was
to use what he was given for its intended purpose. This is the
sense in which Ya'akov was "alone" when he crossed the river. He
considered everything around him to be on loan from the Al-mighty
for spiritual use, and not to be things that he truly owned
permanently. He was alone in the opposite sense that G-d is, but to
the same extent. The Al-mighty is "alone" because everything exists
merely because he wants it to. Therefore, in reality, there is
nothing that truly exists independently other than the Al-mighty.
Ergo, he can be lacking nothing. "Alone," and in need of naught.
Ya'akov, too, is "alone" because he realizes nothing is inherently
his, but is merely in his possession for spiritual use. Therefore,
he, too, can lack nothing, for all that he acquires is another means
to serve the Al-mighty. This entire approach to life is the
antithesis of Esav's lifestyle, which is to "eat, drink, and be
merry, for tomorrow you may die," so Esav's guardian angel couldn't
permit this to continue and had to attack Ya'akov as soon as he
achieved the state of being "alone." This battle can then be seen
as the struggle between the physical and the spiritual, the force
attempting to move Ya'akov from his purely spiritual way of life.
When the angel was unable to veer Ya'akov from this course, he hurt
his future generations, who may be unable to remain on the straight
and narrow spiritual approach to life that Ya'akov maintained.
The Gemorah's statement that "Tzadikim care a great deal about even their
smallest possessions" now makes sense, because a Tzadik will consider his
possessions to be trusts from the Al-mighty for a specific purpose,
to be used for spiritual purposes only. Seen in this light, it's
crucial that these gifts be used for their intended purpose, because each
one that's not leaves the owner (trustee) missing an opportunity to
do G-d's will. In this light, we an understand the explanation the
Gemorah gives for the concept, "since they do not stretch out their
hands in thievery." Superficially, this does not justify the
preciousness they feel concerning their monetary posessions.
However, what the Talmud could be conveying is that they do not
stretch out their hands and use for their own purposes, that
which was given to them as a trust to be used in the service of the
Al-mighty, which would be equivalent to thievery, e.g., a trustee
taking personal benefit from a trust.
This is something that we, too, can aspire to achieve. Every now
and then we can take a moment to think about what we're doing, to
get off the world and focus on it, and to consider whether we're
doing what the Al-mighty wants with what we have, and with what we
are. Ya'akov was the only person in history who came close to
having G-d's attribute of being "alone," because he used everything
that he had in order to do the will of the Al-mighty. The more
we're truly doing G-d wants us to do, the more we're emulating this
attribute of the Al-mighty.
---------------------------
Migdal Torah, the largest independent adult Jewish outreach organization in
the midwest, has succesfully reintroduced many hundreds of Jewish men and
women to the beauty and relevence of our timeless heritage. Through
classes, seminars, and special programs open to all Jews regardless of
background or prior Jewish education, Migdal Torah aims to instill Jewish
identity, knowledge, and values in a non-threatening environment. For more
information about Migdal Torah call (312) 465-7600.
Migdal Torah: Bringing Jews and Judaism together again
|
| 989.11 | Vayishlach - Rabbi Haber | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Nov 28 1990 03:12 | 103 |
|
The following drosha was given at the Saranac Synagogue in Buffalo
on Shabbos Vayishlach 5747 (1986),
and transcribed from memory by Jeffery Zucker.
Comments and questions are very welcome.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TORAH VISION (Shabbos Vayishlach 5747)
In this week's parsha we read about the fateful meeting
between Jacob and Esau. Jacob, on learning that Esau is
approaching with four hundred men, "was very afraid and
distressed" (Gen. 32:8), fearing that Esau might want to
kill him for his previous behavior over the birthright and
their father's blessing.
We may ask: What did Jacob have to fear? Where was his
faith? Wouldn't G-d protect him from his brother, he being
much more righteous?
An answer is given in the Daas Zekeinim Mibaalei Tosafos
(an old commentary on the Chumash). It says that what Jacob
feared was the merit that Esau had gained due to his
observance of the mitzva of honoring his father and mother.
Jacob, remember, had lived for the last twenty years with
Laban, away from his parents, and had not had the
opportunity all that time of practising this mitzva.
But then we may ask: Did Jacob really have to worry about
this? Honoring one's parents is, admittedly, an important
mitzva, which Esau observed strongly; but surely Jacob had
so much merit from his observance of all the other mitzvas!
In fact it says, a few verses earlier, that Jacob told his
messengers to tell Esau: "I have dwelt with Laban" (Gen. 32:5),
and Rashi notes that the letters of the Hebrew word "garti"
("I have dwelt") can be rearranged to spell "taryag" ("613"),
indicating that Jacob had managed to observe all 613
mitzvos, and doing this, what is more, while staying with
Laban -- not exactly an environment conducive to Torah
observance!
What, then (to repeat), did Jacob have to be afraid of?
Many answers can be given to this, but I think the real
answer is very simple. It is this: Objectively speaking,
Jacob had nothing to worry about. He was not in any danger:
his merits far outweighed Esau's. But his perspective was
such that what he noticed most clearly was his brother's one
merit. His own merits were not in the forefront of his
mind, but that of his brother shone brightly.
In Pirke Avos (2:13), we read that when R' Yochanan ben
Zakkai asked his disciples to go and see which is the best
quality to which a man should cling, his disciple R' Eliezer
answered: "A good eye". What he meant here was not,
presumably, the ability to read an optometrist's chart well,
but the ability to see the good in a person or situation.
Last week I was involved in finding out about someone from
out of town for the purpose of matchmaking. I telephoned
someone who knew this person, and asked him for his
opinion. He gave me a blast of purely negative comments
about various aspects of this person's character. (This
being one of the few occasions when lashon hara is
permitted, he was probably enjoying this, getting rid of a
lot of frustration.) I then phoned someone else, and asked
him about this same person, and he responded with ten
minutes of totally positive comments! It was hard to
believe that they were both talking about the same
individual. And yet there was a single person, who, we may
assume, behaved the same way with both my informants, and
yet made such a different impression on each.
Who had the better perspective? People who come up with
negative judgments often think that they are cleverer than
other people, and are sharp enough to see through false
impressions to the real truth. In fact, as we can learn
from R' Eliezer, it requires just as much cleverness and
insight to arrive at a positive impression of a person or
situation.
This was Jacob's greatness: that although he had more reason
than anyone else to view Esau negatively (after all, as far
as he knew, Esau was out to kill him), what he noticed most
clearly about Esau was his merit of honoring his parents, so
much so that in his mind it dwarfed all his own merits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_-_
Rabbi Yaacov Haber /~~ ~~\ internet: haber@cs.buffalo.edu
Torah Center of Buffalo /~ ~\ bitnet: haber@sunybcs
2780 Main St. \ __ __ / uucp: ..!{boulder,decvax,rutgers}
Buffalo, NY 14214 ~ \\ // ~ !sunybcs!torah!haber
phone: (716) 833-7881 | |
fax: (716) 833-7903 // \\
"A tree of life for
those who embrace it"
|
| 989.12 | Here is a question | DECSIM::GROSS | The bug stops here | Wed Nov 28 1990 21:30 | 17 |
| I am in awe of how well the Torah is organized. The Fesitival season ends
with Simchat Torah and our religious ferver is at a peak. Those such
as myself, who skip too many Shabbat services, are motivated to attend --
and we are given these great parashot in Bereshit as our reward. Our
ferver dies down just in time to miss BeMidbar (Numbers) and Devarim
(Deuteronomy) so that we always have something to repent on Yom Kippur :-(.
The parentage of the children of Jacob seems to reflect the political
relations among the Jewish tribes. I take it that the tribes that descended
from the sons of Leah's handmaiden were subservient to the tribes that
descended from the sons of Leah herself. Likewise for Rachel. Is there
much commentary on this aspect?
What happened to the idols that Rachel was sitting upon? Did Rachel die
in childbirth as a punishment for worshiping idols?
Dave
|
| 989.13 | | GAON::jem | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Nov 28 1990 23:16 | 40 |
|
Re: .12
> I take it that the tribes that descended
>from the sons of Leah's handmaiden were subservient to the tribes that
>descended from the sons of Leah herself.
Rashi makes reference to the fact that the children of Leah mistreated
the children of Bilha, her servant (see Rashi in the beginning of
the portion _Vayeshev_, Gen. 37, where Joseph is said to have tattled
to his father about the deeds of Leah's sons. Interestingly, he was
punished for doing so, although what he repeated was completely true,
in keeping with the laws of _loshon_ha'ra_, evil speech. This may imply
that his motivation in relating these facts was less than 100% pure).
But there was never any discrimination between the sons of Jacob's
wives and those of his concubines by either Jacob or in terms of the
apportionment of the land later in history (Jacob did, of course, favor
Joseph, but other reasons are given for this aside from his mother being
Rachel).
>What happened to the idols that Rachel was sitting upon?
Presumably they were discarded after Laban left. I'm not sure
what the significance is, but the Midrash relates that they
turned into jars while Laban was searching.
>Did Rachel die
>in childbirth as a punishment for worshiping idols?
Rashi comments that Rachel's motivation in stealing her father's
idols was to separate him from worshipping them. Actually, the
Zohar does say that her death was related to her stealing the
idols, in that she caused grief to her father (perhaps she should
have confronted him rather than futilely hoping that he would not
replace these with others). Midrash Raba also says that she did
not merit burial together with Jacob because she did not value
her time with him sufficiently (in connection with the "mandrakes"
of Reuben, Gen. 30:15).
Jem
|
| 989.14 | Death of Rachel | SUBWAY::RAYMAN | BIG Louuuuuuuu - PW Comm Meister | Thu Nov 29 1990 01:32 | 9 |
| 12>Did Rachel die
12>in childbirth as a punishment for worshiping idols?
I have seen another commentary on Rachel's death. When Laban caught up to the
fleeing Jacob, he accused Jacob of stealing his 'gods'. Jacob became incensed,
answering (perhaps hyperbolicaly), "Whomever you shall find your gods with shall
not live." Even though Laban did not find the idols in Rachel's tent, Jacob's
curse came true; Rachel died soon after. (moral of the story: be careful what
you wish for - it might just come true!)
|
| 989.15 | Guard your tongue indeed! | GAON::jem | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Thu Nov 29 1990 01:53 | 12 |
|
Re: .14
>Even though Laban did not find the idols in Rachel's tent, Jacob's
>curse came true; Rachel died soon after.
This is another interpretation found in Bereshit Raba. But apparently
his sons didn't learn the lesson, because they declared, upon being
accused of stealing Joseph's goblet, "whosever among your servents
who is found with it shall die." (Gen. 44:9).
Jem
|
| 989.16 | Vayeshev/Chanukah - Riskin | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Dec 05 1990 20:07 | 140 |
|
SHABBAT SHALOM
Vayeshev
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- For me, Chanukah away form home is not
Chanukah. The Talmud's use of language in Tractate Shabbat, 21b,
commanding us to light candles on Chanukah -- "ner ish u'baito"
-- (each householder lights a candle for his home), alerts us to
the importance of the home in performing this commandment. In
fact, commandments linked to a specific part of the home are rare
-- we are not told where to eat matzah or build a Sukkah -- but
when it comes to Chanukah, the optimum location for the candles
are near the door's entrance, at least at a window where the
passing public can see them. The commandment is so closely tied
to one's home that according to Maimonides (Laws of Chanukah, Ch.
4, Law 11), a guest for whom a candle is lit back home does not
have to light a candle in the apartment where he's visiting.
Not only are we surrounded by light, but Chanukah brings
with it an array of smells, tastes, and emotions oriented to the
home. Being aware of this makes it difficult to imagine where
besides the home this mitzvah could possibly be performed. But
the fact is that Chanukah celebrates the Hasmoneans' victory over
the Greek-Syrians and their Jewish Hellenistic sympathizers, the
recapture of the Temple in Jerusalem in 165 B.C.E., and its
reconsecration on the 25th of Kislev after having been defiled by
Greek idolatry. In other words, this struggle is between two
cultures, two identities, two destinies. The discovery of a
small cruse of pure olive oil makes it possible to light the
menorah inside the Holy Temple again and rededicate its holy
vessels to divine service. Indeed, the very name Chanukah means
dedication.
Given how central the Temple is to the understanding of
Chanukah, it is reasonable to ask why the historic continuity of
the Temple -- the synagogue -- was not chosen by our Sages as the
central focal point for this festival? The synagogue is even
called 'temple-in-miniature' (mikdash me'at) in that it contains
such reminders of the original Temple as the Holy Ark and the
Eternal Lamp. On Chanukah, if everyone brought their lamps to the
synagogue, we'd all be astonished by the illumination of so much
light, certainly directing our imaginations back toward the Holy
Temple itself. Precedents do exist. One of the most splendid
displays of Jewish ritual occurs on Sukkoth when everyone lifts
the Four Species during the recitation of Hallel, evoking the
practice in the Temple itself. Should Chanukah, whose heart and
soul emerges from a miracle in the Temple, be any different?
To understand why our homes have become the focus of the
lights of Chanukah, we have to go to the home of Mattathias, the
priest whose family of five sons urged an end to the Hellenistic
outrages against the Jewish people. In the home of Mattathias
were embedded values which made it impossible to compromise with
a Greek-Syrian government bent on forcing Jews to abandon, in the
name of Hellenistic advances, circumcision, Sabbath observance,
and new moon celebrations.
In contrast to those who found a message in Hellenism,
the family of Mattathias, (who were priests) understood better
than most the significance of the Temple's defilement and how the
three besieged commandments cut at the heart of being a Jew.
Fascinating about the Maccabees is how the seed of their victory
lies within the matrix of one family -- a father and five sons.
Imagine how they must have been raised! Lighting the candles at
home not only recalls the miracle of the cruse of oil, but it
honors a family which fought assimilation to the death.
Hellenized, assimilated Jews rushed to change Judea into
a Greek city-state, pulsing with Olympic games, Sabbath
desecration, even wholesale surgical techniques to conceal
circumcisions. Fundamentally, this war was not so much between
Greek-Syrians and Jews as it was a civil war, Jew against Jew,
Hellenist against traditionalist. The real battle was cultural
and religious, and the key to victory went beyond the skill of
the archer, but rested in the home, the truest transmitter of
Jewish values.
Usually, the more one assimilates, the greater the
tendency for the synagogue to become the repository for one's
Judaism. Like church-culture in general, for the assimilated Jew
in the west, Judaism becomes a synagogue-centered religion. The
home is left to run on different sets of values. With three-
day-a-year Jews, inevitably the home must grow estranged from
Jewish life, but for observant Jews, the home is the heart of
Jewish life, the kitchen, the meals prepared, the food eaten, the
prayers said, the seven-day cycle and its culmination in Shabbat
and festivals.
On Chanukah, when each person lights a candle, what we're
also saying is that despite the miraculous events and triumph of
recapturing the Holy Temple, we turn, for a moment, from the
spectacular, and focus on a simple, solitary candle -- the
family, the home -- because after all is said and done, could we
have survived centuries of persecution and suffering if not the
inner light emerging from our homes?
This week's portion, Vayeshev, recounts the trials and
tribulations of another, earlier family -- Jacob and his twelve
sons. The Book of Genesis is really the history of a family,
while the Book of Exodus recounts the creation of a nation.
Prior to the Revelation at Sinai or the construction of the
Sanctuary, or the capturing of the land, the Jewish family
already existed, its vicissitude and triumphs chronicled in
Genesis. Without a strong family at its base, there would be no
Jewish nation to speak of.
Perhaps Joseph's essential teaching is how he healed
violent, emotional wounds, forging eleven brothers into
responsible, committed leaders able to father a nation in exile.
In the Midrash, Abraham is compared to a mountain, Isaac to a
field, and Jacob to a home. The mountain of Abraham is the
mountain he climbs in order to reach G-d when he brings his son
as a sacrifice. The field of Isaac is the land of Israel, which
he never leaves during his entire lifetime. But the greatest of
the patriarchs is Jacob, who built a house with twelve tribes and
one crown price, Joseph.
Like the sons of Mattathias, Joseph must resist a foreign
culture that surrounds him with its delightful promises. More
than anyone else in the Book of Genesis, he understands what it
means to live among 'Hellenists,' but his last words bind the
Israelites by oath to remove his bones from Egypt and bring them
for final burial to the holy land.
When we light the candles in our own home -- no matter
how simple or grand -- we have to remember that the successes of
the Holy Temple, the successes of the battlefield, the successes
of national sovereignty, and even the successes of our own
lives, the fate of where the draidel will fall, really depends on
the kind of light that emanates from our homes. Is there light
there every day of the year, or just on select occasions?
Shabbat Shalom and a Freilicher Chanukah!
Copyright Ohr Torah 1989.
This essay is distributed by Kesher --the Jewish Network. For information
regarding its use, contact the Kesher BBS at 312-940-1696.
|
| 989.17 | Vayeshev - Never Underestimate! | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Dec 05 1990 20:14 | 89 |
|
The following Drosha was delivered at the Saranac Synagogue by
Rabbi Yaacov Haber on Parshas Vayeshev, 5748. (1987) and
transcribed from memory by Dr. Jeff Zucker.
JUDGING CHARACTER
In today's parsha we read how, after the brothers had sold Joseph
into slavery, Judah married a Canaanite woman, had three sons, of
whom -- the first two, Er and Onan, died because of their
sins,and then shortly after that his wife died. The Sforno
explains that Judah was made to suffer in this way as a father,
because of the grief which he had caused his own father, Jacob,
by instigating the plan to sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites.
Now this is strange when we read what actually happened -- for
Judah's proposal to sell Joseph was a device to save Joseph's
life! According to Rashi, he judged that his brothers would not
listen to a proposal to free Joseph completely and return him to
their father, and so he calculated what compromise proposal would
be acceptable to them. Now how can this be considered bad? In
fact, later on (Gen. 49:8), when Jacob is blessing his sons, and
predicting the royal destiny of the house of Judah, his words to
Judah are interpreted by Rashi as praising him for saving
Joseph's life!
How can we reconcile these two viewpoints? Was Judah being bad
or good in instigating the sale of Joseph to the Ishmelites in
order to save his life?
The answer is given by Rashi (on Gen. 38:1): It was both! Of
course, he did a good deed in saving his brother's life, but his
great sin was in trying to judge how far his brothers would be
willing to listen to him, and how much he should compromise on
his position accordingly.
This is something we should never do: to judge of someone, how
far he is willing or able to rise to a challenge; for we are
making a judgment on his neshama, his soul.
If someone asks us: "What is involved in keeping Shabbos?" and we
judge that he is unable to face the full truth, and so we water
down the answer and say: "It's just a matter of making Kiddush on
Friday evening", since we think that is something he can accept
easily enough -- then we are committing a grievous sin, since we
are making a judgment on that person's soul! We are being
patronizing and condescending to that person. It is quite a
different matter to say: "Look, keeping Shabbos means doing
such-and-such, but that may be difficult to do in one shot, so
perhaps you should take it a little at a time, and wait at each
step until you feel ready for the next one."
But to water down the truth so as to make our answer more
acceptable -- that is quite wrong, and it insults the other
person. We should never underestimate anyone's neshama -- in
fact, we should never estimate anyone's neshama altogether!
Everyone we meet should be accepted as being formed "betselem
Elokim" -- in G-d's image. We cannot presume to judge what other
people are, or are not, capable of. In fact, says Rashi, if
Judah had advised his brothers to release Joseph and send him
home, they would have listened to him! And later on, they had a
grudge against him for not doing so!
We can now understand the strange combination of praise and
blame, reward and punishment, given to Judah. For a king should,
at the very least, be capable of judging his subjects fairly, and
someone who is to be ancestor of the Jewish Royal House (even if
this is a reward for saving Joseph's life) should certainly be
capable of judging others fairly, or at least not under-
estimating.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabbi Yaacov Haber _-_
Torah Center of Buffalo /~~ ~~\
1695 Hertel Ave. /~~ ~~\
Buffalo, NY 14216 { }
Tel. (716) 833-7881 \ _- -_ /
~~ \\ // ~~
UUCP: ..!{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!torah!haber | |
Internet: haber@cs.buffalo.edu | |
BITNET: haber@sunybcs // \\
"A tree of life for
those who embrace it"
|
| 989.18 | Three on Miketz/Chanukah | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Mon Dec 10 1990 20:56 | 8 |
|
The following two articles concern the connection between the
weekly portion, Miketz, and Chanukah, which of course begins
tomorrow evening. The third is an exposition on Chanukah which
was originally posted last year, but which I believe is still
very much of interest.
Jem
|
| 989.19 | Chanukah: Why So Few Sources? | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Mon Dec 10 1990 20:59 | 135 |
| SHABBAT SHALOM
Miketz
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- Considering that the Talmud is an
encyclopedic work composed over the course of hundreds of years
and whose range covers every aspect of human life -- religious,
legal, moral, philosophical, even theoretical problems which may
never come to be -- it seems strange that in this vast work we
find but a scant few lines devoted to the festival of Chanukah,
in Tractate Shabat, (21b) and in Tractate Bava Kama, (62b).
Compared to Purim, our only other major Rabbinic
festival, this dearth of texts for Chanukah is even more
striking. Purim rates two entire tractates, one in the
Babylonian Talmud and one in the Jerusalem Talmud. Also, its
scroll, the Book of Esther, was canonized as one of the 24 books
of the Torah, and became one of the most popular works in the
entire Bible. But whoever read, or even heard of, the Books of
the Maccabees, a hidden work written mostly in the Greek language
and reserved for Biblical Scholars.
If one attempts to explain this discrepancy by trumpeting
the importance of Purim while muting the significance of
Chanukah, all we have to do is look at two basic facts. Chanukah
lasts eight days, thereby preserving the shape of a major
festival, and a complete Hallel is chanted every day, something
which isn't even accorded the festival of Passover. Our question
therefore must still be asked.
Toward the end of his life, when Jacob blesses his sons
in the closing pages of Genesis, he reserves the Kingship of the
nation for Judah: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor
the ruler's staff from between his feet." [Gen. 49:10]
Nachmanides (ad locum) explains that this verse teaches that
Judah will rule over all the tribes, and none of the brothers may
rule over him.
The example Nachmanides cites in which Judah was ruled
over by another tribe is the emergence of the Hasmoneans, who as
priests, from the tribe of Levy, committed a great sin when
theirs became the royal house. Individually, Nachmanides
describes the Hasmoneans as saintly, great teachers of Israel
without whom the Torah would have been forgotten. Nonetheless,
the four sons of Mattithias, Judah, Elazar, Jonathan and Shimon
-- each ruling in turn -- were all killed by the sword.
The sin of the Hasmoneans was intensified by a second
factor. Not only should they not have ruled over Judah, but as
priests they should not have done anything to compromise the
integrity and independence of the priesthood. "Guard your
priesthood in everything that pertains to the altar...I give you
as a service of gift. [Numbers 18:7] Nachmanides also quotes
from Tractate Horayot, Jerusalem Talmud, (3:2) "we do not anoint
priests as kings."
If one rules the country, can one guard the priesthood?
History tells us that Hasmoneans didn't survive, and the
tale of their wars, struggles, and heroism was not canonized in
the Torah. The compiler of the Mishna, Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi, a
descendant from the house of David, (from the tribe of Judah) may
have been particularly sensitive to the breach of the crown of
Judah when the priests took a crown they were forbidden to take.
One need not dwell too long on the inherent dangers of
two different streams of power, specifically the executive and
the ecclesiastical, joining under one umbrella. In the modern
world, this check of power characterizes authentic democracies.
Although Nachmanides does not discuss democracy as such, he makes
it perfectly clear how the double sin of the Hasmoneans, whose
earlier religious zealotry was translated into a throne, was the
cause of their descendants' destruction. In Tractate Bava Batra
3b, the Rabbis declare: "Whoever claims he's from the house of
Hasmoneans, know that he's a slave, because no one survived."
Apparently, there were forces within Judaism who might
have been happier if memory of the Maccabeeans would have
disappeared, but the simple historical fact is that the Maccabees
did create national sovereignty for two hundred years. From the
point of view of the Torah and the prophets, the Maccabees
sinned, but from the hindsight of history they succeeded in
creating a kingdom of Israel. When Maimonides introduces the
Laws of Chanukah with a historical account of the Hasmoneans
(Chap 3, law 1), he makes it clear that they "...returned
sovereignty to Israel for over 200 years," and on this score
finds reason to praise them.
Chanukah may not have tractates in the Talmud, but it
does have one very simple important quality -- the return of
Jewish kingship. Imperfect perhaps, but even with this
imperfection, we cannot consign the Hasmonean kingdom to the
dustheaps of history.
The British statesman Lord Acton once said: "Power
corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." But I believe
there is something even more corrupting than absolute power, and
that is absolute powerlessness.
On a recent trip to Australia, I saw a play in which one
of the major characters discovers that his father was actually a
Kapo during World War II. Distraught emotionally, the son
confronts the father.
Faced with the exposure, there is little the father can
say in his defense, but he does say one thing: "I want you to
know that in Auschwitz there were no heroes. There were those
who died, and there were those who survived."
When that line was spoken, I could feel the absolute
powerlessness that Auschwitz became for the Jew. In that place,
where there was no law -- not divine, not human, not even animal
-- the Jew was utterly powerless.
Almost fifty years after Auschwitz, we are no longer
powerless. We live in a sovereign state, and like the sovereign
state of the Hasmoneans, we know that all is not perfect. In
establishing Chanukah as a Festival, our Sages are teaching us to
be grateful for the miracle of even a less-than-perfect sovereign
and to appreciate even that Government which may not yet fulfill
all of our national aspirations. And as we kindle the menorah,
let us pray that with each Chanukah celebration we move closer
towards a future where imperfect sovereignty is rendered perfect.
Shabbat Shalom and a Happy Chanukah
Copyright Ohr Torah 1989.
This essay is distributed by Kesher --the Jewish Network. For information
regarding its use, contact the Kesher BBS at 312-940-1696.
For more information, call (212)496-1618.
|
| 989.20 | _Bitachon_: The Miketz/Chanukah Connection | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Mon Dec 10 1990 21:04 | 193 |
|
The following D'var Torah was given at Migdal Torah, the Jewish Learning
Center, on Shabbat Miketz, December 30, 1989 by Rabbi Avrohom Alter, and
was transcribed by Bruce Krulwich.
---------------------------
Is there an aspect about this week's parsha, Miketz, that makes it
appropriate for Shabat Chanukah? To find a reason for this, let's look at
a few questions about Chanukah and about the parsha, and see if we can find
a connection.
One of the primary miracles that we remember during Chanukah is that after
the war with the Greeks, when the menorah was lit in the Bais HaMikdosh
[holy temple], a portion of oil that would ordinarily have burned for one
day miraculously lasted for eight days. We light the Chanuka candles to
commemorate this. As such, why do we light one candle on the first night,
two candles on the second night, and so on? Why not light all eight
candles each night, to commemorate one measure of oil extending itself
eight times over?
Secondly, we find something about the halachos [laws] of lighting candles
on Chanukah that is different from other Mitzvos [commandments]. There's a
concept in Jewish law of "hiddur mitzvah," of going beyond what's necessary
in performing a mitzvah in order to beautify and enhance the mitzvah.
Often this is done by spending extra money to make the mitzvah nicer [such
as buying an especially nice mezzuzah, etrog, etc.]. The idea of hiddur
mitzvah is to go beyond what's obligated, performing the mitzvah in a more
special way. Concerning the lighting of candles on Chanukah, however, the
Talmud [Shabbos 21b] discusses the basic mitzvah, the hiddur mitzvah, and a
new concept, a "mehadrin min hamehadrin" [especially special] form of the
mitzvah. The basic mitzvah is for the head of a household to light a
single candle each night of Chanukah. The hiddur mitzvah is for each member
of the family to light a single candle each night. The mehadrin min
hamehadrin form of the mitzvah is for each person in the family to light
candles corresponding to the given night of Chanukah, one candle the first
night, two candles the second night, and so on. Our question is why do we
have this added level of hiddur for this mitzvah alone?
Turning to the parsha, we saw last week that Yosef [Joseph] was in prison,
where he correctly interpreted the dreams that his two fellow prisoners
had. One of them, the Sar haMashkim [wine steward], was destined to be
released from jail according to Yosef's interpretation. Yosef requested
that when he will in fact be released, to please remember him and remind
Pharoh of his plight. In this week's parsha, which takes place two years
later, Pharoh has a dream that no one can interpret for him. The Sar
haMashkim suggests that he ask Yosef, the imprisoned Hebrew slave, for an
interpretation. The Midrash [Bereshis Rabba 89:2] says "Fortunate is the
man who places his bitachon [faith or trust] in the Almighty, this refers
to Yosef... Because he asked the Sar haMashkim to 'remember him' and to
'remind' Pharoh, the Almighty caused him to stay in prison for two extra
years." This Midrash is a paradox within itself. The ideas seem to
contradict each other. If Yosef's asking the Sar haMashkim to help him
reflected a lack of faith, why was he the epitome of one with bitachon?
Furthermore, why did asking the Sar haMashkim to help him show a lack of
bitachon? There's a story about a man who lived in a town that was
flooding. A person came by in a rowboat when he was on the first floor and
offered him a ride, but he answered "The Almighty will help me." Another
person came by in a motorboat when the water was up to the house's second
floor and offered the man a ride, but again he answered "The Almighty will
help me." Finally he was on his roof with the water coming up to his
neck, and a helicopter flew over him and dropped him a ladder, but again he
declined and answered "The Almighty will save me." Needless to say, he
drowned, and when he got to the world to come he asked G-d "I had bitachon,
why didn't you save me?" The Almighty answered "What do you mean, why
didn't I save you? First I sent a rowboat, then a motorboat, and finally a
helicopter. What did you expect?" Certainly the same was the case with
Yosef in prison. The Sar haMashkin's being in prison with him and being
released after being helped by Yosef could not have been a coincidence, it
must have been part of the Almighty's master plan for Yosef's being saved.
So why was Yosef punished for giving that master plan a little human
assist?
The Bais HaLevi (commenting on the parsha) gives us an explanation to this
problem. According to the Bais HaLevi, if a person has perfect bitachon,
the Almighty will provide all his needs and the person will be able to
spend all of their time totally involved in the service of HaShem [G-d].
However, whatever a person lacks in bitachon they can make up in hishtadlus
[human effort]. Someone who only has 75% bitachon will have to work hard
enough to supplement the lacking 25% in order to prosper, while someone who
has 90% bitachon will only have to supplement 10%. The Talmud tells of a
disagreement between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai [Brachos
35b]. "Since it says 'this book of the law shall not depart from your
mouth,' one might think that this must be taken literally (and therefore a
person should never leave the house of Torah study). Therefore it says
'and you shall gather in your corn' which implies that you are to combine
the study of [Torah] with Derech Eretz [an occupation] -- this is the view
of Rabbi Yishmael." Rashi explains that if the person didn't have Derech
Eretz he would end up spending his time begging, which would take him away
from Torah more than a profession would. The Talmud continues, "Rabbi
Shimon Bar Yochai says 'Is this possible? If a man ploughs in the
ploughing season, and sows in the sowing season, and reaps in the reaping
season, ... what is to become of Torah? Rather, what is meant is that when
Jews perform the will of the Almighty their work will be carried out by
others for them." This shows us, says the Bais HaLevi, that if someone
spends all their time doing G-d's will, and does so with complete bitachon,
then the Almighty will provide for them. The Talmud concludes, "Many have
followed the advice of Rabbi Yishmael and it has worked well, others have
followed Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai and it has not been successful for them."
This fits the concept of the Bais HaLevi too, because pragmatically
speaking people are rarely able to have complete bitachon and must make up
for their lacking through hishtadlus [human effort].
The Bais HaLevi continues, saying that while each person needs enough
hishtadlus to make up for less than perfect bitachon, a person should not
put more effort into hishtadlus than is necessary. If a person does so,
they won't derive any benefit from the additional, unnecessary hishtadlus,
and furthermore, they will find themselves having to work harder and harder
in order to achieve the original desired results. Each person has to find
a balance, so that they work hard enough to provide for their needs
without putting more effort and trust into their own hishtadlus than is
necessary.
Now we understand why Yosef was punished for giving a push to the Sar
haMashkim to help him get out of prison. Since Yosef was at such a high
spiritual level, where he had complete and total bitachon that the Almighty
would provide for him, even saying two small words was more effort than he
should have put into saving himself. His bitachon was enough that any of
his own efforts put into worldly affairs was considered too much. For this
he was punished. This is why the Midrash connects Yesef's being the
epitome of bitachon with his being punished, because the reason that he was
punished for saying these two words was precisely because he was the
epitome of bitachon. Had he not been at such a level, it would have been
correct for him to give the Sar haMashkin a push. For Yosef, however, it
was wrong.
So far we've been discussing the amount of effort a person puts into things
only regarding the *physical world*. It is only in these areas that more
and more effort is not necessrily a good thing. In areas of spirituality,
however, the opposite is true, and the story of Chanukah shows us this.
When the Maccabees defeated the Greeks and recaptured the Bais HaMikdosh
[Holy Temple], why did they have to relight the menorah right away? They
could have delayed until such time as pure oil was available. And even if
they wanted to rekindle it, why did they need to use undefiled oil? The
commentaries agree that they didn't need to use pure oil for relighting the
menorah at this point in time, and some even question the need to relight
it at all. Picture the scene: the Bais HaMikdosh is all but destroyed and
the victorious soldiers burst in and decide to relight the menorah. Amidst
all the confusion and destruction, some of them start looking for undefiled
olive oil, which seems to have all been destroyed. Imagine then the voices
in the background, "Come on, why be so Frum? Use impure oil, it's
permitted in this situation!!" And yet the search continued for pure oil
and a container of it was found. In a spiritual area such as this, more
effort expended results in a higher level of performance of the mitzvah,
and a more beautiful mitzvah by going beyond one's obligation. Chanukah
exemplifies this concept, and this may be why lighting the Chanukah lights
is the only mitzvah with an additional level of hiddur, with three ways to
perform the mitzvah, each more beautiful than the pervious one. This is
what we are doing when we light Chanukah lights in the most special way, in
the Mehadrin min haMehadrin way. We commemorate the performance of the
mitzvah of the Chashmonayim [those who rededicated the Temple] by our
performance of the mitzvah of Chanukah beyond the base obligation.
This also explains the connection between Chanukah and this week's parsha.
Each is concerned with putting extra work into something, the parsha with
putting extra work into worldly affairs and Chanukah with putting extra
work into spiritual areas. The parsha tells us that we should only put as
much effort into worldly affairs as we have to to compensate for our lack
of bitachon, while Chanukah tells us that every bit of effort we can put
into spiritual areas will be rewarded. This gives us a possible
explanation for lighting an extra candle each night instead of lighting
eight candles each night. The message of Chanukah is that we should never
be satisfied with our religious level, and should always be striving to be
closer to perfection, and this is symbolized with lighting a new candle
each night. If we light one candle one day, we should light two the next
day. If we light two one day, we should light three the next day. By
always striving to be a little bit better, to put a little more effort into
spirituality, we can keep improving ourselves and can come closer to having
the Almighty reward us for our perfection.
---------------------------
Migdal Torah, the largest independent adult Jewish outreach organization in
the midwest, has succesfully reintroduced many hundreds of Jewish men and
women to the beauty and relevence of our timeless heritage. Through
classes, seminars, and special programs open to all Jews regardless of
background or prior Jewish education, Migdal Torah aims to instill Jewish
identity, knowledge, and values in a non-threatening environment. For more
information about Migdal Torah call (312) 465-7600.
---------------------------
Bruce Krulwich
krulwich@ils.nwu.edu
|
| 989.21 | The Indestructible Menorah | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Mon Dec 10 1990 21:30 | 84 |
|
It seems quite ironic and sad to me that for many in this country, Chanukah
is nothing more than a "Jewish Christmas." Ironic, because Chanukah is
actually a commemoration not only of military battles fought against the
Syrian Greeks, but just as importantly against the Jewish Hellenists, who
sought to blur the distinction between authentic Judaism and the predominant
Greek culture. Sad, because most Jews today know nothing of the spiritual
heroism that we are actually celebrating, know nothing of the quintessential
Jewish nature of Chanukah, to the point of not being able to distinguish it
from a gentile holiday. Sad, because as regards some Jews, the Chashmonaim
might just as well have lost the war.
Nachmanides (Ramban) points out that the _menorah_ is the only utensil whose
legacy has survived the destruction of the Temple. Although today's menorah
has 8 (9 including the Shammosh) branches where the original had 7, our menorah
is a direct descendant of the lamp that was lit daily by Aaron and the Levites.
This commandment was given to Aaron in the beginning of the portion
_Beha'alotecha_ (Numbers 8:1), directly after the portion of "the
dedication of the Tabernacle", in which the princes of the tribes are commanded
to bring specific offerings in honor of the occasion. The 10th century
commentator _Rashi_, draws attention to this juxtaposition and offers the
following explanation: When Aaron witnessed the Dedication, and realized that
neither he nor his tribe were included, he was saddened. G-d therefore told
him, "On your life, your portion is greater than theirs, because you light
the menorah."
Ramban questions the logic of Rashi's explanation. In what way did this
particular _Mitzva_ soften the blow to Aaron? Ramban finally reveals the
secret that was referred to earlier: this menorah will symbolically last
forever, even after the _Beit Hamikdash_, Holy Temple, is razed.
The exchange between Rashi and Ramban is strange. After all, what exactly was
bothering Aaron in the first place? Were the descendants of Aaron in any way
deprived of their fair share of involvement in the daily activity in the
Temple? Certainly not!! Their participation was constant and central to almost
all goings on in the Tabernacle and Temple!
I heard the following interpretation from R. Dov Lesser: In order to truly
understand what was troubling Aaron, one must understand the history of the
tribe of Levi, which Aaron led. From the beginning, this tribe was different.
The Midrash relates that while in Egypt, the Jews were prohibited from
practicing circumcision under pain of death. All desisted from the practice,
*except for the tribe of Levi*. While the Jews stumbled by worshipping the
Golden Calf, the Levites remained pure (Rashi on Exodus 32:26). They were
ordered to kill all the culprits involved, and carried out the command, although
some of their closest relatives were involved.
The Levites seemed to transcend nature. They could have acted like the rest of
the nation, and *had every reason to*, their very lives and those of their
loved ones being threatened, but they realized that the continuity of the
Jewish People sometimes requires the ultimate sacrifice, and they were prepared
to do so, although it contradicted every natural tendency and instinct.
Back to the question at hand. Aaron witnessed the dedication of the Tabernacle,
but was joyless, because he realized that the Temple might not last forever.
What made him even more despondent was the realization that without the Temple
as the focus of the nation, and certainly with any possible dispersion of the
people, under normal circumstances the Jews themselves would ultimately
disappear, (i.e. through intermarriage, assimilation, etc.). G-d addressed his
fears: Your portion is greater than theirs i.e. the transcendent nature of the
Levites will be the driving force in the survival of the Jewish people even
after the Temple lay in ruin, and the Nation is dispersed. And the symbol of
this nature is the menorah, which will be the one vestige to survive the
destruction *even of its original purpose* as a vessel in the Temple.
The Chashmonaim were, of course, scions of the House of Levi, and they
embodied this transcendent spirit, ignoring personal danger in the face of
overwhelming odds, seemingly oblivious to logic in their willingness to
take on apparently impossible tasks. Had Jimmy the Greek been present, he
doubtless would have declared the smart money to be on the Hellenists, both
Jewish and non-Jewish. The Chashmonaim were oblivious to the physical threat
in the face of the greater threat: the spiritual annihilation of the Jewish
people - and nothing could stand in the way of the mission to halt it - NOTHING!
The menorah is the symbol of these spiritual heros, and their spirit is what
accounts for our entirely unnatural survival in the Diaspora.
Lest one imagine that this is solely the domain of Levites, Maimonides (Rambam)
states emphatically (end of the laws of Shemitta ve'yovel, in the Mishna Torah):
...not alone to the tribe of Levi, but every *person*, from every background
whose heart is given to *know G-d*... is considered a Levite in this respect.
Jem
|
| 989.22 | Vayigash: Societal Pressures -- Something New? | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Mon Dec 17 1990 20:06 | 151 |
| SHABBAT SHALOM
Vayigash
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- We know that Abraham is the first Jew,
Isaac the first son, and Jacob the first father, but who is the
first Jew who resists the temptations of assimilation?
The three patriarchs represent stages in the evolution of
Judaism. Abraham, the first proselyte, on his own cognizance,
apprehends a Creator of the universe, in breaking with the pagan
practices of the ancient world, he becomes the first Jew.
He is followed by Isaac, the first son, upon whom rests
the responsibility of guaranteeing that his father's monotheism
takes root in the world. Isaac's own ego is subordinated to his
father, and he follows only one person's footsteps, even if they
lead to the top of Mount Moriah where he's about to be
sacrificed. When Isaac digs wells, they are the same wells which
earlier were dug by his father, and when he names them, he uses
the names his father had given them. Isaac is the son, first,
last and always.
Ironically, Isaac's own son, Jacob, can be called the
'first father', for Jacob is the father of the Jewish nation.
His twelve sons become the pillars upon whom the nation will be
built. Unlike Abraham and Isaac, each of whom had sons who grew
separated from the Jewish nation, our father Jacob only had
Jewish sons, everyone of whom became an integral part of the
Jewish people.
Now, of Jacob's sons, the Torah focuses on one more than
all the rest put together, spanning almost fourteen chapters in
the Book of Genesis. Joseph's growth provides the bridge between
two stages in Jewish history -- from a family of shepherds to a
nature struggling within the shadows of Pharaohs.
Joseph, the first Jew to stand up to assimilation, does
not succumb to the secular world's flatteries and temptations.
Joseph doesn't waver in his beliefs. But there is a deeper
meaning to Joseph's Egypt. This week's portion, Vayigash, if
read with the eyes of Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaKohen Kook, Israel's
great first Chief Rabbi, helps us see that the struggle between
Joseph and his brothers goes beyond favoritism or jealousy, but
is an early development of two different ways of defining how to
live as a Jew.
Some would argue that one should never step beyond the
four ells of law since outside this wondrous and holy protective
network, a Jew risks grave danger to body and soul. Others are
convinced that we have a tremendous store of riches to share with
all nations and cultures, and needn't fear encounters with
secular systems beyond the gates of the yeshivas.
Keeping this in mind, Rabbi Kook explains that the
struggle between Joseph and his brothers is a confrontation over
this very issue. The brothers believed Jews should lead insular
lives to prevent the risk of assimilation and disappearance.
But Joseph believed in the importance of the outside
world. Now his dreams take on a possible second meaning.
Although he can be found together with his brothers pasturing the
flocks, he dreams of other things. "'Listen to the dream I had.
We were binding sheaves of corn, when my sheaf suddenly stood up
erect. Your sheaves formed a circle around my sheaf, and bowed
down to it.'" [Gen. 37:7]
This angers the brothers not only because it sounds as if
young Joseph wants to rule over his elders, but on a deeper,
symbolic level, sheaves of corn represents a different world.
The Torah tells us that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were shepherds,
the time-honored profession of the Jewish people. But the world
of farming represents a world outside the four ells of law, a
non-Jewish occupation, and therefore a departure from tradition.
The second dream is even more striking. The sun, moon and stars,
in effect the entire cosmos, all universal symbols, confirms to
the brothers that in his soul Joseph is moving away from them,
his imagination striving with concepts and dreams beyond the more
insular domain of flocks and fields, even beyond the narrow
confines of Judaism and Israel. The universe has become Joseph's
oyster.
They are wary of Joseph's dangerous dreams, and the
tension between these conflicting views reach a climax when Jacob
sends Joseph to check on his brothers grazing their flocks near
Shechem. Spotted in the distance, a plot unfolds to throw the
haughty brother into a pit. But when a caravan appears on the
horizon, Judah comes up with an idea to test Joseph. "Let's sell
him to the Ishmaelites," [Gen. 37:27] . The intention is to test
Joseph's dreams. Here is his chance to leave behind his familiar
world and begin tangling with Arabs, Egyptians, strangers,
fortune hunters, and "...we'll see how long he remains a Jew."
And so Joseph lives out the drama of a shepherd, the son
of shepherds, who wanders far from the flock. Almost
immediately, he faces his first test, resisting the sexual
temptations of his employer's wife.
Resistance results in a heavy price. Survivor of one
pit, Joseph certainly knows that an Egyptian jail is a taste of
hell, yet even here he remains true to the faith of his fathers.
Time passes. He predicts one man's release and another's
execution, and then he's forgotten. For all he knows, Joseph
will never again see the light of day. Yet all he has to do is
slip word to Potiphar's wife that he has changed his mind. But
Joseph never relaxes his sexual standards, he never forgets G-d,
and never denies that he is a Hebrew.
In the end, raised from the depths after Pharaoh's
dreams, he marries a woman whom the Midrash identifies as the
daughter of Dina, thereby avoiding intermarriage. His ultimate
reward is that Joseph makes a profound contribution to Egyptian
history, saving the land and its people from death and
destruction; but he also makes a dramatic contribution to Jewish
future. Joseph is the redeemer of that age and the model for
every age -- in which Jews must confront foreign cultures.
Every Friday night at the Sabbath table when the children
are blessed, daughters are blessed to be like Sarah, Rebecca,
Leah and Rachel, but sons are blessed to be like Efraim and
Menashe, (Joseph's two sons) and not Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Why? The reason is because Joseph's sons were the first two
Jewish children born and raised in Egypt, yet remained Jewish.
Our blessing captures the Jewish experience of the Diaspora --
surviving in a world where being Jewish is not always a priority.
In the course of our lives, few of us are asked to become
a proselyte, discovering the Creator of the universe, or to be
bond like Isaac on the altar, or to father a nation, but most
modern Jews are asked to stand up to the tests which Joseph stood
up to. In other words, Joseph's psychological development most
closely resembles the typical western Jew who must resist a
variety of temptations, flatteries, and golden apples waiting to
be plucked.
Joseph's greatness is that he enters a land of tombs,
pyramids, and animal gods, proving that even here a person can be
a Jew. And if one can be a Jew in Egypt, one can be a Jew
anywhere --everywhere. But only if one is strong enough to
withstand the same temptations Joseph withstood. In our daily
Egypts, we are all Josephs. If we succumb, the brothers had a
point. Were they right, or was Joseph right? The answer depends
on us.
Shabbat Shalom
Shabbat Shalom
Copyright Ohr Torah 1990.
|
| 989.23 | Vayigash/Asarah BeTevet - Ahavat Chinam | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Mon Dec 17 1990 20:09 | 148 |
|
The following D'var Torah was given at Migdal Torah, the Jewish Learning
Center, on Shabbat Vayigash, January 6, 1990 by Rabbi Avrohom Alter, and
was transcribed by Moshe Handel and Bruce Krulwich.
---------------------------
It's very fitting that this week's parsha, Vayigash, occurs on the week
before Asara BeTeves [the tenth day of the month of Teves]. Asara BeTeves
is the day that Nevuzadran, the Babylonian general, laid siege to
Yerushalayim [Jerusalem] prior to the destruction of the first Bais
HaMikdosh [Holy Temple]. The siege lasted almost three years until the
city walls were breached and the Temple was destroyed (may it be rebuilt
speedily in our days). This is remembered every year by a day of fasting
and introspection towards self-improvement on the day of Asara BeTeves.
At the end of last week's parsha, Yosef [Joseph] threatened to imprison
Binyomin [Benjamin], having framed him for theft, as a test to see if his
brothers would rish their lives tokredeem him. This would be an indication
to Yosef that his brothers had truly repented from their sin. This week's
parsha begins with Yehuda [Judah] confronting Yosef, asking that he be
allowed to take Binyomin's place in jail. When Yosef heard this concern
that his brother had for Binyomin and for the grief their father Ya'akov
[Jacob] would have to endure, "Yosef could not contain himself before all
who stood by him, and he cried 'let everyone leave me,' and no one was
there when Yosef revealed himself to his brothers. ... 'I am Yosef, is my
father still alive?' And his brothers could not answer him, for they were
overcome." [Gen. 45:1-3]. Yosef then calmed them with an elaborate pardon
for selling him into slavery 22 years earlier. This pardon had three
elements. He first assured them that their actions were obviously
pre-destined in order to save the family from the famine. Secondly, in
case they still felt shame for what they did (for they certainly hadn't
intended the positive results of their actions), he told them that "it was
not you who sent me here, but the Al-mighty" [Gen. 45:8]. Lastly, if they
still felt remorse for Yosef's suffering during his time in Egypt, he
reminded them that he had become "a lord of all [Pharoh's] house and ruler
over all the land of Egypt" [Gen. 45:8]. Why did Yosef offer them this
elaborate pardon, when they didn't even ask him for forgiveness? "You
crummy skunks," we can imagine him saying, "How could you do such a
thing?" Even if he elected to disregard his personal suffering, why did he
excuse them so completely? Why was Yosef so concerned with alleviating
even the smallest feeling of guilt over what was truly a wrong action?
After forgiving them, Yosef was overcome with emotion and "he fell upon his
brother Binyomin's neck and wept, and Binyomin wept upon his neck" [Gen.
45:14]. This scene doesn't make sense given the background provided by
ChaZaL [our sages of blessed memory]. The Midrash says that Yosef
identified himself to Binyomin during last week's parsha. After the
brothers brought Binyomin to Egypt, Yosef took him aside, showed him an
astrological map of Egypt, and asked him to use his divine inspiration to
locate his long-lost brother Yosef. Binyomin successively identified the
district, the city, and the building in which they were sitting. When
shown a map of the palace, he indicated the room they were in, and said "my
brother is beside me." This puts everything in a new light! If Yosef had
already revealed himself to Binyomin, why did this emotional scene take
place when Yosef identified himself to the rest of his brothers? Rashi
explains that Yosef was weeping "for the two Batai Mikdash [Holy Temples]
that were to be in Binyomin's portion [of the land of Israel] and were
destined ultimately to be destroyed," while Binyomin was weeping over "the
Mishkan [Tabernacle (predecessor of the Temple in Jerusalem)] of Shiloh
destined to be in Yosef's portion, which also ended in destruction." This
seems like a non sequitur. Why did the brothers' reunion elicit this
response from Yosef and Binyomin?
ChaZal tell us that the destruction of the Bais HaMikdosh was divine
punishment for the sinas chinam [groundless hatred] that existed among the
Jews at that time. Hatred is inexcusable and it brought about the complete
destruction of the nation's essense -- the embodiment of their relationship
with the Al-mighty. Indeed, the Midrash tells us the site of the Bais
HaMikdosh was chosen by the Al-mighty because an incident of abundant love
and devotion between brothers:
There once were two brothers who lived in valleys separated by a mountain.
One had a family and many children, the other was a bachelor. Once, during
harvest season, the bachelor, concerned with the many children his brother
needed to feed, decided that at night, under cover of darkness, he would go
over the mountain and place some of his own bundles of grain in his
brother's field. Meanwhile, his married brother, concerned that his
bachelor brother, who had no children to care for him in his old age, would
need more money for his later years, independently decided on the same
course of action.
In the middle of the night, each of the brothers crossed over the mountain
into the other's field, and left many bundles of grain. In the morning,
when each counted his bundles, they were surprised to find their full
harvest, with no bundles missing. So, that night, they, again, repeated
the previous night's act of kindness. This continued until one night, the
brothers met on the mountaintop. Immediately, each had understood the
events of the past few nights. They were so overcome by the other's
selfless devotion they dropped their bundles and wept on each other's
shoulders.
Our sages tell us that at that moment, the Al-mighty designated the ground
where the bundles lay, a place imbued with boundless brotherly love, to be
the site where He would manifest his love to the Jewish people via the Bais
HaMikdosh.
The root of sinas chinam is the "big G": ga'ava, [the insidious selfishness
that renders people completely incapable of seeing beyond their own petty
needs and mean concerns]. Yosef and Binyomin had just seen the end of 22
years of suffering caused by sinas chinam. They knew that the sinas chinam
which had torn apart their own lives was the seed of the sinas chinam that
would later tear Klal Yisroel [the nation of Israel] asunder, and bring the
churban [destruction of the Temple]. Therefore, they attempted to begin to
rectify sinas chinam, whose root is self-centeredness, focusing on one's
self to the point that no one else matters. The tears that they shed over
this were particularly for the loss of the other. Yosef wept only for the
destruction that would happen in Binyomin's territory, while Binyomin wept
solely for Yosef's future loss (despite the fact that the Bais HaMikdosh
could not be built in his own portion until after Shiloh's destruction).
This concern for others and their misfortunes ahead of one's own loss
demonstrates the selflessness which is the antithesis of ga'ava.
Now we can understand why Yosef was so careful to alleviate any sentiments
which could have continued to separate him from his brothers. Anything
less would be to retain some moral standing over his brothers, and to do so
would reflect ga'ava on his part, which was the root of their problems.
Instead he wished to promote achdus [unity] between himself and his
brothers, to combat the sinas chinam which had caused so much suffering.
What better way, than to feel their (his brothers) suffering (of remorse)
to the point of eliminating it by elaborating why they should not feel bad.
Yosef demonstrated to them how one should focus on another's feelings even
before his own. In place of "twisting the knife" and leaving them guilt-
ridden, he made them feel at ease.
This has a clear message for us on Asara BeTeves. ChaZaL say that the main
reason for fasting is to bring about t'shuvah [repentance]. This is seen
in the story of Yona [Jonah] when "the Al-mighty saw their [the people of
Ninveh's] actions, in that they turned from their evil way" [Jonah 3:10].
The Al-mighty didn't respond to their fasting, or to their sackcloth, but
rather to their "actions," the changes that they made in their lives. To
make such changes they had to commit to something beyond themselves, to
aspire to something more important than their own concerns. In order to
improve ourselves, we must emulate Yosef by transcending our own concerns
and committing ourselves to the needs of others.
---------------------------
Migdal Torah, the largest independent adult Jewish outreach organization in
the midwest, has succesfully reintroduced many hundreds of Jewish men and
women to the beauty and relevence of our timeless heritage. Through
classes, seminars, and special programs open to all Jews regardless of
background or prior Jewish education, Migdal Torah aims to instill Jewish
identity, knowledge, and values in a non-threatening environment. For more
information about Migdal Torah call (312) 465-7600.
|
| 989.24 | Vayechi: Contrasting Judah's and Joseph's Greatness | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Dec 26 1990 19:13 | 163 |
| SHABBAT SHALOM
Vayechi
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- The majority of Jacob's sons, even if
we remember their names, recede into a blurred anonymity.
Exceptions, however, exist. Because of their violent defense of
Dinah's reputation, Simon and Levi stand out as individuals. And
to understand Jacob's rejections of Reuven as heir to double the
portion reserved for the eldest brother, we must learn something
crucial about the life and character of Leah's first-born
("fickle as water...).
But no brother is as significant as Joseph. Starting
with dreams of the sun, moon, and eleven stars all bowing down to
him, it is clear that the Torah is telling us that Joseph is
destined for greatness; and indeed, much of the latter part of
Genesis is dedicated to tracing the process that led a youngster
sold into slavery into becoming the second must powerful man in
Egypt. Therefore, when it comes to the
blessings apportioned to Jacob's sons in this weeks portion,
Vayechi, one might expect that Joseph, the eldest son of Jacob's
beloved Rachel, and the one who proves himself as the key member
of the government in the foreign court of Pharaoh, should emerge
as the logical and emotional choice for the future kingship of
Israel.
But Jacob divides his blessings. The double portion goes
to Joseph, via his two sons, Efraim and Menashe, while Judah
receives the kingship. And this division has historical
repercussions, for it created a permanent split in the nation, a
Northern Kingdom comprised of Judah and Benjamin.
To understand why Jacob could not give the kingship to
Joseph, we must compare the lives of Joseph and Judah.
Joseph is born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He is,
quite naturally, his father's favorite, not only because Jacob
worked for fourteen years in order to marry his mother, but also,
considering Rachel's barren years, Joseph's existence was a
miracle from birth. His beauty, his words, his dreams -- all
single him out from the rest of his brothers.
However, every trial and tribulation Joseph endures only
serve to reveal his perfection of character. When the
Ishmaelities sell him, he brings blessings to his new master's
house, but then, when faced with Potiphar's wife's temptations,
he resists and never tells Potiphar about her advances. In the
dungeon, when he is forgotten by the chief wine steward, Joseph
does not drown in bitterness.
Each step toward the Grand Viziership of Egypt, and then
the eventual reunion with his family, bears this stamp of
perfection. Joseph, on his own, does not fail. Cherished by G-d,
he succeeds in everything he does.
Nonetheless, Jacob blesses Judah's descendants with the
kingship. "The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor does the
ruler's staff from between his feet, as long as men come to
shiloh. And unto him shall the obedience of the people's be."
(Gen. 49:10).
Why?
Judah, the Torah tells us, has three sons. The eldest,
Er, marries a woman named Tamar. When he dies, leaving no
children behind, the second son, Onan, must accept the
responsibility of marrying his sister-in-law and bringing a child
into the world in the name of his brother. Onan refuses,
spilling his seed to the ground. He too dies, but Judah does not
give Tamar his third son, Shelah, who is still young.
In the course of time, Shelah grows older, and Tamar sees
that Judah is not about to fulfill his duty as a father-in-law.
Her rights violated, we understand why she devises a plan to get
pregnant, and covering her face like a prostitute in order to
seduce her father-in-law, she adheres to her society's laws which
demand that she bring a child into the world who will carry Er's
name.
When a report of Tamar's pregnancy reaches Judah, the
leading judge, he condemns her to being burned. But Tamar
produces Judah's seal, robe, and staff, given to the prostitute
as security. Realizing the truth behind Tamar's action, he
publicly declares, "She is more righteous than I am." (Gen.
38:26)
Not many in Judah's shoes would have admitted to their
compounded sin of having slept with a prostitute, refusing a
daughter-in-law's rights, and then nearly condemning an innocent
woman to death. Most would deny, conceal, swear or do anything
to avoid the shame of rumor turning into gossip, and gossip into
accusation. But Judah takes responsibility. He admits his
failing by calling Tamar righteous. She, after all, only wanted
what the law approved.
This sequence between Judah and Tamar is introduced with
the following verse. "And it came to pass that Judah went down
from his brethren..." (Gen. 38:1) The Hebrew verb is 'vayered',
(he went down) and the commentators speak of a spiritual descent
as well as a physical one.
The Tamar-Judah episode follows the sale of Joseph to the
Ishmaelites, and Rashi explains that Judah's brothers 'lowered'
him from his position because after they saw their father's pain,
they blamed Judah for being the one who made the suggestion of
selling Joseph; they claimed that due to his leadership position,
had he argued that they bring him back alive, they would have
listened to him. Thus, it was Judah who was initially
responsible for the sale of Joseph and the deception presented to
father Jacob.
Psychologically, Judah may not have been too disappointed
when his younger more successful and favorite brother was
virtually eliminated. But he learns from his mistakes because
years later, when Benjamin is trapped with the silver chalice in
his knapsack, it is Judah who comes to Benjamin's rescue,
although he is the one with the most to gain if both sons of
Rachel were to disappear forever leaving open the possibility for
his receiving blessing and birthright. Nevertheless, it is Judah,
after all, who convinces the Grand Vizier of Egypt not to enslave
Benjamin and to reveal himself as Joseph the Hebrew.
When Jacob blesses Judah, he says, "From the prey, my son
you have gone up." (Gen. 49:9) Rashi points out that the word
'prey' recalls what happened to Joseph when they brought the
blood soaked coat to their father who said, "Tarof, taraf,
Joseph." (Joseph has been torn to pieces) (Gen. 37:3), and, once
again, Judah proves himself to have the capacity to change and
grow.
Thus, the blessing itself alludes to the reason why Judah
is the one chosen to bear the kingship. Judah is the right
person precisely because of his imperfections. A ruler, Jacob is
teaching us, must have the common touch. If the ruler is
perfect, always in control, the gap between the people and the
king is too great. The choice of Judah reveals that penitents
are in some way greater than those born to be perfect. Joseph
may be more righteous, but Judah picks himself up by his
bootstraps, admits to the truth and risks shame.
The noble King Joseph would be off in an ivory tower,
while the human King Judah would love and be loved by his people.
And perhaps this is what our Sages had in mind when he taught:
"In the place where penitent stands, even the most righteous
cannot gain entry."
Shabbat Shalom
Copyright Ohr Torah 1990.
This essay is distributed by Kesher --the Jewish Network.
For more information, call (212)496-1618.
--
Alan Lustiger
|_ | | AT&T Engineering Research Center
/ |( Princeton, NJ
attmail!alustiger or att!pruxc!alu
|
| 989.25 | Shemot: Real Men... | NYSBS::STEINBERG | | Thu Jan 03 1991 00:34 | 133 |
| SHMOT
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- The earliest indication that Moses is
worthy of being chosen to redeem the Jewish people appears in the
opening pages of Exodus when he stumbles upon an act of violence
after he leaves the palace walls. His potential for holiness
will not be addressed until Moses shows what his potential for
justice is and how he responds to the violence. The commentators
point out that Moses faces three variations on the theme of human
conflicts; between Gentile and Jew, between Jew and Jew, and
between Gentile and Gentile.
The first two confrontations occur in Egypt itself.
"And it came to pass in those days when Moses was grown
up, and he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their
burdens, and he saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew...And he looked
this way and that way, and when he saw there was no man, he smote
the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand." (Ex. 2:11-12)
The above verse raises two problems, and in examining a
number of alternative explanations, we see evidence that Moses
was first and foremost concerned with the unique aspect of
humanity which we share with all mankind.
First of all, the Egyptian and the Hebrew are not simply
identified by their nationality, but by the appellation "ish"
(man). After Moses turns "this way and that way", the text again
uses the word "ish" in describing that he saw there was no "ish".
However, when the Torah comes to the killing of this Egyptian,
after using the term "ish" three times in rapid succession, its
absence the fourth time is unusual.
A second problem deals with the question of what happens
to Moses on the second day when he goes out and finds two Hebrews
fighting. Morally castigating them for their behavior, one
responds by counter-attacking Moses and asking, "Who made you our
prince and judge...Do you mean to kill us as you killed the
Egyptian?" (Exodus 2:4)
Now, we've just been told in the previous verse that
Moses looked in all directions before going ahead and killing the
Egyptian murderer; how is it possible that the next day these two
Hebrews would know what was presumably a secret?
Rashi comments that when Moses, prior to killing the
Egyptian, looked all around, he didn't just look to his immediate
right and left; rather he looked into the future, to make sure
that he wasn't about to kill someone from whom a great person was
destined to emerge.
Rashi's explanation answers our question as to how Moses
could look around and not notice that there were two Hebrews
nearby: The verse simply means that when Moses "looked", he was
more concerned with this Egyptian's future progeny than with the
actual proximity of potential prosecution witnesses. His gaze
looked into a world beyond appearances, where he could see to the
end of generations.
Another explanation to our second question recalls the
principle in the Ethics of Our Fathers. "In a place where there
are no men, strive to be a man." (Mishna Avot 2:6)
With this concept in mind, a slightly different nuance is
stressed. Moses witnesses a terrible event, the murder of a
Hebrew, and he wants to make sure the Egyptian doesn't go
unpunished. But Moses is a prince of Egypt. If he takes action
and is found out, the risk is great, possibly death. Certainly
he has much more at risk than any typical Hebrew slave.
Therefore "he turns this way and that way" to see if there is
anyone else who will come to the defense of the innocent Hebrew;
but unfortunately, "there is no man" and so he himself must act.
Moses is looking for someone "...who in a place without men will
be a man". Thus, the next day when two Hebrews ask if he plans
to kill them, he isn't even surprised that he's been discovered;
after all, he'd looked at the inner essence of his contemporaries
to ascertain whether anyone else could live up to this challenge.
Nonetheless, we are still left with the first question --
why the change of language, the absence of the word "ish"?
The Netziv (Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, 1817-1893)
explains that the Hebrew language possesses four basic terms for
the human being: Adam, Gever, Enosh, Ish. Each one is a grade
in the scale of human potential, the highest achievement reserved
for the word "ish", the man who reflects most closely the image
of G-d. In fact, our Sages tell us that wherever there is an
unidentified "ish" in the Torah, we should know we're speaking
about an angel. (For example, when Joseph is sent by his father
to locate his brothers, the text reads, "And a certain man [ish]
found him", [Gen. 37:15] and Rashi points out this "ish" was the
angel Gabriel).
In the first verse, Moses saw two men, a Hebrew and an
Egyptian. They were extraordinary people, accomplished
individuals, men worthy of being called "ish". Moses looks this
way and that way and finds "no man", because neither one who
smites nor the one who is smitten are the people who can be
called "men", in the "ish" sense of the word. When Moses slays
the Egyptian, the person he slays is no longer called an Egyptian
man ('ish"), but simply an Egyptian and, no matter how cultured
and well educated he may have been, if he can beat a less
fortunate individual, he is not an "ish". When a person is
beaten, contrary to popular notions, his "ish" quality is not
increased but decreased. The hard reality is that being beaten
reduces a person to wounds and pain. And someone who is unable
to protect his integrity as a person cannot live as an "ish".
The explanation of the use of the word "ish" can also
explain our second questions as to why in the subsequent verse we
read that the men wanted to know if Moses planned to kill them
too. We understand that when the text says he "looked this way
and that way, and found there was no man", this should not be
taken literally; rather, he saw that these two people were no
longer men. The Torah tells us that once as person becomes
either an oppressor or the oppressed the "ish" is lost.
During the Holocaust, many Jewish victims uprooted heaven
and earth to keep their dignity, never to lose their "ishiyut",
their human quality, the part that makes one a man. And for the
last forty-one years as a sovereign state, the great moral
struggle of the nation of Israel has been how to deal with acts
of rebellion and violence among the Arab population without
becoming oppressors and losing our "ishiyut" in the process.
The challenge in Israel today is to be strong enough
never again to suffer as the smitten, sensitive enough never to
abuse our strength, and wise enough to prevent situations where
we end up being forced to smite the weak. Only then can our
primarily civilian army hold onto its human integrity and emerge
as an army of "men", and only then can we hope to lead the world
to a G-d of justice and compassion.
Shabbat Shalom!
Copyright Ohr Torah 1990.
This essay is distributed by Kesher --the Jewish Network.
For more information, call (212)496-1618.
--
Alan Lustiger
|_ | | AT&T Engineering Research Center
/ |( Princeton, NJ
attmail!alustiger or att!pruxc!alu
|
| 989.26 | Shemot: Mean What You Say | NYSBS::STEINBERG | | Thu Jan 03 1991 00:43 | 118 |
|
The following drosha was given at the Saranac Synagogue in Buffalo
on Shabbos Shmos, 5747 (January 24, 1987)
and transcribed from memory by Jeffery Zucker.
Comments and questions are very welcome.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(Shabbos Shmos 5747, 1987)
In this week's parsha, we read about the well-known incident
where Moses, watching his father-in-law Jethro's flock in
Midian, sees a bush which burns but is not consumed. He
turns aside to see it more clearly. "And when the L-rd saw
that he turned aside to see, G-d called to him from the
midst of the bush, and said: Moses, Moses. And he said:
'here I am' " ["Hineini"] (Exod. 3:4). G-d goes on to inform him
of his great task, to bring the Jews out of Egypt.
Moses' answer, "Here I am", had a good precedent: it was
used by Abraham when G-d summoned him to sacrifice his son
Isaac (Gen. 22:1). Nevertheless, the Daas Zekeinim quotes
a midrash that G-d was angry over this response, and said to
him: "Who are you to say Hineini? Who are you to give the
same answer as Abraham? Because of this, your descendants
will be neither priests nor kings." (The hint in the text to
all this is found in G-d's statement in the next verse,
which begins: "Al tikrav halom", "Do not approach here".
"Al tikrav" is taken to be an allusion to the "korbanos" or
sacrifices of the priesthood, and "halom" to the kingship of
David.)
This is a rather strange story. For one thing, how was
Moses supposed to know what Abraham had said? The first
edition of the Bible had not been published yet! For
another, this seems a rather strong reaction to Moses'
answer. (What was Moses supposed to say? What would you
have said?)
I think the answer is this. Abraham's response "Here I am"
displayed (as Rashi says) both humility and readiness to
carry out G-d's wish. What about Moses? Humility he
certainly had -- he was the humblest man on earth -- but, if
we look a few verses later, we see that, in his case,
readiness was lacking. He made all sorts of objections: the
Hebrews wouldn't believe him, he couldn't speak well, and so
on. By saying "Here I am", he was implying a readiness
which he did not feel. His response was incongruous with
his character. He should have realized that he was not yet
on Abraham's level as far as the trait of readiness was
concerned. It was something he would have to grow into (as
indeed, he did!)
There is a Gemara in Pesachim about R' Yosef, who fell ill,
died and then recovered. His father, R' Yehoshua ben Levi,
on seeing this, asked him to describe the next world. He
answered that it is an upside down world. Whoever is on top
in this world is at the bottom there, and vice versa. "No,"
his father replied, "what you saw is a clear world. But
tell me, how do I fare in the next world?" (By "I", Rashi
explained, he meant all talmidei chachamim.) "You are in the
same position there as here," his son answered.
The point here is that a talmid chacham knows exactly where
he is. His outer appearance corresponds exactly with his
inner state, which is the state he will appear in in the
next world, the world of truth.
People will sometimes say, when tragedy strikes, "Boruch
Hashem! It was ordained, it is all for the best," although
they do not think anything like that! They are behaving in
the way they imagine tzaddikim would behave, but there is an
inconsistency between their statements and their inner
feelings, and by saying something that they do not feel,
they are sinning.
The Gemara in Kiddushin records R' Chiya as saying that
there was one mitzva he wished he could perform as well as
Esau. That was the mitzva of honoring one's father. Esau
had a special coat which he wore when ever he served his
father. The commentators ask: So why could R' Chiya not
just go out and buy such a coat? They give the answer:
R' Chiya realized that his wearing such a coat would not
truly reflect his innermost feelings; it would be a
masquerade.
The Nevardok Yeshiva in Lithuania was famous for inculcating
the trait of humility in its students. The story goes that
one day a new student heard two older students arguing with
each other. "Oy, am I a nothing," said the one. "No," said
the other, "I'm more of a nothing than you." They argued in
this way about who was the bigger nothing. The new student
thought: "Well, when in Rome ..." and exclaimed: "What a
nothing I am!" Whereupon one of the two older students
turned to his colleague and said sarcastically: "He's only
been here a week, and already he's a nothing!"
Our outer appearance (speech, behavior or even clothing)
should be a genuine reflection of our inner feelings. Of
course, we should strive for improvement, and our outer
appearance should be a little better than our inner
feelings. But the difference should not be too great, since
that can amount to insincerity and even deception.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_-_
Rabbi Yaacov Haber /~~ ~~\ internet: torah!haber@acsu.buffalo.edu
Torah Center of Buffalo /~ ~\ bitnet: haber@sunybcs
2780 Main St. \ __ __ / uucp: ..!{boulder,decvax,rutgers}
Buffalo, NY 14214 ~ \\ // ~ !sunybcs!torah!haber
phone: (716) 833-7881 | |
fax: (716) 833-7903 // \\
"A tree of life for
those who embrace it"
|
| 989.27 | Shemot: "Pshetlach" [mini-commentaries] | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Thu Jan 03 1991 20:43 | 183 |
|
HaMaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Sh'mot
Volume V, Number 13 (198)
19 Tevet / January 5, 1991
Parasha Overview
Ramban introduces the Book of Sh'mot with the following
thoughts: The Torah concluded Sefer B'reishit, which is the book
of the creation of the world and its components, and of the events
which befell the Patriarchs. The stories in this last group also
describe a type of creation, specifically that of the Jewish
people. [This is the principle of "Ma'aseh Avot Siman L'Banim" -
"The happenings of the forefathers are a foretaste for the
children."]
Now the Torah begins another book, one which shows how the hints
in the previous book became real events in the lives of the
Patriarch's descendants. Specifically, the Book of Sh'mot
describes the exile in Egypt and the redemption from it. It also
describes the construction of the _Mishkan_ [Tabernacle], because the
redemption from Egypt could not be considered complete until Bnei Yisrael
had reached the level of their ancestors. This did not happen with the
physical exodus from Egypt, but only with the giving of the Torah
and Hashem's "resting" His glory on the _Mishkan_.
************************************
"Acknowledge Hashem, declare His Name, make His acts known...
Remember His wonders which He wrought [and] His marvels... Thus
Israel came to Egypt... And He made His nation exceedingly
fruitful... He turned their hearts to hate His nation, to plot
against His servants." (Tehilim 105:1,5,23,24,25)
These verses are difficult to understand, writes R' Yosef Dovber
Halevi Soloveitchik. As the opening verses suggest, the 105th
chapter of Tehilim is devoted to the kindness that G-d showed to
the Patriarchs and the generations which preceded the Exodus. How
does the report that G-d caused the Egyptians to hate Bnei Yisrael
demonstrate G-d's kindness?
Chazal teach that as long as Bnei Yisrael were in Egypt they
neglected the Mitzvah of Brit Milah (circumcision). Yet this
presents a difficulty in light of the verses's calling Bnei Yisrael
G-d's "servants." (See verse 25 quoted above, and see Sanhedrin 47
where the expression "G-d's servant" is interpreted to refer only
to the righteous.) Certainly a person who willfully neglects the
Mitzvah of circumcision cannot be called righteous! (Even though
we find that at the time of the Exodus there were idol-worshippers
among the Jews, certainly, before the pain of their servitude took
hold, Bnei Yisrael were righteous!)
The above questions may be resolved as follows: Bnei Yisrael
knew that they would remain in Egypt for several centuries, and
they therefore sought ways - within the Torah - to make their lot
easier. What did they do? After performing a circumcision, they
would perform a second operation which would hide the fact that the
circumcision had been done. (This is called "Moshaich Orlato.")
They reasoned that the more similar people's bodies are, the closer
their hearts can come. Perhaps the servitude that was imposed upon
them would then be lighter.
Although they violated no commandment - "Moshaich Orlato" is
only a Rabbinic prohibition - their actions were bound to lead to
assimilation. After all, the very reason for the Mitzvah of Brit
Milah is to set Bnei Yisrael aside as a separate and distinct
people. What was Hashem's response? "He turned [the Egyptians']
hearts to hate His nation, to plot against His servants." This was
certainly one of Hashem's kindnesses, for had the Egyptians not
hated Bnei Yisrael, they would have assimilated and disappeared
long before the arrival of the Exodus. (Bet Halevi: Parashat
Sh'mot)
************************************
"And G-d heard their shouts... and G-d saw Bnei Yisrael, and G-d
knew." (Sh'mot 2:24-25)
What is it that "G-d knew"? R' Yosef Dovber Halevi explains:
The Midrash records that the angels complained, "What is the
difference between Bnei Yisrael and the Egyptians? Just as the
latter are idolators, so are the former!"
Hashem answered, "Would you have Me judge an involuntary
transgressor ('onnes') as a willful sinner ('mazeed')?" Whereas
the Egyptians worshipped idols by choice, Bnei Yisrael in Egypt
became idolators only because they were confused by the pain of the
exile.
Only Hashem knows when a transgression is truly involuntary.
While it may sometimes appear that a person is being forced to sin,
we cannot say that he was truly entrapped unless he was not
predisposed to commit that sin. However, if he would have
transgressed even without the pressure of external circumstances,
he is not an "onnes." This is the meaning of the above verse,
"[A]nd G-d knew," i.e. He knew that the idolatry of Bnei Yisrael
was a true case of "onnes."
The preceding idea has Halachic applications as well. For
example, the Gemara states that a couple which remains childless
for many years should divorce, yet the practice in "Chutz L'Aretz"
(the diaspora) is not such. Why? Because we assume that it is the
sin of living in the diaspora which has caused the childlessness,
and not the incompatibility of the couple. The 18th century sage,
R' Pinchas HaLevi Horowitz (known as the "Ba'al Hafla'ah"), asks:
Is this so? Do we not follow the Halachic view that one is exempt
from the Mitzvah of settling in Eretz Yisrael in times of economic
hardship? Why then should people be punished for not settling in
Eretz Yisrael? [Apparently, most, if not all of the last 2,000
years would fall within this exemption.]
His answer is none other than the principle explained above. A
person is not called an "onnes" unless the only factor which
induces his action or inaction is the one that "forces" him to
choose that course. However, there are many people who have no
desire to settle in Eretz Yisrael, and the land's economic
difficulties are only an excuse that they give. Such a person
cannot be called an "onnes." (Bet HaLevi: Parashat Sh'mot; also
in Haggadah Shel Pesach MiBet HaLevi, p. 153)
Reminder: As always, nothing in HaMaayan should be relied upon
in actual practice. All Halachic questions should be referred to
a competent Rabbi.
************************************
"Pharaoh decreed only against the males, whereas Lavan sought to
uproot everything."
Why, in the midst of the Seder - a time intended to praise
Hashem for the Exodus - do we downplay Pharaoh's decrees against
us, and thus implicitly downplay G-d's wonders?
Hashem has promised that, regardless of our enemies' attempts to
destroy us, Bnei Yisrael will exist forever. If so, Lavan's plan
to "uproot" Yaakov's entire future could not possibly have
succeeded. No miracle was necessary to save us from him. However,
Pharaoh's decree affected only a portion of the nation, and he
might have succeeded. We praise Hashem that he did not. [Intro.
to Da'at Torah, vol. 2 (R' Schwadron, "The Maggid of Yerushalayim,
" in the name of his mother)]
************************************
Last week we began to discuss the Talmud's descriptions of the
teaching styles of different Tannanim - sages of the Mishnah. This
week we continue that discussion.
"R' Yossi has his reasons with him" has been given several
interpretations. Rashi (Gittin 67a) writes that it was R' Yossi's
practice to explain the reasons for every statement that he made,
while elsewhere (Eruvin 51a), Rashi explains that R' Yossi's
lessons were presented in a straightforward manner. This, in
contrast to the lessons of R' Meir, whose reasoning was often so
complex that R' Meir's own colleagues could not follow it. (R'
Yaakov Emden: Commentary to Gittin 67a; R' Yosef Shaul Nathanson:
Divrei Shaul)
"The teachings of R' Eliezer ben Yaakov are in small measure,
but pleasant," is a statement that presents the commentators with
some difficulty. Rashi writes that R' Eliezer b.Y. taught very
little, but in all of those cases where he did speak, the Halacha
follows his view. Is this a praise of R' Eliezer b.Y? asks R'
Yosef Shaul. True, it is praiseworthy that the Halacha always
follows his view, but why must Issi ben Yehuda tell us that R'
Eliezer b.Y. taught very little? R' Yosef Shaul explains as
follows:
The Talmud (Pesachim 3b) teaches that a person should always
teach his students using the most pleasant choice of words.
Furthermore, the teacher should always use as few words as
possible. What should he do if forced to choose between these two
rules? In such a case, says the Talmud, the pleasant language
takes precedence.
The Talmud's praise of R' Eliezer b.Y., writes R' Yosef Shaul,
is that he never had to make that choice. He was able in every
instance to teach in a way that was both short (i.e. "in small
measure") and pleasant. (Divrei Shaul)
************************************
Eretz Yisrael is facing a dangerous drought. Please recite
Tehilim and appropriate prayers on behalf of our brethren there.
Thank you.
********************
Posted by Alan Broder, ajb@grebyn.com (uunet!grebyn!ajb), who
should be contacted to request back issues of HaMaayan or to get
on or off the direct email mailing list.
Shlomo Katz can not receive EMAIL, however I will pass on any
comment forwarded to me, or alternately, send your comments care of
yehuda@gwuvm.bitnet
|
| 989.28 | Va'era - HaMaayan | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Jan 09 1991 21:20 | 161 |
| ********************
HaMaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Vaera
Volume V, Number 14 (199)
26 Tevet 5751 / January 12, 1991
Parasha Overview
Last week's Parasha ends with Moshe's disappointment over the
fact that, instead of releasing Bnei Yisrael as Moshe had demanded,
Pharaoh has intensified his subjugation of the Jews. The Parasha
concludes, "Now you [Moshe] will see what I [G-d] will do to
Pharaoh, for by [My] strong hand he will send [Bnei Yisrael] away,
and by [My] strong hand he will expel them from his land." (Sh'mot
6:1) R' S.R. Hirsch explains that only now, after Moshe's
"diplomacy" has failed to sway Pharaoh, is the stage set for Hashem
to demonstrate His power to sway the hearts of kings and the course
of nations.
A related idea is suggested by the contradictory phrases, "He
will send them away," and "He will expel them." The latter implies
an act of Pharaoh's will, against the will of Bnei Yisrael, while
the former suggests the opposite. R' Hirsch explains that Hashem's
plagues - described in our Parasha - make it clear that the entire
Exodus was the product of Hashem's will alone, and no other.
************************************
"...I am G-d, and I WILL TAKE YOU OUT from doing the work of the
Egyptians, and I WILL SAVE YOU from their service, and I WILL
REDEEM YOU with an outstretched arm and with strong judgements.
And I WILL TAKE YOU as my nation..." (Sh'mot 6:6-7)
[The four capitalized phrases are called the "Four Expressions
of Redemption," and the four cups of wine which we drink at the
Seder parallel them. There is also a fifth such expression: "And
I WILL BRING YOU to the land..." (Sh'mot 6:8). This parallels the
fifth cup - the cup of Eliyahu - the subject of our discussion.]
The Haggadah commentary Divrei Nigidim, a work that many
attribute to the Maharal of Prague, notes that the kindness which
Hashem displays in providing our daily sustenance is greater than
the kindness that He showed in creating the world. The fact that
something is a "creation" (rather than a "creator") means that it
is dependent on another and is therefore inherently deficient.
Thus, although Hashem in His kindness created us, we are
necessarily lacking because we are no more than "creations."
However, when Hashem gives us food, He gives us the ability to
exist, and, to a certain extent, to stand on our own. Thus,
Hashem's kindness in feeding us is the greatest of all.
This explains the structure of Psalm 136 which is known as
"Hallel HaGadol." In this chapter of Tehillim we recall Hashem's
wonders in creating the world and in redeeming us from Egypt, each
line of the Psalm culminating with the expression "Ki L'Olam
Chasdo" - "For His kindness endures forever." How does this
chapter conclude? "He gives bread to all flesh, for His kindness
endures forever. Acknowledge the G-d of the Heavens, for His
kindness endures forever." This expresses our recognition that, as
noted above, this last kindness is greater than the earlier ones.
The fifth cup of wine which some have the custom to drink at the
Seder represents the kindness that Hashem does for us when He feeds
us. After we retell the story of the Exodus and drink four cups of
wine, we recite Hallel HaGadol and pour the fifth cup of wine.
[This is the Seder order dictated by some authorities.] In many
homes, it is the custom that the head of the household alone drinks
this cup, because it is that person who has primary responsibility
for receiving Hashem's gift of bread. In other households, this
cup is left for Eliyahu HaNavi - the "Angel of Peace" - for peace
is a prerequisite to receiving all of Hashem's blessings,
sustenance included. (See Mishnah Uktzin 3:12)
(Haggadah Shel Pesach L'Maharal, London ed., p. 174)
************************************
Many Halachic authorities maintain that if one has no wine, he
may fulfill his obligation to drink four cups at the Seder by
taking anything that qualifies as a "national drink." [Depending
on the country, this may be juice, milk, coffee, etc.] R' Moshe
Isserless ("Rema"; O.C. Section 483) writes that this is similar to
the Halacha which permits using a "national drink" for Kiddush on
Shabbat.
R' Velvel Brisker notes that there is, in fact, a distinction
between the Pesach cups and all other cups which we drink in
fulfillment of a Mitzvah (Kiddush, Havdalah, etc.). In the latter
cases, all that is required is that the cup and drink qualify for
the recitation of the (Beracha) (blessing) in question. However,
the Pesach cups have an additional requirement: That they make us
feel like free men. Wine can do this, but can milk or coffee?
In truth, perhaps Rema agrees with this logic. However, he
allows the use of a "national drink" for those who have no wine
because it is better that they should fulfill at least one aspect
of the Mitzvah rather than none at all.
(Quoted in Ma'adanei Mo'ed, p. 52)
Reminder: As always, nothing in HaMaayan should be relied upon
in actual practice. All Halachic questions should be referred to
a competent Rabbi.
***********************************
R' Meir
"It is revealed and known before Him who created the world, that
there was none in Rabbi Meir's generation like him. Why then was
the Halacha not determined according to his view? Because, his
colleagues could not fathom the extent of his reasoning." (Eruvin
13b)
"His true name was not 'Rabbi Meir' but 'Rabbi Nehorai'. Why is
he called 'Rabbi Meir'? Because he 'enlightened' ('hai-err') the
eyes of his colleagues [by teaching] the law." (ibid)
These apparently contradictory statements show two aspects of R'
Meir's study method. When he chose, he could present the Halacha
in an extremely clear and straightforward manner. In fact, many
such cases are recorded in the form of "anonymous Mishnahs" (which
the Gemara says represent the view of Rabbi Meir), and in those
cases, the Halacha does follow his view. At other times, Rabbi
Meir's lectures consisted of complex, hair-splitting dialects, many
of which his colleagues could not grasp. (See R' Tzadok HaKohen,
Dover Tzedek, pp. 6-10, for a deeper understanding of the
preceding. For a different resolution of the above
"contradiction", see Maharsha.)
As an example of R' Meir's sharpness, the Gemara relates that he
could prove that the "Tahor" (ritually pure) was "Tamei" (not pure)
and vice versa. Through logic, he could prove from the Torah
itself, the opposite of what the Torah states explicitly. Tosfot
(Eruvin 13b and Sanhedrin 17a) ask: What possible purpose is there
in debating a point on which the Torah is quite clear? Why engage
in such academic exercises? R' Yosef Shaul Nathanson (Divrei
Shaul: Eruvin 13b) explains that only after discussion of a
teaching or law can we be sure that we have understood it. This is
demonstrated by the following example: The Halacha in certain
cases is that if a Bet Din unanimously convicts a defendant, he is
considered acquitted. Why? Rambam explains that where there is
proper debate, there are bound to be different views among the
disputants. Therefore, if a court reaches a unanimous verdict, we
must suspect that external factors influenced the decision and are
stifling the court's intellectual capacities. Similarly, if we
would simply take the Torah's laws at face value without delving
into all of their aspects, we might never know if we understood
them completely. (Of course, note the commentators, R' Meir's
"proofs" were indeed academic exercises. Like all the other sages,
he always treated as impure that which the Torah stated was such.)
In addition, there is "Mussar" value in "proving" the opposite
of what the Torah says. This teaches us that we do not observe the
Mitzvot because they make sense to us, but only because Hashem
commanded them. (Margaliot HaYam, ch.1, section 35 quoting Rabbenu
Shimshon) [See Dover Tzedek and Maharal's D'rush Al HaTorah (London
ed., p.42 for other explanations.]
************************************
Eretz Yisrael is facing a dangerous drought. Please recite
Tehilim on behalf of our brethren there. Thank you.
********************
Posted by Alan Broder, ajb@grebyn.com (uunet!grebyn!ajb), who
should be contacted to request back issues of HaMaayan or to get
on or off the direct email mailing list.
|
| 989.29 | Va'era - Rabbi Haber: "Quiet Time" | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Jan 09 1991 21:33 | 109 |
|
The following drosha was given at the Saranac Synagogue in Buffalo
on Shabbos Vaera 5748 (1988) by Rabbi Yaacov Haber,
and transcribed from memory by Jeffery Zucker.
Comments and questions are very welcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quiet Time
In today's parsha we read how Moshe argued with G-d about his
competence to carry G-d's message to Pharaoh to release the Jews.
"The children of Israel did not listen to me," he says, "Why
should Pharaoh?" (Exod. 6:12). This is a form of argument,
widely used by the Rabbis of the Talmud, know as a "kal
vechomer": If something is the case under certain circumstances,
then even more is it so under other (stronger) circumstances. In
this case it goes: If the children of Israel, who have everything
to gain from my mission, ignore me, then why shouldn't Pharaoh,
who has everything to lose?
Halachas are often decided by an appeal to "kal vechomer". But
it must be watertight, otherwise the whole argument collapses.
Now if we go back a couple of verses, to see why the Israelites
ignored Moshe, we read: "And Moshe spoke thus to the children of
Israel, but they did not listen, from `kotser ruach' and from
hard bondage" (6:9). What does "kotser ruach" mean? Literally,
"shortness of spirit (or wind)". It is also translated as
"broken spirit" or "failure of spirit", referring to the
Israelites' degradation. It is then no wonder that they did not
want to listen to Moshe. Pharaoh, however, living in comfort in
his palace, would not be in the same position, and might very
well be receptive to Moshe's message. So the "kal vechomer"
seems to fall flat! But can we suppose that Moshe Rabbeinu would
use a weak Rabbinical argument?
The answer to this problem could lie in an explanation of the
phrase "kotser ruach" that I read recently in the Sforno. He
explains it as a lack of awareness of, or an inability to reflect
on, one's circumstances. This is something which afflicts a lot
of people, whom I would like to call "kotser-ruachniks". Many of
us are incapable of appreciating what happens to us, of
reflecting on it, and of judging intelligently how we should
respond.
Let me mention just one instance of this -- thoughtlessness in
speaking to people. I think it is a common experience for us to
hear that someone has been offended by us, and to respond by
protesting (sincerely): But I never meant to offend him! He
misunderstood me!
In my Yeshiva, one of the Rabbis had a reputation for waiting a
long time before giving an answer to anyone with a question. The
questioner would have to wait 25 or 30 minutes before getting a
response. (When it came, by the way, it was always good.) This
caused some comment, and, because I was very close to this Rabbi,
I thought I should go and discuss this with him. So I went to
him and said: "Reb ---, many people comment on the way you pause
so long before answering someone." His answer to me was: (after
20 minutes) "You know, I could speak as fast as anyone else here,
if I wanted to. But I have a custom of thinking over, in my
mind, exactly what I want to say. That way, I can be sure I'll
never hurt anyone thoughtlessly." And I remember thinking: "You
are right to pause like that!" For it seemed to work -- this
Rabbi had a reputation for never offending anyone.
Back to Pharaoh and the Israelites: how does "kotser ruach" apply
here? We can see how it applies to the Israelites: from the
depths of their servitude, we can see that they were not in a
position to reflect intelligently on their situation. However
Pharaoh was also a kotser-ruachnik! We read that before some of
the plagues (the first, fourth and seventh) Moshe and Aharon met
him in the morning on the banks of the Nile. What was he doing
there? According to a Midrash (quoted by Rashi), Pharaoh studied
the times of the tides of the Nile carefully, and enter the river
at precisely the moment that the water began to rise, so that it
should appear to be rising to honor him. Further, while bathing
he took the opportunity to relieve himself, so that he need never
go to the bathroom the rest of the day, which he used as proof
that he was a god! What is more, says the Midrash, he himself
believed this! The fact that he should fall for his own crude
propaganda, which any child could see through, shows that Pharaoh
himself suffered from kotser ruach. Thus Moshe's "kal vechomer"
was good.
What can we do about kotser ruach? I would like to prescribe an
exercise. We should all set aside a "quiet time" every day --
just five minutes, or even one minute -- when we can reflect
calmly and thoughtfully on our own situation. If we were to do
this, one of the results would be to realize all our daily
benefits from G-d, and we would respond by raising our level of
observance and commitment to the Torah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_-_
Rabbi Yaacov Haber /~~ ~~\ internet: haber@cs.buffalo.edu
Torah Center of Buffalo /~ ~\ bitnet: haber%cs.buffalo.edu@ubvm
2780 Main Street \ __ __ / uucp: ..!{boulder,decvax,rutgers}
Buffalo, NY 14214 ~ \\ // ~ !acsu.buffalo.edu!torah!haber
phone: (716) 833-7881 | |
fax:(716) 833-7903-1111 // \\
"A tree of life for
those who embrace it"
|
| 989.30 | Va'era - Rabbi Alter: Transcendent Gratitude | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Jan 09 1991 21:48 | 175 |
|
The following D'var Torah was presented on
Shabbat Parshat Vaera - January 27, 1990 at
The Migdal Torah Jewish Learning Center
by Rabbi Avrohom M. Alter.
Transcribed by Moshe Handel and Bruce Krulwich.
---------------------------
This week's parsha, Va'era, is often used to demonstrate the concept of
Hakoras HaTov [literally, recognition of good]. Hakoras HaTov refers to
showing gratitude, and we see an example of this in Moshe Rabbainu's [Moses
our teacher's] bringing the ten Makos [plagues] on Egypt. The Torah notes
that the first three Makos (blood, frogs, and lice) were brought by Moshe's
brother Aharon [Aaron] and not by Moshe himself. Rashi comments that the
first two Makos were brought from the Nile, and that "since the river
offered protection to Moshe when he was cast into it, it should not smitten
by his hand, with the Makos of blood or frogs" [Rashi on Ex. 7:19]. The Makah
of lice (which was brought via the dust of the land) also was performed by
Aharon because "it had protected him [Moshe] when he killed the Egyptian and
concealed him [the Egyptian's corpse] in the sand" [Rashi on Ex. 8:12].
ChaZaL [our sages of blessed memory] explain that this is a demonstration of
Hakoras HaTov from Moshe to the water, and land, from which he had benefited.
At first glance this seems absurd. Certainly the water and the land made
no conscious decision to help Moshe!! Did the Nile think to itself "shall
I float the basket or shall I let it sink?" Did the dirt consider becoming
transparent rather than concealing the Egyptian from sight? Furthermore,
could the river or the land even recognize the expression of gratitude that
Moshe was showing them? This seems very unlikely. There must be more to the
idea of Hakoras HaTov than the simple notion of gratitude.
The key idea here is that Hakoras HaTov is for the person showing it, not
for the person to whom it is shown. Showing Hakoras HaTov reflects a
heightened sensitivity to the benefit we constantly receive from the rest of
the world. Our responsibility of Hakoras HaTov does not derive from the
need to repay someone for benefit received, but rather the need to
acknowledge to our own selves the source of our gains. Thus Moshe had the
responsibility to acknowledge his debt to the river and the land,
regardless of their lack of choice in helping him, or their inability to
acknowledge his gratitude. How much more so is Hakoras HaTov necessary
to our fellow man. Even in situations when we could easily rationalize "they
really were doing this for ulterior motivations", "she was going in my
direction anyway", "for him it's no big deal to do . . . ", "SO I DON'T
REALLY FEEL INDEBTED. . .". Hakoras HaTov is our acknowledgment of a
kindliness done for us regardless of how much effort was put forth on the
part of the do-er, or their motivations.
Rav Dessler in his work, Michtav Me'Eliyahu posses the following question:
this seems to conflict with an important concept. The Mesilas Yesharim
[The Path of the Just, by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto] says that "the entire
world was created for Man's use .. If he rules over himself and unites himself
with his Creator, he is uplifted and the world itself is uplifted with him,
for all creatures are greatly uplifted when they serve [man] who is
sanctified with the holiness of the Blessed One." The world fulfills its
purpose when it is utilized by man in the service of the Almighty. Had Moshe
Rabbainu caused the Nile to turn to blood in the service of the Al-mighty's
will, he would have been elevating it to a spiritual level, thereby
justifying its existence. As we see in chapter 7 verse 17 "with this you
shall know that I am the Lord,says Hashem, meaning that the demonstration of
the river turning to blood would convince all that He is the Al-mighty.
Would this not have been the best way for Moshe to demonstrate his gratitude
to the Nile? Certainly it should not be perceived as a *lack of gratitude*
that Moshe elevates the Nile spiritually in the service of G-d.
A story may help us to answer this question. The Gemorah [Baba Metzia 85a]
describes terrible suffering endured by R. Yehuda HaNasi (Rebbe), over a
period of many years. The reason for this is explained as follows: "a calf
was being taken to be slaughtered, when it broke away, and hid its head in
Rebbe's cloak, and lowed [in terror]. 'Go,' said Rebbe, 'for this you were
created!' Thereupon they said [in heaven], 'since he has no pity, let us
bring suffering upon him.' ... One day [twelve years later] Rebbe's
maidservant was sweeping the house; [seeing] some young weasels lying
there, she began to sweep them away. 'Let them be,' Rebbe said to
her, 'it is written, "and his tender mercies are on all his works" [Psalms
145:9].' Said they [in heaven], 'since he is compassionate, let us be
compassionate to him' [and they removed his suffering]." ChaZaL tell us
that during the time that a Tzaddik [a righteous person] suffers without
having done anything to deserve punishment, the world benefits. That is to
say, his unnecessary suffering is as an atonement for the sins of the world.
Therefor the world will have benefit from it. However, oddly enough, here
the Gemorah continues to say that during the years of Rebbe's suffering the
world was absolved of the need for rain, which is considered a great
hardship despite its necessity. (The ground was saturated with moisture,
to the extent that "when a radish was pulled from its bed there remained a
cavity full of water.") If Rebbe's suffering was in response to his lack
of pity for the calf, why did the world benefit from it? Wasn't this
suffering a form of punishment for him?
We can explain this as follows. Logically speaking, Rebbe was correct in
his response to the calf. As the Mesilas Yesharim said above, creatures
fulfill their ultimate purpose when they are used by man in his service of
the Almighty. Being slaughtered was indeed the purpose of the calf's
creation, as Rebbe said. However, there are situations which require more
than a rational, logical response, and Rebbe failed to recognize this. A
human being has two components, intellect and emotion, and both must be
addressed in any situation. When someone has suffered the loss of a loved
one, halacha [Jewish Law] requires us to refrain from consoling him beyond
purely emotional comfort until after the burial. The reason for this is
that the mourner is in such an emotional state at that time, that he is
incapable of accepting consolation. Rather than fighting that reality, the
halacha recognizes it and instructs us to act accordingly. Similarly, we
are instructed not to try to appease someone when he is angry. Again, we
have to recognize that there are times that the emotional aspect of a
situation overrides the rational aspect. When Rebbe responded to the calf,
he demonstrated a lack of sensitivity to the non-intellectual aspects of
the situation. His response should have contained some feeling for the
calf's fear. The fact that it didn't indicated a shortcoming to a degree
in Rebbe which required a response. For this reason it was decreed that he
be subjected to the same cold logic that he had demonstrated.
Doubtless he recognized the benefits the world was receiving as a result of
his suffering, yet the Gemorah testifies that his screams of agony could be
heard for miles. His emotional response to his pain overrode his rational
understanding of its benefits. When he later demonstrated his compassion
by sparing the weasels that clearly belonged outside his house, he showed
his ability to go beyond a rational response to a situation. At this point
his suffering was no longer necessary, so it was ended.
This explains Moshe's showing Hakoras HaTov to the river and the land by
not using them to bring on the makos. Elevating the river or the land by
using them to perform the will of the Almighty is rationally a good way to
show gratitude. However, turning something you owe a debt to into blood or
lice is not a thing to do. And indeed such an act would atrophy the
emotional sensitivity awareness aspect of the nature of the future leader of
the Jewish nation. True Hakoras HaTov involves going beyond the intellect and
responding on an emotional level. For this reason, Moshe could not bring
about the first three makos.
Certainly a leader of a people must develop a sensitivity to be constantly
cognizant of addressing the emotional needs of the people he leads. Understand
when people answer them in response to logical persuasion, "yes but ...."
Which in essence mean "you are logically right but emotionally I am not there
yet."
We can see this earlier in the Torah, in parsha Vayetze. The Almighty
tells Ya'akov [Jacob] to leave the house of Lavan his father-in-law. He
then brings this up with his wives in a very unusual way. Before
mentioning his being told by G-d to leave Lavan, he gives several reasons
for their leaving that relate to their own well-being. Only after seven
verses of reasons for their leaving does he mention the Almighty's command.
The reason for this puzzling behavior is clear in light of our discussion of
emotional needs. If Ya'akov Avinu felt it necessary to address the
emotional needs of the Matriarchs [who were themselves prophetesses],
surely we must recognize the emotional aspects of the situations we find
ourselves in.
---------------------------
Migdal Torah - The Jewish Learning Center of Illinois.
The Largest Adult Jewish Outreach Center in the midwest, has successfully
reintroduced many hundreds of Jewish men and women to the beauty and relevance
of our timeless heritage through ongoing weekly classes, seminars, and special
programs open to all Jews regardless of background or prior Jewish education.
Migdal Torah aims to instill Jewish pride,identity, knowledge and values by
means of a warm, educational, non-threatening environment.
For further information contact:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| ! ! |
| The ******* ******* Bringing |
| Migdal Torah | |========| | Jews & Judaism |
| Jewish Learning Center | | The | | Back Together Again |
| _ | | Jewish | | _ |
| | |Learning| | |
| Rabbi Avrohom M. Alter | | Center | | 2726-28 West Pratt Ave |
| alter@vpnet.uucp | |========| | Chicago, IL. 60645 |
| ******* ******* |
| (312) 338 - 6361 V V (312) 465 - 7600 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| 989.31 | Bo: Why Such a Fuss Over the Moon? | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Mon Jan 14 1991 20:01 | 165 |
|
SHABBAT SHALOM Bo
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- The first commandment given to the
Jewish people by G-d must not be seen as a commandment which
"just happens" to be first. Rather, it must have special
significance to have been chosen as the cardinal commandment. It
must reveal basic philosophic truths about who we are as a
nation. We read in Bo, this week's portion: "This month shall be
head month to you. It shall be the first month of the year."
(Ex. 12:2)
The Midrash tells us it was necessary for G-d to actually
guide Moses's gaze toward the sky so that when the new moon looks
like "this..." he should sanctify it. In the language of the
Midrash: "Keze Re'eh Vkadesh".
Even though the calendar has long been fixed (since the
third century by Hillel II), there are many traces in our
halakhic ritual of the ancient practice for witnesses who first
saw the new moon to rush to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, even
desecrating the Sabbath if necessary, in order for the Religious
Court to declare: "The month is sanctified, the month is
sanctified."
The first day of the month is a minor festival. On the
Sabbath before a new month, the moon's appearance to a fraction
of a second is announced after the public Torah reading, echoing
the Sanhedrin's public declaration. On Rosh Chodesh itself,
during the Amida and the Grace after Meals, we add a special
prayer (Ya'ale Veyavo) and chant the Half-Hallel during the
morning service. There is a special scriptural reading, just
like any festival, and we add additional Musaf prayer, a reminder
of the extra sacrifice in the Temple. Women are freed from
certain domestic tasks, and fasting and eulogizing are forbidden.
During the first days of the new month, generally on Saturday
evening, special prayers are recited and Jews even dance in a
circle while gazing at the new moon in a ceremony called
"sanctifying the moon."
Thus, we still need to understand why, out of so many
possible commandments, the Torah chose this one to introduce the
Jewish people to their future destiny, and why there is so much
fascination with the moon. There are many possible answers, but
this week ours begins in Egypt, a land where the calendar
followed the sun. The Maharal of Prague points out that when the
Jews were given this first commandment, they were actually given
more than just a law telling them to start counting months
according to lunar cycles - it emphasized a new way of life that
would stand in sharp contrast to Egypt.
The sun is symbolic of constancy and power - the very
image of Egypt. Except for grey clouds (not too many in Egypt),
every day the sun's warmth and light reaches someone in the world
- 365 days a year, we trust the sun to rise and set. There's
nothing new under the sun because the sun sees and oversees
everything in an unchanging fashion. But under the moon, there is
something new at least twelve times a year. It is forever
changing, going through its phases, getting smaller and then
bigger, mutability is its character. When it seems to have
disappeared completely, there's a sudden turnaround and rebirth.
To the ancient imagination, the permutation of the moon in its 28
day journeys were a constant source of heavenly wonder and
speculation. The Holy Zohar compares the Jewish people to the
moon because both the moon and the people of Israel go through
phases, disappearing little by little until it seems that it's
the end; a centuries-long exile climaxing in Europe's death
factories. Suddenly, a new moon is sighted and the messengers
run to Jerusalem.
The repetition of a monthly cycle, this law of change, is
firmly established within the Jewish psyche, the inevitability of
renewal. Built into the Jewish pattern of history is the moon's
disappearing and reappearing acts. We, too, seem to disappear,
but we don't. We can't. Our sanctity as a nation is tied to
this potential of renewal, and our history attests to the
disappearing of a Jewish culture in one land and the almost
simultaneous appearance of a new Jewish culture in a different
land. Like the moon, our disappearance is never forever. The
first Torah commandment is given when it's clear that Pharaoh
himself cannot change. After nine terrifying plagues, one might
expect him to have a change of heart, but the leader of Egypt
cannot relent. Despite all that he has witnessed, he refuses to
let the Jews go. The message of this first commandment is that
in contrast to the blind Egyptians (darkness is the ninth plague)
the Jews can, and do, change, emerging again and again out of the
fangs of evil to enter the gates of redemption.
Rabbi Kook, Israel's first Chief Rabbi, often wrote of
the old being made new, and the new becoming holy. Egypt was an
old, great civilization but it allowed no room for change or
renewal. Atrophying, its ruling families encouraged brother-
sister marriages - thus, they died young. Israel, as it receives
the first commandment in the very shadows of the ten plagues, is
being told that her potential for survival will be based on the
understanding of this commandment which looks toward every new
month as a new birth.
Retaining so many of the Rosh Chodesh customs, although
the calendar is fixed, reminds us how alert we once were for a
change in the sky, the appearance of a silver closed-parantheses
in the heavens - this perfect new moon. We are the people of
change. Indeed, the early chapters of Exodus stress the
revelation of G-d's four letter name JHVH as being connected with
He-Will-Be attribute, and the name of G-d he tells Moses at the
Burning Bush. "Eheye Asher Eheye" (I will be what I will be).
G-d is a G-d of becoming and, commanded as we are to turn our
gaze to the sky, we become a "nation of becoming."
I have a good friend, Yehuda, from Kibbutz Ein-Tzurim.
Years back, a parent of one of the kibbutznikim, a resident of
Kfar Chassidim near Haifa, died and several of us from Ein-
Tzurim, headed north. Before the funeral actually started, the
head of the town's yeshiva, a man dressed in the typical black
hat and coat of a rosh yeshiva from the old world, stepped
outside with several students, the clothes in sharp contrast to
the light shirts and summer shorts of the kibbutznikim. I sensed
that the Rosh Yeshiva looked disdainfully upon these men, though
they wore kippot and were from a religious kibbutz. All of a
sudden his eyes fell on my friend Yehuda, and he cried out to him
in Yiddish: "Yudke? Yudke illui (genius)? Is that you?" Yehuda
looked up and smiled back bashfully, responding in Hebrew: "Yes,
that's what they used to call me at the yeshiva."
It turned out that the two men had been students
together in a yeshiva in Petach Tikva. The Rosh Yeshiva then
asked the kibbutznik why someone as brilliant as he had been,
interrupted his Talmudic studies and left the yeshiva world. "I
wouldn't think that our Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Shach, would have let
you go."
"You're right. Rav Shach wrote many letters trying to
dissuade me."
Thundered the head of the yeshiva: "And those letters
will be the prosecuting attorney when you stand before the
heavenly throne."
Ordinarily a reserved man, Yehuda stood his ground: "And
the kibbutz I helped start, Ein-Tzurim, will be my defense
attorney. And I think this attorney will win the case." His old
school mate was taken aback by the answer and said, almost
admiringly, "You've stayed the same Yudke."
Yehuda wouldn't let the issue drop. "It's not true, Reb
Elya. I didn't remain the same Yudke, but you remained the same
Elya. You are what you were thirty years ago, a hundred years
ago. But I saw G-d's hand in history. I saw changes in store
for the Jewish people, the creation of the State of Israel, and
in accordance with those changes, I changed. I didn't stay the
same. But you did - exactly the same."
Shabbat Shalom!
Copyright Ohr Torah 1990.
--
Alan Lustiger
|_ | | AT&T Engineering Research Center
/ |( Princeton, NJ
attmail!alustiger or att!pruxk!alu
|
| 989.32 | Bo: Hama'ayan | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Jan 15 1991 20:25 | 161 |
|
********************
HaMaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Bo
Volume V, Number 15 (200)
4 Shevat / January 19, 1991
Parasha Overview
Hashem tells Moshe, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart in order to
perform more wonders against Him." Numerous commentaries ask:
Does this mean that Pharaoh was deprived of his free will? Is it
not one of the fundamentals of our belief that each person may
choose his actions?
Rabbenu Yonah gives several answers: (1) Some sinners deserve
to lose their free will. This was especially fitting for Pharaoh
who, as punishment for his obstinance, was forced to be obstinate
when he no longer wished to be. (2) Hardening Pharaoh's heart did
not remove his free will but actually restored it after the plagues
had instilled terror in his heart. (3) The above verse is merely
a figure of speech meaning, "I know that Pharaoh is obstinate."
************************************
"And [the story of the Exodus, as recorded on the parchments of
the Tefilin] shall be a sign on your arm and a reminder between
your eyes..." (Sh'mot 13:0, as interpreted by Rashi)
The Gemara reports: R' Abba bar Zavda said in the name of Rav,
"A mourner remains obligated to perform all of the Mitzvot of the
Torah with the exception of Tefilin, for these [the Tefilin] are
called 'Pe'er' (splendor')." (Berachot 11a; see Yechezkel 24:17)
R' Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook explains the above Halacha in
the light of one of the purposes of the Mitzvah of Tefilin:
Splendor or beauty is intended to make an impression upon another
person or being. Similarly, performing a Mitzvah in a beautiful
way allows the person's mind to leave its impression upon the
person's emotions. [The fact that a Mitzvah is precious is an
emotion, but that feeling is enhanced by the mind's knowledge of
the cost of the Etrog, Tefilin, or other Mitzvah-object.] Tefilin
are also intended to make an impression on others, as the Talmud
teaches (Berachot 6a): "'And all the nations of the world will see
that the Name of G-d is upon you' (Devarim 28:10) - This refers to
the Tefilin on one's head."
In order to influence others, one must be joyful and strong, so
that his joy will draw others to him. However, when one's soul is
drawn from the depths of sadness - although this sadness may
benefit the soul itself - it cannot and should not influence
others, because the spreading of sadness does not generally bring
a blessing. Therefore, at one's saddest moment [as a mourner], the
beauty of the Tefilin does not befit him. [At such a time,] a
person should turn inward rather than radiate his influence
outward, until such time as Hashem lights up the mourner's
darkness... for "Light is planted [away] for the righteous, and for
the upright of heart, joy." (Tehilim 97:11)
(Chavash Pe'er, p. 72, section 3)
************************************
"...[W]hen your son shall ask you, "What is this?", you shall
say to him, "With a strong hand G-d took us out of Egypt, from the
house of slaves." (Sh'mot 13:14)
R' Chaim "Brisker" Soloveitchik asks: Since we nightly fulfill
the Mitzvah of remembering the Exodus [by reciting the last verse
of the third chapter of Shma], why do we need the additional
Mitzvah of reading the Pesach Haggadah? He explains that there are
three differences between the daily performance of this Mitzvah and
its performance on Pesach.
(1) A person's daily obligation is to privately recall the
Exodus, but on Pesach, a verbal question-answer format is required.
Thus, even a person who conducts the Seder alone is required to
"ask himself" appropriate questions and to read the Haggadah aloud.
(2) Our daily obligation is simply to recall that the Exodus
occurred, while on Pesach night we must "begin with shame and
conclude with praise" [i.e. we must mention that our ancestors
were idol-worshippers and that G-d chose Avraham from among them,
etc.]
(3) On Pesach we are required to discuss the Mitzvot associated
with the Exodus (the Pascal sacrifice, Matzah, Maror), while the
daily obligation does not include this detail.
(Chiddushei HaGrach HaShalem, No.40 (p.25)
************************************
"And Pharaoh said to [Moshe], 'Leave me...Do not continue to
appear before me, for on the day that you appear, you shall die.'
And Moshe said, 'Well have you spoken, for I shall not again
appear before you'." (Sh'mot 10:28-29)
Ba'al HaTurim notes that the expression "Al tosef" ("Do not
continue") appears in only one other place in the Torah. There,
Hashem says to Moshe, "Do not continue to speak to me about this
matter [i.e. Moshe's request to be allowed to enter Israel]." This
demonstrates the principle that "Even the curse of a lowly person
should never be taken lightly." Because Pharaoh said, "Al Tosef,"
Hashem too said, "Al Tosef."
This requires explanation. Firstly, what is the connection
between these two statements? Secondly, what did Moshe do that
Pharaoh's statement should have the effect of a curse on him? For
what sin was he being punished?
Tzaddikim (the righteous) are judged by a meticulous standard,
and thus they are punished even for missing an opportunity to make
a "Kiddush Hashem" (sanctification of G-d's name). When Pharaoh
said, "Do not continue to appear before me [lest I kill you],"
Moshe should not have agreed, but should have said, "If Hashem
orders me to appear before you again, then I will do so, and you
will be unable to harm me." However, Moshe missed this chance.
For this he was punished. When he did need Hashem's help,
Hashem was unwilling, and rebuffed Moshe with the same words that
had led to Moshe's error.
(Maharil Diskin Al HaTorah)
************************************
In our common parlance, the "Mishnah" is the product of one
group of sages (as discussed in previous weeks) and the "Gemara" is
the work of later sages seeking to explain the Mishnah. In truth,
however, the "Tannanim" (sages of the Mishnah) themselves studied
"Gemara" as well, i.e. they not only studied the laws that were
later written down as the "Mishnah", but they also discussed among
themselves the reasons for and parameters of those laws. R'
Sherira Gaon, after discussing the rules governing Torah-exegesis
("Midot She-Ha-Torah Nidreshet Bahen"), makes the following
observations:
When the Tannaim taught the Halacha, each in his own style of
teaching, the above principles were the "Talmud" that they used to
reveal the underlying principles of the Torah. Furthermore, they
allowed the sages to see the implications of basic principles and
to understand their derivation, and to compare related laws. This
is the meaning of the Talmud's statement that R' Yochanan ben
Zakkai studied the discussions of Abbaye and Rava, who lived
approximately seven generations after him. Why then was only the
Mishnah written down, while the Gemara was left in oral form until
several centuries later? Because the sages of that period had
great capacities for remembering, and writing down the basic
principles in the form of the Mishnah sufficed to remind them of
the entire Gemara.
[Next week, we will IY"H begin to examine the period of the
"Amoraim" (the sages of the Talmud), and through R' Sherira Gaon's
Iggeret we will see how the style and content of their learning
differed from those of their predecessors.]
************************************
The Editors express sincere thanks to "HaKodesh Baruch Hu" and
all of those who helped HaMaayan publish its first 200 issues.
************************************
Eretz Yisrael is facing a dangerous drought. Please recite
Tehilim on behalf of our brethren there. Thank you.
********************
Posted by Alan Broder, ajb@grebyn.com (uunet!grebyn!ajb), who
should be contacted to request back issues of HaMaayan or to get
on or off the direct email mailing list.
|
| 989.33 | Beshalach/Tu Be'Shevat: Tree-planting and beyond | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Mon Jan 21 1991 20:53 | 150 |
|
Beshalach
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- Nine years ago, during the month of
Shvat (usually January), we were in Israel for the early planning
stages of Efrat. Underneath a trembling grey sky, revealing
sudden shafts of golden light whenever the clouds opened up, we
headed up a quiet hill in Judea which, to our eyes, could not
have looked more beautiful or Biblical. This, and several
surrounding hills, were to become the new town of Efrat. That
day we planted trees - with the planting, there were blessings.
It was the 15th of Shvat (Tu B'Shvat), the one day of the Jewish
year when every school child in Israel gets down on their hands
and knees...and plants. It was, for us, an extremely moving
moment: taking a young sapling by the hand, clearing some earth
and freeing the roots of the young plant to make sure that when
we placed it into the soil, it would become one with the earth
and take root.
But why should Tu B'Shvat have become almost synonymous
with transplanting? The first Mishna in Rosh Hashana speaks of
four different new years. One for kings and for festivals; one
for tithing cattle; one for years (Sabbatical and Jubilee),
planting and vegetation; and one new year for trees. According to
Bet Hillel, the date fixed for the new year for the trees is the
15th of Shvat (Tu B'Shvat). This date, the Talmud goes on to
explain, has specific Halachic ramifications. If the fruit on
the tree before the 15th of Shvat, the tithes go toward the
previous year, and if the fruit hasn't ripened by the 15th of
Shvat, the tithes from these fruits belong to the following year.
But this is where the problem begins. The Mishna doesn't
tell us that the 15th of Shvat is for planting trees; rather it's
a date necessary to calculate the correct year for tithing, last
year or the year coming up. It is, in effect, the Jewish
December 31st, for the purpose of paying taxes, as it were, on
our fruits.
Why have the sages chosen the 15th day Shvat? Based on a
verse in Genesis (8:22) a Braita quoted in 'Tractate Bava Metzia
(106b) divides the year into six seasons. There are, for the
record, two winters: "choref" (winter), and "kor" (coldness).
The latter is less intense than the colder winter weather of
"choref". The date which divides the two winters if the 15th of
Shvat.
Another reason for the choice of this date as the New
Year for trees is to be found in Tractate Rosh Hashana, 14a:
according to R. Eleazar ben Oshaia, by the time Shvat arrives,
the majority of the rains have already fallen. And in Israel,
that essence of winter is rain.
However, there are no Talmudic or Midrashic references
to Tu B'Shvat as a day dedicated to planting trees. Indeed, the
first day of Tishrei is the New Year for planting per se! The
earliest reference to the day's festive nature was uncovered in
the Oxford collection of the Cairo Genizah, contained in
liturgical fragments from the age of the Geonim, approximately
the 10th century, written by the "Payyetan" (religious poet)
Rabbi Yehuda Halevi Ben Hillel.
From a variety of textual sources, it emerges that on the
15th of Shvat, fasting was prohibited and penitential prayers
were not said. In the city of Worms, children celebrated the day
by not going to school. We find in a collection of Ashkenazic
customs, published in 1590 by Shimon ben Yehuda Halevi Ginsberg,
an early record that special fruits associated with the land of
Israel were eaten on that day. Similarly, in the 16th century
work of Safed Kabbalists, Pri Etz Hadar, we find recorded a
unique ceremony centered around the drinking of four goblets of
wine on Tu B'Shvat -- a winter Seder. First, a cup of white
wine. Then a mixture of mostly white and some red wine. Third,
a cup of mostly red and a little white and finally, a cup of red.
This custom of creating a rainbow from white to red was intended
to evoke the unique spring in the land of Israel where the first
flowers which blossom are almond buds, a vast spread of white
loveliness always appearing very close to the 15th of Shvat.
Soon, other flowers blossom and the colors change, but the final
splash in the fields belong to the brilliant red anemones,
"koloniyot" in Hebrew, dotting the landscape wherever the hills
and valleys are wild and free.
Historically, the earliest references to a festive Tu
B'Shvat emerge in the age corresponding to the Crusaders'
devastations in the 11th century. As the last vestiges of Jewish
settlement reaching back to the age of Moses are being wiped out,
the 15th of Shvat, the new year for trees, begins to take on a
different kind of yearning: Not only for the Temple in
Jerusalem, but also for the mountains in Galil. A deep need was
felt by the Jews - especially in exile - to connect themselves
physically to the land itself. Ever so slowly, a custom emerged
that dedicates one special day to eating the different fruits
with which the land of Israel is blessed: carobs, dates, figs,
pomegranates.
During the years of the second Aliyah, the religious
lovers of Zion realized that yearning from a distance was not
enough. More needed to be done, a "kinyan" (purchase) had to be
made. We dare not be satisfied with praying alone; if we truly
care about Israel, we must acquire real relationship with the
land. And what better way can this be done then by the planting
of trees? In this week's portion, Beshalach, the question of how
to deal with seemingly insurmountable difficulties arises.
Pursued by a powerful Egyptian army from behind, and faced with a
frightening Red Sea in front, the Jewish people confronted
imminent danger. Death by drowning or death by swords seemed to
be their only choice. In desperation, the Jews turned to Moses.
Moses cried out to the people, "Stand firm and you will
see what G-d will do to rescue you today...G-d will fight for
you, but you must remain silent. G-d, on the other hand,
disagreed. "Why do you cry out before me? Speak to the
Israelites that they start moving." (Exodus 14:13-15)
In effect, G-d is saying to the Jewish people that they
have to act, to "start moving". And they do. Moses, heeding G-d's
command, raises his arm, and G-d causes a strong east wind to
make the waters retreat as the Red Sea splits. But G-d will only
bring about this miracle after the Jews make their initial move!
In recent times, the celebration of Tu B'Shvat, with the
planting of trees in sometimes dry and dangerous landscapes, took
on an almost religious fervor as the land began to be settled,
tree by solitary tree. Modern Zionism created the custom of tree
planting in order to show that if we really yearn for Israel, we
must plant trees on the land, and merely eat the fruit while
praying in the countries of exile.
But we should ask ourselves now if the trees are enough.
Hasn't the day arrived when we must consider that the tree we
should be planting is ourselves? Tu B'Shvat is a good time to
begin to take hold of a young sapling, to find some good earth
and to plant. The soil of Efrat awaits you!
SHABBAT SHALOM AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR FOR TREES!
Copyright Ohr Torah 1990.
This essay is distributed by Kesher --the Jewish Network.
--
Alan Lustiger
|_ | | AT&T Engineering Research Center
/ |( Princeton, NJ
attmail!alustiger or att!pruxk!alu
|
| 989.34 | Beshalach - Hama'ayan | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Jan 22 1991 23:36 | 192 |
| ********************
HaMaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Beshalach
Volume V, Number 16 (201)
11 Shevat 5751 / January 26, 1991
Parasha Overview
In this Parasha we find the splitting of the Yam Suf ("Red" or
"Reed Sea"), the culmination of Bnei Yisrael's Exodus from Egypt.
After witnessing the miraculous wonders which G-d performed on
their behalf, Bnei Yisrael sang the famous "Shirat HaYam" the
chapter which we commonly call "Az Yashir."
Parashat Beshalach is always read in close proximity to the
festival of Tu B'Shvat, the "New Year for Trees." This is, of
course, not a coincidence. R' Chaim Yishayahu Hadari, Shlita (dean
of Yeshivat Hakotel in Yerushalayim) notes that two kinds of praise
of G-d rxist in ther world: One is the praise which we give Hashem
when He performs a miracle on our behalf, the other is the honor
which is given G-d by the fact that the world exists day after day
according to the rules of nature which He laid down. The first
type of song bursts forth from our throats when we behold His
wonders. The second, by contrast, is quiet and subdued, but it is
as ever-present as are those laws of nature which testify to G-d's
creation of the world. Tu B'Shvat exemplifies this second type of
praise, testifying every year that people may come and go, but G-
d's seasons press onward. (Shabbat U'Moed BaShevi'it, p.176)
************************************
It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer said, "Whoever recites the Chapter
of Song ('Perek Shirah') in this world will merit to recite it in
the world-to-come. This is learned from the verse, 'Then Moshe
will sing' (Az Yashir Moshe'). It is not written, 'Then Moshe
sang, 'but rather, 'Then Moshe will sing.' This teaches that he
will sing in the future." (Introduction to Perek Shirah)
[Perek Shirah is a Midrash which describes the songs - taken
from Biblical verses - that various plants, animals, and celestial
bodies "sing" to Hashem. The following is taken from the
commentary to that Midrash composed by R' Moshe ben Yoseef Trani
("Mabit") of Tzefat (1500-1580).]
How are we to understand the idea that animals, plants, and
minerals sing "Shirah" (song or praise) before G-d? This concept
may be understood literally, in a mystical vein, or as a metaphor.
As strange as it may be to think of animals or plants
communicating with G-d, who can say for certain that they do not?!
We do see that each of these creations has some form of
intelligence, thus allowing a homing pigeon to find its base, a
bird to build its nest, or a spider to spin its web. [The examples
are this writer's] Perhaps these animals have other abilities that
we have not yet discovered. Chazal do teach that the "Nachash"
(snake?) was created with the ability to speak, but lost this
privilege because it enticed Adam and Chava to sin.
Alternatively, we may explain the Midrash based on Chazal's
teaching that "There is no blade of grass in the world that does
not have an angel assigned to hit it and tell it to grow."
Perhaps, when we say that the grass sings praises to G-d, we refer
to the angels who watch over the grass.
Finally, the "song of nature" described by the Midrash may be
seen as a metaphor for the praise that man gives G-d upon using
nature for his own purposes. G-d created everything for a purpose
- specifically, for man's benefit. Each animal, plant, mineral,
and celestial body says to man, so-to-speak: "This verse teaches
you my purpose. This verse is therefore the praise that you can
give to G-d in my name."
[Based on the third of the above answers,] we can understand why
a person who recites Perek Shirah - and especially a person who
studies it - is likely to merit singing G-d's praises in the world-
to-come. One certain way to serve Hashem better is to understand
that all of creation exists for the sole purpose of being used in
that service. An appropriate understanding of this Midrash can
help a person achieve that realization.
(Be'ur Mabit Al Perek Shirah,
appended to the same author's Bet Elokim)
R' Yosef Albo (1380-1444) understands Perek Shirah in the same
way as "Mabit's" third answer, and adds the following examples of
the lessons that we can learn from the "songs" of nature:]
The heavens, according to the Midrash, sing the verse from
Tehillim 19: "The heavens tell the honor of G-d, and His
handiwork, the firmament tells." What can we learn from this?
That just as some unseen force [i.e. gravity] holds the universe
together, keeping some celestial bodies stationary while moving
others, so too there is an invisible G-d who is himselfl
unchanging, but "moves" all that is "around" Him.
The song of the dog is: "Come, let us bow down and bless G-d
our creator" (Tehillim 95:6). Why? The edog is the most loyal of
all animals; he is "man's best friend." A dog never forgets the
one who feeds him. He forever subjugates himself to his master.
He will even fight in defense of his owner. A dog's relationship
with his master is a fitting parallel to the ideal relationship
between man and G-d.
(Sefer HaIkarim, III, 1)
*************************************
"And Amakek came, and he warred with Yisrael at Refidim."
(Sh'mot 17:8)
[With this verse, the Torah introduces the story of Amalek's
unprovoked attack on Yisrael, an event which led to G-d's decree
that Amalek would eventually be destroyed. This selection was
made for Torah reading for Purim morning because Haman, a
descendant of Amalek, inherited his hatred of Bnei Yisrael from his
ancestors who attacked Yisrael here. Another section of the Torah,
Devarim 25:17-19, mentions G-d's command that we never forget what
Amalek did to us. This latter chapter is the Torah reading for
"Parashat Zachor," the special reading for the Shabbat before
Purim.]
The Halachic work Magen Avraham notes with surprise that many
people are not careful to attend "Shul" on Shabbat Zachor in order
to fulfill the Torah's Mitzvah of remembering Amalek's brazen
attack on our nation. The author of Magen Avraham writes, in
defense of these people, that perhaps they fulfill their obligation
by hearing the Torah reading on the morning of Purim, for it too
mentions Amalek's war against G-d and His people. After all, asks
Magen Avraham rhetorically, does the Torah specify that the Mitzvah
of remembering Amalek must be performed on the Shabbat before
Purim?!
However, this explanation presents a difficulty. R' Shlomo
Kluger writes: I was asked by one sage, "If one can fulfill the
Mitzvah of remembering Amalek by hearing the Torah reading (from
our Parasha) on Purim morning, why were the sages of the Talmud so
concerned that Parashat Zachor (from the Book of Devarim) should be
read on the Shabbat before Purim, in fulfillment of the allusion in
Megilat Esther that Amalek be remembered before the Megilah is
read? (See the discussion in Tractate Megilah 30a regarding
"Asiyah" and "Zechirah"). After all, the Torah reading of Purim
morning also comes before the Megilah reading!"
R' Kluger explains that there are two Mitzvot to remember Amalek
- one Torah ordained and one Rabbinic - and there is a fundamental
difference between the chapter of Amalek in our Parasha and the
chapter in Devarim. In our parasha, we find a description of
Amalek's attack, but no mention of a Mitzvah to regularly remember
what Amalek did. By contrast, in Devarim, we find a Mitzvah to
remember Amalek, but no detailed description of Amalek's attack on
us.
The Torah requires us to "Remember what Amalek did." The Torah
does not say how or when to remember. Therefore, a person can
perhaps fulfill this Mitzvah by hearing the Torah reading on Purim,
as the Magen Avraham writes. However, there is also a Rabbinic
Mitzvah requiring us to read the specific verses describing the
Torah's command to remember Amalek. This is the chapter of Amalek
found in Devarim. Since this Mitzvah too must be done before the
Megilah is read, Chazal were particular that it be done on the
Shabbat before Purim.
(Chochmat Shlomo, O.C. section 685)
************************************
The Torah Study of the Talmud's Sages
R' S.R. Hirsch writes that the Mishnah transmitted the Oral Law
in a terse style, and mostly by examples. It was thus the role of
later generations - the sages of the Gemara - to analyze these
specific cases in order to establish their reasons and the
underlying concepts of the Mishnah. (Collected Writings, Vol. V,
p.28). R' Sherira Gaon, in his Iggeret, explains in greater
detail:
The sages of the Gemara ("Amoraim") returned to the study method
that had prevailed before the period of the Tannaim, i.e. to the
practice of seeking the scriptual source for each Halacha. Thus,
the Talmud ofter asks, "MeNa Hani Mili?" (From where are these
words?"). [We have previously noted R' Sherira Gaon's assertion
that the Tannaim were concerned primarily with the details of the
Halachot, rather than with finding the specific verse from which
each Halacha derives.]
The Amoraim also found the need to clarify many deep concepts
which had been easily understandable to the Tannaim. This is
because, with the end of the period of the Tannaim, the sages'
capacity for learning was lessened.
Finally, writes R' Sherira, the Amoraimm attempted to understand
the structure of the Mishnayot which the Tannaim had left them.
Thus the Gemara asks, "Why do we need this Mishnah and that Mishnah
[rather than deduce one from the other]?" and "Doesn't this Mishnah
contradict another Mishnah?" (Iggeret R' Sherira Gaon)
********************
Posted by Alan Broder, ajb@grebyn.com (uunet!grebyn!ajb), who
should be contacted to request back issues of HaMaayan or to get
on or off the direct email mailing list.
Shlomo Katz can not receive EMAIL, however I will pass on any
comment forwarded to me, or alternately, send your comments care of
yehuda@gwuvm.bitnet
|
| 989.35 | BTW... | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Jan 22 1991 23:58 | 11 |
|
Incidentally, anyone who would like to receive these articles
directly via email can contact me here or at GAON::jem. As
always, comments and questions are welcome. In times of crisis,
people naturally turn to prayer and faith, and what is more
fundamental to our faith than Torah study? Also, upon anything more
than a cursory glance, the astute reader cannot help but be struck
by the myriad "coincidences" which seem to speak directly to
current concerns.
Jem
|
| 989.36 | One such coincidence... | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Jan 23 1991 03:27 | 41 |
|
Rashi has an interesting comment on the following verse
in Beshalach (Ex. 14:19):
G-d's angel, who had been travelling in front of
the Israelite camp, now moved behind them. The
cloud pillar (also) moved and stood behind them.
Rashi:
(The pillar of smoke) stood behind them: To form
a division between the Egyptian and Israelite camps,
and to absorb the arrows and _blistera'ot_ of the
Egyptians.
The word is translated as "missiles."
The end of Rashi's comments is particularly striking:
...this comes to teach us that the Israelites were being
judged (by the heavenly tribunal) at that time -- to be
saved, or to perish together with the Egyptians.
Everyone knows that the Red Sea story had a happy ending -- but
not automatically. According to the Midrash, the prince of the
tribe of Judah, Nachshon ben Aminadav, first jumped into the
raging sea, followed by the entire tribe of Benjamin, and the
rest of Judah.
The Midrash is most instructive. Nachshon paid no lip-service
to "faith" or "trust." His absolute faith in G-d, spoken through
his actions, resounds through the generations louder than a
sonic boom.
A time of quandary and crisis is a time ripe for introspection
resolution, faith and most of all... *acts* of faith.
Jem
|
| 989.37 | Sisera, et al | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Fri Jan 25 1991 00:18 | 79 |
|
Two weeks ago, a request was made by rabbinic
leaders in Israel for Jews the world-over to
recite Psalms 79 and 83 (see note 1022), in
light of the then-impending crisis. The latter psalm is
an entreaty to G-d to destroy the enemies of
Israel. I was intrigued, however, by the way
a few enemies in particular are singled out as
examples in Psalm 83:
Do unto them as unto the Midianites;
as to Sisera, as to Yavin at the brook
of Kishon --
which perished at Ein-dor; they became as
dung for the earth. Make their nobles like
Orev, and like Zeev; all their princes as
Zevah and Tzalmona --
What is so special about the defeat of Sisera,
more than the hundreds of other military victories
of the ancient Israelites?
According to the Midrash (Abba Gorion 3), Sisera
was a singularly successful military leader,
having utterly devastated many enemies by age
30, never suffering a defeat.
The prophet describes a strange event leading to
his army's fall to the Israelites (Ju. 5:20):
From *heaven* they fought; the *stars*
from their courses fought against Sisera.
Since when do stars fight battles?
The Midrash (Lev. Rabba 7) explains that Sisera's ego,
concomitant to his success, was boundless and peerless.
To humble him, innumerable "blazing stars from the
heavens" rained down on his mighty military machine,
reducing it to rubble and ashes. Sisera himself, of
course, was assassinated by none other than a woman
(Yael) armed with nothing but a tent-pin (Ju. 4:21),
a further punishment for his arrogance.
Incidentally, the story of Sisera happens to be this
week's Haphtara (prophetic portion [Ju. 4:4 - 5:31]).
The defeat of the other generals mentioned in Psalm
83 are described in chapters 7 and 8 of Judges. But
the military campaign waged against them by Gideon
was preceded by a rather unusual complaint by G-d
(Ju. 7:2):
The people that are with you are *too
numerous* for Me to give the Midianites
into their hand...
HUH? -- too *many* soldiers?! The verse continues...
...lest Israel vaunt themselves against
Me saying, 'my own hand has saved me.'
...bringing to mind the astonishing declaration in this
week's Torah portion (Ex. 14:13):
G-d will fight for you, and you will
remain still.
G-d wanted the Israelites to learn that their
own military prowess was *ultimately irrelevant*
in their campaigns. They were therefore bidden,
in modern terms, to "maintain a low profile."
Jem
|
| 989.38 | Yitro: Selflessness vs. ruthlessness | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Jan 29 1991 23:36 | 164 |
|
SHABBAT SHALOM: Yitro by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- Exiled from our homeland for close to
2000 years, we lived on the edge of history: our national (but
not spiritual) life arrested. Yet despite threats to our very
existence, we learned to suffer our host cultures, usually as the
discriminated scapegoat: trod upon, cursed, made to live in
isolated quarters, made to wear identifying garments. But
sometimes, we were wooed by the nobility when they became aware
of some of the special talents of this "nation within the
nation." The result, however, was that we didn't always see the
hosts for what they were - neither their genuine virtues nor
their human weaknesses.
With the birth of modern Israel, the state equal to
others on the globe, the possibility of seeing other countries in
their true light grows more likely. And the lenses to look
through can be found in this week's portion, Yitro, which goes
far beyond the dictionary definition of a gentile as someone who
isn't a Jew.
What first strikes us is the name of the portion itself -
Yitro - a striking choice because, not only is Yitro not a Jew
(and will not join the Jewish people in their journey towards the
Promised Land when Moses makes the offer in Numbers 10:29) but
also, the portion called Yitro contains the account of the great
miracle of the Divine Revelation to the Jewish People. G-d
himself descends toward Sinai in a fire and, with the mountain
surrounded in smoke, lightning, and thunder engulfing the sky, it
is undoubtedly the greatest moment in the history of Israel.
Beginning with Adam, attempts to lift man from his perversities
always failed, often tragically. Now the next step, the creation
of a unique nation with a special covenant - physical as well as
spiritual - whose existence on this planet will be meta-natural,
is beyond rational explanations. It's a moment which, in
theological terms, parallels the creation of the world because
the purpose of this nation's existence is no less than a re-
creation of the planet under the guidance of the Creator's plan
for His creation.
If no event in the Jewish people's subsequent history can
possibly equal the covenant which brought the nation into
existence, why are the Ten Commandments of the Torah found in a
portion named after a gentile, a Midianite priest, Yitro?
After all, who is he? His familial tie as Moses's
father-in-law is inconsequential compared to Yitro's special
purpose and mission. What he brings to Moses in this week's
portion is a system for administrating justice, which is
invaluable advice since it serves as a "strength preserver" for
the master of all prophets. Upon seeing Moses teaching and
judging the entire nation all by himself, Yitro admonishes him:
"What you are doing is not good. You are going to wear yourself
out, along with this nation that is with you. Your
responsibility is too great, you cannot go it all alone...Seek
out from among the people capable, G-d fearing men...You must
then appoint them as leaders of tens..." (Ex. 18:17-22)
Yitro's advice paves the way, literally, for the next
step: Sinai. We are being told that in a very special way,
Yitro is crucial to the giving of the Torah. And this alone is
enough to put Yitro on an extraordinary level.
When we turn to the beginning of the Book of Exodus, we
find that the teaching for delegating authority and judgement are
only half of what Moses learns from a gentile. The woman who
drew Moses out of the Nile, gave him his name, brought him into
her home, and sheltered him is not often extolled. The fact is
that the action of Pharaoh's daughters was courageous and the
essence of kindness - a true "chesed" - especially when we
remember that her father is the god who issued this edict (A
modern day equivalent of such a moral courage might be a highly
placed South African family attempting to adobt a black baby).
Consequently, the first lesson Moses learns from his adoptive
mother is "chesed," true benevolence. As he matures, the
kindness Moses weaned from the Pharaoh's daughter takes root. To
forget what she did would be to lie to himself. Moses owes his
survival in the past as in the future to two gentiles. Without
these two, there would be no Moses, and no nation for him to
lead.
Furthermore, opening this week with Yitro provides an
indelible contrast to the closing chapter in last week's portion,
Beshalach, in which the Torah records the fanatical war waged
against the Israelites by Amalek, a predatory nation which has
come to personify unmitigated evil because of its merciless
attack against the rear and weakest ranks of a tired people on a
journey in the desert towards freedom. The Amalekites had
nothing to gain except sadistic satisfaction in annihilating a
defenseless people. Jews are, therefore, commanded to erase all
traces of this blood-thirsty tribe, either physically or
spiritually (when they adopt the seven Noachide laws of basic
morality).
Had the portion of Yitro not immediately followed the war
of Amalek, we might think that Amalek, given our history, is a
true representation of the nations of the world. "The Lord will
wage war with the Amalek from generation to generation" (Ex.
17:16). But there is another way to see the gentiles. And for
this we move from the end of Beshaach to the beginning of Yitro -
and it's as if the sun has revealed a new light. Not only is
Yitro not bent on destroying Israel, but he is the perfect ally,
the gentile who understands the mission of the Jews, who is
cognizant of the one G-d and miracles He brings about.
"Yitro expressed joy because of all the good that G-d had
done for Israel, rescuing them from Egypt's power. He said,
"Praised be G-d, who rescued you from the power of Egypt and
Pharaoh, who libeated the people from Egypt's power. Now I know
that G-d is greater than all deities..." (Ex.18:9-11). Yitro's
blessings are the basis for Psalm 117, included in Hallel, where
the nations are commanded to praise G-d along with the
Israelites.
And this leads us to a third reason why the portion of
Yitro is named after a gentile: It is to impress upon us and the
world, the universality of the Torah. Sinai is, not only a
private encounter between G-d and his elected nation, but it also
reaches toward a realm of encounter between G-d and all of
existence. And the gentile who keeps alive the message and
greatness of the One G-d when he eventually returns to Midian,
and points beyond, is Yitro.
With the monotheism of Abraham, we already see the step
toward the monotheism of the entire world. In the very same
breath that G-d elects Abraham, we are told that through
him"...all of the nations of the world will be blessed."
(Gen.12:4)
Ruth, the ancestor of King David, from whom the messianic
seed will sprout, was a convert to Judaism, so that built into
the Jewish theology we find the seeds of the nations of the world
already exist within the messianic soul of David.
The Torah portion containing Sinai is named after a
gentile because it holds out the hope that just as Yitro was
moved by G-d's miracles and His Torah, so too will all the
nations be moved. But even more, just as Yitro contributed a
crucial element to the survival of the Jewish people, so too the
nations of the world will contribute to our survival. And it is
our duty to be visionary enough to properly value their
contributions. Indeed, the descendants of Yitro and Pharaoh's
daughter have much to teach the descendants of Moses, in
developing toward the ideal commanded by G-d, "And you shall be
unto me a kingdom of priests and holy nation." (Ex.19:6) a light
unto the people of the world.
SHABBAT SHALOM!
Copyright Ohr Torah 1990.
This essay is distributed by Kesher --the Jewish Network.
For more information, call (212)496-1618.
--
Alan Lustiger
|_ | | AT&T Engineering Research Center
/ |( Princeton, NJ
attmail!alustiger or att!pruxk!alu
|
| 989.39 | Yitro - HaMaayan | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Jan 29 1991 23:42 | 170 |
|
********************
HaMaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Yitro
Volume V, Number 17 (202)
18 Shevat / February 2, 1991
Parasha Overview
This Parasha deals primarily with "Matan Torah" - G-d's giving
the Torah to Bnei Yisrael. The Torah writes that Hashem asked Bnei
Yisrael if they would accept the Torah, and they answered eagerly,
"Na'aseh V'Nishmah" - "We will do [its Mitzvot], and we will learn
it." [This precise phrase does not appear in our Parasha, but only
later.] The Talmud, however, teaches that Hashem held Har Sinai
over Bnei Yisrael and threatened them until they accepted the
Torah. How can this Midrash be reconciled with the explicit
statement of the Torah to the contrary?
Maharal explains that Bnei Yisrael did accept the Torah
willingly, but that was not enough to guarantee their observance of
it. They had to understand that, ultimately, a person has no
choice in the matter. Although we have free-will, we must be aware
that if we fail to keep the Torah, the very existence of the world
will be jeopardized.
R' Aryeh Leib HaKohen adds another answer. G-d's forcing us to
accept the Torah was not intended to coerce us, but, so-to-speak to
coerce Him. Because G-d forced us to "marry" Him, He can never
divorce us. [See Devarim 22:29] (Shev Shematita, introduction)
************************************
"I am Hashem, your G-d, a jealous G-d..." (Sh'mot 20:5)
"G-d will not absolve [of sin] one who takes His Name in vain."
(Sh'mot 20:7)
R' Avraham ben HaRambam (the son of Maimonides) notes that these
are among the many verses in the Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim which
present Hashem as One who punishes harshly a person who does not
obtain His forgiveness for his sins. Nevertheless, writes R'
Avraham, it is neither for fear of punishment nor because of a
desire for reward that one should serve Hashem faithfully. A
person should be motivated solely by a desire to do G-d's will.
One should say, "I would do the Mitzvot which G-d commanded even if
He would punish me for doing good and reward me for doing evil."
A person who serves Hashem with complete faithfulness is called
"one who loves G-d." This is the behavior that the Mishnah refers
to in saying, "Do not be like servants who serve their master in
hopes of receiving a reward, but rather, like servants who serve
their master with no thought of receiving reward." (Avot 2:3)
This is also the level of which the Torah spoke when it said: "On
this day, G-d commands you to observe these decrees and these laws,
and you shall keep and do them with your whole heart and with your
entire soul." (Devarim 26:16) The expression "[W]ith your whole
heart and your entire soul" refers to devotion [i.e. the
willingness to sacrifice all for G-d], but it refers also to
faithfulness, for one who is not completely faithful can never be
fully devoted.
(HaMaspik L'Ovdei Hashem:
Perek Al Ne'emanut HaMa'asim)
[R' Moshe Chaim Luzzato ("Ramchal") expresses a related thought
in the following excerpt from his best known work.]
There are three levels - each one less commendable than the one
preceding it - on which a person can "inspire" himself to serve G-
d. The highest level is where a person serves G-d for no other
reason than because it is the right thing to do and the way to
achieve perfection. Such a person knows that there is no greater
evil than to achieve less than one's full potential.
The second level is where a person serves Hashem because he
seeks honor. It should be obvious that "seats" in the world-to-
come will be assigned on the basis of merit. Therefore, a person
who seeks a "good seat" in the world-to-come had better improve his
service of G-d in this world.
However, a person might say, "I don't need a good seat in the
world-to-come; just as long as I get in the door." To this person
we respond, "But you seek honor! How will you feel when you arrive
in the world-to-come and must stand near the back door, while your
friends and neighbors all occupy seats of honor?" We might point
out to such a person that if he is disturbed in this, a temporary
world when others excel more than he does, certainly he will be
ashamed to be in such a position in the world-to-come, a permanent
world.
On the lowest level is the person who remains unmoved by all of
the above. To him we say, "G-d rewards the good generously and
punishes the evil with a strong hand."
(Mesilat Yesharim, ch.4)
[Note: One might wonder why the middle level described by
Ramchal, i.e. the person whose service is motivated by jealously,
is more commendable than the person who serves G-d only for fear of
punishment. It appears, explains R' Yechezkel Sarna in his
commentary to Mesilat Yesharim, that jealously is not inherently
bad. Jealousy is the trait which causes a person to notice what he
is lacking. Thus, even the highest level of service described by
Ramchal derives from a form of jealousy. The difference between
the first and second levels is only that the former is motivated by
comparison of one's present situation with his potential, and the
latter, by comparison between people.
Commentaries also note that the middle level described by
Ramchal is the one of which Chazal said, "Let a person serve G-d
without proper intentions, so that he will eventually serve G-d
with proper intentions.]
***********************************
R' Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The congregations outside
the Bet Hamikdash sought to add the 'Aseret HaDibrot' (Ten
Commandments') to the prayers, just as it was recited in the
Temple, but they prevented from doing so because of the heretics
who adduced from this custom proof that only the Aseret HaDibrot,
but not the rest of the Torah, came from G-d.
Later, Rava tried to establish this custom, but was prevented
from doing so for the same reason. Later, Ameimar tried, but he
too was prevented from doing so for the same reason. (paraphrase
of Berachot 11b and Rashi's commentary there)
The above Gemara is perplexing. If the recitation of the Aseret
HaDibrot had previously been restricted, why did the later sages,
Rava and Ameimar, seek to institute it? Didn't they know the law?
Interestingly, the Halachic code, Tur, writes that a person should
recite the Aseret HaDibrot in the morning. The commentary Bet
Yosef, noting he above Gemara, explains that this recitation may be
done in private, but not in public. Other commentaries maintain
that it may even be done in public so long as it is before or
after, but not during, the prayers.
The Midrash records the following dispute between R' Yehoshua
ben Levi ("R.Y.B.L.") and the Sages: R.Y.B.L. says that Bnei
Yisrael heard only the first two of the Aseret HaDibrot directly
from Hashem; the others, they heard from Moshe. The Sages say that
all of them were heard from G-d Himself.
Based on this Midrash, perhaps we need not fear the heretics'
reaction to a daily reading of the Aseret HaDibrot. True,
according to the Sages' view, we need be concerned, for they say
that only the Aseret HaDibrot were heard directly from G-d while
the rest of the Torah came through His intermediary, Moshe. The
heretics could easily twist this to mean that Moshe made up the
rest of the Torah. However, according to R.Y.B.L.'s view, there is
no such problem. In fact, our reading the Aseret HaDibrot which,
in R.Y.B.L.'s view were heard partially from G-d and partially
from Moshe, would show the heretics that, unlike their view, we
equate the laws that G-d's prophet taught us in His name with those
that G-d gave us directly.
Over time, the view of R.Y.B.L. came to be accepted and taught.
Thus, Rava and Ameimar thought that they could finally do what
earlier generations could not: institute the daily reading of the
Aseret HaDibrot. However, these sages were told that we must still
worry about the attempts of the heretics to devalue the Torah.
Nevertheless, as the Halachic works note, not all reading of the
Aseret HaDibrot was prohibited but only in certain circumstances.
(R' David Cohen, Shlita, Masa'at Kapi, p.93)
**********************
Our "biographical" presentations will IY"H resume next week. Upcoming
features include:
* "D'rosh V'Kabbel Schar" - Does the Gemara discuss questions of
no practical significance ?
* A year in a Babylonian Yeshiva
* The Babylonian vs. Yerushalmi Talmud
********************
Posted by Alan Broder, ajb@grebyn.com (uunet!grebyn!ajb), who
should be contacted to request back issues of HaMaayan or to get
on or off the direct email mailing list.
|
| 989.40 | Accepting the Torah | DECSIM::GROSS | The bug stops here | Thu Jan 31 1991 20:19 | 33 |
| > The Torah writes that Hashem asked Bnei
> Yisrael if they would accept the Torah, and they answered eagerly,
> "Na'aseh V'Nishmah" - "We will do [its Mitzvot], and we will learn
> it." [This precise phrase does not appear in our Parasha, but only
> later.]
I am having trouble understanding in what sense Bnei Yisrael accepted the
Torah eagerly. I have always wondered how the Jews, who went with Moses
into the wilderness after witnessing the Ten Plagues and the parting of the
Red Sea, could immediately turn around and create the golden calf? Also,
how could the children of those same Jews, who witnessed the conquerring
of the Promised Land, revert to the practice of idolatry? Yisrael finally
accepted the Torah eagerly when they saw the most powerful kingdom on earth,
the kingdom that had conquerred Judea and destroyed the Temple, fall to
Cyrus the Great. I think the miracle of the building of the 2nd Temple was
about as important as the miracle of the building of the 1st.
It was pointed out to me that the story we are reading is about a people
that was NOT ready to follow Moses, but was forced to follow by the hand
of G-d. One key phrase in last week's Parasha (actually, the word that gives
the parasha its Hebrew name) is usually translated "When Pharoe _let_ the people
go ..." [he changed his mind and chased after them]. However, the Hebrew reads
"When Pharoe _sent_ the people away ...". Even after all that happened they
STILL needed to be "sent". So can someone explain, where were the ones who
were eager to receive the Torah?
As a footnote, I have the mental picture of the elders of Yisrael opening the
first Torah at the foot of Sinai and saying, "Let's see what this says. Whoa!
It's all about US! We already know all this stuff!" -- just the same as the
Jews of today! So, to suggest an answer to my own question, have I found the
eager ones? Are they among us?
Dave
|
| 989.41 | Do miracles induce faith? | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Fri Feb 01 1991 16:35 | 53 |
| Re: 40
>I am having trouble understanding in what sense Bnei Yisrael accepted the
>Torah eagerly. I have always wondered how the Jews, who went with Moses
>into the wilderness after witnessing the Ten Plagues and the parting of the
>Red Sea, could immediately turn around and create the golden calf? Also,
>how could the children of those same Jews, who witnessed the conquerring
>of the Promised Land, revert to the practice of idolatry?
The standard answer given is that the Israelites had been on such
an emotional and spiritual high, having become used to experiencing
miracles and Divine revelation on an everyday basis, that they be-
came "addicted" to spirituality. Thus, when Moses disappeared for
40 days (they erroneously expected him back a day earlier than he
had planned), they panicked: "for this man Moses...we know not what
has become of him" (Ex. 32:1,23). They needed their spiritual "fix"
in any form at all, in order to maintain their "high."
But, truth to tell, your question is far better than this answer.
People today often confide that they would certainly be beilevers
if they experienced miracles, but there is nothing in nature that
compels them to such belief. A reasonable position, to be sure.
Why indeed, do we not experience miracles today?
Upon examining the relevant Talmudic and Midrashic passages, one
is struck by the many seemingly contradictory views held by our
Sages regarding that generation. On the one hand, they were extolled
as a _dor_deah_, a generation of understanding; as righteous and
giving; as an utterly unique generation the likes of which won't be
seen until the arrival of the Messiah. On the other, the Talmud
speaks of them as a generation of little faith (_mi'ketanai_emunah_).
Even while they were passing through the dry bed of the Red Sea
itself - arguably the most spectacular miracle of all time - they
were grumbling, and accusing G-d of having tricked them, suspecting
that they would find Egyptian divisions awaiting them on the other
side!
IMHO, there is no contradiction. They *were* knowledgable, good and
unique. But these qualities are not the same as faith. Their "beliefs"
were never *internalized*, because they were constantly exposed to
miracles, until they became desensitized to it, becoming like second
nature.
Those who truly seek G-d, find Him revealed in every amoeba and super-
nova. Those who seek *miracles*, on the other hand, will *never* be
satisfied, because as soon as the miracle is over - and even while it's
still in process! - they will be questioning its authenticity, assuming
it to be perhaps a quirk or a magic trick, as with Pharoah.
I'll continue with the rest of your question IY"H, later.
Jem
|
| 989.42 | Mishpatim - Abortion: Halacha and Spirit | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Feb 05 1991 19:30 | 160 |
|
SHABBAT SHALOM: Mishpatim
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel - The recent Supreme Court ruling in the
"right to life" controversy, giving individual states the
sweeping authority to limit abortions, reflects that America's
moral vision has taken a sharp shift to the right after sixteen
years of virtually unlimited availability of abortion upon
demand.
For the present time, the temper of the land is under a
conservative cloud, but 16 years from now, a more liberal
atmosphere may define America and, again, the Supreme Court will
be faced with one of its most controversial decisions. America
will be back where it started from, pitting the individual
freedom of the mother against the fetus in her womb.
Jewish law has an ethical, but also a pragmatic, approach
to the question of abortion. In this week's portion, Mishpatim,
we come across the first commandment in the Torah which brings up
the issue of the fetus. A woman who miscarries as a result of
being accidentally injured by two men fighting amongst
themselves, is rewarded a monetary compensation for the unborn
child, but if the injury is fatal to the woman, the punishment is
much more severe: "And if two men strive together, and hurt a
woman, causing her to miscarry, and there is no fatal harm, he
shall surely be fined...But if fatal injury (to the mother)
follows, than you shall give life for life." (Ex.21:22-23)
The rabbis gleaned from these two cases that a fetus was
not considered a life. The basis for this interpretation is
found in a Mishnaic ruling on the question of life-threatening
pregnancy: "If a woman suffers a difficult childbirth, we are
allowed to destroy the fetus in the womb, removing the fetus limb
by limb, because the mother's life takes precedence over the
child's. But if the head (or major portion of the body) of the
child has emerged, the newborn cannot be harmed because one life
cannot push aside another life." (Mishnayot Ohalot 7:6)
The view, however, which seems to look upon the fetus as
less than life, is not the only one we find among the Sages. In
the Talmud, tractate Eruchin, 7a & 7b, R. Nachman reports in the
name of Shmuel that if a pregnant woman dies on the Shabbat
before the time of birth, in order to remove the fetus, we must
do whatever is necessary, even if it means desecrating the
Shabbat.
Keeping in mind the overriding principle that the Shabbat
may only be desecrated to save a life, and that in this instance,
since the mother is already dead, the life at stake can certainly
not be hers. R. Nachman is therefore ruling in the name of
Schmuel that the Sabbath may be desecrated for the life of a
fetus.
But do we call a fetus a full-fledged life, with complete
rights and full protection entitled for all human beings? What
of our aforementioned verse from Exodus and the Mishna in Ohalot?
The ruling of Maimonides (1194-1270) sheds light on the
nature of the fetus. We can't help but notice that his abortion
law appears in a section devoted to the Laws of Murder (Chapter
1, Halacha 9). In codifying the law that the mother's life takes
precedence over the fetus as long as the fetus is inside the
womb, but once the head has emerged, one life is not pushed aside
for another life, Maimonides adds an explanation: we are
obligated to destroy the fetus when the mother's life is
threatened because the fetus is considered a "rodef" - a pursuer
- in effect, a murderer.
Earlier in this chapter on the Laws of Murder, Maimonides
rules that if we come upon a "rodef" (a potential murderer
clutching knife in hot pursuit of someone in desperate flight),
we are obligated to do what it takes to stop the pursuer, even it
is means killing him. Halacha 9, dealing with abortion,
continues the question of the "rodef", this time a fetus.
By placing the law of abortion within the body of the
laws of murder, and then offering the analogy of the fetus to a
legal position of "rodef" requiring destruction, the enigmatic
nature of the fetus is open for detailed analysis. A number of
commentaries, including R. Chaim Soloveichik of Brisk, reasoned
that if the fetus is considered to be part of the mother's body,
more like an extension - a limb or an organ - of course we would
be allowed to amputate the "limb" to save the mother's life, and
we wouldn't have to come up with the description of the fetus as
a "pursuer".
Maimonides' "rodef" analogy, it is argued, renders unto
the fetus an existence of its own which goes beyond the idea of
it simply being part of the mother. The fetus is potential life,
and potential life takes precedence over the fetus' life, but one
cannot get rid of the fetus at will.
The laws concerning suicide may illuminate the question
of the mother's individual freedom in regard to what she is
carrying inside her womb. The Sages in Tractate Bava Kama (91b)
consider suicide a major Biblical crime, indeed an act of cruel
homicide, based on a verse on Noah: "But of the blood of your own
lives will I demand an account...He who spills human blood shall
have his own blood spilled by man..." (Gen. 9:5-6)
Suicide, in the Torah's view, is murder, and the one
doing the killing cannot argue that it's his own life, to dispose
of at will. We do not own our lives; we simply guard them, as a
kind of a job with a life-time guarantee, but the expiration date
of the contract is G-d's choice, not ours. Though it's part of
the mother, that doesn't mean she owns the fetus, free to dispose
of it whenever whim, will or fancy strike her. Treating a human
life seriously means that we have to treat potential human life
seriously as well. If the mother cannot destroy her "own" life,
then how can she destroy "life" that is not hers?
In Judaism, what determines the future of the fetus is
its potential danger. If it "pursues" the mother, threatening
her life, then the fetus must be destroyed. As to what is
considered life-threatening, the Halacha recognizes not only
physical danger to the mother's body, but psychological danger to
the mother's state of mind, each case to be judged on its own
merits by medical and rabbinic counseling. But when no
mitigating circumstances exist, and the proposed abortion proves
to be only a desire to get rid of an inconvenience, Jewish law
would question such a decision and clearly forbids the taking of
potential life.
One of the most moving experiences I ever had in the
rabbinate involves a couple who had been married for years
without being blessed with children. Finally, the woman did give
birth, but the baby was born with a terrible disease, dying soon
afterwards.
During the first week of shiva, a congregant asked me to
speak to a relative of his - all of 15 years old - who had gotten
pregnant by her boyfriend and was about to go through an
abortion. The young mother-to-be agreed to meet, and during the
course of the talk, she was convinced not to abort her fetus, but
to give the baby up for adoption once it was born, specifically
to this family that had just suffered the tragic loss of their
month-old baby.
It's not very difficult to imagine how we felt at the
Bar-Mitzva celebration of this young man, practically snatched
from the knife of the abortionist. It was very hard not to cry.
G-d willing, when the day of his wedding arrives, I hope to be
there as well. According to Jewish tradition, a life is a world;
therefore, a potential life is not less than a potential world.
SHABBAT SHALOM!
Copyright Ohr Torah 1990.
This essay is distributed by Kesher --the Jewish Network.
--
Alan Lustiger
|_ | | AT&T Engineering Research Center
/ |( Princeton, NJ
attmail!alustiger or att!pruxk!alu
|
| 989.43 | Update! | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Thu Feb 07 1991 03:33 | 6 |
|
Thanks to Jonathan Wreschner, I'll be posting Rabbi Riskin's
NEW articles every week from now on, IY"H, in addition to
last year's. Enjoy!
Jem
|
| 989.44 | Mishpatim: Culpability | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Thu Feb 07 1991 03:39 | 115 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Mishpatim by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- Are the German firms who developed chemical
and biological warheads for the Iraqi dictator's arsenal of
missiles responsible for their actions? Is the German firm which
built Saddam Hussein's $100 million bunker five stories beneath
his palace culpable for such engineering feats, or can they
claim that they had a job to do, and the future use or misuse of
their efforts need not concern them? The answer is very
clear. The last Mishna in Ch. 2 of Tractate Bava Kama makes the
categorical statement that a person is always considered
forewarned, responsible and culpable for any damage which he
causes, whether it's done on purpose or by accident, whether
he's asleep or awake.
What's more, a person is not only responsible for his
own actions, but he's responsible for the damage caused by
anything he owns, damage caused by a minor child, an ox, even a
dog, possessions or objects which have no minds of their own but
possess the ability to render some kind of destruction.
The various Talmudic commentaries, in trying to
understand the nature of this responsibility, probe the
following issue: Is the owner culpable because someone's
property has been damaged and - being that an ox or a minor
cannot be forced bo pay - the onus falls on the owner of the
damages . In effect, payment is then a kind of fine which the
Torah levies, providing the victim with an insurance policy for
the suffering he has endured.
Or perhaps, probes the Talmud, payment is made for
totally different reasons. The Torah cares less about fines and
more about responsibilities, and what is being emphasized here
is that a person's responsibilities extend even to his
possessions. He pays not because it's a fine, but rather because
it's as if he himself had perpetrated the act, directly , with
his own hands. Payment then becomes restitution which the
individual makes for damage committed by an extension of
himself!
Further evidence for this latter view can be found in
this week's portion, Mishpatim, (the major source for criminal
law in Jewish life) in which we come across a rather amazing
concept regarding the question of damages and culpability :
"...If the ox was in the habit of goring on previous occasions
and the owner was warned but did not take precautions, then if
it kills a man or woman, the ox must be stoned, and its owner
shall also die." [Exodus 21:29]
Die! The owner dead? Not exactly. Or at least not the
domain of the courts. Rashi's explanation (loc. cit) that the
owner suffers heavenly culpability emerges directly from information
given in the following verse: "Nevertheless, an atonement fine
must be imposed on him, and he must pay whatever is imposed on
him as a redemption for his life." [Ex. 21:30 ; The Bible
provides for the owner to redeem his soul by paying what he's
worth on the open market were he to sell himself as a slave.
Clearly the Torah is going out of its way to establish
the grave consequences for the owner of an ox who gores. The
text's phrasing that he shall die, even though it's an
expressive rather than literal use of language because capital
punishment is reserved for premeditated, witnessed and
forewarned acts of murder, nonetheless reveals how seriously we
respond to such carelessness on the part of the owner.
Therefore, when in the next verse the Torah declares
that the owner must pay redemption money for his soul, this
requirement effectively answers our earlier question about
responsibility. Indeed, I am so responsible that if my
possession continues on its destructive path, and I do not
prevent it, it's as if I am the cause and deserve to die for my
negligence. Since the Torah has very specific requirements for
capital punishment, I cannot be killed. But that doesn't mean
that I am not responsible.
Aristotle defines the essence of the human being as a
social creature, in effect stating :"I communicate , therefore I
am." Some 2000 years later Descartes proposed that what captures
the human being's essence is his ability to reason : "I think,
therefore I am." But the Jewish view of the human being
addresses his responsibility for his actions or non-actions: "I
am responsible, therefore I am."
We live in an age in which the social sciences and
psychiatric journals have developed theories that minimize our
own responsibilities in the face of a multitude of factors. A
tale is told about three mothers who meet in Miami and brag of
their sons' successes. My son is a doctor who makes $300,000 a
year - and to whom does he send $50,000 ? to me, his mother; my
son is a lawyer who makes $400,000 a year - and to whom does he
send $75,000? To me , his mother. But the winning punch line
goes to the mother who proudly claims that her son is a
businessman who makes a million dollars a year and pays his
psychiatrist thousands a week. "And you know what, all he does
is talk about me , his mother !". The point of the apocryphal
story is the extent of parental (or societal) responsibility for
one's individual actions.
The Jewish position insists we must all struggle to accept
personal responsibility for the actions of our stubborn 'oxen'
goring everyone in sight. Ultimately, the reasons are irrelevant
in the face of the brutal results. The Torah understands the
predicament of our destructive oxen, but responsibility must
ultimately be placed on the doorstep of the owner. If he's
negligent, giving in to the pull of the ox, then it's as if he
himself is the destructive force. It's not easy to tame a wild
ox, but the Torah does not accept excuses and rationalizations.
Perhaps the nations of the world, the Germans and French, cannot
live up to such standards, and if there's a collective unconscious
or Greek myth to blame one's frustrations on, then that path
will be taken. But even the nations must be cognizant of the
dangers involved in selling their technical brilliance to the
tyrant with the fattest bank account. Greed by any other name
reeks just as foul. To be human means to accept responsibility !
Shabbat Shalom
|
| 989.45 | Questions, questions | DECSIM::GROSS | The bug stops here | Tue Feb 12 1991 00:50 | 25 |
| I have questions regarding parasha Mishpatim.
In this portion, just before Moses goes up the mountain to receive the
tablets of the law, he and the elders of Israel SEE G-d as
if standing on a pavement of sapphire. I thought G-d couldn't be seen!
In fact, we will shortly read how Moses asks to see G-d and G-d has to hide
Moses in a crevass for his protection. What is going on here?
Among the laws given in this portion is a commandment to celebrate three
feasts (festivals?) a year. The feast of unleavened bread (Passover) is
mentioned specifically. I assume the other two are Shavuot and Sukkot. But,
this represents a Jewish calendar with only three holidays! Is this as
ancient as I think it is?
G-d promises to give Israel a land of its own and mentions specific
borders. My translation (JPS) mentions the Euphrates as one of the borders.
I know the borders of ancient Judea varied quite a bit, but did it ever
extend that far? Also, it would seem that this passage would create
"interesting" problems for Jewish fundamentalists regarding the modern
state of Israel.
There are lots more questions I could ask regarding this section, but I'll
let them go until next year.
Dave
|
| 989.46 | I think there are still more questions than answers | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Feb 12 1991 15:42 | 131 |
|
Re: .45
> I have questions regarding parasha Mishpatim.
And they're not getting any easier!
>In this portion, just before Moses goes up the mountain to receive the
>tablets of the law, he and the elders of Israel SEE G-d as
>if standing on a pavement of sapphire. I thought G-d couldn't be seen!
>In fact, we will shortly read how Moses asks to see G-d and G-d has to hide
>Moses in a crevass for his protection. What is going on here?
Maimonides devotes more than half of his great philosophical treatise,
"Guide for the Perplexed," to explaining passages which appear to
indicate a corporeal Diety. Some examples in line with your question
include, "And the L-rd appeared to him..." (Gen 18:1), "I saw the
L-rd sitting on His throne..." (I Kings 22:19), as well as the two
examples you cite (Ex. 24:10, 33:18). Maimonides explains that the
"seeing" spoken of figuratively refers to intellectual grasp or
apprehension. Similarly, in Gen. 1:10, "and G-d saw that it was
good," does not refer to physical sight but is merely an anthro-
pomorphism, a metaphor symbolizing G-d's apprehension of the
situation in terms humans can understand. An even more extreme
example appears to play right into the hands of the polytheists:
"Let US make man in OUR image" (Gen. 1:26). Rashi explains that
the Torah wished to teach us a noble trait, namely to include our
subordinates (angels, in G-d's case) in our decisions. Even though
some may use this as a proof-text for their distorted beliefs, the
lesson must be taught. The Talmud has G-d making the following pro-
nouncement when asked about the obvious dangerous results which might
ensue: "what is written is written, and all who WISH to err
will come and err." In other words, those who have an agenda
will always be able to find a passage which superficially appears
to substantiate their claim. Those who come with no preconceived
notions, on the other hand, authentic truth-seekers, realize that
a single, out-of-context verse may well be a literary device, and
will at least reserve judgment until after they read the rest of
the book.
>Among the laws given in this portion is a commandment to celebrate three
>feasts (festivals?) a year. The feast of unleavened bread (Passover) is
>mentioned specifically. I assume the other two are Shavuot and Sukkot. But,
>this represents a Jewish calendar with only three holidays! Is this as
>ancient as I think it is?
The five annual Pentateuchal holidays are: the three you mentioned, as
well as Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur (Purim, Chanuka, fast-days,
etc. are Talmudic additions). Sometimes all five are listed together,
while in other places only the first three are listed (compare Ex.
23:14, 34:17ff, Lev. 23:4, Num. 28:16, Deut. 16:16). The first three
are designated in 23:14 as _regalim_, usually translated as "feast."
However, Ibn Ezra explains that the term actually derives from the
word _regel_, meaning "foot." As the Torah explains a few verses
later, all males were required to travel to Jerusalem during each of
these festivals, and they would generally do so on foot. Ibn Ezra
maintains that the purpose of the pilgrimages was for the men to
demonstrate their acceptance of the heavenly yoke, their servitude
to G-d. Thus, "...appear...before the Master, G-d," and "...none
shall appear before Me empty."
Why is it so important to stress this lesson in Mishpatim, which
is concerned mainly with civil laws? Upon closer examination, one
finds interwoven with "societal" laws, such as damages and money-
lending rules, surprises such as a prohibition against blasphemy,
Sabbath observance, and the three festivals under discussion.
Depending on the prevailing fashions, various societies have
historically tended to disdain either the "ritual" or the "civil"
set of laws promulgated by the Bible. The former may be viewed
as "superstitious," at times, while the latter is looked upon
as an excellent model for a secular legal system. At other times,
"rituals" and "customs" may be all the rage, while the civil laws
are viewed as antiquated barbarisms.
Why the pilgrimage "en mittin d'rinnin?" The statement being made
is loud and clear: without a recognition of our own subservience
to the Master of the Universe, there is not a single law which is
sacrosanct, not one. The pilgrimage constitutes a paradigm of faith,
occurring during the planting and harvesting, not to mention leaving
the entire countryside bereft of its soldiers, defenseless. Thus,
the famous Israelite pronouncement found in this parasha (24:7),
"we will do and we will hear," was anything but anything but a
perfunctory platitude -- they *did* (committed to, and carried
out G-d's commands) before they *heard* (even if they didn't under-
stand the logic absolutely). (As has been mentioned elsewhere, this
does not mean that we are to be mindless robots - on the contrary!
there is a commandment to use every spare minute to study, question
and understand G-d's word. But, as with troops on a battlefield, the
individual soldier must accept his subservience to the commander,
else havoc reigns. After the battle, the commander may well explain
his logic to the unit, and may even require it, but the theater of
action is not the time or place for it).
Why not Rosh Hashana/Y.K.? Both of those holidays are fraught with
contrition and repentance anyway, whereas the _regalim_ are times of
joy, when most of the world would be reveling endlessly. What an
ultimate test of submission to G-d's will! In contemporary terms,
it's like scheduling a synagogue board meeting and UJA appeal on
Superbowl Sunday!
>G-d promises to give Israel a land of its own and mentions specific
>borders. My translation (JPS) mentions the Euphrates as one of the borders.
>I know the borders of ancient Judea varied quite a bit, but did it ever
>extend that far? Also, it would seem that this passage would create
>"interesting" problems for Jewish fundamentalists regarding the modern
>state of Israel.
I can't do the question justice right now, and there are myriad
opinions in the Talmud, based on over a dozen seemingly contra-
dictory Biblical sources on the topic. As an illustration, the
opinion of Rabbi Judah (Git. 8a) is that the theoretical boundaries
of the Land (for purposes of tithing and divorce-papers [gittin])
extend around the world along the latitude of the Land of Israel
(no wonder there are so many Jews in Florida)! Of course, this
opinion is not accepted, but it gives a flavor of the range of
opinions. Suffice it to say that Kings David and Solomon did extend
the borders of Israel well past the Jordan in their time, but the
future borders are up to the Messiah to fix (B.R. 44, Mai. Rotzeah
8:4). We pray for his speedy arrival!
Jem
P.S. What's going on next year?
|
| 989.47 | Teruma: The Heavenly Corps | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Feb 12 1991 21:28 | 161 |
| 989.48 | Tetzaveh - HaMaayan | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Feb 19 1991 22:04 | 167 |
| ********************
HaMaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Tetzaveh
Volume V, Number 19 (205)
9 Adar 5751 / February 23, 1991
Parashat Zachor
Parasha Overview
Parashat Tetzaveh continues from last week's Parasha the
description of the Mishkan (Tabernacle) and its utensils and
appurtenances. Much of Tetzaveh is devoted to the "Bigdei Kehunah"
- the garments of the Kohen Gadol and of the other Kohanim. The
commentary Tziyoni (quoted in Midrash Talpiot) notes that there was
not one stitch in the Bigdei Kehunah which did not symbolize or
allude to mountains upon mountains of laws and mystical secrets.
For this reason, those who wove these garments were required to
work with intense concentration and devotion. This is why Moshe
was commanded (Sh'mot 28:3), "Now speak to all who are wise of
heart, those whom I have filled with wisdom, and they shall make
garments for Aharon and he will be a 'Kohen' before Me."
************************************
"And those who were close to him were Karshina, Sheitar, Admata,
Tarshish, Merres, Marsina, Memuchan..." (Esther 1:14)
The Midrash writes that corresponding to King Achashveirosh's
seven advisors whose names are listed in the above verse were seven
angels who stood before G-d and defended Bnei Yisrael against the
plots of Achashveirosh. Each angel pleaded with Hashem using words
related to the name of one of the seven advisors.
One said, "If Achashveirosh defeats Bnei Yisrael, who will
sacrifice before You one year-old calves?" ("Par ben shanah" /
"Karshina")
The second said, "Who will sacrifice before You two doves?"
(Shtei Torim" / "Sheitar")
The third said, "Who will build for You an earthen altar?"
(Mizbach Adama" / "Admata")
The fourth said, "Who will wear the Bigdei Kehuna which contain
the gem called 'Tarshish'?"
The fifth said, "Who will stir the blood of the sacrifices?"
("Memarres" / "Meres")
The sixth said, "Who will stir the flour offerings?"
("Memarres" / "Marsina")
The seventh said, "Who will prepare the altar before You?"
("Maicheen" / "Memuchan")
When the angels concluded their pleas, Hashem answered, "Bnei
Yisrael are My sons. They are My friends. They are My beloved..."
Why, of all of the Mitzvot, did the angels single out these
seven? What didn't they ask, "Why didn't they ask, "Who will put
on Tefilin? Who will lift the Lulav?"
Chazal teach that the day on which the Mishkan was completed was
as happy in G-d's "eyes" as the day on which He created the world.
When Adam was created, G-d had great expectations for his future.
Using his G-d given free will, Adam unfortunately "frustrated"
those plans, but mankind was given a second chance when Bnei
Yisrael received the Torah and built the Mishkan. The day on which
the Tabernacle was dedicated was therefore as auspicious as the
very day on which the world was created.
Achashveirosh knew that. As the Gemara notes, the purpose of
the party described at the beginning of the Megilah was to
celebrate the fact that, according to Achashveirosh's calculations,
the appointed time for the end of the exile had come and gone
without the Bet HaMikdash - successor to the Mishkan - being
rebuilt. He therefore donned the garments of the Kohen Gadol
(which had been captured in Nevuchadnezar's war on Yerushalayim)
and defiantly celebrated the apparent victory of evil over good.
[The Talmud explains how he miscalculated the date of Bnei
Yisrael's redemption.]
The angels said to G-d, "Achashveirosh is celebrating the demise
of the Mishkan and its service. Haman says You are sleeping. Tell
us: Whose plan for the Mishkan will stand - Achashveirosh's or
Yours?"
(R' Eliyahu HaKohen, Sefer Midrash Talpiot)
************************************
"And you [Moshe] shall command Bnei Yisrael, and they shall
bring to you pure olive oil, [specially] pressed for the [Menorah
of the Mishkan]..." (Sh'mot 27:20)
The Talmud (Shabbat 21a) states: "Those wicks and oils [e.g.
seaweed, cottonseed oil, and others] which the sages said may not
be used for the Shabbat candles, may also not be used in the Bet
HaMikdash." In his notes to the Talmud, R' Akiva Eiger asks,
"Could these prohibited oils have been used if not for the law
quoted above? Does not the Torah require 'pure olive oil'?"
R' Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook answers as follows: In the
third chapter of Tractate Menachot, the Talmud debates whether or
not the Temple Menorah may be made out of materials other than
gold. [This was discussed in this year's HaMaayan for Parashat
Miketz.] The Sages maintain that only gold is permitted, while R'
Yose bar Yehuda ("R.Y.B.Y.") maintains that gold is preferable, but
not required. The basis of the dispute is the Sinaitic tradition
that any law applying to the Temple that is meant to be mandatory
is written twice in the Torah, but those laws regarding the Bet
HaMikdash that are meant to be followed only "L'Chatchilah"
(ideally), but not "B'di'avad" (after-the-fact) are written only
once. The sages maintain that since the gold of the Menorah is, in
fact, mentioned twice in the Torah, the Menorah must be made of
gold. R.Y.B.Y., on the other hand, while agreeing to the rule that
any Temple law mentioned twice in the Torah is mandatory, argues
that the law of the Menorah is an exception. This is because,
according to R.Y.B.Y., the verses which mention the gold of the
Menorah are needed for another purpose, namely to teach us that "If
the Menorah is made of gold, then it should have all of the
decorative details mentioned in the Torah. However, if it is not
made of gold, then it need not have all of the details mentioned."
The same may be true of the oil of the Menorah, writes R' Kook.
Based on the principles enunciated above, we may interpret the
above verse to mean that "Only if the oil is from olives need it be
specially crushed for the Menorah. However, if it is from other
fruits, even less pure oil may be used."
(quoted in Tov Ro'ee, p.26; see also Igrot HaRa'ayah, III p.75)
Note: The above discussion is necessarily superficial. Readers
are encouraged to examine the sources cited for a fuller discussion
of the topic.
************************************
Last week we presented descriptions of the "Kallah" and
"Metivta", the Talmudic equivalents of the modern Yeshiva. This
week we examine several other forms of organized Torah study which
could be found in 3rd-11th century Bavel (Iraq).
The "Pirka" (pl. "Pirkei") was roughly analogous to our "Shabbat
Shuvah" or "Shabbat HaGadol" D'rasha except that it was delivered
every Shabbat and Yom Tov before Mussaf (see the first Rashi on
Berachot 28b). These sermons were directed towards the masses,
teaching them laws and ethics relevant to the particular occasion.
The "Sidra" was, like the "Metivta", a Yeshiva, but one that did
not have a "Rosh Yeshiva" who wielded authority in the same way as
did the head of the Kallah. (The head of the latter, it will be
recalled, was recognized as the leader of the Sanhedrin and of the
generation, and received Halachic queries from all parts of the
Jewish world.) It has also been suggested that the Sidra
originated as a gathering to study the weekly Parasha on Shabbat,
and only later expanded to fill a wider educational role.
"Bnei Tarbitza" was the name given to scholars who studied
informally on their own. Because they lacked both teachers and
study-partners, their teachings were considered extremely
inaccurate. According to R' Yitzchak HaLevi (Dorot HaRishonim),
when one Talmudic sage tells another, "Go, repeat that teaching
outside," he means, "The teaching that you have just taught is
incorrect and could only have originated with those who study
outside of the formal Yeshiva structure." This statement is meant
to emphasize that although all Jews are required to study Torah at
every opportunity, one should ideally have a "Rebbe" (teacher) who
can teach him the Torah as he received it from his own teachers,
rather than relying on his own intellect and logic to fill all of
the gaps in his studies. This is important because the
authenticity of the Oral Law is guaranteed only if it is carefully
transmitted from teacher to student as it has been since it was
given on Har Sinai.
********************
Posted by Alan Broder, ajb@grebyn.com (uunet!grebyn!ajb), who
should be contacted to request back issues of HaMaayan or to get
on or off the direct email mailing list.
Shlomo Katz can not receive EMAIL, however I will pass on any
comment forwarded to me, or alternately, send your comments care of
yehuda@gwuvm.bitnet
|
| 989.49 | Tetzaveh/Purim: The Hidden G-d | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Feb 19 1991 22:23 | 134 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Tetzave (Purim)
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- One of the strongest questions
we can ask about Purim is why G-d's name doesn't appear anywhere
in the Book of Esther. After all, the Megillah (Scroll of
Esther)- in addition to being of the 24 Books of the the Bible
is a work that burns with the question of Jewish survival. Haman
wants to destroy the Jewish people because Mordechai is the lone
man who refuses to bow down to him. And why does Mordechai
refuse? He is committed to the Jewish tradition which insisted-
from the earliest time of our first Patriarch Abraham - that Jews
bow down only to G-d. And Haman finds Mordechai's refusal a
thorn in his glory. This means that in the drama of Purim we are
presented with a struggle between a representative of the One G-d,
and a representative of the belief in ultimate earthly power.
When Haman makes his general appeal of the necessity to annihilate
a certain people scattered and dispersed among the provinces in
the kingdom, whose laws are different from others, he is
publicly announcing his goal to destroy the laws the One G-d
commanded Moses. Thus the entire story of the Book of Esther
begins because of one Jew's refusal to weaken his total
commitment to G-d. If, therefore, G-d is truly at the center of
this Book, how ironic it is that His name never appears!
The traditional answer given is that concealing the name of G-d
is intentional, a subtle way for the Torah to teach another
aspect of G-d's existence, a G-d whose ways are hidden and
invisible. During other Biblical moments the hand of G-d is
visible as He issues commands and directs the words of prophets
and kings. When the events call for a miracle, like the time
when the Israelites are pursued by an army of Egyptian
charioteers, G-d splits the Red Sea. But back in Persia with
Esther and Mordekhai, the intervention of the divine requires a
discerning eye. The teaching of the Book of Esther is that G-d
appears in history not only through the fire and thunder of
Sinai, but also as the invisible source behind a particular
pattern to seemingly random events. The characters in the
stage of history may even themselves not necessarily be aware of
how their roles will help determine the fate of the Jewish
people. Since there is no prophecy outside the land of Israel.
G-d moves from one who speaks through the prophet's lips to a
shadowy presence behind the scenes - but nevertheless even the
Hidden God guarantees the destruction of Haman and the evil he
represents in his relentness pursuit of the Jews and their
values. Let us look at the Purim story from a religious
perspective: At first it looks like another major ball, the king
of a great empire displaying his vast wealth and power, a
celebration that will last for 180 days. Ahashverosh had much to
be proud of. It's not easy to hold onto an empire of 127
nations. His reign is perfect, but then a blotch appears on his
spotless kingdom. Queen Vashti, perhaps the most beautiful woman
in the kingdom, refuses to appear before the assembled, an
action which undermines everything Ahashverosh has been
celebrating for half a year. What good are 127 nations if his
own wife defies him?. Enraged, he seeks advice from his
advisors. They recommend death, an act that restores the king's
power. With Vashti's death, the wheels start turning. A new
queen must be found, and out of the entire kingdom fate points
toward a Jewish girl named Hadassah (Esther). Joining the royal
court, it's not surprising that her uncle Mordechai will be in
the right place at right time to overhear a plot against the
kings' life. Though it's recorded in the royal chronicles, it
won't become a turn in the plot until the night the king can't
sleep and Haman comes knocking on the king's door with his plan
to hang Mordechai on the gallows. This proves to be disastrous
timing on Haman's part, because from that moment on, the tables
turn on him completely. Now it's apparent that behind
the scenes G-d has arranged everything to insure Haman's
downfall. Even the gallows he prepared for Mordechai will eventually
be used for him. Except one point! When it becomes clear that
Haman wants to kill the Jews, Mordechai rends his garments, and
lets Esther know she must approach the king and plead for mercy.
But this request throws her into a terrible quandary. The king
hasn't called in more than 30 days. If she enters his chambers
without being called, she risks death unless the king raises his
golden sceptre. Unmoved, Mordechai sends a second
message, "For if you do indeed maintain silence at this time,
enlargement and deliverance will arise to the Jews from another
place; but you and your father's house will perish: and who
knows whether for a time such as this you reached the royal
position?" [Esther 4:14] If what we've been saying about
G-d's invisible presence is true, why doesn't G-d simply arrange
that Ahashverosh would call for her this night, just as he calls
for the chronicles to be read to him on the very night that
Haman shows up in the court. In line with everything else, G-d
could have managed this without any difficulty. And precisely
because G-d does not intervene at the moment when Esther has to
risk her life leads us to conclude that G-d guides the events of
the world to a certain point. But in the end there has to be
'mesirat nefesh,' the willingness to take the final step, to
risk one's life for the sake of G-d. Esther has to make the most
difficult choice of all, she has to decide if she's willing to
risk her life to save her people. It's not easy. At first she
looks for a way out, but in the end, Esther triumphs over her
fears. This dilemma is the critical moment of the Book of
Esther -- the heart of the message. For the redemption of the
Jews G-d will set up many things, but in the end if we're asked
for 'mesirat nefesh' and we avoid putting our lives on the line,
we won't be saved. In the final analysis, we must be willing to
risk even death in order to attempt to redeem ourselves!
The Talmud connects Purim with Passover. Even though G-d
performs one miracle after another in Egypt, Pharaoh stubbornly
refuses to let Moses' people go -- until the last plague. And
what's radically different about the killing of the first born
sons is that the Jews had to take a distinct risk in heeding
G-d's command to sacrifice a lamb and smear blood on their
doorposts. Since this lamb was an Egyptian god, there must have
been those who argued it would safer to find a substitute,
perhaps another animal, rather than risk the wrath of the
Egyptians. But the Jews defied Egyptian law, and followed G-d's
command. At that moment, they joined in the miracle -- for them
it was 'mesirat nefesh' and they were saved. The absence of
G-d's name in Megilat Esther not only directs us toward a way to
discern invisible patterns in the unfolding of our history: it
also reminds us that we must do our acting as well if our people
is to be saved. The last effort, the final leap, must be taken
on our own. Without 'mesirat nefesh,' there is no redemption. A
journey of two thousand years ends only when we take the final
step. One who acts himself in order to be purified is helped
from on High.
Shabbat Shalom
For more information, call (212)935-8672/3.
|
| 989.50 | Purim - Name of G-d | PWLOU::RAYMAN | BIG Louuuuuuuu - PW Comm Meister | Tue Feb 19 1991 23:26 | 32 |
| While the name of G-d is not expicitly mentioned in the Megillah, there are
allusions to it.
One of them is the the verse quote by Rabbi Riskin in .49
"For if you do indeed maintain silence at this time,
--> enlargement and deliverance will arise to the Jews from another
--> place; but you and your father's house will perish: and who
knows whether for a time such as this you reached the royal
position?" [Esther 4:14]
In Hebrew : "Revach v'hatzalah ya'amod la'yehudim mi*makom* acher"
"Makom" (lit. place) is a euphemism for G-d based on the verse in Yechezkel
(Ezekial) chap I (and in the Kedusah). Yechezkel has a vision of the angles
singing the praises of G-d, "Baruch Kevod Hashem Mimekomo" - Blessed
is the Glory (better Honor) of G-d from his Place.
Referring to G-d as Hamakom is usually reserved for times when G-d's presence
seems distant or absent. The formula for consolation of Mouners is "HaMakom
Yenachem Etchem Betoch Sha'ar Avlei Tzion V'Yerushalaim" - May G-d console
you among the other Mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.
Yechezkel lived during and after the Destuction of the Biet HaMikdash.
G-d's presence surely felt distant at that time. Contrast this to Isiah's
vision, about 100 (?) earlier, of angles praising G-d, "Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh
Hashem Tzvakot, Meloh Kol Ha'aretz Kevodo." - Holy Holy Holy, Lord of Hosts,
His Honor fills the entire Land. A much "closer" vision.
Mordechai, aware of the situation, says the salvation for the Jews will come
from "Makom" - a distant, hidden G-d. Even at times that the obvious
manifistaion of G-d presence is widthdrawn, His behind-the-scene actions can
bee seen by those who take the time to look.
|
| 989.51 | Persecute them with your storm..Psalm 83 | GAON::jem | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Feb 20 1991 06:44 | 152 |
|
Re: .50
>While the name of G-d is not expicitly mentioned in the Megillah, there are
>allusions to it.
Someone on scj also pointed out that the Ari found *hidden* occurrences of
G-d's name in the Megilla as well, but since the Ari Z"L is known for his
contributions in the realm of _nistar_ (hidden wisdom), this only strengthens
Rabbi Riskin's question, which deals with why the *revealed* text omits
explicit references to G-d.
>"Makom" (lit. place) is a euphemism for G-d based on the verse in Yechezkel
>(Ezekial) chap I
>Yechezkel lived during and after the Destuction of the Biet HaMikdash.
>G-d's presence surely felt distant at that time.
The commentators in Ez. 3 indeed say that this verse is a reference
to the destruction of the Temple, i.e., although G-d's "place" lay
in ruins, His "glory" and "honor" retain their full potency -- those
in the ephemeral realm, however (i.e. the Israelites), are now a step
further removed from His Presence.
> Contrast this to Isiah's
>vision, about 100 (?) earlier, of angles praising G-d, "Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh
>Hashem Tzvakot, Meloh Kol Ha'aretz Kevodo." - Holy Holy Holy, Lord of Hosts,
>His Honor fills the entire Land. A much "closer" vision.
As long as you mention this chapter in Isaiah (6), which is the _Haphtara_
(prophetic reading) for Parashat Yitro (3 weeks ago), may I point out
another topical coincidence. In verse 11, the prophet asks, "Then said
I, L-rd, how long? And He answered, until the cities be wasted without
inhabitant, and the houses without man..." That week, it was reported
that tens of thousands of Tel Aviv's resident's had taken refuge elsewhere,
leaving entire neighborhoods looking like ghost-towns.
The commentators explain that Isaiah's question, "how long?" refers to
the Israelites refusing to heed G-d's exhortations. A similar interpretation
is offered on the startling verse (Is. 26:20 - are you there Sid? :-) :
Come, my people, enter your chambers, and shut your
doors behind you; hide yourself for a little while,
until the wrath is past.
Metzudat David renders:
...close the door so no one can do you harm...that
is, hide yourselves in the recesses of proverbial
chambers of repentance, in order to protect you
from the woes which will befall you just prior to
your redemption.
Indeed, verse 17 in this chapter is the source of the Rabbinic
reference to the "Birthpangs of the Messiah" (_chevlei_mashiach_):
Like a pregnant woman drawing close to childbirth, is
in pain, and cries out in her pangs, so have we been
in Your sight, O L-rd.
The previous verse also throws light on the intention of verse
20:
L-rd, in trouble have they turned to You, they poured out
a prayer when You chastened them.
The Hebrew word here translated as "trouble," is _batzar_, literally
"in straights," that is, a narrow or cramped area. A similar verse
is found in Deut. 4:30 :
When you are in trouble (_batzar_), and all these things come
upon you, _in_the_end_of_days_ and you will turn to the L-rd
your G-d, and listen to Him.
The commentator "Ohr Hachayim," commonly referred to as "the holy,"
points out that this verse appears to be superfluous, since the
previous verse made the same point (4:29):
And from there you shall seek the L-rd your G-d, and you
will find Him, if you seek Him with all your heart and
all your soul.
Why the repetition? Ohr Hachayim explains that there are two types
of repentance referred to here, one spontaneous and self-motivated,
("with all your heart and all your soul"), the other which is brought
about only through externally-induced tribulations (batzar/straights).
This corresponds to the two types of redemption referred to by Isaiah
(60:22):
...in its (i.e. the redemption's) time, I will hasten it.
The Talmud asks pointedly: if the redemption is in its time, then
it has not been hastened! Rather, _if_they_merit_it_, it will be
hastened, if not, they will have to wait until its time (to be
preceded by the "Birthpangs" referred to earlier).
Someone from Jerusalem posted a very interesting story on scj a few weeks
ago apropos of this topic. Apparently, his wife is an amateur "shadchnis"
(matchmaker), and had been trying to arrange a meeting between two
individuals for some time to no avail. Finally, the two agreed to
meet, and they went out to a cafe in central Jerusalem. No sooner
had they started to sip their Turkish coffee, when - you guessed
it - the air-raid sirens began to howl, and the two near-strangers
found themselves cloistered in the tiny sealed room of the cafe.
Needless to say, they became acquainted in an entirely different
way under the circumstances, and, Sadaam will be glad to hear that
some good news will likely emerge from the encounter.
Every person entering the sealed room has to be experiencing a variety
of emotions. First and foremost, tension. Then, boredom. This is
the type of situation from which people emerge vowing to pay more
attention to those whom they have neglected, to show more love to
nominal "loved ones."
And indeed, there is another relationship which is often neglected,
another forgotten "Loved One" (Song 2:16) whom we may not have thought
about as such ever before. The "closed chamber," or "sealed room"
is Tailor-made (notice the capital "T") for a (re-)establishment of
that most essential of relationships.
>Mordechai, aware of the situation, says the salvation for the Jews will come
>from "Makom" - a distant, hidden G-d. Even at times that the obvious
>manifistaion of G-d presence is widthdrawn, His behind-the-scene actions can
>bee seen by those who take the time to look.
Usually, the all-inclusive excuse people have is a lack of such time.
The lesson of both the original Haman and his latter-day incarnation
is that if we don't make/take the "time to look," we will find that
the time will be made for us -- more than we ever bargained for.
>"Revach v'hatzalah ya'amod la'yehudim mi*makom* acher"
> --> enlargement and deliverance will arise to the Jews from another
> --> place;
Our Sages (San. 97a) tell us that the redemption will be preceded by a period
which will appear utterly hopeless - "the son of David will not arrive until
they abandon all hope of redemption." But this verse sheds light on their
intention: everyone is looking at the hopelessness of the current situation,
while the redemption is being prepared for us through channels we cannot
even fathom (_mimakom_acher_).
As long as I've digressed this far, let me point out one more interesting
verse. Isaiah 21, according to the commentators, is a prophecy about
Babylonia - a time in which great armies will rise against her (Metz. D.).
The adjectives used to describe the conflict are most telling:
As tempests in arid lands pass through....
Tempest? Arid land? In English, we call this a storm in the desert --
a desert storm.
Jem
|
| 989.52 | Ki Tisa: Moses - The Paradigmatic Jewish Leader | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Mon Feb 25 1991 21:23 | 158 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Ki Tisa
By Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- Simply put, the most significant trait of a
Jewish leader is not military genius or even Talmudic genius,
but the genius of compassion for every Jew in the world, a
desperate, blind love toward one's people. Moses, the
prototypical Jewish leader, emerges as the figure all subsequent
generations must turn towards in assessing where they stand as
leaders , and it is from him - especially as described in this
week's portion Ki Tisa, that we draw our conclusions. After
the Golden Calf tragedy, G-d says to Moses, "Now leave me alone
and I shall unleash my wrath against them to destroy them. I
will then make you into a great nation." [Ex. 32:10] G-d's plan
for Israel may be over, but instead G-d offers Moses this world,
the next world, and the Garden of Eden all rolled into one. All
Moses must do is say yes and his own seed shall provide the
cornerstone of a new civilization. The history of Israel may be
over, but the history of Moses is just beginning....
Moses' reaction to the Divine offer is most instructive. He
hears in G-d's words the destruction G-d intends to unleash,
there is a subtle hint as to how he might undo the harsh
judgment. By explicitly telling Moses to leave Him alone and He
will destroy Israel, G-d is implicitly saying that if Moses
beseeches Him, who knows what he may achieve with prayer?
Moses proves to be a true shepherd who never abandons his flock.
The Torah underscores the importance of this role since
immediately prior to his election at the Burning Bush, we are
told that "...he led the flocks to the edge of the desert."
[Ex:3:1] The Midrash explains that one day while pasturing the
flocks, a young sheep wandered far off, and instead of growing
impatient, Moses understands its search for water, going to the
'edge' to bring the sheep back. This display of compassion
convinces G-d that whoever extends his love to a poor creature
is the best possible choice to become the shepherd of G-d's holy
flock. Still, the commitment of Moses' compassion must be
tested. After reluctantly accepting the mantle of leadership, he
devotes his entire life toward one purpose -- the redemption of
this nation. And although they witness miracle after miracle,
culiminating in the revelation at Sinai, they end up dancing
around a 'golden calf.' Moses has all the right to feel
betrayed. Can anything be more devastating to a man who should
be glorying in his triumph of bringing down the Torah to the
Jewish people than when G-d says to him, "Get down, your nation
is acting perversely...." [Ex. 32:7] If he accepts G-d 's offer
of a new beginning, he'd be more than justified.
Moses' plea in addition to reminding G-d that Israel is
not his (Moses') nation, but is rather His (G-d's) nation ( Much
like the mother who tells the father: My son? your son!)
comprises three powerful arguments. "Oh G-d , why unleash Your
wrath against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with
great power and a show of force?" [32:11] G-d took the Jews out
of Egypt forcefully -- before they were ready. And Who was it Who
put them there in the first place? And after it was G-d who
decreed their Egyptian experience, can he then blame them for
falling sway to Egyptian customs of frenzied dances to golden
idols? Second: "Why should Egypt be able to say that You took
them out with evil intentions to kill them in the hill country
and wipe them out from the face of the earth." [32:12] Who gains
the most if G-d destroys the Jewish people now? From a public
relations point of view, it's a disaster for the forces of the
One G-d. The Egyptians will taunt the followers of Moses because
they served a G-d whose power to sustain the Hebrews in their
quest for freedom was limited. Wholesale killing of the Jews,
Moses argues, is tantamount to wholesale failure of G-d.
And the third argument reminds the Divine of His moral
obligations to Israel. "Remember your servants, Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob. You swore to them by Your very essence, and declared
to them you would make their descendants as numerous as the
stars in the sky, giving their descendants the land You
promised..." [Ex. 32:13] Given the facts of Genesis, destroying
the Jewish people would mean that G-d was going back on His
word, as it were.
Unlike Abraham's failed attempt to save Sodom and
Gomorrah, Moses wins his case. "And G-d repented of
the evil He had thought to do to His nation." We see how a
leader who loves his people stands up to G-d! Israel may sin
-- and what could be more incriminating than worshipping a Golden
Calf -- but a true leader loves his nation through thick and
thin, gold or brass. Having established this, what do we make
of Moses going ahead and destroying the Tablets one verse after
G-d accepts Moses' arguments and forgives the Jewish people? The
contrast between forgiveness and destroying this incomparable
treasure, the actual stone upon which the Ten Commandments were
written on, seems irreconcilable. Can it be that Moses' love has
turned to anger - and even worse ?
The commentaries address this question. Rashi (1040-
1105) quotes a discussion in Tractate Sabbath, 87a,
which understands that worshipping the Golden Calf
made Israel strangers to the entire Torah. "If the Passover
sacrifice, which is but one of 613 precepts, yet the Torah said
no stranger shall eat of it, here is the whole Torah, and the
Israelites are apostates, how much more so!" Strangers to the
Torah don't need, or want, the Tablets, so Moses breaks them.
The Ibn Eza (1080-1164) describes Moses' behaviour as an act of
zealousness against the nation which, by dancing around the
calf, brazenly flouts their 'contract of testimony' with G-d.
The S'forno (1470-1550) writes that when Moses sees the people
delighting in their sin, he knows at the bottom of this dance
lurks something so evil and crooked that it can never be
straightened, making repentance impossible.
But there is another avenue of interpretation which is more
in consonance with the previous picture of Moses, lover of his
people. The Rashbam, (1080-1174) a grandson of Rashi, suggests that
when Moses comes upon the tragedy of the Jews with the Golden Calf,
his strength vanishes. It isn't so much anger as a profoundly
bitter sadness; the grotesque vision of Jews degrading themselves
weakens him completely. Consequently, he loses his grip on the
stone tablets, and as they began to slip, he has to push them
away ( "..he cast the tablets out of his hands..." [32:19]) to
avoid having his legs crushed. The Kli Yakar (1550-1619) offers
two other approaches. The tablets are witnesses to a divine
revelation between G-d and Israel, publicizing the enormity of
their sin. Moses doesn't want his Jewish people to be punished,
so he breaks the Tablets to do away with the witnesses, anything
to mute their testimony. Secondly, Moses assumes on
himself the responsibility of leadership . By breaking the
tablets Moses breaks the law, and joins in the sins of the
Jewish people. Their failure is his own failure. If they must be
punished, he wants to be punished along with them before G-d.
That's how profound his love for Israel is.
I once heard my revered Rebbe, Rav Soloveitchik, teach
that the breaking of the Tablets is a continuation of Moses' plea
before G-d on behalf of the Jewish people. According to the Mishna,
a sacred vessel from the holy Temple can never lose its sanctity,
even if it's been profaned. The laws of holy vessels certainly apply
to the Tablets, so that when Moses shatters them it's as if he's
declaring to G-d that just as these vessels, even when broken
and smashed, can never lose their sanctity, so the Jews, also,
G-d's holy vessel, can never lose their sanctity despite their
transgression.
This last answer captures the paradox of
how an act of anger may conceal profound depths of love.
Unfortunately many Jewish leaders who take the approach of
scolding Israel on various issues abdicate their right to lead.
If he follows in the footsteps of Moses, a true leader loves
even when he appears to express anger. How do we discern his
love? When the true leader speaks to anyone other than his nation
(via the Conference of Presidents or the public media), he must
emerge as Israel's most vigorous defender! (As Moses did when
addressing G-d even while).
Shabbat Shalom
For more information call: (212)935-8672, 3
|
| 989.53 | Ki Tisa: Contemporary Golden Calfs | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Mon Feb 25 1991 21:58 | 178 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Ki Tisa
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- After the Revelation at Mt. Sinai, we
find in this week's portion, Ki Tisa, a second 'revelation' of
such profound proportions that it rocks whatever transpired at
Sinai to it's very foundations, revealing how far a nation can
fall despite dramatic spiritual achievements.
The events surrounding the creation of the Golden Calf
echo a dilemma implicit in the creation of the first human being.
We read in Genesis that G-d says, "Let us create man in our
image," [1:26] an expression distinctly different from what G-d
says during the previous five days of creation. 'Our,' the
Ramban explains, is G-d Himself speaking to all the forces of
creation which He brought into existence. G-d is addressing the
higher powers of spirituality as well as the lower powers in the
animal realm. Man shall be comprised of everything in creation,
his lower self subject to all the limitations of the physical and
animal worlds: birth, decay, death, requirements for nutrition,
excretion, secretion, sexual reproduction, but at the same time,
his higher self a veritable reflection (shadow) of the Divine
(zell, zellem) "In the capacity of his body, he will be similar
to the earth from which he was taken," the Ramban phrases it,
"and in spirit he will be similar to higher beings because the
spirit is not a body, and will not die." (loc. cit.)
And what are those spiritual pursuits which do not die if
not the realm of mind, thought, creativity, the capacity to
increase knowledge, to grow wise, to love, to have compassion, to
transcend one's physical limitations and to aspire to express
those very characteristics associated with the Divine. But these
two aspects of existence - mind and body - divinity and
beastiality are often involved in a lifetime struggle as to which
will attain mastery over the individual human being. Indeed our
goal is to energize every aspect of our beings, physical and
spiritual together, in the service of G-d and humanity.
And the first commandment which Moses brought down from
Sinai is the declaration to believe in a G-d who is willing to
descend from His unfathomable infinity to free a nation from
slavery, a G-d concerned in uplifting, ennobling, sanctifying.
But the second commandment immediately warns against worshipping
other gods, resorting to images created from what we find in
heaven and earth, idols and forces which are more obviously
accessible and readily touchable than the G-d of Israel.
The second commandment could not have been more timely
because the nation was so taken with the events at Sinai that
they wanted a physical reminder when they feared Moses might not
return. Not that they had forgotten what their eyes had seen or
their ears had heard, but they could not begin to hold onto the
moral message of the Ten Commandments unless they could first
lavish themselves in a profusion of sensations provided by the
Golden Calf.
This moral rupture was so great that G-d was ready to
destroy the entire nation, starting over only with Moses. "I
will destroy them and then make you (Moses) a great nation."
[Exodus 32:10] Our portion this week is the record of the
dialogue, confrontation, and persuasive methods Moses uses to
influence G-d not to abandon His people, His mission, and His
accompaniment of them on their journey.
But Moses' purpose goes beyond convincing G-d to trust
the Israelites again. Moses wants a deeper revelation. "Show me
your ways..." [33:13] he tells G-d, and several verses later
Moses pleads for a "vision of G-d's glory." [33:18] Doesn't
Moses know G-d's ways? Hasn't he seen enough of His glory during
the forty days and forty nights on Mount Sinai? Doesn't G-d
speak to Moses "face to face?" [33:11]
But apparently Moses wants a deeper understanding of what
belief in G-d really means, a vision to counter the proclivity
for idol worship inside the human being. What has Moses achieved
by soothing the wrath of G-d, finding favor for himself in His
eyes, if the nation itself cannot internalize the events at Sinai
without slipping into Egyptian religious traps?
First G-d warns that no man -- not even Moses -- can
'see' G-d's glory and live, can see G-d's face and understand Him
completely. But it is possible to see G-d's "back" to catch some
glimpse, albeit imperfect into the Divine. The following day
Moses is to hide in a cleft of a rock, clutching in his hands two
new hewed-out tablets. And when G-d's glory passes by, G-d shall
cover Moses with His hand. And what is the Divine glory, the
detailed glimpse into G-d which humanity is allowed? What we get
is a detailed listing of G-d's attributes, but not physical ones.
"The Lord, the Lord, G-d, merciful and gracious, longsuffering,
and abundant in love and truth, keeping mercy unto the thousandth
generation, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin, and who
cleanses the guilty." [Exodus 34:6-7]
When we realize that this list of Thirteen Attributes is
the vision Moses sought, this revelation stands as a commentary
to the earlier revelation of the Ten Commandments, because now
Moses has been taught G-d's ways -- His real ways -- which will
help prevent the nation from falling into the temptation of idol
worship in any of its forms.
Worshiping idols is a far deeper human expression then
the more common image of cultic sacrifices to gods with strange
sounding names in exotic temples. Idolatry is choosing the
physical and beastial aspect of our personalities rather than the
spiritual and divine. In the pantheon of Olympus the different
gods that straddled that heaven, such as Zeus or Aphrodite, are
really manifestations of physical aspects of existence -- a god
of thunder and lightening, of strength, of beauty, of fertility,
of power, of youth, old age rejuvenated. But this ancient
pantheon finds modern versions in something as seemingly innocent
as the silver screen. Why do we call Hollywood stars screen
their physical qualities of strength and beauty are made to look
godly. The screen magnifies a tiny face into a giant image large
enough to be worshipped and immortalized, in effect repeating the
sin of the Golden Calf.
Whether one argues for a classless society or a
competitive, free market one, the cold war is a battle in which
materialism becomes the be-all and end-all of our existence.
When the Berlin Wall falls, the first thing the East Germans
flock to are not western places of worship, but well-supplied
department stores.
Anything can become idol worship. The Kotzker Rebbe once
warned against those who worship the Code of Jewish Law instead
of worshipping G-d. Of course, the Kotzker Rebbe kept the Code of
Jewish Law to perfection, but he was emphasizing the fact that
the goal must be the 13 attributes of G-d. Even if one performs
all 613 commandments but overlooks their expression of
compassion, lovingkindness and truth, he is not serving the G-d
of Israel by definition. Everything a Jew does must reflect the
Thirteen Attributes of G-d.
Whatever one does, from getting married to giving
charity, can be performed either properly or improperly depending
on the motivation of the performer. When the major force behind
giving sums to charity is the erection of a physical monument,
then this form of charity contains a residue of idol worship;
when one's desire is an expression of compassion and
lovingkindness, one is truly worshipping G-d.
To escape the lure of idol worship, all our expressions
in this world must be performed, lived and experienced in ways in
which we reflect G-d's mercy, longsuffering, kindness, love, and
truth.
It's difficult for an idol worshiper to be truly
compassionate because everything he does is a reflection of his
own needs and desires, always heeding the animal part of his
being, the greedy, self-centered, hungry, survival of the fittest
instinct. The Thirteen Attributes of G-d give man a way to
measure himself and reflect on whether he is mistakenly turning
the physical and animal realms into idols or if he lives the
Second Commandment in every one of his breaths and thoughts.
As Maimonides cites at the conclusion of The Guide to the
Perplexed: "let the wealthy not revel in their wealth and let the
strong not rejoice in their strength...but what is really
important is to know and understand Me." Only then shall we be
truly able to fulfill the most central commandment of the Bible:
"And you shall walk in His ways."
Shabbat Shalom!
Copyright Ohr Torah 1990.
This essay is distributed by Kesher --the Jewish Network.
For more information, call (212)935-8672, 3
--
Alan Lustiger
|_ | | AT&T Engineering Research Center
/ |( Princeton, NJ
attmail!alustiger or att!pruxk!alu
|
| 989.54 | Ki-Tisa - HaMaayan | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Thu Feb 28 1991 01:25 | 187 |
| ********************
HaMaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Ki Tisah
Volume V, Number 20 (206)
16 Adar 5751 / March 2, 1991
Parasha Overview
This week's Parasha continues the description of the utensils of
the Mishkan, and then relates the episode of the Golden Calf, one
of the darkest moments in Jewish history. It is indeed difficult
to understand how Bnei Yisrael could err so. Ibn Ezra explains
that the vast majority of Bnei Yisrael never intended the Calf as
an idol. Early in man's history (in the generation of Enosh, a
grandson of Adam) man came to believe that G-d would be honored if
His servants were worshipped as well as He. Thus man began to bow
to the sun and the moon. These early idolators meant well, but
they erred. Similarly, after Moshe's presumed death, Bnei Yisrael
felt that they could never approach G-d directly, but needed an
intermediary to whom they could relate. This, they believed,
incorrectly, would honor G-d. (Michtav M'Eliyahu, I p.274)
***********************************
"Hashem, Hashem, the G-d who is Merciful and Generous, etc."
(Sh'mot 34:6)
R' Yehuda said: A covenant has been made between G-d and
Yisrael that the "13 Midot" [Attributes of Mercy" listed in the
above verse] will never go unanswered. (Rosh Hashana 17a)
The verses containing the 13 Midot have been incorporated into
many parts of our liturgy, notably into the "Selichot" recited from
before Rosh Hashana until the end of Yom Kippur. We recite these
verses with confidence - derived from R' Yehuda's statement quoted
above - that our prayers will be answered. And yet, sometimes they
are not. How can this be?
R' Aharon HaKohen, the son-in-law of the "Chafetz Chaim",
explains based on the Talmudic description of the covenant made
regarding these verses. "R' Yochanan said: The verses teach that
G-d wrapped Himself in a Talit (so-to-speak) and taught Moshe the
13 Midot. G-d said, 'Any time that Bnei Yisrael perform these
attributes before Me, I will forgive their sins'." G-d did not say
that any time these verses are recited before Him, He will answer.
The attributes of G-d described in these verses must be emulated by
Yisrael, i.e. they must be "performed." In Chazal's words, "Just
as He is Merciful, so you should be merciful, just as He is
Generous, so you should be generous, etc."
This may be better understood by means of the following parable
(told by the Chafetz Chaim): A poor villager once came to the town
where his rich uncle owned a thriving manufacturing business. The
nephew immediately proceeded to the factory and asked his uncle for
a job. "Certainly," said the uncle, "I will hire you on a trial
basis, and if you do well I will give you a well-paid, permanent
position." The manufacturer then outlined the tasks that his
nephew could do. "Do this job during the first two hours of the
day, then do a certain other task for two hours. Take some time
for lunch, and then complete the day by performing a third job."
To be sure that his nephew would understand his instructions, the
businessman wrote them down.
Three months passed, and the manufacturer met with his nephew to
discuss the latter's progress. "I read and reread your
instructions many times every day until, by now, I know them by
heart."
"But how much work did you actually do?" asked the uncle.
"As I told you," replied the nephew, "I have memorized your
instructions. I can repeat them to you verbatim. Isn't that what
you wanted?"
We can easily imagine the rich uncle's reaction to his nephew's
news. Of course the nephew could not now expect either a permanent
job or even payment for the three months that he spent at the
plant.
Similarly, Hashem has given us - in the 13 Midot - a list of the
tasks that we must perform in order to merit G-d's favor. We do
not perform those assignments merely by reading the list, but only
by carrying out their charge.
(Chesed L'Avraham: "D'rush Bet Shel Chesed")
************************************
"Thirty days before Pesach we begin to inquire about the laws of
Pesach." (Shulchan Aruch O.C. section 429:1, based on Pesachim 6a.
Our edition of the Talmud states: "We inquire about and lecture on
the laws...")
Most commentaries understand the Talmud's statement as an
imperative, but Rabbenu Nissim does not. In his commentary to
Hilchot Rif (Pesachim 2a) he writes that during the thirty day
period preceding Pesach, one who asks a question about the laws of
Pesach is considered to be asking a "relevant question" (Sho'el
k'inyan"). This is important because of the law that if two
questions are asked of the Rabbi, he should first answer the one
which is timely and relevant, and only then answer the other
question. In other words, before this thirty day period, no
special deference is given to a Pesach question over any other
question, while during this period such questions should be
answered more promptly.
R' David HaLevi notes an interesting consequence of the Talmud's
injunction that the laws of Pesach be studied 30 days before
Pesach. The Gemara (Baba Metziah 97a) states that one who borrows
an animal can escape the onerous liabilities that would ordinarily
be placed upon him in the event that the animal died or could not
be returned. The way to do this is to "borrow" the animals owner
as well. For example, says the Gemara, when one borrow's another's
ox, let him ask the ox's owner for a drink of water, thus
"borrowing" him as well. Then, if the animal later dies, the
borrower need not repay it. [Unfortunately, a full discussion of
this law is beyond the scope to this article.]
The Gemara further records that Rava's students observed: "Our
master (Rava) is lent to us." Rashi explains that they implied by
this statement that if they were to borrow Rava's cow, the above
law would apply because they were also "borrowing" Rava's services
as a teacher.
Rava replied: "To the contrary, you are lent to me, for I use
you to review my studies by repeating them in your presence. The
proof that you are in my service and not vice-versa is the fact
that I, and not you, decide what tractate we will study."
The Gemara concludes that both Rava and his students were
correct. All year long, they are in his service because he can
teach whatever he chooses and they must go along. However, during
the month before Pesach, since he must teach the laws of Pesach and
he may not alter the curriculum, he is considered to be in their
service.
(Turei Zahav, O.C. section 429:1)
***********************************
"Sinai V'Oker Harim"
Breadth vs. Depth
The Gemara relates that when R' Yehuda died, two sages were
nominated to replace him as Rosh Yeshiva of Pumpedita. One was
Rabbah bar Nachmeni, the other, Rav Yosef (Berachot 64a and Horiyot
14a, as elaborated on by Rashi and other commentators.) Unable to
choose between the two, the scholars of Pumpedita sent the
following query to the scholars of Eretz Yisrael: "Between a
'Sinai' and an 'Oker Harim', which is preferable?" Given a choice
between a scholar who knows the entire Torah as it was given at Har
Sinai, but whose analytical abilities are less than those of some
other scholars, or a scholar who can "uproot mountains" ("Oker
Harim") with his sharp intellect, but who has not mastered the
entire Torah, which would make a better Rosh Yeshiva?
The reply came back: "The Sinai is preferable, for even one who
has much money has need of one who has stored much wheat." Just as
one who has vast wealth has nothing if he cannot find wheat to buy,
so sharp analytical skills are of no use if one has no data to
analyze. R' Yosef, the "Sinai", was therefore appointed Rosh
Yeshiva over Rabbah, the "Oker Harim". (However, for personal
reasons, R' Yosef declined the appointment, and did not become Rosh
Yeshiva until after Rabbah's death 22 years later.)
Why does one with broad knowledge make a better leader than one
with a sharp mind? R' Sherira Gaon explains that Halacha must be
decided based on received tradition and not derived by clever
analysis, since the latter can always be refuted by equally clever
dialecticians. One who has a large store of learned material can
answer in light of what earlier sages have decided.
[The story is told that R' Chaim Brisker (1853-1918), perhaps
the preeminent "Oker Harim" of the last century, once addressed a
Halachic query to R' Chaim Ozer Grodzenski, requesting that the
latter respond with only one word: "Permitted" or "Forbidden."
Why? R' Chaim Brisker explained that if R' Chaim Ozer would
include his reasoning in the answer, he (R' Chaim Brisker) would
easily refute it. On the other hand, if R' Chaim Ozer would
respond only that the action in question is permitted or forbidden,
R' Chaim Brisker would feel obligated to accept the decision of the
"Posek HaDor" (preeminent Halachic decisor of the generation).
(Heard from R' Kalman Winter, Shlita.)]
Rashi (Sanhedrin 42a) notes that even the "Sinai" is not
completely lacking in analytical skills, for he uses his broad
knowledge of Mishnayot and Halachot to fill gaps in one tractate
with relevant material from other tractates. [In the Sages' words:
"The words of the Torah are poor in one place and rich in
another."] However, the "Oker Harim", more than the "Sinai",
devotes most of his energies to analysis and relatively little to
assimilating new material.
********************
Posted by Alan Broder, ajb@grebyn.com (uunet!grebyn!ajb), who
should be contacted to request back issues of HaMaayan or to get
on or off the direct email mailing list.
Shlomo Katz can not receive EMAIL, however I will pass on any
comment forwarded to me, or alternately, send your comments care of
yehuda@gwuvm.bitnet
|
| 989.55 | Vayakhel-Pekudai: Everlasting Betrothal | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Mon Mar 04 1991 19:14 | 136 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Vayakel-Pekudey
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- What is the most critical ingredient in a
marriage, the most crucial factor to determine an enduring
relationship? Is it physical attraction, emotional emphathy,
congruent interests - or is it perhaps the capacity to forgive
and even to forget, to renew the relationship after a major
domestic battle without continuing to bring up past wrongdoings.
This idea may provide a clue to our understanding of what is a
strange Biblical puzzle: Virtually everything in this week's
double portion of Vayakel-Pekuday concerning the Tabernacle has
already been presented in the portions of Teruma and
Tetzave...all the ritual objects and furnishings such as the
Menora, the table, the ark, the incense altar, the beams,
sacrificial altar, as well as the special garments required for
temple priests. There are so many repetitions that it's
staggering: "Make an ark of acacia wood, two and a half cubits
long, one and a half cubits wide wide, and one and a half cubits
high. Cover it with a layer of pure gold on the inside and
outside, and make a gold rim all its top." [Ex: 25:10] This is
from Truma, and from this week's portion, "...Bezalel made the
ark of acacia wood, two and a half cubits long, one and a half
cubits wides, and one and a half cubits high. He covered it with
a layer of pure gold on the inside, and made a gold rim for it
all around." [Ex. 37: 1-2]
Although the minor differences between the earlier and
later portions may be a rich vein to mine, nonetheless the
overall feeling is that the Torah is testing our nerves, seeing
if we can sit through the weekly reading without growing
impatient.
As we have attempted to demonstrate in the past, that
context adds to our comprehension of text. The repetitions of
Vayakel-Pekuday don't simply appear out of nowhere; they emerge
after the incident of the golden calf, the sin of idolatry
perpetuated by the Jewish people. And immediately before the
repetition, G-d forgives Israel of their sin and grants them the
"second tablets".
Clearly the first and second presentation of the
Tabernacle's construction are connected by some of the most
significant moments in the history of the Jewish people, an
unforgettable sequence of events which culminate with the light
from Moses' face being so brilliant he needed a veil to protect
others.
With this bridge in mind, let's step back for a moment
and see if the context now adds a certain dimension, even
tension, to the difference between Tabernacle Truma and Tabernacle
Vayakel.
What is the golden calf? One basic way to see this calf
is in the cusp between the literal and the mystical. By now not
only mystics have absorbed the concept in Judaism of G-d as the
lover and the Jewish people as His beloved. It's as near as the
Friday night prayer service or the daily act of binding the
t'fillin each morning, as we recite words accompanying the final
binding around the fingers with a quote from the prophet Hosea.,
"I will bethroth you unto Me forever, and I will betroth you to
Me with righteousness, justice, kindness and mercy, and I will
betroth you to Me with fidelity, and you will know G-d."
[2:21-22]
The Holy Zohar speaks of the Revelation at Sinai as a
marriage, the raised mountain as the canopy and the 10
Commandments as the marriage contract. Emerging from this, the
Golden Calf becomes a metaphor for betrayal. At the start of
married life, couples devote this period toward the creation of
a home together, planning all the details, how much to spend,
quality of the wallpaper, what kind of effect they want in the
living room. But what if an important business trip calls away
the groom, and he stays away longer than anticipated. When he
returns, a terrible scene greets his eye: he finds his lover
dancing with Calf, hypnotized by this golden hunk of brawn she
used to know in the old days. Suddenly there is no more Moses,
no more commandments. It's all over, the relationship dead,
divorce inevitable...unless the husband begins to look at the
events from his wife's point of view: he was away too long, she
really didn't know what she was doing, she had fears about being
alone. If his love for is deep, he may begin to feel the urge to
forgive her. And what expression should it take? Chocolates and
flowers? Candlelight dinner for two? No, the best expression for
forgiveness is going back to doing exactly what they were doing
before the crisis. Looking at places to live, planning their
living rooms and bedrooms, choosing curtains and cutlery and
porcelain, everthing that makes a home work. And if they're able
to do this, it means that they have really put away this tragic
episode and they're willing to make peace.
Now we understand the significance of the repetition of
the details and exact measurements of the Sanctuary.
Theoretically one verse could have stated that the "...children
of Israel did everything G-d commanded them to do..." End of
story. But instead the Torah spells out the exact details and
measurements, a precise accounting of the Sanctuary's
construction, demonstrating with an actual play-by-play
description that the relationship has been normalized. They're
back where they used to be, and life will go on, nail by nail,
and beam by beam. Indeed, the greatest tangible expression of
their undying love is the building of their home together,
detail by detail. Each repetition merely emphasizes the Divine
forgiveness and the eternity of the relationship.
That this reconciliation is expressed in the form of
building the Sanctuary takes on even more significance when we
realize that its very nature was primarily a place of forgiveness.
The objects inside the Sanctuary, the menora, the ark, the
shulkhan, all have domestic equivalents, a lamp, a closet, a
table, but the focus of the Sanctuary was the sacrificial altar,
representing sacrifice , commitment and forgiveness. Without it,
a marriage cannot last, and without this altar, where Israel
brought their sacrifices to G-d and where G-d forgave them, this
Sanctuary would just be a beautiful tent. Israel has a special
relationship to G-d. It almost ends right at the very beginning
of their sojourn into history, but they were saved and forgiven.
The sign of that forgiveness is that G-d and Israel resume
their relationship precisely at the point it broke up :
continuing to build their home together, item by item.. And over
the course of years it may seem that G-d has forsaken us or that
we have forsaken Him ; may we soon express our love once again
by building a third sanctuary through which the entire world may
become a home of Sanctity for G-d and humanity.
Shabbat Shalom
For more information call (212)935-8672/3.
|
| 989.56 | Rosh Hashana: The King of Judgement - R. Riskin | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Sep 04 1991 22:26 | 147 |
|
Since I've been away for several months, I have quite a backlog
of Rabbi Riskin's articles, which I hope to post in due course
(when I get a chance to format them). In the meantime, here is
his Rosh Hashana message.
Ketiva vachatima tova to one and all.
Jem
Shabbat Shalom:
Rosh Hashana (Netzavim) by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat , Israel - Rosh Hashana is traditionally known as "The Day
of Judgement", (Yom HaDin), when we each see ourselves on trial
before the Almighty - with our lives hanging in the balance. But
what does God take into account at the time of His judgement?
Does He determine our fate based on past and possibly even
future actions (because, after all, present deeds bear fruit and
portend ramifications far beyond the moment of their
perpetration), or does he merely look at our present,
hopefully contrite situation, and on that basis make His
decision?
A rather optimistic outlook is to be found in the Torah
reading for the first day of Rosh Hashanah. Abraham's second
wife Hagar and their son Ishmael is dying of thirst, and Hagar
must watch the torturous suffering of her beloved child. "And
the angel of God called to Hagar.... and said unto her: 'What
ails you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heard the voice of the
lad from where he is (Genesis 21:17)". God then reveals to Hagar
the existence of a well, and their lives are saved. The last
words in the verse cited above, "from where he is," becomes the
operative means by which Ishmael - and all of us - are judged by
God. The Midrash describes a heavenly debute between the
Almighty and His ministering angels. The latter argue that
Ishmael has acted immorally in the past, and that his
descendants will behave cruelly towards the descendants of Isaac
in the future, and so therefore he deserves to die. God rules
otherwise, deciding that Ishmael is to be judged "from where he
is now "- and now he is repentant and innocent. This also
provides an added reason for this particular Torah reading on
Rosh Hashanah. Despite actions of past and future, a sincere
and contrite prayer on this particular moment in time can bring
each one of us forgiveness on the Day of Judgement.
But this optimistic attitude concerning forgiveness is not the
only one expressed by our Sages. Only two weeks ago, in Parashat
Ki Tetze, the Bible tells of a wayward and rebellious son, who
refuses to listen to his parents, who eats and drinks to excess,
and whose punishment is death.(Deuteronomy 21:18-12) . The
Talmud explains the extremity of the sentence - after all , the
pre-teen in question was merely gluttonous and undisciplined, -
by noting "he is judged on the basis of his future," where such
acts now will lead him later on (B.T. Sanhedrin 6 8b). To be
sure , the rabbis also add that "such a case of a rebellious and
wayward child never happened and never will happen - but you are
to derive practical lessons from the theoretical situation
(ibid). Why do we judge the rebellious s on in terms of the way
he seems to be headed in the future, whereas we judge Ishmael
only on the basis of his present condition? Why two such
contrasting standards of judgement?
The Ram (Rav Eliyahu Mizrahi 1448-1526) explains that at the
moment of trial Ishmael is still innocent, whereas the
rebellious son is guilty. The Taz (Rav David Ben Samuel HaLevi,
1586-1667), in his Biblical commentary Divrei David, maintains
that in Ishmael's case it is his descendants who will perpetuate
the real crimes , whereas the rebellious son is being punished
for what he himself will do in his lifetime. I would like to
propose another solution to the problem - one which I believe
will teach us a great deal about relationships between parents
and children , God and humans. In the case of the rebellious
son, why is he theoretically to be killed without even allowing
for the possibility of repentance? And furthemore , in the
Talmud we read that if the parents of the rebellious son
forgive him , then he is forgiven (B.T. Sanhedrin 88a). But why
should this be so ? If the rebellious son is punished for future
actions , what does it matter if his parents forgive him for
what he has done heretofore ?! Its the future that counts and
that's something which his parents have no power of forgiveness
over!
The key to all of this is to be found in the relationship
between parents and children. A child may be problematic,
rebellious and wayward, but as long as he maintains close lines
of contact with his parents, with the previous generation which
transmits tradition and morality, there is always the hope for
and possibility of repentance. Hagar is painted by the Midrash
as a woman of rare character and morality; indeed, Abraham
marries her again after Sarah's death: And as long as Ishmael
maintains close familial ties at least with her, repentance
remains a possibility and he is judged in accordance with his
present status.The rebellious son has broken all ties with his
past, with his traditions, with his parents. And when his very
own parents turn him in to the Court, when they give up on him
as well, then there seems to be no hope left for his future
repentance. He must be judged in accordance with what we can
predict with probability will be his inevitable end. Only
parental forgiveness, only fighting hate with love, only never
letting one's child out of one's heart, may create a change in a
chain of inevitabilities. Death row may no longer be inevitable.
Forgiveness opens the gates of reconciliation, and provides the
key to rapprochement and repentance- not only for the rebellious
son, but for the very essence of our Days of Judgement.
Ethiopian Jewry has a tradition that the day when Joseph
reconciled with his father Jacob after 22 years of estrangement
was the 10th of Tishrei, the future date of Yom Kippur. The
thematic link is clear. Father represents tradition, the past,
the world of roots. If I can traverse the distance between
myself and my father, then the Jewish people can traverse the
distance between themselves and G-d, ending estrangement. And
God our heavenly Parent is always ready to forgive. His arms
are constantly outstretched , and the gates of heaven are always
open wide to receive His errant children.
In Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook's work, 'Igrot Hariyaah,' Part 2,
Responsum 429, we read how a father, a rabbi, comes to the chief
rabbi of Israel with a problem that is tearing his household
apart: his child is a rebellious son, apparently a Communist who
flouts all religious tradition. And Rav Kook writes that the
father must locate his potential for pure and unconditional
loving-kindness. The only hope for this child is if the father
does not break the connection, no matter what. Eventually
feelings of repentance will begin to bloom in this man's son,
"emotion leading to action, and action leading to faith." Rav
Kook's responsum fits right in with the Talmudic quote about
forgiveness,and so he counsels the father to take the first
step. To make sure they remain a family, the connection must not
broken. In doing this, the father removes the child from the
category of rebellious son. Forgiveness erases the engraved
future. Repentance is possible. Thus the key for a successful
Rosh Hashana, for God to hear our cries, is to make sure that
our hearts are always open to our children, just as God's heart
is always open to us. And He will judge us as we are - in the
moment of our contrite repentance.
Shabbat Shalom
|
| 989.57 | Haazinu/Sukkot: Terminal Introspection (R. Riskin) | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Oct 08 1991 03:52 | 158 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Sukkot (Haazinu) by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- I'll never forget a late Friday afternoon
conversation I had with Professor David Weiss, a world-renowned
cancer immunologist who was our Shabbat guest while I was still
a Rabbi in New York. I had just rushed home from the hospital
after visiting with a terminally ill cancer patient, a visit
which left me shaken. I turned to him and confessed as to how
devastated I felt after just one visit. I asked how he managed
his emotional equilibrium having to live with such situations
every day. He looked at me with penetrating astonishment. "But
Rabbi Riskin," he said very slowly, "I don't understand your
question. Surely you realize that we are all Terminal."
These words made a powerful impression on me,
penetrating reality from an entirely different perspective.
Later I realized that implicit in the doctor's comment was that
if we're all terminal, the significant fact of life becomes not
what to do about our mortality but rather what to do with the
time that is granted us to live.
Yom Kippur is the one day of the year which perfectly
expresses our terminal nature, and Sukkot expresses what we do
with this knowledge once we've been moved by Yom Kippur and
changed by its message. In fact, this is the connection which
explains why Sukkot follows so soon after Yom Kippur. On the
surface since Sukkot commemorates the booths in which the Jews
lived as they wandered in the desert after their escape from
Egypt, it would have been far more logical to have celebrated
Sukkot after Passover, the festival of Exodus. At the very
least, it would certainly have been more convenient for
everyone concerned to celebrate Sukkot at almost any other time
other than just four days following Yom Kippur, forcing every
observant Jewish householder to erect a booth, acquire the four
species of indigenous Israeli flora (lulav, etrog , hadas and
arava) and cook like mad for an eight day festival right after
experiencing the emotional and even physical stress of the Days
of Awe. It would be more convenient for everyone concerned to
celebrate Sukkot several months later rather than sending us all
out to build booths and buy the four species and start cooking
like mad right after we've just been through an arduous festival
period.
I believe one of the reasons why Sukkot comes when it does has
to do with Dr. Weiss' comment. On Yom Kippur we are certainly
reminded of our own mortality, transcending the world of the
physical by not eating, drinking, anointing ourselves, or being
intimate with our wives, and wearing the white kittel-robe,
resembling the garb with which we are laid to our eternal rest.
And the night following the White Fast is set aside for the
building of the Sukkah. To understand why, we to turn to the
13th century scholar Maimonides. It's well known that Maimonides
possessed one of the greatest Jewish minds that ever lived. A
towering genius who absorbed millions of words of the vast
Talmud, he saw the need to codify its legal rulings into
fourteen books which comprise his major work, Mishna Torah.
Since so much of the Talmud, the collection of the Oral Law,
reads as if psychological association determines its structure
--laws of torts can be found in Tractate Shabbat and laws of
Shabbat in the Tractate of torts, (Bava Kama )-- the layman and
even the average scholar couldn't know the answer to a question
unless he had all of the Talmud at his fingertips, a rare
achievement indeed. Hence Maimonides unlocked the secrets of
the Talmud by organizing its laws in a logical manner and
providing an accessible Code of Conduct for every Jew.
Since Maimonides was such a masterful and logical codifier, it
is strange to find the Laws of Reward and Punishment and the
world to come in the section of Laws of Repentance, which
concentrate on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.
I believe the reason is as follows. Literally tshuva
(repentance) means to return -- to oneself, to one's truest
essence, to G-d. It does not mean doing just doing another
mitzvah; it demands our overcoming the chasm between ourselves
and our G-d, destroying the separation between the finite and
the infinite. This seems to have been an unusual choice indeed
since I would have thought these issues rather to have been
better included under the rubric of his chapters dedicated to
Laws of Biblical Foundations and Philosophy. For Maimonides,
death is not the tragedy of life. After all, "every one of us is
terminal". The real tragedy is living one 's life removed from
G-d, distant from the eternal values of compassion,
lovingkindness and truth (G-d's "self definition"). Hence in
Chapter 3 of the Laws of Repentance Maimonides writes, 'A person
whose sins are greater than his merits will immediately die in
his wickedness." The tragedy is G-dnot dying, but rather dying
in one's wickedness, removed from G-d. If that happens the person
loses his eternal place near the Divine Presence. One might say
that we are born in order to achieve an intimacy with G-d
through the realm of physical reality, so that when we die our
relationship to G-d is that much richer and more complex than if
we would have remained unborn souls. To die without achieving
this is life's greatest tragedy. I'd like to quote a number of
passages which underscore Maimonides' view of existence. In Ch.
7, Halacha 2, he writes: "A person should always see himself as
if he is about die, lest he die during a moment when he is a
sinner, and he'll die removed from G-d. Therefore, he must
return from his sin immediately." Halacha 1 from the same
chapter: "Since every person has permission to make judgments,
to decide which paths he's going to choose, a person should try
to repent to vocally confess his sins, and to remove sins from
his hand. Thus when he dies, he will die as a penitent, and he
will experience the "world to come ."
And in one of his most powerful passages, Maimonides
writes, "Great is repentance because it brings the human being
close to the Divine Presence. Tshuva brings those who are far
away near. Yesterday when a person sinned, he was hated before
G-d, disgusting and distant, an abomination. Today he's beloved
sweet, near, a precious friend. Yesterday a person was separated
from G-d. Today he cleaves to the Divine Presence."
Now it's clearer why the laws of reward and punishment
and the world to come belong in the laws of repentance. For
Maimonides there can be no greater reward than living one's life
in proximity to the Divine Presence and there can be no greater
punishment that feeling oneself removed and alienated from the
Divine. When a person is close to G-d, he is automatically close
to Goodness and his values are straight forward and
praiseworthy. He participated in eternity - and the
world-to-come becomes a logical extension of the life properly
lived in the transient preparatory world of birth, growth, aging
and death. Most significantly, a life in connection with G-d
understands that true and abiding pleasure comes from
intellectual and spiritual attainments from a discussion which
is beyond the individual and reaches up and out to eternity.
The Sukkah, although physically frail and simple,
symbolizes the Divine rays of the glory, the eternal House of
G-d. Sukkot is _the_ festival par excellence , ha-chag, an appellation
reserved for the week which ideally encompasses us within the
experience of knowing that there is no greater joy than being
close to G-d, when we take our entire body, including the dirt
on the soles of our shoes, and place it inside G-d's house. On
Sukkot even Rothschild leaves his mansion to enter the humble
hut, the symbol of G-d's promise that He will always protect us
in His sukkah the manifestation of our belief that the only real
security lies in Divine protection. The sukkah is G-d's house,
and if I'm in G-d's house, automatically I'm happy.
And why not, After all, look at the guest list: Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, David, Joseph. And if my history and
its righteous leaders dwell with me in my house, the house of
G-d, I find myself in the impregnable fortress of Divine
Eternity, I experience "the sweetness of G-d as a dweller in
this tent."
Shabbat Shalom and Chag Sameach.
|
| 989.58 | Shemini Atzeret: The Jewish World-View (R. Riskin) | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Oct 08 1991 03:59 | 155 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: (Shmini Atzeret) by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- The term "religion" connotes different things
to different people. For some, it evokes prayer and meditation;
but for others , it resonates with the blood-thirsty sounds of
jihad, Crusades, and Khoumeni-ism. What does Judaism teach
about G-d, religion and world domination?
This period of the Jewish year, beginning with Rosh
Hashana (actually the month of Elul, 30 days prior to our New
Year) and culminating with the coming Festival of Shmini
Atzeret-Simhat Torah (Eighth Day of Assembly-Rejoining with
Torah), focuses specifically upon our relationship to, and
responsibility for, the world. Since Rosh Hashana commemorates
G-d's creation of the world, it is logical that the main theme
of our New Year is our faith that G-d will eventually become
"King over all the earth", a vision expressed in its central
blessing which is called Malkhuyot , or Divine Kingship.
However, our conception of what such a Messianic dream actually
means in practise and our method of achieving this goal is the
true glory of our religious theology. Coronating G-d as King
teaches one crucial lesson: only G-d is King, no human has the
right to enslave another, to impose a totalitarian doctrine of
control over another, to exercise absolute right of life and
death over another. Hence our millennium is a time when "the
world will be perfected under the Kingship of G-d (Aleynu
Prayer)", when nation will not lift up sword against nation and
humanity will not learn war anymore (Isaiah 2)", "when there
will be no evil or destruction in the entire mountain of my
holiness, because Knowledge of G-d will cover the world as the
waters cover the seas (Isaiah 11)."
This call to human freedom is the most fundamental
message of the Rosh Hashana shofar (ram's horn). The Talmud
derives the precise number and quality of shofar sounds which
must be heard on Rosh Hashana from the shofar blasts on the
Jubilee Year-which primarily heralded the freedom of all slaves
(Leviticus 25, B.T. Rosh Hashana 34). The Kingship of G-d
expresses the fundamental equality and freedom of all human
beings created in the image of the Divine and entitled to
dignity and respect. And since the hundred blasts of the shofar
emanates from the hundred cries of the mother of Sisera, mother
of the arch-enemy of the Jews whose defeat gave us great joy
but nevertheless brought profound pain to his mother, Rosh
Hashana reminds us that G-d wishes to bestow his dignity on
every human being, and wipe away the tears of enslavement and
warfare from every human being (J.T. Rosh Hashana, chapter 4).
Yom Kippur continues this theme, by picturing our Holy Temple
"as a House of Prayer for all Nations" and by publicly reading
the Book of Jonah- who learns that G-d desires repentance even
for Assyria, deadly enemy of Judea, and that G-d's concern
extends even to animal and vegetable life.
By Sukkot, we find ourselves under a veritable umbrella
of universality. The entire ritual focus of Sukkot is nature,
and on this festival the world aro und us becomes our religious
universe. First of all, we leave our homes for a fragile booth
(hut), whose roof must be constructed exclusively from a source
of vegetation, something like bamboo poles or evergreen
branches, and from whose gaps in the leaves we must be able to
look up at the moon and stars. Into the synagogue we bring the
Four Species, myrtle, weeping willow, palm frond and etrog, and
the Hallel (Pslams of Praise) of Sukkot shakes with the whisper
of the fields and the orchards. Also, the Sages pointed out that
that the 70 sacrifices brought in the Temple during Sukkot
corresponded to the 70 nations of the world, for whose
well-being and acceptance of human freedom we pray on this
Festival.
This entire sequence of universal awareness reaches its
crescendo on Shmini Atzeret. First of all, this is the day
dedicated to prayer for rain, and if there is one symbol which
transcends nation, creed, color, language, it's the need for
rain. As Jews pray for rain on Shmini Atzeret, we touch souls
with every human being on the planet praying for the heavens to
open up. Rain is bread and bread is life: humanity is one. The
Kingship proclaimed on Rosh Hashana finds its ultimate
expression in the rain with which we hope to be blessed by
Divine largesse.
Secondly, Shmini Atzeret has become identified with
Simhat Torah, the Day of our Rejoicing over Torah. Torah is the
method by which we hope and pray that the nations of the world
will accept our message of peace and freedom. G-d's conquest is
not to be by the sword but by the book; G-d's Kingship is to be
expressed not by despotic enslavement but by joyous dancing. If
we hark back to the Rosh Hashanah prayer, the message of human
freedom expressed by Divine Kingship is not to come about by
Divine imposition but rather by human acceptance: "all the
inhabitants of the world will recognize and know that (only)
unto thee must every knee bend and every tongue vow fealty
(Alenu prayer)"; "and every made thing will Know that You made
it, and every created thing will Know that You created it (Rosh
Hashana Amida)". And all of the prophets speak of the nations
rushing -on their own volition- to learn the Torah from Israel,
and specifically the message of universal human freedom and
peace (Isaiah 2,11; Micah 5; Zeharia 9). Shevuot is the Festival
of Divine Revelation at Sinai, when G-d gave the Torah to the Je
wish people, and some Talmudic Sages even suggest that He coerced
us into its acceptance (B.T. Shabbat 89). Simhat Torah, on the
other hand, is the Festival in which we take the Torah Scrolls
out of the Ark and even unto the streets, wherein we invite the
world to share our Divine message of liberty and human dignity,
when we sing and dance with the joy of having freely accepted
G-d's gift of love and concern for all.
In my own life-time, two attempts were made to destroy
the concept of a G-d of mortality and to enslave humanity:
Fascist Nazism to the right, and totalitarian Communism to the
left. It is more than mere coincidence that each of these
monstrous ideologies singled out the Jewish people and the
Jewish religion -with our message of Divine morality and human
freedom- as objects of their venom and destruction. It is a
testimony to our faith that we fought against them with sticks
and stones in the Warsaw Ghetto and with defiance and courage as
"refuseniks". (And the Jews suffering Soviet enslavement singled
out Simhat Torah as their Festival of Faith and Solidarity).
The miracle of our period in history is that Nazism and
Communism have been destroyed and that the State of Israel has
been reborn. When the short-lived Communist revolution against
Prime-Minister Gorbachev and President Yeltsin was quelled, and
the Kaddish was publicly chanted in Red Square by the Kremlin,
the Kingship of G-d was finally declared to be at hand-whether
or not those who recited the Hebrew words understood their true
significance. The United States of America, as the single nation
leading the world, has a unique opportunity to help bring about
a world of peace, to help realize our vision of Divine Kingship.
The Prophetic dream emblazoned on the wall of the United Nations
headquarters in New York ("And they shall beat their swords into
ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks") is finally
with in grasp. However, the President and Secretary of State
dare not compromise the vision of human freedom upon which
America was founded and miss the opportunity for a world of
peace by trafficking with and making concessions to nations
which still enslave their populace and forbid fundamental human
rights. Dignity and independence must be found for the Palestinians,
but this will only be possible within the context of a Middle
East dedicated to democratic ideals. We dare not provide the
possibility of a strengthened Saddam Hussein, Kaddafe or even
Assad assuming the mantle of Hitler and Stalin. Our clarion call
must be: "Whoever has the vision of a G-d of morality, whoever
believes in democracy and human freedom , is with us." If
America will bring the message of Biblical morality to the
world, the dream of world peace which is the vision of this
Festival period may truly be within reach.
Shabbat Shalom and Chag Sameach.
|
| 989.59 | Bereshit: From Eden to West Point (R. Riskin) | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Oct 08 1991 04:09 | 139 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Breshit by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- From Michelangelo to Milton to Itzik Manger to
Arthur Miller, the biblical moment which has tempted the
imagination of more great artists and writers is Adam and Eve in
the Garden of Eden. This shouldn't come as a surprise when we
recognize that with the violation of the first commandment in
the Bible, "...from all the trees in the garden you may freely
eat, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you may not
eat..." [Gen. 2:16-17 ] we are in the midst of the first great
moral struggle that shall become a motif in the evolution of
Western Civilization.
But before determining what this moral struggle is, we
have to look closer at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Why, after the initial prologue introducing the basic characters
in the drama of the creation is the Torah's first concern a tale
of commandment and disobedience? What is the significance of the
term "Tree of Knowledge of good and evil"? Did the forbidden
fruit inject an aspect to the human personality which hadn't
been there initially?
Nachmanides suggests that before Adam and Eve ate from
the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they didn't have the
power to make decisions. Created like the sun and the moon and
the stars, they were functionaries, a movement in a landscape
with a predetermined direction. The tree of knowledge of good
and evil, however, gave them the power to cease being functional
creatures. Now they could become moral beings, immoral ones,
should they choose evil.
Rashi writes that the fruit of the tree of knowledge of
good and evil initiated an erotic character to the sexual act
which until then had been natural and innocent. Here Rashi
anticipates the Freudian schools of psychology who find in the
serpent a male sexual symbol of seduction.
Maimonides in the very beginning of his "Guide to the
Perplexed", suggests that Adam and Eve always had the ability to
make choices, but that the tree of knowledge now enabled them to
make choices based not only on the objective criteria of truth
and falsehood, (if the stones are wet, rubbing them together
won't create fire) but on the more subjective plane of good vs.
evil (what appears to me to be good is good and the rest is
evil).
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch's explanation emerges from
Maimonides but insists that the fruit did not add anything to
the human personality which was not there previously. As an
introduction to understanding his commentary, I'd like to share
a story about growing up in Bed-Stuy, an old Jewish neighborhood
in Brooklyn. Those were the days before kosher Chinese
restaurants; when an exotic Chinese eating place opened down the
block, I asked my grandmother to take me there. I was about
seven or eight, and I adored my grandmother, a deeply religious
woman whose influence on my life was most profound. She said no,
explaining that if I wanted to grow up big and strong, I should
not eat _traif_. Naturally, growing up big and strong was more
important than an egg roll. Scene 2: Years later, I attend
Yeshiva University where I am on the varsity debating team. The
first debate of the term is against West Point Military Academy.
Sundays were special at West Point. Football, a special dinner,
and afterwards a college function. That particular Sunday, the
function was our debate. Guests of the military academy, we
spent the entire day on campus. Dinner was the thickest T-bone
steak I had ever seen, surrounded by french fries. The three
Yeshiva debaters dug into cottage cheese and tomatoes. Then
came the debate, and debating courtesy dictates the home team
approaches the visitors to shake hands. Compared to the West
Pointers, the three-man YU team was short and scrawny. I had to
crane my head in looking up at the future officer reaching out
his hand to me, with my eyes resting on his navel. And when I
felt his grip nearly crush the bones in my hand, I whispered to
an invisible presence, "Grandma, I think you lied to me."
Obviously, my grandmother's reasons about growing big and strong
have nothing to do with kashrut. In fact when we look at the
fruit eaten by Eve, it's described by the Bible in purely
positive terms. 'Tov l'machal' --good for food, meaning it was
low in cholesterol, calories and fat content. It was 'taava
l'anayim' --lustful for the eyes-- it was beautifully packaged,
an aesthetic delight, worthy of a gourmet's table. 'Nechmad
l'haskil' -- it was sweet for the mind, probably protein-rich to
strengthen brain cells. So if this fruit had so many positive
attributes, why couldn't Adam and Eve eat it? The answer is
because G-d "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you
shall not eat ..." [Gen. 2:16-17] In effect, the first
commandment in the Torah is a kashrut commandment, and kashrut
here symbolizes obedience to a Higher Will. The message from the
very opening of the Torah is that what is good is what G-d says
is good, and what is evil is what G-d says is evil, no
matter what the individual may think.
The serpent's seductive message is the very antithesis.
"The moment you eat of the tree you will become like G-d:
arbiters of good and evil", says the serpent, and the Midrash
insists that the serpent speaks the truth.
When the smoke between the characters in this drama
finally settles, we see that the struggle is between Adam and
Eve on the one hand, and G-d on the other: do I accept a higher
religio-legal authority or do I claim to be my own highest
authority, acting as I see fit, deciding morality solely on my
own. The Torah would insist that good and evil, right and wrong,
and the day to day religious functioning cannot be left to the
whim of an individual. Good is what G-d says is good, evil is
what G-d says is evil. The Torah leaves nothing out. Why
highlight this theme to the extent that it appears as the very
first law in a book which is a Book of Laws? Because the
struggle between a divine order of morality opposed to a man-made
order of morality never leaves the pages of history. From the
Garden of Eden to Red Square, the pieces in the drama are
virtually the same. Left to his own devices, every human is a
genius in the art of self-justification, says the immortal
Sigmund Freud. Stalin could kill millions and call it justice,
your neighbor can sleep with his best friend's distressed wife
and call it an act of mercy. The human mind can always
rationalize and justify what the human body wishes to do.
The story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden is
mythic in its reverberations, which means that not only did it
happen once in historical time, but it happens again and again.
Many of us are not happy leaving the big decisions to an
external G-d telling us what to do. We want to be king in our
castle. We want to decide for ourselves what defines good and
evil, what constitutes work or leisure on the Sabbath. But if we
want to live in the ultimate moral society, we have to heed the
first commandment in the Torah: even if I own 20,000 acres of my
own tropical island, I'm not the one who determines good and
evil. This I must leave to a religio-moral-legal structure above
myself, Who not only has a vote but also has a veto.
Shabbat Shalom.
|
| 989.60 | Lech-lecha: Of Abraham and the Palmach (R. Riskin) | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Fri Oct 25 1991 19:08 | 130 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Lech Lecha by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- Sometimes it seems the struggle in Israel between the
religious and the secular never ends. When the Jewish people
established sovereignty in 1948, the religious naturally seized claim
to G-d, secured their religious shrines, and established settlements
and communities throughout Israel- and the secular, all those
hardened soldiers from the Palmach, staked out stretches of
uncultivated soil and rock, until they created a miraculous rebirth
gracing the border between Israel and Jordan --the green line. On
many secular kibbutzim G-d was but a footnote, an anthropological
memory at best. Religious leaders in Israel sometimes even question the
very Judaism of these secularists who frown upon the most basic Jewish
rituals. But according to Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveichik, a seminal
thinker, teacher, and leader of American Jewry for the past 50 years,
such divisions are false and misleading. In a small work published in
1964, called _Five Discourses_, Rabbi Soloveichik makes the leap that a
readiness to sacrifice one's life for the land not only gives one a
share in the land, but also earns one a share in G-d even if the
individual claims he does not believe in G-d.
As paradoxical as this sounds, Rabbi Soloveichik argues this thesis by
drawing our attention to the dynamics of sacrifice, its role in the
acquisition of all relationships, not just between man and G-d, but
even between parents and children or husband and wife. Abraham, the
first Jew, is the father of sacrifice, the man who acquires both the
land of Israel and the G-d of Israel through a commitment to G-d which
goes beyond the call of duty. Abraham knows only one thing. G-d is the
ultimate of ultimates. No matter how demanding the command, he obeys.
This week's portion., Lech Lecha, opens with G-d's very first
commandment to Abraham: "Get thee forth from your country, and from
your kindred, and from your father's house to the land I will show
you..." [Gen. 12:1] With no clear destination, Abraham leaves the
comforts and security of home, and severs all relationships with the
past. Eventually arriving near Shechem in the land of Canaan, G-d
appears to him again and announces that his offspring will be given
this land. Abraham then "... builds an altar there to G-d who had
appeared to him." [Gen. 13:7] Abraham understands that the usual
acquisition of land through money, contract, or claim based on
possession does not give one eternal right to this land. The very fact
that the Torah gives the land a year of rest every seven years, and
that every fiftieth year --jubilee-- the land returns to its original
owners, tells us that the land of Israel is not acquired like other
lands. Thus Abraham's building of the altar is his commitment that he
will sacrifice everything for this land and for this G-d -his past,
his future, his very essence: "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom
you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there for a burnt
offering." [22:1-2] The altar at Moriah, the future site of Jerusalem,
is the ultimate altar. And so the acquisition of the land of Israel is
based upon sacrifice of past, and the acquisition of Jerusalem is based
upon the sacrifice of future.
But land is not the only thing acquired by sacrifice; G-d too must be
acquired by sacrifice. Rabbi Soloveichik cites a verse in Deuteronomy
prophesying that G-d will scatter the Jews among the nations, where
they will serve gods of wood and stone. "Then you will begin to seek
G-d your Lord, and if you pursue Him with all your heart and soul, you
will eventually find him. When you are in distress and all these things
have happened to you, you will finally return to G-d your Lord and obey
Him." [Deut. 4:30] Concentrating on the word, 'you will find him,'
(umatzata) Rabbi Soloveichik points out that from a halakhic point of
view, to find something means to acquire it, to own it. And what he
uncovers in this verse is a prescription for acquiring G-d, for making
G-d yours. After all, the Amidah prayer begins with the words: "G-d of
Abraham, G-d of Isaac, G-d of Jacob; the G-d acquired by the
patriarchs.
The verse goes on to say that you'll find Him, you'll acquire Him, by
searching for him with all your heart and all your soul.' 'All your
soul' resonates with the idea of being willing to give up your soul.
In other words, we acquire G-d through sacrificial commitment. "The
entire Zionist movement, not only the religious Zionist movement,"
writes Rabbi Soloveichik in _Five Discourses_, "acquired the land of
Israel.... and merited an independent nation on the basis of two
acquisitions...." The first was the conquest and settlement of the land
(hazakah) as the Torah established, 'Arise and walk the land in its
length and breadth because I have given it you and to your seed.' [Gen.
13:7] "They acquired hundreds of thousands of dunams of land, they
planted trees, turned swamps into flowering settlements, built houses,
established cities, developed industry..." But it's the second
acquisition , the bloody battles and fallen soldiers, which concerns us
here. Rabbi Soloveichik continues: "It appears that even the secular
Jew, member of a non-religious Zionist movement, made an acquisition
and merited not only the land of Israel but the G-d of Israel. Even
the questioning and secular agnostic who officially denies G-d and
tries to explain the historical drama of the Jewish people in logical
secular categories, nevertheless had to make an acquisition of the
G-d of Israel, for he too built an altar on the mountains of Israel,
and he too offered sacrifices on that altar...."
Rabbi Soloveichik is underscoring that acquisition of the Eternal One
can only be done only through an altar, and that the sacrifice of
"...every Jew is always accepted willingly even though the one who
sacrifices is not doing it for the sake of heaven..." The person who
risks his life for Israel may say that he does not believe in G-d, but
it is a principle of Torah, according to Rabbi Soloveichik, that
although he doesn't believe in G-d, G-d believes in Him; after all, it
is through his efforts and sacrifices that at least one aspect of the
eternity of G-d --either His people, His land, or His Torah-- has
become manifest. Obviously, it's the right of the non religious Jew to
believe whatever he wants, but from the point of view of the religious,
a person who makes G-d more manifest in the world through his
sacrifices receives the blessing of G-d. He has acquired G-d -and he has
enabled us and the world to acquire G-d as well!
Hitler stood for ruthless power. One nation in the world, in the name
of the One G-d, taught that morality is more important than might.
Hitler reasoned that if he could destroy the people who represents this
G-d, then he would be destroying their G-d as well. Even when his
armies were on the brink of disaster, his war against the Jews never
waned. When Hitler lost, when the Jewish nation survived the Holocaust,
when the State of Israel was reborn - G-d's teaching and G-d's presence
were revealed in the world, albeit as the first sliver of the new moon
in a blackened sky, but nevertheless as a beacon of light and hope for
the future. Thus it follows that enhancing the eternity of the moral
teaching of the Jews enhances the cause of G-d. The people who
sacrifice everything for the Torah must realize that those who
sacrifice everything for the land are on the same side --establishing
the eternity of G-d, the fulfillment of the covenant made to
Abraham, and the possibility of a world of peace and freedom.
Shabbat Shalom
|
| 989.61 | Vayera: Abraham and Self-actualization | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Fri Oct 25 1991 19:14 | 139 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Vayera by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- Supernatural ethereal visions are no longer the
private domain of saints and prophets praying until the heavens
are torn asunder revealing chariots driven by luminescent winged
creatures. Thanks to the "miracle" of the silver screen, they
are available to anyone with enough available free time and
loose change to see the latest Steven Spielberg extravaganza.
But in this week's portion, Vayera, we learn that a divine
vision need not be accompanied by a celestial choir of a
thousand angels. If anything, the moral lesson to be derived is
that in order to coax a divine vision we have to express loving
kindness in our human relationships; G-d is revealed first and
foremost when we help our fellow man. Abraham's vision begins in
the very opening of Vayera. "And G-d appeared to him in the
Plains of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of day."
[Gen. 18:1] Our text, however, doesn't make it easy for us to
understand the exact nature of G-d's appearance, turning
immediately into a narrative that records how Abraham spots
three strangers, runs toward them to find out if they need
anything. The question staring at us is why Abraham seems to
leave G-d hanging as it were, and tends to the wanderers. Can't
these strangers wait? No. Abraham must be their host. "My Lord,
if now I have found favor in your sight, pass not away, I pray
you, from your servant: let a little water, I pray you, be
fetched, and wash your feet and rest yourselves under the
tree...."[Gen. 18:3]
This problem of sequence, from divine to mundane, seems to be
what Rashi is addressing when he points out that the word, 'My
lord' (Adonoi) can be seen either in a secular context or in a
holy one. If "Adonai" refers to God, Abraham is addressing the
Almighty, asking Him to please wait until he takes care of these
poor travelers in need of food and water. In fact, this very
verse is cited by the Sages of the Talmud as evidence that the
commandment of hospitality is greater than even the opportunity
to receive the Divine Presence (B.T. Shabbat 127a).
Rashi's alternative explanation has Abraham address 'my lord' to
the strangers, perhaps subtlely hinting that the Almighty
(Adonai) can appear in a context of things we usually call mundane
--serving a meal to a few tired wanderers. And because our verse
begins with Abraham's vision, Rashi may be saying that it's
specifically by means of Abraham's acceptance of these three
strangers that G-d appeared to him. This idea may likewise be
found in Maimonides' _Guide to the Perplexed_, in which he
speaks of the appearance of G-d as being continued in the
appearance of these strangers, angels with a divine message. I
would merely add that the G-dliness is in evidence in the
attitude of Abraham at least as much as in the message of the
angel-visitors.
But the appearance of G-d is not limited to the beginning of the
portion, for it ends with the Akeddah, when G-d again appears
to Abraham. Despite the awesome command to Abraham to sacrifice
his only son Isaac, Abraham does not protest. At the last
moment, however, an angel of G-d arrives just as Abraham's knife
is about to swoop down. Now G-d knows to what extent Abraham
truly fears Him. The Torah tells us that Abraham names this
mountain, Adonoy-yire "... God will appear..." (Behar Hashem
Yeraeh Gen 22:14) - and indeed, Mount Moriah is the site of the
Holy Temple, from whence G-d appeared in the past and will
hopefully appear in the future, when "G-d's house will be called
a House of Prayer for all people".
Once we note the symmetry of these two episodes, we have to look
for a common element which the two episodes possess, and if we
find one, this commonality may very well reveal further
qualities about G-d's appearance to Abraham - and to any human
being.
In order to do this, let me first examine the kabbalists'
fundamental question: How could G-d, who is pure goodness and
spirituality, have emanated from Himself a world filled with
sin and evil? The Ari Hakodosh taught the concept of _tzimtzum_:
G-d contracted Himself , drew Himself in. Had G-d not done
this, the world would indeed have been filled with His glory -
But there would not have been room for the individual to develop
and grow, to choose and decide, to accept or rebel, to perfect
or destroy. Indeed, by contracting Himself G-d was giving up a
part of Himself. But only in this way could there be room for us
humans, could there be free choice and the possibility of human
development. In a word, to allow us to become what we must, G-d
had to limit Himself. If defying G-d is within our capacity, so
is emulating Him. In fact, one might argue that the fundamental
commandment in the Torah, the one which includes all others, is
'vehalachta bedrachav,'--and you shall walk in His paths. And
the path of G-d, as we've just been discussing, is first and
foremost a path of contraction, without which nothing else could
exist. Therefore we, too, must contract ourselves to make room
for others! This is the fundamental rule of human relationships.
Only if we are willing to limit ourselves and leave opportunity
for others can we have a satisfactory relationship with our
neighbours, our friends, our spouses , our children....
With this in mind, we can detect another nuance of meaning in
the events at Abraham's tent. As a nonagenarian he has just gone
through circumcision. It is the third day, the hour of the greatest
pain. Ordinarily, sickness entitles the invalid to be totally
self-absorbed, his pain the center of the world. At the very
least we would expect Abraham to finally take off one day until
the pain eases. Instead he sits at the tent's opening looking
for people who need refuge and food. In giving up his own need
for rest, Abraham walks in the path of G-d, paralleling divine
'contraction,' making himself smaller to allow others in. Toward
the end of the parasha, Abraham heeds G-d's command in the most
ultimate fashion in his acquiescence to sacrifice his most
precious possession, his son. Even though he doesn't fathom the
purpose of the command, he continues to follow in the path of
G-d by denying his own will in favor of G-d's , by contracting
and withdrawing himself in order to leave room for G-d.
In the words of the Rebbe of Ger: "Where is G-d to be found?
Wherever we let Him in". With only two incidents, the entire
range of relationships is covered -- between man and man at the
tent, and between man and G-d at Mt. Moriah. And in both
instances, Abraham does the human equivalent of _tzimtzum_,
contracting himself. And both times G-d appears to Abraham. When
do we see G-d? Whenever we leave room for Him and His creation
by constricting and limiting ourselves. It's a vision that may
not be as flashy as the one promised by the silver screen magicians,
but it's a vision that lasts much longer because it emerges from
a place that's much deeper -- one's own heart.
Shabbat Shalom
--
|
| 989.62 | Shocking disclosure | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Fri Oct 25 1991 19:20 | 6 |
|
Reminder: this note is *not* read-only. Comments and questions
are welcome. If no one here can answer the questions, I now have
the ability to forward them to Rabbi Riskin.
|
| 989.63 | Since you asked... | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Fri Oct 25 1991 21:35 | 22 |
| I "just happen" to have a question regarding parasha Lekh Lekha. There is
a curious incident in which a famine causes Abram to travel to Egypt for
relief. Pharaoh takes a liking to Sarai and Abram claims she is his sister
so he won't be murdered for her sake. G-d sends plagues and Pharaoh realizes
Sarai is really Abram's wife, so Pharaoh returns her to her husband and
sends them back to their homeland with great wealth.
The story has too many similarities to the story of Joseph and Israel in
Egypt to be accidental. Yet the commentaries I've seen so far do not make
anything of the point and I'm not particularly statisfied with them.
o Is one of the things happening here that Abraham was freed from
(potential) slavery in Egypt; thus Abraham, the first Jew, would be
qualified to observe Passover, the same as the rest of us?
o I understand that Midrash explains that the "plagues" interfered with
Pharaoh's attempts to consumate his attempt at marriage with Sarai. But
there is not much in the Torah to support that. Would it be valid to
suggest that, by analogy with the 10th plague, Sarai's first-born son
by Pharaoh was slain by a plague?
Dave
|
| 989.64 | Questions generate questions | SHALOT::NICODEM | Who told you I'm paranoid???
| Mon Oct 28 1991 15:34 | 18 |
| 989.65 | and again... | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Mon Oct 28 1991 17:22 | 16 |
| RE: .-1
Very good points. I guess part of the answer to my question is that the
analogy is too simplistic and ignores questions about punishment and
reward.
Onward to Vayera. It must be Midrash that asserts that the angels visited
Abraham on the 3rd day after circumcision. There is nothing in the Torah
to support this. What stands out in this portion is that it has instances
of "things that go wrong" in a family. It begins with a case of incest
and ends with a father trying to kill his own kid. And this is right after
he chased his first-born son out of the house for no fault of his own.
I don't think I'd let my daughter baby-sit for this family. No wonder
R. Risken focuses on how Abraham bends his will to that of God's. It is
Abraham's only redeeming virtue.
Dave
|
| 989.66 | To will, and to do of His good pleasure | SHALOT::NICODEM | Who told you I'm paranoid???
| Tue Oct 29 1991 03:13 | 16 |
| 989.67 | A command Abraham should have argued against. | TLE::GROSS::GROSS | Louis Gross | Tue Oct 29 1991 04:33 | 9 |
| Re: .-1,-2
I am not willing to believe in a God who commands killing -- I prefer
to look at the Binding of Isaac as a test of Abraham's moral strength
that he failed in not challenging the command to kill, but at least
was able to hear the command to not kill at the last moment.
Abraham's finest moment was in challenging God over the destruction
of Sodom (that was a test he passed).
|
| 989.68 | Good topic | SHALOT::NICODEM | Who told you I'm paranoid???
| Tue Oct 29 1991 15:30 | 23 |
| 989.69 | The legacy of paradox | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Oct 30 1991 06:55 | 206 |
|
What's going on here?! I go away for a few
days and I find this note all full of apikorsus! :)
Re: .63
>o I understand that Midrash explains that the "plagues" interfered with
>Pharaoh's attempts to consumate his attempt at marriage with Sarai. But
>there is not much in the Torah to support that.
A few points. First, the individual in question in Vayera is
Avimelech, king of Gerar (20:3), not Pharaoh. Here, there were
no plagues, rather G-d appeared to Avimelech in a dream, apprising
him of the true identity of Sarah (her name had been changed in
17:15), whereupon he immediately left her, before she had been touched
(20:4).
In Lech Lecha (12:17), the (Egyptian) gentleman's name (rather title)
was indeed Pharaoh. To me, the text does at all indicate that Pharaoh
had had relations with (the then) Sarai. In 12:15, it simply says
that she was brought to his palace. Then, immediately afterwards,
we're told that Pharaoh was afflicted with "great plagues," which
Rashi explains refers to a disease called _ra'atan_, which makes
sexual relations "difficult." (This interpretation he gets from
Bereshit Raba, but there is nothing in the context that contradicts
the idea that Sarai had not been violated.)
>Would it be valid to
>suggest that, by analogy with the 10th plague, Sarai's first-born son
>by Pharaoh was slain by a plague?
I don't really see what you're basing this on.
Re: .65
>It must be Midrash that asserts that the angels visited
>Abraham on the 3rd day after circumcision.
Rashi quotes this from the Talmud (B.M. 86b).
>There is nothing in the Torah
>to support this.
The aggada in B.M. is based on the seemingly superfluous
phrase "in the heat of the day" (18:1). That is, each
word in the Torah is carefully measured, and we would
have gotten the gist of the story without the benefit
of the local weather report. The Talmud therefore
deduces that G-d had intentionally made the heat unbearable
so as to ensure that Abraham would stay indoors and not
look for guests *while he was still recovering.*
>It begins with a case of incest
You're referring here to Lot and his daughters (19:31)? Why blame Abraham
for this?
>And this is right after
>he chased his first-born son out of the house for no fault of his own.
Rashi in 21:9 gives three possible explanations to the word
_metzachek_ (the word used in describing what Sarah had witnessed,
prompting her to demand Hagar and Ishmael's exile). Why do you
assume that Sarah had no reason for doing so? As for Abraham,
one interpretation in Rashi states that he was unhappy about
the request to banish them (and apparently wouldn't have done
so had G-d himself not commanded him to listen to Sarah in verse
12).
>No wonder
>R. Risken focuses on how Abraham bends his will to that of God's. It is
>Abraham's only redeeming virtue.
Dem's fight'n words. Obviously, you're saying this tongue-in-cheek,
but in truth, there is one unexpected criticism of Abraham in this
parasha.
The truth is, Abraham's actions are often surprising and unpredictable.
Here is a man whos entire life is dedicated to helping and providing
for others. When confronted with the horrifying reality of the depravity
of Sodomite society - particularly their attitudes and actions vis-a-vis
outsiders, foreigners (see San. 109b) - the very antithesis of everything
Abraham believed in, Abraham should have been expected to rejoice at
their impending destruction. Instead, in one of the greatest apparent
displays of both irony and chutzpa in the Torah, Abraham confronts
G-d:
It is *forbidden* for You to do such a deed... will the Judge
of the whole earth not do Justice? (18:25)
But, still more ironically, Abraham is criticized by the Zohar not
for his gall in questioning G-d's express will - in the most direct
of terms - but rather that he did not go far enough in fighting *for*
the Sodomites. The Zohar compares Noah, Abraham and Moses. Noah, upon
hearing of the impending destruction of his generation, did not even
open his mouth. Abraham requested that Sodom be spared for the merit
of whatever righteous individuals might reside there. Moses, on the
other hand, upon being told by G-d to "leave Me... that I might destroy
them" (Ex. 32:10), wasted no time. He began forthwith to pray that
the entire nation be saved - whether or not they deserved it; whether
there were righteous among them or not.
Whether Abraham went far enough or too far in striving to save Sodom,
how does his decidedly activist stand on behalf of the *wicked* Sodomites
jibe with his button-lipped response to the command to slaughter his
*righteous* son with his own hands? Which is his true nature?
The truth is, neither; and this itself is perhaps Abraham's greatest
legacy. Abraham's *nature* would certainly have allowed Sodom to
be destroyed, and of course to protest against his beloved son's
sacrifice. But, as a leader, he had trained himself to *transcend*
his natural inclinations - never to react emotionally or impulsively,
never to either protest or submit - even to G-d Himself - based on
what seemed right to *Abraham* alone, but first to be absolutely
sure that his own desires were not clouding his decisions.
Abraham demonstrated repeatedly that he was willing to bow to
G-d's will no matter how painful the consequences. But he did not
use this as a self-righteous excuse for treading on others, even
those who were thoroughly evil, *even* when G-d himself expressed
his will to destroy them.
Abraham is aptly called "Haivri," literally meaning
"from the other side," possibly because he was constantly examining each
event from every side, from every angle. His great legacy to humanity
is *humanity* - never to react automatically like a machine, but to
take each action *thoughtfully* - this is the essence of the human
being.
Re: .66 (Frank)
> Think about it -- not in terms of "chasing his own kid
>(Ishmael) out of the house", as you said, but in light of the fact that G-d had
>made a *promise* to Abraham, but Abraham thought he knew better.
If you're referring to 15:4 ("[Eliezer] will not be your heir, but
he who comes forth from you shall be your heir."), this does not
specify the mother. Of course, it wasn't Abraham's idea at all,
it was Sarai's (16:2). Apparently, this was fairly standard
practice at the time.
>so why not take matters into his own hands,
>and "help G-d out" a little.
I don't see any indication that G-d objected to this action.
Re: .67 (David)
>I am not willing to believe in a God who commands killing -- I prefer
>to look at the Binding of Isaac as a test of Abraham's moral strength
>that he failed
See comments above. Your objections are understandable, but can you
see another side to the story? In this Midrash (B.R. 56:5), Abraham
appears as bewildered as we might imagine:
Abraham was amazed. "These events are incredible! Yesterday
You told me, 'for in Isaac will be called your seed,' then
You came back and said, 'take your son,' and now You say,
'do not lay your hand on the lad!' I'm amazed!" The Holy
One, blessed be He answered, "Abraham, when I told you,
'take your son,' I didn't say 'and slaughter him,' I said,
'and *offer him up*' - as an act of love. You have now
fulfilled my word, so bring him back down."
The _akeda_ is simply too intricate and too blatantly shocking to
be dismissed as Abraham's "failure." As I mentioned above, our
sages never shrink from criticizing even our greatest role models
when there is a lesson to be learned from their mistakes. But in
this case, where Abraham seems to leave himself wide open to
charges of making the "wrong choice," there is not one word of
censure to be heard from Chazal. To me, this says that there's
much more to this story than can be culled from a superficial
reading. It is of course a story that rubs us the wrong way
and goes against our natural tendencies and sensibilities, but
who says our gut feelings are always right?
Re: .68 (Frank)
>in fact, in some instances where they did not fully and completely
>follow those commands, but showed what they thought was mercy, *they*
>were punished for it!
Absolutely. Because of Saul's "mercy" vis-a-vis the Amelekites, we
face their descendents to this very day. (Rabbi Y.C. Sonnenfeld
refused to greet the German Kaiser Wilhelm when he visited Jerusalem
in 1898. Asked why, he said that the German nation is of the seed of
Amalek).
> I think I would agree with you, however, that God knew
>Abraham's faith *before* Abraham demonstrated it; it was a "test", if you will.
See 22:1. The Midrash (P.R. 40:76) agrees with you:
Said Abraham to G-d... "didn't You know what was in
my heart beforehand?" G-d answered, "It was all open
and revealed before Me that you would withold nothing.
But I wanted your name to be made famous in the world;
that not for naught have I chosen this nation from all
the nations."
Jem
|
| 989.70 | Chayai Sarah: Marital Bliss? (controversial) | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Oct 30 1991 18:20 | 138 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Chaya Sarah by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat,Israel -- Early on in my rabbinate, I was confronted by an
elderly congregant whose wife had died. He refused to eat or
drink, and was constantly in stress, and I kept looking for a
way to console him, but he was inconsolable. All he did was
repeat the words, "But you don't understand, you just don't
understand." Finally I got up enough nerve to ask him what it
was that I didn't understand. In pain, he looked at me and said,
"Oh rabbi, you don't understand that I was married to this woman
for 50 years and I never once told her I loved her. And now it's
too late."
Two marriage models stand out in the Torah, the arranged
marriage of Isaac and Rebecca, and the romantic
love-at-first-sight model of Jacob and Rachel. Although I can't
say for sure into which category my hapless congregant falls
but my guess is that if had never told his wife he loved her, he
had more in common with the silent Isaac than with the ardent
Jacob, whose love was so deep that he labored for fourteen years
in order to marry his beloved Rachel. Not only was Jacob
enthusiastic about his love, but he consults with his wives,
calling to Rachel and Leah to consider tactics for regaining
what their father Laban has taken from him. [Gen. 31:4-16].
Jacob's open line of communication is the very antithesis of the
non-communication that prevails between Isaac and Rebecca .
This is not say that all is grim between Rebecca and Isaac. If it
were, their act of lovemaking would not have revealed to King
Abimelech that the brother and sister who've arrived in his land
seeking food are in reality husband and wife. and the word used
to describe the act is 'metsahek' (lit. playing) which Rashi
specifies as sexual intercourse. And earlier, Rebecca is given
an exalted role, when her entry into Sarah's tent revives the
light and blessings that were extinguished wtih the death of
the first Matriarch. The text specifically states that Rebecca
comforted Isaac after his mother's demise, and that Isaac married
Rebecca and loved her.
Nevertheless, missing from their lives was the deep connection
that only comes from authentic communication. In many ways, they
were 'married singles,' two people sharing the same address but
emotionally and spiritually separate --roommates, parent-mates,
but not really soulmates. What better evidence of the distance
between them can there be than their argument surrounding the
bracha, the spiritual blessings a parent bequeaths to the next
generation! Differences between parents may exist, but if the
father prefers Esau, and the mother prefers Jacob, ought there
not be a recorded discussion, an opportunity to examine the true
nature of their sons' characters together in order to arrive at
a united plan. Instead, Rebecca resorts to ruse, casting studious
Jacob into a role of deception for which he is totally
unsuitable. Not only does he perpetrate an act which will haunt
him for the rest of his life, but what begins as a split
between brothers comes to signify the far greater division
between Jews and gentiles throughout history.
The Netziv, Rav N.Z.Y. Berlin, author of the Biblical commentary
Haamek Davar, probes why Rebecca resorts to deception. Realizing
that Isaac is not suited to find his own mate, Abraham sends his
trusted servant Eliezer to scout the land. The Torah records the
first encounter between Isaac and Rebecca. Isaac has been
meditating in the fields, and with the approach of Eliezer and
the bride-to-be, he raises his eyes: "...When Rebecca looked up
and saw Isaac, she fell from the camel." [Genesis 24:5] The
Netziv explains that she falls because she has never seen a
religious personality before. So awesome is the sight of Isaac
transformed by prayer that she must have been knocked off her
feet, literally. Compared to the lying and cheating world of
Betuel and Laban, this man projects a vision of purity with
which Rebecca has no previous experience. When Eliezer reveals
the man's identity, she takes the veil and covers herself, not
only as a sign of modesty, but an expression of her
unworthiness. From that moment on, the veil between them was
never removed. Granted that the veil comes to symbolize the
distance between their worlds, but why couldn't Isaac bridge the
gap?
In the past, we've spoken of Elie Wiesel's description of Isaac
as Jewish history's first survivor. When told to put away the
knife that was poised at Isaac's neck, Abraham certainly
celebrates, but Isaac remains in a state of shock. In fact, a
part of him always remained behind on Mt. Moriah, hinted at in
the final verse the Akedah. "Abraham returned to his young men,
and together they went to Beersheba, and Abraham dwelt at
Beersheba." [Gen. 22:19] Why isn't Isaac mentioned? Very likely
the verse alludes to the fact that only Abraham came down, but
Isaac, or part of him, remained behind on the altar. Thus it's
not surprising that the traumatized Isaac became a silent,
noncommuniative survivor.
We've quoted the verse about Isaac meditating in the fields, but
immediately preceding we read a verse whose meaning is elusive.
"And Isaac came from the way of Be'er-lahay-roi for he dwelt in
the land of the Negev. " [Gen. 24:62]. Why are we told this? In
translation 'came from the way' sounds like a transitional
phrase, but in Hebrew its construction is unique: ba mibo. 'Ba'
means 'he came' and 'mibo' means 'from coming' as if to say that
Isaac was continuously coming from there, he was coming from
coming, he was always visiting, coming and going, going and
coming.
We know little about the sibling relationship between Isaac and
Ishmael: Ishmael is, after all, the the banished son of the
banished wife Hagar. But God did reveal himself to Hagar and Ishmael
at Beer-Lahay-roi, and guarantee greatness to Ishmael (Genesis
16). Isaac seems to be brooding over God's relationship to
Ishmael, searching for a similar revelation in the same spot it
occurred to his brother. But all of this is never expressed; it
is suggested in Isaac's travels, although not in his words.
Isaac seemingly has no difficulty communicating with God (he
even originated the mincha prayer as the rabbis tell us in Tr.
Brachot 26b), but he does have difficulty communicating to his
wife; and if a couple cannot communicate, the result can
sometimes be tragic. I don't know if the Torah prefers the
marriage of Jacob and Rachel over the marriage of Isaac and and
Rebecca. But we do know who communicates and who doesn't. Was
Jacob happier for it? Probably. After all, he is the father of
the twelve tribes, and Isaac fathers two brothers whose split is
irrevocable.
Shabbat Shalom
|
| 989.71 | A few points/clarifications | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Wed Oct 30 1991 20:01 | 65 |
| RE: .69
>A few points. First, the individual in question in Vayera is
>Avimelech, king of Gerar (20:3), not Pharaoh.
I was refering to the incident in Lech Lecha.
The theme of pretending the wife to be the sister in order to protect the
husband occurs 3 times. Twice with Abraham/Sarah and once with Isaac/Rebecca.
My rabbi suggests that this is a "type" scene whose full significance is
lost to us. He gives an example of a "type" scene: Imagine that you enter
a movie theater when the film is about 1/2 way through. You see the sun
directly overhead and one man in cowboy garb, pistol in holster, waiting
at the end of a deserted Western street. You immediately know the whole
story; this is a type scene.
>>Would it be valid to
>>suggest that, by analogy with the 10th plague, Sarai's first-born son
>>by Pharaoh was slain by a plague?
>
>I don't really see what you're basing this on.
If the analogy is valid, I just wanted to see how far it could be taken.
>The Talmud therefore
>deduces that G-d had intentionally made the heat unbearable
>so as to ensure that Abraham would stay indoors and not
>look for guests *while he was still recovering.The Talmud therefore
>deduces that G-d had intentionally made the heat unbearable
>so as to ensure that Abraham would stay indoors and not
>look for guests *while he was still recovering.*
Perhaps. But it could have just as well been the 2nd day or the 4th.
G-d has no need to make tests unnecessarily hard.
>>It begins with a case of incest
>
>You're referring here to Lot and his daughters (19:31)? Why blame Abraham
>for this?
Not really blaming anyone. I'm just pointing out that "serious family problems"
is, on the surface at least, a major theme of this portion.
>>Abraham's only redeeming virtue.
>
>Dem's fight'n words. Obviously, you're saying this tongue-in-cheek,
Of course.
>Abraham requested that Sodom be spared for the merit
>of whatever righteous individuals might reside there.
I imagine Abraham thinking that if Sodom can't even put together a minyan
(ten men) it would be futile to ask G-d to save the place.
>The _akeda_ is simply too intricate and too blatantly shocking to
>be dismissed as Abraham's "failure." As I mentioned above, our
>sages never shrink from criticizing even our greatest role models
>when there is a lesson to be learned from their mistakes.
I really like the idea that Abraham's test was _not_ that he heard the
command to offer up his son, but that he _did_ hear the command to stop.
There seems to be archeological evidence that in ancient Canaan it was
common (normal?) to sacrifice the first-born son.
In all Torah there is only one Being worthy of emulation in all aspects.
RE: .70 (Chayai Sarah)
I kind of like the romantic image that Rebecca fell off her camel because
Isaac was a real "hunk". It was last year that I learned that the usual
translation (Rebecca alit from her camel) misses this nuance.
Dave
|
| 989.72 | | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Wed Oct 30 1991 21:15 | 4 |
| I think the reference to incest is the fact that Abraham was Sarah's
half-brother, on their father's side.
Ann B.
|
| 989.73 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Oct 31 1991 00:03 | 3 |
| According to some (Jem can probably tell you who), Sarah was actually the
granddaughter of Abraham's father, and thus his niece. According to halacha,
an uncle can marry his niece but an aunt can't marry her nephew.
|
| 989.74 | Thoughts on Isaac and Rebecca | DECSIM::DECSIM::GROSS | The bug stops here | Tue Nov 05 1991 02:16 | 20 |
| What Isaac's behavior seems to teach us is that the sons should follow the ways
of the fathers. Why else (as we are soon to learn) does Isaac redig all the
same wells his father dug? Why does he have the same runin with Avimelech?
Why does he take Rebecca into his mother's tent?
In fact, Isaac comes across as a real dummy. He speaks twice in the Torah.
The first time is at the akeda where he doesn't seem to know what his
father intends for him. The second time is when he gives his blessing to
the "wrong" son. Rebecca appears to be the real heroine of this generation.
Like Abraham, she leaves her ancestral home. She goes off to marry a man
she never met, based only on the success of an omen. Without her intervention,
the leadership of the Jewish people would have passed on to Esau, a man
patently unfit for the job.
Our sages have concluded that the Patriarchs introduced the morning, afternoon,
and evening prayers. Is there a theory on which prayers they might have said?
Some of the good "stuff", like the Shema, appears in Deuteronomy which was
not discovered until late in First Temple days.
Dave
|
| 989.75 | More on Isaac | ULTRA::ELLIS | David Ellis | Tue Nov 05 1991 18:44 | 9 |
| Re: .74
> In fact, Isaac comes across as a real dummy.
I have heard the theory that Isaac was retarded. This would add an extra
dimension to the question of why Abraham would go through the process of
offering Isaac up as a sacrifice. After all, Abraham argued against the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, going into a lengthy negotiation, but he
was strangely unquestioning about sacrificing Isaac.
|
| 989.76 | test of his faith, no? | BOSACT::CHERSON | inquiring minds want to know | Tue Nov 05 1991 21:15 | 12 |
| >After all, Abraham argued against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, going
>into a lengthy negotiation, but he was strangely unquestioning about sacrificing
>Isaac.
The Akeda is always pointed out as the demonstration of Abraham's faith in G-d,
not how he (or didn't) valued his son.
Someone asked the question last Shabbat of why Rivka fell off the camel upon
seeing Isaac. One translation has it as "alighting" from the camel, while the
Hebrew clearly says "Naphal", fell. Love at first sight?
--David
|
| 989.77 | | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Tue Nov 05 1991 22:16 | 8 |
| Gerald,
Then what should be the translation for Genesis 20:12? I have:
"Besides, she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father but not
the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife."
Ann B.
|
| 989.78 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Nov 06 1991 00:53 | 12 |
| re .77:
The word for father could also mean grandfather, the word for daughter could
also mean granddaughter, etc.
re "love at first sight":
Hirsch translates it as something like "let herself slip down." He says
that if she had approached him on camel when he was on the ground, she
would have shown herself to be haughty. He also interprets the verse
about taking her into Sarah's tent and loving her to mean that love
grew out of marriage, and not vice versa.
|
| 989.79 | One last detail | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Wed Nov 06 1991 21:26 | 5 |
| Gerald,
Okay. So what's the alternate translation for sister?
Ann B.
|
| 989.80 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Nov 07 1991 17:59 | 7 |
| "Any close relative." When Abraham suggests to Lot that they split up,
he says, "we're brothers" even though he was really Lot's uncle. BTW,
Rashi and others identify Jessica (Abram's niece mentioned at the end of
Parshas Noach) with Sarai (mentioned in the next verse).
"The Living Torah" by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan has a nice family tree of the
patriarchs that helps clarify the relationships.
|
| 989.81 | | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Nov 12 1991 04:29 | 56 |
|
Sorry for the delay...been away for a while.
Re: .71
>Perhaps. But it could have just as well been on the 2nd day or the
>4th. G-d has no need to make tests unnecessarily hard.
This is precisely why G-d made the heat unbearable on the third day --
He *didn't* want Abraham to exert himself on the most difficult day
of his recovery. That is, G-d "hoped" that if the weather was
oppresive, Abraham would realize that there would be no wayfarers
and allow himself to retire to his chambers to recover.
>if Sodom can't even put together a minyan
>(ten men) it would be futile to ask G-d to save the place.
Don't forget that Abraham's deduction that 10 _tzaddikim_
would have saved Sodom was from Noah's family (amounting
to 8), which included Noah's and his son's wives! Women
may not be counted for a minyan, but they can save the
world! According to the Midrash, BTW, Abraham's hope was
that Lot, his wife, his four daughters and their husbands
would all be considered _tzaddikim_, amounting to 10.
>in ancient Canaan it was
>common (normal?) to sacrifice the first-born son.
Indeed, Abraham campaigned extensively against the pagan
custom of human sacrifice. This made the test even more
pronounced -- i.e. if I do sacrifice my own son, I will
be viewed as a hypocrite and my life's work will be for naught...
all pointing to a monstrous desecration of Your name! But
Abraham still passed the test by accepting that there was
not only a Power greater than himself, but a logic greater
than his own. Again, Abraham just got through demonstrating
that he was not afraid to *argue* with G-d himself when
appropriate. But this was obviously a *decree*, which he
had no right to argue with. That he made the right choice is
explicitly stated in 22:16, "because you have done this thing,
and have not witheld your son, your only son; that I will
exeedingly bless you."
>In all Torah there is only one Being worthy of emulation in all
>aspects.
This is, of course, true. But the "deeds of the fathers are models
for the sons," and the message to be culled must be examined
carefully. When there were mistakes, the Torah records them
plainly. But when the Torah lauds a deed, it must be studied
seriously.
More tomorrow, IY"H, including the new articles I haven't posted.
Jem
|
| 989.82 | Toledot: Wherefore Deception? | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Nov 13 1991 04:02 | 139 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Toldot by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- Will the real Jacob please stand up? But who is
the real Jacob? More than the other patriarchs, Jacob has a
multi-personality, complex, varied, diversified, the kind of
character we in the modern age identify with easily. On the one
hand, Jacob is described by the Bible as a whole-hearted man, a
studious tent-dweller; on the other, his very name connotes a
deceiver, a supplanter.
When all is said and done, do we look upon Jacob as a
man of integrity, upright in his ways, a student and scholar in
the yeshiva of Shem and Eber? Is he the man with the depth of
character to father twelve sons, each of whom emerges as a
leader of a tribe of Israel, the determined individual who
instead of following the convention of being blessed by
Pharaoh, turns around and blesses Pharaoh instead? Or do we say
that Jacob is really a treacherous deceiver, a manipulator who
steals the blessing from his brother by pretending to be someone
he isn't? Those critics with a predilection for deflating the
importance of the patriarachs find Jacob an easy target for
their darts of derision. After all, he appears to be a thief,
who stole his brother's blessing and tricks his old, blind
father!
I believe that the greatness of the Torah can be seen
in the very fact that Jacob's character does not undergo plastic
surgery to please later generations, which would have been the
case if editors, presumably Jewish, were the ones responsible
for redacting a final text. One could easily suspect that if the
Torah were a man-made object, then its legends would change with
the times, and we would hardly bother with a patriarch whose
claim to fathering the children of Israel is tainted with a
dubious past mired in deception. Indeed, one of the strongest
arguments for the divine authority of the Torah is that even the
stains and scars get equal time. Nevertheless, I hope to
demonstrate that in the final analysis, Jacob is really a
dweller of tents, a simple, G-d-fearing person who undergoes the
ultimate character test by turning himself into Israel, on the
level of Isaac and Abraham. But first we have to examine the
exact nature of the deception.
Jacob's life is fraught with complications. He was
rejected by his father, but loved by his mother, Rebecca. Since
she grew up with the likes of Betuel and Laban, cheats and
liars, she was sensitive to the disparity between outside
appearances and inside integrity, when it came to character
evaluation. She perceives the real Esau, recognizes him as a
hunter and trapper interested only in momentary pleasure,
characteristics which Isaac, straight as an arrow without a
false bone in his body, cannot imagine in his oldest son. When
Rebecca overhears that Isaac is about to give the blessing to
Esau, she says, "Behold I heard your father speak to your
brother, saying, 'Bring me venison, make me savoury food, that I
may it and bless you in G-d's presence before I die.' Now my
son listen to me. Obey my voice... Go now to the flocks and
fetch....I will make them into savoury food." [Gen. 27:6-7]
It's clear that Jacob does not initiate deception.
Rebecca is the one who plans the action down to its last detail.
Jacob wants nothing to do with it. Esau is hairy and Jacob is
smooth. "Perhaps my father will feel me, and I shall seem to him
a deceiver, and I shall bring a curse upon me, not a blessing ."
[Gen. 27:12]
Rebecca is adamant. She instructs Jacob how wear animal
skins so that he will resemble Esau. And if there's a curse, she
takes it upon herself. She prepares the food just the way Isaac
likes it. Indeed, Jacob doesn't have take one step in a
direction of deception except for his actual entrance into his
father's tent. And it's not surprising why Jacob heeds his
mother. After all, having been spurned by his father, if he now
says no his mother, he will be totally isolated and alone. As
the text continues, we discover that Jacob only wears the
garments of deception; they never really become part of him. A
close study of the actual dialogue between father and son
clearly reveals this truth . Prepared with the venison, Jacob
"...came to his father, and said, My father, and he said, Here
am I, who are you, my son? And Jacob said to his father, I am
Esau, your firstborn..." [Gen. 27:18] In this dialogue we see
how hesitant Jacob is. He doesn't know what to say. There are
false starts, seemingly extra words. Why does the text repeat
,"My father" twice, and why does it say, 'he said' twice? The
verse has already told us where Jacob is going; and we know
who's talking. In its simplest form the text could have read,
'And he came to his father, and said, Here am I and I've done
what you asked and here's the food.' Period. But something else
is going on. A man who lies easily speaks quickly and confidently
so no one will have a chance to catch him in a lie. But a person
doing it for the first time in his life will be uncomfortable
in his role, hesitating, stuttering and avoiding the central
issue. In fact, Rashi notes that Jacob's actual words to his
father, if the stress is changed, could be meant to read, I am
(anochi), as if to say, I am I, and Esau is your eldest son.
However, the climax comes later in the dialogue. When
Isaac asks how it is that he found the venison so quickly, Jacob
answers, "Because G-d your Lord was with me." [Gen 27: 20 ]. In
effect, Jacob can become hairy like Esau, can bring food like
Esau - but cannot speak like Esau, cannot deny the G-d of Isaac
like Esau. At this point Isaac tells Jacob to move closer to
him. "The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the
hands of Esau." That he says this immediately following Jacob's
answer takes on added meaning. The voice is the voice of Jacob
means that the voice speaks of things Jacob speaks of -- of G-d
who makes things happen. So now, Jacob's true personality
emerges. Externally his mother may have pushed him into an act
of deception but he is in reality the whole-hearted Jacob. All
of us are complex beings. In different roles, father, friend,
husband, wife, child, parent, we extend parts of ourselves, and
hold back other parts. Life is not always the shortest distance
between two points. Jacob seems to deceive, but it is part of a
more complicated scenario. "Perhaps my father will feel me, and
I shall seem to him a deceiver," is what Jacob says to his
mother in protest, as we quoted above.
An amazing story is told about Reb Yerucham, the Rosh
Yeshiva of the Mir Yeshiva. After Yom Kippur he would always
make sure his students immediately went to the dining room to
break the fast, while he would remain behind in the Bet
Hamidrash. One year a student couldn't contain his curiousity,
and decided to hide underneath one of the tables. He imagined
that Reb Yerucham would take down a tome and begin studying, but
to his surprise he saw his rebbe begin to pace back and forth,
repeating the above verse. Ten times, twenty times, a 100 times.
Perhaps my father will feel me, and I shall seem to him a
deceiver: Perhaps my Father in heaven will see through my
externals and I shall be found wanting ! The very story proves
that Reb Yerucham had nothing to worry about. Jacob, too,
vindicates himself. But we, each and every one of us, must be
concerned . Before our own Father-in-heaven, our real selves are
always revealed. Shabbat Shalom.
|
| 989.83 | Toldot questions/comments | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Wed Nov 13 1991 19:01 | 21 |
| First, the questions: early in this portion G-d speaks directly to Isaac
saying (I paraphrase) He will makes Isaac's descendants numerous as the
stars ... because Abraham obeyed His laws and commandments. The part I'm
wondering about was the "laws". Are we to understand that G-d has somehow
given Abraham a peek into the chapters of Leviticus? Also: Isaac experiences
a "famine", moves his household to Canaan, and becomes successful and
wealthy as a farmer. I'm wondering about the nature of these "famines" that
the Patriarchs experienced. Was it the same as what we would call a
"depression" since Abraham's great wealth appears to be gone? Or is there
a spiritual element involved? Finally, I keep wondering about the kashrut
of that venison stew that Isaac loves so much; any comment?
The comments: in literature, the appearance of twins is a common device
for exposing two aspects of a single individual. There is something of
both Esau and Jacob in each of us, and they clash. The Torah makes a
powerful statement about which aspect to favor for the good of future
generations. Also: the previous time two brothers fought, one killed the
other. The generation of Esau and Jacob would appear to be morally advanced
compared to the generation of Cain and Abel.
Dave
|
| 989.84 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Nov 13 1991 22:56 | 18 |
| > because Abraham obeyed His laws and commandments. The part I'm
>wondering about was the "laws". Are we to understand that G-d has somehow
>given Abraham a peek into the chapters of Leviticus?
There's certainly a tradition that the forefathers observed the mitzvot,
even those that were historical in nature. In fact, there's a tradition
that the reason that Lot served matza to the angels is that it was Pesach!
I don't remember the various explanations for Avraham's serving dairy and
meat to the angels.
> Finally, I keep wondering about the kashrut
>of that venison stew that Isaac loves so much; any comment?
Venison is kosher as long as it's slaughtered properly (in fact, there's
a kosher restaurant in NY, Levana's, that serves farm-raised venison).
Esau used to trap deer and then slaughter them. According to a midrash,
on the occasion when Yaakov "stole" Esau's blessing, Esau was unable
to capture a deer, so he killed a dog and made dog stew.
|
| 989.86 | No proof of divine authority may be produced from stains and scars. | TLE::GROSS::GROSS | Louis Gross | Thu Nov 14 1991 05:11 | 35 |
| From 989.82
>One could easily suspect that if the
>Torah were a man-made object, then its legends would change with
>the times, and we would hardly bother with a patriarch whose
>claim to fathering the children of Israel is tainted with a
>dubious past mired in deception. Indeed, one of the strongest
>arguments for the divine authority of the Torah is that even the
>stains and scars get equal time
Other religions of about the same time have severely flawed heros, so
why not ours? One would not deduce that the Greek myths
are true just because they paint an unflattering picture of the
forefathers of the authors of tellers of the myths.
While the Torah as we have it is consistent with the hypothesis of
a single author dictating to a single writer (with very clever midrash
explaining the apparent inconsistencies), it is also consistent with
the hypothesis that a redactor put together several manuscripts
(composed by E, J, P, and D) that were at odds with each other on
several points. I am partial to the latter view (as, I think, are most
other Reform Jews), but I also find reading (and sometimes even writing)
midrash is a way to better understand the Torah.
For example, consider that the text of the Binding of Isaac has the order
to sacrifice Isaac issued by Elohim and rescinded by a messenger from
YHWH. One can explain this by saying that there were two different
manuscripts, and the redactor used the E author for the first part
(which some think originally resulted in the killing of Isaac), and
the J author for the second part. One can also say that HaShem rose
from the Throne of Judgement and moved to the Throne of Mercy.
(though I would think of Elohim giving the order to see if Abraham was
strong enough to resist it, and YHWH taking over to try to stop Abraham
when he showed he couldn't resist). I find it useful to think of it
both ways at once.
|
| 989.87 | | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Fri Nov 15 1991 00:04 | 128 |
|
Re: .83
>early in this portion G-d speaks directly to Isaac
>saying (I paraphrase) He will makes Isaac's descendants numerous as the
>stars ... because Abraham obeyed His laws and commandments. The part I'm
>wondering about was the "laws". Are we to understand that G-d has somehow
>given Abraham a peek into the chapters of Leviticus?
Here is the verse (26:5):
Because Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my
commandments, my statutes and my laws.
Five types of obedience are described:
1)"voice" (_koli_)
2)"charge" (_mishmarti_)
3)"commandments" (_mitzvotai_)
4)"statutes"(_chukotai_)
5)"laws" (_torotai_).
Rashi comments as follows:
1)_Koli_: When I tested (Abraham).
2)_Mishmarti_: "Fences" to guard the laws of the Torah,
such as "secondary" incest (not explicitly mentioned in
the Torah, such as maternal and paternal grandmothers,
wives of maternal and paternal grandfathers, etc. [see
Yev. 21a for exhaustive list]), and _shvutim_ (decrees)
on the Sabbath, such as riding on an animal, climbing
a tree, or asking a non-Jew to light a fire.
3)_Mitzvotai_: Common "rational" laws, such as murder
and theft.
4)_Chukotai_: Laws which have no apparent rationale,
such as _kashrut_, and the wearing of _shaatnez_
(a garment of mingled wool and linen).
5)_Torotai_: To include the Oral Law.
Ramban (Nachmanides) explains that Abraham was in fact
taught the entire Torah (including the oral explanations)
by G-d himself. Although he was not required to observe
all the laws (only the Revelation at Sinai made them
binding), he did so anyway.
If so, he asks, why did Jacob marry two sisters, a
prohibition explicitly defined in the Torah (Lev. 18:18)!?
Here Ramban makes a startling distinction (which he
elucidates in Deut. 11:18) between _mitzva_ observance
*in* the Land of Israel, and *outside* it. Jacob was
living outside of Israel when he married Leah and Rachel,
and Abraham lived in Eretz Yisrael when he observed all
of the halachic minutiae enumerated by Rashi.
Other commentators (Rashbam, for example), explain the
verse according to the _peshat_ (simple meaning of the
text). I.e., those _mitzvot_ which were commanded directly
to Abraham in the text, such as _lech lecha_ ("get thee
out of thy land"), and the _akeda_ (binding of Isaac),
as well as the 7 Noahide commandments.
>Also: Isaac experiences
>a "famine", moves his household to Canaan,
Isaac actually never left the Holy Land (Canaan). The
last place in which we see him living before the famine
is "the land of the Negev." Once the famine begins, he
moves to Gerar, thence to Nachal Gerar, and finally to
Beer Sheba.
>I'm wondering about the nature of these "famines" that
>the Patriarchs experienced. Was it the same as what we would call a
>"depression" since Abraham's great wealth appears to be gone? Or is there
>a spiritual element involved?
They do appear to be actual famines. Ramban does, however,
see much symbolism in the various wanderings of the
Patriarchs because of the famines, i.e. that they corresponded
to the exiles which the Israelites were to suffer in the
future (see Ramban in detail on 26:1).
>Finally, I keep wondering about the kashrut
>of that venison stew that Isaac loves so much; any comment?
Venison itself is kosher (provided, of course, it is
slaughtered correctly and _kashered_). The greater question
is on Abraham, who served his guests "butter and milk and
a calf" (milk and meat), which would appear to contradict
what was said about Abraham's strict observance of even
the "fences" of the Torah mentioned above. Upon closer
examination, though, one can see that there wasn't
necessarily a transgression here, in that the milk
products are mentioned first, possibly being served before
the meat, which is permissible.
>The comments: in literature, the appearance of twins is a common device
>for exposing two aspects of a single individual. There is something of
>both Esau and Jacob in each of us, and they clash. The Torah makes a
>powerful statement about which aspect to favor for the good of future
>generations.
Interesting point, but what message is there in Isaac favoring Esau?
>Also: the previous time two brothers fought, one killed the
>other. The generation of Esau and Jacob would appear to be morally advanced
>compared to the generation of Cain and Abel.
One motif I've noticed is that the younger brother (in both the
case of twins and non-twins) almost always seems to outshine the
older in the Torah. This is interesting, because there are many
privileges which apply only to the first-born male, which may
seem to put his younger siblings at a disadvantage. The message
appears to be that although life is indeed not "fair," the
circumstances of one's birth need not determine what he is able
to accomplish... our destiny is in our own hands -- with G-d's
help.
Jem
|
| 989.88 | Vayetze: Padan Estates (R. Riskin) | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Fri Nov 15 1991 00:08 | 138 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Vayetze by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- The Passover Haggadah brings Jewish
history into sharp focus especially in terms of exile and
redemption, persecution and freedom. And since the tale centers
around the escape of slaves from Egypt, it would be reasonable
to expect that the villain of the story should be Pharaoh.
Amazingly, however, the text mutes the evil of Pharaoh in
comparison to Laban the Aramean, Jacob's father-in-law claiming
that Pharaoh only endangered the males, whereas Laban attempted
to uproot Judaism entirely. But in turning to this week's
portion, Vayetze, Laban may not be the most generous of men, but
ultimately he did give asylum to his nephew. On the run, Jacob
needs refuge. Laban opens his house, gives him his daughters,
and in the end his flocks are the means by which Jacob becomes a
wealthy man. Perhaps Laban is not a tzaddik, but what makes him
the personification of evil?
We all know the story of Jacob. Rejected by his father,
loved by his mother, He is persuaded by Rebecca to deceive
Isaac and "steal" the blessing from his brother Esau. And who
proves to be Jacob's nemesis on his journey away from his past?
A man whose very essence is deception. Laban is Jacob's mirror
image, the picture of what and whom he is beginning to become.
When Laban deceives Jacob by giving him the elder daughter
instead of the younger, he is demonstrating to his nephew what
Isaac must have experienced when his younger son pretended to be
the elder!
And slowly but surely, Jacob becomes more and more like
Laban. He learned first from his mother and then from his
mother's brother to move far afield from Abraham's charge "to
his children and his household after him...to do righteousness
and justice (Genesis 18:19)", far afield from the wholehearted
and naive dweller in tents (ibid. 25: 27)". Indeed, Jacob's life
moves in the direction of many newlyweds. He joins his father-in
law's business, he adopts his father-in law's style; life is
prosperous and comfortable, and Jacob's too busy to think about
the life he left behind in Canaan. But one day, miracle of
miracles, barren Rachel finally gives birth. And now Jacob says
to Laban, "Let me leave. I would like to go home to my own land.
Let me have my wives and children since I have earned them
...You are well aware of the service I have rendered you." [Gen.
30:25]
What has caused this change in Jacob? With the birth of
Joseph, his memories return, pangs of conscience. The beloved
son of his beloved wife cannot be raised amongst the likes of
Laban and his sons, scoundrels and liars. He knew it all along,
but he pushed it into the back recesses of his mind; Joseph
brings it to the forefront. But for now, Joseph is young, and
Jacob's decision is fraught with his own hesitations. Indeed,
it could even be seen as a ploy of a disgruntled employee to
receive higher wages by threatening to quit.
And Laban is willing to be negotiated into a new salary
arrangement because he does not want to lose his executive
vice-president. And so Jacob comes up with a plan to take only
second rate goods (streaked and spotted flocks). Laban thinks he
will have the upper hand, and even before the day was out, he
already removed the streaked flocks and gave them to his own
sons. But Laban's deception is countered with a step by step
description of a "magical" formula initially planned and now
implemented by Jacob to change the physical look of the flocks.
Behold, as time passes, each new mating of the animals produces
sheep and goats which are speckled and streaked. Jacob becomes
wealthy, virtually the entire flock reverting to him. And so one
more time he stands at a crossroads. His initial desire to leave
created a situation where he has outLabaned Laban, deceived the
deceiver: he can now genetically alter the look of a flock. If
he wants to, he can become the wealthiest man in Padan Aram. Yet
the memories of Canaan are stronger. And when the Jacob who
formerly dreamt of ladders linking heaven and earth now dreams
of spotted and speckled calves, G-d himself tells Jacob: I see
what Laban has done to you "Go back to your birthplace in the
land of your fathers. I will be with you. " [Gen. 31: 3,2] Jacob
has nothing left for him here. He must return. And this time his
decision to return is serious because instead of asking Laban
for his wives, he consults them, informs them of his plans, and
explains why he must leave.
The battle between Jacob and Laban is not just over
sheep and goats, but it's a war between two approaches to life:
--the ethical monotheism of Abraham and Isaac, versus the materialisti
deceptive world of Laban.
Ultimately the two cultures cannot live together. A
permanent separation must be made. But a tragic casualty must be
left behind. Rachel's death comes to signify that if Jacob
thought he could simply walk away from twenty years of learning
the code of Laban without suffering any consequences, he is
proven wrong. His wife and Laban's daughter, unbeknownst to him,
has stolen the household gods, ancient symbol of the familial
blessing. And although she may have been justified, although her
husband is most deserving of being her father's heir given his
work and involvement, deception must now be punished, deception
must not return to Canaan...
But Laban still refuses to give up. He insists upon a
treaty between himself and Jacob, a meeting of minds, a
synthesis of cultures. Why shouldn't their families, their
worlds, be one, linked together forever. Laban calls the site
Yegar Sahaduta, an Aramaic word, but Jacob calls it Galaid, a
Hebrew word (Genesis 31:47). Laban's oath at this mound of
stones evokes the G-d of Abraham, but he also includes the god
of Nahor, the civilization and culture from which Abraham fled.
But Jacob swears only by the Dread of Isaac, the seed of Abraham
and not the seed of Nahor-establishing distance and
individuality.
This treaty is Laban's final effort to get Jacob back
into the fold of his world. The language they swear by clearly
expresses the split between them. Laban fails in his effort to
assimilate Jacob and having torn away from his influence, Jacob
is finally ready to wrestle the angel and exorcize the foreign
influence within him. Only after he is victorious is his name
changed to Israel. It was a close call. Anywhere along the line,
Jacob could have given up, learned to live with Laban and make
his peace in Padan Aram. If he had, it would have been the end
of the line of Abraham and Isaac. There would be no nation of
Israel. And if there had been no nation of Israel, whom would
Moses have taken from exile? Pharaoh wanted to destroy all male
children, but if Laban's world of deception, comfortable wealth
and lots of livestock, had trapped Jacob into ignoring the call
back to land of his forefathers, Jewish History and destiny
would have ended almost before it began. Laban is thus symbolic
of a danger that faces the Jewish people every time they prosper
in foreign lands and learn the ways of that culture even better
than the natives . And it is precisely what happens to all the
modern Jacobs who've abandoned the tents of Shem in the land of
their ancestors for the estates of Laban in foreign shores.
Shabbat Shalom
|
| 989.89 | One simple thought... | SHALOT::NICODEM | Who told you I'm paranoid???
| Fri Nov 15 1991 17:06 | 32 |
| 989.90 | Something to think about... | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Fri Nov 15 1991 22:01 | 149 |
|
Re: .86
>>Indeed, one of the strongest
>>arguments for the divine authority of the Torah is that even the
>>stains and scars get equal time
>
>Other religions of about the same time have severely flawed heros, so
>why not ours? One would not deduce that the Greek myths
>are true just because they paint an unflattering picture of the
>forefathers of the authors of tellers of the myths.
I think Rabbi Riskin may have overstated his case in saying
this is one of the "strongest arguments..." However, comparing
the patriarchs to Zeus and Hera et al is not level playing
ground.
The Greek gods were never meant to be role models for the Greek
population; therefore the in-fighting amongst the gods was
not of paramount importance. What Hellenic society did worship
was physical beauty and power, in *these* the gods were indeed
without flaw.
Comparing (lehavdil - what an oxymoron!) Judaism to say,
Christianity on the other hand, the point becomes more
clearly focused. That is, if the founder of Christianity
is indeed divine, he'd better not be found making mistakes.
Even Paul is depicted as untainted, at least after his
acceptance of Jesus. Certainly, no prominent role is given
to the flaws of the Christian Bible's protagonists.
The Torah's message is diametrically opposite. We are not
being told, G-d forbid, to *worship* any of the founders
of our faith, or that any of them were anything but mortals
who may well have sinned, or at least made mistakes. This
fact makes Judaism a much more intricate and difficult religion
to understand, much less follow -- not everything is cut and
dried... just like life.
What we do know is that *on balance*, the patriarchs were very
*good* people, who overcame adversity, made tough decisions,
and stuck to their principals despite possible occasional
lapses. What a coincidence! Every living human being has, and
will continue to be guilty of backsliding. But if your role
models are "perfect," you may feel there is no reason to
ever try again -- you blew it! The intelligent Jew, on the
other hand, realizes that there are mechanisms built in to
_halacha_ to deal with both unintentional and even premeditated
transgressions. (My purpose here is not to attack Christianity
or Greek mythology, but to state my understanding of Judaism's
attitude vis-a-vis sin.)
>While the Torah as we have it is consistent with the hypothesis of
>a single author dictating to a single writer (with very clever midrash
>explaining the apparent inconsistencies), it is also consistent with
>the hypothesis that a redactor put together several manuscripts
>(composed by E, J, P, and D) that were at odds with each other on
>several points.
But you've just given the best argument *against* "redaction." I
think you would have to agree that whoever did "edit" the Torah
was hoping to portray it as divine; if not why would anybody
submit themselves to the myriad rules and regulations? If so,
why wouldn't he simply have deleted all the offending passages,
the "inconsistent," as well as the unflattering ones. Was he
careless or stupid?
The "codes" which have been discovered in the text of the Torah
may not prove that the Torah is divine, but they certainly do
demonstrate that the author was neither careless nor stupid...
in fact they *do* prove that the text has at least been transmitted
to us faithfully. (For those who are not familiar
with the "codes," pick up a Hebrew _Chumash_. Starting from the
_tav_ of the first word, Bereshit, count 49 letters. The 50th
letter is a _vav_. Continue this pattern and you will find the
word "Torah" spelled encoded several times. The same pattern is
found in the second book, _Shemot_. In the last two books, the
pattern is reversed [possibly to show that these *are* the last
two books, and that none others can ever be added]. In the middle
book, Vayikra, the four-letter Name of G-d (tetragrammaton) appears
in intervals of seven letters. There are several recent books on
the topic of the Torah's codes.)
There are several cases where the Torah and the Talmud do appear
to be careless, though. For example, the Mishna (Nid. 6:9),
commenting on the verse (Lev. 11:9), "You may eat any creature
that lives in the water, both in seas and rivers, as long as
it has fins and scales," says the following:
Whatsoever has scales has fins; but (a fish) may have
fins with no scales.
How utterly irresponsible! Not only will Jews transgress
needlessly when a fish is found which has scales and no
fins, but the very veracity of the Torah will be brought into
question -- for no reason! "Seas and rivers" encompasses a fairly
large domain; had the Sages checked on every species
from the Mediterranean to Madagascar, from Haifa to Hong Kong?
How about the reckless _mitzva_ of _aliya laregel_:
Three times a year shall your males appear before G-d
in the place which He shall choose; in the Feast
of Matzot, in the Feast of Weeks and in the Feast of
Sukkot... (Deut 16:16)
Could such a custom be kept secret from Israel's enemies? Open
season on the Jews! The families, houses and fields were all
to be left utterly unprotected...
There are several other such examples of utterances and
precepts which could have been made only by an enemy,
a lunatic or by... divine inspiration.
>For example, consider that the text of the Binding of Isaac has the order
>to sacrifice Isaac issued by Elohim and rescinded by a messenger from
>YHWH. One can explain this by saying that there were two different
>manuscripts, and the redactor used the E author for the first part
>(which some think originally resulted in the killing of Isaac), and
>the J author for the second part.
And what exactly is the lesson for us in this fairytale? It's
certainly a lot easier to think of each name of G-d as referring to
another being than to actually research the occurrences of the
names in search of context and meaning... but perhaps we're not
always supposed to choose the easy way out. What, BTW, do you make
of the following obscure verse:
Hear O Israel, Hashem *Elokainu*, Hashem is one.
(Hear O Israel, the L-rd our G-d, the L-rd is one.)
Is the author of this statement lying, or did the redactor
overlook this minor passage, which clearly states that
*Hashem* and *Elokim* are one and the same. Or does the
three-fold reference to G-d imply the existence of a trinity
(as some, believe it or not, say)?
If the Torah were, in fact, a hodgepodge of fairytales, there
were be no reason on earth to consider sacrificing a ripped shoelace
for its observance, much less our very lives. The question
then becomes simple: is it a fairytale or not? I think all
sincere truth-seekers have an obligation to study the facts
(and especially the recent discoveries and research) before
answering that question.
Jem
|
| 989.91 | I think you underestimate the "editor" | MINAR::BISHOP | | Fri Nov 15 1991 22:53 | 27 |
| re .90
Greek gods:
The Greek gods weren't all physically perfect: the blacksmith
god Hesphaestus (Roman Vulcan) was lame, for example. They
weren't all powerful either. The Greeks seemed to reguard
gods as merely the top end of a continium, so that an extrodinary
man (a hero) might become a minor god. Hercules is an example
of this promotion.
Redactor theories:
An editor who believed that the source documents were holy would
leave in inconsistencies--it's not a requirement of the "redactor"
theories that the editor not be a believer.
Imagine you have ten old, worn documents, each of which you know
to be a hand-made copy of a copy of a copy (etc.) of an original
document you believe to be holy. Your job is to remove errors
introduced by the copying without leaving out any of the holy
source.
What do you do? Well, you'd be very cautious about removing any
text at all, or changing idiosyncratic spellings, wouldn't you?
-John Bishop
|
| 989.92 | More than a target | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Fri Nov 15 1991 23:00 | 41 |
|
Re: .89
>What I mean is
>that God has never *expected* man to be ABLE to obey it fully.) It is the
>epitome, the _sine qua non_, the "target" to shoot for, so to speak.
The Torah was given for human beings to observe, not angels. However,
even if one transgresses a commandment, this does *not* mean that
he can never again be said to have fulfilled the entire Torah.
On the contrary, the Torah *itself* specifies how penitence is to be
performed, and once done, the transgression is effectively
erased. For example, the antidote for stealing is simply to return
the item stolen (Lev. 5:23).
Is the person who never sinned greater than one who sinned
and then repented? "In a place where a penitent stands, even
a saint cannot stand," say our Sages many times. (This doesn't,
of course, mean that one can plan to sin and repent. About
this situation the Mishna (Yom. 88) says the "penitent" is not
"given the chance" to repent.)
>And since
>that very first occurrence -- where, I believe, God was again fully aware
>that the law being given (concerning the Tree of Knowledge) WOULD BE
>BROKEN-- the law has served one primary purpose: to show man his sinful
>nature,
The question of G-d's omniscience vs. man's free will is another
topic altogether. The fact is that Adam was not *forced* to eat
the fruit -- he could have resisted. The interpretation you offer
is much closer to a Christian one than a Jewish one.
Jem
|
| 989.93 | Fences vs Laws | SAINT::STCLAIR | | Sat Nov 16 1991 00:58 | 18 |
|
Please forgive this small lateral arabesque of thought. But could
someone help me understand a point here. There are the "laws" and there
are the "fences". If I understand a law it is a statment in Torah such
as "... not seeth a kid in its mothers milk." Here is a clear
admonition not to do a specific act. If I understand the seperation of
Milk and meat dishes it is based on this point and that all meat and
milk dishes are included to avoid even the appearance of breaking the
inital law.
The laws found in the torah are from G-d and not to be broken. Okay. The
"fences" are from men's reason do they carry the same weight exept by
tradition? What is the weight of a "fence" vs a "Law"?
Thanks in advance
/doug
|
| 989.94 | Some random thoughts | SHALOT::NICODEM | Who told you I'm paranoid???
| Mon Nov 18 1991 17:10 | 74 |
| 989.95 | | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Nov 19 1991 02:48 | 129 |
| Re: .91
> The Greek gods weren't all physically perfect: the blacksmith
> god Hesphaestus (Roman Vulcan) was lame, for example. They
> weren't all powerful either. The Greeks seemed to reguard
> gods as merely the top end of a continium, so that an extrodinary
> man (a hero) might become a minor god. Hercules is an example
> of this promotion.
>
I over-generalized. The point I was trying to make was that
in the Jewish view, there is only *one* perfect Being, whereas
in Greek mythology, there *exist* multiple gods who are portrayed
as at least physically perfect.
> Redactor theories:
>
> An editor who believed that the source documents were holy would
> leave in inconsistencies--it's not a requirement of the "redactor"
> theories that the editor not be a believer.
>
> Imagine you have ten old, worn documents, each of which you know
> to be a hand-made copy of a copy of a copy (etc.) of an original
> document you believe to be holy. Your job is to remove errors
> introduced by the copying without leaving out any of the holy
> source.
>
> What do you do? Well, you'd be very cautious about removing any
> text at all, or changing idiosyncratic spellings, wouldn't you?
Interesting theory, but flawed. For example, a previous note made
reference to the names "Hashem" ("the Name" [tetragrammaton], pronounced
only by the High Priest once a year), and "Elokim," which are used
interchangeably throughout the Hebrew Bible. The "redactor" theorists
surmised that these were actually references to two distinct "editors."
The ludicrousness of this conclusion is apparent to even a six-year-old
yeshiva student -- the names "Hashem" and "Elokim" are used *together*
(i.e., Hashem Elokim or Hashem Elokaichem) dozens of times in Genesis
alone! The "theorists" counter that the redactor is responsible for
these "quirks" -- he *changed the text* (possibly [to their thinking]
to make the two "authors" appear as one and to lend an air of homogeneity
to the text). See "Additional notes to Genesis" in the Hertz Chumash for
a more complete discussion of this topic.
Re: .93
> someone help me understand a point here. There are the "laws" and there
> are the "fences". If I understand a law it is a statment in Torah such
> as "... not seeth a kid in its mothers milk." Here is a clear
> admonition not to do a specific act. If I understand the seperation of
> Milk and meat dishes it is based on this point and that all meat and
> milk dishes are included to avoid even the appearance of breaking the
> inital law.
> The laws found in the torah are from G-d and not to be broken. Okay. The
> "fences" are from men's reason do they carry the same weight exept by
> tradition? What is the weight of a "fence" vs a "Law"?
This question is discussed in note 957.5. Let me know if further
clarification is needed.
Re: .94
> Not true at all. Paul described himself "of all men, most miserable"
>because of his own perception of his sinful nature. Several times he stated
>"that which I would, I do not; and that which I would not, I do", indicating
>that he was constantly in a battle against wrongdoing.
We can continue this discussion off-line; I should have confined
my comments to Jesus himself, who is indeed commonly depicted
as never having sinned. The Jewish patriarchs, lehavdil, are
never portrayed as anything other than mortal and subject to human error.
> I'm not sure I see the "diametric opposition". Since God walked with
>Adam, since Moses came down from Sinai, there has been one predominant theme
>throughout the entire Judaio-Christian faith: "I am the Lord your God, who
>brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery; you shall have no other
>gods before me." I can think of no other "founder of the faith" who carried
>any other message. And it is only when others *do* begin to subtly intertwine
>messages of their own, being to "worship" other (faulty) human beings, that we
>begin to see the sects and cults that so destroy that simple message.
Again, this discussion may better be continued off-line. Suffice it to
say, I believe the phrase "Judeo-Christianity faith" to be an inherent
contradiction in terms.
> That's how I view God's message: "My purpose in creating you (mankind)
>was for our mutual pleasure and relationship. I cannot, however, abide sin. I
>am a just God -- thereby demanding punishment/atonement for that sin; but I am
>a merciful God -- and will tell you how you may atone for your transgressions."
No major disagreement here. "Mutual pleasure and relationship," though,
is a rather broad and ambiguous phrase.
>But rather than focus on those others, I'd prefer to
>emphasize what, for each of us, is perhaps the most important part of your
>statement -- that *regardless* of how sinful or depraved we are, regardless of
>the "level" of our sin (and my own belief is that, to God, sin is sin; there
>are not "little sins" and "big sins" -- kind of like being "sort of pregnant")
>-- God loves us enough to forgive us of our sins. But the choice is ours.
But the role models (*including* contemporary ones) are of utmost
importance in the Jewish view. The Sages go so far as to interpret
the precept "and cleave unto Him" as referring to living and learning
in the proximity of Torah-scholars -- who are thought of as walking
Torah-scrolls. Judaism is first and foremost a *community* religion -
one in which the mutual influence of its adherents is paramount. It
is literally impossible to observe Judaism's tenets by
merely studying the written Word without a living tradition of how
the commandments are observed.
As to "big" and "little" sins, it's true that we are enjoined to
"be careful about both 'light' and 'heavy' precepts - for we know
not the reward attached to the commandments." But there are many
chapters in the Talmud devoted to discussing the particular
rewards and punishments associated with each of the _mitzvot_.
That is, we don't "pick and choose" precepts based on our own
preferences and desires. But there are times when conflicts
*between _mitzvot_ themselves* arise, and we must therefore
know which takes precedence.
Jem
|
| 989.96 | Vayishlach: Will the Real Patriarch... | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Nov 19 1991 03:02 | 142 |
|
Efrat, Israel -- Abraham! Isaac! Jacob! Each name evokes
a majestic quality, mythic, larger than life although rooted in
the very fabric of life itself. They are so much a part of our
consciousness that it's hard to imagine what our in ner lives
would be like if we didn't have these forefathers as the
backbone of our history. But which patriarch is the most important?
At first glance the patriarch of choice is Abraham. After all,
Abraham is the revolutionary who stands at the very center of
Judaism, the beginning of it all. Or is it Isaac, the patriarch
who never leaves Israel, epitomizing commitment to the land from
birth to death. But in actuality it's Jacob whom the Midrash
calls the chosen of the patriarchs. And the reason is simply
that although Abraham may be the founder of the family, Jacob is
the founder of the nation. It's Jacob whose twelve sons become
the twelve tribes. Abraham and Isaac both have sons who break
away from the Jewish people. But not Jacob's children; the
father of such a family is certainly special. But of all the
recorded events of his life, which stands at the heart of his
being? In effect, is there a single act which gives rise to
Israel, progenitor of the 12 tribes?
Abraham is the first Jew, but G-d's command to leave his
father's house, and set out for a land which G-d will show him
is something an Abraham could do but once in history. His
descendants already know the story; only a convert can have the
Abrahamic experience. Isaac is the essence of survival, silently
accepting the fate of being brought to Mt. Moriah, and thus he
becomes the patriarch whose own history mirrors the broken
suffering of the Jewish people throughout their long exile. From
this perspective Isaac is acted upon; he never quite takes
destiny in his own hands. But Jacob is the Jew who lives much of
his life in exile, and in the end returns to Israel, the land of
his forefathers. And it is this act of return which makes Jacob
the Jew for all time.
All we have to do is take a look at modern Jewry, and
note the similarities between the temptations of Jacob and the
temptations of our generation, or any generation which stands at
the threshold of return and holds back.
Uncle Laban may be compared to Uncle Sam, and Jacob
lived in the land of Laban. Although he struggled at the
beginning, arriving penniless and on the run, by the end he did
well for himself, with twenty years of hard work reaping their
material rewards of a large family, plentiful live stock and
household servants. Jacob had become a man to contend with. And
in this sense he resembles the classic Horatio Alger tale of the
poor boy from the Bronx who ends up reaping a fortune. Is it any
wonder that he finds it very hard to give up his Riverdale house
and private gardens for the uncertainty of a life in Israel.
The parallel between our day and Jacob's day is even
more striking when we realize that what awaits Jacob on his
return is a war with Esau. Esau wants to kill Jacob for having
usurped his blessing. Jacob understands that returning to Israel
means atoning for his act of deception and presenting his
financial bounty to the brother from whom he usurped it, in a
manner of speaking.
Hence everything was stacked against his return. It
would have been far easier, financially, physically,
emotionally, just to stay in the land of Laban, and not risk the
rage of Esau.
But Jacob returns. At the beginning of this week's
portion Vayislach, we find Jacob preparing to assuage his
brothers' hatred. He instructs the following message to be
delivered. "To my lord Esau. Your humble servant Jacob says: I
have been staying with Laban....I have acquired cattle, donkeys,
sheep, slaves and slave girls." [Gen. 32:4]
Jacob wants peace and hints at his willingness to pay
for it. The messengers bring back word that an army of 400 men
accompany Esau, and although Jacob is very frightened, he does
not retreat. Nor does he give up his attempt to win favor in
Esau's eyes. But this time when he prepares the gift, he adds
... " Hopefully he will forgive me," [32:21] using the Hebrew
'chapara,' a word which means atonement or penance. Indeed, the
gift to Esau is called a 'mincha,' a name of one of the
sacrifices. What Jacob 'stole' from his brother was the
'bracha,' and we have to distinguish between a bracha --physical
blessing-- and the bchorah --the birthright, the leadership of
the Jewish people, the spiritual and historical direction of
Jewish destiny. What Esau was interested in -and what Jacob
deceived him out of- was this blessing, and the younger brother
undertands his obligation to the older. Importunes Jacob: "Take,
I pray, my gift [birchati] that is being brought to you because
G-d has dealt graciously with me...and he took it." [33:11] The
word birchati in this context is translated as gift, but the
literal meaning is blessing. Jacob makes it clear that he wants
to return the blessing. Having done so, a rapprochement can be
effectuated, and the brothers can live in peace.
What we've just discussed charts the course of Jacob's
return, but why does he return? Returning to Israel means
uprooting his family, divesting himself of material security and
placing his life and the lives of his loved ones at risk.
And yet family is precisely the reason why. More
specifically, the awakening begins, the murmuring in the heart,
the longing for return, when his beloved son Joseph is born. It
takes a while to put his stirred emotions into action. Until
then Jacob was under the influence of Laban. He too had become a
man who lived for the present who enjoyed the material comforts
of Laban's environment. The promise to Abraham that G-d will
make him a great nation who will bring blessing to the world is
a promise rooted in a future which seemed too distant to make a
real difference. And from Jacob's point of view of what value
has the future if his beloved Rachel is barren. But with the
opening of Rachel's womb and the birth of Joseph, the old dream
returns. Living for the present, mastering the art of deception
as practiced by Laban, does not bode well for a man who has just
become the father of Joseph and must consider his future. Now
Jacob must shake off the lethargy of habit induced by wealth and
reassign his priorities. Who is he and where is he going? Wasn't
he born to direct a nation, to forge a birth-right? What will
happen to Joseph if he stays behind, and gives up on the legacy
he received from his own father and grandfather?
There are many ways to understand the significance of
Jacob wrestling the stranger, and one approach is that Jacob was
wrestling with the part of his own being which would have found
it easier to stay behind, reaping the physical rewards of
Laban's diaspora. Night is after all the symbol of exile -and
they wrestled all night. The Ramban notes that the part of his
body where Jacob was wounded is the groin, the genitals, the
spot where oaths were taken which would impact on the destiny of
the Jewish people. If Jacob had remained with Laban, he may have
enjoyed a comfortable present but he would have forfeited his
future, his children. We are called the children of Israel, the
name given to him by the stranger, because more than any other
patriach, we are Jacob's children. We are the result of his
victory over himself, of his return to the Land and the legacy
of his fathers. Because of his courage, we entered history.
Shabbat Shalom.
|
| 989.97 | The generations of Esau | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Fri Nov 22 1991 20:33 | 10 |
| This portion ends with a laborious enumeration of the descendants of Esau.
Among the names listed is the infamous Amalek. The rest mean nothing to me.
Is there an explanation for all the repetition in this enumeration?
I noticed that Esau is twice (in close succession) defined as Edom; wouldn't
once be sufficient? Also, many (or most? or all?) of the descendants are
listed first as sons of so-and-so, then relisted with some royal title;
why all the redundancy? Finally, are any of these people particularly
significant?
Dave
|
| 989.98 | Vayeshev/Chanukah: The Joseph/Judah Schism | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Nov 27 1991 00:48 | 168 |
|
I don't have much time now, but I wanted to make sure everyone
would have some divrei Torah for their Thanksgiving tables
(what else is there to talk about?)
Enjoy!
Shabbat Shalom: Vayeshev by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- When siblings are engaged in conflict in the
Torah, it may superficially be an issue of honor or inheritance,
but we can rest assured that the struggle has far more profound
significance. And nowhere is this truer than in this week's
portion, Vayeshev, where the sibling rivalry between Joseph and
his brothers overshadows in intensity and passion all earlier
sibling struggles in the Bible. From now until the end of
Genesis, all events including the sojourn in Egypt, which
brings about the eternal Jewish drama of enslavement and
freedom, emerges directly from this sibling struggle.
On one side of the conflict we have Joseph, the beloved
of his father, dreamer of dreams; opposite him stand the ten
brothers, and of the ten it's Judah more than any of the others
whom the Torah pivots against Joseph. Joseph is the younger son,
favored above all others, presented by his father with the coat
of many colors. And lest you think that the older brother Judah
sells Joseph into slavery merely because of momentary jealousy,
remember that in subsequent Jewish history the bitter rivalry
will continue between the "Kingdom of Judah" and the "Kingdom of
Joseph", or his son Efraim.
So what exactly is signified by the struggle between
Joseph and Judah, and which profound philosophical and
ideological truths does it express beyond the matter of the coat
of many colors?
In his work _Five Discourses_, Rav Joseph B. Soloveichik
addresses this subject and I'd like to expand on some of the
ideas presented by the Rav, my great teacher and mentor.
To understand Joseph, we must go to his first dream.
"For behold we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo my
sheaf arose, and also stood upright; and behold, your sheaves
came round about, and bowed to my sheaf...." [Gen. 37:7]
What's important here is not only the dream's message
that all the brothers shall end up obedient to the youngest
brother, but the very use of sheaves themselves. If we look at
civilization as a process moving from the stage of hunting, to
shepherding, to farming, to industry, sheaves of grain represent
a departure from the world of Joseph's fathers, who were shepherds,to
the more advanced world of Egyptian society, a culture of
farmers. From his dream it emerges that Joseph yearns to leave
behind his ancestral world of shepherding, work which gives you
time to think, and trade it in for the more sophisticated
agrarian Egypt. And Joseph doesn't stop there. In his next
dream, the sheaves become stars, moons, suns. Joseph is dreaming
of the cosmos, a long way off from a shepherd's rock in the
shade. His coat of many colors is truly cut from a different
cloth. The language of his dreams implies that he will travel
far from his family's embrace into a very wide arena indeed.
Perhaps he senses a coming famine, a necessity to leave Canaan
if only temporarily. But certainly he dreams universal dreams,
and although only seventeen years old he sees that his star is
destined to sweep across history and change the course of
universal events.
In contrast, Judah represents the brother who never even
dreams of leaving the home front or wandering too far from his
father's sight. In fact, his father Jacob sends Judah "to direct
his way to Goshen (Genesis 46:2 8), which our sages interpret to
mean "to establish a Yeshiva in Egypt so that Jacob will feel
more comfortable there."
On Sunday we light the first candle of the festival of
Chanuka, which happens to be the first festival since Sukkot. If
we use the Joseph/Judah schism, we can diagram the festivals in
a way which reveals that they represent two extremes of the
Jewish experience. Sukkot is the universalistic festival,
Joseph's dream of the cosmos, the festival of the four species,
a time when we move out of our homes to live inside a hut whose
roof is covered with vegetation through which we are enjoined to
glimpse the sun, moon, and stars. Every gesture of Sukkot leans
toward the universalistic; a thanksgiving for nature (four
species-sheaves) leaving the limitations of home and reaching
out toward the heavens. Chanuka, on the other hand, represents
an event of national, historical significance, centered around
the threat to basic Jewish religious existence by the
Greek-Syrian attempt to forbid such basic practices as
circumcision and the Sabbath, and to substitute the
particularistic Judea for the universal Hellenism. Just as the
miracle focuses on the discovery of a solitary jar of pure olive
oil uncontaminated by the Greek-Syrians, so too the Jews want to
retain their authenticity, their purity, few in number perhaps
but with a total commitment to traditional Jewish survival
without sacrificing religious principles. The Macabeean leader,
after all, is also called Judah.
In plain terms, the Jews of Chanukah, these sons of
Judah, are those who are more inward, while the Jews of Sukkot,
the sons of Joseph, seem far more open to the world a round
them. Sefardic Jewry, with a tradition of Torah giants who
served as ministers, doctors and financial advisors to kings,
would seem to be in the Josephic line; while Ashkenazic Jewry,
the Baalei Tosfot who looked askance at the cultures they found
themselves in, would seem to be more in tune with Judah's
spirit.
But which of these streams, the inward Judah or the
outward Joseph, represents authentic Jewry?
I believe Judaism teaches that we need both, a working
synthesis between the two. After all, the calendar contains both
festivals, Sukkot and Chanukah. Furthermore, Judaism embraces
the idea of two messiahs, one from the line of Joseph, and one
from the line of Judah (the house of David) because Judaism
acknowledges both aspects of existence, the inner need to
remain rooted in one's traditions and texts, but at the same
time we have a burning urgency to reach toward the stars, to
dream Joseph's dreams, to redeem not only Israel but the entire
world.
We even find in this week's portion an amazing contrast
between Joseph and Judah. Each Biblical giant must undergo a
sexual test. Coming upon a prostitute on the road, Judah wants
to go to her, not knowing that she is his own daughter-in-law.
In the end he makes her pregnant. Immediately after this
account, we read of Joseph's experience with the wife of Potiphar.
He successfully resists temptation, even though his struggle to
remain faithful to his G-d and to his employer is rewarded with
prison. Judah fails, Joseph succeeds. And this is the surprise.
Joseph, the son who survives in the world outside, is the one
who is sexually strict, and morally irreproachable. I think the
Torah is telling us that if we choose the Joseph path, we have
to be very strong and must be able to master our desires
completely; we must be as strong as a raging bull, if necessary,
to fight off temptation. And this image of the ox is precisely
how Joseph is blessed in Deuteronomy. "His glory is like a
first-born ox, and his horns are the horns of aurochs..." [Deut.
33:17] Without this kind of strength, getting involved with
Egyptian commerce and culture and industry is dangerous. A
universal dream needs the strength of the particular. Following
the path of Joseph , requires true commitment, and not inner
compromises. If a Jew in Meah Shearim falls, he can more easily
rebound because there is a net underneath him, the net being
the society which watches every one of his moves and cushions
his drop. But if a Jew like Joseph falls, then there's danger.
Joseph Jews travel the world without nets, and a fall can mean
broken bones, and even death. Cosmic dreams mean no nets.
There's the danger as well as the triumph. The openness of
Joseph demands the commitment of Judah; only someone with
intense ego-strength can withstand the blandishments of an
open-ended society.
Shabbat Shalom and Happy Chanukah
|
| 989.99 | Miketz/Chanukah: Mai Nes? (R. Riskin) | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Dec 03 1991 23:16 | 127 |
| Shabbat Shalom:Chanukah (Miketz)
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- What is a miracle? Most
people would answer that a miracle is a supernatural occurrence,
an event which defies the anticipated course of nature and histo-
ry, but a closer look at the linguistics of the Hebrew would re-
veal a very different -and more rational- definition of the con-
cept.
In English, the word 'banner' or 'flag' have absolutely
nothing to do with the word 'miracle,' but in Hebrew, as
Maimonides points out in The Guide to the Perplexed, 'nes' can be
all three, miracle, flag, banner. This linguistic window allows
us to penetate into a concept of the miraculous which takes us
beyond the notion defining miracles as events which contradict
scientific laws and are therefore believed to be supernatural. As
the theologian Paul Tillich elucidates, a flag or banner is a
symbol which points beyond itself to a place or ideal far greater
than itself; the flag of the United States or of Israel, for ex-
ample, becomes identified with the country it represents, and
proper respect for the flag of Israel denotes proper respect for
the State of Israel. Hence a miracle is any phenomenon which
points toward G-d, a natural or human phenomenon which in effect
helps bring about G-d's design in the world, and helps ordinary
mortals become more acutely aware of the Divine role in the
universe.
Based on this idea, we can answer two important ques-
tions concerning Chanukah, and two important questions concerning
Joseph and his brothers, about whose adventures we always read
from the Bible during the period of Chanukah. This understanding
will also help us to see the hand of God in our own daily
lives.
In relating the story of how Joseph got to be sold by his
brothers into slavery, certainly one of the most momentous events
in his life, and what will ultimately lead to the drama of exile
and redemption for all of Israel, the Bible records the seemingly
unimportant incident that Joseph got lost on the way to his
checking after the well-being of his brothers, and a man, uniden-
tified in the text, gives him directions. The sequence seems un-
necessary because the Torah generally records only the most sig-
nificant events in the lives of its heroes so why should travel
directions rate inclusion into the text? Stranger still, Rashi
cites the Midrash that the individual who gave Joseph directions
was none other than the angel Gabriel. Why create a supernatural
occurrence?
Second, we know that the sin of the brothers selling
Joseph into slavery is one of the most heinous crimes of the Bi-
ble, reverberating through the pages of Jewish history as the
prototype for internal enmity within Israel, the ultimate source
of Jewish tragedy. Their sin x-rays right down to modern day
Jewry. And yet, the Bible teaches that much later when as Grand
Vizier Joseph finally reveals his true identity to his famine-
stricken brothers, he comforts them, saying: "Now don't worry or
feel guilty because you sold me. Look, G-d sent me ahead of you
to save lives....to insure that you survive in the land and to
keep you alive through such extraordinary means.[Gen 45:5-7]".
If Joseph is right, not only do we get a deterministic view of
history, in which man is only a thread in the web that G-d spins,
but we can hardly condemn the brothers for having sold Joseph?
After all, they only did what G-d had determined for them to do.
Should mere pawns pay the price of meta-historical punishments?
In a similar vein, we must ask two questions about Chanu-
kah. First,
isn't it odd that the very symbol of the festival, the candles we
light in memory of the miraculous undefiled cruse of oil which
had only been enough to burn for one day but burned for eight to
give time to manufacture more oil for the Temple Menorah, is not
added to the Amidah in honor of Chanukah, "al HaNissim" (on Ac-
count of the Miracles...). Only the military victory is men-
tioned?
Furthermore, Maimonides records in his laws of Chanukah,
Ch. 3, Law 2, that when the Maccabees entered the Temple on the
day that the battle ended, the 25th of Kislev, they found nothing
but one undefiled cruse. That night they lit the cruse and it
burned for eight days, a veritable miracle. Given these facts,
Rabbi Shlomo Kluger points out that the oil was obviously kindled
on the 26th of Kislev, the following day, so why do we start
lighting candles a day before on the 25th?
All our questions can
be answered in the spirit of what we already said about miracles,
Jewish style, where the object is the phenomenon, the banner that
points toward G-d. The man Joseph meets as he's lost in the
fields makes sure that he finds his brothers. If not for him,
Joseph would have returned home, and if he hadn't been sold to
the Egyptians, the whole subsequent history of the Israelites-
including the lessons of slavery and redemption- never would have
happened. Gabriel, the angel identified by Rashi, means 'man of
G-d' and Nahmanides interprets (ad loc) that anyone who helps to
bring about G-d's ultimate design is indeed an angel. Was the
anonymous directions giver a super-human being? Not at all neces-
sarily so. But was he a "man of G-d" since he helped effectuate
the Divine Plan? Absolutely!
Similarly, Joseph's brothers are
'banners'-- they ought recognize that that their actions led to
an evergrowing awareness of G-d's design in the world.Since
through their actions, the family of Jacob- and the civilized
world- were saved. But nevertheless their actions stain Jewish
history, and although the end result was positive, they must
still assume responsibility for their wrong doing.
Two miracles
reverberate in our experience of Chanukah: a military victory of
few against many, and a tiny cruse of undefiled oil which lasted
more than it was thought possible. The military victory
represents the human action, a decision to wage war and a stun-
ning upset on the battlefield. It is obvious that had the Judeans
not set out for battle, the cruse of oil would have never been
found. Indeed, the cruse symbolizes God's confirmation of the hu-
man activity. In effect, it was the Maccabees who brought about
the miracle by risking their lives in order to allow G-d's will
not to be forgotten. And now it's clear why Maimonides begins the
festival on the 25th of Kislev rather than on the 26th. The
Miracle begins with the human action of the military victory.
In
omitting reference to the oil, the Al HaNissim insertion likewise
teaches that whatever happens up in heaven, must first be ini-
tiated down here on earth. If we do our part, if we fight the
battles that have to be fought, dig the wells that must be dug,
meet the Pharaohs who must be met, then we set into action the
possibility of a cruse of oil burning and burning and burning un-
til the miracle becomes obvious to everyone. But miracles are in-
itiated by human beings- in order to enable the higher will of
the Almighty to become more manifest. Such a concept of miracles
places the responsibility squarely on us humans to do what has to
be done. It's not so much that G-d does the miracle for us as it
is we who must do the miracle for G-d. "And those who come to
purify, are aided from Above."
Shabbat Shalom and Happy Chanukah.
|
| 989.100 | And I thought I understood this portion... | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Thu Dec 05 1991 00:44 | 22 |
| I thought I understood this portion. G-d sets in motion the plan to redeem
Israel from Egypt and ultimately to give the Torah. At the same time (in
the digression concerning Judah) G-d has influenced the birth of David's
ancestor, and thus started the line of descent that will eventually lead
to the Messiah. Simple? Wrong!
This portion raises questions concerning the meaning of "free will" that
I can't begin to unravel.
If Joseph is so good and wise, why does he reveal his dreams to his family?
He should have known those dreams would make everyone mad at him. Why does
Jacob send Joseph out to check on his brothers? Doesn't he realize they are
mad enough to kill? There is also an eerie parallel with the sacrifice of
Isaac. In both cases the father puts the favorite son in a position to lose
his life and in both cases the son is saved by the appearance of a goat.
My rabbi pointed out that the word "refused" in the passage concerning how
Joseph rejects the advances of Potiphar's wife has the lengthiest trope in
the torah. If you chanted it in English it would come out "... and Joseph
refu-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-sed". I like that.
Dave
|
| 989.101 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Dec 05 1991 01:54 | 14 |
| >If Joseph is so good and wise, why does he reveal his dreams to his family?
He's described as a na'ar (youth). Like your typical 17-year-old, he's
impulsive.
> There is also an eerie parallel with the sacrifice of
>Isaac. In both cases the father puts the favorite son in a position to lose
>his life and in both cases the son is saved by the appearance of a goat.
With Yitzchak it was a ram, and really neither one was saved by the animal.
There is an interesting example of "mida k'neged mida" (as W.S. Gilbert
would say, "the punishment fits the crime"). Yaakov fooled his father
by wearing a goat's skin to get his blessing. His sons fooled him
by dipping Yosef's coat in goat's blood.
|
| 989.102 | Certainly not a simple decision... | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Fri Dec 06 1991 03:19 | 27 |
|
Re: .100
> Why does
>Jacob send Joseph out to check on his brothers? Doesn't he realize they are
>mad enough to kill?
Not only that, but Shechem (where the brothers were) was also "enemy"
territory, where Simon and Levy carried out their act of retribution,
and a wandering, lone son of Jacob would certainly have been in mortal
danger in that vicinity.
Seforno points out that if the end was merely to ascertain facts,
one of Jacob's servants would have served the purpose. But Jacob
wanted to make a man of Joseph, wanted him to - on his own - make
peace with his brothers. Joseph's reaction ("hineni" - "here I am"),
did demonstrate his courage in honoring his father's request without
question.
Another source (B.R. 84:13) indeed seems to have Jacob regretting his
request in retrospect, while at the same time admiring Joseph's fortitude
("...his bowels torn inside him, he said to Joseph, 'you knew that they
hated you and you still said 'here I am!.''.").
Jem
|
| 989.103 | Every Jot and Tittle...Full of Lessons | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Fri Dec 06 1991 21:40 | 47 |
|
Re: .97
>This portion ends with a laborious enumeration of the descendants of Esau.
>Among the names listed is the infamous Amalek. The rest mean nothing to me.
>Is there an explanation for all the repetition in this enumeration?
Here is the way your question is phrased in the Midrash (Tan.,
beginning of Vayeshev):
Did the Holy One, blessed be He, have nothing else to write
but "...duke of Timna" and "duke of Lotan?"
The Midrash goes on to point out that embedded in the text are some
striking inconsistencies. For instance, "And Timna was concubine to
Eliphaz, Esau's son" (36:12). But in Chron. 1,1:36, Timna is reported
to be the daughter of Eliphaz -- he married his daughter!
Verse 20 lists Lotan, Shoval, Tzivon and Ana as Seir's children.
But in verse 24, Ana is counted among Tzivon's sons, from which we
learn that Tzivon impregnated his mother, who bore Ana, making the
latter Tzivon's brother and son. Tzivon further impregnated his
daughter-in-law, Ana's wife, who gave birth to Ahalivama, who in v. 14
is described as Ana's daughter, *and* the daughter of Tzivon, Ahalivama
being Esau's wife.
All the gory details are therefore enumerated to demonstrate the degree
to which incest reigned in the House of Esau.
On the other hand, the Midrash points out that in actuality, relatively
little space is given to the generations of Esau and those of his ilk.
Here is the parable:
A king lost a diamond amongst muddy pebbles. He had to spend
time looking through the pebbles, but the object of his search
was the diamond, not the pebbles. Similarly, the first generations
are enumerated very quickly: Sheth, Enosh, Kenan, Mehahalel, Yered,
etc (Chron. 1,1). Likewise, the second generations, Shem, Arpachshad,
Shelach, etc. Anyone can read all the names very quickly - then
comes the story of Noah.
Likewise, the ten generations from Noah until Abraham are listed
very quickly. Finally the diamonds are reached -- Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob...
Jem
|
| 989.104 | Vayigash: Joseph, Benjamin and Jewish Destiny | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Sun Dec 08 1991 16:00 | 111 |
| Shabbat Shalom:Vayigash
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- One of the most moving moments
in the entire Torah is the reunion between the two brothers
Joseph and Benjamin as recorded in this week's portion Vayigash.
Other dramatic meetings are described such as, Jacob and Rachel,
Isaac and Rebecca, but nothing compares in poignancy to the scene
of these two brothers weeping in each others' arms after having
been separated for 22 years: "And Joseph fell on his brother
Benjamin's neck and wept, and Benjamin wept on his [Joseph's]
neck." [Gen. 45:14]
In a long chronicle of difficult brotherly relation-
ships --Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob,
Joseph and his brothers, a phenomenon which haunts virtually
every biblical generation from time immemorial-- we finally come
across two brothers who truly love each other. The only children
of Jacob's beloved Rachel, Joseph and Benjamin share the same
womb, something they share with no one else. When their mother
died in childbirth, we can assume that Joseph drew Benjamin close
to him, took him under his wing, protected him, and shared with
him these precious memories of what the mother he never knew had
been like. In an age before photographs and oil paintings,
Joseph's descriptions to Benjamin bonded them together like noth-
ing else could, and cemented a relationship that each could have
with no one else. Therefore their eventual separation must have
been painful and even traumatic. Later, during the long years of
his Egyptian exile, whenever Joseph would think back to his own
youth, and the beautiful mother who had died so young, his
thoughts were necessarily linked to Benjamin. And in his mind's
eye, as the years passed, he must have seen his younger brother
growing older, especially during the years in jail where he had
little but the past to which to retreat. Thus Benjamin came to
represent a more idyllic past, a period of relative comfort and
security, and so naturally his emotional longings were directed
toward this brother more than anyone else. Indeed Joseph may have
longed for Benjamin even more than for his own father, whose
favoritism he probably subconsciously blamed for his brothers'
enmity, only Benjamin totally uninvolved in family tension and
sibling rivalry was pure and beloved.
Even with all of this, why does the Torah record only the
weeping of the brothers at the dramatic moment of their
reunion, with each one crying on the other's neck. Where's the
joy, the elation, the celebration?
The Midrashic interpretation cited by the renowned com-
mentator Rashi only seems to intensify our question. Rashi, in
the tradition of "the events of the fathers foreshadow the
history of the children," explains the term as relating to the
future destruction of the two Temples allotted in the portion
of Benjamin, and to the destruction of the sanctuary in Shiloh
allotted in the portion of Joseph. And Rashi stresses that
Joseph's tears are for Benjamin's destruction, and Benjamin's for
Joseph's destruction.
Why should tears of the two brothers at the this mo-
ment be linked to such terrible events in the future? To under-
stand the significance of Rashi magnifying the tears of broth-
ers into tears of major destructions, we have to look again in
the Holy Zohar. The Zohar expresses the idea that of the
many sins in the Book of Genesis, two are major archetypes -- the
sin of the eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge,
which symbolizes rebellion against G-d, and the sin of the sell-
ing of Joseph by his brothers, which epitomizes the sins of
man against man, of brotherly enmity and internecine strife. Of
the two, the Zohar considers the latter more severe. Indeed, all
tragedies that will befall the Jewish people have their source in
the "DNA" of Joseph's being sold as a slave. This is the founda-
tion of causeless hatred between Jews. The Talmud
(B.T.Tr.Gitin 55b) in isolating the cause of the destruction
of the Temple, reports an almost mundane event, a party thrown
by a certain Kamtza, and when his avowed enemy who had been
inadvertently invited is told to leave, everything he does to
try to mollify the host is rejected. Thrown out and shamed,
the injured party, Bar Kamtza, takes revenge by going to the
Roman authorities. He lies in order to implicate the Jews in
crimes against the state, and the rest is history. Josephus
writes that even as the Romans were destroying the Temple, Jews
were still fighting amongst themselves. Down to this very
day, we find the Jewish people hopelessly split in enemy camps
politically and religiously, with one group cynically and
sometimes even hatefully attacking the other.
Thus it is the sin of causeless hatred, the crime of
brothers against brother Joseph, that can be said to be our
Temple's destruction and the Tragedy of Jewish exile with the sin
of the brother's sale of Joseph in the moving Eila Ezkera prayer.
Now Rashi's interpretation assumes profound signifi-
cance. In the midst of brotherly hatred, the love between Joseph
and Benjamin stands out as a shining example of what can and
must be! Rashi links their tears to the destruction of our sanct-
uary, the result of jealousy and enmity between Jew and Jew. And
so they each weep for the future- tragedies which will befall
their descendants. But although each brother shall be blessed
with a sanctuary on his allotted land, the brothers weep not for
themselves, but for the other. This act of selfless weeping,
this causeless love, becomes the only hope against the tragedies
implicit in the sale of Joseph into slavery. What can fix
that sin --and by implication the sins of all the causeless hat-
red between brothers and factions down the long road of
Jewish history-- is nothing less than a love in which the other
comes first. And it was the first Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rav
Avraham Yitzhak Hakohen Kook, who taught that if the Temples were
destroyed because of causeless hatred, the Temple will only be
rebuilt because of causeless love- exemplified by the tears of
Joseph and Benjamin.
Shabbat Shalom.
|
| 989.105 | Mixed marriages? | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Wed Dec 11 1991 19:57 | 6 |
| So far, I've noticed Judah took a Canaanite wife and Joseph accepted an
Egyptian wife (although in Joseph's case I don't see how he could turn down
Pharoh's offer). Why was it necessary for the 3 Patriarchs to seek wives
from Aram, but not for Joseph's generation?
Dave
|
| 989.106 | Some other questions | CRLVMS::SEIDMAN | | Thu Dec 12 1991 05:15 | 23 |
| There are a number of apparent anomolies in this week's text that could
serve as a basis for interesting divrei Torah:
What happens to Shimon, who is detained as a hostage on the first trip
of the brothers to Mitzraim?
After the brothers have purchased food on the second trip, Yosef has
their money returned and has his cup put into Binyamin's sack. Why, when
they are stopped, is only the stolen cup mentioned and the money
ignored?
What is so special about the cup, anyway? (The context suggests that
it is used in divination, but Yosef needed no props to interpret
dreams.)
If Yosef feels that his brothers were only fulfilling a divine plan
when they sold him (or allowed him to be sold) into slavery, why does
he need to test them? This also raises some interesting questions
about the meaning of free will. (Some of the same questions come up
when one asks if Pharoah was or was not free to let the Israelites go
prior to the tenth plague.)
Aaron
|
| 989.107 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Dec 12 1991 18:15 | 34 |
| re .105:
>So far, I've noticed Judah took a Canaanite wife and Joseph accepted an
>Egyptian wife (although in Joseph's case I don't see how he could turn down
>Pharoh's offer).
According to a midrash, Yosef's wife was actually the daughter of Dina and
Shchem. She had been banished to Egypt and adopted by PotiPhera. There's
another midrash that says that PotiPhera and Potifar are identical, and
that Potifar's wife's attempted seduction of Yosef was based upon her
misunderstanding of a prediction that she and Yosef would have common
descendents. I don't know how to reconcile these midrashim.
re .106:
> What happens to Shimon, who is detained as a hostage on the first trip
> of the brothers to Mitzraim?
He was released, and he ate with Yosef and the rest of the brothers.
> After the brothers have purchased food on the second trip, Yosef has
> their money returned and has his cup put into Binyamin's sack. Why, when
> they are stopped, is only the stolen cup mentioned and the money
> ignored?
The cup was a pretext to test the brothers' reaction to Binyamin's enslavement.
If the money had been an issue, they would all have been in trouble. Yosef
wanted to see if they would defend Binyamin.
> What is so special about the cup, anyway? (The context suggests that
> it is used in divination, but Yosef needed no props to interpret
> dreams.)
Yosef *pretended* to use the cup for divination.
|
| 989.108 | Healing the family | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Thu Dec 12 1991 18:19 | 21 |
| > If Yosef feels that his brothers were only fulfilling a divine plan
> when they sold him (or allowed him to be sold) into slavery, why does
> he need to test them?
One theme up to this point seems to be "sick families". Cain and Abel.
Abraham nearly "does in" Isaac (not to mention rejects Ishmael). Isaac
plays favorites with Esau while Rebecca does the same with Jacob. And
Jacob plays favorites with Joseph while most of the brothers gang up on
him.
Here, Joseph sets up a situation where his brothers can sell out Benjamin
just as they once sold out Joseph himself. But it doesn't happen;
the family has been healed. The ones that needed to know this were the
10 brothers. Now Joseph can say "Don't be afraid of me. You sold me out once
but you wouldn't do it again - you just proved it." It makes a great
climax to the whole book of Genesis.
Despite the divar jem posted concerning family disunity, I see the opposite
in this portion.
Dave
|
| 989.109 | Some clarification | CRLVMS::SEIDMAN | | Fri Dec 13 1991 23:04 | 22 |
| re .107
One oversight on my part; the text does say the Shimon was released.
I didn't make it clear, however, that I was not looking for
"historical" midrash. One can always find some commentator who has a
"completion" for a story, but that usually adds only a little insight to
the parasha. (I'm not criticizing your answer, Gerald, just clarifying
my question.)
The question that I ask every week is "What does this tell me that has
relevance to my life now?" One of the ways I go about it, is to look
for things that raise questions in my mind and then try to find answers
that go beyond completing the story.
For example, the *text* does not say that Yosef *pretended* to use the
cup for divination. Why does midrash say that, and what would be wrong
with assuming that he did, indeed, practice augery? What can this
story teach us about our dealings with our own people and (for those of
us who live in a predominantly non-Jewish world) our dealings with
others?
Aaron
|
| 989.110 | Vayechi: Do we REALLY want Mashiach now? (R. Riskin) | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Fri Dec 20 1991 18:45 | 168 |
| As usual lately, just enough time to "hit and run" with the
"Shabbat Shalom" dvar Torah. I hope to be able to look over
recent replies next week.
BTW, being in Israel, if even for only a few days, is a
truly exhilirating experience. Since my last 4-day trip
there 2 years ago, I hardly recognized the place. Along
lines of the following article, I firmly believe we are
in the era of "beitah" -- "*its* time" -- whether we're
ready or not.
Shabbat Shalom:Vayehi by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- One of the most decisive, divisive and
dynamic dialogues taking place in the Jewish world today is
whether or not we are living in the era of the "beginning of
the sprouting of redemption" -and, if so, how that impacts upon
Israel's national, political policies and decisions. On the one
hand, certain segments of Gush Emunim emphasize the messianic
significance of the State of Israel, and point with certitude to-
wards a Divine Plan which is inexorably leading towards Jewish
sovereignty over the Biblical borders of Israel and the primacy
of Israel within the impending new world order. The signs are un-
mistakable, and the duly constituted government of Israel dare
not impede its progress. Even in the diaspora, Habad's major
theme song seems to be "We want Mashiach now," and the movement's
widely distributed publications are filled with constant refer-
ence to the messiah's imminent arrival. We must prepare to roll
out the white and blue carpet!
On the other hand, there is the cooler, calmer approach
of the various Israeli political "peace" movements, the re-
nowned (if controversial) scholar Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz,
and the former chief Rabbi of England, Lord Immanuel Jako-
bowitz, who are wary of hearing messianic footsteps at every fork
in the road. Leave the Messiah to G-d, they maintain, and the
mitzvot (commandments) to the Jewish people.
The Torah is a rich tapestry that has to be delved
into constantly, with enough layers of meaning to keep us oc-
cupied for many lifetimes. Indeed the Satmar chassidim and all
their sympathizers decry any possible link between the estab-
lishment of Jewish self-government in the land of Israel, and a
messianic timetable that has begun to tick; they consider
such linkage to be sacreligious. On occasion, reasoned dialogue
turns into raucous diatribe when each side hurls accusations.
Those in the messianic camp look upon the anti- or non-
messianists as being blind to a developing historical reality
that points unmistakably to a new era in Jewish history, the
yearned for messianic era. While those in the non-messianic
camp claim that history is very much on their mind when they
remember how such past messianic pretensions, when proven to have
been unfounded, have left the Jewish people bereft, disap-
pointed, and disillusioned -in danger of national tragedy. Not
that we don't believe, they say, but the last time the Jews were
swept by messianic fever they caught pneumonia and nearly died.
Caution is better than passion.
Is messianism Jewish and if it's Jewish, is it at the
heart of Judaism, or is it merely a peripheral phenomenon?
An area to which major scholars have devoted lifetimes of
research cannot be adequately covered in the confines of
this article, but what I do want to point out is that the dream
of redemption must be understood as the very cornerstone of
our faith. In the closing chapters of Genesis, this week's
portion Vayehi, Jacob calls his sons to receive their bless-
ings: "Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that
which shall befall you in the end of days" [Gen. 49:1]. Natural-
ly, if the messianic concept is going to be mentioned in the Bi-
ble, now is the time. And indeed, when we reach the blessing for
Judah, father of the commanding tribe of Israel, Jacob says: "The
sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff, until
Shilo come, and the obedience (gathering) of the peoples be his."
[Gen. 49:10]. Shilo is not only the site of a famous Civil War
battle, or the site of the first sanctuary in the land of Israel
before Jerusalem came under David's control, but Shilo, as
translated by Onkelos, is the messiah or annointed King (ruler)
of Israel. Rashi agrees also providing a brief etymology for
messiah's. And this Shilo blessing concludes with the word, "To
him shall gather the nations," and when we think about it, this
turns out to be not only a prophecy but one of the most succinct
definitions on record for the messiah's role in the world. Ulti-
mately the job of the messiah is to gather the nations together
under the banner of the One G-d of peace- and the S'forno ex-
plains Shilo as meaning peace. And in fact, when we look at the
initial election of Abraham, the very first Jew, G-d charges him:
Through you shall be blessed the families of the earth," [Gen.
12:3] we realize that the messianic goal was established at
the dawn of our faith.
Now if a gathering of the nations for the sake of peace
is the first explicit description of the messianic period, it
clearly suggests something natural, human, recognizable. And very
likely Maimonides had this verse in mind in composing his Laws of
Government. There in Ch. 11, Law 3 he writes that we shouldn't
think the King Messiah has to perform "miracles and wonders, and
create new things in the world, or cause the dead to rise." Obvi-
ously Maimonides is denying the Christian concept of a superna-
tural messiah who walks on water and heals by a laying on of
hands. And to prove his point, Maimonides looks upon R. Akiva's
choice of Bar Kochba as the messiah, a human being, a military
hero who led Judea in a battle against Rome (135 C.E). If he was
the choice of the great sage Akiva, then the messianic prototype
is permanently engraved on the Jewish psyche- a human being in-
volved in human activities, dependent upon the military expertise
and ethical religious accomplishments of the nation.
In Ch. 12, Law 1, of the Laws of Government,
Maimonides writes that we shouldn't fantasize and speculate
that when the messiah does come "the natural order of running the
world will be nullified." The world shall continue as always,
the major difference being that the wolves will dwell in peace
with the lamb, which should not be seen as a literal blueprint
for a natural world in some supernatural ecstasy, but rather as
a metaphor for the nations who would wolf down Israel removing
their sharp teeth. In Law 2 Maimonides gives us the bottom line
for the messianic period. "Everything is the same except that
Israel will not be subservient to other nations"- a condition
which precedes the eventual gathering of the nations to Isra-
el. Hence, Judaism is based on messianism, but on what I would
call normative messianism, messianism which takes into account
political realities, messianism which sees itself as a process,
messianism which yearns to succeed but must be ready to fail-
as in the case of Bar Kochba.
Based on these concepts, Maimonides would certainly be
against those who write messianic scenarios with dates and
targets. So much depends upon proper leaders and proper fol-
lowers, and the ultimate test is whether first national
sovereignty and finally peace for Israel and the world has been
achieved. From the Maimonidean vantage point, the Hasmoneans
are to be praised because they brought two hundred years of
self-rule; since they rejected Torah in subsequent genera-
tions, the goal of messianism eluded their grasp. Neverthe-
less, we celebrate Chanukah with great joy, for national
sovereignty and the beginnings of redemption are far better than
servitude and exile.
Since the establishment of the State of Israel, our
nation's third commonwealth, albeit fertilized by the ashes of
Auschwitz, we have been privileged to witness the liberation of
Jerusalem, and the ingathering of Exiles from all parts of the
world- even from Ethiopia and the Soviet Union. The blessings
of the Amidah we recite thrice daily speak of Jerusalem and the
ingathering as preceding the rebuilt Temple and the Messiah
ruler. When we read the Prophetic visions and see the renascent
growth and development of a lush and inviting Jewish homeland, we
cannot but be inspired by the critical and crucial signs round-
about. Are we to forge blindly ahead, without taking into account
political realities or ethical-religious preparation?
The Talmud (B.T. Sanhedrin 97) records that Rav Joshua
Ben Levi met the King-Messiah (who is apparently ready to
redeem, if only the generation is ready), and asks when he will
come. "Today", was the reply. But he did not come. And when R.
Joshua complains to Elijah the Prophet that the messiah lied to
him, he explained that Rav Joshua didn't understand his refer-
ence. The Messiah was citing a verse in Psalms: "Today, if you
will but hearken to my voice."
Will these first stirrings of the Messianic redemp-
tion lead to the complete redemption? It depends on
us!
Shabbat Shalom
|
| 989.111 | Very mysterious | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Mon Dec 23 1991 06:24 | 30 |
| This portion is the end of Genesis. (hazzak! ... We have completed a book!)
In it Jacob blesses Joseph's 2 sons. Then Jacob gives his death-bed blessings
to his 12 sons and dies. Finally we read of the death of Joseph.
This portion is very mysterious to me. If Jacob has become "blind" what
is he missing. Is there some symbolism in the crossed-arms incident (where
he gives the right-hand blessing to the younger of Joseph's sons) that I
am completely missing? Why is Jacob's body taken immediately to be buried
in Abraham's tomb but Joseph's body is buried in Egypt (to be taken home
only when the Hebrews leave Egypt)?
Jacob's blessings to his children are not in the same style as the rest
of the story. Is there a reason for this? Jacob mentions many of the symbols
of the Tribes of Israel (the lion of Judah for example). Do the symbols
derive from this section?
In our study group, I found two observations particularly interesting.
First, this portion is the only one that begins in the middle of a
paragraph (it is the hardest one for the reader to locate). According
to Rashi, this indicates that the children of Israel had already begun
to lose their way in a foreign country.
Second, Jacob begins his blessing by announcing he is going to tell his
children what is going to happen "until the end of days". Yet he fails to
tell them they are about to become slaves. The Midrash tells us that
exactly at that point G-d withdraws from Jacob so that he is unable to
remember what he intended to say. As a result, Jacob rambles (explaining,
in part, why the "blessings" are so mysterious).
Dave
|
| 989.112 | | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Mon Dec 23 1991 19:11 | 64 |
|
Re: .111
>If Jacob has become "blind" what
>is he missing. Is there some symbolism in the crossed-arms incident (where
>he gives the right-hand blessing to the younger of Joseph's sons) that I
>am completely missing?
According to the Midrash, Menashe was given to political aspirations,
following and assisting his father in his duties. Ephraim, on the other
hand, was humble and unassuming, given to sitting and studying with
his grandfather. The term used for "crossing," _sikel_(48:14) is inter-
preted by several commentators (Onk., Rashi, Seforno, Ibn Ezra) as mean-
ing "placed with reason," (as in _sechel_, wisdom). Although Jacob
could no longer see (v. 10), he determined which was Ephraim by
first hugging and kissing them, after which he crossed his arms
*purposefully*.
As to why the younger son so often seems to outshine the older in
the Torah, see the comment at the end of reply .87.
>Why is Jacob's body taken immediately to be buried
>in Abraham's tomb but Joseph's body is buried in Egypt (to be taken home
>only when the Hebrews leave Egypt)?
Notice that Jacob commanded his *sons* to bury him in Machpela
(49:29), whereas Joseph's oath was directed not to his sons,
but to "the children of Israel" (50:25). The commentator
Baal Haturim explains that Joseph told them
that since the brothers were responsible for his descent to
Egypt, it was their responsibility to bring him back to Shechem.
The Midrash explains that Jacob did reveal the details of Israel's
future redemption to Joseph, although (as you alluded to), the
Divine Spirit was taken from Jacob when he sought to reveal the
secret to the other sons. Joseph was informing them that they
were not to leave Egypt until the time of their redemption
arrived, at which time they must take his remains with them.
That is, while Joseph was still alive, the Israelites had not
yet been enslaved, thus there was no difficulty in leaving Egypt
to bury Jacob's remains. But Joseph knew that the situation would
rapidly change with his demise (Ex. 1:8), and to demand that the brothers
leave Egypt at that point would have been in effect "rebelling"
against the Egyptians, "forcing" a premature redemption.
>Jacob's blessings to his children are not in the same style as the rest
>of the story. Is there a reason for this?
Be more specific.
> Jacob mentions many of the symbols
>of the Tribes of Israel (the lion of Judah for example). Do the symbols
>derive from this section?
Yes.
>This portion is the end of Genesis. (hazzak! ... We have completed a
>book!)
Venitchazek! May we complete many more, be strengthened by, and
incorporate their lessons.
Jem
|
| 989.113 | So, is ihis name Yaakov or Yisrael? | TLE::GROSS::GROSS | Louis Gross | Mon Dec 23 1991 23:13 | 18 |
| One thing that intrigues me is that Yaakov's renaming by his wrestling
partner (32:29 "Your name shall be called no more Yaakov, but Yisrael...")
is that it doesn't completely "take". He seems to be almost interchangably
called Yaakov and Yisrael. Some in our Torah Study group thought there
was a pattern -- Yaakov for the person, Yisrael for the position (father
of the nation), but I don't think that quite works, and I can't see any
pattern. The confusion (if it is that) seems to be kept up until
the end, as in the beginning of his "blessing" of his children (49:2-3):
"Gather yourselves together and hear, you sons of Yaakov, and hearken
to Yisrael your father..."
While I usually think in terms of different authors redacted
together, this doesn't seem very satisfying here. After all, the redactor
managed to get Avram and Sarai consistently changed to Abraham and Sarah.
So, is there some mystical significance that guides the choice of names
for Yaakov/Yisrael, or is it just everyone just not being quite used
to the change?
|
| 989.114 | By the way | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Tue Dec 24 1991 02:16 | 3 |
| Where is Dina?
Dave
|
| 989.115 | We can't *all* be tribes... | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Dec 24 1991 04:49 | 46 |
|
Re: .113 (Louis)
>One thing that intrigues me is that Yaakov's renaming by his wrestling
>partner (32:29 "Your name shall be called no more Yaakov, but Yisrael...")
>is that it doesn't completely "take".
Seforno explains that "no more" refers to a time in the *future* when
Israel will no longer be the "heel" (_akev_ -- the root of Yaakov),
no longer the lowliest and most downtrodden of nations, but will
instead stand tall as "Yisrael" - who has passed all the tests,
fighting battles with both man and G-d (so to speak).
>While I usually think in terms of different authors redacted
>together, this doesn't seem very satisfying here. After all, the redactor
>managed to get Avram and Sarai consistently changed to Abraham and Sarah.
While I usually think of Louis as being the sole author of notes
signed by Louis, I find the inconsistency in the above quote (i.e.,
the transliterated "Avram" vs. the anglicized "Abraham") proof positive
of the existence of multiple authors. For simplicity sake, we will
refer to them respectively as the V and B authors.
Re: .114 (Dave)
>Where is Dina?
I think this belongs in the "gender discrimination" note. :)
Actually, this is exactly the question that Rashi asks back
in Vayishlach, when the Torah says that Jacob took his "two
wives, and two maid-servants, and his 11 children." What
about Dina? In that case, she was hidden away so as not to
fall into Esau's hands. In Vayechi, she indeed does not seem
to merit her own blessing, not being one of the tribes.
Actually, Dina is a rather mysterious figure in midrashic
literature. Rashi (quoting the Midrash) has her marrying
her own brother Simon following her trauma with Shechem, whereas
the Talmud (Bava Batra) speaks of her marriage to Job. (Of
course, Job is somewhat of a phantom himself, with numerous
talmudic opinions as to when he lived, or whether indeed
he lived at all or was simply "a metaphor.")
Jem
|
| 989.116 | | TLE::GROSS::GROSS | Louis Gross | Tue Dec 24 1991 05:21 | 20 |
| Re: .115
>>While I usually think in terms of different authors redacted
>>together, this doesn't seem very satisfying here. After all, the redactor
>>managed to get Avram and Sarai consistently changed to Abraham and Sarah.
>While I usually think of Louis as being the sole author of notes
>signed by Louis, I find the inconsistency in the above quote (i.e.,
>the transliterated "Avram" vs. the anglicized "Abraham") proof positive
>of the existence of multiple authors. For simplicity sake, we will
>refer to them respectively as the V and B authors.
Clever -- but you probably won't want to apply to the Torah
the obvious explanation of inconsistencies in my noteing. I am a highly
fallible human being, and by mistake typed "Abraham" when I meant
to type "Avraham". The "Abraham" in my posting was a *mistake* -- I make
them all the time. I don't think (nor, I suspect do you think) that the
alternation between Yaakov and Yisrael in the Torah is a mistake -- so my
question remains, what principle is followed in determining (by redactor,
or *the* Author) which to use where.
|
| 989.117 | "premature" redemption? | TAV02::KREMER | Itzhak Kremer @ISO | Tue Dec 24 1991 12:00 | 38 |
|
Re: .111 .112
>>Why is Jacob's body taken immediately to be buried
>>in Abraham's tomb but Joseph's body is buried in Egypt (to be taken home
>>only when the Hebrews leave Egypt)?
>... while Joseph was still alive, the Israelites had not
>yet been enslaved, thus there was no difficulty in leaving Egypt
>to bury Jacob's remains.
It seems that the seeds of oppression had begun to sprout even
before *Jacob*'s death. As Rashi suggests in the beginning of the
Parsha, Jacob called Joseph because he knew that only Joseph
would be able to carry out his request.
Joseph was still able to use his high position in Pharoah's
court to obtain an exit permit to bury his father in Canaan
(after providing ample assurances of his intented return).
However Joseph knew that after his own death, there would be
no one able to plead for the Israelites. This was self-evident
to his brothers as well.
>But Joseph knew that the situation would
>rapidly change with his demise (Ex. 1:8), and to demand that the brothers
>leave Egypt at that point would have been in effect "rebelling"
>against the Egyptians, "forcing" a premature redemption.
Sounds a bit far-fetched.
Joseph knew the brothers would not be *permitted* to leave Egypt.
He comforted and reassured his family that G-d will eventually
deliver them from their oppressors and only when that happens
does he expect to be taken up to Canaan.
Maybe that's why the Parsha begins in the middle of a paragraph -
there was no clear beginning to the oppressive regime.
|
| 989.118 | | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Dec 25 1991 05:06 | 44 |
|
Re: .116 (Louis)
>I don't think (nor, I suspect do you think) that the
>alternation between Yaakov and Yisrael in the Torah is a mistake -- so my
>question remains, what principle is followed in determining (by redactor,
>or *the* Author) which to use where.
My facetious comment on your words was not intended as an answer
to your question; it was simply a facetious comment. The Seforno
commentary is one possible answer to your question. See also
Berachot 13a, where the Gemara compares the three "name change"
verses (Avram - Avraham, Sarai - Sarah, Yaakov - Yisrael, in Gen.
17 and 35 respectively). In contrast to Avraham and Sarai, the
Torah itself uses the names Yaakov and Yisrael interchangeably
(Gen. 46 - "And G-d said to Yisrael...Yaakov, Yaakov..."). Although
I've not done an exhaustive study, I'm not sure that a pattern
is apparent. Based on the Seforno, however, it would appear that a possible
reason for the continued use of both names is related to the fact
that, until Israel's final redemption, the character of the descendants
of Israel will continue to alternate between the weakness implied
by Yaakov and the strength inherent in the name Yisrael.
Re: .117 (Itzhak)
> However Joseph knew that after his own death, there would be
> no one able to plead for the Israelites. This was self-evident
> to his brothers as well.
...
> Joseph knew the brothers would not be *permitted* to leave Egypt.
...
>>and to demand that the brothers
>>leave Egypt at that point would have been in effect "rebelling"
>>against the Egyptians, "forcing" a premature redemption.
> Sounds a bit far-fetched.
Your explanation is plausible, but my comment was based on the
Baal Haturim and Targum Yonatan, who apparently felt that they still
did have the wherewithal to return to Canaan had they chosen to.
Jem
|
| 989.119 | Trying to be more specific | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Thu Dec 26 1991 19:08 | 23 |
| >>Jacob's blessings to his children are not in the same style as the rest
>>of the story. Is there a reason for this?
>Be more specific.
I'll try...but when this sort of thing came up in school (many years back)
I knew I was headed for a poor grade :-(.
Most of Bereshit has the form of a "simple" narrative. I put "simple" in
quotes because I refer only to the outward form. Usually, when individuals
speak it is directed toward a "plot" line. The baker says "I had a dream."
Joseph says "Your dream means such and so". Opposed to this, there
are a few sections that (to me at least) stand out as "different". The
blessings Isaac gives to Jacob and Esau and the blessings Jacob gives to
his sons and grandsons are predictive. In the case of Isaac, the blessings
state the precise future relationship between the nations of Judea and
Edom, but are worded so that the individual (Esau for example) stands
symbolically for the nation. Likewise the blessings of Jacob concisely
state the political and geographical condition of the tribes at the time
of the early Kingdom of Israel (say, about the time of Solomon). But the
narrative becomes somewhat poetic, indirect, and symbolic rather than "simple".
Dave
|
| 989.120 | An alternative explanation | CRLVMS::SEIDMAN | | Thu Dec 26 1991 22:38 | 16 |
| re: .119
If one starts with the a priori assumption that the text was dictated
to Moses from on high, then you get one set of answers. If, however,
you examine the text carefully and ask where might it have come from,
one will likely reach the conclusion that these passages are different
from the others because they were composed by a different author at a
different time to make a different point. The books of Judges, Samuel,
and Kings provide a lot of information about the relative strength and
importance of the various tribes at different times before and during
the monarchic period. It is also interesting to compare Jacob's
blessings with those of Moses at the end of Deuteronomy. The latter
were probably composed a few hundred years later, in the late monarchic
period and reflect some interesting shifts in tribal roles.
Aaron
|
| 989.121 | Shemot: HaMaayan ("pshetlach") | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Thu Dec 26 1991 23:59 | 290 |
|
HaMaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Sh'mot
Volume VI/Number 13 (247)
21 Tevet 5752/December 28, 1991
Parasha Overview
Ramban introduces the Book of Shemot as follows: The Torah
concluded the Book of B'reishit - the book of creation. In fact,
Sefer B'reishit describes two types of creation - the creation of
everything (the beginning of the world), and the creation of Jewish
history. This second category of creation is found in that which
happened to our Patriarchs, as everything that happened to the
"Avot" (Patriarchs) foreshadowed this history of their descendants.
Ramban continues: Now the Torah begins another book which
relates how those allusions began to be realized in actual events.
This book, Sefer Sh'mot, describes the first exile and the
redemption from it. As the exile was not truly completed until
Bnei Yisrael returned to their proper place and to the status of
their ancestors, the Torah and the building of the Mishkan
(Tabernacle) are included in this Book. Just as the Avot are
called the "Merkavah" ("Chariot" i.e. "medium") for the revelation
of Hashem's presence in this world, so the Mishkan was such a
Merkavah. [Until here is paraphrased from the Ramban.]
There are at least three customs regarding the Haftara to be
read this week. The selection (Yechezkel 16:1-13) chosen by the
Jews of Yemen and Baghdad parallels Ramban's summary of the Jews'
rise from a nation of slaves to a "Mamlechet Kohanim" - "A kingdom
of priests;" The prophet compares the Jews to a newborn baby who
must be washed, cared for, and dressed, responsibilities which
Hashem reminds us through the prophet He has performed for us. A
well-known Midrash comments on these verses that when Hashem wanted
to redeem Bnei Yisrael from Egypt he found them to be bereft of
merit, and he therefore purified them and gave them Mitzvot to
perform. Later, at Har Sinai, Hashem gave the Jews the Torah, a
badge of royalty (see verse 13).
The Haftara read by Ashkenazim (Yishayahu 27:6-28:14 and 29:22-
23) parallels the Parasha in another way. The opening verse
states: "Those who come from the root of Yaakov - Yisrael will
blossom and flower - will fill the whole world with produce," and
the Gemara (Shabbat 145b) interprets this as a reference to the
sages of Bavel who excelled in the study of the Oral Law, and
propogated it throughout the world's Jewish communities. This
reference to the teachers of the "Oral Law" parallels the Parasha's
description of Moshe, the person who taught the "Written Law" to
the world. Just as we learn in the Torah that the giving of the
Written Law had to be preceded by an exile (in Egypt), so too the
development of the Talmud (the Oral Law) into its present form
occurred as a result of an exile (to Bavel). (Pri Tzaddik)
Some Sephardic communities read Yirmiyahu (1:1-2:3) recording
Hashem's call to that prophet to go and rebuke Bnei Yisrael for
their sins. Yirmiyahu's reluctance to accept that mission
parallels Moshe's fears in this Parasha. Moreover, Hashem's
response to Yirmiyahu ("Before I formed you, in the womb I chose
you") expresses the idea which is clearly demonstrated in the story
of the Exodus, that all of the seemingly random and improbable
events of history are merely part of Hashem's master plan. Just a
few of the examples pointed out by R' Y. Salant are that Moshe was
born to a 130 year-old woman, and that Pharaoh's daughter
unknowingly chose Moshe's mother to raise him. This latter miracle
allowed Moshe to grow up in an ideal atmosphere and to learn from
his father, Amram, the leader of the generation (Yalkut Lekach
Tov). This may explain why all of the participants in the story of
Moshe's birth, placement in the Nile, and rescue are nameless. The
true significance of their actions is to be understood, not based
on these actors' choices, but by their role as tools of Hashem.
************************************
"And a new king who did not known Yosef." (1:5)
One opinion in the Talmud maintains that the king knew [of]
Yosef, but pretended that he did not know of the great debt that
Egypt owed to its former viceroy. The Midrash elaborates, stating
that when Pharaoh's advisers first suggested that he oppress the
Jews, he refused. However, after being forced off the throne for
three months, Pharaoh reconsidered and instituted the evil decrees
of which we read in this Parasha.
R' Yehuda Leib Chasman writes: The above demonstrates the power
of the forces hidden within man. Pharaoh's initial impulse was to
act justly. He could not repay evil for good. However, once
pressured, he was capable of genocide.
This is the Torah's answer to all those who say, "I would
change, if only I could." If our potential for evil is so great,
how enormous is our potential to do good?!
(Ohr Yahel, vol. III)
************************************
Rashi writes that the midwives' reward for saving Jewish boys
was that they [the midwives] became ancestors of the Kohanim,
Lev'im, and the royal house of David. In what way does this reward
fit their deeds measure-for measure?
Jewish lineage is passed through the female line only. Even if
Pharaoh had killed all of the boys, he would not have destroyed the
Jews. The priesthood and royalty, however, are passed through the
male line, and it was the midwives who kept those lines alive.
(R' Berel Soloveitchik)
************************************
Every Rosh Hashana, R' Yaakov Yitzchak of Przysucha would gather
together all of his Chassidim who knew how to blow the Shofar, and
he would teach them the mystical secrets associated with that
Mitzvah. Afterwards, he would choose one of them to blow the
Shofar at his Minyan.
One Chassid, R' Simcha Bunim, felt a burning desire to learn
those mystical secrets, so one year he sneaked into the Rebbe's
study and listened to the lesson. Imagine his embarrassment,
however, when the Rebbe concluded by appointing him, R' Simcha
Bunim, to blow the Shofar that year. "I don't know how," the
Chassid admitted.
"Then why did you enter my study uninvited?" the Rebbe
demanded.
"I merely followed Moshe Rabbenu's example," R' Simcha Bunim
defended himself. "First he asked, 'If [Bnei Yisrael] ask, "What
is His name?" what shall I tell them?' (3:13). Only after
learning the Divine name did Moshe admit, 'I cannot go to Pharaoh
for I have never been a good speaker,' (4:10)" [Ed. note: This
same R' Simcha Bunim succeeded R' Yaakov Yitzchak as "Rebbe" upon
the latter's death.]
************************************
"Shovavim Tat"
In a leap year, as this year is, this Shabbat marks the first
week of a period known as "Shovavim Tat", an acronym made up from
the names of the eight Parashot beginning with Sh'mot. R' Eliyahu
Kitov writes as follows:
It is the custom of those who go beyond the letter of the law to
fast eight times during the winter of a leap year, specifically on
Thursdays of the weeks when these eight Parashot are read. There
are those who observe twice annually the fast days known as
"Behab", i.e. the first Monday, Thursday, and Monday in Cheshvan
and Iyar, the months after the holidays of Sukkot and Pesach.
Their purpose is to atone for excessive eating and merry-making on
those holidays. In a leap year, however, more than six months pass
from Behab to Behab, so Chazal found it advisable to add these
additional days of fasting and repentance.
Why did Chazal add eight such days? This decree roughly
parallels the reason that Behab has three days: because most of
the festivity of the holidays takes place on three days - the
first, the last, and Shabbat Chol Hamoed. Similarly, since
Shovavim Tat falls during the winter, Chazal made it for eight days
to parallel the eight day winter holiday, Chanukah.
The weeks of Shovavim Tat are also a time to pray for pregnant
women and those who cannot conceive. This is alluded to by the
fact that in the first Parasha of this period, Sh'mot, we read of
the great explosion that occurred in Bnei Yisrael's population in
Egypt - the more Egyptians afflicted Bnei Yisrael, the more they
multiplied. Fasting on Thursday, of all days, alludes to the
creation of fish on that day, and fish are a symbol of fertility.
In a related vein, this is also a time to repent from the sin of
immorality in all its forms.
(Sefer Hatoda'ah)
************************************
The Legacy of Brisk - Part 4
The following story illustrates R' Chaim Brisker's concept which
was explained last week of "Din Mesuyam" ("specific law") versus
"Din Klali" ("general law"). It also shows the attention that R'
Chaim devoted, not only to every word of Rambam's Code, but to
every nuance of its structure.
R' Chaim was once sitting in his house together with two other
Rabbis when a citizen of Brisk entered with a complaint against the
"Chevra Kadisha" (the members of the community charged with caring
for the deceased). Two people had died in Brisk on the previous
day, the visitor said. One, his relative, had passed away first,
but the other, a wealthy man, had been buried first.
R' Chaim removed a volume of the Rambam from the bookshelf and
briefly studied the laws of burial before responding, "I will
rebuke the Chevra Kadisha. However, your relative was not
wronged."
The visiting Rabbis were doubly perplexed: Firstly, they too
had studied the laws of burial, and never had they seen the Rambam
state that the person who died first should be buried first.
Secondly, if R' Chaim intended to rebuke the Chevra Kadisha, the
complainint must have spoken correctly. Why then did R' Chaim say
that his family had not been wronged?
R' Chaim explained as follows: I knew that there is a Halacha
that the one who dies first should be buried first, but I was not
sure whether this was a Din Mesuyam relating to the honor of the
deceased, or simply a manifestation of the Din Klali that a person
should always perform Mitzvot in the order in which they present
themselves to him ("Ein Ma'avirin Al Hamitzvot"). I examined the
Rambam's laws of burial and found that he does not mention this
law, and then I knew that the latter was true (for had it been a
Din Mesuyam relating to the deceased, Rambam would surely have
included it among the laws of burial). With my new-found knowledge
in-hand, I told the complainint, "You have not been injured." I,
however, being the Rabbi of this city must teach the members of the
Chevra Kadisha the principle of "Ein Ma'avirin Al Hamitzvot."
(Source: R' Shlomo Yosef Zevin: Ishim V'Shitot)
TO BE CONTINUED
************************************
The learning schedule for this Shabbat is:
Daily Mishnah
Kelim 8: 4-5
(Learn two Mishnayot every day)
Daily Halacha
Orach Chaim (Mishnah Berura) 328:32-34
(Learn three paragraphs each day)
Daf Yomi
Beitzah 5
(Learn two sides of a page each day)
Shmirat Halashon: "Rechilut" 7:2
or
Guard Your Tongue: L.H. 2:5-6
Rambam
Chapter/Day - Hilchot Chovel V'Mazik: Ch. 1
3 Chapters/Day - Hilchot Eesurai Biah: Ch. 3-5
Sefer Hamitzvot
Sh:N336,N335,N337,N338,N339; Su:N340,N341,N342,N343,N344,N345
M:N348,N349,N350,N351; Tu:N352,N347,N346;
W:N52,N53,N55,N54,N354,N360,N361; Th:N161,N162,P38,N160,N158,N159
F:N353,P149
************************************
The hard copy distribution of this week's
HaMaayan is sponsored by:
Rabbi and Mrs. Saul Koss
on the forthcoming marriage of
Rivka Koss to Evan Bart
Dr. and Mrs. Irving Katz
on the birthdays of their grandchildren,
Adina, Elisheva, and Eliezer
********************
Posted by Alan Broder, ajb@digex.com (uunet!digex!ajb), who
should be contacted to request back issues of HaMaayan or to get
on or off the direct email mailing list.
Shlomo Katz can not receive EMAIL, however I will pass on any
comment forwarded to me, or alternately, send your comments care of
yehuda@gwuvm.bitnet
% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by mts-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA08342; Tue, 24 Dec 91 21:22:51 -0800
% Received: from uu.psi.com by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA23321; Wed, 25 Dec 91 00:13:42 ES
% Received: from access.digex.com by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) id AA11151; Wed, 25 Dec 91 00:08:39 -050
% Received: by access.digex.com id AA04702 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3/Access-1.1 - Digital Express); Tue, 24 Dec 91 22:43:25 -050
% Date: Tue, 24 Dec 91 22:43:25 -0500
% From: "Alan J. Broder" <ajb@access.digex.com>
% Message-Id: <9112250343.AA04702@access.digex.com>
% To: ajb@digex.com
% Subject: HaMaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Sh'mot
|
| 989.122 | More technical questions | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Mon Dec 30 1991 18:11 | 16 |
| There is a brief but confusing passage in parsha Shemot, namely the one
concerning the circumcision of Moses' son Gershom. Firstly, the passage
seems totally unrelated to the narrative. Moses is on his way to Egypt
to redeem Israel and "he" (not sure whether this refers to Moses or Gershom)
faces death. Why? To avert this, Moses' wife circumcises Gershom with
a piece of flint. Is this the eighth day? If not, I thought Moses would
have been better versed in Hebrew custom. Also, I thought men performed
the circumcision. Finally, Zipporah does some action with the foreskin that
is not clear to me and strikes me as a peculiar thing to do.
It is interesting that Moses tells Pharoah that the Hebrews want to go into
the desert to observe a festival to the L-rd. There is only one festival I
know of that occurs at that time of year -- Passover. If this is so, then the
most widely observed Jewish holiday is also the most ancient.
Dave
|
| 989.123 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Dec 30 1991 18:47 | 7 |
| There are many interpretations of the "bridegroom of death" episode.
Hirsch brings down this one: Yisro allowed Tzipora to marry Moshe
on condition that their firstborn (Gershom) be raised a heathen.
Thus, Gershom had not been circumcised. Moshe was struck down
because of this. When Tzipora realized that she was to blame for
the danger Moshe was facing, she quickly circumcised Gershom and
cast his foreskin at his [Gershom's] feet.
|
| 989.124 | Va'era: El Al, E-l Sha-dai, and Eternity | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Thu Jan 02 1992 20:18 | 398 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Vaera by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- When reaching the land of Israel was fraught
with danger, and the journey over land and sea took weeks or
months, only the strongest and most committed turned the dream of
aliyah into a reality. And once here, nothing less than a
plague or an earthquake could get them to leave. But now that the
physical part of getting to Israel is easier than ever, leaving
is also easier, especially during times of major crisis -- El Al
flies in both directions.
Last year's Gulf War, the almost nightly air raid
sirens hurling us into gas masks inside sealed rooms, brought the
terror of attack menacingly close to all Israelis, especially
immigrants who'd arrived from lands where the buffer zone was
enormous --continent to continent. As the first scuds began
to fall, we still didn't know their accuracy, range and tar-
get.
Fear was pervasive, but I don't know whose was
greater, ours or families in the Diaspora whose children had
made aliyah. One night early in the war the phone woke us up
around 2:30 in the morning. I knew it could only be Ameri-
ca. "Rabbi, this is Mrs. B., the mother-in-law of Y." I asked if
there was some kind of emergency? "Well," she said, "I'm not
sure." Since I was very tired, I asked if it could wait until the
morning. "Rabbi, I'll tell you the truth. I can't sleep" You
can't sleep! "You see, I was very angry when my son-in-law mar-
ried my daughter and took her to Israel. I was even more an-
gry when he took her to Efrat. But now, with the war, you've got
to get my family home. I cannot have my grandchildren in such
danger."
I didn't know what I could possibly do at that hour. "I
see," she said, "you're going to be difficult, so I'll make it
easier for you. Just get my daughter and grandchildren home. My
son-in-law you can keep."
The next morning in synagogue I repeated the
conversation without names. And whose mother-in-law do you think
called me, I asked. At least twenty hands shot up. Even in the
midst of a war, it was hard not to laugh. But this mother-in-
law story points to a serious discrepancy as to how Jewish
values get passed down from one generation to the next. On
the one hand, parents want their children to be good Jews, but
when it turns out that their offspring take their education
seriously, problems arise, especially if the issue of aliya to
Israel moves from the study hall to Kennedy airport.
And when the issue is leaving elderly parents behind, what does
one do about the commandment to honor the father and
mother?
This question can be answered from a number of
perspectives. First the basic halakha. The Rama, R. Moses
Isserles, in his gloss on the Bet Yosef at the end of the Laws of
Honoring Father and Mother in the Yorah Deah section of the
Shulchan Arukh (Ch. 240) quotes the ruling of the Maharik, R.
Yosef Colon, (1420-1480) that a parent has no right to forbid a
child's choice of mate ( as long as he has chosen in a halakhi-
cally appropriate fashion). Honoring one's parents means taking
care of their physical needs, food, shelter, medicine, etc.,
but it doesn't include the basic existential choices each
individual has the right to make concerning his own life, such as
whom he wants to marry, which profession he wishes to pur-
sue, where he wants to live, etc. Parents cannot determine the
fundamental life decisions of every individual -especially
if these decisions contain a moral component (such as leaving Is-
rael in time of war).
Therefore the woman who called that night should not
demand her daughter's return if an arrangement has been made to
care for all her physical needs. And the right of parents
is even diminished when the wishes of the older generation clash
with the wishes of the Torah. We read in Parashat Kedoshim
that "...Every person shall revere his mother and father, and you
shall keep My Sabbaths." [Lev. 19:3] Rashi comments that
the reason for including two disparate subjects in the same verse
is to teach the underlying Torah principle that if a parent
tells you to violate the Sabbath, the commandment of G-d take
precedence over a parent's commands- and this principle
applies not only to the Sabbath, says Rashi, but to all the com-
mandments. And from many halakhic perspectives, a parent who
stands in the way of a child's decision to live in Israel may
very well be considered like a parent who commands his child to
violate the Sabbath.
And beyond halakhic and Biblical evidence, there is
also a practical element involved. During the Hadrianic
persecutions, R. Akiva defied the decree forbidding the teaching
of Torah. The Talmud in Tr. Brakhot, 61b records that Pappas
ben Yehuda (also a rabbi) asked R. Akiva how he could take such
risks -- wasn't he afraid of the Government? R. Akiva
answered with a fable about a fox and a school of fish swimming
nervously. The fox asked them why they were so afraid, and
the fish merely pointed their noses to all the nets around them.
So the fox slyly suggested that they come to live on dry
land, his mouth watered at the utterance of each syllable. Fool-
ish fox, they answered, if we're afraid in water which is
our life and natural habitat, how much more dangerous would it
be for us on dry land. And so it is with us, R. Akiva said to
Pappas. If we Jews are in danger when we study Torah, imagine
how much more danger we'd be in if we leave the waters of Torah
for dry land.
R. Akiva's foxes and fishes apply even today in Israel as
we try to avoid the nets surrounding us. Foolish fox, we
have to say to all those who suggest we'd be better off on dry
land (diaspora), if we're afraid in the land which is our
life, where self-rule and independence is ours, then how much
more do we have to fear in an environment where we have very lit-
tle control and no independent means of self protection!
These three reasons --halakhic, Biblical, and practical--
won't make a dent in a family crisis unless a fourth element is
also present, touching the cornerstone of our faith in being
Jewish. This week's portion opens with the words, "And G-d
spoke unto Moses, and said unto him, 'I am YHVH. I revealed
myself to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as E-l Sha-dai, and did not
allow them to know Me by My name YHVH." [Ex. 6:2-3]
How are we to understand this expression of G-d's
identity? Obviously G-d does not change names, but our capacity
to fathom G-d does change. Abraham represents one stage, fami-
ly, while Moses represents the beginnings of a nation. To the
family G-d appears as E-l Sha-dai, the G-d who set limits, res-
trictions, natural boundaries. But now that the family is enter-
ing nationhood, specifically with the dream of return to the
land of Canaan after Egyptian slavery, G-d reveals Himself as
YHVH, the name which contains the notion of eternality of love
and redemption, of Personal Concern which extends beyond restric-
tion and limitation. Carving this nation out from of a group of
slaves into a free people defies the natural law of the birth of
nations, so that forever afterwards a supernatural reality clings
to Israel. The revelation of the name YHVH teaches that Israel's
existence is beyond logic. Just look at a random sampling of
events during the past forty-odd years: a population of 600,000
in 1948 has multiplied itself nearly seven times, nations with a
history of hatred have suddenly thrown open their rusted iron
gates and Jews stream out in unprecedented 'numbers, and last
year Israel endured nearly forty missle attacks, each one armed
with tons of destructive power that wreaked havoc to property,
but only claimed one life.
What takes place in Israel --the opening verse in this
week's portion declares-- is not fathomable from an E-l
Sha-dai perspective. Our destiny as a nation, G-d tells us, is
guided by eternity. That's why Mrs. B. was in so much pain
and fear. From back in NY, she could see things only in terms of
limitations and restrictions. All of us, wherever we are,
must come to realize that Israel's existence does not depend on
logic alone. It depends on G-d's eternal vow to His eternal
people- the process of recemption outlined in the Book of Exodus
and being experienced every day in the modern
Israel!!
Shabbat Shalom
|
| 989.125 | The first 6 plagues | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Mon Jan 06 1992 18:19 | 18 |
| One of our Torah study participants noticed that, although Moses claims
to have a speech impediment and needs help from Aaron, Moses does all the
talking to Pharoah. He is like the Jewish business man who brings his
silent accountant along to a meeting. Is there traditional commentary
on this?
Pharoah's magicians were able to duplicate the first two plagues (and, from
last week's portion, the trick with the rod/snake and instant leprosy).
This seems like potent magic to me. Are the magicians really miracle
makers or are we to presume they faked it?
I have often wondered about the plague of frogs. Was that really so bad?
Frogs are these cute, harmless things (Kermit and all that) that my kids
like to catch a play with for a bit. I suppose driving on a frog-covered
road could be hazardous, but that would be of little concern to the
Egyptians.
Dave
|
| 989.126 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Jan 06 1992 19:38 | 19 |
| re .125:
The chartumim (variously translated as magicians, astrologers, and
hieroglyphists) were experts in the magic that was practiced in those
times. This wasn't the kind of stuff that current "magicians" do --
they actually used demons and other supernatural forces. Although
they could reproduce some of Moshe's "tricks" (adding, in a buffoonish
way, to the number of frogs, the amount of blood, etc.), they recognized
that Moshe wasn't just a better magician than they were. Hence they
told Pharaoh that it was "the finger of G-d." Pharaoh, apparently
thinking that they were just making excuses for their failure to match
his magic, refused to believe them. [Loosely adapted from Meam Loez]
Your kids may consider frogs cute, but if they were *everywhere* (kneading
troughs, ovens, refrigerators), they'd probably change their minds. My
mother once had an experience of a "plague" of frogs in England. She
vividly describes riding her bicycle over hundreds of frogs. BTW, I
believe there's a commentator who translates tz'farad as "crocodile"
-- definitely not cute.
|
| 989.127 | | DELNI::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in JERUSALEM! | Mon Jan 06 1992 20:47 | 10 |
| re: the plagues...
I've heard that each plague was designed to show that G-d is superior
to all the false gods that were being worshipped in Egypt at that time.
For example...the Nile was worshipped, G-d turned the water to blood,
etc. Perhaps there was a "frog-god" or some such idol that was
worshipped at that time and the plague of frogs was to show that the
Creator is worthy of worship, not the created thing?
Steve
|
| 989.128 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Jan 06 1992 22:45 | 6 |
| Actually, the plagues were a mida-k'neged-mida punishment ["let the punishment
fit the crime," as W.S. Gilbert would say] for the Egyptians' sins. I don't
know how this applies to frogs, but the blood was a punishment for Pharaoh's
bathing in the blood of Jewish children. Also note that Aharon rather than
Moshe struck the Nile, turning it into blood. This was because Moshe owed a
debt to the Nile for having supported the basket in which his mother left him.
|
| 989.129 | Come vs. Go | BOSACT::CHERSON | the door goes on the right | Wed Jan 08 1992 21:38 | 12 |
| Both in last week's sedrah and this week's (of course since it is BO), G-D tells
Moshe "Bo el Paroah", i.e., come to Pharoah. Now during our "Stump
the Reverend" session which happens at Kiddush I asked the annual question of why
didn't G-D command Moshe "Lech El Paroah", literally go to Pharoah.
There are a few answers, amongst them, that not all of the elders did not make
an earlier call when G-D told them "Lech El...", so he wanted to try another angle.
Another person said that "BO..." is a much more positive command than "Lech..."
Any other thoughts?
--David
|
| 989.130 | | DELNI::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in JERUSALEM! | Wed Jan 08 1992 21:56 | 10 |
| Interesting question...here's an uneducated guess...
One of probably hundreds of interpretations might be that since G-d is
King of the Universe, He is not only L-rd (Adoni) of Moses but also
of Pharaoh (whether or not he chose to admit this fact is irrelevant).
Perhaps in seeing that the "sovereign" of Egypt was hard-hearted, the
Sovereign of the Universe decided to extend an invitation to Moses on
behalf of Pharaoh?
Steve
|
| 989.131 | I find Bo very curious | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Wed Jan 08 1992 23:08 | 26 |
| There is much in this week's portion that I find inscrutable. For instance,
what is "a darkness you can feel?" Perhaps the plague of darkness was soot
so thick one could feel it.
After the 9th plague Pharoah tells Moses he doesn't want to see his face
ever again and Moses confirms that Pharoah won't. Yet a few lines further
on G-d sends Moses back to Pharoah regarding the final plague. Isn't this
a contradiction?
By naming the month of Av (?) as the "first" month G-d is, in effect,
commanding us to celebrate Passover as a "new year". Yet we don't.
The pascal sacrifice is to occur on the 10th day of the month in the
homes of the Hebrews. Why couldn't we perform such a sacrifice in our
times? I thought the standard reason for not performing this sacrifice
was that the Temple was required, yet this portion contradicts that reason.
There is (as usual in a document that was probably transmitted orally at
one time) a lot of repetition in this portion. At one spot in the text it
emphasizes that a festival is to be observed on the 7th (final) day of
Passover. I am not familiar with any special last-day observances. Unleavened
bread is mentioned several times, but the prohibition against leaven comes
_before_ the description of how the Jews left in such haste there was no
time for the dough to rise. This seems like the wrong order of telling to
me. Is there an explanation?
Dave
|
| 989.132 | Oops | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Fri Jan 10 1992 18:17 | 10 |
| I reread Bo last night, and oops, I misunderstood it the first time.
The animal for the sacrifice was to be selected on the 10th of the month
but the sacrifice was to take place on the 14th. Furthermore, the whole
community was to participate in the sacrifice -- I suppose this requirement
would be impossible in our times.
One more point popped up, however. The Torah seems to call for an all night
"vigil" the first night of Passover. Why don't we do this?
Dave
|
| 989.133 | | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Fri Jan 10 1992 18:24 | 116 |
|
Re: .129 (David)
>Another person said that "BO..." is a much more positive command than "Lech..."
>
>Any other thoughts?
The Baal Haturim says that _lech_ is used in 7:15 because Pharaoh
was going to bathe in the river, and it was not according to the
_Shechina_'s honor to "go with" Moses. Whenever _bo_ is used, on
the other hand (6:11, 7:26 and of course 10:1), Moses is commanded
to meet Pharaoh in his *palace*, thus G-d implies that he will go
(so to speak) with Moses.
Re: .131 (Dave)
>There is much in this week's portion that I find inscrutable. For instance,
>what is "a darkness you can feel?" Perhaps the plague of darkness was soot
>so thick one could feel it.
The commentators allude to an unnatural darkness in which even a lit
candle could not be seen (sounds a little like Los Angeles :).
(Warning: I haven't seen this interpretation anywhere). It always seemed
odd to me that G-d is described as "separating" light and darkness in
the beginning of Genesis; since when do light and darkness need to be
separated? Light and darkness are by nature mutually exclusive -
where there is an absence of light there is darkness, and where
there is complete darkness, there can by definition be no light!
The Talmud (Chag. 12a) speaks of ten entities which were created on
the first day, the fifth being darkness. A verse in Psalms (18:12)
is then quoted which speaks of G-d making darkness His "hiding
place" (but which coexisted with light, according to Rashi) from
which "hailstones and coals of fire" (v. 14) emerged.
The Metzudat David explains that these were used against the "enemy."
Since when do "hailstones and coals of fire" (not to mention darkness
and light) coexist?
But this is not the first time we've seen this combination. In last
week's parasha (9:24) we're told, "and there was hail, and fire
mingled with the hail...such as never had been in Egypt..." Rashi
comments, "a miracle within a miracle...fire and hail (water)... but
to carry out the will of their Creator they made peace between themselves."
The Egyptians were Sun-worshippers and river-worshippers -- believers
in the divinity of the forces of nature. They sought to use those very
same forces - the laws of nature - as a weapon against the people of Israel.
They believed that they could substitute the darkness of servitude
for the Israelite desire for Divine Light, knowing that by nature
darkness and light could not coexist. The spark of
future hope they sought to extinguish by the drowning of Jewish babies.
But G-d demonstrated that it was not nature that dictated laws,
but the Creator of nature. The miracle of the water and fire
showed that they had not extinguished the spark as they had
hoped in fact *both* forces returned to punish them. And the
darkness was in fact a return to its "unnatural" primordial state -
a *tangible* "independent" darkness which at once snuffed out all light
among the Egyptians while allowing the Israelites to still
see (10:23), hinting to the fact that the Egyptian "darkness"
technique had utterly failed.
This would explain the mysterious verse in Psalms quoted above. Why would
G-d "hide" His brilliant light in darkness,
lying in wait, as it were, for Israel's enemies, only to attack them
with hail and fire? To demonstrate to Israel's foes that the survival
of the Jewish people is a wholly unnatural phenomenon - rendering
irrelevant the laws of nature.
>After the 9th plague Pharoah tells Moses he doesn't want to see his face
>ever again and Moses confirms that Pharoah won't. Yet a few lines further
>on G-d sends Moses back to Pharoah regarding the final plague. Isn't this
>a contradiction?
Ibn Ezra (10:29) explains that Moses told Pharaoh that *he* would
never again go to Pharaoh. They did meet again (12:31), but this time it
was Pharaoh who went to Moses (Rashi).
>By naming the month of Av (?) as the "first" month G-d is, in effect,
>commanding us to celebrate Passover as a "new year". Yet we don't.
Nisan. The Talmud (R.H.) actually records four distinct "new years"
(one of which, 15 Shevat is coming up in just over a week). Nisan
is the new year for "kings and holidays." When we list the months
of the year, we always start with Nisan.
>The pascal sacrifice is to occur on the 10th day of the month in the
>homes of the Hebrews. Why couldn't we perform such a sacrifice in our
>times? I thought the standard reason for not performing this sacrifice
>was that the Temple was required, yet this portion contradicts that reason.
After the Revelation at Sinai, sacrifices were forbidden outside of the
Temple (Lev. 17:8, Deut. 12:13).
>I am not familiar with any special last-day observances.
It is called a _mikra kodesh_ ("a holy convocation"), as is the
first day. On both days we are enjoined (biblically) to desist
from all creative work.
>Unleavened
>bread is mentioned several times, but the prohibition against leaven comes
>_before_ the description of how the Jews left in such haste there was no
>time for the dough to rise. This seems like the wrong order of telling to
>me. Is there an explanation?
You're assuming that the reason for the prohibition has
something to do with the hasty exodus, but we actually don't learn
of this connection until Deut. 16:3. The answer to your question,
though, is "there is no 'earlier' or 'later' in the Torah" (Pes. 6b -
i.e., the Torah is not a minute-by-minute account of history. Some
events are listed out of order).
Jem
|
| 989.134 | Bo: Paschal Musings | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Fri Jan 10 1992 18:34 | 398 |
|
Efrat, Israel -- Even at the height of the Great American-
Israeli romance in those triumphant years after the Six Day War,
when the great Jewries of the modern world exploded with a hora
of love, understanding and partnership, there was still a gulf
between Jewry at home, on its own terms in its own land, and
metropolitans where Jewish presence is spoken of in terms of a
contribution to the cultural and financial development of a
host country. We do not yet know how historians will speak of
the Jewish presence in America; perhaps it will be considered
maybe even greater than the Golden Age of Spain. The U.S. Con-
stitution has proven to be a document of government which makes
it possible for Jewry to blossom and thrive, from great
Jewish hospitals to great Talmudic academies, a land where
Jews feel so comfortable with their inalienble rights that they
do not hesitate to defend even Anti-Semitic rabble rousers
and Nazis as an expression of the principle of free speech.
Nonetheless all the comfort in the world will not change the fact
that a fundamental difference exists between New York
and Jerusalem, a difference we see expressed in the very nature
of the festival of Passover discussed in this week's portion,
Bo. And it's not just the obvious fact that in the Diaspora,
they celebrate an extra day at the end: but surpris-
ingly enough, an extra day at the beginning of the festival for
us here in Israel.
In Bo, the Passover sequence begins with a command for
the Israelites to sacrifice the paschal lamb that must be eaten
in haste, and we are told how God will pass through Egypt and
kill every first born, and that the blood of the slaughtered
lamb is to be placed on the doorposts as a sign for God. Then the
Almighty declares: "This day must be the one that you shall
remember. You must keep it as a festival to God for all genera-
tions. It is a law for all time that you must celebrate it"
[Ex. 12:17].
Which day is God referring to? At first, it sounds as if it
refers to the day when the paschal lamb is sacrificed, but as we
keep reading, ambiguity surfaces. "Eat matzoh for seven days. By
the first day, you must have your homes cleared of all
leaven..." [Ex. 12:15] Now it seems that the earlier verse with
its reference to a day 'you shall remember,' could actually
refer to the entire Passover festival
Rashi concludes that 'this day of remembering' refers to
the day the Jews leave Egypt, which is the day after the sacri-
fice of the paschal lamb, the 15th of Nisan. But the problem
with this conclusion is that the 15th of Nisan is the beginning
of a seven day festial, so why is it called 'this day...?
In contrast, the Ibn Ezra says that the day the Torah en-
joins us to remember is the 14th, the day before the festival of
Passover begins. And it's an opinion which can be traced to the
school of R. Yishmael whose discussion in Babylonian Talmud
Pesachim (5a) of the meaning of the verse, "...but on the first
day you shall destroy all the leaven within your homes,' [Ex.
12:15] leads to the conclusion that the first day referred to
here is actually the 14th, the day before the seven-day Festival
begins, on which the search for and destruction of leavening
(hametz) takes place.
The consequence of this difference of opinion leads to
the speculation that we're really talking about two festivals
whose distinct characteristics contain a subtle difference for
Israeli and Diaspora Jewries. The fourteenth day of Nissan is the
one-day festival of the Passover sacrifice, the pascal lamb; the
fifteenth day commences a 7 day festival of Matzot and redemp-
tion.
What is the paschal lamb all about? It's not just going
to the friendly shepherd or local butcher and buying a lamb, in
the way that we might buy a chicken for the Sabbath. An amazing
Midrash teaches that the time had arrived for God to redeem the
Jewish people from Egyptian servitude, but there was a problem,
alluded to in the description of the Jews as being "...naked
without garb." The Midrash sees this verse in a metaphoric light.
Without garb means that before Sinai they were naked without
commandments, and so God gives the Jews the commandment of the
paschal sacrifice, not just one of the 613, but a commandment
which stands for the essential experience of being a Jew, the
fearless belief in One God.
When the Jews were commanded to sacrifice a lamb, a god
which the Egyptians worshipped, they were in effect being asked
to make one of the most powerful statements of the ancient world:
we are willing to put our lives on the line for our God, for
our faith, for our people, for the unique identity of a nation
whose beginnings exist in the denial of idolatry.
What it comes down to, the Midrash is saying, is that be-
fore we can be worthy of being redeemed, we have to garb our-
selves with the understanding that redemption won't have any
penetrating significance unless we're willing to sacrifice, to
risk, to take chances. The explicit image of blood on the door-
posts may be dificult to swallow, but there has to be that moment
of total existential openness of declaring one's faith in the
One God to Egyptians, of putting one's life, one's blood, on the
line.
This moment in time, this day of Jewish willingness
for self-sacrifice, the Torah tells us, is cause for celebration
and eternal memorial. And only after we've reached this stage, do
we stand ready for redemption, symbolized by the seven days of
matzoh, the unleavened bread we ate when we left Egyptian
enslavement for desert freedom on the way to Israel.
That the willingness to give up one's being for God
(mesirat nefesh) is the essential message of the paschal
lamb can also be seen from the fact that four days tran-
spire between the 10th of Nisan when the commandment is
given, and the 14th of Nisan, when the paschal lamb is brought.
According to the Midrash, during those four days the Jews
circumcised themselves. And circumcision is the ritual act sym-
bolizing mesirat nefesh, the willingness of the Jew to shed
blood for his faith rooted in the very organ of propagation.
It is this dimension of mesirat nefesh which goes hand in
hand with living in Israel. Certainly it's possible to give up
one's life for a Jew can always choose the path of disappear-
ing into the mainstream and certainly the American
diaspora makes no such ultimate claims on its Jewish citizenry.
But in Israel, the willingness to give up one's life is
built into the fabric of life. In fact, when the paschal lamb
sacrifice will eventually be revived on the 14th of Ni-
san, it will only take place here in Israel; in the Diaspora
there is no possiblity of a paschal lamb sacrifice, and
there never will be. The closest we'll ever come to there is a
shank bone on a Seder plate. And in Israel, may the pascal
lamb take the place of so many of our best and brightest for the
eventuality of ultimate sacrifice, so that we may truly
taste the matzoh of redemption and peace.
Shabbat Shalom
|
| 989.135 | Any ideas? | SHALOT::NICODEM | Who told you I'm paranoid??? | Fri Jan 10 1992 22:31 | 16 |
| RE: several recent replies
While I have heard numerous discussions regarding the *kind* of miracles
performed, the meaning of them, the comparison with the "magicians'" capabili-
ties, and so forth, there's one thing that I've never quite understood.
In many of the cases, the initial result of the "plague" is that
Pharaoh is exceedingly disturbed, and tells (or almost tells) Moses to take the
people and get out. But then time after time the text says, "...but *God*
hardened Pharaoh's heart..." Not Pharaoh; not some other demonic power.
Why? Why keep changing? I don't believe in a God who "plays games"
with us. So why have Moses perform miracles, have Pharaoh almost change his
mind, and *then* "harden his heart"?
F
|
| 989.136 | | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Fri Jan 10 1992 23:41 | 25 |
| Re: .132
>One more point popped up, however. The Torah seems to call for an all night
>"vigil" the first night of Passover. Why don't we do this?
If you're referring to 12:42 (_leil shimurim_ - a "watchnight"), the
Talmud interprets this as more of a promise than a commandment. That
is, it is a night when G-d "watches" over His people.
Re: .135
> Why? Why keep changing? I don't believe in a God who "plays games"
>with us. So why have Moses perform miracles, have Pharaoh almost change his
>mind, and *then* "harden his heart"?
This is a topic about which volumes have been written. See reply
.32 in this note for some ideas. The Midrash explains that it was
only after the first 5 plagues that G-d "hardened" his heart. For
the first five, Pharaoh didn't need any help. (This, of course,
doesn't do justice to the topic, but it is, after all erev Shabbat! :)
Jem
|
| 989.137 | Beit Yisrael - why? | TAVIS::JONATHAN | | Tue Jan 14 1992 18:28 | 23 |
| In this week's parsha Beshalach, I noticed something that puzzles me.
In Ex 16:31 it says "Vayikr'u Beit Yisrael et shmo man", translating
"And the house of Israel called it's name Manna".
What interests me is the use of the phrase Beit Yisrael. Why doesn't
the Torah use the more familiar Bnei Yisrael - the children of Israel?
All the main commentators that I checked - Rashi, Ramban, Sforno, Ibn
Ezra, Hizkuni, Saadia Gaon, Redak do not address this point at all.
Which to me seems strange, since on checking the Concordance of Even-
Shushan I find that this is the first instance in the Torah that the
phrase Beit Yisrael is used - in the Torah it's used only 4 times.
(In Nach it appears more than a hundred times.)
The only explanation I could think of was that since the Torah is
talking about a common everyday necessity as food, the term Beit was
used. That is, the lowest common denominator - the House or Family
was used.
Does anyone have thoughts on this?
|
| 989.138 | Check Hirsch | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Jan 14 1992 20:50 | 11 |
| Re: .137
>What interests me is the use of the phrase Beit Yisrael. Whydoesn't
>the Torah use the more familiar Bnei Yisrael - the children of Israel
I think I remember Hirsch addressing this question - it was the
*women* who gave the name to the Manna. "Beit" because they are
the foundation of the Jewish home.
Jem
|
| 989.139 | You're right again, Jem | TAVIS::JONATHAN | | Wed Jan 15 1992 23:16 | 20 |
| Re: .138
> I think I remember Hirsch addressing this question - it was the
> *women* who gave the name to the Manna. "Beit" because they are
> the foundation of the Jewish home.
Kol Hakavod, Jem!!!
I looked up Hirsch and your right on.
For completeness and for the feminists ;-), here's my translation of
what Shimshon Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) wrote.
Beit Yisrael: These are the women upon whom the family and home-life is
based....
The gift of Manna was meant to instill the quality of frugality
together with good-heartedness and assurance in G-d and His providence,
and this quality is dependent on women, first and foremost, and their
conduct in the home. Therefore there is importance to the fact, that it
was actually the women who recognized in the Manna a gift from G-d, given
to Man according to his need...
|
| 989.140 | Beshalach: Not by manna alone (R. Riskin) | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Thu Jan 16 1992 21:01 | 397 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Beshalach
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- If the Sabbath is a day of rest, some ar-
gue, why is it forbidden to drive to services, especially if
I'm tired? And if I'm not in a synagogue mood, why not a relaxing
day at the beach, or a little tennis for healthful exercise?
Doesn't the Bible tell me to work six days, and 'the seventh
day you shall rest.' And sitting through a rabbi's sermon is the
last thing I want to do on my day off. Rest means sleeping late,
brunch in a nice restaurant on Columbus Ave, and plenty of time
for the Times crossword puzzle, checking out the galleries, or
an early movie. On Monday, when I return to work, I'll be
armed against burnout , recharged, invigorated, and ready to
tackle the new week because of my laid-back weekend.
On the surface, such thinking has a beguiling logic. But in
examining its source, we discover a misconception that has
resulted in a tragic division in the Jewish community. The
misconception is very old. In the ancient world, when weekly
days off for slaves were unheard of, the Roman histori-
an Tacitus charged the Jews with slothful laziness because of
their Sabbath rest.
The Jewish historian Josephus explained the Biblical command
in terms of an industrial secret: a day off revives the tired
laborer, actually increasing his productivity and effectiveness
during the rest of the week.
Not only did Josephus apparently believe this idea, but most
cultures in the world have accepted the notion that a day of rest
benefits not only the worker, but also the employer. Was
Josephus right? His answer smacks of apologetics, and is an early
example of Sabbath misconceptions.
In this week's portion, Beshalach, we read of the manna,
this unusual food that was an ancient form of non-caloric, non-
cholesterol Slim Fast and descended from heaven. Jews had
been complaining about hunger, and G-d's answer was the opening
of the heavens. "I will make bread rain down to you from the
sky. The people will go out and gather enough for each day. I
will test them to see whether or not they keep My law. On Fri-
day, they will have to prepare what they bring home. It will be
twice as much as they gather every other day." [Ex. 16:4-5]
The falling manna has become one of the central symbols of Jew-
ish life, not just because of its wondrous nature, but also be-
cause of its organic relationship to the Sabbath. A miracle is
one thing, but even miracles have to accomodate themselves to
the supremacy of the Sabbath, and to prevent Sabbath desecra-
tion: a double portion would fall on Friday. To this day two
loaves of challah, recalling the double portion of manna in the
desert, grace our Sabbath tables. Thus the essential teaching
that G-d is the sustainer of all, and that human beings are
created for a higher purpose than spending every minute of
every day amassing food, emerges from the manna episode and its
link to the Sabbath. G-d ultimately supplies our food, and we
must dedicate our lives to something higher than providing nu-
trition.
But symbols are not always enough to get the message through.
We could still walk away from the Sabbath table believing that
G-d wants us to rest on the seventh day because he pities how
hard we work, and He wants us to rest to gather strength. This is
why the Sages turned to the verse quoted above to reinforce a
Sabbath principle which is unique to the Jews. Not only can't we
work, but any object which was not designated for Sabbath use
before the Sabbath (or understood to have been so) cannot be
moved (according to some , even touched) on the Sabbath day.
_muktzah_ is the term used to describe this prohibition.
Since I can't write on the Sabbath or designate a pen's use on
the holy day, I am forbidden to move or even to touch a pen
on the Sabbath.
Ironically, these laws which express the uniqueness of the Jewish
Sabbath are often misunderstood. One of the classic discussions
of the ramifications of this law is the opening mishna in Tr.
Betza, where Bet Shamai and Bet Hillel discuss the possibili-
ty of a chicken laying an egg on a festival. Since the egg
didn't exist before the festival, it couldn't have been desig-
nated for festival use. Is the egg _muktzah_?. For if it is,
it cannot it be eaten on that Festival day. Even Jews
who've turned away from Judaism will cite this mishna with a
mocking tone to express their disdain for anyone who wastes
his and our time over the question of an egg laid on a festival.
However, it was the great poet Haim Nachman Bialik who
correctly remarked that all of the minutiae of the Sabbath laws
have succeeded in creating a day which is sheer poetry!
And it turns out that one of the two sources for this law
of _muktzah_, discussed in Tr. Pesachim, 47b is our verse
dealing with the double portion of manna prepared on Friday.
The Talmud understands the Torah's message to be that whatever
is not prepared by Friday is out of reach on the Sabbath; the
weekday must prepare for the Sabbath, the Sabbath cannot
prepare for weekdays. If an object is not prepared for Sab-
bath use --either so understood or specifically designated for
Sabbath use-- you cannot use it on the Sabbath. And an egg
which wasn't in the world on Friday, arriving only on the Sab-
bath, is _muktzah_ --it couldn't have been prepared, because it
was born on Yom Tov. Why? The purpose of human existence is not
to provide for physical necessities . We must make the world a
better place, a world of peace and tranquility, a world of har-
mony and unity. We must turn every day into a Sabbath day!
Sabbath is not the means - Sabbath is the end! And the Messianic
Age is called the period which is continuosly Sabbath.
Although the concept behind this halakha is simple, its ramifica-
tions are profound. Josephus may have never understood how
his answer to Tacitus missed the philosophy of the Sabbath. You
don't rest on the seventh day so that you can work the other
days; you work the other days of the week so that you will be
able to appreciate the Sabbath because the Sabbath, with its
message of peace and G-d as the sustainer of all, is the central
pillar of our week, and our lives.
The laws of _muktzah_ take this ideal and translate into a di-
mension of space and time. _muktzah_ is the very antithesis
of a Judaism which cannot see beyond 18 holes of restful golf
on the Sabbath. Our Sabbath, in contrast to the students of
Josephus and Tacitus, is not the proletarian Sabbath that even
the Marxist countries have accepted, but it is a Sabbath that
says the essential reality of our lives should be G-d and His
ideal of peace.
R. Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev once saw a Jew running. "Where
are you running, my friend?" The Jew answered that he was run-
ning to make a living. R. Levi responded that sometimes a person
runs so fast to make a living that he neglects to make a life.
The Sabbath, with all its intricate laws, is nothing more, or
less, than the blueprint for how to make our lives -
meaningful and significant.
Shabbat Shalom
|
| 989.142 | Yitro: Remembering...and beyond | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Jan 21 1992 19:28 | 334 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Yitro
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- Remember Amalek...Remember the Sabbath. Last
week's Torah reading concluded with devastation, and this
week's begins with revelation. Is there a connection? We all
suffer various degrees of reverses, but every once in a while one
reversal is so devastating that it seems impossible to get
back on our feet again unless a total shift takes place within
us -- a radical transformation of the soul.
This is what happened at the end of last week's portion,
Beshalach, when the Jewish people faced their first major de-
feat after their grand escape from Egypt. The entire world
should have heralded little Israel, this nation of ex-slaves es-
caping bondage from the most powerful empire on the planet, and
starting out on a track of the message of freedom that could well
revolutionize not only their own destiny but the destiny of
the entire world. What a powerful entrance on the stage of world
history, but then for no apparent reason, (not land, wealth or
glory) the nation of Amalek attacks the weakest link of this na-
tion, the old and frail and the young too tired and weak to
prevent their ranks from being massacred. In the annals of Jewish
history, this act has come to be identified with the essence
of evil,destruction for the sake of destruction, and G-d commands
the Jews to record for all time never to forget what was done
to them in the desert.
Even though we can no longer identify the Amalekites, Maimonides
specifically rules in his Laws of Kings Ch. 5, Law 5 that this
commandment ".. is a law for all generations." Interestingly
enough, Maimonides points out that when Sennacherib, king of
Ashur, captured the ten tribes, he also confounded all the na-
tions of the Fertile Crescent --the seven indigenous na-
tions are considered to have vanished off the face of the earth
and so we no longer have the obligation to destroy them. But
Amalek is different. The command to obliterate its memory is
eternal. Reb Chaim of Brisk, the grandfather of my revered
teacher, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, explained that Amalek
applies to any nation throughout history -- like Nazi Germany
--which lifts up its banner to destroy Israel. And this
commandment, to remember the evil perpetuated against you,
never to forget it and to attempt to destroy it, is not only
found in the Book of Exodus, but is even repeated by Moses
at the end of his life: "You must obliterate the memory of
Amalek from under the heavens. You must not forget" (Deuteron-
omy 25:18).
But our Torah is not built upon the possibilities of Evil and
our remembrance of destruction. Exit Amalek and enter Jethro:
"Jethro expressed joy because of all the good that G-d had done
for Israel... He said, 'Praised be G-d who rescued you from the
power of Egypt and Pharaoh...'" [Ex. 18:9-10]. Jethro is first
and foremost a gentile, priest of Midian, a non-Jew who never
converts to his son-in-law's religion, but his zeal is
genuine. In praising G-d the redeemer of Israel, Jethro puts
things into focus, a chance for the Jews to see that the entire
world is not Amalekian, that our G-d is not first and
foremost a G-d of vengeance but rather a G-d of redemption.
Proximity alone would have been enough to conclude that the Torah
wants these two gentiles to serve as a foil for each other,
but what confirms it is the fact that each incident becomes the
source of a commandment passed down to the generations --
destroying 'evil' and praising G-d for miracles. The Talmud in
Tr. Brachot 54a cites Jethro's praise as the source of the
command to offer blessings on the spot where a miracle once took
place.
The inclusion of the Ten Commandments in this week's portion
signifies how crucial the sequence is. Only after heeding both
commands --remembering Amalek and praising G-d for redeeming
us-- is it possible to truly keep the Torah's commandments. This
proximity also teaches us a fundamental law of life -- that
after remembering what Amalek did to us, the Torah does not want
us to dwell on our history of suffering, but to recognize
that ultimately G-d shall destroy Amalek, erase his name, and
redeem us.
Even in such a basic text as the Four Questions in the Hagga-
dah, we see how remembering and praising is an integral part of
Jewish theology, the paths of slavery and freedom constantly in-
tersecting. The first question describes that on all other nights
we eat chametz and matzah, and on this night only matzah, the
poor bread which interweaves in its dough both the symbol of
slavery and freedom.
The second question deals exclusively with slavery in that it
recalls how all year long we eat all vegetables, but on Pass-
over only maror, the bitter herb.
The third question is again a mixture of slavery and freedom.
On this night we dip twice, which is the symbol of free men
everywhere, but look at what gets dipped, maror into charoset,
the bitterness into the mortar with which the Jews built the ci-
ties of Pithom and Raamses. And karpas in saltwater for the tears
that poured freely.
The fourth question balances the second question's slavery
symbolism. All other nights we eat either sitting up or re-
clined, this night only reclined, a symbol of freedom.
As we can see from these questions, Judaism's night of
remembering is not dedicated exclusively to slavery to avoid
turning Judaism into a negative, lachrymose religion- one of the
major reasons so many thousands abandoned it when they arrived in
America at the turn of the century because it felt negative. Who
wants to identify with a people that constantly stresses its his-
tory of destruction? The glory of the Pesach seder is the memory
of slavery permeated with the blessing of freedom, emphasizing
that "although in every generation there were those who rose up
to destroy us, the Holy One always saved us from their hands."
A curious phenomenon has manifested itself in America. Part of
it is positive, but part of it is negative. In keeping with the
commandment to remember Amalek, holocaust centers are being
built in such locations as New York, Washington D.C. Van-
couver, Los Angeles. But a holocaust center which doesn't mani-
fest the words of Jethro's praise and enthusiasm for the
greatness of G-d violates the subtle message in this week's
portion. Remembering the Nazis is only half the story; by itself,
it is not enough to guarantee a Jewish future. Amalek must be
linked to Jethro, devastation must be linked with revelation,
destruction must be linked with redemption. That's why one
holocaust center being built in America stands apart in its ef-
fort to preserve not just a memory, but also in its commitment
toward the redemption of the Jewish people. In Los Angeles, the
Weisenthal center is linked to YULA, Yeshiva Universty of Los
Angeles, and the significance of this fact bears the same signi-
ficance as the proximity of Amalek to Jethro. Jewish education
is the only proven guarantee for Jewish survival; Amalek will
only be destroyed through national redemption and the Divine
laws of ritual and ethics.
There is only one Yad Vashem in the world, and that's not only
because of the quality of its exhibits, but the simple fact
that in leaving Yad Vashem one finds oneself in Jerusalem, in one
direction the great complex of Hadassah hospital, and in anoth-
er direction, the entrance to the neighborhood of Bayit Vegan,
where Torah centers flourish. The experience of visiting Yad
Vashem thus becomes a living intersection between Amalek and
Jethro, slavery and freedom, suffering and redemption. Ef-
fort should be made to guaranteee that all future holocaust
centers provide this interweaving of past and future. Even-
tually all holocaust centers of the Diaspora along with synago-
gues, will shuttle to Israel, to signal the ultimate destruction
of evil and to herald the coming of the Messiah of
peace.
Shabbat Shalom.
|
| 989.143 | Mishpatim: Of G-d and Man, Man and Man | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Mon Jan 27 1992 21:59 | 146 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Mishpatim
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- What's more important --the Torah command-
ments which deal with inter-personal relationships, or the com-
mandments between ourselves and G-d?
Arriving as it does immediately after the Ten Command-
ments, it's not surprising that this week's portion, Mishpatim,
begins with legal requirements of a society dedicated to morality
and ethics,employers and employees, and one may want to cite this
as proof that the commandments between man and man are more im-
portant. But a careful examination of the text reveals that Mish-
patim is not exclusively dedicated to civil and criminal law.
After the laws of loans and pledges, for example, the
text switches gears: "You shall not curse G-d, nor curse a ruler
of your people. You shall not delay offering the fullness of your
harvest, and the outflow of your presses," a reference to tithes
and priestly offerings." [Ex. 22: 27,28] Then, after more ritual
laws, the text returns to the laws between man and man, only to
be followed once more with the laws of the Sabbath and the fes-
tivals. Why this to and fro movement?
Indeed, a strong argument can be made that the Torah
places priority not on the ritual -- the laws between man and
G-d-- but on the laws between man and man. We read in Vayera
[Gen. 18:1] that after Abraham's circumcision he is graced by a
vision of G-d, but upon seeing three tired strangers in the dis-
tance, he abandons the Almighty, as it were to attend to the
needs of the guests. The Talmud points to this incident as an
underlying principle that "it's greater to be involved with
hospitality --sensitivity in interpersonal relationships-- than
to greet the Divine Presence.
In his work _Hegyonot El Ami_, the former chief rab-
bi of Tel Aviv, Rav Moshe Avigdor Amiel argues that this princi-
ple is not just a metaphoric ideal, but is an insight into the
methodology of halakha. For example, in ritual law there exists
the notion of neutralization or nullification (bitul):
Should something nonkosher fall into a pot of Kosher hot soup,
one need not throw out the soup if the ratio of kosher to non-
kosher is more than 60 to 1. The forbidden fragment becomes nul-
lified in the larger vat. But when it comes to laws between man
and man, there are no such leniencies. I cannot take ten dollars
which I pilfered and mix it up with an account where I have 600
legitimate dollars and argue the same 60 to 1 concept that rules
pots on the stove.
Second, when it comes to questions of ritual in the
Torah, we have the principle that a positive commandment can push
aside a negative prohibition. For example, although it is forbid-
den to wear clothes weaved from a mixture of linen and wool [Lev.
19:19], the Torah nevertheless commands that the ritual fringes
required on all four cornered garments should include a string of
sky-blue wool, [Numbers 15: 38] together with the linen. Thus the
positive commandment to wear tzitzit (tassels) pushes aside the
commandment forbidding a garment woven from wool and linen. But
when it comes to laws between man and G-d, the same principle
does not apply. Building a sukkah is a positive commandment, but
if I steal the necessary wood for construction, we call this a
mitzvah achieved through sin, and the sukkah is rendered invalid.
Third, emotional intent --devotion-- is an important part
of ritual law. Without proper intention, ritual becomes a mechan-
ical act, its value diminished. But proper intention is not re-
quired in laws between man and man because the deed itself is so
important that my lack of inner intention cannot undermine the
accomplishment of the act.
The court system in ancient Israel reflects these princi-
ples. Property litigations required three judges, questions of
life and death twenty-three judges. But to rule on ritual law --
kosher or traif -- all we need is a solitary judge.
What this comes down to is that the Torah sages were less
worried about the realm of divine rituals than about the realm of
human relationships. Perhaps the strongest statement I know on
this subject can be found in Tanhuma Shmini, 65 where the text
asks: "Does G-d really care if you slaughter an animal from the
back or the front? The whole purpose of the commandments is to
purify and to unite humanity."
Our Midrash is less interested in questioning the strict
laws of slaughtering animals than in making the rhetorical point
of who benefits from ritual commandments. G-d is not in need of
purification or unity. We are. And that this is the purpose of
the commandments -- all of them -- is one of the subtle messages
of Mishpatim. On the surface some commandments are directed to-
ward man, and some are directed toward G-d, but common to all the
commandments is their unifying and purifying principle. In the
laws between man and man, whose objective nature is about bring-
ing people closer together, this unifying principle is self-
evident. Multiplied enough times, 'love they neighbor as thyself'
translates into a golden age of peace for all mankind.
But the truth is that even ritual law moves toward global
unity and human purification. Let's look at Kashrut and the Sab-
bath. In knowing that I can't eat any animal I want to, I'm
forced into greater sensitivity toward all of G-d's creatures; I
am forced to confront the moral ambiguity of taking the life of
even a brute beast. And even permissable animals must be
slaughtered in a very specific way, which we must endeavor to be
painless. Moreso, even after ritual slaughter, I still cannot
partake of its blood. Kashrut requires an additional step of
soaking and salting to remove the blood. The moral ambiguity at-
tached to eating meat is further intensified by the prohibition
of mixing meat with milk. [Deut. 14:21] Thus we find four dis-
tinct levels of human sensitivity reflected even in such an inno-
cuous object as eating a hot dog with mustard and sour kraut.
On the Sabbath, a ritual which takes over lives every
seventh day, the Bible enjoins that remember the creation of the
world as well as our escape from Egypt, and the connection
between these two nations is clear. If G-d is the creator of the
world and we're all His creatures, no man has the right to
enslave another. On this day of reverence for life, we can't even
pluck a blade of grass or pick a fruit from a tree. Just as the
laws of Kashrut teach us to revere all of animal life, the Sab-
bath teaches us to revere even plant life. Thus we see that if
the laws between man and man teach us to revere all human beings,
the laws between man and G-d teach us to revere of all of ex-
istence. The former sensitizes us to a just society, the latter
sensitizes us to a just universe.
Even more significantly, the definition of G-d under-
standable to humans is expressed in the Bible as "Justice, Com-
passion, Tolerance, Lovingkindness and Truth" (Exodus 34:6). In
the long run, if prayer brings me closer to G-d, and being close
to G-d means that I walk in His path of compassion and love, then
of course I will become more sensitive in my human relationships.
Similarly, if my behaviour towards my fellow man helps me under-
stand the part of G-d within every human being, then it's clear
that the laws between man and man bring me closer to G-d. Ulti-
mately, these two dimensions are spokes on the same wheel, creat-
ing a unity. The commandments are there to help me see that
G-dliness exists in every aspect of existence, and the goal of
all the mitzvot is to create a more compassionate and sensitive
human being to help bring about a world of peace and harmony. In
effect, just as G-d is one, so the purpose of His Torah and his
commandments are one: to make all humanity one.
Shabbat Shalom
|
| 989.144 | Anybody home? | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Mon Jan 27 1992 22:04 | 6 |
|
Rabbi Riskin is noted for many things, but being boring
is not one of them. Any reason for the inactivity here?
Jem
|
| 989.145 | More questions | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Tue Jan 28 1992 19:13 | 24 |
| I find the most remarkable scene in this parasha is when Moses, Aaron,
two more (whose names I do not recognize), and the 70 elders of Israel
ascend the mountain (part way I assume) and _see_ G-d. This must be the
only incident in the entire Bible where people actually see G-d and live
to tell it. Then they eat and drink (lunch with the big Guy?). I am
surprised our religion doesn't make a big deal with this scene. Rabbi
Riskin doesn't come close to mentioning it.
This parasha also contains the (in)famous line about an eye for an eye.
If I read it correctly, this is the punishment for fighting with another
man. I recall that when I was in public school, my teacher once told the
class that the "Old Testament" law was harsh and cited this example.
In last week's portion, Moses speaks to G-d and G-d answers in words that
the people can _see_. (The usual translation is "thunder" but one member
of our study group got this from the Hebrew.) Perhaps this is the record
of the transition from a purely oral tradition to a written tradition
(i.e. the word of G-d that we can see written).
I have two questions from the preceeding parashot. Why is Gershom's name
explained to us twice (same explaination each time)? Also, why is Miriam
introduced as the "sister of Aaron" rather than as the "sister of Moses"?
Dave
|
| 989.146 | Thanks ... | KAHALA::JOHNSON_L | Leslie Ann Johnson | Tue Jan 28 1992 19:15 | 6 |
| Well, here I am, a non-Jew and previously read-only, to say I read the
previous article and appreciated your entering it very much. It gave me
some new insight and much to think about. I shall keep it in mind when
reading the Torah.
Leslie
|
| 989.147 | On an eye for an eye | KAHALA::JOHNSON_L | Leslie Ann Johnson | Tue Jan 28 1992 19:24 | 10 |
| RE: .145 which I read after entering .146
I have heard an explanation for the "eye for an eye" command that says that
rather than being a harsh command it was a limiting command - that
punishment greater than the crime could not be exacted by the plaintiff.
In other words, you could not require a life for a stolen sheep or
something like that. Does Rabbi Rishkin (did I spell this right ?) address
this ?
Leslie
|
| 989.148 | No more than one eye | CRLVMS::SEIDMAN | | Tue Jan 28 1992 21:17 | 26 |
| re: .147
I won't presume to speak for Rabbi Riskin on an "eye for an eye", but
the answer is, yes, it is an injunction against excessive punishment.
There are many similarities between the law codes in the Torah and
those of the contemporary cultures of Mesopotamia and Egypt, but there
are some key differences. In the Hammurabi laws (which can be found in
translation in a book by Pritchard--the title escapes me at the
moment) there are lists of punishments for various offenses.
One of the things one notices is the distinction between punishments
meted out for offenses against nobles and against commoners. An
offense against a member of the nobility was subject to much harsher
penalties. I am doing this from memory, so I don't guarantee that
I've got it exactly right, but as I recall, the penalty for putting out
the eye of a noble was loss of both eyes. Contrast this with the Torah
injunction, which makes no distinction with respect to status and
specifies that the punishment for violent behavior should be equivalent
to the crime. The Rabbis held that this should be interpreted to mean
appropriate financial compensation, not actually putting out the eye of
the offender, but even if one assumes that at one time it was taken
literally, it is still clearly a limiting injunction rather than a
vindictive one.
Aaron
|
| 989.149 | I tried to respond: | NAC::OFSEVIT | card-carrying member | Wed Jan 29 1992 02:39 | 21 |
| > Rabbi Riskin is noted for many things, but being boring
> is not one of them. Any reason for the inactivity here?
Actually, I tried to reply last week, and the notes file wasn't
accepting new entries for a couple of days. That seems to have been
fixed.
My question had to do with the topic in .140, namely Shabbat observance
and what is appropriate. I thought his examples ("resting" by playing
golf or just staying in bed) were pretty weak. A more challenging
question would be, why forbid "work" that is incidental to Shabbat
observance, i.e., driving to services (in the U.S., many people can't
live within walking distance of their shul) or playing musical
instruments to accompany singing and dancing which is part of Shabbat.
(Yes, I know, we don't blow the shofar on Shabbat...)
This gets into the perspective of halacha between Orthodox and
Conservative. Maybe the new newsgroup that was announced in topic 1162
will focus on this kind of question.
David
|
| 989.150 | | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Jan 29 1992 06:35 | 109 |
|
Re: .145 (Dave)
D>I find the most remarkable scene in this parasha is when Moses, Aaron,
D>two more (whose names I do not recognize), and the 70 elders of Israel
D>ascend the mountain (part way I assume) and _see_ G-d. This must be the
D>only incident in the entire Bible where people actually see G-d and live
D>to tell it.
24:10. Hirsch explains that this is similar to 22:9, where
G-d says, "I have seen this people, and behold it is a
stiff-necked people." One doesn't literally "see" stiff-
neckedness, one senses a condition; likewise the impression
of "sapphire brick" and "the essence of purity" gripped
the people in G-d's presence.
Ibn Ezra takes this as a communal prophetic vision, much like,
"I saw G-d sitting on His throne," or, "I saw G-d standing on
the altar."
In fact though, you're right to be shocked, since we know
that G-d is not corporeal, and each and every occurrence of a verse
which superficially appears to contradict that tenet requires
study. However, the general principal is, "the Torah spoke in
the language of Man." That is, as finite beings, we cannot
grasp the infinite, therefore all concepts are presented to us
by means of allegory. Maimonides devotes the entire first half
of his "Guide to the Perplexed" to in fact elucidating each
anthropomorphic reference in Tanach.
D>Then they eat and drink (lunch with the big Guy?). I am
D>surprised our religion doesn't make a big deal with this scene.
Hirsch compares this to Deut. 27:7, "And you shall offer the
Peace Offering and eat there and rejoice before the L-rd
your G-d." To Jews, everyday life can be a means of elevation
and communion with G-d (we sanctify the Sabbath by reciting
a blessing over that greatest of human vices, alcohol!).
D>Rabbi
D>Riskin doesn't come close to mentioning it.
Rabbi Riskin (unlike the rest of us :), does not have the
time to write an exposition on every single verse.
D>This parasha also contains the (in)famous line about an eye for an eye.
D>If I read it correctly, this is the punishment for fighting with another
D>man. I recall that when I was in public school, my teacher once told the
D>class that the "Old Testament" law was harsh and cited this example.
21:24. This is a very shallow approach which even a clever 7-year-old can
soundly dispute: what if the guilty party is blind to start? Or what
if he only damaged his eye so that he lost 1/3 of his sight? Shall
we attempt to duplicate the feat, risking total blindness (Ibn Ezra)?
How about a burn (v. 25)? Can anyone guarantee that he can reproduce
the same result as the offender?
The interpretation of our Sages (BK 84, that these laws refer to monetary
compensation) is thus eminently logical, and any other reading is utter
foolishness.
D>In last week's portion, Moses speaks to G-d and G-d answers in words that
D>the people can _see_. (The usual translation is "thunder" but one member
D>of our study group got this from the Hebrew.) Perhaps this is the record
D>of the transition from a purely oral tradition to a written tradition
D>(i.e. the word of G-d that we can see written).
20:15. This is unnecessary -- they *tangibly perceived* the source of
the sounds, since they were projected together with the flames and smoke,
thus associated with one another.
D>
D>I have two questions from the preceeding parashot. Why is Gershom's name
D>explained to us twice (same explaination each time)?
Possibly because the explanation ("I have been a stranger in a strange
land" [2:22]), is such a critical part of Moses' essence, and indeed
that of the Jewish People in general. Hirsch perceptively asks: where
else is one a stranger but in a strange land? But even a foreigner
eventually becomes comfortable in his new surroundings. Moses actually
had no reason to feel himself a stranger - he could have thrived in
his princely Egyptian role. But no matter how comfortable his surroundings,
he was a Jew first and *only*. For this reason is he the paradigmatic
leader of the often wandering - and often comfortable - Jewish People.
D>Also, why is Miriam
D>introduced as the "sister of Aaron" rather than as the "sister of Moses"?
Hirsch explains that Miriam occupied amonst the women the position that
Aaron held amongst the men: to relate to the people G-d's Word as
revealed to Moses (15:20).
(Homework: try to jot down the source as you formulate the
questions [not on Shabbat!]. I think it will make it easier
for everyone to check for themselves).
Re: .147 (Leslie)
L>I have heard an explanation for the "eye for an eye" command that says that
L>rather than being a harsh command it was a limiting command - that
L>punishment greater than the crime could not be exacted by the plaintiff.
L>In other words, you could not require a life for a stolen sheep or
L>something like that. Does Rabbi Rishkin (did I spell this right ?) address
L>this ?
No, but the Talmud does (see above).
Jem
|
| 989.151 | Lex talion | MINAR::BISHOP | | Wed Jan 29 1992 21:47 | 34 |
| re: "Eye for an eye" meaning money payment
While this may be attractive, I'm not sure it's defensible
for those of us who don't believe in divine inspriration.
Other codes of the same time and area do mean it literally.
I suspect it was meant literally at first, and then was
re-analyzed when money payments seemed more "just" at a
later date.
For example, Hamurabbi's code is clearly being literal when
it specifies "eye for an eye"-type punishments, as there are
also money punishments specified for other crimes. Thus it
says both (approximate reference from my memory):
If a man puts out someone's eye, his eye is to be put out.
If a man builds a house and it falls down and kills someone,
he is to be killed.
and
If a man kills someone's slave, he is to pay three units
of silver.
So you can't assume that "his eye is to be put out" is a symbolic
reference to a money payment, as the code is perfectly happy to
directly refer to money payments without symbols.
As far as I'm aware, Hammurabbi's code doesn't address the
problems of blind people or less than total injuries to the eye,
etc. I'm sure a judge would come up with something painful
which seemed just to the people of the time in such cases!
-John Bishop
|
| 989.152 | Distinct issues | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Jan 29 1992 22:24 | 51 |
|
Re: .149 (David O.)
DO>My question had to do with the topic in .140, namely Shabbat observance
DO>and what is appropriate. I thought his examples ("resting" by playing
DO>golf or just staying in bed) were pretty weak. A more challenging
DO>question would be, why forbid "work" that is incidental to Shabbat
DO>observance, i.e., driving to services (in the U.S., many people can't
DO>live within walking distance of their shul) or playing musical
DO>instruments to accompany singing and dancing which is part of Shabbat.
DO>(Yes, I know, we don't blow the shofar on Shabbat...)
I'm not sure what you mean by "weak." The two issues are dif-
ferent from one another: many Jews justify their R&R activities
on Shabbat by the claim that this is the whole purpose of the
Sabbath in the first place, and they may not even go to services
(to quote, "'the seventh day you shall rest.' And sitting
through a rabbi's sermon is the last thing I want to do on my day
off."). Others may indeed drive to temple and not engage in other
activities. Rabbi Riskin was addressing the first issue in this
article.
DO>This gets into the perspective of halacha between Orthodox and
DO>Conservative. Maybe the new newsgroup that was announced in topic 1162
DO>will focus on this kind of question.
"If the Jews are not prophets, they certainly are descendants of
prophets." This is indeed a hot topic on that list.
The 1953 (Conservative) JTS Law Committee decision permitting
travel to services remains highly controversial to this day, and
*many* Conservative rabbis reject the logic outright, including
some prominent members of the Committee itself. The essential
reasoning was that communities would die out if travel were not
permitted, and therefore it's better to keep the temples open
even if laws are broken than to close them.
The flaw in this logic is that there are dynamic and growing com-
munities all over the country which do not allow travel - people
who are committed find means of avoiding Sabbath desecration.
What is needed are more courageous rabbis who don't cave in to
the whims of their congregants and instead take an active role in
educating the congregation about the uniqueness of Shabbat and
why it must be differentiated from profane activity in every way
possible. But this takes courage, energy and time, which unfor-
tunately not every rabbi is willing to commit.
As far as music, I've never heard of a Conservative ruling permitting
it on the Sabbath.
Jem
|
| 989.153 | Hammurabbi: a rabbi who ate ham? | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Jan 29 1992 23:06 | 42 |
|
Re: .151 (John B.)
JB> For example, Hamurabbi's code is clearly being literal when
JB> it specifies "eye for an eye"-type punishments, as there are
JB> also money punishments specified for other crimes. Thus it
JB> says both (approximate reference from my memory):
"Scholars" love to compare the Bible to the Code of Hammurabbi, but
the logic has always alluded me. If a given American law happens
to appear superficially similar to an Albanian one, would you
say that the former was necessarily derived from latter, even if
it were proven that the Albanian law preceded the American one?
And even if so, do the fine points of legal interpretation of the
latter necessarily apply to the former? Is it possible that the
American legislators who adapted the law had a different understanding
or subtly changed the wording to differentiate it from that of
the Albanians? Is it possible that there are cultural differences
which give rise to sometimes *opposite* meanings of the same
word in one country from another?
I would sure look at a judge funny if he started quoting Albanian
precedents in deciding a case in Brooklyn!
JB> So you can't assume that "his eye is to be put out" is a symbolic
JB> reference to a money payment, as the code is perfectly happy to
JB> directly refer to money payments without symbols.
This, of course, is not the case in our passage.
JB> As far as I'm aware, Hammurabbi's code doesn't address the
JB> problems of blind people or less than total injuries to the eye,
JB> etc. I'm sure a judge would come up with something painful
JB> which seemed just to the people of the time in such cases!
I can't speak for Hammurabbi, but Torah law certainly doesn't
work like that. For instance, if a criminal is given *one*
more lash than he's been sentenced to and dies because of
it, the administrating official is to be tried for murder.
Jem
|
| 989.154 | *subtle* is the operative word... | DELNI::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in JERUSALEM! | Wed Jan 29 1992 23:37 | 104 |
| re: Note 989.151
Hi, John
> While this may be attractive, I'm not sure it's defensible
> for those of us who don't believe in divine inspriration.
> Other codes of the same time and area do mean it literally.
> I suspect it was meant literally at first, and then was
> re-analyzed when money payments seemed more "just" at a
> later date.
Interesting way of looking at it.
There's probably a hundred other ways of looking at it as well, but here's
a couple for now to "scratch the surface":
> For example, Hamurabbi's code is clearly being literal when
> it specifies "eye for an eye"-type punishments, as there are
> also money punishments specified for other crimes.
This quote is *precisely* why you can rest assured that G-d's law is
somehow different! How many times did He command the children of Israel to
be *holy*, separate, distinct, different from the rest of the world around
them? If other nations were *demanding* equal physical damage for justice,
you can be sure G-d would want a different standard from Israel
(e.g., *limiting* compensation so that justice might be tempered with
mercy).
Or, try this perspective....(whether or not you believe Torah to be the Word
of G-d, divinely inspired, try to take that position for the sake of this
argument ;-).
Let's say that G-d has set certain boundaries. Here it's ok to walk, here
it's dangerous (I set before you this day life and death, choose life...).
Now let's also say that it's pretty evident from the Scriptures that from
Adam on down through today, people are usually "naturally" inclined to be
disobedient ("naturally" in quotes to highlight the difference in our
nature before and after the fall - another very long topic!). Some would
say that this is the "evil inclination", some would say it's Ha Satan -
whatever...it's a desire to oppose G-d.
In that light, I guess we could expect that the laws or codes of man
(driven by the "evil inclination", or Ha Satan, or what have you), are
going to be in some degree of conflict with the Law of G-d. However, if
G-d's law says "don't murder" and man's law says "murder", the gulf would
be too big to be believed. So the conflicts and contradictions have to be
presented in a more palatable manner.
Perhaps we could expect that the way to make man's laws most "effective" in
this manner, is to mock (both by scoffing and counterfeitting) *G-d's* Law.
What's the result?
Numbers of codes, laws, rules and regulations that in some ways resemble
Torah, but in reality are uninspired. We've stolen, twisted, perverted,
and faked G-d's Law and given it our own spin, thus making us doubt the
validity of the "divinely inspired" claim of Torah and even the very
existance of G-d Himself!
Again, to accomplish such a feat, the differences in man's laws must be
subtle. When you think of the epitome of subtle and crafty - who or what
comes to mind? The "crown of subtlety" (so-to-speak) seems to have been
rightly worn by the Serpent in the Garden (...he [the serpent] was more
subtle than *any* creature...).
In fact, look at the Garden example...
Here, G-d has made it clear - do *not* eat of the fruit of the tree of the
knowledge of good & evil or you *will* die. This is what G-d has said, it
is what He revealed to Adam in the Garden. I think it's safe to make
the connection with the recorded revelation at Sinai in the following way:
GARDEN:
Serpent: Did G-d *really* tell you not to eat of any of the
fruit of the Garden?
SINAI: Serpent II* : C'mon - think logicially, is Torah *really* given
by G-d Himself or did man create Torah (and by
extraction, G-d)?
* Serpent II might be "evil inclination", Ha Satan, etc.
The subtlety is the temptation to doubt G-d's Word and His existance. In
the Garden, His Word (His Law, His Torah) was perverted by the Serpent who
presented the case to Eve as if G-d were some nasty ogre who was refusing
them their somehow-given "right" to eat anything in the Garden they so
chose! But G-d never restricted them from the entire Garden, He only said
not to eat the fruit of *one specific* tree. In fact, they already *had* the
*G-d*-given right to eat from all the other trees as they so chose.
The temptation today with regard to Sinai is that we should be able to see
the supposed widsom and justice of mankind who has all these laws just like
G-d's Law. Torah *can't* be divinely inspired because all these other codes
seem to require the same thing.
On the surface, they may seem that way, but the *subtle* differences become
not-so-subtle when you think of G-d as a *holy* G-d; *the* Sovereign of the
Universe, Who gave the Torah of truth!
Steve
|
| 989.155 | Teruma: It's better to give...and to receive | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Sun Feb 02 1992 13:28 | 123 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Truma
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- One of the most difficult tasks at which to
succeed is that of fundraiser. Convincing someone to spend mo-
ney for a product with tangible returns is usually difficult
enough, (proved by multi-million dollar advertising budgets)
but fundraisers talk in terms of benefits which can't be
worn, tasted, or sat down upon by those who write the checks.
It's a profession with hurdles all along the way. People
want to receive funds, not to give them away. And what often
compounds the difficulty is that an inexperienced fun-
draiser will subconsciously convey a message to his potential
donors that their natural assets are of extreme importance - so
much so that they will only be inspired to hold on to every cent
with ever-increased tenacity. How successful can the fundraiser
be when the people he is trying to convince are confused with a
subtle double message?
In my own capacity as Rabbi and Dean, I've had to do my share of
fundraising -- there's hardly a Rosh Yeshiva who can keep his in-
stitution afloat if he doesn't personally raise funds-- and as a
result I've learned some important lessons about the nature of
fundraising. And one of the most important of all can be found in
the opening verses of this week's portion, Truma, which deals
with raising funds for the Holy Temple, and charges none other
than Moses our teacher with this difficult responsibility.
The parashah opens with the verse, "Speak to the children of Is-
rael and they shall take for me a gift offering from every person
whose heart moves him." [Ex. 25:1-2]
What strikes us immediately is the odd use of the word take
(tikchu). Doesn't it make more sense to say that the children of
Israel should 'bring' G_d an offering? The one who brings a gift,
brings it, and the one who takes it, takes it, so why are the
phrases seemingly interchanged?
I believe that the secret of fundraising can be found precisely
in this use of the term 'take' and not 'bring.' I live in Israel,
(thank G_d) but several months of the year I travel to North
America as well as parts of Europe where I lecture, teach and...
fundraise. A fundraiser has to believe that the person who gives
actually receives, so that the moment when he a very unique gift
opportunity- not only for the institution in question but also,
and even especially, for the potential donor himself.
A story is told about Rabbi Yosef Yozel Hurwitz, zatzal, one of
the giants of the musar movement, and the founder of the Novar-
diker Yeshiva network throughout Poland and Russia. His approach
to worshipping the Creator was based on absolute essentials,
truth above all. There was no room in his Judaism for sentimen-
tality. A false note in a person was pursued until it could be
surgically removed. It so happened that one of his former stu-
dents proved more acute in business than in the Bet Midrash, a
mediocre student at best. One day Reb Yozel, the Rosh Yeshiva,
turned to his former student to plead financial need. The ex-
student responded, and word soon spread that he'd given what in
those days was an incredible amount of money, more than a 100,000
rubles.
After Novardik, this businessman had transferred to another
yeshiva where he had been more successful in his studies. When
the head of this other yeshiva heard about how much money his
former student had contributed to the Novardiker Rosh Yeshiva, he
began to anticipate the greatest gift in his yeshiva's history.
Why not half a million rubles? But instead of walking away with a
grand contribution, the student astonished him with a perfunctory
18 rubles.
When the shock wore off, he turned to his student and asked him
if he'd mind clarifying the disparity between the two donations:
why had the Rosh Yeshiva of Novardik received so much and why had
he received so little?
The rich man explained that the day Reb Yozel had an appointment
to see him was the worst of the winter, harsh with relentless
rain and howling winds. "I was sure he would postpone the meet-
ing. But he came anyway, and when he walked into my house, his
boots were thick with mud, and his coat was drenched. There was
no small talk, no preliminaries. Sitting down on my couch, not
even glancing at the furniture, paying no mind to the puddle he
was leaving on the rug, he began talking about the needs of the
yeshiva. It was clear to me that as far as Reb Yozel was con-
cerned, my house, my sofa, my rugs, my silver and gold and art
meant very little. What was really important was the world of
Torah, was raising another generation of committed Jews. And as I
sat in his presence, I began to feel tremendously influenced by
this man's total devotion. In his presence I knew that money had
no value unless used for specific ends. And I believed that my
money would achieve its greatest value - and I could enjoy its
greatest benefit - by giving it to the Novardik yeshiva. But when
you arrived, and peered into the living room, I could see how im-
pressed you were with the display of wealth. Your eyes lit up,
widening with respect. Before stepping on the rug, you wiped your
feet again and again, and you sat on the couch as if you were
afraid you might make a crease. I couldn't help being influenced
by your reaction to my wealth. In your presence, I again felt the
importance of material possessions, and the respect it gives to
the one who possesses it. And if money was so important, how
could I give too much of it away. Is it my fault you had me under
your spell?"
What this tale so clearly illustrates is that charity takes on
an added dimension when the donor realizes that when he gives he
really receives, that indeed the only time he will truly benefit
from his funds is if he expends if for the good of his people,
for the continuity of his faith. It doesn't matter if it's to the
UJA, a new hospital wing, a school for handicapped children, set-
tling a Russian immigrant, keeping a Torah institution alive. Mo-
ney itself, the Torah is telling us, has very little value when
it sits in the bank waiting for a rainy day or a promising in-
vestment. The fundraiser who can get this message across to the
donor is really doing everyone a favor --the one who receives the
charity, as well as the one who gives. Indeed, he is teaching the
giver that, by doing so, he becomes the biggest receiver.
Shabbat Shalom
|
| 989.156 | Teruma: Divine concentration (R. Riskin) | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Mon Feb 03 1992 22:59 | 330 |
| Shabbat Shalom:Truma by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- The hasid was a Lubovitcher who used to
blow shofar in a synagogue in Washington Heights, and the mit-
naged was Rabbi Moshe Soloveichik, the father of my rebbe and
teacher, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveichik. One year as Rav Moshe
called out 'tkiya,' instead of blasting the shofar, the hasid
wept. Again he called out 'tkiya,' and again tears. After three
or four attempts that got him nowhere, Rabbi Moshe banged on the
bimah, the raised platform in the center of the shul: "Before you
grasp the Four Species on Sukkot, do you cry? Before you eat Mat-
zah on the eve of Passover Seder ,do you cry? Lulav and etrog is
a mitzvah, matzah is a mitzvah, and blowing the shofar is a
mitzvah. So stop crying and perform the mitzvah." Immediately the
Lubovitcher blew the shofar.
On the surface this story places the hasid's tears in direct col-
lision with the cold precision of the mitnaged, who seemingly
looks upon the commandment of shofar with relative detachment.
But I believe the difference is far more profound than sim-
ply a question of emotional involvement; --we are confronting
two different ways of looking at the world based on two dif-
ferent .perceptions. of _tzimtzum_, the Midrashic-Kabbalistic
theory which comes to answer the existence of evil in G*d's
world.
The foremost theological challenge to religion has always been
how a G*d of pure spirit and good compassion could have
created this physical world of evil and tragedy. How could there
have emanated from G*d a world so different from His
essence? Kabbalistically, _tzimtzum_ refers to G*d contracting
and restricting Himself in order to leave room for man, in
order to give humanity the challenge of perfecting an imperfect
(incomplete) world. In effect, G*d created a world which allows
for the existence of objective evil: darkness as well as light,
chaos as well as order, evil as well as goodness. We read in
Isaiah: "I am G*d, there is no one else. I form the light and
create darkness. I make peace and create evil..." [45:7]
Hassidism, which emerges out of kabbalism, was wary of such a
literal definition of _tzimtzum_. There were those who argued
that it only appears to us that there are pockets in the world
empty of G*d. As in the example of the wine flask, when you emp-
ty its contents, a residue remains, so even in G*d's absence,
His imprint or residue remains in every corner and pocket
of the universe.
Nonetheless, this stream of kabbalism/hassidism sees the world
as largely surrounded by husks of evil, the Divine hidden or
absent, so that it's no surprise that there is a natural desire
on the part of many to try to escape a world of endless
tragedy, and find refuge and solace in the world beyond this one,
a world which is all G*d. But there is another view of
_tzimtzum_, which is probably the source for
Rabbi Moshe Soloveichik's attitude toward the mitzvah of
shofar.
Although I didn't hear it from Rav Moshe himself, his son,
my rebbe, the scion of mitnagdic Brisk, approaches _tzimtzum_
from a totally different direction. In his major treatise
Halakhic Man (_Ish Halacha_), Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik defines
the Jewish religionist as one who never seeks to escape this
world. On the contrary, challenged to perfect humanity, his en-
tire objective is to bring G*d in this world. This concept is
exquisitely elucidated in a Midrash on a verse in this week's
portion of Truma and provides an alternative approach to
the concept of _tzimtzum_. "And I communed with you there, speak-
ing to you from above the ark cover, from between the two
covers on the Ark of Testimony..." [Ex. 25:22]
How large could the space between the two cherubs have been?
Certainly nothing compared to that of an infinite G*d, (of whom
King Solomon says, "...behold the heaven and heaven of
heavens cannot contain thee..." [I Kings 8:27]). The Midrash ex-
plains that this narrow space is precisely the point. G*d
quintessentializes His essence, constructs and intensifies His
being in the space between the cherubs, in order to communicate
to Israel through Moses. It could therefore be argued that the
Midrash believes that _tzimtzum_ is not concerned with G*d res-
tricting or constricting Himself away from the world, but rather,
in his constricting and intensifying His infinite self to
make Himself available to us in this world.
In other words, according to kabbalistic and hassidic thought,
_tzimtzum_ explains the areas in the world where G*d is not, and
according to the Midrash, _tzimtzum_ explains the areas in
the world where G*d is! Tzimtzum expresses the Divine capacity to
make a quintessential aspect of Himself manifest even in a small
place, even in a limited object. G*d's presence in the world is
to be discerned within the four ells of Jewish Law, within those
spaces to which we bring Him by our actions. Let's look again
at the story of the hasid's tears. Ours is a world of law, be
it physics or Torah. People grow old and die. When illness comes,
it usually follows a scientific course. What we see in this
world are the tragedies, G*d's realm of compassion is harder
to discern. But on Rosh Hashana, when the shofar is blown, G*d
leaves the throne of judgment and enters the throne of compas-
sion. And so the sounds of the shofar are the sobs of the soul
yearning to leave this world of tragedy and enter the world of
compassion and redemption, the world of G*d. In a sense, the
shofar weeps because it was necessary for G*d to restrict and
constrict Himself, to have left this world in a large measure de-
void of His essence. In the hasid's tears we find a parallel
to the message of the shofar as he understands it. But Rav Moshe
understood Rosh Hashana differently. On this day G*d created the
world -- it's the birthday of existence, with the entire
universe applauding, even the four-legged creatures in need
of and grateful for G*d's compassionate life giving gifts.
Thus the shofar, the ram's horn, is about G*d concentrating
Himself in every aspect of life, even in the horn of a hoofed
animal. And from this perspective, the shofar is a sound of
great praise and song. There is no need for the hasid to weep.
It's a time of rejoicing. You don't cry when you take the
Four Species, a sign of G*d's glory in nature, you don't cry when
you take the matzoh, a sign of man's redemption. Neither
should you cry when you blow the shofar.
The wife of a congregant of mine became terminally ill with canc-
er. During one of my hospital visits, I witnessed a moment
between husband and wife which expressed a love that has lasted a
lifetime. Indicating she was thirsty, her husband began to
squeeze an orange with deliberate care, and I watched how gently
he brought the cotton swab soaked in juice to her dry lips.
She could barely speak but her eyes couldn't have been more
thankful and his movements couldn't have been more pa-
tient. Later, as I was leaving, he said, "I'm so grateful to G*d
that I'm able to concentrate 35 years of love in one
spoonful of orange juice. "This is the midrashic _tzimtzum_, the
ability for us to concentrate G*d in a line of prayer, in a
lulav and etrog, in Sabbath candles... or even a spoonful of
orange juice given in lovingkindness and commitment. Just as
in all human relationships a glance or a word to a lover or a
beloved can express in concentrated form the quintessence
of many years of love and devotion, so a simple act or object in
the performance of a commandment can encompass in quintessen-
tial form the eternal relationship between a G*d, a world,
and a nation.
Shabbat Shalom.
|
| 989.157 | Tetzaveh: Shittim and Gold | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Thu Feb 13 1992 22:01 | 142 |
|
It appears that Rabbi Riskin is taking a well-dserved vacation
this week, in any event I haven't gotten his weekly article.
Here are some questions I have on the parasha:
Do the extensive discussions surrounding the makeup of the Taber-
nacle, starting in Terumah and occupying most of the remainder of
Exodus, bear any relevance to the lives of soon-to-be 21st-
century man?
"And you shall make an altar, a burning place for incense, of
shittim-wood shall you make it... and you shall overlay it with
pure gold, its top, its walls around and its elevated corners;
and you shall make a gold rim around it...And you shall make the
carrying-poles out of shittim-wood and overlay them with gold"
(Ex. 30:1-5).
What is so special about this "shittim-wood," that it forms the
basis for most of the Tabernacle's (and Temple's) appurtenances?
And if indeed it is so important, why is it then covered all
around with gold?
The Midrash (Sh.R. 50:3) offers an answer to the first question:
For I will restore health to you, and heal you your
wounds (Jer.30:17). G-d heals with the very thing with
which he wounds...it was in Shittim that Israel sinned,
as it says, "and Israel stayed in Shittim, and the people
began to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moav (Num.
25:1). But it was also through Shittim that they were
healed, as it says, "And Betzalel made the ark of
shittim-wood" (Ex. 37:1).
If there is one place on earth where one would hope to be allowed
to forget his past transgressions it would be the Temple. Why was
there a need for this "souvenir" of the sin at Shittim permeating
the entire infrastructure of the Temple - including the Holy Ark
itself!?
With Purim fast approaching, and Passover just beyond that, Jews
will begin to display their annual manifestations of "chametz
(leaven) phobia." Suddenly, it seems that dropping a crumb into
the crevice of a kitchen chair or bringing a book into the
kitchen becomes a capital crime. Is all this fuss really neces-
sary? Well, yes and no:
Checking for leaven is a Rabbinic injunction, since ac-
cording to strict Torah law *nullification* (_bitul_)
alone is sufficient (Pes. 4b).
Rashi explains:
For it is written, "...but on the first day, *remove*
(_tashbitu_) leaven..." (Ex. 12:15), and *mental* removal
(removal of the heart) is true removal.
The Tosaphot argue:
R"I says _tashbitu_ actually means literal destruction
(_hav'ara_)! Rather, the Gemara means that _bitul_
renders the leaven *ownerless*, and thus outside the
parameters of the injuction against possessing leaven on
Passover.
Tosaphot, at first blush seems 100% correct: the Torah require-
ment *is* to destroy all leaven. What then is Rashi's rationale?
It is well known that the mystics considered leaven to be
representative of the Evil Inclination (Zohar 2:183b), and that
by ridding our houses of leaven for seven days we are symbolical-
ly ridding ourselves of sin. Thus, preparing for Passover is ac-
tually a metaphor for repentance itself. Of repentance the Rabbis
say:
Great is repentance...Resh Lakish said,"...(through re-
pentance) intentional sins are transformed into
*merits*. As it is written (Ez. 33:19), "And
when a wicked man repents of his wickedness
and performs justice and righteousness, he
shall live because of them" (Yoma 86b).
Malbim comments on Ez. 33:19:
He will then live with *both* his former sinful-
ness *and* his present "justice and righteous-
ness." For he will be *elevated* to a higher level
of righteousness now *because* of his former sinful
ways. As our Sages say, "in a place where a
penitent stands even completely righteous people cannot
stand" (Ber. 34b).
In other words, the goal of repentance is not to *obliterate*
past sins; not only is this impossible - it is undesirable. One's
actions are permanent - but this is not necessarily a deficit.
Once one repents for his evil deeds, the deeds themselves become
the *foundation* of his new existence, and he is considered
greater even than he who never sinned at all (if you're thinking
of getting a "head start" by sinning before repenting, see Yoma
86b. :) .
At the same time, a penitent must not *flaunt* his past errors,
because that would actually mean that he still harbored some
pride over his transgressions. As R. Kahana says (Ber. 34b):
I consider anyone who enumerates his sins to be
audacious, for it is written: Happy is he whose
transgression is forgiven, whose sin is *covered*
(Ps. 32:1).
Note the terminology: not "dissolved" or "removed" but "covered"
(_kisui_). Likewise, the term here rendered "forgiven" is
_nesui_, which literally means "carries," making the meaning,
"whose transgression is *carried*," again stressing that the sin
is never obliterated, but transformed.
Rashi is therefore giving us a profound insight into the purpose
of _tashbitu_. The ideal goal would be to simply nullify leaven,
and thus sin, *right where it is*, to demonstrate that we have
indeed conquered our urge for it, it thereby being transformed
into a strength rather than a weakness. But the Rabbis knew that
not everyone had the fortitude to withstand such temptation, and
the therefore commanded that the leaven be physically removed
from the premises. Tosaphot, on the other hand, feel that the
Torah's goal was the simple removal of leaven from the house, but
in the event this was impossible mere nullification would work
*by the same principal*, i.e. *technical* removal by means of de-
claring it ownerless. In other words, "nullification" was always
the Torah's second choice, the Rabbis merely formalizing the need
for physical removal.
We thus also understand the message in the construction of the
Temple. There is no *escaping* one's past - it is always there.
What we make of our future, however, is up to us. Thus, all of
the appurtenances were indeed shittim-wood at the core, but
*covered*, both inside and out by gold, so that the casual ob-
server would never even know of the existence of the shittim-
wood.
Is this relevant today? It is for anyone who would like to
transform a questionable past into the foundation of a glorious
future.
|
| 989.158 | Accacia wood | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Thu Feb 13 1992 23:45 | 10 |
| My translation says "Accacia" (sp?) wood. When our temple commissioned a
new Torah, one of the congregants constructed the wooden rollers out of
accacia wood. He reports the stuff is hard, brittle, and awful to
work with and he says he'll never use it again. The Hebrew craftsmen
must have been extremely skilled to shape so much of that stuff without
benefit of power tools.
I have a dumb question concerning this week's parasha. What's an "Ephod"?
Dave
|
| 989.159 | | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Fri Feb 14 1992 00:41 | 14 |
|
Re: .158
>I have a dumb question concerning this week's parasha. What's an
>"Ephod"?
Actually a very good question, since almost all the commentators
ask the same question. All agree that it was a garment that the
High Priest wore, and that it had a gold thread woven into it.
The dispute center around how long it was and whether or not it
had sleeves.
Jem
|
| 989.160 | Ki Tisa: Summary Justice Summarized | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Feb 18 1992 21:54 | 119 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Ki Tisa
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- What are we to make of the events
recorded in this week's portion of Ki Tisa regarding the kil-
ling of 3000 Jews by the tribe of Levi? How can the Bible
seemingly condone Jew taking the life of his brother, even if the
brother in question led the masses in worshipping the golden
calf. What about due legal process? it simply an example of
zealots for the sake of zealotry, an opportunity for the quick
tempered, conservative defenders of the faith to wield their
swords into the flesh of terrible sinners? Let us review the
events before the "civil slaughter" and perhaps we will be able
to learn a great deal about the Biblical attitudes.
After fasting for forty sleepless days and nights on Mt. Sinai,
Moses returns with the Ten Commandments carved by G-d Himself,
only to discover that the nation has retreated into idol worship,
dancing around a golden calf.
The anger of Moses waxes hot; he breaks the Tablets. Still, G-d
wants to destroy the nation, erasing the past and starting
anew with Moses. Instead of feeling honored, Moses makes an elo-
quent plea, demonstrating why G-d must continue with the seed
of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Moses succeeds, and G-d
relents.
But the leader of the Israelites cannot allow the golden calf
debacle to pass in silence. Given the basic elements of the in-
cident, the case seems black and white: for practicing paganism
and its attendant orgies, the people must be punished with death.
Moses looks for someone to carry out the act, and the Levites
step forward. Placing G-d above their own emotions, they perform
their task so well that Moses declares that they are to be
consecrated.
But what seems so dry and clear-cut takes on an element of am-
biguity when we realize that there is a seeming flaw in the nar-
rative. When Moses commands the people to take up their swords
against the worshipers of the golden calf, he ascribes this
instruction to G-d. "Thus says the Lord, the G-d of Israel: Put
every man his sword upon his thigh, and go to and fro from
gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his broth-
er...." [Ex. 32:27]
The language is vividly evocative, but that hardly changes
the fact that there is no record in our text that Moses heard
this from G-d. Therefore it would have been more accurate for
Moses to simply say, "Put every man his sword...," leaving G-d
out of this picture.
Rashi, who is bothered by this problem directs us to a
previous law in Parashat Mishpatim. "Whoever sacrifices to any
deity other than G-d alone must be condemned to death."
[Ex. 22:19]. For Rashi, this verse gives Moses the right to
claim G-d as the voice of authority in declaring the idolators
subject to being slain by the sword.
The Midrash suggests an alternate view, drawing our attention to
the verse immediately before the one in which Moses issues the
command for each man to take up sword against 'brother, friend,
neighbor.' We read that "..Moses stood in the gate of the
camp.." [Ex. 32:26] Giving us the exact location of gate, which
is often interpreted as Court which usually met at the City's
Gate, the verse may be providing a subtle allusion to the
Seventy Elders. In other words, prior to Moses issuing
his command, he consulted with these elders, turning their con-
sent into the equivalent of divine authority. Moreover, this in-
terpretation implies that each of the 3000 was given a separate
trial, replete with witnesses and warning, including all
the rudiments of a legal defense in an idolatry trial punishable
by death. Apparently this midrash will provide no sanction for
punishment without due process.
The Netziv, in his work _HaEmek Davar_, deals with the difficul-
ties inherent in the command of Moses by looking at it in the
context of the previous verse. But it's not so much the location
of Moses which is signifcant for the Netziv, but rather
what Moses says in that verse: "Moses stood in the gate of the
camp, and said, 'Who is on the Lord's side, let him come to me.
And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to
him." [32:26]
According to the Netziv, 'who is on the Lord's side' is a
specific criterion of character and impeccable moral behavior to
separate the bloodhounds from the righteous few. The fact is that
the vast majority of the nation didn't dance around the calf, but
the last thing Moses wants is to attract to his cause those
who merely restrained from idolatry. Passive restraint is not
enough. Moses sought those whose commitment and sacrifice and
dedication to G-d marked their character,those whose only motiva-
tion was the purification of the nation. Only such individuals
can execute without due process.
For the Netziv the use of the words, 'brother' is not just
hyperbole, but a description of the necessary feelings of the
sword carriers. No hate, anger, revenge or bitterness can be
involved. They must feel genuine brotherhood toward those they've
been commanded to kill. If not this level, the repercussions
would even be more tragic. This cannot be a mob job, featuring
gangsters with their tommy guns.
The Netziv's interpretation rests on the principle that if
you're out to destroy evil, you have to be sure of the purity of
your motivation, and that you're not moved by anything other
than a love of G-d and a hatred of evil. The key is the hatred of
the evil, and not the hatred of the person committing the
evil. Evidence for this understanding can be seen in the verse
"And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses, and
there fell that day around 3000 men." [32:28] The word killing is
not mentioned because the essence of the Levites' action was
not murder, but carrying out the word of Moses. Our Biblical com-
mentaries were concerned with eradicating idolatry, but they
were equally concerned about not giving sanction to wanton zealo-
try on the part of the nascent nation of Israel.
Shabbat Shalom.
|
| 989.161 | Vayakhel: Our Cherubs, Our Future | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Mon Feb 24 1992 22:08 | 141 |
|
Shabbat Shalom:
Vayakhel by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- Today we think of a baby as bundle of sweet joy
and innocense, with twenty or more years of an exciting, care-
free life until graduation day from Harvard. But the idea of
higher education --or any education at all-- is a relatively
recent introduction into society. Even now, families in the
poorest nations are often too burdened to think of their chil-
dren as anything more than mouths to feed, waiting for the day
when their five year old is strong enough to start working, and
earning whatever his small fingers can manage.
The Jewish relationship toward its young has always been
different: the fundamental rule to study Torah is based on
the Biblical admonition "And you shall teach your children dili-
gently" and so Jewish parents sacrifice without bounds to
pay for a child's education. Similarly the important festival of
Passover celebrating our very national independence, focuses
into the soul of the young, providing them with their
own traditions, questions and answers,through the central
commandment of the seder: "And you shall tell your children." And
we should never forget that while Abraham and Sarah were
praying for a child, much of the world they lived in sacrificed
children to Moloch.
Vayakhel, this week's Torah portion, records the sanctuary's
construction, and we read again of the cherubs on the golden cov-
er which covered the Ark containing the Tablets. Rashi's
description of the cherubs is only four words long: _dmut
partzuf tinok lahem_ -they had the faces of infants [Ex.
25:18]. In the past, we've discussed various aspects of the
cherubs, but this week I'd like to concentrate on how
the choice of an infant as the cherubic model harmonizes with
a profound concept in Judaism.
The Torah records that it was from this place on the Ark that G-d
said He would make Himself known, and since the passing down
of Jewish law and wisdom is usually associated with saintly sages
and old bearded figures whose eyes are filled with patience and
love, it wouldn't have been surprising if the place where G-d
makes Himself known should have immortalized the cherubs
with the faces of sages. After all, there is a commandment in the
Torah "..that you shall rise up before the hoary head, and honor
the face of the old man..." [Lev. 19:32], while no such command-
ment exists for a child. Why then an infant's face in this most
holy of places?
Apparently the cherubs are here to teach us something about our
relationship to G-d, and necessary attitudes between people
in the world He created. We find evidence for the revolutionary
concept implicit in the faces of the cherubs in the Talmud (B.T.
Megilla 9a) where we read how Ptolemy II, king of Egypt, con-
vened seventy-two Sages, placing each one in separate quarters,
and commanding each one to translate the Torah into Greek.
The Talmud records that the Sages were afraid if certain
verses were translated literally, the Hellenist mind would
misunderstand the Torah's intent, and so each translator slightly
altered more than a dozen of such 'problematic' verses: the mira-
cle was that they all made the same changes despite the fact that
they were not in contact with each other. One such change con-
cerns a verse in Mishpatim. After the vast number of civil laws
in that parasha, the portion concludes with the sealing of the
Sinai covenant. Moses gets up early in the morning, and builds an
altar with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes. "He [Moses] sent
the youths among the Israelites and they offered oxen as burnt
offerings and peace offerings to G-d" [Ex. 24:5]. The verse ap-
pears to be fairly innocuous on the surface, although the
translators thought differently. They changed the Hebrew word for
youths (naarei) to the Greek word for elders (zatutei). The Greek
mind apparently had no problem with sacrifices, but for them, as
Rashi explains, sending youths for such an important task was
beyond their comprehension. Giving responsibility to the elders
was something Ptolemy could understand.
Although this episode in the Talmud basically deals with a
seminal Jewish-Hellenist encounter, it also provides us with a
glimpse into the Jewish attitude to their young in contrast
with the attitude of the Hellenists. Respect for children was
uniquely Jewish, and it was not a respect based on the growing
muscles and clean lines of a young body. What the cherub's infant
face captured was the Jewish vision of history: alone
amongst the ancient world, we were a people with a purpose, a
nation with a vision, a religion with a plan for future per-
fection. The past was always with us, but our pulses beat with
the rhythm of what was yet to come. Even more than our belief
in a G-d and a world of being, we had faith in a G-d and world of
becoming.
In contrast, the Greek perception of time had more to do
with the myth of Sisyphus, the king doomed forever to roll a
heavy stone uphill. Just as the stone always rolled down
again, time also rolls down again, moving cyclically, repeating
itself, never truly progressing. Time is cyclical, not lineal.
For the Greeks, the future is the landscape upon which one lives
out the myths of the past, doomed to iteration and reitera-
tion, both the blessings and the curses. But for the Jews, each
day must plant a seed for the future redemption, the impure must
be purified, mistakes must be righted, as we move from the
profane to the holy, from servitude to redemption. Consequently,
our respect and awe for the future is easily transferred into awe
and respect for a child, an infant, who from the first moment it
opens its eyes, inspires everyone with thoughts of future
development, future professional goals, future aspirations and
accomplishments. The specific role we plan for the child legiti-
mately or illegitimately doesn't matter so much as the fact that
in the very presence of the child, our focus is future-oriented.
Even the naming of a baby after a deceased relative expresses our
wish to transform past into future, to enable departed relatives
to have a stake in familial and national continuity. Hence no one
could have looked at the cherubs without immediately being thrust
into the essential way the Jews look at the world with the eyes
of a child cherub oriented to the future.
The following midrash explains the issues clearly. Two rabbis
were once walking on the road when a rabbinic collegue passed.
The elder of the two nodded his head in greeting. Later, when a
child passed, the same rabbi bowed his head to his waist, mys-
tifying his companion as to why the child was greeted with
greater respect than the collegue. And so the elder rabbi ex-
plained, "The man who passed is wise. I know who he is and what
he has made of himself. So I bow my head in greeting and
even in submission to his knowledge. But this child's entire
future is in front of him. He can become as great as the pro-
phets, greater. And with such a potential future, how can I not
bow down completely."
It's hard to imagine a religion with a greater respect for the
past than Judaism, but our respect for the past is bound up with
an equally profound respect for what the future will reveal
and unravel --not in the heavens but right here on earth. And
where do we turn to for this revelation? To the next
generation, which is why the cherubs, the place from where G-d
makes Himself known, is in the form of infants.
Shabbat Shalom.
|
| 989.162 | Pekudai: Beyond Reproach | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Fri Mar 06 1992 20:02 | 135 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Pekuday
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- What's wrong with the following
scenario? You walk into the home of your local rabbi and he's
having a corned beef sandwich with a tall glass of ice-cold milk,
and as your heart nearly cascades out the window, you don't know
if this is a bad dream or a new law on the books?
Actually, there's not one thing wrong with this scenario, but
two. First of all, the rabbi --or anyone else for that
matter-- deserves the benefit of the doubt, and even though the
liquid in the glass is as white as freshly fallen snow, isn't
there the possibility the rabbi likes milk of coconut with his
corned beef? But what the rabbi did was also wrong. The
halakha regarding an action which appears contrary to the law,
even though you're 100% within your rights, is do it in a
way which circumvents the possibility of others casting doubts
upon you. If he had to have his coconut drink right then and
there, he should left the shells or the bottle on the table,
and whatever initial shock he might have caused would have melted
into a smile of recognition. True, the neighbor with a suspicious
eye may be violating all kinds of moral laws by jumping to con-
clusions, nonetheless it's the responsibility of the person do-
ing what's 'permissible' to jump ahead and evaluate how others
might look upon it, avoiding lifted eyebrows. In other words,
keeping the laws of the Torah may also include an extra step
of preventing someone's negative reaction.
This principle of law can be derived from this week's portion,
Pekuday, in which we read how Moses gives an accounting of the
raw material brought to the Sanctuary. Gold (29 talents and 730
shekels), silver (100 talents and 1757 shekels), copper (70
talents and 2400 shekels) etc., and the first thing we're
struck by is what seems a comptroller's report on the ins
and outs of Moses' business affairs on behalf of Israel. Moses,
after all, is the leader of the Jewish people and if he isn't
above suspicion, who is? But the plain meaning of the text is a
straight forward accounting in an already crowded inventory of
objects. Why encumber Moses with a thick ledger? In fact, the
Shulchan Aruch, Yureh Deah, 257b, rules that we do not ask
for an accounting from treasurers of religious charitable
trusts who are presumed to do their work honestly. And if
this is the halachic reality for any communal position, why does
Moses come under greater scrutiny?
R. Yitzchak of Spink says that this accounting was not taken be-
cause the people were suspicious. Rather, it shows how the
mitzvah was done completely, an accounting of pride. This
concern for exact numbers and figures stressed that every sin-
gle aspect of the sanctuary was done for the sake of
heaven. Take the example of charity: some individuals dip into
their changepurse whenever an outstretched hand greets them.
Others, concerned with the principle of tithing, keep records
and figures to make sure that at least ten per cent of
their income goes to charity. It's clear that the second is far
more concerned with making certain that he is fufilling his obli-
gation accurately and completely than is the first.
The great sage known as the Hatam Sofer agrees that Moses
didn't have to give an accounting; however, Moses wanted to
teach communal leaders of subsequent generations how important it
is to be above suspicion. The earlier mentioned halacha concern-
ing the accepted honesty of the treasurers of charitable trusts
obviously applies to Moses, and Jewish law goes on to state
that although charitable trusts are administered by two treasur-
ers the community may give its approval to only one person.
And although Moses was certainly a person the community would
have approved of, Moses not only gave a complete accounting but
he also took Itamar along with him. Moses was anxious to conduct
himself in keeping with the principle: "You have to be pure
before G-d and Israel." [Numbers 32:22] And being pure before G-d
and Israel is the reason why even when someone is in the
right, he still must be concerned with appearances.
The Talmud (B.T. Yoma 38a) records how the question of appear-
ances affected the behavior of two priestly families, one with a
tradition of making the showbread and one with making the
incense. They behaved in such a way that no one could suspect
them of using the Temple specialties for their personal bene-
fit. Furthermore, the Temple donors were forbidden from entering
the Temple chambers with a garment called _pargod haput_
(Shkalim 3). Commentators explain that the long sleeves of
this cloak might conceal objects taken from within. The
proof text of the Misnah is the commandment to be "...pure be-
fore G-d and Israel."
The Hatam Sofer's explanation is far reaching. After all, if
anyone would seem to be pure in the eyes of Israel, it should be
Moses. Lawgiver and prophet, a man who is capable of fasting
and lives from desert manna forty days and nights does not need
gold and silver. There is nowhere to spend it. And further-
more, even if gold has its own magnetic pull, according to the
Talmud (B.T. Nedarim 38a), prophets had to be wealthy
(their spiritual capacity unencumbered by the blandishment of
bribery) and Moses heads the Talmudic list. Thus, if on the
one hand, Moses had no need for personal gain, and on the oth-
er hand he was wealthy to begin with, why even associate him
with an action intended to thwart suspicion?
For a very good reason! Even the greatest leader the Jewish peo-
ple ever had was a victim of jealous whispers. Korach was
only the tip of the iceberg. Commenting on the verse, "Whenever
Moses went out to the tent....each person stood at his own
tent door, gazing at Moses until he had gone into the tent," [Ex.
33:8], the Jerusalem Talmud (Tr. Bikurim, Ch. 3, Halacha
3), explains that the people could whisper to each other: "Look
at Moses' thighs, how thick they are. Of course! He eats and
drinks from what he takes from us."
The huge range of emotion expressed here hints at the love-hate
relationship we have toward our leaders, somewhat similar to the
ambiguous, even ambivalent feeling we have toward parents. On the
one hand we need parental guidance, but at the same time we want
to be free. We need leadership, but are resentful towards
those who rule over us and help us. A child knows he will one
day become a parent himself, but most who are led will never be-
come leaders themselves. Resentment is inevitable. Every suspi-
cion is multiplied, every rumor exaggerated. We use microscopes
to look for flaws because whenever we criticize, at least for
that moment, we see ourselves as being greater. But the sav-
ing grace of this human foible is that a leader should not take
anything for granted. Moses himself makes sure that his books
are perfectly legitimate. He will not use his position as
the greatest of prophets to belittle the importance of single
copper hook or utensil. Even if it doesn't seem dignified,
Moses knows that 'being pure' before his fellow man is as impor-
tant as being pure before G-d. The people must give their
leaders the benefit of the doubt, and the leader must endeavor to
act in a manner which enables him to stand
above any possible critique.
Shabbat Shalom.
|
| 989.163 | Lots of details in this portion | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Mon Mar 09 1992 19:40 | 39 |
| The end of Shemot (Exodus) is loaded with repeated details. In previous
parashot G-d gave Moses complete instructions for building the tabernacle;
then we are told that the workmen and women made the tabernacle (item by
item). In this parasha we get an inventory, followed by G-d's instructions
on where to put the items, and finally a report that Moses placed each
item in its proper place. Is this a proper climax for a great book?
I can propose answers to this question on more than one level. First, there
are parallels between this ending and the beginning of Bereshit (Genesis).
In one, the children of Israel create a spiritual universe (the tabernacle)
in which G-d can dwell; in the other G-d creates the physical universe in
which man can dwell. In one the nation is disobediant to G-d in making the
golden calf; in the other Adam eats the fruit of the forbidden tree. In one
we read that the Levites killed 3000 persons responsible for the golden
calf; in the other we read of a fratricide.
I was puzzled why there was a "Tent of Meeting" (that's where Moses was
headed in Ex 33:8 cited by Rabbi Risken) before the tabernacle was
built; yet in Ex 40 the tabernacle is called the "Tabernacle of the Tent
of Meeting". There is something about a contrast of the "old" with the "new"
going on here. In the "old", only Moses (and Joshua) enter and speak with
G-d. In the "new" there is enough space for the entire congregation. In the
old, we were led by a high priest who intervenes with G-d on our behalf. In
the new we have become a "nation of priests" who pray to G-d directly.
The command to build a portable tabernacle must have come as a shock to
the Hebrews. Contrast this with the temples of ancient Egypt which where
the only ones they knew - huge stone structures. They probably couldn't
believe their ears when they heard the plans. No wonder it is all written
down in excruciating detail.
Questions for the experts. Was the Tabernacle set up _over_ the Tent of
Meeting (i.e. was there a tent within the tent)? I find Ex 40 to be unclear
on this point. Also, what was Joshua doing all this time in the Tent of
Meeting - in Ex 33 it says he never came out.
Hazak!
Dave
|
| 989.164 | Tent confusion? | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Mar 10 1992 12:14 | 45 |
|
Re: .163
> In previous
>parashot G-d gave Moses complete instructions for building the tabernacle;
>then we are told that the workmen and women made the tabernacle (item
>by item).
Hirsch deals with this question. In a nutshell, although the
workers had involved themselves with great enthusiasm and
zeal, they limited themselves to the Divine instructions
themselves, neither adding to them nor substracting from them.
The lesson is that we can find fufillment in G-d's Torah
although our inclination dictates that we must be utterly
original to truly feel fulfilled. This message is important
enough to devote an entire portion to it; apparently there
have always been egotists who will never accept another's
idea.
>I was puzzled why there was a "Tent of Meeting" (that's where Moses was
>headed in Ex 33:8 cited by Rabbi Risken) before the tabernacle was
>built; yet in Ex 40 the tabernacle is called the "Tabernacle of the Tent
>of Meeting".
Both the pre-tabernacle tent which had been designated by G-d
to address Moses and the Tabernacle bore the same name: the
"Tent of Meeting."
> Was the Tabernacle set up _over_ the Tent of
>Meeting (i.e. was there a tent within the tent)?
There were two sections in the Tabernacle. The inner
sanctuary was called the Holy of Holies, whereas the
outer vestibule - the Holy - was also called the
"Tent of Meeting."
> Also, what was Joshua doing all this time in the Tent of
>Meeting - in Ex 33 it says he never came out.
He was Moses' apprentice, so to speak, so he stayed there to
kill two birds with one stone - to learn from both his
master and his Master in one sitting.
Jem
|
| 989.165 | Vayikra: Of Hebrew and (that other) Michaelangelo | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Sun Mar 15 1992 08:07 | 121 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Vayikra by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- The great Israeli poet, Haim Nahman Bi-
alik, wrote that studying the Bible in translation is like
kissing a woman through a veil. The comparison may be con-
sidered a bit vulgar, but it is apt nevertheless. After all,
not all words in the Torah are possible to translate. Take, for
example, what the King James version does in this week's portion
with the opening verse in the first chapter of Leviticus. "And
the Lord called unto Moses and spoke unto him out of the taberna-
cle of the congregation, saying...." No matter how sublime or ex-
alted the translation, if the reader doesn't know Hebrew it's
unlikely that the above verse will stop him in his tracks.
There's nothing unusual about G d calling Moses. It sounds per-
fectly straight-forward. But any child who reads the original
Hebrew will have a far deeper understanding of the text than even
a learned but Hebrewless cardinal. This one word is an example of
how entire currents of Biblical interpretation are virtually in-
visible to those with no access to the original.
"And the Lord called" is the basic translation of 'Vayikra,'
the first word of the first verse in the book of
Leviticus. Without Hebrew, the student couldn't possibly
know that in the Torah, the last letter of the Hebrew
word scribes in an uncharacteristically tiny script, our
tradition to this day. The Torah, of course, doesn't tell us
why the scribes write the word with a small of sacri-
fices (the main topic of the Book of Leviticus) couldn't fail
noticing the unusual way this letter is written. This
child's contact with the Torah is direct and intimate;
he will understand more from that one little aleph than any
number of students of the Bible who've never read the verse in
Hebrew. No matter how exquisite King James' English
may be, a little aleph cannot be translated; it must be
experienced. Indeed, any letter written smaller than other
letters takes on significance, but when it's an aleph, the
first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, its small-
ness looms even larger.
One of the super-commentaries on Rashi suggests that the small
aleph comes to teach the humility of Moses. In his commentary,
Rashi points out that without the aleph we're left with the
gentile prophet Balaam. Unlike that accidental meeting
(Numbers 23:4) the use of Vayikra --God calling Moses-- is an ex-
pression of love, a specific reaching out on the part of God. By
almost concealing the aleph, it seems that Moses is writiing Vay-
ikar, thereby placing himself in the same category as Balaam
whose encounter with God had nothing to do with his having been
specifically called and charged by the Divined.
Furthermore, the appearance of this little aleph takes place in
the introduction to the Levitical laws of sacrifice. And no
study of Jewish sacrifices is complete without considering the
role of humility. A --getting close to God. And how did the
sacrifices bring Jews close to God? Every day in the Temple,
besides the twice daily offerings, there would be offerings of
individuals experiencing special moments of joy, and
thanksgiving for having been saved from death. And as soon as a
person digs into his own pocket to pay for an offering, he sa-
crifices his own wealth for an idea, a belief, an emotion. The
offering is a way for the offerer to say: Who am I to receive
such good fortune? I don't deserve it! His actions are in sharp
contrast to those who claim "...My power and the might of my
hand have gotten me this wealth," [Deut. 8:17]. Instead, he's
able to look beyond his own power and might and direct his
gaze toward the One above orchestrating it all.
Humility is also central to the dynamics of sacrfices
which are brought to atone for sins and faults sometimes so
severe the person would die had God not made it possible to
substitute a sacrifice for one's own life. The process of re-
pentance and the admission of sins is a humbling experience. It
is not easy for anyone to admit terrible mistakes, to ack-
nowledge a Higher Authority, the first and last word on what's
right or wrong. Bringing a sacrifice means to humble oneself.
Thus we see how the humility of Moses in the opening word of Lev-
iticus is linked to the heart of the message of the entire
third book of the Torah.
There is an even deeper message of humility contained in this
small aleph . Remember the divine ray of light emanating from
Moses' face when he descends from Mt. Sinai with the second set
of Tablets at the end of Parashat Ki Tisa.? "...The skin of
Moses' face was shining with a brilliant light, they were
afraid to come close to him....When Moses finished speak-
ing... he placed a veil over his face." [Ex. 34: 30-33]
Michelangelo sculpted Moses with horns because he mis-
translated the Hebrew Keren as horn, (carne) and not the more
contextually correct ray. According to a Midrash, the source
of this overwhleming ray of light came from those very drops of
divine ink left over when Moses wrote a small aleph. Moses
wished to lessen his stature , so used a small aleph; God re-
stored the extra drops by placing on them on Moses' forehead.
The result was a blinding and brilliant ray emanating from the
from the great law giver's forehead. Moses tried to appear less
than he was, and so he made the aleph tiny ; whenever we hold
back on our external impression, our internal depth will invari-
ably shine through. Most people are less then they would like to
appear to be; Moses was much more, and the blinding light emanat-
ing from him proved it.
Extending this concept of humility, our entire Torah is like that
tiny aleph; there's more to the Torah than what the letters
express. Remember that in addition to the black letters there are
white spaces: besides the written Torah, there is also an
unwritten Torah, an oral tradition. Each letter conceals layers
of subtle, hidden meanings, and the white spaces express the
emotion , the joy, the laughter, the tears, the angst and the
dreams of the Divine Jew.Finally, the small aleph alludes not
only to the modesty of the one who recorded the Torah, but also
teaches that whoever sits down to study Torah must sit down
with humility. If Moses could make himself into a small aleph,
there's no reason for a student to make himself into a big aleph.
The Torah is greater than any individual an than any generation;
it is our wisdom and our emotion , our past and our future.
Even as we attempt to absorb it may we allow ourselves to become
absorved and transformed - by it. Shabbat Shalom.
|
| 989.166 | Tzav: HaMaayan | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Wed Mar 18 1992 22:40 | 245 |
| Subject: Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Tzav
[ HaMaayan is published weekly for the edification and enjoyment
of the reader who is lacking the time or ability to study the
weekly Parasha on his own. HaMaayan's goal is to acquaint the reader
with the broadest spectrum of traditional Torah commentary, from
the "rationalism" of Rambam (Maimonides) and Abarbanel to the
"mysticism" of Alshich and the Chassidic Masters.
While the editors hope these brief "snippets" will engender further
discussion of Torah topics ("L'Hagdil Torah U'L'Ha'adirah"), they
unfortunately lack the time to respond to lengthy questions.
Shabbat Shalom. ]
********************
Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Tzav
Volume VI/Number 24 (258)
16 Adar II 5752/March 21, 1992
Parasha Overview
This Parasha continues the laws of the sacrifices. However,
notes Ramban, the focus this week's Parasha is different from last
week's; the latter was addressed to all of Bnei Yisrael, and the
former is directed to the Kohanim alone.
We noted last week, that the Torah does not command an
individual to bring sacrifices; a person who wishes to become
closer to Hashem will seize the opportunity. However, as the name
of our Parasha suggests, the Kohanim are commanded very explicitly
how each sacrifice should be brought. Abarbanel notes (cited in
Bedibur Echod) that the practice of bringing sacrifices is shared
by Jews and non-Jews alike. All that makes one form of service a
Mitzvah and the other a cardinal sin (idolatry) is the fact that
the former is commanded by Hashem and His instructions are
meticulously followed.
The above idea is precisely the meaning of the enigmatic opening
verses of this week's Haftara (Yirmiyahu 7:21-8:3 and 9:22-23).
There we read, "I did not command you regarding the 'Olah' and
'Shelamim' sacrifices. All I commanded is that you heed My
word..." Is this true? This week's and last week's Parashot as
well as many other sections of the Torah are full of the laws of
sacrifices! However, explains R' David Kimchi ("Radak"), Hashem
did not command us to bring sacrifices, as explained above.
Furthermore, the act of bringing a sacrifice is the main point of
the service described in these Parashot. Rather, it is our desire
to come closer to Hashem or to repent (as the case may be),
symbolized by the sacrifices, which Hashem loves.
R' Yehuda Aryeh Leib of Ger (the "Sefat Emet") elaborates upon
this theme, noting that each of the sacrifices is introduced with
the phrase, "This is the 'Torah' of the 'Olah' [...of the 'Chatat;
...of the 'Asham']." The benefit of a sacrifice is not derived
from bringing it, but "hearing" its message, the "Torah" of that
sacrifice. There are two ways to bring a sacrifice, or to do any
Mitzvah, notes the Sefat Emet. If one simply performs the act, the
Mitzvah is done, but it leaves no lasting impression. However, if
one becomes so involved in the Mitzvah that he becomes attached to
it, then the Mitzvah becomes part of him. Of such a Mitzvah, the
Zohar (quoted by the Sefat Emet) says that its merit is much more
enduring.
What distinguishes one kind of Mitzvah from the other? The
"Berachah" (blessing) which is recited before it is performed.
That is where a person expresses his intention to carry out G-d's
will, and whether (and how) a person says the Berachah is a clear
indication of how attached he is to the Mitzvah. (Sefat Emet 5631)
************************************
Thirty days before Pesach....
...one begins to study the laws of Pesach, Chazal teach. At this
time, therefore, Hamaayan traditionally begins to present Pesach
thoughts. This year, we will IY"H follow the order of the well-
known poem "Kadesh U'rechatz", covering several steps each week.
Many commentators have found homiletical meaning in this poem,
aside from its obvious purpose of reminding us how to conduct the
Seder. For example, R' Yehoshua Segal Deutsch (formerly Rabbi of
the Katamon Yeshiva) writes as follows:
King David asks (Tehilim 24:3): "Who will climb Hashem's
mountain, and who can stand in His holy place?" This poem tells us
how one can stand before Hashem and not worry about falling:
"Kadesh U'rechatz" - Sanctify yourself and be confident!
("Rechatz" in Aaramaic means "be confident.")
How does one accomplish this? "Karpas Yachatz" - Man's material
nature (which like "Karpas", comes form the earth) cannot be reined
in overnight. Rather, divide ("Yachatz") and conquer. According
to one commentator, Bnei Yisrael's defense for the sin of the
Golden Calf was that "Matan Torah" (the giving of the Torah) had
been too sudden for them, and left them confused and disoriented.
Another tactic is "Maggid Rachtzah" - Tell others to cleanse
themselves. This will inspire you to do the same.
However, one might ask, "Who am I to rebuke others?" The answer
to this is "Motzi Matzah" - Get rid of that humility, that view of
oneself as being lowly as Matzah. As important as humility is,
there is no place for it when one sees others violating the Torah.
However, do not become arrogant or haughty, but rather "Maror
Korech" - Wrap yourself in a cloak of authority (="Marah") which
you can use when rebuking others, but can shed at other times.
In order to be an effective teacher, "Shulchan Orech" - Make
sure your Torah knowledge is like a set table before you so that it
will always be at your fingertips. Also, make sure that your
rebuke does not become a weapon of the Heavenly prosecutor. Make
sure that "Tzafun Barech" - Hidden ("Tzafun") within your heart
should be blessings for your fellow Jews. You should also "Hallel"
- Praise your brethren before Hashem.
If you do this, your deeds will be "Nirtzah" - Accepted by
Hashem.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Kol Yeshuah)
************************************
"....the Holiday of Matzot, the time of our liberation..."
(from Kiddush and the Pesach prayers)
R' Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook writes: Religious idealism is
alive at every time and place, but the mundane in our lives
obscures its light. However, Yom Tov comes along and lifts the
veil, revealing the light once again, and then we all take pleasure
in Hashem and His kindness. The great love which is aroused at
that time drives us to occupy ourselves with Hashem's Mitzvot, as
we realize our profound debt to the One who has always loved us.
In particular, on the night when Pesach begins, a feeling of
liberation comes over us, and the Divine spirit hidden so deeply
within us makes its presence known. This spirit, in turn, allows
us to see how we are in fact, gradually being redeemed. We have
fought with enemies, physical and spiritual, strong and weak, and
we are winning. We are witnesses that there is no spirit like the
spirit of our nation which is constantly watered by the dew of
renewal.
(Siddur Olat Re'iyah)
************************************
A Pesach Story
It was customary in Europe for the teachers of the very young to
have their pupils memorize the key words of the order of the Seder
(i.e. "Kadesh U'rechatz etc.") along with their traditional
interpretations. Once, on the evening of the Seder, the Chassidic
Rebbe known as the "Shpole Zeide" asked his little son to recite
the key aloud. The child began, "Kadesh - when the father comes
from Shul on the evening of the Seder, he must immediately recite
Kiddush."
The "Zeide" waited for his son to continue, but the child said
that his teacher had not taught him anything further on this point.
And so, his father taught him the conclusion: "so that the
youngsters won't fall asleep, but rather will ask the 'Mah
Nishtanah' ('the Four Questions')."
On the following day, the child's teacher was present at the
Rebbe's table, and the Rebbe asked him, "Why didn't you teach the
children the concluding remarks?"
"I didn't want to trouble them," said the teacher, "especially
since the reason given is not very important. After all, even a
person who has no children makes Kiddush immediately upon his
arrival from Shul!"
The Rebbe became angry. "Are you the one to judge which reason
is important and which is not? Are you wiser than all of the other
teachers? How did you dare change that which has been taught for
generations? Let me tell you what those who lived before us
alluded to with this statement.
"When the father - that is our Father in Heaven - comes from
Shul on the evening of the Seder - when He sees how His children,
the people of Israel, have severed themselves from the darkness and
troubles of the Exile and have come to the Shul to praise Him for
their Redemption; when He sees this, He must immediately recite
Kiddush - He must renew the 'Kidushin' (the marriage bond) between
Himself and ourselves, and strengthen us in our Exile so that the
youngsters won't fall asleep - so that we don't sink into a deep
slumber in our Exile, but rather [we] will ask the Mah Nishtanah -
why is this night, this Exile, longer than all the other exiles?"
With that, the Zeide burst into torrential weeping, and all
present wept along with him. Finally, he came to himself and said,
"Now we must give our Father some joy; we must show Him that His
children can dance in the darkness, too." And together they began
to sing and dance.
************************************
Our biography feature will resume after Pesach.
************************************
The learning schedule for this Shabbat is:
Daily Mishnah
Kelim 27:2-3
(Learn two Mishnayot every day)
Daily Halacha
Orach Chaim (Mishnah Berura) 363:31-32
(Learn three paragraphs each day)
Daf Yomi
Ta'anit 16
(Learn two sides of a page each day)
Shmirat Halashon: L.H. 8:1-2
or
Guard Your Tongue: Pages 187-188
Rambam
Chapter/Day: Hilchot Shluchin V'shutafin - Chapter 8
3 Chapters/Day: Hilchot Psulei Hamukdashin - Chapters 11-13
Sefer Hamitzvot
Sh:N130,N129; Su:P91; M:P90; Tu:P49; W:P49,P118; Th:N113 F:N114
********************
Posted by Alan Broder, ajb@digex.com (uunet!digex!ajb), who
should be contacted to request back issues of HaMaayan or to get
on or off the direct email mailing list.
Shlomo Katz can not receive EMAIL, however I will pass on any
comment forwarded to me, or alternately, send your comments care of
yehuda@gwuvm.bitnet
|
| 989.167 | Some Torah questions | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Tue Mar 24 1992 00:05 | 20 |
| In parasha Vayikra I find it strange that there is a sin offering specified
for a "king". Israel had no king until the time of Saul. Any comments on
this point?
The method of slaughtering doves for sacrifice was to "pinch off the head".
This is so unlike the method for kosher-killing of birds that I am puzzled.
I know little about this subject, but it doesn't sound like a method of
painless killing to me.
In parasha Tzav we find that the priests are commanded to keep a fire burning
on the altar at all times. How did they manage on Shabbat? Is the fire on
the altar related to the eternal light?
I am starting to wonder about the connections between the Temple sacrifices
and the Passover Seder. The Pascal lamb connection is obvious. But the
Temple sacrifice also involved salt (salt water for Passover) and unleavened
bread. Was a Temple sacrifice any different than a kosher-for-Passover meal
(with regard to the ingredients, not the procedure)?
Dave
|
| 989.168 | | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Mar 24 1992 19:30 | 52 |
|
Re: .167
>In parasha Vayikra I find it strange that there is a sin offering specified
>for a "king". Israel had no king until the time of Saul. Any comments on
>this point?
I think you're referring to 4:22, which speaks of the _nasi_, prince.
While it's true that there was no one with that title in the desert,
these rules were being given for after they entered the land.
>
>The method of slaughtering doves for sacrifice was to "pinch off the head".
>This is so unlike the method for kosher-killing of birds that I am puzzled.
>I know little about this subject, but it doesn't sound like a method of
>painless killing to me.
It was one of the most difficult feats in the Temple service. However,
the bird died instantaneously since the bird's neck is relatively
easy to penetrate.
>
>In parasha Tzav we find that the priests are commanded to keep a fire
burning
>on the altar at all times. How did they manage on Shabbat? Is the fire
on
>the altar related to the eternal light?
Yes, the "eternal light" in our synagogues are in remembrance of the
continual fire in the Temple. The Talmud (Sha. 22b) says it symbolizes
G-d's presence in Israel.
>
>I am starting to wonder about the connections between the Temple sacrifices
>and the Passover Seder. The Pascal lamb connection is obvious. But the
>Temple sacrifice also involved salt (salt water for Passover) and unleavened
>bread. Was a Temple sacrifice any different than a kosher-for-Passover
meal
>(with regard to the ingredients, not the procedure)?
>
>Dave
Some of the offerings in the Temple were leaven, others were not
allowed to turn into chametz. The Pascal sacrifice itself was
of course eaten with matza and bitter herbs (Num. 9:11), and
we therefore eat *two* pieces of matza together on the Seder
night, one symbolizing the Pascal sacrifice and the other for
its accompanying matza. The salt water is not directly related
to the sacrifice, but salt is supposed to be placed on the matza
as it is eaten in remembrance of the salt which was put on all
sacrifices.
Jem
|
| 989.169 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Mar 24 1992 20:37 | 5 |
| > Some of the offerings in the Temple were leaven, others were not
> allowed to turn into chametz.
My understanding is that the only chametz offerings were the two loaves
brought on Shavuot, and that these were not placed on the altar.
|
| 989.170 | | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Mar 24 1992 22:19 | 11 |
|
Re: .169
>My understanding is that the only chametz offerings were the two loaves
>brought on Shavuot, and that these were not placed on the altar.
The _lachmei toda_ (thanksgiving bread) included three types of
non-chametz matzos and one type of chametz bread.
Jem
|
| 989.171 | Shemini: Germany then and now | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Anacronym: an outdated acronym | Tue Mar 24 1992 22:48 | 132 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Yom Hashoa (Shmini) by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- When I was growing up in Brooklyn, Jews didn't
buy Volkswagens. Even though the price was right, the shame was
too expensive. To this day, some forty-five years after the Holo-
caust, there are Jews who avoid all German products. Are they
right in maintaining this unofficial boycott as a means of still
remembering the greatest tragedy of our century? Or is saying
no to a VW a hollow gesture in a world with a very short memory?
The question we have to ask ourselves, especially with the
fall of the Berlin Wall, is what role should forgiveness play in
our relationship to this new/old country in the heart of Eu-
rope?
A year ago when borders inside Germany were changing --this
time without tanks and bloodshed-- the world was being asked
to forgive the nation which had invented the death factories.
WWII left German land divided, East and West performing
preventive surgery on the dragon which should no longer be al-
lowed to belch fire and fear. But the crumbling of the Wall, a
mythological presence inspiring scores of cloak and dagger films,
was one of the great media events of the post War period, and be-
fore you knew it, the mood had changed from a nation shackled be-
cause of monstrous crimes against humanity, to a celebration with
rock stars televised all over the world, without trace of tears
in sight. Was it indeed the beginning of a new epoch -- a wonder
of wonders, East and West Germanies uniting with each other and
with civilized humanity contritely asking to be welcomed once
again as a respectable nation?
To forgive or not to forgive, that is the question! The forgivers
speak of new beginnings and how it's wrong to look upon the
Germans of 1990 as the Nazis of the 30s and 40's. Don't the chil-
dren and grandchildren deserve individual re-evaluation?And
from a theological point of view, a case could be made that our
G-d is primarily a G-d of forgiveness, and by not forgiving the
Germans we betray this concept of G-d. The forgivers, if they're
familiar with the differences between Hallel and Half-
Hallel, can easily point out that last week during our fesival of
redemption, the complete Hallel wasn't said during the last six
days because of a Midrash which sympathizes with the drowning
Egyptian charioteers. The angels, singing the Shira, are rebuked
by G-d: "The works of My hands are drowning in the Sea, and you
sing songs of praise?"
Thus only Half-Hallel on Passover: joy at the expense of the
victims is not to be given full expression. G-d's love extends
to all His creatures. And the forgiveness factor in Jewish
theology should be important enough to get us to open our hearts
to the Germans. This is one side.
Arguing against forgiveness is not an easy position to take;
it seems callous. Nonetheless, the Half-Hallel argument is not
strong. G-d's rebuke is toward angels, creatures who
represent a different, more cosmic, order of reality and
creatures who were not themselves threatened by the rapa-
cious Egyptians. The Midrash teaches that when the angels sang
praise while the Egyptians drowned, they violated the angel-
ic code of moral behaviour. But the Israelites are not angels.
Threatened with extinction, the Israelites not only sur-
vive, but the tables are even turned on the would-be destroyers.
G-d understands their joy, this desire to sing praise at
finding oneself alive and one's enemies dead. In contrast to the
angels, for the Israelites to give full vent to their joy at
seeing the forces of destruction destroyed is not only allowed,
but is also commanded.
The Talmud in Tractate Brakhot 33a sees the opening of the
94th Psalm "O G-d of vengeance, Lord...," in which the word
that righteous vengeance (the revenge of G-d against the wicked)
can be a good thing. Furthermore, the more accurate reason
why we only say Half-Hallel during Passover (except for the first
two days) is to remind us that although we were redeemed from
Egypt, complete redemption still awaits us.But even more to the
point, the following story says a great deal about the na-
ture of forgiveness. Rabbi Chaim Soloveichik, of the Brisk Tal-
mudic dynasty, when traveling by railroad would dress incogni-
to in simple peasant garb. One time, three cardplayers needed
a fourth hand. When they saw Reb Chaim, they asked him to join,
but he begged off. The cardplayers wouldn't take no for an
answer, and Reb Chaim wouldn't give them a yes. Finally one of
the men lost his patience and slapped the stubborn peasant. Reb
Chaim didn't say a word. When the train arrived at its destina-
tion, imagine the cardplayer's surprise when the delegation of
the town's leading Jews came to greet the peasant who hadn't
wanted to play cards, according him the special honor reserved
only for the greatest of Torah luminaries.
Realizing what he'd done, the man who'd slapped Reb Chaim
sought his forgiveness, pleading he hadn't intended to hit a
great scholar. R. Chaim refused to forgive him. The man
fell into a depression, couldn't sleep nights, couldn't think
straight. When the month of Elul arrived, he traveled to
Brisk to seek the forgiveness that every Jew is required to give,
but again R. Chaim refused. Finally he approached Reb Chaim's
son, Reb Moshe, and asked him to intervene. In the end R. Chaim
explained, "I can't forgive you because you didn't slap R.
Chaim of Brisk. Had you known it was me, you would have never
slapped me. You slapped a poor, Jewish peasant who didn't
want to play a game of cards. That's the from whom you have to
seek forgiveness."
We, the children, nephews and grandchildren of people who
suffered at the hands of the Nazis, are not in the position to
forgive the German nation for their crimes. If they want
forgiveness they have to dig up the bones, retrieve the scattered
ashes and search through the soap factories. Only the vic-
tims themselves can forgive. No, the business of forgiveness is
simply not ours to bestow.
But even if we had the right to forgive, are the present German
people worthy of our acceptance? The minimum we have a right to
expect is that the German government demonstrate a keener
sense of morality toward the Jewish state, and not hide behind
statutes and regulations that allowed German citizens to pro-
fit from the destructive instincts of Israel's enemies.
The recent revelations that German firms were supplying Iraq
with lethal gases boggles the mind. Did they expect that Saddam
Hussein would finish the job that Hitler hadn't completed? If
there is a new Germany, with a new spirit, then not only must its
relationship to Israel evolve, but it must also look upon
Israel's enemies with different eyes. Our original question
should be slightly modified. It's not so much a question as to
whether we want to forgive or not, but rather if they want to be
forgiven or not. To want to be forgiven means that you're not
the same person you were before and you want the person
you've hurt to acknowledge it. If it's only words, it has no real
meaning. Poison gas speaks much louder than words.
Shabbat Shalom and a Thoughtful Yom Hashoa
|
| 989.172 | Moses, M.D.? | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Tue Mar 31 1992 21:51 | 12 |
| I am prepared to be impressed by anyone who can construct a decent 'davar'
based on this week's portion.
Is the reason for a woman's "unclean-ness" lasting twice as long after the
birth of a girl vs the birth of a boy because she is doing double duty for
two females? If so, was it even longer for twin girls?
Are the dermatological problems described in the remainder of this parsha
recognizable as known diseases today? The footnotes in my Tanach says that
other disorders in addition to leprosy are included in the Hebrew word used.
Dave
|
| 989.173 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Apr 01 1992 02:55 | 4 |
| Nega tzoraas is usually incorrectly translated as leprosy. In fact, according
to the commentators, it was the physical manifestation of a spiritual "disease."
Those who got it were on a high spiritual level -- e.g. Miriam. Since no one
today is on a high enough level, no one gets it.
|
| 989.174 | Tazria: Yom Hazikaron (1991) | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Complacency is tantamount to complicity | Wed Apr 01 1992 15:06 | 138 |
|
[Ed. note: due to technical difficulties, the articles
for the past few weeks, including this one, are from
last year. Next week we hope to have the 1992 article. Jem]
Shabbat Shalom: Yom Hazikaron (Tazria)
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel --If Memorial Day in America, which falls in late
May, were changed to July 3rd, wouldn't that cast an entirely
new focus on the Fourth of July, a direct and unquestionable
link between the independence of a nation and the sacrifices of
its fallen soldiers? This is precisely what takes place in the
Israeli calendar. The 5th of Iyar, the date chosen by Ben
Gurion's government to coincide with the end of the British
mandate, celebrates the birth of the new state. Yom Hazikaron
(Israel's Memorial Day when all places of entertainment shut
down and a two minute siren in the morning puts the country
at a total standstill) falls a day earlier, on the 4th of
Iyar, and with this juxtaposition a crucial lesson is taught: if
not for those who gave their lives for this land, Israeli
Independence Day would not exist!
Gush Etzion, the bloc of settlements to which Efrat belongs,
has a unique relationship to Yom Hazikaron, Israel Memorial
Day. The Arab rejection of the November 29, 1947 U.N. Par-
tition Plan was immediately translated into ferocious attacks
against the Jews, and nowhere was the fighting more fierce
than the Etzion bloc. The Arabs understood that wiping out
these settlements in the Hebron hills overlooking Jerusalem
would render the Holy City vulnerable to Arab seizure.
Arab success spelled tragedy for us: the Gush fell, the
settlers of Kefar Etzion were massacred, while most of the po-
pulation of the other settlements were taken prisoners of war.
This action took place on the 4th of Iyar, mere hours before
the declaration of the state.
With the British mandate ending, Ben Gurion seized the moment
and pushed for announcing nationhood. Less known is how the
fall of the Gush spurred Ben Gurion to declare statehood
rather than settling on a provisional or intermediate solution.
What's more, a key passage in the Declaration was influenced by
the Gush. As the final wording was being ironed out, the reli-
gious and anti-religious camps struggled over the question of
including the name of G-d or not, (in hindsight an absurdity,
but in 1948 many European-raised socialists believed a Jewish
state could be distinct from the G-d of Israel). In the midst of
the debate, news of the Etzion massacre arrived, and in homage
to its defenders and martyrs (three of the four settlements were
religious) Ben Gurion included the expression 'Rock of Israel,'
an appelation of G-d , which is how the last prayer before the
daily Amidah begins.
Later, when a date was chosen for memorializing Israel's war
dead, the shared national trauma of the Gush influenced the
choice of the 4th of Iyar. Thus Yom Hazikaron is poignantly
felt in this part of the country when the nation and the Gush
are one and indivisible, both protected by the 'Rock of Israel.'
About an hour before Yom Hazikaron comes to an end, men, women
and children gather in the public plaza of Efrat as they do
in countless communities in Israel for a special memorial
program. Then, when the stars come out, everyone enters the
Synagogue for a festive Maariv prayer with Hallel Psalms of
Praise) and the blowing of the shofar. Down below the solemn is
transformed into the joyous, above the sky is ablaze with fire-
works --Yom Hazikaron has yielded to Yom Haatzmaut, and the mes-
sage that Remembrance Day is the gate through which Independence
Day must pass is not lost upon Efratians, or anyone else in
Israel.
As the town's rabbi, I'm called upon to speak during the last
moments of Yom Hazikaron and provide the segue into Yom
Atzmaut.. Last year I discussed a passage in Tractate Brakhot 3a,
in which the text describes how R. Yose had been traveling on the
road when he entered one of the ruins of Jerusalem. The prophet
Elijah of blessed memory appears, but waits for him to finish
praying before he asks why R. Yose entered the ruin. When R.
Yose explains he wanted to pray, Elijah informs him that he
should have prayed on the road. Admitting that he was afraid of
passersby interrupting him, Elijah tells him that he should have
prayed a short prayer. In conclusion, R. Yose declares: "Thus I
learned from him three things: One must not go into a ruin; one
may pray on the road; and if one does pray on the road, he re-
cites a short prayer."To me, this text is rich with parables. The
long 2000 year old exile begins with Jerusalem in ruins, and
praying inside one of these ruins is a metaphor for the condi-
tion of the vast majority of Jews after the destruction of the
Holy Temple. Despair reigns, hope in bringing about an ultimate
redemption sharply reduced by the realities of the 'ruins of
Jewish history,' where for too long too many have been sitting
and waiting for the redemption to descend from a heavenly, al-
ready rebuilt, temple.
According to Jewish tradition, the prophet Elijah is the
forerunner of messianic redemption. In our passage, he
corrects the mistakes of those who choose ruins -- highway-
men may or may not harm you, but the dust of destruction will
shut out national dreams and stifle activity. R. Yose's excuse
about passersby interrupting him voices the fear that he might
have to defend himself, fight a war, risk death, a dilemma
avoided when 'praying' in the safety of ruins outside history
where no one interrupts you. Elijah's message is that even if
the prayer must be short, sacrifice the luxuries of a long,
uninterrupted prayer for the benefits of being where history can
happen. Elijah wants R. Yose on the road; Elijah demands that it
is necessary for us to begin the journey to redemption by set-
ting out on the road. As the Talmud teaches, someone who makes
the effort to be purified is helped from above [Tractate Sha-
bat, 104a].
Ultimately, we must pray as if everything depends on G-d, and act
as if everything depends on us. Certainly it's necessary to
devote time to prayer, but a way had to be found to do it
without sitting in a ruin and wallowing in our own
misery.In the last prayer before the Amidah we read, 'Tzur Yisra-
el, kumah b'ezrat Yisrael...' a phrase usually translated 'Rock
of Israel, arise to the aid of Israel..' But a more correct
translation is '...arise with the help of Israel.' Yom Hazi-
karon is a day which testifies that the 'Rock of Israel' has
risen with the sacrifices of our soldiers and warriors. The last
generations have taken Elijah's instructions to heart; we under-
stand that it's forbidden to pray in the ruins. The road, howev-
er, is still dangerous. Passersby 'interrupt' our lives with
stones and knives. That's why some of us are still busy with
short prayers as we rush along the road doing whatever is neces-
sary --agriculture, the military, politics, education, econom-
ics, even arts and crafts, to turn the first sprouting of the
redemption into the redemption which bears ultimate fruits. G-d
will help us, but only if we begin the journey
ourselves!
Shabbat Shalom and Yom Atzmaut Sameah!
|
| 989.175 | Metzora: Musings on Mashiach | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Complacency is tantamount to complicity | Wed Apr 08 1992 01:12 | 173 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Metzora (Shabbat Hagodol) by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- With all the dust being raised by the Lubav-
itcher Hassidim that the messiah's arrival is imminent, this
particular Sabbath, a week before Passover, could prove to be a
day we'll never forget.
Called the Great Sabbath, it comes to herald the redemption
of the Jewish people,not only the past exodus from Egypt, but the
ultimate redemption as well. This is why the Haftorah read-
ing ends with G-d's promise, "Behold I will send you Elijah the
prophet before the coming of the great and awesome day of
G-d..."[Malachi 3:24]. Had the messiah tried to come five decades
ago, he probably couldn't have gotten past the doorman. Since
then the world has turned upside down. Not only was the Jewish
state created after 2000 years of exile, Jerusalem liberated,
Jewish refugees returned home, but who could have dreamed up such
a bloodless end to the Cold War! Communism was not just the
enemy of the free world, but the most visible threat to a belief
in One G-d. And when forty-two scuds fell during the Gulf
War and killed only one person, in addition to everything else
that had happened, the sense of the miraculous was felt
keenly in Israel, leading many to wonder what else may be going
on.
Certainly Lubavitch believes in the ripeness of the hour, and
that the forty year old effort of the Rebbe and other religious
leaders to revive Torah values amongst a generation disil-
lusioned by the Holocaust, has helped bring us closer to our
messianic potential. And messiah consciousness is spreading far
beyond Crown Heights. Under the Rebbe's inspiration, Israel is
humming with newsbriefs, the message of redemption on flyers,
bumper stickers, and colored booklets. On the road to Efrat, like
in countless other sites, a yellow Lubavitcher billboard bids us
to prepare for the coming of the Messiah.
But a backlash exists. A red flag of danger is being raised by
Rav Eliezer Shach and his followers. In his latest attack,
he describes those who follow the messianic Lubavitchers as no
better than pork eaters, strong words from the Rosh Yeshiva
of the world renowned Ponevezher yeshiva. How are we to under-
stand two giants with such opposing views on the messiah?
What is truly the Jewish position on redemption and messianism?
First of all, it must be noted that messianism is fundamen-
tal to Jewish theology. We understand how the endless repetitions
of seasons may have been behind the ancient world's belief
that because time is seasonal, history is cyclical. The myth of
Sisyphus, the tragic figure condemned to roll a boulder up
a mountain only for it to roll back down again, with this pro-
cess repeating itself eternally, is the Greek expression for its
vision of history: after reaching an apex, it reverts and starts
all over again.
Judaism's vision is the exact opposite, emphasizing not a
circular but a linear image. There *is* light at the end of the
tunnel, giving purpose to the historical process whereas
the Greek tunnel becomes a maze, and a minotaur prevents our es-
cape. Judaism, after ridding the world of minotaurs, is a re-
ligion that promises a way out, that posits an eventual utopia.
And our City of G-d is a this-worldly Jerusalem, our
salvation must be accomplished not in heaven but on earth !
The Torah itself points toward redemption in the end of
days."....Then the Lord your G-d will turn your captivity, and
have compassion upon you, and will return and gather you from all
the nations, amongst whom the Lord your G-d has scattered
you..." [Deut. 30:3-4]. This theme pervades much of the pro-
phetic writings, and is central tothe Jewish experience. In
his Thirteen Principles of Faith, Maimonides, the most ration-
al of all Torah giants, declares: "I believe with a perfect
belief in the coming of the Messiah, and although he may tarry, I
daily wait for his coming." [Principle #12].
If we compare the codex of Maimonides to other codices of Jew-
ish law, we find a startling truth hidden within its
structure. Whereas the universally accepted codex of R. Joseph
Caro, the _Shulhan Arukh_, begins with laws of getting up in
the morning and ends with the laws of mourning, defining the Jew-
ish experience as guiding us from sunrise to nightfall,
from cradle to grave. The codex of Maimonides begins with the
theology of Judaism (belief in G-d as the ground of all ex-
istence) and ends with the laws of the renewal of the house of
David. In other words, Maimonides understands Jewish culture
and law as transcending the natural rhythm of life. Judaism must
arise from the context of G-d and must lead to world redemp-
tion. Beginning, recognizing G-d's role in the universe,
Maimonides doesn't conclude his code with laws affecting the
individual mourner, but with the laws affecting all of Israel,
listing the specific requirements for the messiah king, and
the dream for world peace which the Messiah
heralds.
Invariably, messianism has a built-in danger. A false messiah
can lead to disappointment, depression, even derangement.
When Shabbetai Zevi, hailed even by major Jewish scholars as
the messiah, converted to Islam in 1666, it rocked the Jewish
people to its foundation. Many went mad, twisting Judaism into
a religion which suddenly endorsed going to the depths of impur-
ity in order to change the world.
And so because of the dangers inherent in a messianism
which may sprout false leaves and which proved disasterous in
the past, two basic strategies have developed, both ex-
treme. The first, as explained by scholar-theologian Professor
Yehoshua Leibowitz, rejects messianism as essential to Jew-
ish belief - what is fundamental he argues is our _waiting_ for
the messiah; redemption must forever be anticipation never
realized.
The other position has taken root among the ultra-orthodox who
admit to believing in the messiah's coming, but maintain
that since such Messianic beliefs in the past have proven
dangerous (The Pauline heresy surrounding the founder of
Christianity, the abortive Bar Kochva rebellion) - it's
better to leave everything to G-d. Indeed, they cite a Mi-
drash which forbids us fom climbing the ramparts to
Jerusalem, from at- tempting even the first stage of
redemption - national sovereignty.
The consequences of such thinking is that it prevents us from
helping ourselves even in the face of world anti-semitism, and it
robs Judaism of its vision to perfect the world. This may explain
why so many Jews abandoned the houses of study of Eastern Europe
for the skies of Israel promising sovereign rain and Jew-
ish wheat.
Maimonides would be the first to ask these Jews why they have
virtually erased the last two chapters of his codex which sets
forth what I believe is 'normative' Messianism. We dare not cast
out the baby with the bathwater. According to Maimonides, blood
ruler, a philosopher-king, a Torah authority who will influ-
ence all of Israel to follow the Torah, conquer the enemies
surrounding Israel, build the Third Temple and return the scat-
tered Jews back to Israel. He will lead the world to peace
[Mishnah Torah, Laws of Kings, Ch: 11,12]. A human being,
the messiah lives in a world of recognizable realities of mil-
itary requirements and political alignments. He must deal with
these realities, and emerge victorious within the constraints
that they engender.
Moreover, we must consider the words of the Hatam Sofer, quoted
in Rabbi Menachem Kasher's work _Arba Roim_ that the problem
is not merely in finding a personality of messianic stature;
every generation produces someone worthy of being the messiah,
but the the main difficulty arises because the nation is not
fit. Messianism expresses a synthesis between leader and his
citizen, between teacher and disciple.
What we gather from this is that we dare not lose our heads in
the wake of contemporary messianic fervour. If a messianic
figure exists in every generation, then the Lubavitcher drive
should be to make our generation worthy of meriting such
leadership. Indeed many of the signs seem to be pointing towards
the unique nature and opportunity of the years which we live.
But to suggest that someone is the messiah before he has ful-
filled the list of requirements necessary for redemption is
Jewishly impossible argues Maimonides. Were the Lubavitcher
Rebbe to come to Israel, and conquer the enemies from within and
from without, then he may well emerge as the leading candidate.
The "common sense" approach of normative messianism insists
that whoever does what the messiah is supposed to accomplish,
ibso facto is declared as the Messiah. If he doesn't, he isn't.
It is equally incorrect to suggest that anyone is or is not the
Messiah before the Messianic program has actually come to pass.
Until that time, we must undoubtedly anticipate and
prepare. Ultimately it is not only we who are waiting for the
Messiah. It is the Messiah who is waiting for us.
Shabbat Shalom
|
| 989.176 | Passover: Faith, Jewish Style | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Complacency is tantamount to complicity | Wed Apr 15 1992 21:03 | 111 |
| Shabbat Shalom: Passover
By Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel--Since bread is the staff of life, one could con-
ceivably imagine a festival in any number of cultures em-
phasizing the miracle of wheat turning into a miraculous loaf of
bread, a kind of universal celebration of thanks, the mother
of all Thanksgiving. But what can one say about a festival that
honors a cracker-like, often handbaked, substance, difficult to
chew, exhausting to prepare, continuously watched, the ful-
fillment of its requirements meticulously exacting.
Passover more than any other festival, pits two forces against
each other, the ideas of slavery vs. freedom, and the best way to
examine these two forces in our lives not just as abstrac-
tions is through an understanding of the physical nature of mat-
zah. For if this ancient bread is to be more than a means of
tasting what our ancestors actually put into their mouths as
they fled Egypt, or a moral message to be derived from clari-
fying and illuminating distinctions between leavened and un-
leavened bread, then it must relate directly to the theme of
slavery and freedom, the heart of Passover.
Unlike Matzah, bread is the desired result of my mixture of
dough and water. It's what I expect, it's what I want, and
it's natural. If I take wheat, rye, barley, oats, or spelt and
let it bake, what I get is bread. This is another way of saying
that chametz is the way of the world. If I want matzah, however,
I have to disturb the baking process, I cannot allow nature to
take its course. I must work the dough, watching the clock,
pounding and pounding to remove air bubbles. And the whole pro-
cess cannot last longer than eighteen minutes. Anyone who's seen
the activity inside a matzah bakery will be reminded of a ballet,
while baking bread, though an art form, is really concerned with
the result--the box office of taste and satisfaction.
If the matzoh is a metaphor for our own realities, it means
that if we want redemption, we can't let nature take its course
but must step in to redirect the natural order. In practical
terms, everyone is aware of how often we put off major de-
cisions by saying that we're not ready. Wait till the children
are born, or until they grow up, or until I retire, and
then, and then and then...The value of the eighteen minute dead-
line is that it tells us we have to start from where we are
right now. Otherwise everytime the nineteenth minute arrives, we
enter the domain of chametz, relying on the natural order
to do the work for us. Whoever said freedom will arrive perfectly
baked, a crusty pumpernickel bread having risen to its full
roundness?
Evidence for this comes from the Exodus itself. Had the Jews
waited until they were ready for redemption, we'd still be
there today. We were slaves, bound to Pharaoh, but the command-
ment arrived to prepare the pascal lamb, slaughtering it on
the 14th even though the next plague was yet to come. What if the
Jews had said we'll eat the pascal lamb only after we're freed,
or if a decision were made that because they had descended to the
49th degree of ritual impurity, they needed time to purify bo-
dies and souls, and until then no early celebrations? But the
Torah declares: "You must eat it with your waist belted, your
shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand, and you must
eat it in haste" [Ex. 21:11]. In haste means the Jewish peo-
ple were not ready. The message is speed. Even though we don't
sacrifice a pascal lamb, halacha requires that we finish the
meal before midnight just as the lamb had to be finished before
midnight in Egypt, the hour when the rage of the tenth
plague would fall on Egypt's first born sons.
In 1948 many Jews were convinced that Israel should not declare
statehood but rather wait for events to take their natural
course. The reasons were convincing. How could a nation of
600,000 fight a war against the powerful Moslem bloc with
jihad on its lips? Where were the weapons we needed? And since
we had just suffered the Holocaust, our souls were traumatized.
Even before they had a chance to absorb the ways of the coun-
try, new immigrants had to shed their civilian clothes for
uniforms. But we jumped in, and we acted, despite inevitable at-
tacks. The state of Israel came into the world like a new
baked matzah, out of haste and speed, no time to rise with skys-
crapers or fancy economic timetables. We pushed for freedom in
1948 just as we pushed ahead when we left Egypt, even though the
Red Sea looked menacing and forbidding.
Certainly, the Passover seder is one of the secrets of Jewish
survival, family and friends bathed in a glow of respect and
love, the table a spectacle of bright candles and the
glitter of the crystal reflecting the wines, and the brilliance
of the silverware and once a year china service and the eye
catching seder plate and the spirit of the children asking ques-
tions. But if we don't take the message of the matzah to heart,
then we've missed another opportunity to turn a symbol into our
own reality, transforming our lives from talk of freedom to
experiencing it with all the risks involved.
During the seder, half of the middle matzoh is broken and
hidden--called afikoman--till it is retrieved and eaten at the
end of the meal. We too sit with 'half a matzoh' during most of
our lives waiting to be reunited with the original half at the
end. A broken matzoh is far from perfect, but if we wait to leave
our own Egypts until the situation is 100% perfect, we may never
leave. That's why matzoh is also called the bread of faith--not
because it means that by keeping the laws of Passover it shows we
have faith in Judaism, for if that were so, we would call the
etrog the etrog of faith or the sukkah the sukkah of faith. No,
the essence of matzoh is that despite its state of incompletion,
we have faith in G-d that he will redeem us, and that the Red Sea
will split if we take the first step. Without faith, matzoh is
just another cracker on the road to chametz.
Shabbat Shalom and a festive Passover.
|
| 989.177 | Passover: Would it Have Been Enough? (R. Riskin, 1991) | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Complacency is tantamount to complicity | Thu Apr 23 1992 22:48 | 132 |
| Shabbat Shalom: (Passover)
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- We've all heard of the Four Questions, the
Four Goblets of Wine, and the Ten Plagues. But how many of
us are familiar with the Fifteen 'It Would Have Been Enoughs'?
Phrased this way, it sounds odd, but I'm actually referring to
Dayennu, one of the most famous sections in the entire Hagga-
dah, which is the translation of 'it would have been enough
for us' as in 'Had He brought us out of Egypt, and not executed
judgment against them, Dayennu'.
Probably because the tune which accompanies its recitation is
so popular (Da Dayennu, Da Dayennu, Dayennu Dayennu) we may tend
to categorize this segment with the other songs at the end
of the Haggadah (Who Knows One? Chad Gadya, which are intended to
keep the children awake). But Dayennu is different. Not only
does it appear in the heart of the text, before the meal, but it
also serves as a bridge between Tanaaim: R. Yossi the Galilite,
R. Eliezer, R. Akiva whose statements regarding the plagues are
quoted directly before Dayennu, and Rabban Gamliel's state-
ment about Pesach, Matzoh and Marror, which immediately follows
Dayennu.
If its purpose were simply to list a series of blessings G-d
bestows upon the Jewish people, starting with their Exodus
from Egypt and ending with the Temple's establishment in
the Promised Land, then it would not have been necessary to re-
peat the refrain 'it would have been enough...' on every
single line. For indeed, after we get the Dayennus, the text im-
mediately spells out everything G-d did for the Jews, without
the 'it would have been enoughs.' And that would have been
enough, the facts without the chorus. Had G-d taken us out
of Egypt (the 1st step) but not brought us into the land of Isra-
el (the 14th) would that really have been enough? Enough
for what? Where would we be? In a desert, without food or water?
The climactic moment of the Exodus takes place seven days after
the ritual sacrifice of the Passoveor lamb. The Israelites find
themselves fleeing from the Egyptain cavalry, so terrified that
the miracles of the Ten Plagues are reduced to vague
memories in the face of certain death. But then an amazing mira-
cle --the Red Sea splits, the Jews enter on dry land, and the
pursuing charioteers drown when the walls of water plunge them to
their deaths.
The Torah portion read on the seventh day of Passover is the
Shirah (The Song), an ode to this great moment. "Then sang Moses
and the children of Israel this song unto the Lord, and spoke
saying: I will sing to G-d for his great victory. Horse and rid-
er He threw into the Sea..." [Ex. 15:1-19]The first two words
of the Shira --uz yushir-- are somewhat problematic. Most
translators tell us it means 'Moses sang,' the past tense, even
though literally the words mean 'then he will sing.' Rashi (loc
cit) explains the use of the future tense by suggesting the
phrase means that back at the time when the Red Sea was being
split, Moses decided then that in the future he would compose a
song commemorating this moment. Regardless of how we translate
And the reason for this has a lot do with why the Sages made Day-
ennu central to the Hggadah.Jews, as we all know, break a glass
during a wedding ceremony. No matter how joyous things get, we
are committed to remembering that the shards of broken glass
still exists so long as complete redemption has not yet arrived.
It's not that we're a pessimistic people, rather we're realistic.
Our way to G-d is built on the tears we've shed. When we sing the
Shira, it's the greatest moment the Jewish people have ever ex-
perienced as a nation, but two things undermine its glory. How
can the angels sing, G-d wants to know, if His creatures (the
Egyptians) are drowning. Second, the Shira is a great event, but
forty years of wandering in the desert await the Jews, wars with
Amalek, Midianites, spiritual tests, physical tests. The road
ahead is rough, this generation will have to die out first before
the people enter the Promised Land. All this adds up to a Song
aware that the future must contain a greater moment, an ultimate
redemption. This idea is alluded to in the first two words. True,
Moses 'sang' but there is more that will be sung about --in the
future. In the present, in a world not yet redeemed, we cannot
truly sing.
Dayennu comes to balance the broken glass. It's not enough only
to focus in on what we're lacking; we have to pay homage to
what we've already attained. Usually, no matter how bad things
are, we have a talent for making them worse by concentrating
on all that we lack. The basic message of Dayennu, and ulti-
mately of the Seder, is that we have to concentrate on what we've
achieved, even though it may be short of perfection. That's why
we do recite Hallel during the Passover. G-d only tells the
angels not to sing his praises when the Egyptians are being
drowned; the Jews are expected to praise G-d for the downfall of
their enemies, despite the tragedy of death and destruction.
In this light, we begin to see how crucial Dayennu is to the
Haggadah, and not just the words, but it's structure. Perhaps
we can best realize the meaning of Dayennu if we compose owr own;
Dayennu. If I could only read Hebrew, but did not under-
stand the words, Dayennu. Perhaps each participant would add
his won 'it would have been enoughs' around the Seder table.
I once had a Rebbe in the Yeshiva of Brooklyn, Rav Menachem
Manes Mandel, and each Friday he would give us musar (ethical
instruction) talks. One such talk left a deep impression.
He asked the following question: Kinderlech (children), Who is
richer, the man with $100 or the man with $200? Our hands
jumped up with the answer only to come down quickly when we real-
ized there had to be some kind of catch. And so he ex-
plained it with a smile. Sometimes the man with $100 is richer
because a person's wealth must be measured not by what he has,
but rather by what he thinks he lacks, and most people want to
double whatever they own. Thus, the person with $100 wants
$200, and the person with $200 wants $400; since the former only
lacks $100 and the latter lacks $200, the former may be richer
thand the latter.
Dayennu comes to teach that we must learn to focus on what we
have rather than on what we don't have, to be greatful for
whatever we get, because G-d doesn't really owe us anything. How
we look at ourselves, at our world and at our G-d, depends on our
focus. How much happier we could all be if we truly learned to
say Dayennu.
Shabbat Shalom and Happy Passover.
|
| 989.178 | Passover: Abiding Love (R. Riskin) | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Complacency is tantamount to complicity | Thu Apr 30 1992 03:00 | 128 |
|
Passover: Abiding Love
Shabbat Shalom: 7th day of Passover
Efrat, Israel-- The Torah reading for the seventh day of Passover
describes with great poetic imagery the miracle of the splitting
of the Red Sea. We also read The Song of Songs, the love song
between the shepherd and the shepherdess (King Solomon and Shu-
lamit), which reflects the impassioned love relationship between
the Almighty and the nation Israel. An interesting connection
between these two passages from Biblical literature is expressed
by a charming rabbinic homily: "It is more difficult for the Al-
mighty to bring two individuals together in marriage than it was
for Him to split the Red Sea." But what has all this to do with
the Festival of Passover? And in what way is a marriage relation-
ship considered a greater challenge than the splitting of the Red
Sea?
One possible explanation might lie in the fact that Passover
is the festival of our faith: the Jews had faith in their im-
minent redemption from Egypt, and therefore sacrificed the Pascal
lamb even before G-d concluded the ten plagues, and jumped into
the Red Sea despite the life-threatening danger which the act
engendered. From this perspective, the expression 'taking the
plunge' to describe the decision to get married is not just a
clever phrase but may very well be based on our previously cited
Talmudic comparison, risking the unknown waters of marriage may
well require even deeper faith than risking the engulfing waves
of the Red Sea.
But I believe that the metaphors contain an even profounder sig-
nificance. Passover celebrates the Exodus from Egypt, an
event that turned a nation of slaves into a nation of free peo-
ple. But if Passover were only an anniversary, in what way
would it be different from other nations' independence day
celebrations? Passover, therefore, functions on three levels of
past, present, and future: it is both an historic memory, a
description of our daily realities, and a prophetic look at ulti-
mate redemption.
All too often Egyptian slavery paled against the suffering
Jews were living through at that very moment when the seder
was being conducted. We read in the Hagaddah that "...in every
generation there are those who rise against us to annihilate
us. But the Holy One blessed is He, ever saves us from their
hand." Hence the Haggadah does not stop with current events. The
blessing before drinking the second glass of wine expresses not
only how G-d redeemed us in the past, but how He guarantees to
redeem us in the future: "...And may we thank you with a new song
for our redemption and the liberation of our soul. Blessed are
You O Lord who redeems Israel."
Now it is true that the Torah is filled with any number of
covenants between G-d and the Jewish people. A covenant is
literally a contract, a legal promise made by the Almighty that
He will never abandon the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob. And not being abandoned by G-d means that Israel will ul-
timately be redeemed. The Torah even demonstrates an example
of how powerful the covenant is when Moses attempts to dissuade
G-d from destroying the nation after the sin of the Golden Calf
by reminding Him of His promises to the ancestors of the Is-
raelites. And the nation is saved.
Now if Passover is the festival of ultimate redemption and a
covenant is the best expression of this contract between G-d and
the Jewish people, why don't we read one of the various
covenants in the synagogue on the seventh day of Passover?
Wouldn't that be a more effective means of getting the point
across that no matter how things may look now, our future was
written -and guaranteed- a long time ago?
Although at first glance the Song of Songs may not seem the op-
timal choice for presenting our covenantal case, it actually
turns out that this particular 'song of love' is our strongest
guarantee for ultimate redemption. In the end, a covenant is a
form of a contract, and even if we trust that G-d won't break His
end of it, can we be completely sure that we will keep our side?
Moreover, at the end of the day contracts can always be broken.
There are even specialty lawyers who are experts in discovering
loopholes. Before you know it, what was ironclad yesterday begins
to look like swiss cheese today.
But what cannot be reneged upon is a love story that has been
going on for thousands of years. On the second verse in Chapter 1
of the Song of Songs, Rashi's most incisive comment explains
the choice of this reading for Passover: "The love between G-d
and the Jewish people stands as a guarantor that G-d will
appear again and redeem us again" [Song of Songs 1:2]. Unlike
contracts, love goes beyond logic, even beyond law.
When Maimonides in his Laws of Repentance, Ch. 10, Law 3,
describes the love one must have for G-d, he compares it to
the boundless, immense and constant love a man has for a woman,
so madly in love that he can only be called 'sick with love,' so
overwhelmed by emotion that his thoughts are with his beloved
"when he sleeps and when he rises, when he eats and when he
drinks." And so the Song of Songs reads like intense love poetry
between man and woman because this is the best metaphor to
describe the ideal love between the Jewish people and G-d. And
this is the explanation of Rabbi Akiva's teaching that if the
rest of the Torah is holy, the Song of Songs if the Holy of
Holies. Its poetry, drenched in the aroma of a love that is
beyond logic, a passion that rips at the hearts of the lovers, is
proof positive that here is no ordinary relationship between two
parties making a deal; it is a union of two entities which will
last forever.
Now we may perceive a much deeper meaning to the Biblical Com-
parison between marriage and the splitting of the Red Sea. In the
latter instance a miracle was effectuated, but it was a miracle
which took the one entity -the Red Sea- and divided it into
twelve parts, and division is all too prevalent in our imper-
fect world. Marriage, on the other hand, is the attempt to take
two separate people and mold them together as one. This is more
difficult - and more significant.
Passover is the marriage between Israel and G-d, the love rela-
tionship of our people with our Partner-in-Heaven. And no
matter how harassed we may be by those who would destroy us, our
victory over Pharoah and our emergence unscathed from the Red
Sea hold out the continual promise of ultimate redemption. But
most importantly, the passionate love of the Song of Songs
stands as our most compelling guarantor that our sacred union
with G-d is eternal, transcending logic and law, lasting forever.
Shabbat Shalom.
|
| 989.179 | Acharei Mot: A Capital Error | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Complacency is tantamount to complicity | Thu Apr 30 1992 03:34 | 156 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Acharai Mot
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel - Of all the many challenges which modern so-
ciety presents to Traditional Judaism, none is more compel-
ling and problematic than our attitude towards homosexuality. In
a western culture in which two consenting and mature adults are
presumed to be on safe moral grounds no matter what they do sex-
ually, and in which gay rights are the foundation of the liberal
ethos, the verse in this week's Torah reading: "Thou
shalt not be with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination
( to'eva)" sounds very anachronistic indeed. What adds fuel
to the fire is that homosexuality is considered a capital of-
fense, and that we read this prohibition once again on Yom
Kippur afternoon. What happened to our Jewish sense of compas-
sion for individuals who are attracted, or compelled, to-
wards people of the same sex for their love relationships? Do we
not take human feelings into account?
Gay synagogues are the tangible result of such feelings, places
where Jews of 'alternate life styles' create a community of kin-
dred souls, a meeting place for social and spiritual needs.
Throughout a growing number of American cities such congregations
are making their presence felt and changing the makeup of liberal
Judaism. The Reform Rabbinate has even opened its doors to gay
and lesbian rabbis, and the Conservative Movement has recently
reopened the issue as being legitimate for discussion.
I do not know how the verse on homosexuality in this week's
Torah reading is dealt with in gay synagogues. Perhaps some
congregations skip it completely, while others rationalize it
away as just one more expression of the ancient world's homopho-
bia: since many Torah laws have been abandoned, why con-
cern ourselves with this law more than the rest. And others may
see the reading as an opportunity to probe their own sex-
uality, an existential Sabbath of sexual realities.
But the Biblical view leaves no room for question and must be
clearly understood. The Sages of the Talmud provide a fascinat-
ing translation for the Hebrew word "toeva," usually
translated as abomination. "What is 'toeva?' Toeh ata ba, you
are erring in this way (B.T. Nedarim 51a)." What 'abomina-
tion' boils down to is simply, in all too many cases, a tragic
mistake. True, there may be feelings of love and the gay couple
may even desire the dignity of a marriage because AIDS has made
monogamous gay safe sex almost a virtue in our society; more-
over, recognition by a higher authority as they stand under the
canopy and break the glass together will add immeasurably to
their future relationship to the Jewish community and to the sig-
nificance of their Sabbaths and Festivals together.
But the Torah is telling us no! It's simply a mistake, and
there's no way to rectify this mistake as long as the lovers are
of the same sex. Judaism, unlike the Ancient Near East,
Greece, Rome, the Far East and Arabic cultures, stood alone in
urging a veritable sexual revolution and insisting on ex-
clusively heterosexual behavior (see the excellent discussion on
this topic by Dennis Praeger in his _Ultimate Issues_, April-
June 1990). This is largely because Judaism sees the family as
the bedrock of a sane healthy and moral society, and
profoundly understands homosexuality to be the most lethal enemy
to the institution of the family. Judaism endeavored to educate
the world to understand that love, procreation and sexual ac-
tivity must all converge in the husband-wife relationships;
only in such a way would ethnic continuity and proper respect
for wife and mother be assured. Moreover, the most meaningful
and lasting sensations of pleasure (nachat) derive from chil-
dren and grand-children, from the sense of continuity and im-
mortality which succeeding generations bring in their wake.
It is not by accident that the verse proceeding the prohibition
against homosexuality reads: "And thou shalt not give any of thy
seed to Moloch ( Leviticus 18:21)." One destroys one's seed
through child-sacrifice, and one sacrifices potential future
generations through homosexuality. Remember that there is a na-
tural order in the world in which the male species
-even amongst plants- connects with the female in order to
regenerate its kind. Remove this from our experience and we
are at odds with nature. Who knows what the psyche suffers when
it chooses to be the last of a line, what emotional dangers
result from a conscious choice against being fruitful and multi-
plying. Hence for humans the sexual relationship is
not just biology, is not merely an evolutionary step of per-
petuating a specific gene or learned behavior, but is
rather a far more profound step towards transcending oneself,
towards participating in eternity.
And children do not only bear existential significance; in
Judaism, they have theological significance as well. Later
generations carry our names and genes, but more important-
ly the also bear our values, our moral code, our Torah tradi-
tions. Cutting oneself off from the possibility of ever having
children and grandchildren means cutting oneself off from the
fundamental theological experience in Judaism - the secret
of the three generations, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Whenever we
are blessed to see our offsprings' offspring carry on the
tradition, we become a little like our father Abraham. In this
way, we all become the first Jew, and understand what Abra-
ham must have felt when he realized that unlike Adam and Noah be-
fore him, his relationship to G-d had been carried down to
Jacob, a span of three generations, a continuity uniquely human
and supremely Jewish (Animals know their offspring, but not
their offsprings' offspring ).
Knowing G-d is one thing - Abraham wasn't the first - but finding
a way to pass down his knowledge intact made it possible
that Judaism could develop within the family. My life doesn't
end with me alone. I can transmit it to the next
generation, and the next generation.....Not so homosexual-
ity. It uproots cultural continuity, nipping true self-
transcendence in the bud. But, you will argue, how can you deny
a human being the expression of his physical and psychic be-
ing? If there's a problem with the kettle, take it up with
the manufacturer! Is it not cruel to condemn an individual
for doing that which his biological and genetical make-up
demand that he do?
The traditional Jewish response would be that if indeed the
individual homosexual is acting out of compulsion, he would not
be held culpable of his act. "The Merciful One frees of
guilt anyone who acts out of compulsion (Anoos Rachmane Patre)."
But there's a fundamental distinction between our attitude
towards the perpetrator and our attitude towards the action. One
can very well have compassion towards a person from a tragic
family background who becomes a drug addict, but one can hardly
offer drug addiction as an alternative societal life-style!
Moreover, there is still a raging debate among psychologists as
to whether biology or society is the greater determinant in
the homosexual life-style. Since ancient societies such as Greece
and Rome majored in bi-sexual activities and additional male
liaisons, justifying homosexuality would only encourage those
who are on the borderline, or who are speculating about extra
curricular activities. And from this perspective, if homosexuali-
ty is a mistake, gay synagogues are an even greater mistake.
Such synagogues, and rabbis, only serve to communally legitim-
ize an act which dare not be legitimized.
The Torah is clearly against Sabbath desecration. Neverthe-
less, if a Sabbath desecrator wants a connection to the Jewish
community, he's more than welcome in my eyes to become a
member of any synagogue he chooses to join. But how should we
react if a group of Jews want to found a synagogue called
Congregation of Sabbath Desecrators! Once homosexuality is leg-
itimized, and there's no better way of legitimizing it than
getting it sanctioned with its own synagogues and its own
rabbis, we are destroying our own future.
Can a homosexual change his ways? According to the Torah, if at
all possible, he has to. If not for his sake, then for his
children's.
Shabbat Shalom
|
| 989.180 | Song of Songs reading | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Thu Apr 30 1992 03:35 | 6 |
| Last Saturday was the 8th day of Passover and the reading was from
Deuteronomy (unless I am seriously mistaken). In Israel last Saturday was
the day AFTER Passover. Questions: when was Song of Songs read in Israel?
What Torah portion was read last Saturday in Israel?
Dave
|
| 989.181 | | TAVIS::JONATHAN | | Thu Apr 30 1992 03:39 | 4 |
| Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs) was read on Shabbat 1st day of Pesach.
Last Shabbat we read Parshat Acharei Mot - I think Israel and the Galut
will be out of synch on Parshat Hashavua for a few weeks now.
|
| 989.182 | Is there another view possible? | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Thu Apr 30 1992 04:00 | 9 |
| I am still having trouble deciding what is the "right" attitude regarding
homosexuality. The biblical verse says (paraphrased) you must not lie
with a man as you would with a woman. Is it possible to interpret this
as saying that IF you are homosexual, you MUST NOT have heterosexual relations
(and vice versa)? i.e. No bisexuality. I am fully aware that this is
counter to the traditional interpretation -- but doesn't the wording of
the verse allow for this interpretation?
Dave
|
| 989.183 | Multi-what? | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Complacency is tantamount to complicity | Thu Apr 30 1992 21:19 | 20 |
|
Re: .182
>I am still having trouble deciding what is the "right" attitude
>regarding homosexuality.
It depends whether you mean exegetically right or Politically
Right. The two seem to be mutually exclusive.
> Is it possible to interpret this
>as saying that IF you are homosexual, you MUST NOT have heterosexual
>relations (and vice versa)?
Perhaps the verses which follow the prohibition against homosexuality,
which prohibit bestiality (Lev. 18:23, 20:15), are directed only at
those who practice homosexuality, but to heterosexuals it is permitted
(or vice versa)? I.e., no multigenusality?
Jem
|
| 989.184 | Some questions | KAHALA::JOHNSON_L | Leslie Ann Johnson | Fri May 01 1992 00:41 | 13 |
| RE: <<< Note 989.179 by SUBWAY::STEINBERG
-< Acharei Mot: A Capital Error >-
An interesting article. One of Shlomo Riskin's arguments raises some
questions for me though. If one major reason against homosexual practices
is because a homosexual union cannot result in children, then what does
that say about, say, lesbian relationships where each woman bears a child
through artificial insemination ? What does it say about a hetersexual
married couple who find themselves unable to bear children ? What does it
say about people who for some reason or another, never marry, or marry
after they are able to bear children ?
Leslie
|
| 989.185 | | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Complacency is tantamount to complicity | Fri May 01 1992 07:54 | 32 |
| Re: .184
>An interesting article. One of Shlomo Riskin's arguments raises some
>questions for me though. If one major reason against homosexual
>practices is because a homosexual union cannot result in children, then
>what does that say about, say, lesbian relationships where each woman
>bears a child through artificial insemination ?
The Bible only explicitly prohibits male homosexuality.
> What does it say about
>a hetersexual married couple who find themselves unable to bear
>children ?
Remaining childless for 10 years is sufficient grounds for divorce
in Jewish law.
> What does it say about people who for some reason or
>another, never marry,
This is frowned upon; we are bidden to "be fruitful and multiply."
> or marry after they are able to bear children ?
If you mean someone who chooses not to have children to advance
his career, the answer is the same as the previous one. If you're
referring to older divorcees or widow/er/s, they are encouraged
to remarry although no children will come of the marriage.
Jem
|
| 989.186 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri May 01 1992 20:03 | 8 |
| re .185:
> Remaining childless for 10 years is sufficient grounds for divorce
> in Jewish law.
Childlessness is almost never used as grounds for divorce. The current
Lubovitcher Rebbe and his late wife were married for many years and had
no children.
|
| 989.187 | | KAHALA::JOHNSON_L | Leslie Ann Johnson | Fri May 01 1992 21:47 | 8 |
| That was going to be my next question Gerald ... do people actually
divorce for that reason ? But you jumped me to it and answered before
I asked. Thanks.
Going back to the previous note, um, Jem's I think. Is lesbianism
then widely accepted as a practice within Judaism ?
Leslie
|
| 989.188 | | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Complacency is tantamount to complicity | Sat May 02 1992 01:14 | 16 |
|
Re: .186
I should have been more clear. There are a number of factors
which affect this law, and each case is therefore judged
individually. Of course, if both husband and wife wish to
remain married, they may certainly do so; it is only where
one demands a divorce in order to procreate that this argument
is relevant. See Mishna and Beraita towards the end of the
sixth chapter of Yevamot, and the commentators.
As always, an expert should be consulted for any practical halachic
question.
Jem
|
| 989.189 | | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Complacency is tantamount to complicity | Sat May 02 1992 01:31 | 14 |
|
Re: .187
>Going back to the previous note, um, Jem's I think. Is lesbianism
>then widely accepted as a practice within Judaism ?
Again, I should have been more clear. There is no explicit biblical
prohibition, but it is still considered a loathsome act. In fact,
according to Maimonides, it is included in the prohibition in
our parasha (Lev. 18:3), "As the deeds of Egypt...do not do,"
which according to the sages included homosexual marriages.
Jem
|
| 989.190 | There's a topic for this already | MINAR::BISHOP | | Sat May 02 1992 02:22 | 7 |
| Why don't we move this discussion to topic 1192, which is already
about homosexuality and Judaism, and leave this topic for the
essays from outside it started out as?
Perhaps a kind moderator will move these notes.
-John Bishop
|
| 989.191 | Kedoshim: Jew of Steel (R. Riskin) | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Complacency is tantamount to complicity | Wed May 06 1992 12:12 | 150 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Kedoshim (Yom Ha'atzmaut)
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel--Toward nightfall on Yom Hazikaron (Israeli Memori-
al Day), the men, women and children of Efrat gather in Gan
Ori, the large amphitheater named after one of our high school
graduates tragically killed a year and one-half ago (between
Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur) while serving in the army.There
isn't a house in Israel without its scars, and as we
stand silently in the torchlit amphitheater named after Oriel
Glick, it's impossible not to merge individual memories of per-
sonal losses, the flowers of our nation cut before they could be-
gin to bloom, with our collective loss of Ori, his courage and
his honesty, the cruel suddenness of his death... The night is
subdued and humbled by the recognition of a nation that these
fallen soldiers are the reason we are able to walk this land
in freedom.
Then the sky, dark just a moment ago, suddenly blazes with
light, a backdrop for a pulsing display of fireworks, a symphony
of color , white and blue, gold and silver, a psychedel-
ic tribute to Israel's Independence. It never ceases to amaze me
that we are expected to move instantaneously from the shadow
of death to the miracle of this nation's birth.
But is it really a contradiction, the pull and the tension
between these two days? On the contrary, what looks antitheti-
cal is really at the heart of modern Israel's true identity:
this difficult but uplifting transition is Zionism in action.
Israel was born out of a veritable contradiction. Just when the
most destructive force against world Jewry was unleashed,
the greatest tragedy in our 3500 year history, on the other side
of the Mediterranean the pieces had been put together so
that the first Jewish commonwealth since the days of Ezra and
Nehemiah was about to burst forth on the world stage. Yom Hazi-
karon and Yom Haatzmaut capture the dual nature of our collective
history better than any other 48 hours in the year: tragedy
and redemption converging the one into the other, like the almost
imperceptible passage of night into day.
This year world Jewry has suffered the loss of Menachem Begin,
Jewish leader and Israeli Prime Minister, whose very life was
the deepest expression of the relationship between Memorial and
Independence. More than any figure in public life, Menachem Be-
gin was a man whose credo and soul were molded by the fundamen-
tal forces of tragedy andredemption: his own mother and father,
Chasya and Zev, were killed in the Holocaust, and yet in pursuit
of his dream of an independent Jewish state, Begin saw beyond
Aushcwitz toward a landscape sweetened by milk and
honey.
Soldier, revolutionary, freedom fighter, statesman,
peacemaker, yet when all was said and done, Begin was a Jew
first, and that's why Jews of all colors and stripes identified
with him, saw in Begin unshakeable strength. His fierce and loyal
love for the Jewish people was legendary; he was one of the last
persons on the political scene who genuinely loved the nation,
not just his old cronies from Etzel, but everyone, from the
masses of Sephardic new immigrants who ended up in tents or far-
flung development towns, to the religious Jews who'd been disen-
franchised from the Labor-dominated government where the Washps
(White Ashkenazi with Proteksiah) had ruled with socialist fists
and private lists. The power structure was aghast at Begin's win
in 1977, but the little people rejoiced. And, typically, one of
his first priorities was bringing Beta Yisrael from Ethiopia home
to Israel.
Begin was a genuine leader because he had no ulterior motives.
His bottom line was whether or not it was good for the Jewish
people. Genuinely religious with an unswerving faith in G-d,
when Begin quoted from the Bible, the rafters shook. His was a
prophet's thunder guised in a politician's cloak.
During the Camp David peace talks, President Carter proposed
that the question of Jerusalem should at least be brought to
the negotiating table, should at least be a topic for discus-
sion. Without hesitating, Begin turned to the pages of Jewish
history, recounting the story of how a Christian bishop
tried to get Rav Amnon of Mainz to convert. Rav Amnon requested
three days to respond. Agonized when he realized that he
should have given his negative answer on the spot, when he ap-
peared before the bishop he requested that his tongue be
cut out. Angered, the bishop ordered the rabbi's hands and feet
to be cut off instead, salt then to be poured on the wounds.
Without hands or feet, Rav Amnon was brought to shul on Rosh
Hashana, where he uttered the verses of the hymn that would
become known throughout the entire world as U-Nettane Tokef. When
he finished, he collapsed and died.Begin looked directly at
Carter, and said that the President could cut off his hands, his
feet, or tear out his tongue, but Jerusalem would never be
negotiable.Carter didn't bring up the matter again.
In the end, broken by the deaths of many young soldiers in the
Lebanese War, the father in Begin trembled knowing how many
homes were mourning. When word of a soldier's death was brought
to him during the night, he'd weep so much he never went back to
sleep. Unable to conquer his own despair, he resigned as prime
minister. The hero of Camp David, the first Israeli leader whose
words were listened to by the Egyptian head of the Arab world,
Anwar Sadat, was now silent. In retrospect, the stilled voice of
this unusually gifted orator was a revolutionary act.
When he died two months ago, there were no eulogies at the fun-
eral . But the daily page of Talmud (Daf Yomi) studied around the
world on the day of his death, Taanit 4a, provided an elo-
quent eulogy of its own. R. Ashi teaches that a scholar who is
not as hard as iron is not a real scholar, quoting a verse
from Jeremiah, "As a hammer which smashes a rock." [23: 29] R.
Aba, responding to R. Ashi, cites another verse, "The land
whose stones are iron." [Deut. 8:9] 'Do not read stones but read
builders.' The two words, (even and boneh) are almost alike,
share the same root, so that now the verse in Deuteronomy
reads: "The land whose builders are iron."
What R. Aba achieves with his new reading is the positive asso-
ciation of iron with building. Although both stone and iron are
strong, iron has qualities preferable to stone because unlike
stone, iron is malleable, yielding. The raw material for skys-
crapers is iron, not stones.
Menachem Begin, whose strength was the strength of iron, was a
man of war and a man of peace. A man of war because history told
him that Jews must fight with an iron determination and convic-
tion. And a man of peace because he believed the destiny
of Israel is to live in peace amongst its neighbors, first pol-
itical peace and ultimately spiritual peace as the wisdom of
the Torah which descended on Sinai makes its way among the na-
tions.
Yom Hazikaron and Yom Haatzmaut are two days that say it
all, where we come from--the carnage of war and our millions of
fallen--and where we're headed--peace in our time. But the
message can only be made significant if our leaders are as strong
and as malleable- as iron. On this Yom Hazikaron and Yom
HaAzmaut, may Menachem Begin's memory serve as a blessing for us
all.
Shabbat Shalom and a Joyous Yom Haatzmaut
*****************************************************************
To be added to the mailing list, send mail to:
SUBWAY::STEINBERG or GAON::JEM
*****************************************************************
|
| 989.192 | Emor: Wherefore a Priestly Blessing? | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Complacency is tantamount to complicity | Thu May 14 1992 00:06 | 113 |
| Shabbat Shalom: Parshat Emor
By: Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel--There are few events within the Jewish litur-
gy which evoke memories of an ancient people in the Holy Tem-
ple as much as the "Priestly Benediction" - when the Kohanim
or descendants of Aaron ascend the duchan to bless the congrega-
tion of Israel. The priests enwrap themselves com-
pletely in their prayer-shawls, join the outstretched
fingers of their hands together in the special formation of a
"shin" (symbolizing the Divine attribute Shaddai, or Almighty
G-d), and cry out, "with the unique sanctity bestowed upon
Aaron to bless the Israelite nation with love, May the Lord
bless you and keep you, may the Lord cause His countenance to
shine upon you and be gracious unto you, May the Lord for-
give you and grant you peace." In the diaspora this dramatic
event occurs only during the repetition of the Mussaf
Amidah of the three Major Festivals (Pesach, Shavuot and Suk-
kot), and of the High Holy Days, whereas in Israel it
occurs each and every morning.
The reason for this distinction is fascinatingly described by Rav
Moshe Isserles, great 16th century Ashkenazic decisor and codif-
ier: since the very Divine Presence descends upon Israel during
the moments of the Priestly benediction, and since the Divine
Presence can only rest on a place of joy, and since the Torah be-
lieves that the Jews of the diaspora, constantly subject to per-
secution and assimilation, can hardly be joyous, Jewish law must
perforce limit the priestly benediction in the diaspora to the
period of the Festivals when the Bible commands us to rejoice no
matter what ("And you shall rejoice in your Festivals").
From one perspective, Jewish Tradition attempts to de-emphasize
the genealogically induced unique nature of the priestly
functions. Although an agrarian society which depends upon
back-breaking farm work for even minimal subsistence re-
quires a specially designated Tribal group who will not be bound
to the land, who will be supported by the rest of the Jews
and who can therefore dedicate itself from an early age to Torah
study and Divine service, the Sages of the Mishnah established
the principle that "an illegitimately born Jew who is a Torah
scholar takes precedence over a High Priest who is an ig-
noramus," and Maimonides exhorts: "the crown of Torah lies ex-
posed in the corner; let anyone (of whatever ancestry) who
is dedicated, come and take it up."
Indeed, the very fact that the priests cover themselves with
prayer shawls hiding their faces completely from the Congregation
seems to emphasize the fact that it is not the individual
priest-Kohen who is doing the blessing; it is rather that he
stands in the place of the entire Jewish Tradition, and as such,
he is calling upon the Almighty to grant Israel
peace.
Nevertheless, there is something distinctive about the family of
priests. After all, one who is not a descendant of Aaron cannot
rise to the Dukhan for the benediction. This week's Torah
reading, Emor, contains a series of laws which specifically
relate to the descendants of Aaron: "Let no priest defile him-
self by contact with the dead among his people...They shall not
marry an immoral or profaned woman. They also must not marry a
woman who has been divorced from her husband (Lev. 21:2-7)".
In order to understand the real place of the Kohen within
Jewish tradition it is crucial to remember what is was which
caused the priests to replace the first-born sons as the
ministers of Divine service during the Biblical period. The
first born were removed from their previously chosen status and
were replaced by the priests when the former fell prey to
the seduction of the golden calf, and the latter stood staunchly
against idolatry.
In his memoirs, Rabbi Shimon Schwab, spiritual leader of the
Adath Jeshurun Congregation of Washington Heights, describes how
as a young man he journeyed to the distant Polish town of
Radin to study with the famed Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan, known to
the world by his pseudonym Hafetz Haim. During their initial
meeting, the greatest Sage of the generation asked the would-be
student the surprising question: "Are you a Kohen, a Levi or
an Israelite?" When the young Shimon replied that he was an Is-
raelite, the famed Rav countered, not without pride, that he
was a Kohen-priest. "And do you know the difference between you
and me?", he continued. "When the redeemer messiah will ar-
rive, both of us will follow him to Jerusalem. But when he
makes his way to the precinct of the Holy Temple, you will
be forced to remain outside and I will be privileged to accompany
him all the way inside. I will experience a much greater de-
gree of sanctity than you. And what makes for this difference
between us? When Moses our Teacher, in the aftermath of the
tragic incident of the golden calf, cried out: "Let those who are
with G-d, stand with me," my great-grandfather heeded
his call, and yours did not. And so I am a Kohen, and you are
only an Israelite."
The Hafetz Haim then looked lovingly and piercingly at his
young visitor, and continued his monologue: "You may wonder why
I'm telling you all this, and at our very first meeting. Know
that in every person's lifetime he hears the echo of Moses' call:
"Let those who are with G-d, stand with me." It takes immediate
response and decisive action. Make sure that when you receive the
call, even though you may not feel ready or adequate, you do
not repeat the mistake of your great-grandfather. Make sure that
you respond positively."
Those who respond to the Divine call are worthy of calling upon
the Divine for His blessing. Herein lies the source of
the priestly privilege, the secret of the encompassing prayer-
shawl. The priestly tradition is a noble one, but the Divine
challenge repeats itself anew in every generation. When it
comes to us, may we not be found wanting.
Shabbat Shalom.
|
| 989.193 | Behar (1991): Ultimate Value | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Complacency is tantamount to complicity | Mon May 18 1992 17:47 | 103 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Behar-Behukotai
By: Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- "I never promised you a rose-garden," an-
nounce the realistic advertisements of the Jewish Agency, sub-
tlely advising aliyah to Israel despite the objective difficul-
ties involved in re-settlement.. In a far more devastating
fashion, however, this could well be the subtitle of the Penta-
teuch, though ultimately the Torah does promise survival and
guarantee redemption to the Jewish people, but with a great
deal of suffering and tragedy along the way.
In this week's double Torah portion, Behar-Behukotai, we are
faced with what is known as the Tokhaha, the Divine chastisements
and curses, which are destined for the children of Israel if
they do not collectively keep the commandments and perfect the
world under the Divine Kingship: "You will plant your
crop in vain, because your enemies will eat it... you will flee
even when no one is chasing you ... I will send wild beast
among you, killing your children, destroying your livestock,
and reducing your population, so that your roads will become
deserted.... You will huddle in your cities ... I will send the
plague against you, and give you over to your enemies .... You
will eat the flesh of your sons and make a meal of the flesh of
your daughters...." (Leviticus 26:14-40).
What make these words all the more searing is that, during the
Nazi Holocaust we literally experienced the unspeakable hor-
rors described by the above verses.. But what makes the prophecy
of doom inexplicable is what comes before and after it in a
seemingly baffling and illogical Biblical sequence: the de-
tails of the laws of the Sabbatical and Jubilee years, the
Tokhaha (chastisement) itself, and then the laws of vows in
which an individual pledges his worth to the Holy Temple. What do
these issues of agriculture and intentions have to do with Jewish
tragedy?
I believe the key to understanding why the Biblical sequence is
so puzzling can be found by paying closer attention to what the
Jews experienced in World War II. The Nazi despots first and
foremost declared that Jews are not free, are slaves of the
state. They forcibly removed us from our homes and properties,
relocated us in slave-labor camps, and attempted to rob us of
every vestige of our self-respect and innate humanity. How fit-
ting it is that preceeding the catalogue of Jewish enslavement in
the Biblical prescription for human freedom: every seventh year
it is forbidden to till your soil and all slaves must be freed.
Every Jubilee (50th) year, the land is returned to its original
owner. What emerges from these laws is that human beings are nei-
ther servants of their neighbors nor even of the land; we are
all servants only of Gd, and therefore we are free. Indeed,
even the very land itself must be allowed to enjoy a fundamen-
tal freedom, a right to be. In the words of the Bible itself -
subsequently inscribed in the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia - "And
you shall hallow the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty
throughout the land to all its inhabitants" (Lev. 25:10). Had
we only succeeded in getting across the message of the Sabbat-
ical and Jubilee years to the rest of the world, the Nazi
concentration camps would never have surfaced.
And if the Sabbatical and Jubilee years teach us that an indivi-
dual cannot sell even the worth of the work of his hands to
any other individual - come the seventh and fiftieth year, "he
may not continue to serve anyone, no matter what" - the laws of
intentions teach us that it is only the Almighty to whom we can
vow our physcial output. And especially after the descrip-
tion of the denegrated and devastated Jew - ground to the dust
with his ashes scattered to the winds over Auschwitz - it is
critical to hear the Bible insist that we have objective physical
worth which can only be dedicated to the Almighty and even
this at our own volition. Moreover, after nation after nation
refused to ransom a Jewish life for a truck at the infamous
Evian conference and after the Nazi tyrant-beasts decided to
save a half-penny on every Jew by gassing him with zyklon-
B instead of by keeping him alive and in their work force - a Jew
was not worth a truck or even half-a-cent, it is important to
hear that our physical labor has objective value to Gd.
And, finally, the valuations remind us that the only aspect of
the human being to which an objective price-tag can be at-
tached is his physical labors dependent upon his age - a kind of
minimum wage appraisal equal for everyone. The spiritual worth
bound up with the human soul created in the image of the Divine
is obviously as inestimable as Gd Himself, and varies to the de-
gree that each individual develops his Gd-given potential and
scales the heights of his spiritual universe.
The Nazis removed our names and substituted for them
numbers, branded upon our arms like cowherds brand their
cattle; our Torah forbids us to count Jews altogether, to even
associate a number with a Jewish life, lest we mistake quan-
tity for quality and erroneously begin to assess human beings in
only physical and numerical terms.
May we become as innumerable as the stars (which are far
greater than their physical appearance to us would suggest), and
succeed in teaching the world the message of the inestimable
and ultimate value of every human being created in the Divine
Image.
Shabbat Shalom
|
| 989.194 | Behar: The Inanimate Sabbath | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Complacency is tantamount to complicity | Thu May 21 1992 16:28 | 123 |
|
Behar: The Inanimate Sabbath
by Yehoshua Steinberg
From the beginning of time, man has sought security and comfort.
But seek as we may, few of us ever feel fully secure or comfort-
able. And for good reason! Businesses and families once
thought to be utterly invincible are of a sudden brutally
catapulted into the '90s. Eighteen billion dollars in as-
sets are seemingly swept away in a fell swoop. Even those who
never suffer such losses during this lifetime rarely take
their holdings along with them to the next.
But if space/fax/computer-age man feels vulnerable and insecure,
imagine the precariousness felt by previous generations, who
thought not in terms of long-term "security," but whose very
bread was almost wholly dependent on the vicissitudes of nature?
It was none other than recently-freed slaves, soon-to-be vulner-
able farmers of the ancient Land of Israel who were given the
following astonishing commandment in this week's Torah portion,
Behar:
But in the seventh year there shall be a solemn
rest for the land, a sabbath unto G-d; your field
you shall not sow and your vineyard you shall not
prune (Lev. 25:4).
Before the stunned audience even had a chance to react to the
prospect of a produce-less year, they found themselves con-
fronted by yet another jolting injunction:
And you shall sanctify the fiftieth year... a ju-
bilee shall it be for you, and you shall return every man
to his possession...(ibid v. 10).
That is, even one's land was not truly his own; it was to be re-
turned to its original owner with the onset of the jubilee year!
Upon witnessing a heart-wrenching recitation of the mourner's
_kaddish_ prayer at a funeral once, I was struck by its apparent
irony. Here is a translation of the Hebrew words:
Magnified and sanctified be His great name in the
world which he has created according to his will...
Blessed, praised and glorified, exalted, extolled
and honored, upraised and lauded be the name of the
Holy One, blessed be He...
Is this really an appropriate prayer for the bereaved, laden as
he is with grief and preoccupied to the point of distraction by
thoughts of his late loved one? What's more, the latter is not
even mentioned in the whole of the prayer! But there is
actually a penetrating message in the _kaddish_; it is actually a
message of extreme comfort to the mourner, and to anyone else who
takes the time to examine it.
The source of most depression is a feeling of ultimate futility.
We feel that the goals towards which we work are fleeting, that
the work we do is of transitory nature, that even the loving re-
lationships we nurture are ultimately but ephemeral. We turn
around and something's lost, someone's gone. There is no per-
manence, nowhere to hang one's hat with absolute certitude.
However, there is one enduring entity in the universe upon which
one can rely. There is indeed one constant in a world of mad-
dening change. We are bidden to attach ourselves to this enti-
ty, because we may thereby riveting ourselves to a Rock, the per-
manent Rock of Israel.
Moreover, we are thereby reestablishing a bond, an *unbreakable*
bond with our departed loved one, who is himself bound to the
Eternal.
The heart of the _kaddish_ is the following pronouncement: "May
His great name be blessed forever and for all eternity," which,
if uttered with "all of one's strength" causes evil judgments to
be rescinded (Shabbat 119b).
To what does "all of one's strength" refer? The phrase is remin-
iscent of the verse recited in the _Shema_ each day, "You shall
love the Lord your G-d with all of your heart and with all of
your soul and with all of your might" (Deut. 6:5). Rashi comments
that "all of your might" refers to "all your wealth."[1] That is,
we are bidden, as it were, to put our *money* where our mouths
are.
How cogent is this association between "strength" and wealth!
Whether one is a bull or a bear, success has the inevitable ef-
fect of inducing a feeling of invincibility. We often confuse our
identities with our bank accounts, our careers with our essences,
our properties with our very beings.
The Jew is therefore reminded constantly that there is a more
sublime purpose to his life than merely amassing wealth for
wealth's sake. We must learn to build into our lives time for re-
flection, for enjoyment, for elevation. We must learn and relearn
that our assets are not ourselves, that there are great missions
to be accomplished; indeed, for which purpose we were created.
The Jew who let his land lie fallow one year in seven did not
starve, because he planned for it, he knew it was coming, like
the Biblical dreamer/planner Joseph. The same Jew happily ret-
urned the parcel to its original owner after several decades
of toil, because he never thought of it as his own in the first
place, and he never thought of it as *himself* in the first
place.
In a hodgepodge era of both materialism and hedonism on the
one hand, and an increasing and alarming rift between haves and
have-nots and its inevitably attendant chaos on the other, the
precepts of the Sabbatical year and Jubilee offer a uniquely re-
freshing perspective for all eternity-seekers.
[1] See Rashi, Bava Batra 110a, "Sheshav la'Kel bechol libo,"
where the repentance of Shevuel (AKA Yehonatan) ben Gershom is
associated with his wealth. See also Yerushalmi Ber. 9:2 and San.
11:5 where the term _kocho_ is added and substituted respective-
ly.
|
| 989.195 | Jubilee year? Slavery? | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Thu May 21 1992 20:18 | 17 |
| I am a bit confused by the reckoning of the Jubilee year. The Torah says
to count 49 years, then celebrate the 50th year. Is that the 1st year of
the next cycle (as in the Roman fashion of counting), or does that mean
that the total cycle is 50 years (which allows for a sabbatical year being
adjacent to a Jubilee year -- 2 years of no produce)? Is a Sabbatical
year one in which the Hebrew year is divisible by 7?
This portion contains the laws regarding slavery. It is clear that slavery
was commonplace in biblical times. Yet, it is in such contrast with modern
standards that I wonder why permanent enslavement of non-Jews was permitted.
Any comments?
The very end of this portion is another prohibition against making idols.
This follows immediately after the laws regarding slavery. I assume it means
that idolatry is the ultimate form of slavery.
Dave
|
| 989.196 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu May 28 1992 01:19 | 5 |
| re .195:
Until the destruction of the Temple, it was a 50-year cycle ending with two
years of not planting. After the destruction, the jubilee was suspended,
so it became a straight 7-year cycle.
|
| 989.197 | what happens now? | CADSYS::HECTOR::RICHARDSON | | Thu May 28 1992 23:03 | 8 |
| What is done in Israel these days? I alwasy thought that mandating
letting the land lie fallow for a year was a remarkably modern idea,
but having all the land in the whole country not planted for a year the
same time, not to mention for two consecutive years for the jubilee
year, surely caused essentially a famine and was certainly an open
invitation to invasion.
/Charlotte
|
| 989.198 | It's all in there... | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Fri May 29 1992 00:38 | 5 |
| In the Torah in this same chapter, is a promise that the crop of the 6th
year will always be sufficient for 3 years consumption. This seems like
a very risky promise to make. Do we have records on this?
Dave
|
| 989.199 | Shavuot: Everlasting Weeks (R. Riskin, 1991) | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Complacency is tantamount to complicity | Wed Jun 03 1992 09:15 | 142 |
|
Shabbat Shalom: Shavuot (Bamidbar)
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- In attempting to understand the deeper sig-
nificance of the festival of Shavuot, let's begin with the name
itself, most unusual because Shavuot --literally 'Weeks'-- is
a term fundamentally different from the descriptive appellations
of the other Biblical Festivals . Passover refers to G-d's
"skipping" over of the Hebrew houses when He smate the Egyp-
tian first-born. Sukkot to the booths in their desert so-
journ, Rosh Hashana the first day of the New Year, Yom Kippur the
Day of forgiveness. Shavuot is in a class by itself, a name which
seems only peripherally connected to a festival that celebrates
both the bringing of the First Fruits (Bikkurim) and the giving
of the Torah (Matan Torah).
"Weeks" as a name reverberates in time suggests an interim
period, and what we must logically conclude is that what is
being stressed is the festival's connection to Passover.
After all, seven weeks before Shavuot a count began, en-
joining us to number, seven weeks - forty nine days, and re-
plete with specific laws on how to count, what to do if one
forgets, the proper blessings, and even a kabbalistic grid
based on the seven Emanations of the Divine in His relation-
ship to world (S'firot).
Besides the matter of counting each passing day between Passover
and Shavuot, there is also a textual connection which binds
the two festivals. On the night of the Seder, a central pas-
sage in the Haggadah recounts the beginnings of the Jewish
people by quoting a passage from the twenty-sixth chapter of
Deuteronomy: "An Aramean sought to destroy my father; and he went
down to Egypt and he dwelled there, a handful, few in number.
There he became a nation, great, mighty and numerous." The fa-
ther referred to is Jacob, and it is this experience, Jacob's
first exile from Israel, foreshadowing his eventual descent to
Egypt, which is as far back as the Haggadah reaches in depicting
the history of Hebrew enslavement and freedom.
Speculating why the Haggadah goes back to this point in time
choosing to site a passage from Deuteronomy rather then the ini-
tial story of Egypt in the Book of Exodus is a homiletic
goldmine, but for us this passage illuminates the Passover-
Shavuot connection. The quote about the Aramean destroying
bringing his Bikkurim, the First Fruits to the temple in
Jerusalem. The Torah commands that "...you must place it in a
basket, and go to the site that G-d will choose...The priest
shall then take the basket from your hand and place it before
the altar of G-d your Lord. You shall then make the follow-
ing declaration:... My ancestor was a homeless Aramean. He went
to Egypt with a small number of men and lived there as an
immigrant, but it was there that he became a great, powerful and
populous nation...'" [Deut. 26:5-10].
Thus the words recited upon bringing the First Fruits --an
essential part of Shavuot-- is already present in the actual text
of the Haggadah. This means it is impossible to go through
the Seder without first tasting on one's lips what will unfold 50
days hence. Not only is Shavuot intimately bound with Pass-
over, but linking the two tells me that without Shavuot, Passover
is incomplete. And indeed, Passover was only the tentative
first steps of Jewish freedom, both from a physical and spiritual
perspective! Yes, Passover signals Jewish freedom from Egyp-
tian servitude, Israeli exodus. But in reality the just-freed
Israelites must confront the emptiness of a frightening
desert. The generation that left Egypt with Moses never made it
to the promised land, dying in a landscape which the ancient
world believed imbued with the spirit of pre-civilization, stark
and dangerous. An end to slavery is only a beginning; but
what lies ahead for the Israelites, what shall they discover in
this new terrain? For many, the desert experience must have
seemed like "out of the frying pan, into the fire."
And even from a spiritual vantage point, Passover is when G-d
wrought great miracles for the Jewish people, demonstrating His
love and concern. But even though we could apprehend G-d's
nearness as never before, we still did not know what G-d wanted
from us. How may we serve Him, what are His expectations, and to
what religious aspiration ought we dedicate our lives? The
responses to these understandable questions have not yet been re-
vealed to the wandering Hebrew by the advent of Passover.
Enter Shavuot. Its two dimensions, First Fruits and Torah,
speak directly to completing the redemptive process be-
gun on Passover.
The first fruits, the Bikkurim, express the physical in a
profound way. Here we are, in our own land, farming our own
earth, proudly presenting the crops produced with our own sweat
and toil, being brought to our Holy Temple. But in addition to
providing an experience of true home-coming in a total en-
vironment of material and physical sanctity, this day also un-
veils the essence of spirituality: it is on Shavuot that we
learn what G-d wants from us as a people when He reveals the
Torah through Moses, a gift that enables us to begin to fathom
the mystery between G-d and His universe, and to traverse the
chasm between heaven and earth.
Passover may be the beginning of redemption, and Shavuot may
complete it, but what we see from the name "Weeks" is how criti-
cal are the days in between, the essense of the Jewish
experience. Each passing day means we're hopefully one more
step on the ladder toward physical and spiritual redemption.
The period in-between teaches us how essential is our striving,
how crucial our preparation. Indeed, the very road to-
wards redemption is as important for us in this world as the
redemption itself. Is it not true for so many aspects of our
life experiences that the struggle and anticipation when
performed with humor and commitment - have been sweeter than
the final realization and victory?
When 24,000 students of R. Akiva died between Passover and Sha-
vuot ( perhaps in the abortive Bar Kochba rebellion) because they
did not show proper respect for each other (B.T.Yebamot 62),
and when communities along the Rhine -complacent in their
Exile- were destroyed by the Christian Crusaders on their journey
to the Land of Israel, these seven weeks turned into a period
of Jewry's tragic collective memories. By still practicing
semi-mourning even today when we don't get married or cut or
hair, we mourn not only R. Akiva's students, but the tragedy
of redemption unachieved. Weeks of joyous anticipation have
become weeks of tragic mourning - because we faltered in our
struggle, we lost sight of the spiritual and physical goals so
necessary for redemption!
But the modern era has been witness to a dramatic turnaround. In
the last 40 years, two new and joyous festivals have em-
erged, all between Passover and Shavuot --our great terrain of
redemption in the Jewish calendar: Yom Ha'atzmaut (Israel
Independence Day) and Yom Yerushalayim (Jerusalem Unifica-
tion Day). A burst of history right in our backyard. And
what's most uncanny about these days is that they seem to be re-
claiming a long lost Jewish legacy, a willingness to accept
the struggle and resume the challenge of the dream. 'Weeks' is
not only a name that describes how once upon a time Jews
brought First Fruits or received a Torah, but it's a name that
holds out the promise of what must still yet transpire in the
to count and prepare for the G-d of Redemption.
Shabbat Shalom.
|
| 989.200 | More redundancy | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Thu Jun 11 1992 20:34 | 15 |
| This week's portion (the 2nd in Bemidbar), has a long redundant passage.
To dedicate the altar of the Tabernacle, each of the 12 tribal leaders
brings an identical offering: a silver bowl, a silver basin, a golden
ladle, meal offerings, incense, bulls, goats, and rams for sacrifice.
The passage reads: On the first day so-and-so brought ... . On the second
day so-and-so brought ... . And so on for 12 days, each time repeating the
details with identical wording. At the end of this there is a summary
of the offering (in case we missed something), i.e. 12 silver bowls of
130 shekels each for a total of 1560 shekels, 12 silver basins ... .
I noticed the tribe of Judah came first, so maybe the interest in this
passage is in the details of the political ordering of the tribes. Other than
that, what is the significance of this passage?
Dave
|
| 989.201 | BeHa'alotekha: The Septateuch? | SUBWAY::STEINBERG | Complacency is tantamount to complicity | Tue Jun 16 1992 18:01 | 264 |
| Shabbat Shalom: BeHa'alotekha
by Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel -- Are we waiting for G-d or is G-d waiting for
us? Who is to make the first move? The answer is to be found in
a strange formation in this week's Torah reading. We're all fam-
iliar with the Five Books of Moses, but how many of us know that
some Talmudic Sages call the Torah the Seven Books? This is
not because of a disagreement about lost works, but the impor-
tance attached to two verses in this week's portion of
BeHa'alotcha, a total of nineteen words, --"When the Ark went
forth, Moses said, You flee before you. When it came to rest, he
said: 'Return, O G-d, unto the ten thousands of the fami-
lies of Israel.'" [Numbers 10:35-36]-- which prompted the
Tanna, Rebbe, in Tractate Shabbat (116A) to speak, astonishing
ly enough, of seven books instead of five, and the text then
goes on tell us how Rebbe and R. Yonatan are in agreement, quot-
ing his comment that the verse in Proverbs: "She [wisdom] has
hewn out her seven pillars," is an allusion to the Seven Books of
the Torah, which is divided along the following lines:
The first ten chapters of Numbers constitutes the fourth book,
our two verses the fifth book, and from that point on until
the end of Numbers we have the sixth book, with Deuteronomy
book number seven.
Our Sages were alerted to the unique status of these nineteen
words by the two inverted letters, _nuns_, placed at the be-
ginning and ending of the passage, a segment marked off not only
in printed Bibles, but even in the Scrolls themselves. One of
the reasons offered by the Maharsha, a major Talmudic commentator
who lived from 1555-1631, as an explanation for such unusual
"symbols" is that the Torah is teaching us that even though this
Book [the Fifth] contains only two verses, making it the smal-
lest of all the Books of the Torah, it is not too small to
contain all fifty gates of understanding, (fifty being the nu-
merical equivalent of _nun_).
And as if to underscore the unique nature of these verses,
we find this 'book' chanted aloud by the congregation whenever
the synagogue service calls for a public reading of the Torah --
one of the verses when the Scroll is removed and the other when
it is returned. Since the reading of the Torah is just about
the most prominent feature of the service, indelible imprinting
the Bible in the hearts and minds of the regular worshippers,
then the accompanying words chanted every Monday, Thursday,
Sabbath, festival and New Moon, take on a larger than life
quality.
Let's look again at the words under discussion. "When the Ark
goes forth, Moses says, 'Arise O G-d to scatter the enem-
ies....' We immediately notice that the actual orchestrations
in the synagogue involved in removing the Torah scroll from the
Ark are echoed by these verses.
And as the verse is telling us that, the Torah is the
"weapon of choice" of the Jewish people. The ethics, morality and
unique life-style of the Jewish people remain our greatest
implement of warfare against those who would seek to destroy us,
our ticket to eternity as a separate nation among the family
of nations. The Torah 'scatters' the enemy because everything the
Torah stands for is hated by the enemies of G-d, and when they
come into contact with it, their previous ideas and prejudices
are scattered and shattered.
But we shouldn't understand this to mean that in times of real
war, we only fight tanks with parchment. Isn't the Torah filled
with battles and battle plans, and don't we enter the field of
combat with the most sophisticated weaponry we can create or
buy? The importance of Israel to engage in physical battle if
necessary is also to be found in these words:
Immediately following the description of the Ark going forth, we
read that Moses said, "Rise up, O G-d, and let your enemies be
scattered..." Isn't that odd? Should Moses be calling upon G-d
to rise? Would it not be more logical if G-d were to call upon
Moses and the Jewish people to rise and get up?
There is a range of interpretations as to exact meaning of the
word 'kuma' (rise up, in Hebrew).
Maimonides in the _Guide to the Perplexed_ explains that it
doesn't come from the language of 'rising up' (kum) but from
the word 'kiyum,' which means confirmation. So Moses is
really praying to G-d that He confirm His covenant and not a ban-
don the Jewish people. In this sense, 'Rise O G-d' is really
a prayer.
The Abarbanel explains this word from the language of 'nekama'
-vengeance, beseeching G-d to take vengeance. The Midrash in the
Sifrei, however, speaks in more daring terms. More than a prayer
of beseeching, it's actually a command. 'Rise O G-d' means 'Wake
Up G-d!' The command implies that we can take some action to get
G-d to awaken. This concept is linked to the Holy Zohar's
teaching that there is "never a rousing above unless there is
first a rousing below." All of us down here have to start the
action. That's why the verse opens, 'Vayehi binsoa h'aron' which
means, 'when the ark begins moving.' there is no movement
below, there will be no movement Above. We are the ones who have
to rouse G-d.
Why do these nineteen words constitute the Fifth Book of the
Torah? Perhaps one important reason is that it encapsulates our
relationship to G-d. Is He our Master or our Partner? If we
think that it's enough to learn Torah and rely on G-d to wield
His miraculous powers, we're wrong. The Torah is our weapon, but
it works most effectively when we're the ones who cry out to
G-d to rise! It's not enough that He's our Master, we have
to become G-d's partner. An unusual event is taking place in
these verses. The Ark is out on maneuvers, the Torah is be-
ing studied, but its ultimate effect is put into motion when
Moses --and by extension us-- cries to G-d to rise up. And G-d
will rise only when we rise first: both in our dedication
to the Parchment Scroll. As well as in our readiness to do battl
e, so that our enemies may be scattered spiritually and physi-
cally.
Shabbat Shalom
|
| 989.202 | The red heifer and other questions | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Wed Jul 08 1992 04:34 | 25 |
| This week's portion I find unusually puzzling. Not just the ritual of
the red heifer, which nobody understands. We also have the deaths of
both Miriam and Aaron which puzzle me.
I know that Miriam was supposed to have a magic well that followed her
in the wilderness. When she dies the Israelites immediately become thirsty.
I feel this is a very thin reason to conclude that Miriam had a well. Is
there more to it than that?
In Aaron's case I am not clear on the sequence of events. Did Aaron climb
Mount Hor alive to be stripped of the priestly vestments and die at the top?
If so, I find the passage disturbing. I find it more understandable if
Moses and Eleazar helped (or carried) an ailing Aaron to the mountain peak.
If Aaron's death was a punishment for improperly getting water from the rock,
why wasn't Moses punished at the same time?
Does forty years transpire in this portion?
I skipped this question last week, but since I'm asking... who is this
Cushite woman that Miriam and Aaron have accused Moses of marrying? I thought
Moses' wife was Medianite.
Thanks for any contributions.
Dave
|
| 989.203 | Nechushtan, the sacred copper snake | TAVIS::JUAN | | Wed Jul 08 1992 19:55 | 46 |
| Re: .202
>This week's portion I find unusually puzzling. Not just the ritual of
>the red heifer, which nobody understands. We also have the deaths of
>both Miriam and Aaron which puzzle me.
I understand that not only oyu are puzzled by the red heifer ritual.
Our Sages of blessed memory, tell us that Rabbi Jochanan ben Zacai, that
acted both before and after the destruction of the second Temple, i.e.: in
times that the ritual was still practiced, when asked about this by his
followers, after some unconvincing explanations, said that: "It is not the
dead that 'contaminate' nor the ashes that purify. It is the LAW".
There is another interesting subject in this portion:
A plague of snakes visits the Children of Israel in the desert. Moses
is commanded by the Lord to prepare a copper snake, put it on a mast,
and whoever will look at the copper snake, will heal from the bite of
the burning snakes.
Our Sages explain this saying that whoever would look at the copper snake,
on top of the mast, would as well look at the heavens and therefore be
reminded of Who is the real healer and then be healed.
It seems that during the centuries, the copper snake that the Lord himself
had ordered to be done, became an object of worship, the Nechushtan, so that
King Hezkiah (~650BCE) decided to destroy the old Nechushtan and get rid
of the idol. It seems that our Sages, even then, had the insight to look at
the rites of the people with a critical eye, and decide to get rid of rites
or uses that, even though they were 'holly' at some previous era, they
LOST THEIR ORIGINAL MEANING and became mere rites of idol worship.
Yes, I sometimes long for the return of the monarchy.
Best regards,
Juan-Carlos Kiel
PS.:
>I skipped this question last week, but since I'm asking... who is this
>Cushite woman that Miriam and Aaron have accused Moses of marrying? I thought
>Moses' wife was Medianite.
Oy Vey! That means that Moishe got married to a shikse!?! And yet he and his
progeny remained loyal to the Jewish people?!? Tongue-in-cheek-ly yours, JCK.
|
| 989.204 | Indeed | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Wed Jul 08 1992 20:47 | 5 |
| As I drove to work this morning I found I was following an ambulence. On the
rear window of the ambulence I saw the image of a single snake wound around
a staff. The reference was unmistakeable.
Dave
|
| 989.205 | Indeed, indeed. | TAVIS::JUAN | | Thu Jul 09 1992 14:24 | 30 |
| Re: .204
>As I drove to work this morning I found I was following an ambulence. On the
>rear window of the ambulence I saw the image of a single snake wound around
>a staff. The reference was unmistakeable.
I am sorry, I cannot see the unmistakable reference, but it seems the old
magic does not work anymore, since instead to bring you to think about
heavens, the snake and staff made you stare at into the ambulance.
But in any case, the reference to King Hezkiah is valid: The snake and the
staff lost their holly meaning and therefore Hezkiah destroyed them and had
them removed from the Temple. I believe there are quite a few other symbols,
that once had full vitality and explanation for their hollyness, and today,
instead of having us think abou heavens, make us follow ambulances.
As an example, we read a discussion in the Halachik Newsletter, that Gavriel
so kindly posts here, about if it is required or not to change doorknobs for
Passover. The possibility that such a chumra could be addressed is in itself
a burning snake. The request of not having leavened bread in Pesach, as a
symbol and reminder of the un-leavened bread our ancestors ate as they fled
the House of Slavery in the land of Egypt, the symbol of freedom, became a
snake wound around our doorknobs. This type of snake, as many, many other
chumrot, are to be destroyed and removed from the Temple.
Regards, and ambulatingly yours,
Juan-Carlos
|
| 989.206 | a coincidence | TNPUBS::STEINHART | Laura | Thu Jul 09 1992 19:29 | 13 |
| The snake-and-staff symbol of medicine is called the caduceus.
From the American Heritage dictionary:
caduceus 1. a. A herald's wand or staff, esp. in ancient times. b.
(myth) A winged staff with two serpents twined around it, carried by
Hermes. 2. An insignia modeled on a caduceus and used as the symbol
of the medical profession.
From the Greek karukeion < karux, herald.
L
|
| 989.207 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jul 09 1992 19:46 | 4 |
| re .205:
The doorknob business was intended as a comment on chumrot. It was not an
actual chumra.
|
| 989.208 | Not quite so | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Thu Jul 09 1992 22:21 | 8 |
| Sorry to give the misimpression: the ambulence happened to be in front of me,
I wasn't following it per se. I looked up, saw the symbol, and thought of the
Torah portion.
This particular ambulence had a SINGLE snake wound about a staff, not the more
usual two snakes.
Dave
|
| 989.209 | It's Greek. | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Fri Jul 17 1992 23:24 | 8 |
| "Caduceus
"... To Sumerians it was an emblem of life. ... In pre-Hellenic
Greece the caduceus was displayed on healing temples like those
of Asclepius, Hygeia, and Panacea, which is why it is still an
international symbol of the medical profession. ..."
-- Barbara Walker
|
| 989.210 | The "seven" books of Torah | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Tue Jul 21 1992 02:43 | 9 |
| Re: .201
I read some commentary on last week's portion (Balak - the story of Balaam
and the talking ass). Supposedly the chapter about Balaam is the "sixth"
book of the Torah (and the portion of Numbers that comes after is the 7th
book). Is Rabbi Riskin correct that yet another section of Numbers could
be a separate book (making 9 books in all)?
Dave
|
| 989.211 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Jul 21 1992 19:56 | 5 |
| re .210:
What commentary said this? The separate book in Behaalosecha is pretty well
known -- in fact, it's delimited by upside-down nuns. (That's the Hebrew
letter, not the Catholic women.)
|
| 989.212 | I'm still puzzled | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Wed Jul 29 1992 03:06 | 6 |
| It was Plaut. He claimed there are talmudic references (but didn't supply
any specifics) that make Balak the extra book of the Torah. I looked into
Hirsch and he clearly agrees that the extra book is the one in Behaalosecha
(even reproduces the upside-down nuns in the text).
Dave
|
| 989.213 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Jul 29 1992 03:35 | 1 |
| Who's Plaut?
|
| 989.214 | Plaut is the author of the Reform Torah Commentary | TLE::GROSS::GROSS | Louis Gross | Wed Aug 12 1992 08:56 | 3 |
| I don't have my copy here, but I believe he is a Reform Rabbi and scholar at the
Reform seminary, and his chumash contains his commentary and the JPS modern
English translation.
|
| 989.215 | Looking ahead a bit... | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Fri Nov 13 1992 21:26 | 25 |
| My twin boys are having their bar mitzvahs (b'nai mitzvot) December 5.
The portion for that day is Vayetze - starting with the story about Jacob's
ladder, thru the 21 years working for Laban and the birth of 11 of Jacob's 12
sons, to the start of the return journey and a treaty with Laban (Syria).
The portion is full of magical stuff. There is the bit about Reuben finding
mandrakes. There is the trick with striped sticks to get the flocks to
give birth to stiped animals. I can't make much sense of this.
There is the setting up of pillars, both at Beth El and at Machanaim. Yet
wasn't the setting up of pillars a Canaanite practice stamped out by later
kings of Judaea?
Jacob marries Leah and Rachel but marriage to sisters is forbidden in
Leviticus. I have seen one commentary that Leah and Rachel were twin sisters.
I see nothing to support this in the Torah story.
Finally, why is it that I never before noticed the sharp contrast between
Abraham sending rich gifts (via a servant) to get a wife for Isaac and
Isaac sending a penniless son to get a wife for himself? Too much familiarity
I guess.
Any insights will be appreciated.
Dave
|
| 989.216 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Bo | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jan 29 1993 00:52 | 202 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Bo
Volume VII/Number 15 (302)
8 Shevat 5753/January 30, 1993
In this week's Parasha, after the culmination of the Exodus, we
find the Mitzvah of Tefilin. Interestingly, the Gemara (Gittin
40a) states that if a Jew's slave is seen wearing Tefilin, that
slave is declared to be free. R' Zvi Yehuda Kook, zatzal (1891-
1982; Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Mercaz haRav in Yerushalayim, and
editor of many of the works of his father, R' Avraham Yitzchak
Kook) explains that the Tefilin are, in fact, a symbol of freedom.
Among non-Jews, it was once customary that a freed-slave
demonstrated his new status by wearing a wreath on his head; our
Tefilin serve the same purpose.
However, our Tefilin contain much more meaning than the wreath
of old. The Tefilin contain the contract with the terms of our
freedom. Hashem redeemed us from Egypt only so that we could (and
can) accept His reign and serve Him. This is the message contained
in the four "Parshiyot" (Torah-excerpts) of the Tefilin.
(quoted in Tal Chermon p.381)
************************************
"Come to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts
of his servants...." (10:1)
This Pasuk presents a difficulty involving one of the
fundamental concepts of Judaism, observes R' Ahron Soloveitchik,
shlita, (founder of the Brisk Yeshiva in Chicago and Rosh Yeshiva
at RIETS/Yeshiva University). If Hashem took away Pharaoh's free-
will (as the verse implies), how could He punish Pharaoh for
denying exit to the Jews?
Among the many answers given by the earlier commentaries is that
of R' Ovadiah Sforno. He explains that hardening Pharaoh's heart
did not deny him free-will; that Pharaoh had no choice but to
release Bnei Yisrael. However, with his heart hardened, Pharaoh
had the strength to stand up for his desires and beliefs.
Based on this answer, says R' Soloveitchik, we can understand
the Halacha that Bet Din does not force a person to perform a
positive commandment whose reward is stated in the Torah. If a
person says, "I will not perform the Mitzvah of Sukkah," Bet Din
may beat him or jail him until he relents. If, however, he says,
"I will not give Tzedakah," he may not be forced because the reward
for Tzedakah is stated in the Torah (But see Tosfot, Baba Bathra
8b). Why?
No person would ever sin or refuse to perform a Mitzvah, if not
for the "rewards" which the "Yetzer haRa"" (evil inclination)
promised him. Thus, to restore a person's free-will, Bet Din must
sometimes beat him. However, when the Torah states the reward for
a Mitzvah, as it does in the case of Tzedakah (Devarim 15:10), the
Torah has determined that no other free-will-restoring incentive is
appropriate.
(The Warmth & The Light p.119)
************************************
We read in this Parasha that the first day of Nisan is Rosh
haShanah for the counting of the months. What is the significance
of this day? It is neither the world's birthday, nor the
anniversary of the Exodus, nor of the Torah's giving!
The answer, says R' Moshe Feinstein, zatzal (1895-1986), is that
Rosh Chodesh Nisan is in the middle of our preparations for Pesach,
which in turn is part of our preparations for receiving the Torah.
In fact, the whole world was created only for the Torah. Without
preparation, receiving the Torah is impossible, and this is what
the choice of Rosh Chodesh Nisan teaches us.
(Darash Moshe)
************************************
"And thus shall you eat it [the Pesach sacrifice], your loins
girded, your shoes on your feet, your staff in hand, and you shall
eat it in haste..." (12:11)
Chazal teach that many -- some say four-fifths -- of Bnei
Yisrael were found unworthy of leaving Egypt. They died during the
plague of darkness. Why? Says R' Yechezkel Levenstein, zatzal
(1884-1974; Mashgiach of the Mir and Ponovezh Yeshivot) that even
though all Jews are, in the words of the Gemara (Shabbat 97a),
"Believers, the sons of believers," the above verse teaches us that
one who wants to be redeemed must actively look forward to the
redemption. Only one who demonstrates that he eagerly waits for
the sign will actually see that sign when it comes.
(Ohr Yechezkel III p.229)
************************************
"And you shall take a bundle of grass, and dip it in the blood
which is in the container, and you shall reach for the lintel and
the two doorposts." (12:22)
R' Yitzchak Yaakov Weiss, zatzal (1902-1989; one of the major
"Poskim" of the last 40 years; author of Minchat Yitzchak) offered
the following homiletical interpretation of this verse in the name
of his father:
We read in Mishlei (15:24), "The way of life is above for the
one who understands, in order to avoid the pit below." The author
of Yismach Moshe explains that if one wishes to perform a Mitzvah
he should look "above" for support, i.e. he should realize that his
soul is hewn (so-to-speak) from Hashem above. On the other hand,
if a person is about to sin, he should look at what is "below,"
i.e. the dust from which he came and to which he will return.
This is how we may interpret our verse: When you are feeling
lowly, like a bundle of grass, dip yourself in the blood ("baDam")
which is the container ("Saf"). The letters - "Know from where you
came." The word "Saf" is similar to the word "Sof" - "end" - and
is a reminder of where we are all going.
On the other hand, when you are on a high level like the lintel
of a doorway, take your support from the Mezuzah, which is on the
doorpost and which reminds us of Hashem's presence.
(quoted in Tel Talpiyot p.320)
************************************
[Although Hashem told Moshe that the firstborn would be stricken
at midnight, Moshe told Pharaoh that it would happen around
midnight. Chazal explain that Moshe feared lest Pharaoh's "watch"
be off by one minute, and all of Hashem's wonders would be lost on
him.
What a difference a moment makes, as the following story
illustrates.]
An elderly neighbor of R' Avraham Pam, shlita (Rosh Yeshiva of
Torah Vodaath) was hospitalized. Being unable to visit the man, R'
Pam wrote him a short letter. This missive, expressing the Rosh
Yeshiva's wishes for a speedy recovery for the man, took about two
minutes to pen.
The elderly man was quite surprised to receive a letter from a
casual and so prominent an acquaintance, and he kept it under his
pillow like a treasure. He took it out only to show to each guest
who entered his room.
Not long afterwards, the man passed away. R' Pam, a Kohen did
not attend the funeral, but one of those who eulogized the
deceased, not knowing the circumstances surrounding the letter,
mentioned how important the deceased must have been to receive a
personal letter from so distinguished a Rosh Yeshiva.
Said R' Pam later, "This whole incident frightens me. That
letter took only two minutes to write, yet it gave such joy to a
dying man, and honor and consolation to his family. How many 'two
minutes' do we waste?!"
(In the Footsteps of the Maggid p.66)
************************************
The learning schedule for this Shabbat is:
Machshirin 2:5-6
O.C. 548:7-9
Ketubot 59
Yerushalmi - Berachot 59
************************************
The hard copy distribution of this weeks
Hamaayan is sponsored by:
The Marwick family
in memory of Joel L. Slotsky
The Sager and Champion-Sager family
in memory of Henry Sput
The Goodman family
in memory of mother and grandmother
Rivka bat Yehuda haLevi
************************************
Donations to Hamaayan are tax deductible
********************
Posted by Alan Broder, ajb@digex.com (uunet!digex!ajb), who
should be contacted to request back issues of HaMaayan or to get
on or off the direct email mailing list.
Shlomo Katz can not receive EMAIL, however I will pass on any
comment forwarded to me, or alternately, send your comments care of
yehuda@gwuvm.bitnet
|
| 989.217 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Beshalach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Feb 04 1993 18:53 | 243 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Beshalach
Volume VII/Number (303)
15 Shevat 5753/February 6, 1993
We read in this week's Parasha "And Moshe said, 'Eat it [the
Mahn] today, for today is Shabbat, for Hashem; today you will not
find it in the field'." In its simplest meaning, Moshe's statement
means that on Shabbat the Mahn will not be found in the fields.
But, says R' Yechezkel Abramsky, zatzal (1886-1976; head of the
London Bet Din and later a Rosh Yeshiva of the Slobodka Yeshiva),
Shabbat, too, is not found in the fields. The spirit of Shabbat
does not come to one who does not have his mind on it; in fact, one
must be looking out for it all week long.
Our physical observance of Shabbat should inform our mental
observance. No one puts on his Shabbat clothes without removing
his weekday clothes. So, too, our materialistic weekday state-of-
mind must give way to a special Shabbat state-of-mind.
A spirit of calm and restfulness comes to the world on Shabbat,
but only one who observes all of Shabbat's laws can sense that
spirit. Such a person attains the "Neshama Yeteirah" - literally
translated, "extra soul" - with which Shabbat is blessed.
(Chazon Yechezkel, Intro. to Masechet Shabbat)
************************************
The primary redemption, says R' Yaakov Moshe Charlap, zatzal
(1883-1951; student of R' Kook and his successor as Rosh Yeshiva of
Yeshivat Merkaz haRav), is too great to be brought about through
other nations. This is why, after Pharaoh had given Bnei Yisrael
permission to leave, he had to change his mind.
The same will be true of the final redemption. The nations of
the world will control Eretz Yisrael and will give us the right to
settle there. Before the redemption can be complete, however, they
will have to regret their decision, so that it will be clear that
Hashem alone has redeemed us.
(quoted in Ohr haTehiyah p.24)
************************************
A person is required to perform all of his actions from the
perspective of truth, says R' Mordechai Shulman, zatzal (1902-1953;
Slabodka Rosh Yeshiva). Even Pharaoh was required to fulfill G-d's
will out of a recognition of truth. He was made to realize that
Moshe's prophecy was true. (In fact, we find that Pharaoh searched
for the truth. Chazal say that he sent his servants to examine the
encyclopedia in search of an answer to the question (5:2), "Who is
G-d?")
If Pharaoh was expected to free Bnei Yisrael out of recognition
of the truth, it follows that when Moshe first came to him, he was
capable of seeing the truth. What stops a person from recognizing
the truth immediately? His preconceived notions which blind him.
(quoted in Legacy of Slabodka p.144)
************************************
The Exodus was not complete until "Kri'at Yam Suf" - the
splitting of the Red (or Reed) Sea, says R' Zalman Rotberg, shlita
(Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Bet Meir in Bnei Brak). Until then,
Hashem's purpose, to reveal His power and majesty, was not
accomplished. At the sea, though, Bnei Yisrael did not just see
five more fingers (see 8:15), they saw Hashem's great hand (14:31),
i.e. they saw the completed deed of Hashem.
The main purpose of Hashem's miracles was to teach Bnei Yisrael,
not to impress the Egyptians. Unlike Bnei Yisrael, Pharaoh and his
servants were not moved to spontaneous song by the miracles which
they witnessed. [Note: The Midrash says that Pharaoh survived the
splitting of the sea.] Now, after Bnei Yisrael witnessed the
culmination of these miracles, the same Pasuk can tell us, "They
believed in Hashem."
(Tuv Da'at III, p.57)
************************************
"This is my G-d and I will beautify Him, the G-d of my fathers
and I will elevate Him." (15:2)
Faith which one attains on his own ("This is my G-d") is
beautiful, says R' Aharon Rokeach, zatzal (1880-1957; the "Belzer
Rebbe"). However, the faith which we have learned from our
ancestors is even more elevated. It is more pleasant, because just
as we can attain faith on our own, so we can lose it.
(quoted in Ta'am vaDa'at II p.99)
************************************
"....And Bnei Yisrael called out to G-d." (14:10)
This Midrash says that at this moment, Bnei Yisrael followed in
the footsteps of the Patriarchs and called out to G-d for help.
Why, asks R' Shimon Schwab, shlita (leader of K'hal Adat Yeshurun),
is this prayer considered to be in the Patriarchs footsteps? After
all, wouldn't anyone turn to G-d if he were in the impossible
situation in which Bnei Yisrael found themselves?
What the Midrash means is this: When Bnei Yisrael found
themselves surrounded on the banks of the sea, their "Bitachon" -
confidence in G-d - was weakened. Like the Patriarchs, they prayed
that Hashem would help them regain their confidence. Where do we
find that the Patriarchs prayed so?
We say in our prayers, "May the One who answered Avraham at Har
haMoriah answer us." What did Avraham pray for? The confidence
and the courage to slaughter Yitzchak in fulfillment of Hashem's
command.
We, too, should pray that Hashem help us maintain, and even
strengthen, our confidence in Him.
(Selected Speeches p.127)
************************************
The Gemara (Pesachim 118a) says, "Man's livelihood is as
difficult as the splitting of the sea." What does this mean? It
is certainly not referring to man's perspective, notes R' Avigdor
Miller, shlita, for man does earn a livelihood, but he cannot split
the sea. Rather, it means that man must acknowledge the miracle of
his livelihood as being even more complex than the splitting of the
sea.
Chazal say that Bnei Yisrael witnessed 250 miracles at the sea.
One banana or one onion, a gallon of milk or a load of bread - each
of these contains more than 250 different wonders of Hashem. Even
if we could discover them all, we can never understand the full
extent of Hashem's wonders. Nevertheless, we should be aware that
they exist.
(Rejoice O Youth! p.318)
************************************
"And Amalek came and fought Yisrael at Refidim." (17:8)
Chazal say that the name "Refidim" is short for "Rafu yedeihem:
- "They loosened their grip [on Torah]." This is why Amalek
attacked them at that place.
Bnei Yisrael had not actually received the Torah at that point.
Rather, explains R' Mordechai Gifter, shlita (Telzer Rosh Yeshiva),
they loosened their grip, so-to-speak, on their yearning for the
day when they would receive the Torah. One of the reasons for
counting the Omer is to symbolize that countdown from the Exodus to
the giving of the Torah, but at Refidim, Bnei Yisrael relaxed that
count.
The consequences, as we know, were disastrous.
(Pirkei Mo'ed p.124)
************************************
One time, the "Amshinover Rebbe" (R' Meir Kalish; 1901-1976) was
hospitalized and required a blood transfusion. Somebody rushed to
tell the Rebbe's neighbor and close friend, R' Yechezkel Abramsky
(see front page). R' Abramsky expressed his concern for the
Rebbe's welfare, and added, "I pray every day that I should not
require a blood transfusion."
"When does the Rosh Yeshiva (i.e. R' Abramsky) say this prayer?"
asked the visitor, perplexed.
"In 'Birkat haMazon'," R' Abramsky answered, "when we say the
words, 'Please do not bring us to need the gifts of flesh and
blood'."
"But this is not what the words mean," the visitor protested.
"Whenever a Jew is pressed with a problem," responded R'
Abramsky, "he may fit his request into any appropriate part of the
prayers. Hashem understands our intentions and can answer us."
************************************
The learning schedule for this Shabbat is:
Machshirin 3:8-4:1
O.C. 551:2-4
Ketubot 102
Yerushalmi - Berachot 66
Rambam
Ch/Day - Hilchot Shevitat Yom Tov - Chapter 6
3 Ch/Day - Hilchot Be'at Hamikdash - Chapters 5-7
Sefer Hamitzvot
Sh:N75,N76,P24,N69-71; Su:N74,P61,N91-93; M:N94-97,P86;
Tu:P60,N100,N98,P62,N99; W:P63,N146,P64;
Th:N139,N112,P65; F:P89,N145,N148
************************************
The hard copy distribution of this weeks
Hamaayan is sponsored by:
Dr. and Mrs. Irving Katz and family
in memory of
grandmother, Henia Rachel bat Pinchas Spalter
mother, Fradel bat Yaakov Shalom Reiss, and
father, Chaim Eliezer ben Avigdor Moshe haKohen Katz
Avi Greengart
in honor of his graduation
from Yeshiva University
and on his brother's Bar Mitzvah
Henry and Rachel Holland
in honor of their grandson
Adiel Yaakov Holland
Loretta and Manny Sadwin and family
on the Yahrzeit of Loretta's mother, Anna Smolar
************************************
Donations to Hamaayan are tax deductible
********************
Posted by Alan Broder, ajb@digex.com (uunet!digex!ajb), who
should be contacted to request back issues of HaMaayan or to get
on or off the direct email mailing list.
Shlomo Katz can not receive EMAIL, however I will pass on any
comment forwarded to me, or alternately, send your comments care of
yehuda@gwuvm.bitnet
|
| 989.218 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Yitro | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Feb 11 1993 19:38 | 150 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Yitro
Volume VII/Number 17 (304)
22 Shevat 5753/February 13, 1993
Chazal learned by comparing two sets of Psukim (19:10-11 and
19:15) that whereas Hashem told Moshe that Bnei Yisrael should
prepare themselves for two days to receive the Torah, Moshe told
them to prepare themselves for three days. Say Chazal, "Moshe
added one day on his own" (literally: "of his own mind"). Why?
R' Baruch Hager, zatzal (1895-1964; the "Seret-Vizhnitz Rebbe")
explains this in light of the Chassidic practice of spending long
periods in preparation for the performance of Mitzvot. Since
Hashem commanded Moshe that Bnei Yisrael should spend two days
preparing to receive the Torah, that preparation became a Mitzvah
in and of itself. Bnei Yisrael therefore needed a day to prepare
to perform that Mitzvah.
On another occasion, R' Baruch offered the following
homilectical interpretation of Chazal's statement that Moshe added
one day "of his own mind." The Mishnah says, "Repent one day
before you die." Unfortunately, however, many people lose
consciousness or become senile before they die, and then they are
unable to repent. Moshe therefore requested of Hashem that the
"one day" referred to in the Mishnah should be "of his own mind,"
i.e. he should be in a condition to repent before he passes away.
(quoted in Kedosh Yisrael pp. 188, 559)
************************************
"And Yitro....heard all that Hashem had done for Yisrael..."
(18:1)
What specifically did Yitro hear? The Gemara (Zevachim 116a)
offers three answers: R' Yehoshua says, "The war with Amalek." R'
Elazar haModai says, "The giving of the Torah." R' Eliezer ben
Yaakov says, "The splitting of the sea."
What motivates a person to make a complete break with his past
and begin life anew? It is this question which these three sages
are offering their insights on, says R' Moshe D. Tendler, shlita.
Amalek, according to R' Yehoshua, demonstrates the potential for
evil which is within all men. When the world did not protest
Amalek's unprovoked attack on a defenseless Bnei Yisrael, Yitro
severed his ties to that world.
No, says R' Elazar. The realization that man can be evil is
more likely to depress and paralyze a person than to uplift him.
To improve requires the realization that there is a higher purpose
which is within man's reach. It was the giving of the Torah which
moved Yitro.
R' Eliezer does not accept the view of either of his colleagues.
A "Torah" (i.e. a code of conduct) alone is not enough to uplift a
person. Every group has its "Torah"; in a debased society,
however, that code of conduct is often the tool of evil. What
inspired Yitro was the splitting of the sea, for here finally was
a Law-Giver (i.e. Hashem) who uses His laws towards the ends of
justice.
(Pardes Rimonim p.5)
************************************
"And Yisrael emcamped there...." (19:2)
It is a well-know teaching of Chazal that this verse is written
in the singular person because Bnei Yisrael camped at Har Sinai
with perfect unity. The Torah was not given to individuals, but to
the whole nation.
That whole nation, says R' Zvi Yehuda Kook, zatzal (1891-1982),
reminds us, was not just those who were present at Har Sinai. It
was all Jews who would ever live. The Torah is the property of all
generations; its transcendence over time is alluded to by Chazal's
statement that Moshe was taught all that every future student would
say. The Gemara, too, notes Rambam, is no more than the oral
explanation which Hashem gave Moshe.
(Zemach Zvi p.98)
************************************
We sometimes refer to Moshe as the giver of his Torah (see e.g.
Onkelos, Devarim 33:4). Was the Torah really Moshe's to give?
R' Chaim Dov Keller, shlita (Rosh Yeshiva of Telz-Chicago)
explains this based on the statement of Chazal (Shabbat 87a) that
Moshe did three things on his own, which Hashem then approved: he
added one day to the preparations for receiving the Torah, he
separated from his wife, and he broke the "Luchot" - tablets. This
Gemara is, however, difficult to understand, for although it says
that Moshe made these decisions on his own, in each case, the
Gemara provides a "Derashah" (exegesis) which supports his
decision!
There are times, says R' Keller, that Hashem's will is not
openly expressed to man. Rather, He hides His will in a "Derashah"
-- sometimes in one which only the most inspired individual can
decipher.
All of these strictures which Moshe accepted were related to the
giving of the Torah. Hashem ordained that Bnei Yisrael attain
holiness by preparing themselves to receive the Torah, but Moshe
understood -- an understanding that coincided with Hashem's will --
that even greater holiness could be attained by man's own
initiative.
Similarly, Moshe realized of his own initiative that his unique
prophetic level could reach its fullest potential only if he
separated from his wife. Again, this was Hashem's will, but a
person cannot be commanded to take so drastic an action. Rather,
a "Moshe" must initiate it.
Finally, Moshe could not be commanded to break the Luchot,
although that was G-d's will. Man cannot be commanded to do
Teshuva (repent). That, too, must come of man's initiative.
We see that there are two Torahs. One consists of the "cold"
words of the text; the other is the true breadth of Torah, visible
only to one who has the proper sensitivity and initiative. That
Torah, Moshe gave us.
(Seasons of the Soul p.242)
************************************
The Holocaust that destroyed European Jewry left many in
despair; many survivors left Europe to try and rebuild their
shattered lives in Israel, America or elsewhere. Some stayed
behind, however, and among the Torah giants who remained to guide
them was R' Yitzchak Yaakov Weiss, zatzal (1902-1989; best known as
author of the Halachic responsa Minchat Yitzchak). From his post
as Rabbi of Grosswardein, Hungary (now Oradea, Romania), "Dayan"
(Judge) Weiss provided spiritual guidance and answered Halachic
questions, particularly from women and men who did not know if
their spouses were alive, and now wanted to remarry.
In one talk, Dayan Weiss exhorted his listeners to be
strengthened by a lesson from this week's Parasha. The Torah says,
"And Moshe entered the fog, where Hashem is." (20:18) Chazal note
that when the Torah was given, Hashem showed Moshe each future
generation. Moshe saw the generation of the Holocaust; he saw the
darkness and the fog. Moshe went into the fog, the Torah says, and
he discovered that, even there, Hashem can be found. Those who are
searching for Hashem can find Him in the fog, as well.
(Tel Talpiyot p.321)
|
| 989.219 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Mishpatim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Feb 19 1993 20:02 | 157 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Mishpatim
Volume VII/Number 18 (305)
29 Shevat 5753/February 20, 1993
Many commentaries have dealt with the age-old question: Since
Bnei Yisrael accepted the Torah by saying (24:7), "Na'aseh
v'Nishmah" - "We will observe and we will study" - why do Chazal
say that Hashem forced them to accept the Torah by holding Har
Sinai over their heads? The Midrash itself explains that Bnei
Yisrael accepted the "Written Torah" but that they had to be forced
to take the "Oral Torah."
Can these really be separated? wondered a correspondent of R'
Yitzchak Hutner, zatzal (1904-1980; Rosh Yeshiva of Mesivta Chaim
Berlin in Brooklyn and Yerushalayim). He (the correspondent)
suggested the following answer: Studying the Written Torah is a
"private" matter; one opens up a Chumash and reads. The "Oral
Torah", however, can only be studied (properly) in groups; by
definition, it requires a community of individuals who will meet
and share oral traditions with each other. There is, therefore, a
distinction between the two "Torahs", and it was this feeling of
community which Bnei Yisrael were forced to accept.
In his reply, R' Hutner added the following thought: The Gemara
says that the Halacha that all Jews are responsible for each other
did not take effect until Moshe's death. This is consistent with
the above distinction, for although the Oral Torah was taught to
Moshe at Har Sinai, Moshe's life was the "era" of the Written
Torah. Until the day that Moshe died, the writing of the Torah was
not completed. Only thereafter did the era of the Oral Torah
begin, and the idea of communal responsibility began with it.
(Pachad Yitzchak Igrot #6)
************************************
The Gemara (Shabbat 88b) relates that when Moshe went up to the
Heavens to receive the Torah, the angels objected, saying that the
Torah should not be given to humans. Moshe convinced them,
however, that they, had no right to the Torah.
Didn't the angels know that they could not perform the Mitzvot?
asks R' Yechezkel Abramsky, zatzal (1886-1976). He answers as
follows:
We have a principle, "Lo baShamayim Hee" - "The Torah is not in
the Heavens." This means that once Moshe's prophecy ended (with
his death), no prophet can alter the Torah. Furthermore, if two
scholars would argue about a Halacha and a Heavenly voice or a
prophet would state that Hashem agrees with one scholar, that voice
or prophet would be ignored! Rather, Halachic determination
follows the principles of "Psak" (Halachic decision-making) which
Moshe left us. It was this idea, says R' Abramsky, which the
angels disputed. Let the Jews have the Torah, they argued, but let
the Heavenly court maintain the ultimate authority over the Torah's
interpretation.
What was wrong with their request? Moshe reminded them that
they could not fulfill the Torah. One who does not fulfill the
Torah is incapable of understanding its true depth; the study of
Torah and its practice are necessarily inseparable.
When our ancestors said "Na'aseh v'Nishmah," they expressed this
basic truth. First, "Na'aseh" - "We will do." Only then,
"Nishmah" - "We will study and understand." The most brilliant
interpretation by one who does not observe the Torah is accorded no
weight; the Torah is first and foremost a way of life.
(Chazon Yechezkel)
************************************
"...And the holiday of the gathering ('Chag ha'Asif'), when the
year departs, when you gather your produce from the field."
(23:16)
This verse refers to the holiday of Sukkot by the seasonal
landmark with which it coincides, i.e. the end of the harvest. The
name "Chag haSukkot", on the other hand, does not appear in the
Book of Sh'mot. R' Shlomo Goren, shlita (former Ashkenazic Chief
Rabbi of Israel) suggests that the reason for this may be that
Sefer Sh'mot was taught to Bnei Yisrael before the sin of the
spies; Bnei Yisrael's sojourn in the desert was to have been
relatively short, and the miracle of the "Ananei haKavod" ("Clouds
of Glory"), which Sukkot commemorates, was not established enough
to be worthy of commemoration.
[Ed. note: Why then is the holiday mentioned here at all, by
any name? One answer is that it was not the miracle which
precipitated the holiday, but the other way around. We read in the
Torah that Bnei Yisrael ate Matzah because they did not have time
to bake but, in fact, Hashem had commanded them before-hand to eat
Matzah! The explanation for this is that (in the words of Chazal),
"Hashem looked into the Torah and created the world." The Mitzvot,
including the holidays, existed long before history developed as it
did. The miracles which have occurred for us are just Hashem's way
of making the Mitzvot applicable to our lives.]
(Torat haShabbat v'haMo'ed p.219)
************************************
"And Moshe took the blood of the covenant and sprinkled it on
the nation, and he said, 'This is the blood of the covenant which
Hashem has made with you over all of these words'." (24:8)
Chazal speak of two covenants which were made between Hashem and
Bnei Yisrael - the first, in Egypt, and the second (in the above
verse), at Har Sinai. These covenants, explains R' Joseph B.
Soloveitchik, shlita, were quite different. In Egypt, the Jews
were taken, against their will, as Hashem's people. At Har Sinai,
however, the Jews said "Na'aseh v'Nishmah" -- they willingly
accepted the Torah. (That which Hashem "forced" Bnei Yisrael to
take the Torah was only symbolic of the first covenant, R'
Soloveitchik says.) The purpose of Torah is to allow man to
emulate his Creator, but that is possible only if man initiates the
climb to that level.
(Divrei Hagut v'Ha'arachah, "Ma'amar Kol Dodi Dofek")
************************************
When the "K'hal Adath Jeshurun" of Washington Heights (New York)
was set to vote on whether to grant 18-year-olds the right to vote
on communal affairs, the community's venerable leader, R' Joseph
Breuer, zatzal (1882-1980), stated as follows:
One quickly tends to accuse youth of a lack of modesty, of
conceit...of a lack of respect for its elders. While this may
be true in a few cases, it must not be allowed to result in a
negative evaluation of the question of youth cooperation in
Kehilla (congregation) work. In the hour of the Sinai
covenant, Moshe Rabbenu counted on the youth, bearers of the
future [see this week's Parasha 24:5], a youth "implanted" in
the soil of Torah [see Tehilim 144:122; Pesachim 87a], a youth
accepting the dignity of old age as a command of the Torah and
fully aware of the respect it owes the mature judgement of the
"elders." Whenever this is not the case, the prophet predicts
the symptoms of inevitable decay, a time when "youth usurps
the power, frivolously rising above its elders" (Yishayahu
3:4-5). If this happens...that which youth presumes to build
bears in truth -- destruction [see Megilah 31].
Yet it is youth which claims for itself vitality, energy and
the enthusiasm which are of such great importance for the life
of the Kehilla, if young and old work together in harmonious
union....
Even if the right to vote seems rather early for the eighteen-
year old youth, the vote at a more advanced age would in no
way be more beneficial for the Kehilla if the conditions which
we have outlined were not fulfilled.....
(A Time to Build II p.11-12)
|
| 989.220 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Terumah | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Feb 26 1993 21:13 | 170 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Terumah
Volume VII/Number 19 (306)
6 Adar 5753/February 27, 1993
On the Pasuk, "Speak to Bnei Yisrael and they shall take a
'Terumah' (donation) for Me" (25:2), Rashi comments, "'For Me' -
for My name." Why, asks R' Eliyahu Lopian, zatzal (1872-1970);
noted exponent of Mussar in England and Israel) must the Mitzvah of
building the Mishkan be "l'Shmah" - with only the proper intentions
- when in general we say, "One should always do Mitzvot, even if
they are not l'Shmah, for he will eventually perform them l'Shmah"?
The Mishkan was the place where Hashem would "reside" among Bnei
Yisrael. To bring Hashem so close to us, we must direct our
intentions to Him alone; any foreign thoughts would detract from
the beauty of the "home" that we are building. This thought is
expressed in Shir haShirim (3:9): "Shlomo made a palace from
cedars of Lebanon, its pillars he made of silver, its bottom, gold,
its interior was paved with love." It doesn't matter of what the
outside is made, so long as the inside is full of love of Hashem.
What was the most important part of the Mishkan? Chazal note
that while the implements of the Mishkan, beginning with the "Aron
haKodesh", are described by the Torah before the Mishkan itself,
they were built in the reverse order. Betzalel (the chief artisan)
said, "How can I build the implements if I have nowhere to put
them?" Why then are they mentioned first? To teach us that the
items inside the Mishkan are the whole structure's reason for
being, and particularly, that the implement which holds the Torah
is the most important. For this reason Ramban writes that
donations to the Mishkan were to be made with the Aron haKodesh in
mind.
(Lev Eliyahu p.200)
************************************
The Midrash says: When Hashem gives, He gives according to His
abilities, but when He requests from us, it is only according to
our abilities. Hashem asked, for example, that we make Him a
"home" of curtains (26:1), but in the future, He will make a home
for each Tzadddik out of His clouds of glory. When Hashem wanted
light He asked, "Take for Me some pure olive oil" (27:20), but when
He gave light, "Hashem went before them....in a pillar of fire"
(13:21).
R' David Kronglas, zatzal (1910-1973; Mashgiach of Yeshiva Ner
Israel in Baltimore) uses this Midrash to explain why Chazal so
emphasized the great reward that awaits the tiniest Mitzvah, and
conversely, the punishment in store for the seemingly most
insignificant sin. We say that Hashem rewards and punishes
"measure-for measure" but his can be misleading. A related
expression says, "If you show Hashem your finger, He will show you
His; show Him your hand, and He will show you His." Our fingers
and Hashem's, however, are obviously not comparable. Chazal say,
"If one purifies himself a little, Hashem will purify him a lot; if
one defiles himself a little, Hashem will defile him a lot." Is
that measure-for measure? Yes, because if we give a little of
ours, Hashem gives a little of His, but that "little" is ever so
much by our standards.
(Sichot Chochmah u'Mussar p.6)
************************************
The Gemara says that even though two or more sages may disagree
over a Halacha, "These and these are the words of the Living G-d" -
each opinion has an application or use in some situation. How,
however, can we understand the fact that the sages of the Talmud
sometimes disagree about historical events or facts (e.g. the
dispute in Shabbat 98a how the walls of the Mishkan were carried)?
R' Yitzchak Hutner, zatzal (1904-1980) explains that just as in
each period in history we have been without certain items - at some
point the Luchot were hidden away, at some point the anointing oil
was hidden away, etc - and we recognize that that is Hashem's
desire, so, on occasion, knowledge that we used to have is hidden
away, and we recognize that, at the moment, it is Hashem's desire
that we do without it. If a historian would speculate about how
the Mishkan was carried, he would either be right or wrong; not so
a "Posek" (Halachic decisor) making the same speculation for
purpose of determining a Halacha. If Hashem has chosen to make
certain knowledge inaccessible, it must be His attention that the
Halacha be decided without that knowledge, and thus, each sage's
interpretation is the "Word of the Living G-d."
(Pachad Yitzchak Igrot #30-B)
************************************
In explaining the internal structure of Sefer Sh'mot, Ramban
writes that the building of the Mishkan was a continuation of the
Exodus. Only after Hashem began to "reside" among Bnei Yisrael,
did they truly return to the spiritual level of their ancestors
before the enslavement in Egypt. Another part of that process of
return was receiving the Torah, and indeed, says Ramban, the
Mishkan was intended to recapture the closeness that existed
between Hashem and Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai.
This being the case, says R' Mordechai Gifter, shlita (Telzer
Rosh Yeshiva in Cleveland), it is apparent that the level of Torah
study which we have now is not comparable to that of when the
Mishkan and Bet haMikdash existed. We can thus understand the
Gemara (Sanhedrin 97a) which says, "The world will exist for 6,000
years -- the middle 2,000 years are the era of Torah." Those two
millennia actually stretched from the birth of Avraham until 172
years after the Second Temple's destruction, but this is consistent
with what we have said above. First, since receiving the Torah and
preserving that event through the Mishkan puts us on Avraham's
level, it is appropriate that Avraham's life be included in the era
of Torah. Also, for 172 years after the Temple's destruction,
coinciding with the lives of the "Tannaim" - the authors of the
Mishnah, there was still a faint glimmer of the Temple's "light"
and the era of Torah still continued. During this period, the Oral
Torah remained oral, just as if we were still at Har Sinai and
could hear the Torah from Hashem's mouth. Once that link to Har
Sinai faded away, however, the Torah could only be preserved if it
was written.
(Pirkei Mo'ed p.88)
************************************
Chazal criticize the princes of the twelve tribes for their
laziness in not being among the first to bring donations to the
Mishkan. We also learn, on the other hand, that the princes
intentionally waited until the end so that they could make-up any
deficiency in the collection for the Mishkan.
There is no contradiction here, says R' Gedaliah Schorr, zatzal
(1911-1979; Rosh Yeshiva of Torah Vodaath in Brooklyn). The
princes thought that they had the best of intentions.
Nevertheless, a person must always examine his motives to see
whether, deep down, there is the slightest tinge of laziness.
(Ohr Gedalyahu)
************************************
R' Zalman Sorotkin, zatzal (1881-1966; the "Lutzker Rav" and
author of Ozna'im laTorah) writes: "I once went to Warsaw to speak
on behalf of the Lithuanian Yeshivot. A newspaper editor who was
present asked me, 'Why is R' Meir Shapiro [zatzal] able to raise so
much money for the opulent Yeshiva building which he is
constructing, when you cannot even feed the students in the
existing Yeshivot?'
"I answered him as follows: 'We read in the Torah that
donations for the building of the Mishkan were only taken from
those who volunteered (Sh'mot 25:2). For the maintenance of the
Mishkan (e.g. the bringing of Korbanot), however, all Jews were
taxed equally (30:15-16). Why? Because many people were eager to
donate to the construction effort, thinking that they might be
memorialized by a window or a wall of the Mishkan, but when it came
to the maintenance of the Mishkan, i.e. the Korbanot which would be
burnt or eaten, there would be no lasting remembrance, and hence,
there are no donors. People therefore had to be taxed for the
maintenance of the Mishkan.
"'This way of thinking is, of course, backwards, for it confuses
the means (the building) and the ends (the service of Hashem), but
it exists nevertheless. The same is true of building and
maintaining a Yeshiva, and I have no doubt that when R' Shapiro's
building is finished, those donors will disappear.'
"And so it was."
(quoted in Yalkut Lekach Tov II p.180)
|
| 989.221 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Tetzaveh | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Mar 04 1993 18:31 | 168 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Tetzaveh
Volume VII/Number 20 (307)
13 Adar 5753/March 6, 1993
The two most prominent of the Kohen Gadol's garments (all of
which are described in this week's Parasha) were the "Tzitz" and
the "Choshen", notes R' Joseph B. Soloveitchik, shlita. The Tzitz
was the golden band worn on the Kohen Gadol's forehead; the
Choshen was the breastplate full of gemstones. The Tzitz was
opposite the Kohen Gadol's mind; the Choshen was opposite his
heart. The Tzitz represented the wisdom with which the Kohen Gadol
decided questions of Halacha: of ritual purity, of Kashrut, of
business relationships, etc. The Choshen was the vehicle by which
the Kohen Gadol answered political questions: should we go to war,
shall I rebuke the king, etc.
For millennia, there was no doubt that the same Kohen Gadol who
wore the Tzitz, should wear the Choshen. Political leadership and
Halachic leadership were inseparable. The same Kohen Gadol whose
mind was saturated with the wisdom of the holy Torah of R' Akiva
and R' Elazar, of Abaye and Rava, of the Rambam and the Ra'avad, of
the Bet Yosef and the Rema, he was divinely inspired to see the
solutions to the political and social questions of the day.
Only recently, says R' Soloveitchik, has a new way emerged among
us: a distinction between the "Gaon" (sage) of the generation and
the "Manhig" (leader) of the generation. This view says that the
sage who busies himself with the most complex Halachic questions is
not sophisticated enough to deal with the "real" problems which we
face. In truth, though, Chazal have said, "If a Kohen is not
divinely inspired, do not ask anything of him."
No so-called leader can love his fellow Jews if his mind is not
permeated with the holiness of the Jewish Torah. There is no
Choshen without the Tzitz.
(Divrei Hagut v'Ha'arachah p.191)
************************************
"And you shall command ('Tetzaveh')..." (27:20)
According to the rules of Hebrew grammar, says R' Yaakov
Kamenecki, zatzal (died 1986), when the word "Atah" ("you") appears
before a verb which begins with the letter "Tav" (e.g. "Tetzaveh"),
it means, "You do this, as opposed to another person who will do
something else." In Parashat Terumah the Torah describes how Bnei
Yisrael built the physical structure of the Mishkan (Tabernacle).
Now Moshe is commanded to invest it with its spiritual content.
Moshe's names does not appear in this Parasha; however says the
Vilna Gaon, it is alluded to. The "Gemartria Nistar" of Moshe's
name is 101 (i.e. if the letters of his name are spelled out, the
additional letters which are now revealed total that sum.) The
number of verses in this Parasha is also 101. Even when Moshe's
influence is not seen externally, it is nevertheless hidden within.
(Emet l'Yaakov)
************************************
"And you shall dress Aharon and his sons in [the clothes which
were made for them]" (28:41)
Why did Moshe have to personally dress Aharon, an activity more
suited to a valet? asks R' Moshe Feinstein, zatzal (who died on
this day in 1986). Because with Aharon's ascension to the
"Kehunah" (priesthood), a new type of holiness was being introduced
to the world. To introduce Kedushah where there was none before
requires the Sanhedrin. [For example, only the Sanhedrin can
expand the Halachic boundaries of Yerushalayim.] At that time,
Moshe was the Sanhedrin.
(Darash Moshe)
************************************
The Gemara (Me'ilah 14a) teaches that the Mishkan or Bet
haMikdash should be built first and sanctified when it is
completed. Why? "Because the Torah was not given to angels." It
is impossible to ask of construction workers that they not, even
for a moment, enjoy the shade of the structure they are building,
but to derive such enjoyment from the Bet haMikdash is forbidden.
So, says R' Zvi Yehuda Kook, zatzal (who died on this day in
1982), will the redemption occur. The majority of those who are
rebuilding Eretz Yisrael are constructing a profane structure.
Only later, when the redemption is complete, will that structure be
sanctified.
(quoted in Tal Chermon p.389)
************************************
P U R I M
The Gemara wonders why Esther, who was married to Mordechai, was
allowed to live with Achashveirosh -- after all, the Halacha states
that one must give his life rather than publicly commit adultery!
R' Shlomo Goren, shlita, suggests that this was the reason that
Mordechai ordered Esther to hide her identity. Rambam states that
if the one who tells a Jew to commit adultery is not motivated by
anti-semitism, the Jew may yield unless ten Jews are present. One
might argue, says R' Goren, that even if ten Jews are present (or,
as here, know that the king and queen are living together), the Jew
may still yield if the ten Jews do not know that he is Jewish. As
long as Esther kept her identity a secret, she was not required to
give up her life rather than live with Achashveirosh.
Based on this, continues R' Goren, we may understand the verse
in the Megilah: "As I am lost, I am lost." "Now that my secret
will come out, " Esther feared, "for I must go to plead for my
people, perhaps my life will be forfeited, for I will have to end
my relationship with Achashveirosh."
(Torat haShabbat v'haMo'ed p.414)
************************************
R' Yechezkel Abramsky, zatzal (1886-1976) related: One year,
when we were living in London, I read the Megilah for my wife at
one o'clock in the morning. She had had a toothache all day, but
at that hour she felt better and asked me to read the Megilah.
When I finished, I asked her, "Raizil, do you know what
Mordechai was thinking when he was riding on the horse, being led
through the streets while Haman called out, 'So shall be done to
the man whom the king desires to honor'?"
"I'll tell you! He was thinking, 'The honor given by these
drunkards is no honor at all. I'd rather be learning Torah'."
(P'ninei Rabbenu Yechezkel I p.22)
************************************
In 1954, the "Klausenberger Rebbe" (R' Yekutiel Yehuda
Halberstam, shlita) visited Israel for the first time. Late one
afternoon, while traveling in the Galil, the Rebbe stopped by the
side of the road at the grave of the "Tanna" (sage of the Mishnah)
R' Yehuda bar Ilai. The sun had already set, and there the Rebbe
recited Mincha. (See Mishnah Berurah 233:14 and 261:23).
Then the Rebbe continued on to Tzefat. That evening, his mood
seemed to change; for no apparent reason he seemed disturbed and
upset. Early the next afternoon, the Rebbe returned to the grave
of R' Yehuda, and with unusual fervor, he recited Mincha, crying
the whole while. Finished, he appeared relaxed and content.
One of the Chassidim asked the Rebbe what was behind his mood
changes and his return to recite Mincha in the same place as the
day before. The Rebbe explained, "Last night, when I took an
accounting of my day's activities, I suddenly remembered the
Mishnah (Berachot 62a) in which R' Yehuda states that one must
complete Mincha one-and-a-half hours before sunset. I had recited
Mincha at the grave of that Tanna at a time which he ruled was
prohibited. How could I be so insensitive?!
"It was as though I was as audacious as Haman, whom
Achashveirosh reprimanded by saying, 'Would he actually capture the
queen while I am in the house?' Today, therefore, I returned to
the grave, recited Mincha earlier, and begged R' Yehuda to forgive
me. Now I feel that I have been forgiven."
(In the Footsteps of the Maggid p.126)
|
| 989.222 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Ki Tisah | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Mar 11 1993 19:13 | 181 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Ki Tisah
Volume VII/Number 21 (308)
20 Adar 5753/March 13, 1993
We read in this week's Parasha (34:27), "For by these words ('Ki
Al Pi haDvarim haEleh'), I have made a covenant with you (Moshe)
and with Israel." Based on the words "Ki Al Pi" - literally: "By
the mouth" - Chazal say that the covenant between Hashem and the
Jews is founded primarily upon the Oral Torah.
The Rambam states that one is not bound by an obligation which
he accepted if the limits of his commitment were not known when he
made it. How then, asks Dayan Yitzchak Yaakov Weiss, zatzal (1902-
1989), were Bnei Yisrael bound by their promise to keep the Oral
Torah? Unlike the Written Torah, which one can read from cover to
cover and know its contents, the Oral Torah is limitless. In every
generation, new interpretations are offered and new Halachot
"discovered" and applied!
The answer is that there is one way in which a person can become
bound by an undefined obligation -- sell himself as a slave. A
slave is bound to do everything that his master commands; it does
not matter that when he became a slave, the individual did not know
what would be expected of him. This is what our ancestors did --
they made a covenant with Hashem by which He acquired them (and
therefore us) as His slaves.
(Divrei Yitzchak, Introduction)
************************************
"And Hashem said to Moshe, 'Go down, for your nation has
destroyed....'" (32:7)
Rashi comments: Go down for your greatness, for I made you
(Moshe) great only in Bnei Yisrael's honor.
Based on this, said R' Michel Feinstein, shlita, (Rosh Yeshiva
in Bnei Brak; said at the funeral of his uncle, R' Moshe
Feinstein), we can understand the following Gemara (Baba Metzia
85): When R' Chiya and R' Chanina were debating, R' Chanina said,
"Do you disagree with me, who, if the Torah were forgotten by the
Jews, could reconstruct it with my wisdom?!" So what? asked R'
Feinstein. Since the Torah was not, in fact, forgotten, of what
importance is to us that R' Chanina was so accomplished in
"learning" that he could reconstruct the Torah?
The answer is that Torah never belongs to the individual. It
belongs to all, though it may reside in a R' Chanina. Thus, R'
Chanina's greatness is, in fact, a reflection of the entire
generation, just as Moshe's greatness spoke of the heights that his
generation had reached. When they fell, so did he.
(reprinted in l'Torah v'Hora'ah)
************************************
"Why should You be angry with Your nation, which You took out
from Egypt?" (32:11)
How is the Exodus relevant to Moshe's defense of Bnei Yisrael?
R' Chaim David haLevi, shlita (Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv)
cites the Midrash which explains that Moshe said, "You, Hashem,
know that Bnei Yisrael were idolators in Egypt! Why do You expect
better of them?"
Of course, Hashem knew that, notes R' haLevi. However, Hashem
has a plan for us, and He does not abandon His plan although He
sees that we sin and will sin. In the end, His plan will be
fulfilled.
(Aseh Lecha Rav IV p.62)
************************************
"Please [G-d], the nation has sinned a great sin, it has made
gods of gold." (31:32)
How could Moshe say such a thing? Why didn't he defend the
Jewish people? R' Chaim Meir Hager, zatzal (1888-1972; the
"Vizhnitzer Rebbe") explains as follows:
Bnei Yisrael's sin was indefensible. However, Hashem will
always stand up for His people when no one else does. This is why
Moshe turned against them, for in that way he "forced" Hashem to
forgive them.
(quoted in Zecher Chaim)
************************************
Chazal teach that when Moshe returned to Har Sinai after the sin
of the Golden Calf, the Shofar was blown to remind Bnei Yisrael not
to miscount the days of Moshe's stay on Har Sinai. (That had been
the catalyst for their sin.) R' Chaim Freidlander, zatzal (died
1986; Mashgiach in the Ponovezh Yeshiva) notes that, according to
Chazal, the Torah is written in such a way that people can
misunderstand it if they wish. All sin, in fact, comes from a
deeply hidden desire to sin; otherwise, why didn't Bnei Yisrael
come to the obvious conclusion that Moshe had not returned from Har
Sinai because it was not yet time for him to do so?!
The sound of the Shofar is one which penetrates into the deepest
recesses of a person's heart. That sound was intended to bring to
light, and thus destroy, the hidden desire to sin.
(Siftei Chaim p.22)
************************************
P A R A S H A T P A R A H
Chazal say that Moshe Rabbenu was the only person who understood
the Mitzvah of the "Parah Adumah" - red heifer. Even Shlomo
haMelech ("the wisest of all men") did not. Why?
R' Mordechai Shulman, zatzal (1902-1953; Slobodka Rosh Yeshiva)
explains, based on the following statement from Mesilat Yesharim:
"A person's purpose in this world is to perform Mitzvot, serve G-d,
and stand up to challenges." These are three separate
requirements. One could perform the acts of the Mitzvot without
serving Hashem, and he could serve Hashem without ever being
challenged.
The greatest challenge is to serve Hashem with no self-interest.
One who wants to repent from the sin of serving G-d selfishly
should strive to excel in an area from which he has no gain. This
explains why Chazal call the Parah Adumah an atonement for the sin
of the Golden Calf. That sin was caused by a self-serving
miscalculation -- Bnei Yisrael hoped to develop a newer and better
way to serve Hashem. The result was idol worship.
As an atonement, the Torah says, serve Hashem through the Parah
Adumah, a Mitzvah which is not understandable. It will thus be
clear that this Mitzvah is being done only because of Hashem's
command.
Shlomo haMelech's ancestors were present at the sin of the
Golden Calf; he, too, needed this atonement. Moshe, however, did
not.
(quoted in Legacy of Sladbodka p.86)
************************************
P E S A C H
Is it right for three generations of a family to share the
Seder, with the grandfather reading and explaining the Haggadah to
all?
At first glance, says R' Moshe Sternbuch, shlita, it is not
proper, for the Torah commands, "And you shall tell your son." The
Seder night is a special time for inculcating faith in one's
children, and that is not an opportunity which should be passed-up.
Nevertheless, says R' Sternbuch, there are two reasons why a
grandfather may conduct the Seder, and why that may, in fact be
preferable. Firstly, the Mitzvah of teaching one's children about
the Exodus is, according to numerous authorities, only an extension
of the Mitzvah to teach Torah. Not only is a grandfather obligated
to teach Torah to his grandchildren, his doing so is arguably
preferable to the father's doing so because he (the grandfather) is
one generation closer to the source of our heritage. Secondly, to
recite the Haggadah, as with many Mitzvot, one can appoint a proxy.
Again, a grandfather is a worthy proxy because his age and wisdom
(hopefully) enable him to command greater respect.
(There is a practical difference between the two reasons. It is
not clear that a maternal grandfather is obligated to teach Torah
to his grandchildren. Nevertheless, he, too, can serve as a
father's proxy.)
Of course, it is always better to perform Mitzvot in person,
rather than through a proxy. Therefore, one should take care to
participate in teaching the story to his children, wherever the
Seder is held.
(Teshuvot v'Hanhagot II section 236)
|
| 989.223 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: CORRECTION for Parashat Vaera | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Mar 11 1993 19:15 | 26 |
| Subj: Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: CORRECTION for Parashat Vaera
Steven Prensky (PRENSKY@BPGSVR.CR.USGS.GOV) writes:
> In the edition of HaMaayan for Parshat Va'era, you mention that in the
>Haggadah "Moshe's name does not appear even once".
>
>Now, I have read this statement elsewhere and I have mentioned during
>my discussion at seders over the years. However, at last year's seder
>it was brought to my attention that Moshe's name IS mentioned in the
>Haggadah, and ONLY once: In the section of Maggid beginning "Rabi
>Yosai Hagalili omer...vayamenu b'Hashem uve'Moshe avdo."
>
>Is this a contradiction to the statement that "Moshe's name is not
>mentioned, even once? And if it is not a contradiction, what is the
>explanation?
Reply from Shlomo Katz:
> I should have said :
>
> "Moshe's role is not mentioned even once."
> ----
>
> The one reference is passive.
|
| 989.224 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayakhel Pekudei | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Mar 18 1993 20:23 | 155 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat vaYakhel Pekudei
Volume VII/Number 22 (309)
27 Adar 5753/March 20, 1993
From the juxtaposition of the construction of the Mishkan and
the laws of Shabbat (which occurs in both this week's and last
week's Parashot), Chazal learn that building the Mishkan or Bet
haMikdash is not permitted on Shabbat. Why, asks R' Binyamin
Zilber, shlita (noted "Posek" in Bnei Brak) would one think that
the Mishkan could be built on Shabbat? What is the connection
between the two?
Chazal say that from the time the world was created, Hashem
"pined" for the time when He would reside on earth. The Tabernacle
is called "Mishkan haEdut" (38:21) because it is testimony ("Edut")
that Hashem can be found amongst His people.
Shabbat is also an Edut; it testifies to the Creation, and hence
to the fact that men's souls come from Hashem. Both the Mishkan
and Shabbat thus represent the bond between Hashem and the Jews.
There is, however, a contrast between them. The Mishkan is the
place that we have made for Hashem; we built it using 39 types of
labors.
Those same 39 labors are what is prohibited on Shabbat; Shabbat
is the "place" that Hashem has made for us.
(Berit Olam, Ma'amar Shabbat v'haMikdash)
************************************
Rashi (38:8) records that when the Mishkan was constructed, many
women brought their mirrors to be used in decorating the
Tabernacle. Moshe refused to accept them, feeling that items
associated with vanity had no place in the Mishkan.
Hashem corrected him, however, explaining that when Jewish men
in Egypt had despaired of the redemption, their wives had used
those same mirrors to beautify themselves and entice their
husbands. This, in turn, led to the birth of the millions of Jews
who left Egypt.
We learn several lessons from this story, says R' Zalman
Rotberg, shlita. First, we can be inspired by the faith of these
women; even in the darkness of exile, they were taking steps to
further the process of redemption. Also, we see that such steps
are desirable.
(Tuv Da'at p.58)
************************************
Chazal say that Hashem built the world with one hand (see
Yeshayahu 48:13), but constructed the Mishkan with two (see Sh'mot
15:17). It is interesting to note, says R' Shlomo Goren, shlita,
that the expression, "And Hashem said," appears nine times in the
story of Creation, while the similar expression, "As Hashem
commanded," appears 18 (i.e. 2 X 9) times in Parashat Pekudei
(which describes the actual construction of the Mishkan).
From a Halachic perspective, our Shabbat is a rest from the
construction of the Mishkan, not from Creation, says R' Goren. How
so? Because the 39 labors which are prohibited on Shabbat are
those which were used in building the Mishkan. Only 35 of them,
however, were used in creating the world. (That calculation is
made as follows: The whole world is Hashem's and He is above the
concept of space, so He cannot perform the labor of carrying from
private space to public space. Of the remaining 38 labors, one
(i.e. separating) is counted in three distinct forms (i.e. "Borer",
"Meraked" and "Zoreh") and another is counted twice (see Yerushalmi
Shabbat 7:32), all based on how these labors were used in the
Mishkan. Thus, another three labors (i.e. 3-1 and 2-1) must be
subtracted from the 38 to describe the pre-Mishkan period.)
Kabbalists note that the paragraph of "vaYechulu" which describes
Hashem's rest from creation has 35 words.
(Torat haShabbat v'haMo'ed)
************************************
P A R A S H A T H A C H O D E S H
The Torah says, "This month (i.e. Nisan) is to you the first
month." Chazal state: "To you" -- not to the gentiles.
Therefore, if one dates a contract by the years of the king's
reign, if it is a king from the house of David, a new year should
be counted each Nisan. If it is another king, each new year should
be counted from Tishrei.
Says R' Shlomo Yosef Zevin, zatzal (1890-1978; member of
Israael's Supreme Rabbinical Court and editor of the Talmudic
Encyclopedia): A king is, by definition, a person who has no
superior. Thus, when King David was fleeing from his rebellious
son Avshalom, he (David) did not have the Halachic status of a
king; he feared Avshalom, and was thus Avshalom's inferior. (It is
in this sense that all Jews are commanded to be kings, for Jews
should fear no one -- except, of course, Hashem.)
The difference between a king of the house of David and other
kings is that the former are most concerned with what is above them
(i.e. Hashem), while the latter are most concerned with what is
below them (i.e. their subjects). Only a king like David has the
courage to say (Tehilim 22:7), "I am a worm, not a man; an
embarrassment to man, shamed by the nation." (Similarly, we say in
our prayers, "May my soul be like dust before all.")
Nisan is the month when Hashem's majesty is revealed through the
miracles of Pesach. Tishrei is the time when the world's creation
is celebrated; the "natural" phenomena of that creation often mask
G-d's greatness. Each month is therefore appropriate as the
anniversary of the respective king -- Nisan for the king who is
awed by G-d's grandeur; Tishrei, for he who is not.
(l'Torah u'l'Mo'adim p.345)
************************************
P E S A C H
It is customary for the first-born to fast on the day before
Pesach in commemoration of their not being killed in the plague of
the first-born. Some say that the fast actually commemorates the
salvation; other say that the Jewish first-born themselves fasted
on the day before the plague, praying that they would merit the
protection which Hashem had promised. According to this view, our
fast commemorates that fast day.
According to the first explanation, notes R' Zvi Pesach Frank,
zatzal (1873-1960; Chief Rabbi of Yerushalayim), the fast should
actually be observed on the first day of Pesach, for the miracle
which it commemorates occurred on the Seder night. However,
fasting is prohibited on Yom Tov, so the observance was moved to
the day before Pesach. The first explanation is, however,
difficult to understand. Why should we celebrate! According to
the second explanation, however, the fast of the first-born is
exactly like Ta'anit Esther: we fast because our ancestors did.
What is the practical difference between the two explanations?
It is customary for the father of a minor first-born to fast in the
child's stead. Must a father fast if his wife has given birth to
their first-born after midnight on Erev Pesach? According to the
first explanation, the fast on Erev Pesach takes the place of a
fast on the first day of Pesach. If that child had been born after
midnight on the first day of Pesach, he would not be affected
because the plague would have already taken place at midnight. So
now, too, the father need not fast. According to the second
explanation, however, the father must fast, for the fast of Erev
Pesach was in preparation for the plague which was to occur the
following night.
(Mikra'ei Kodesh Pesach II p.80)
|
| 989.225 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayikra | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Mar 26 1993 00:30 | 155 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat vaYikra
Volume VII/Number 23 (310)
5 Nisan 5753/March 27, 1993
Through the sin of the eating from the "Eitz haDa'at" - "Tree of
knowledge" - man's faculties and senses were dulled, writes R'
Yaakov Moshe Charlop, zatzal (1883-1951). When Chava told the
serpent that Hashem commanded them not to touch the tree -- He had
not -- she damaged the ability to speak.
When she listened to the serpent, she damaged the sense of
hearing.
When "She saw that the tree was good to eat" (B'reishit 3:6),
she damaged the sense of sight.
Finally, she damaged the sense of touch when she took the fruit
in her hands and later handed it to her husband.
Only the sense of smell was not involved in that sin -- it
therefore was not dulled, and it still retains the level of
sanctity that it always had. We can thus understand why the
mechanism by which we achieve atonement is "An offering, sweet-
smelling to Hashem" (Vayikra 1:9). In the same vein we read of the
future (Yishayahu 11:3), "And they [the righteous] will smell the
fear of Heaven, " i.e. the fear of Heaven will become as developed
as the sense of smell.
(quoted in Nedivut Lev p.79)
************************************
If you want to know the worth of the sacrifices, says R'
Yechezkel Abramsky, zatzal (1886-1976), look at their central place
in the Torah. Do this, and you will understand the mission given
to the sacrifices in the process of directing the Jewish people to
their destiny -- being Hashem's "Kingdom of priests and a holy
nation."
Hashem has given a lofty role to the Jewish people; fulfilling
this mandate requires a supreme effort on two fronts. On the one
hand, the soul must be immunized. This is done by avoiding
questions of faith and by improving one's personality traits. (The
way to accomplish the latter is by having trust in G-d; one will
thus have no need for traits such as jealousy.)
On the other hand, one must protect his body. If the body is
not whole, a person cannot concentrate on knowing G-d.
[Ed. note: We do not know how these thoughts are connected back
to the bringing of sacrifices, for at this point in his writings R'
Abramsky was stricken with his final illness. He passed away two
months later.]
(Chazon Yechezkel, Intro. to Zevachim)
************************************
The Torah commands that neither yeast nor honey shall be
sacrificed on the altar. What do yeast and honey symbolize? R'
Chaim Yehuda Meir Hager, zatzal (1912-1969; the "Vishuva Rebbe")
explains that they represent two extremes which are to be avoided.
Yeast represents laziness, for dough must be left idle or it will
not rise. Honey, on the other hand, symbolizes industry; the bee
is always moving [as in the English expression, "Busy as a bee"].
To be too industrious is also not good.
Laziness causes boredom which leads to depression and sin.
"Workaholism" leads to fatigue and sickness, hence to an inability
to serve Hashem. Which is worse? Laziness, for even after the
dough has risen, someone must put it in the oven. In other words,
laziness produces no end product. The person who is overworked,
however, although he has gone against the Torah's spirit, at least
has a product to show for his labors.
(Zecher Chaim)
************************************
P E S A C H
We read in the Haggadah, "I might think that I should start
telling the story of the Exodus from Rosh Chodesh Nisan; therefore
the Torah (Sh'mot 13:8) says, 'Because of this.' This verse
teaches us that the Mitzvah of the Haggadah applies at the time
when 'this' (the Korban Pesach, the Matzah, and the Maror) are
before us."
The Haggadah does not tell us, however, says R' Mordechai
Gifter, shlita (Rosh Yeshiva of Telz), whether the Mitzvah of the
Haggadah applies only when those three items are actually before
us, or merely at the hour when those three Mitzvot apply. What if
one does not have Matzah and Maror? The answer may be found in the
Gemara (Pesachim 116b), however. There we learn that according to
the view that the Mitzvah of Matzah is only a Rabbinic obligation
now that the Bet haMikdash is not standing, so the Haggadah is also
a Rabbinic commandment. Why does this view consider Matzah to be
only a Rabbinic obligation? Because we don't have a Korban Pesach
on the table. We see, therefore, that the Mitzvah of the Haggadah
applies on a Torah level only when the other three Mitzvah-objects
are actually before us, not only at the time when they apply.
The question arises, since it is clear that the Mitzvah of
Haggadah applies "miDeoraita" only at the hour when the Mitzvah of
Korban Pesach applies as well, why did R' Elazar ben Azaryah remain
at the Seder with his colleagues past midnight (as told in the
Haggadah)? R' Elazar ben Azaryah maintained, after all, that the
Mitzvah of Korban Pesach could be performed only until midnight!
The answer is that even if the time for the Mitzvah of the
Haggadah has ended, the Haggadah and the story of the Exodus are
nevertheless Torah study. By remaining at the Seder he was thus
able to perform that Mitzvah.
(Pirkei Mo'ed p.23)
************************************
In 1939, R' Yaakov Galinsky, shlita (now a well-known orator in
Israel), was studying in the Novardok Yeshiva in Bialystok. The
Rosh Yeshiva at that time was R' Avraham Yoffen, zatzal (1887-
1970).
Shabbat comes early in the Bialystok winter, so that by 5
o'clock the students had already finished dinner and returned to
their studies. At 10 p.m., the students would go to R' Yoffen's
home to hear an ethical discourse related to the weekly Parasha.
One Friday night the talk continued past eleven, and the
students were hungry. Fortunately, the resourceful Yaakov Galinsky
soon found a large supply of Challah and a jar of honey, enough for
all of the assembled students.
A few days later, Yaakov discovered that Rebbetzin Yoffen (1885-
1985; daughter of R' Yoizel of Novardok) had been saving the honey
for Pesach. His shame, however, prevented him from apologizing and
asking forgiveness for what he had done.
Years passed. In 1964, R' Yoffen and his wife settled in Israel
and, soon after, held a reunion of former Novardok students living
in Israel. After the Rosh Yeshiva had spoken, R' Galinsky asked
permission to say a few words. "My sins I recall today" (B'reishit
41:9), he said, and related what he had done 26 years earlier. "I
would therefore like to publicly ask the Rosh Yeshiva and the
Rebbetzin for forgiveness," he concluded.
"It is we who should ask you for forgiveness," spoke up
Rebbetzin Yoffen, "for letting you be hungry. Everything in the
Rosh Yeshiva's house belongs to the students, and we should have
felt your pain."
(In the Footsteps of the Maggid p.235)
|
| 989.226 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Tzav | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Apr 01 1993 20:23 | 135 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Tzav
Volume VII/ Number 24 (311)
12 Nisan 5753/April 3, 1993
Chazal say: "The 'Korban Pesach Todah' (the thanksgiving
offering discussed in this week's Parasha) will never cease to be
brought." Asks R' Aryeh Levin, zatzal (died 1969): Why is that a
happy tiding? The Korban Todah is brought, after all, by one who
has been saved from danger. If the Korban Todah will never cease
to brought, that means that people will never cease to find
themselves in danger!
When Moshe asked (Sh'mot 5:22-23), "Why have You made things
worse for this nation?" Hashem answered him, "You will see!" You
will see, Hashem told him, that from every tragedy comes something
good; from exile and persecution comes redemption.
The Midrash says that when Yosef died, the Jews wanted to
assimilate into Egypt. Hashem therefore made the Egyptians hate
the Jews, thus causing the Jews to reunite and to support each
other. Thus good -- the continued existence of the Jewish people -
- came from bad -- the Egyptians' hatred.
So, too, Chazal say that Eretz Yisrael is acquired through
suffering. It is, however, as the Torah (Devarim 8:5) tells us,
the "suffering" which a loving parent imposes on a child for the
child's own well-being.
(quoted in Ish Tzaddik Hayah p.303)
************************************
S h a b b a t h a G a d o l
A well- known Midrash states that today is called "Shabbat
haGadol" - the "Great Shabbat" - because of the miracle which
happened on the Shabbat before the Exodus. Specifically, on that
day the Jews set aside lambs to be sacrificed for the Korban
Pesach, and the Egyptians, who worshipped the lamb, did not
challenge the Jews or even object.
Why is this miracle particularly worthy of a day commemorating
it? asks R' Zalman Sorotzkin, zatzal (1881-1966; the "Lutzker
Rav"). Surely, many more incredible miracles have taken place in
our history!
The typical person, notes R' Sorotzkin, is much more moved by an
open miracle, i.e. one which is difficult to explain in natural
terms, than he is by a miracle which can be rationally explained.
In fact, however, the opposite should be true. G-d's using nature
to accomplish His ends should be much more impressive than a sudden
change in the course of nature. Why? Because the latter is
temporary -- how can it compare to G-d's creation of all of heaven
and earth, so long ago, yet in a way which continuously serves His
purpose?!
The miracle which happened on the first Shabbat haGadol is so
memorable because there, in the midst of the open miracles of the
plagues, Hashem performed this low-key and "natural" miracle, a
miracle which can easily be explained rationally. In all
likelihood, this miracle actually went unnoticed by the masses.
Chazal, however, recognized its greatness, and they therefore
called this day "Shabbat haGadol."
(quoted in Birkat Chaim p.103)
************************************
Pesach/Shabbat haGadol
It is a widespread custom to read a portion of the Haggadah on
Shabbat haGadol because the redemption began on that day (O.C.
section 430). However, says the Vilna Gaon, this reason appears to
be contradicted by the Haggadah itself. There we read, "I might
think that the Mitzvah of recounting the story of the Exodus begins
at the beginning of the month... or on the 14th day of Nissan."
These are apparently dates when, in some way, a step towards
redemption was taken. The Haggadah does not, however, consider the
possibility that the Mitzvah should start on Shabbat haGadol. If
that was when the redemption started, why doesn't the Haggadah
consider that as an appropriate time to begin the Mitzvah?
R' David Cohen, shlita (prominent Rabbi and writer in Brooklyn)
suggests the following explanation for the custom: Our Haggadah
actually consists of two "Haggadot" -- that of the Talmudic sage
Rav, and that of the Talmudic sage Shmuel. According to Rav, the
Haggadah should focus on spiritual redemption, and we thus read
that our ancestors were once idol worshippers but that Hashem has
now given us the Torah. According to Shmuel, we should focus on
physical redemption, and we thus read that we were slaves in Egypt
and Hashem took us out. (This is consistent with Shmuel's view in
the Talmud that the only difference between today and the days of
Mashiach will be that gentiles will not rule over Jew; spiritually,
there will not necessarily be a change.) It is thus only according
to Rav that Shabbat haGadol is the beginning of the redemption,
that day being when the Jews severed their ties to Egypt's idolatry
by setting aside lambs (an Egyptian diety) to be sacrificed. The
portion of the Haggadah mentioned by the Vilna Gaon, however, is
apparently part of Shmuel's Haggadah.
(Mas'at Kapi II p.60)
************************************
One year, R' Velvel Brisker (1887-1959) and his brother, R'
Moshe (died 1940), went to Warsaw to bake Matzot for their father
R' Chaim. Unfortunately, on the way home, every single Matzah
broke.
When Erev Pesach came, R' Chaim ordered his sons to try and
piece together each Matzah, so that at least the family would
preserve the appearance of having whole Matzot. Painstakingly, the
brothers went to work. They were eventually joined by a third
person and, much to their surprise, he pieced together seven Matzot
for every three of theirs. How is that possible? they wondered,
and the man explained that rather than looking for perfect matches,
he simply broke off corners wherever necessary and put the
remaining pieces together.
Said R' Velvel to his brother: This is just like the two ways
of answering Halachic questions -- the right way, which is to
carefully and meticulously put together all of the necessary
pieces, and the wrong way, which is to twist and turn things and to
cut corners until everything appears to fit.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach miBet haLevi p.298)
************************************
CLARIFICATION: In an earlier issue we stated that Moshe is not
mentioned in the Haggadah. He is! What we meant to say was that
Moshe's role in the Exodus is not mentioned in the Haggadah.
|
| 989.227 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Shemini | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Apr 15 1993 21:31 | 163 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Shmini
Volume VII/Number 25 (312)
26 Nisan 5753/April 17, 1993
When Moshe Rabbenu died, notes R' Nachum Percowiz, zatzal (died
1987; Mirrer Rosh Yeshiva), Bnei Yisrael cried for 30 days, exactly
the number of days which Rambam states one should cry over the
death of a "Talmid Chacham" (Torah sage). In this week's Parasha,
we read, however, "And the entire house of Yisrael shall cry over
the fire which G-d has burnt" (10:6) -- Hashem placed no limit on
the crying over the death of Aharon's two sons.
Why? R' Percowiz explains that Hashem is glorified through His
meting out justice, and He is most glorified when that justice is
exercised exactingly against the righteous. This is what Moshe
meant when he said, "b'Krovai Ekadesh" - "I (Hashem) will be
sanctified through those who are close to Me" (10:3).
The deaths of Nadav and Avihu, the outstanding Tzaddikim of
their generation, caused a great "Kiddush Hashem" - sanctification
and glorification of G-d's Name -- so great, in fact, that its
effects can still be felt today. This is why G-d placed no limit
on the tears that were shed over Nadav and Avihu's deaths -- this
crying allows us to reflect upon the sanctity of G-d which their
deaths demonstrated.
(quoted in Yalkut Lekach Tov p.83)
************************************
"Do not become defiled by them [non-kosher animals], for you
will become defiled through them." (vaYikra 11:43)
Chazal teach that on Rosh haShanah each person is judged and his
name written down in the appropriate book. R' Eliyahu Lopian,
zatzal (1872-1970; leading exponent of Mussar in England and
Israel) asks: Since the gates of Teshuvah are never closed and, on
the other hand, one never loses his free-will to turn bad, how can
the Books of Life and Death ever be sealed?
The answer, says R' Lopian, is in the above verse. Chazal
interpret the seeming redundancy in this Pasuk to mean that every
person will be led down the path that he has chosen. "If a person
defiles himself below, he will be defiled further from above," say
Chazal. Similarly we read, "And you shall sanctify yourselves, and
you will be holy" (vaYikra 20:7) -- "If one sanctifies himself
below," say Chazal, "he will be sanctified from above."
This is what it means to be written in the Book of Life or (G-d
forbid) Death. Not that that person will surely live or die --
rather, that he will be placed in circumstances which will promote
his life or death, each according to the path that he has chosen
from himself.
(Shevivei Lev p.355)
************************************
Chazal say that when Moshe went to receive the Torah, the angels
objected, "Put Your grandeur in the heavens [Tehilim 8:2]. Give
the Torah to us."
To this Hashem replied, "Are you the same angels who went to
visit Avraham and ate meat and milk?!"
We see, notes R' Yoel Teitelbaum, zatzal (1887-1959; the "Satmar
Rav"), that one can lose the whole Torah because of a single non-
kosher meal.
(quoted in Haggadah of the Chassidic Masters p.178)
************************************
P I R K E I A V O T
It is a nearly universal custom to study Pirkei Avot during the
period between Pesach and Shavuot. R' Shalom Brazovsky, shlita
(the "Slonimer Rebbe"), explains that this is actually in
preparation for Shavuot.
The question is asked: Since the Torah regulates every aspect
of our lives, why doesn't the Torah instruct us on ethical matters?
The answer, says the Slonimer Rebbe, is that such matters cannot be
in the Torah -- they are prerequisites to receiving the Torah!
Before we have absorbed the ethical teachings of Pirkei Avot and
other Mussar works, we cannot even begin to appreciate the Torah
and its requirements.
(quoted in miMa'ayanot haNetzach p.8)
************************************
"Moshe received the Torah from [G-d at] Sinai and gave it to
Yehoshua." (Avot 1:1)
Why doesn't the Mishnah say, "Yehoshua received it from Moshe"?
asks R' Eliezer Shach, shlita (Rosh Yeshiva of Ponovezh). The
Mishnah wishes to emphasize that Moshe gave Yehoshua the Torah
exactly as Moshe had received it, no more and no less.
In this respect, the wisdom of the Jews (the Torah) differs from
the wisdom of other nations. In science, for example, succeeding
generations generally surpass the earlier ones. No so in Torah
scholarship -- we recognize that with each passing generation we
lose stature, for we are that much farther from the ultimate source
of Torah knowledge. This is why it is so important to pass our
traditions to our children without any change.
(Michtavim uMa'amarim p.40)
************************************
"Shammai, says, 'Welcome every person with a pleasant
countenance'." (1:15)
We usually think of the sage Shammai as representing the
attribute of strict justice; we would more expect Hillel to have
made the above statement. Said R' Chaim Friedlander, zatzal (1986)
in the name of R' Eliyahu Dessler (1891-1953; both of these sages
served as Mashgiach of the Ponovezh Yeshiva): It is proper that
Shammai should say this. Showing a pleasant countenance to another
is not a favor or act of mercy (which would put it in Hillel's
realm). It is an obligation, demanded by justice, for every person
is entitled to be greeted that way.
(Siftei Chaim I p.25)
************************************
The period of the Omer commemorates some of the greatest
tragedies to befall the Jewish people, says R' Ahron Soloveitchik,
shlita. These include the unsuccessful revolt of Bar Kochva and
the massacres of the crusades. We do not ask why these tragedies
occurred; we adopt Aharon's response to the deaths of two of his
children (in this week's Parasha): "vaYidom Aharon" - "Aharon was
silent." There are, however, lessons to be learnt from these
events.
The revolt of Bar Kochva and the massacres of Jews during the
crusades represent two different kinds of "Kiddush Hashem"
(sanctification of G-d's name). When Jews are killed in cold
blood, as during the crusades, merely because they are Jews,
Hashem's name is sanctified directly. When Jews stand up and
fight, as Bar Kochva did, Israel's name is sanctified. However,
says R' Soloveitchik, we say in our prayers, "And you have called
our name by Your Name" -- when the Jewish people are sanctified and
glorified, Hashem is as well.
Both types of Kiddush Hashem occurred during the Holocaust. The
majority of the martyred Jews sanctified Hashem's Name directly.
Some, like those of the Warsaw Ghetto revolt, sanctified Hashem
indirectly, by their acts which glorified Israel's name.
There is also a third type of Kiddush Hashem, concludes R'
Soloveitchik, one which challenges us today, especially in the
State of Israel. Inspired, not depressed, by both types of death
"Al Kiddush Hashem" - for the sanctification of G-d's Name, we must
now learn to live Al Kiddush Hashem.
(Logic of the Heart, Logic of Mind p.98)
|
| 989.228 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Tazria Metzorah | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Apr 22 1993 20:44 | 158 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Tazria - Metzora
Volume VII/Number 26 (313)
3 Iyar 5753/April 24, 1993
In the additional prayers recited in "Birkat haMazon" following
a circumcision -- "Brit Milah" is one of the Mitzvot in this week's
Parasha -- we ask G-d first to send us "His anointed one who walks
with wholeness" (i.e. Mashiach) and then to send "the righteous
priest who was taken to concealment" (i.e. Eliyahu haNavi). But
Eliyahu is supposed to come before Mashiach; why, then, is the
order of the supplications reversed?
Says R' Moshe Zvi Neriyah, shlita: Eliyahu will indeed appear
before Mashiach, but the footfalls of Mashiach - "Ikvita
deMeshicha" - will be felt before the footfalls of Eliyahu. The
beginning of the material aspects of the redemption, the building
of the land and its agricultural development, will appear before
the spiritual awakening heralded by Eliyahu is felt.
This sequence is alluded to in the verse (Tehilim 28:9 - the
well-known 10-word Pasuk used to count Jews), "Save Your people and
bless Your heritage, tend them and carry them forever: -- first
"tend" to their material needs in a rich pasture, and afterwards,
"carry them," raise them and elevate them spiritually.
(Mo'adei haRe'iyah)
************************************
Chazal teach that "Lashon haRa" -- the primary sin for which
"Tzara'at" comes -- is worse than murder, adultery, and idolatry.
Why, asks R' Shimon Schwab, shlita, is it so terrible?
Imagine, he says, that you have witnessed another Jew sinning,
and that he knows that you saw him. If this person later regrets
his act and wishes to repent, he will be hindered by his knowledge
that somebody saw him sin and will surely relate it to others.
Knowing what he has done, he is convinced that everyone who
observes him (after his repentance) will think that he is a phony.
Thus the "Yetzer haRa" tells him, "You are lost. Nobody will
believe that you have repented, so why bother?!"
On the other hand, if this hypothetical sinner could be
absolutely certain that word of his transgression will never cross
the witness' lips, that sinner will then feel more secure. Thus he
will be able to repent.
What will happen if his fear causes him not to repent? Feeling
that he is lost, he will stray from Judaism, and within a
generation or two, his children will be completely lost to our
nation. On the final day of reckoning, that person who spoke
Lashon haRa will be held accountable for all those children and
grandchildren who were estranged from Judaism because of his
gossip. On the other hand, again, if the sinner does repent
because he knows that his secret is safe, all those children and
grandchildren who do grow up as Jews will be credited to that
witness who held his tongue.
(Selected Speeches p.90)
************************************
Among the laws in this week's Parasha is the requirement of
immersion in a Mikvah to remove impurity. Chazal state that the
required volume of a Mikvah is 40 "Se'ah" (a Talmudic volume). In
calculating that figure, the Gemara assumes the height of an
average person, not including his head, to be three cubits.
Why, asks Dayan Yitzchak Yaakov Weiss, zatzal (1902-1989) is the
size of the Mikvah based on a person's height without his head?
Because, he answers, purification without a bowed head is no
purification!
(quoted in Tel Talpiyot p.22)
************************************
P I R K E I A V O T
"Do not be wicked in your own eyes." (Ch. 2)
If one convinces himself that he is wicked, he will never
repent. Rather, one should always believe that he is a "Beinonee"
- neither wicked nor righteous. We find half of this instruction
in the above Mishnah, and half in the Pasuk (Devarim 9:4), "Do not
say, 'Because of my righteousness G-d has brought me to this land
(Israel)'." According to some authorities it is even one of the
613 commandments not to believe that the benefits which Hashem has
showered upon us are due to our own merit.
R' Moshe Feinstein, zatzal (1895-1986), notes that this is one
reason why there can be no reward for Mitzvot in this world (see
Chulin 142a) and why the righteous must sometimes suffer and the
wicked must sometimes prosper. If all righteous people led
"pleasurable" lives, they would know for certain that they were
righteous and might become complacent and cease to add to their
stores of righteousness. Conversely, if the wicked had proof that
they were wicked, they might become depressed and sink even deeper
into wickedness.
Hashem has therefore arranged that the wicked will often
prosper. This presents a different problem, however, notes R'
Feinstein. Since the reward of the righteous is hidden away for
the World-to-Come while the success of the wicked is visible to
all, the incentive to sin is enormous. Won't this acquit the
wicked on their day of judgement?
Indeed, says R' Feinstein, Hashem will take that into account.
(R' Feinstein's proof is beyond the scope of this space.) However,
one cannot be completely acquitted merely because he claims that he
was pursuing what he perceived to be the truth. His motives can,
and will, be tested.
(Darash Moshe, Derush #2)
************************************
R' Yisrael Spira, zatzal (1889-1989; the "Bluzhever Rebbe")
relates: When I was in the concentration camps, working at forced
labor, a woman suddenly ran up to me and asked in disturbed tones,
"Rebbe, perhaps you have a knife?"
I was not allowed to lift my head to answer, for the guards had
orders to shoot to kill for daring to speak while working. But I
understood that the unfortunate woman could no longer bear living
and wished to commit suicide. I felt I must say something to her.
"Listen, my daughter," I said, "Our life is a valuable object of
safekeeping which the creator has deposited with us. We have no
right to cut it short by our own hand. He gave us life; it is He
who will take it from us."
I was still speaking when the Nazi guard caught sight of her.
"What did she want?" he screamed.
I kept silent, but the woman said, "I asked him for a knife."
The German laughed a satanic laugh and said, "You wish to kill
yourself? Let me help you!" And he drew a knife from his belt and
handed it to her.
The woman snatched up the knife eagerly and ran to a corner
where a bundle of cloth was lying. She loosened the tie, and
behold, there was a tiny infant.
"Master of the Universe," cried the woman, "I know what fate is
in store for us here! But eight days ago You granted me an infant.
His circumcision should take place today. I wish to return him to
You as a circumcised proper Jew." With that she bent down and
circumcised the child.
She returned and handed the cruel guard his knife. He was so
shocked that he took it without a word.
(reprinted with permission of the publisher from
Haggadah of the Chassidic Masters p.190)
|
| 989.229 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Acharei Mot - Kedoshim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Apr 29 1993 23:33 | 162 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Acharei Mot-Kedoshim
Volume VII/Number 27 (314)
10 Iyar 5753/May 1, 1993
The "Shnei Se'irim" - two goats - of the Yom Kippur service
(described in this Parasha) symbolize the fateful choice which
confronts every Jew on Yom Kippur, says R' Joseph Breuer, zatzal
(1882-1980). The two goats must be exactly alike -- there are two
paths of life which may be equally inviting. One is "L'Hashem" -
to G-d. Hashem has given us the strength and perseverance of a
fighting goat. We may place those qualities in the service of
Hashem and subordinate ourselves (as one goat is subordinated
through "Shechitah") to the Divine Will of G-d.
However, a person is also free to oppose the demands of the
Divine Will in stiff-necked egotism. We are free to turn our backs
on the Sanctuary (just as one goat is led away from the Bet
haMikdash). Alas, one who does so is sadly mistaken; like the goat
that is led to "Azazel", such "Az" (stiffneckedness) is "Azel"
(fading away) in the forlorn wastes of the desert.
(A Time to Build II p.68)
************************************
Parashat Acharei Mot
"For on this day (Yom Kippur) Hashem will atone for you, to
purify you from all of your sins, before G-d you will be purified."
(16:30)
From this Pasuk we learn, says R' Gedalya Schorr, zatzal (1911-
1979), that after a person has sinned, he requires purification.
Even if he has achieved atonement, purification is still necessary.
This is because when a person sins, besides the fact that he
becomes liable for punishment, he also blemishes his soul.
Atonement relates to his liability for punishment; purification
corrects the blemish on his soul.
With this we can understand Chazal's teaching, "One sin leads to
another sin." When one sins, he damages his soul. In turn, the
soul is less attuned to holiness and more attached to sin. This
cycle continues endlessly until one repents.
Rabbi Yehuda haNasi states (Yoma 85b): "Yom Kippur
automatically atones for every sin." Why then must we work so hard
at repentance? Because Yom Kippur atones, but it does not purify!
That only true repentance can do.
(Ohr Gedalyahu "Aseret Yemei Teshuva" section 1)
************************************
This Parasha closes with a listing of incestuous and other
adulterous relationships, and these verses were chosen by Chazal as
the Torah reading for Yom Kippur afternoon. Says R' Moshe Schwab,
zatzal (1918-1979; Gateshead Yeshiva Mashgiach): This choice says
to a person, "Now, on Yom Kippur, you are like an angel -- you have
no Yetzer haRa, you do not eat, etc. -- but tomorrow will be
business as usual. Now, on Yom Kippur, is the time to resolve not
to be enticed by any forbidden pleasures."
As a person recites the Vidui (confession), he should ask
himself, "Do I really want to change?" If the honest answer is
that he does not, he cannot continue the Vidui; he must first
realize the enormity of his sins. However, if the answer is in the
affirmative, that person must progress to the next question, "What
will I do about it? How will I bring about changes?"
The answer is two-fold: of course, each sin has its specific
method of correction [obviously beyond the scope of this
discussion]. However, there is also a general requirement, i.e.
study Mussar (ethical works)!
(quoted in Nedivut Lev p.310)
************************************
Parashat Kedoshim
"Do not take revenge and do not bear a grudge..." (19:18)
On the subject of free-will, R' Avraham Yishayahu Karelitz,
zatzal (1878-1953; the "Chazon Ish") wrote, "There is absolutely no
difference between a thug and a lunatic." Does this mean, R'
Yitzchak Hutner, zatzal (1904-1980), was asked, that a thug, just
like a lunatic, is not held accountable for his deeds?!
There are very few statements that are universally true, R'
Hutner explains. Rather, most facts, or statements can be
understood and are valid only in a certain context. For example,
in the Book of Shmuel (II 17) we read that Shimi ben Gera cursed
King David and the latter accepted it with equanimity, recognizing
it as the will of G-d. Later, however, David ordered his son
Shlomo to exact revenge from Shimi. This was not hypocritical;
different times and different contexts require diff+went responses.
To take two more examples: We are required to have faith in G-d
and to minimize our pursuit of a livelihood. Yet we would not, of
course, tell a beggar who came to our doors, "Have faith, G-d will
provide for you." We are also required to believe that everything
that happens is for the best, even if, for example, our houses
would be burgled. Yet we would not forgive the burglar on that
basis! We would take him to a Bet Din and exact the appropriate
fines and penalties.
In light of this, we can understand what the Chazon Ish is
teaching us: Of course the thug is held responsible for his
actions, i.e. in the eyes of G-d or in court. However, should the
wronged person personally take revenge or bear a grudge against
him? No! In that context, it is proper to think of him as a
lunatic who is not responsible for his actions.
(Pachad Yitzchak Igrot No. 43)
************************************
"....And you shall love your fellow as yourself." (19:18)
The Tanna (sage of the Mishnah) Hillel said, "'What is hateful
to you do not do to your friend.' This is the whole Torah -- the
rest is commentary." R' Chaim Friedlander, zatzal (died 1986)
explained that the basis of our service of Hashem is to see
ourselves as His slaves. Our neighbors, too, are nothing but
Hashem's slaves.
If all of us are the same and our goal is the same -- only to
serve Hashem, the possibility of harming another will never cross
our minds.
(Siftei Chaim p.16)
************************************
Pirkei Avot
"Whoever takes upon himself the yoke of Torah will have the yoke
of government and the yoke of worldly cares removed from him."
(3:6)
R' Joseph B. Soloveitchik, zatzal (1903 - first day of Chol
haMoed Pesach, 1993) said in one of his annual Teshuva lectures:
"Bondage to G-d is all-encompassing and, by definition, releases
man from all other ties and bonds."
A psychiatrist once said to R' Soloveitchik, "Had I the
authority to do so, I would eliminate the prayer recited on the
High Holy Days that begins with the words, 'Cast Your fear'
("v'Chain Tain Pachdecha"), as fear is the major cause of mental
illness that beset mankind."
R' Soloveitchik responded, "Everyone seems to be beset by fears
of some kind -- fear of losing wealth or status, fear of sickness,
etc. Man is constantly plagued by all sorts of fears. There is
one major source of fear, however, that can wipe out all of those
other sources of fear, and that is fear of G-d. That is the reason
for that prayer. We pray that this great fear will free us from
all the other fears which destroy our lives."
(quoted in Insights: A Talmudic Treasury p.190)
|
| 989.230 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Emor | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri May 07 1993 00:16 | 137 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Emor
Volume VII/Number 28 (315)
17 Iyar 5753/May 8, 1993
Chazal say that the "Arba'ah Minim" (the four species) which we
hold in our hands on Sukkot represent four types of Jews: The
Etrog, which has taste and smell, represents the Jew who both
studies Torah and performs good deeds. The Lulav, which has taste
(it comes from the date tree) but no smell represents the Jew who
studies Torah but does not do good deeds. The Hadas, which has
smell but no taste, represents the Jew who does good deeds but does
not study Torah. Finally, the Aravah, which has no taste or smell,
represents the Jew who has neither quality. All of these species
are held together on Sukkot, thus symbolizing the unity of the
Jewish people.
R' Avraham Atlas, shlita (Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Chasidei Gur
in Haifa), notes that even though the Aravah represents the Jew who
has neither Torah nor good deeds, it is nevertheless a species
which grows near water. (In the Pasuk it is called "Arvei Nachal"
-- "willow of the creek.") Since Chazal often use water as a
metaphor for Torah, the Aravah too must represent a Jew who has
some connection, however slight, to Torah. The Gemara, however,
identifies a species known as "Tzaftzefa" which is similar to an
Aravah, but is not Halachically acceptable for the Mitzvah. The
Tzaftzefa does not grow near water; it has no connection to Torah.
Another characteristic of the Tzaftzefa is that its "mouth" (its
edge) is like a saw. The Tzaftzefa is "Metzaftzef" -- it mocks --
Torah Jewry.
Such a plant cannot be joined to the group which represents all
Jews.
(quoted in Coalition, Shevat 5753)
************************************
The following are thoughts on Sukkot, one of the holidays
discussed in this week's Parasha:
The Sukkah represents the Land of Israel, says R' Yitzchak
Arieli (died 1975; Mashgiach of Yeshivat Merkaz haRav and author of
Einayim laMishpat). Thus we read in the prophets (Amos 9:11)
regarding the redemption, "On that day He will establish David's
falling Sukkah."
The four Minim, on the other hand, represent the Jewish people
(see page 1). Because Eretz Yisrael is the goal of the Jewish
people, as the verse (Divrei haYamim I 17:21) says, "Who is like
Your nation Yisrael, one people in the Land," the holiday is named
after the Sukkah, not after the four species.
(quoted in b'Sdeh haRe'iyah p.372)
************************************
Chazal say that shaking the Lulav is each direction stops the
bad winds which come from that direction. There is nothing
mystical about this, says R' Yechezkel Abramsky, zatzal (1886-
1976). Pointing in each direction and recognizing Hashem's
miracles and acts of kindness which have originated from that
direction is the greatest merit for stopping bad tidings.
(quoted in P'ninei R' Yechezkel II p.56)
************************************
Every citizen in Yisrael shall sit in Sukkot." (23:42)
Says R' Yekutiel Yehuda Halberstam, shlita (the "Klausenberger
Rebbe"): Hashem has set aside many opportunities for repentance.
Some people can feel the spirit of Yom Kippur as early as the 20th
of Sivan (one month from now). Some people, on the 15th of Av.
Others, during Elul, and so on.
Some people, however, let even Yom Kippur come and go, and they
do not repent. Hashem does not want even those individuals to be
left behind. The straw which the Torah suggests as S'chach (roof
of the Sukkah) represents those "leftover" Jews who are gathered
into the Sukkah.
Everyone has a place in the Sukkah.
(quoted in Sukkat Bet Ropshitz p.17)
************************************
P i r k e i A v o t
R' Eliezer ben Yaakov said: One who performs one Mitzvah
acquires one spokesman on his behalf. One who performs one sin
acquires one prosecuting angel. Repentance and good deeds shield
one from sin. (ch. 4)
R' Eliyahu Lopian, zatzal (1872-1970) explained this Mishnah as
follows: R' Eliezer ben Yaakov spoke in the present tense because
he referred to one who performs a single Mitzvah repeatedly and
perfects it. Indeed, Kabbalists teach that every person should
choose one Mitzvah to perfect and make his own. One who does so
acquires "one spokesman," i.e. the spokesman who is foremost among
angels. This refers to Michael who is the "highest-ranking" angel.
On the other hand, a person who repeatedly commits the same sin
until he "perfects" it, he acquires one prosecuting angel, i.e. the
angel of death himself, who is foremost among prosecuting angels.
This is a scary thought, notes R' Lopian. This is why R'
Eliezer ben Yaakov immediately adds, "Repentance and good deeds
shield one from sin." Never give up hope.
Based on this we can better understand the verse in Tehilim
(19:19; recited on Shabbat morning), "The Mitzvah of Hashem is
clear and enlightening." Why does this verse refer to one Mitzvah?
It is speaking of the Mitzvah which each person chooses to perfect.
(Lev Eliyahu: Shevivei Lev No. 34)
************************************
"And the Kohen who is bigger than his brothers..." (21:10)
In a letter to a community that was installing a new Rabbi, R'
Yitzchak Hutner, zatzal (1904-1980) wrote: In old cities of
yesteryear there was always a clock tower that was higher than any
other building. People suggested two reasons for its height: The
simpler people thought it was only so that all the townsfolk could
see the time. The wiser residents knew, however, that the clock
tower was built so tall that no one could tamper with the time.
The latter is how a community Rabbi must be treated. He must be
regarded with such high esteem that he can guide and teach
unhindered. A Rabbi whom the community can change according to its
own whims is not a leader but a follower.
(Pachad Yitzchak Igeret 132)
|
| 989.231 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Behar - Bechukotai | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri May 14 1993 20:09 | 163 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat beHar-beChukotai
Volume VII/Number 29 (316)
24 Iyar 5753/May 15, 1993
In this week's Parasha we read of the Mitzvah of Yovel, i.e.
that every fiftieth year Jewish slaves go free and much of the real
estate which has been sold reverts to its hereditary owner. A
reason for this Mitzvah, the Torah says, is that "strangers and
[temporary] residents you are with Me" (25:23).
R' Moshe Eisemann, shlita (Mashgiach at Yeshiva Ner Israel)
notes some irony in this verse. The Mitzvah of Yovel applies,
after all, only when the majority of the Jewish people live in
Eretz Yisrael. How, then, can the Torah refer to the Jews as
strangers and temporary residents when speaking to the Yovel?
R' Eisemann explains that being a stranger or a temporary
resident is in fact the true human condition. This began on the
first day of man's existence, when Adam was expelled from Gan Eden
and sent out to seek his fortune. The Avot, too, were strangers
and exiles, as they lived in, and wandered about, a land that was
ruled by others.
Wherever he is -- even in Eretz Yisrael under ideal
circumstances -- man should feel that he is a stranger or a
visitor. It is this natural state of longing which leads a person
to accomplish. Without it, life would be meaningless.
(heard from R' Eisemann)
************************************
"I have long wondered," writes R' Mordechai Eliyahu, shlita
(immediate past Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel), "why the
commentators devoted more effort to discovering the reasons for the
Mitzvah of Shemittah (the Sabbatical year) than those of other
Mitzvot." He suggests the following explanation:
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 39a) says: What is the reason for
Shemittah? Hashem said to Israel, "Plant for six years and rest
for one so that you will know that the land is Mine." Rashi
explains that because a person will find his sustenance even while
he observes the Shemittah, he will be forced to acknowledge that
the land is Hashem's and that a person's "strength" does not add
to, or detract from, the outcome of man's work.
It thus appears that the very purpose of Shemittah is that we
derive certain lessons from its observance. It certainly makes
sense, then, that commentators devote themselves to expanding upon
those lessons.
(approbation to Ta'ama d'Shviata)
************************************
R' Aharon Lichtenstein, shlita writes (in an article in the
compendium Ta'ama d'Shviata) that there are several different
purposes -- indeed, different types of ends -- served by the
Mitzvah of Shemittah. On the one hand, the Shemittah reminds us of
Creation, not so much the events of the original Creation, but that
Creation is a recurring event. This is because it teaches man to
trust that Hashem provides for the idle farmer, something a Creator
can certainly do. Also, "resting" in the Seventh year reminds us
of the coming seventh millennium of history, when the world will
experience the ultimate state of peace and respite.
More "practically," the Shemittah serves a social purpose:
enhancing the unity of the masses of Jews. Indeed, when the
Mitzvah of Shemittah is first mentioned (in Parashat Mishpatim), it
is listed among commandments that apply to the interaction between
men. During Shemittah, all fields are "Hefker" - open to all; the
rich feed the poor, not as an act of kindness, but because for one
year, they are actually equals.
[Ed. note: The next Shemittah year begins on this coming
Rosh Hashanah.]
************************************
P I R K E I A V O T
"Any dispute which is engaged in for the sake of Heaven will
endure. Any dispute which is engaged in, but not for the sake of
Heaven, will not endure." (ch. 5)
What kind of blessing is this? asks R' Yoel Teitlebaum, zatzal
(the "Satmar Rav"). Do we want disputes to endure?
Rather, this Mishnah tells us how to recognize when a dispute is
for the sake of Heaven and when it is not. Many times, a
participant in a dispute will appear very righteous; he may even
assure you that he is concernced solely with the honor of Hashem
and the Torah. What happens, however, when his own self-interest
becomes involved -- involvement in the dispute was not for the sake
of Heaven, for the dispute has not endured.
If, on the other hand, one never compromises and the dispute
endures forever, then we can be sure that his participation in the
dispute was for the sake of Heaven.
(vaYoel Moshe p.145)
************************************
"And I will make your holy place desolate." (26:31)
Chazal comment: "Although the place of the Temple is desolate,
it remains holy." How did they know that this is the correct
interpretation? asks R 'Joseph B. Soloveitchik, zatzal. The verse
could just as well mean that the place will be desolate of
holiness!
The answer, says R' Soloveitchik, is in the Haftara. There we
read (Yirmiyahu 17:12; as interpreted by the Midrash, "[Hashem's]
Throne of Honor, exalted from the first [day of Creation], the
place of our Temple." There is a "Yerushalayim Shel Ma'alah" -
Jerusalem above - paralleling the "Yerushalayim shel Matah" -
Jerusalem below. The former is the place of Hashem's Throne, which
was created at the beginning of Creation. The latter is the place
of the Temple.
Obviously, the Babylonians and the Romans could not destroy
Yerushalayim Shel Ma'alah, no matter what they did to the Temple
below. Because Chazal knew that the two "cities" are connected --
this is the symbolism of the ladder in Yaakov's dream -- they knew
that as long as the Throne above retains its holiness, the Temple
site below will as well.
(Divrei Hashkafah p.98)
************************************
R' Zvi Yehuda haKohen Kook, (1891-1982) related the following
about the events of this week in 1967: "A friend phoned me and
related in the name of haRav Shlomo Goren, the Israeli Defense
Force's Chief Rabbi, that Tzahal units were advancing and getting
closer to the Old City of Yerushalayim. On the fourth day of the
week (the 28th of Iyar), an officer knocked on the door of my
house. He had come with a message from haRav Goren. 'The honored
Rav is invited by the Chief Rabbi of the army to come to the
Western Wall,' he announced. 'An armored car is waiting
downstairs.'
"R' David Cohen, zatzal (known as the "Nazir") joined us on the
way. He too had been invited by his son-in-law, haRav Goren. On
the way, the officer told me that the moment the paratroopers
reached the perimeter of the Kotel, an officer who was a student of
our Yeshiva (i.e. Merkaz haRav) climbed to the top row of stones
and unfurled the Israeli flag over the heights of the Western Wall.
His commander promised him a reward for his deed, and asked him
what he wanted. 'The greatest honor for me,' he answered, 'is that
you send an army rabbi to bring our teacher (i.e. R' Kook) here.'
"Before we left the liberated city, [R' Kook related,] I was
interviewed by radio and television reporters. They wanted to know
my opinion on what had transpired. 'Behold,' I said, 'we announce
to all of Israel and to all of the world that by a Divine command
we have returned to our home, to our holy city. From this day
forth, we shall never budge from here! We have come home'."
(from a pamphlet published by Yeshvat Ateret Kohanim)
|
| 989.232 | Questions re Sabbatical Years | PTOVAX::BERGER | Apply recursive disclaimers | Mon May 17 1993 23:56 | 7 |
| Re .231
>[Ed. note: The next Shemittah year begins on this coming Rosh Hashanah.]
When is the next Year of Jubilee?
How accurate is this information believed to be?
|
| 989.233 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue May 18 1993 00:56 | 6 |
| There's an unresolved disagreement as to whether Yovel is the first year of
the next 49-year cycle or a separate year between 49-year cycles. In any
case, Yovel is only valid when the Bais Hamikdash (Temple) is in existence,
so it doesn't affect the current Shmita count.
I believe our knowledge of the date of Shmita goes back to Rambam.
|
| 989.234 | Another question | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Tue May 18 1993 04:02 | 7 |
| > ...Yovel is only valid when the Bais Hamikdash (Temple) is in existence...
Why is this? Does it have anything to do with lack of Jewish ownership of the
land (i.e. related to the fact that some ultra-religious Jews do not
recognize the State of Israel)?
Dave
|
| 989.235 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue May 18 1993 20:20 | 2 |
| No, it's because Yovel was proclaimed in the Temple. No Temple,
no proclamation, no Yovel.
|
| 989.236 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Bamidbar | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri May 21 1993 00:40 | 148 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat baMidbar
Volume VII/Number 30 (317)
2 Sivan 5753/May 22, 1993
R' Shimon Schwab, shlita writes that the most important lesson
which children have to learn as they get older is alluded to in
this Parasha. The Torah tells us that members of the tribe of Levi
were counted from the age of one month, unlike the other tribes,
which were counted only from the age of 20 years. Already in their
infancy, sons of the Levi'im were called "Guardians of the Holy
Watch" because that is what they would grow up to be.
How can we be so certain? The Levi'im of that generation, says
R' Schwab, knew the secret of successful Torah education. The
Torah (Devarim 33:9) says about the Levi'im, "He says about his
father and mother, he did not see him; about his brothers, he did
not recognize them; and about his sons, he did not know them -- for
they have kept Your word and guarded Your covenant." Parents in
the tribe of Levi told their children, "I love you more than
everybody in the world except...Hashem. Do not forget that I love
Hashem more than I love you."
For this reason, when the Jews faltered at the golden calf, the
Levi'im were able to heed the call of Hashem. This was the
Levi'im's secret of successful Jewish parenting.
(Selected Speeches p.101)
************************************
S H A V U O T
The Gemara (Shabbat 88a) relates that Hashem held Har Sinai over
the heads of Bnei Yisrael and forced them to take the Torah. This,
says the Gemara, was an excuse for generations which did not
observe the Mitzvot.
R' Mordechai Gifter, shlita (Telshe Rosh Yeshiva) notes that
this Gemara appears to contradict the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (3a).
There we find that, in the future, the nations of the world will
complain that they were not forced to accept the Torah. This, says
R' Gifter, implies that being forced to accept the Torah does have
a binding effect.
R' Gifter resolves this based on the following two points:
First, we learn in Masechet Nedarim [which Daf Yomi participants
concluded this week] that the basis for the annulment of a vow is
changed circumstances, i.e. that the assumptions upon which the vow
was based are no longer valid. When the Jews accepted the Torah,
they did so through a vow. Second, the Jews were forced to accept
the Torah -- not literally, but through their recognition of the
Truth, brought about by their exalted spiritual level.
The Jews assumed that they would always remain on that level.
However, with their exile from Eretz Yisrael, they fell from it.
They thus had an excuse to cease performing the Mitzvot until they
reaccepted the Torah (for all time) after the Purim miracle.
The nations of the world, however, were not forced to accept the
Torah. Hashem did not raise them to the same spiritual level to
which he raised the Jews. This will be the nations' complaint in
the future. [Ed. note: see Avodah Zarah 3a for Hashem's answer.]
(Pirkei Mo'ed p.129)
************************************
P I R K E I A V O T
"One who learns Torah 'l'Shmah' (with the proper intentions)
merits many things." (Ch.6)
Why did Chazal promise these many levels of accomplishment only
as a reward for this Mitzvah? asks R' Shalom Brazovsky, shlita
(the "Slonimer Rebbe"). Also, why is only a person who does not
learn Torah l'Shmah called (later in the Mishnah) "Nazof" -
"distanced"?
The Mitzvah of learning Torah is, in fact, fulfilled even if
one's learning is not l'Shmah. However, the true purpose of
learning is not accomplished. That purpose is to become attached
to Hashem. One who learns Torah l'Shmah accomplishes that and
cleaves to Hashem, thus, in effect, fulfilling all of the Mitzvot.
This explains why the reward for Torah l'Shmah is so great, and
it also explains why one who never reaches that level is considered
to be distanced from Hashem.
Why, in fact, do so many people never reach that level? asks R'
Shalom. Aren't we promised, after all, that through learning that
is not l'Shmah, one reaches l'Shmah?
The answer is that there are two kinds of "not l'Shmah" -- good
and bad. The "good" "not l'Shmah" is learning that is not yet
l'Shmah, but is directed toward that end. That learning will
eventually reach l'Shmah. The "bad" "not l'Shmah" is learning
engaged in for any other reason. If one doesn't hope to learn
l'Shmah, he never will.
(quoted in miMa'ayanot haNetzach p.304-305
************************************
The story is told that during the first "Z'man" (semester) that
R' Yaakov Kamenetsky, zatzal (1891-1986) taught at Mesivta Torah
Vodaath in Brooklyn, the Yeshiva studied Tractate Gittin. When R'
Yaakov had studied Gittin in the Slabodka Yeshiva in Lithuania he
had asked one question which neither he nor any of his colleagues
in what was arguably the world's leading Yeshiva could answer. He
was therefore concerned now, for, on the one hand, his high
standards of truth would not permit him to gloss over the question
(which was so subtle that his students would never notice if he
did), but, on the other hand, the American students of that day
(the 1940's) were too new to the Talmud to understand that Torah
study is worthwhile even if not every question is answered.
On the morning when he was to teach that difficult page of
Gemara, R' Yaakov suddenly hit upon an answer to his question. Why
did this happen? R' Yaakov explained it as follows:
The Gemara (Megilah 6b) states, "If one tells you, 'I have
worked hard [at Torah], but not found it,' do not believe him. If
he says, 'I have not worked hard, and I have found it,' you should
also not believe him. If, however, he says, 'I have worked hard
and I have found it,' believe him." The Gemara then adds, "This
refers to Torah, but in business, all depends on the help of G-d."
Said R' Yaakov, "All of those years, I must not have been
working hard enough at finding an answer. Therefore, I did not
find it. However, now that I need the answer for my business (i.e.
teaching at the Yeshiva), only the help of G-d mattered."
(Footsteps of the Maggid p.213)
************************************
According to another version of the story, R' Yaakov did not
think of an answer until after admitting to his students that he
was stumped. He then said that it was in the merit of his honesty
that he merited to think of an answer. He added that a teacher
should pray for understanding not only in the blessing "Attah
Chonen" (which relates to wisdom), but in the blessing "Barech
Alenu" (which relates to sustenance) as well.
(Reb Yaakov p.162)
|
| 989.237 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Naso | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri May 28 1993 20:43 | 147 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Naso
Volume VII/Number 31 (318)
9 Sivan 5753/May 29, 1993
In today's Haftara we read that an angel appeared to the future
mother of Shimshon and instructed her not to drink wine or eat
grapes because she would bear a child who was supposed to be a
Nazir. The woman's husband Manoach asked Hashem to send the angel
once more so that he could teach them "what we shall do for the
child who is born." How, Manoach wanted to know, would they raise
him as a Nazir?
The angel told Manoach, "From all that I have told the woman,
you shall beware." Manoach, too, should eat no grapes nor drink
wine. Why? Manoach was not meant to be a Nazir!
Manoach's question, says R' Shimon Schwab, shlita, was: How can
I rear my son as a Nazir if he sees his father drinking wine? How
can I tell my son, "Don't do as I do but as I say"?
Whereupon the angel answered: You can't! Although there is
nothing wrong with drinking wine and a person is not required to be
a Nazir, Manoach had to refrain from drinking wine in order to set
an example for his son of the higher standard that was expected of
him. Otherwise, "Chinuch" is impossible.
(Selected Speeches p.98)
************************************
Chazal say: Why is the law of Nazir placed near the law of
Sotah (a woman who is suspected of adultery)? To teach that one
who sees the downfall of a Sotah should refrain from wine (because
wine leads to sin).
Why, asks R' Avigdor Miller, shlita, should one wait until he
sees the harm wreaked by wine? It should be sufficient that he
knows from the Torah that wine is able to do harm. The answer is
that one becomes truly obligated in abstinence only when he has
witnessed the actual results of indulgence. This sight confers
upon him what R' Miller calls "True Knowledge."
The Gemara says that Hillel will convict the poor, Rabbi Elazar
ben Charsum, the rich, and Yosef, the wicked. Hillel toiled in
Torah despite his poverty; Rabbi Elazar ben Charsum did so despite
his wealth. Men who were exposed to temptations should learn from
Yosef, who was victorious despite his great beauty, which subjected
him to the worst temptation. Note again that it is not the
principle, but the example, which gets a person in trouble.
Every good example is a chance to gain True Knowledge."
************************************
"....For the crown ("Nezer") of his G-d is on his head." (6:7)
A Nazir is said to be wearing a crown. Indeed, the word "Nazir"
is related to one of the Hebrew words for crown. What does this
mean?
R' Chaim Friedlander, zatzal (died 1986) quotes Ibn Ezra who
explains that man is a slave to his temptations and desires. The
person who truly wears a crown of royalty is the one who is master
of his desires and rules over them. Those who believe that they
are free of Mitzvot, says R' Friedlander, are not free at all; they
are completely imprisoned by temptation.
Chazal say that Hashem ties a crown on the head of a "Ba'al
Teshuva" - one who repents and returns. He is a true king, for he
rules over himself.
(Siftei Chaim p.33)
************************************
"And it came to pass on the day when Moshe completed ("Kallot")
raising the Mishkan..." (7:1)
Rashi comments that the Torah used the word "Kallot" rather than
another grammatical form that could have been used, in order to
remind us of the word "Kallah" - bride. This teaches us that on
the day of the Mishkan's dedication the Jewish people were like a
bride entering the wedding canopy.
R' Eliezer M. Shach, shlita, explains: Once the Mishkan was
standing, the Jewish people could have felt that they had completed
a glorious period in their history -- building the Mishkan -- and
that they could now sit back. However, they did not. A bride, on
her wedding day, does not think of the life which is ending, but of
the life which is beginning; so, too, did the Jews feel as they
dedicated the Mishkan.
(Michtavim u'Ma'amarim p.38)
************************************
"This is the dedication ("Chanukat") of the altar...." (7:84)
The word "Chanukah" connotes "dedication" whether the dedication
of the altar or of a private house ("Chanukat haBayit"). From the
same root we get "Chinuch" - education - which is the dedication
of children to intellectual pursuits. In America today, this word
usually is taken to refer to Torah education.
R' Yitzchak Hutner, zatzal (1904-1980), used to object to that
usage, R' Moshe Eisemann, shlita, relates. That word, R' Eisemann
explains, refers to taking something neutral and dedicating it to
a certain end. The altar, for example, was an amalgamation of wood
and metal, none of which was necessarily designed for the purpose
of becoming an altar. The mind of a Jewish child is not neutral,
however -- it is born holy, waiting to be filled with Torah and
holy thoughts.
(heard from R' Eisemann)
************************************
"And they shall confess the sin which they have done..." (5:7)
R' Shimon Schwab, shlita, tells the following story from the
early years of his rabbinate:
"I remember waiting for a street car once in Baltimore, in front
of a Catholic church. A lady emerged from the building and said to
me, 'Rabbi Schwab, you're probably surprised to see me coming out
of a church.'
"I had no idea who the woman was or how she knew my name; I
supposed she lived in my neighborhood. I simply replied, 'Well,
nothing really surprises me anymore.'
"'Actually, I'm Jewish,' she continued. 'But there's one thing
that Catholics have over us Jews. They have Confession; it's such
a wonderful thing. I can go to the priest and unburden myself. I
don't see him, he doesn't see me, and he asks no questions. We
Jews should have something like that.'
"I didn't tell her that if she wanted to unburden herself she
could also have gone to a psychoanalyst. I did say, 'But we Jews
do have confession. We say it every day. It's called "Vidui". On
Yom Kippur we say Vidui nine times.'
"She said, 'Yes, but nobody is listening'."
(Selected Speeches p.46)
|
| 989.238 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Behaalotecha | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jun 03 1993 20:06 | 149 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Beha'alotecha
Volume VII/Number 32 (319)
16 Sivan 5753/June 5, 1993
At the end of this week's Parasha we read that Hashem taught
Miriam the difference between Moshe and other prophets. Ramban
writes (Commentary to Yevamot 49b): "All the other prophets looked
with their eyes and saw. Moshe, however, looked through a clear
lens. i.e. the knowledge which is the glory of Yisrael, and did not
see Hashem's face."
R' Shimon Starelitz, zatzal (died 1955; co-editor of
Encyclopedia Talmudit), explains: "Spiritual vision does not reach
as far as spiritual healing. The eye focuses on particulars, while
the ear can take in all of the world's sounds together." Moshe
Rabbenu rose to the level where he knew Hashem's Will -- he was
attuned to it -- and he had no need to "see" what was going on in
the Heavens. This is the glorious accomplishment of the Jewish
soul, to be attuned to the Divine Will. This is the meaning of the
statement, "The Torah and Israel and the Holy One, blessed is He,
are one."
(quoted in b'Sdeh haRei'yah p.383)
************************************
"My master, Moshe, imprison them." (11:28)
Many commentaries deal with the question: How could Yehoshua
bin Nun call his teacher Moshe by his given name, an action which
is prohibited by Halacha? Below are two answers:
R' Yitzchak Hutner, zatzal, explains that this prohibition does
not apply when the basis for the teacher's name is given in the
Torah. "Moshe," for example, recalls that the person bearing that
name was drawn from water. Similarly, we find that Yitzchak and
Yaakov referred to their fathers by their names. The prohibition
of calling one's teacher by his name, by contrast, is learned from
the fact that Gechazi was punished for calling his master, the
prophet Elisha, by his given name. We do not know why Elisha was
given that name.
What is the reason for this distinction? Names are often more
than names; they describe the people who bear them. Thus we read
(vaYikra 26:42), "And I will remember My covenant, Yaakov, and also
My covenant, Yitzchak, and also My covenant, Avraham, I will
remember..." It does not say, "My covenant with Yaakov." Rather,
the covenant itself is called "Yaakov" (or "Yitzchak" or "Avraham")
because the nature of the covenant is related to the nature of the
person with whom it was made.
(Pachad Yitzchak Sukkot III, section 1)
************************************
R' Moshe Feinstein, zatzal, explains that while it is
disrespectful to call one's teacher by his name, the other words
that one uses in the same sentence may mitigate the sin. Thus, he
writes, "Since Yehoshua was demanding that those who had insulted
Moshe be imprisoned, there is no greater respect than that." Also,
writes R' Feinstein, the Torah may not always record conversations
verbatim; it may well be that Yehoshua did not call Moshe by name,
though the Torah had some reason for implying that he did.
(Igrot Moshe Y.D. section 133, p.273)
************************************
"And behold Miriam had 'Tzara'at' like snow." (12:10)
As we see in Miriam's case, Tzara'at strikes a person as a
punishment for the sin of "Lashon haRa" - speaking negatively about
another. How then can we understand Rashi's statement (vaYikra
14:34) that it was good news for the Jews that their houses would
be stricken with Tzara'at? (A stone which shows signs of Tzara'at
must be torn out of the wall, and Rashi says that this would allow
the Jews to discover any treasure which the Canaanites had hidden
in the walls of their houses before Bnei Yisrael's invasion.
R' Yissochor Frand, shlita (Rosh Yeshiva in Yeshiva Ner Israel
in Baltimore), quotes R' Bergman, shlita (Ponovezh Mashgiach), who
explains as follows: Tzara'at of the house is a warning for a
person. "You have spoken Lashon haRa or committed some other sin
(see Erachin 15). Change you ways!" This Tzara'at is a clear
message from Hashem. If a person hears it, good. If not, he will
be stricken with the next type of Tzara'at, i.e. Tzara'at of his
clothing. He then has the same choice again. If he doesn't learn,
then his very body will be afflicted by Tzara'at.
We see, then, that Tzara'at on a house is not a punishment -- it
is a message. A Jew should be happy to get that message, for it
shows that Hashem cares enough to rebuke him. "Nobody's perfect,"
the Tzara'at says, "but there's hope for you." If there were no
hope for this person, Hashem would leave him alone to his own
devices.
The person who responds to the gentle rebuke (the Tzara'at of
his house) deserves to be rewarded. The buried treasure is that
reward.
Chazal say, "Because Shimshon followed his eyes, his eyes were
gouged out." On the other hand, we learn that in the merit of his
losing one eye, Shimshon was enabled to destroy the Plishti
(Philistine) building in which he was held. In this way, Shimshon
killed perhaps thousands of Plishtim. The merit of Shimshon's
losing his other eye was preserved for the world-to-come. How can
this be, if his eyes were taken from him as punishment for a sin?
The answer is, as above, that a punishment itself can be a great
source of merit, if the recipient would only recognize that Hashem
is telling him something.
(from R' Frand's recorded "Shiurim" - No. 142)
************************************
"And the man Moshe was very humble...." (12:3)
R' Moshe Feinstein, zatzal, was once walking along a street in
his neighborhood when he heard a voice calling, "Moshe, Moshe!"
Looking up, he saw that the voice was that of an acquaintance, who
was behind the wheel of his car. Without blinking an eye, R' Moshe
walked over to the car.
Upon realizing that R' Moshe had assumed that he was being
called, the man turned crimson with embarrassment. He said, "I was
calling my son, who happened to be in the street as I drove by. I
would never dream of addressing the Rosh Yeshiva in such a
disrespectful manner. [Ed. note: See page 2.] Besides, if I had
something to discuss with the Rosh Yeshiva I would have gotten out
of my car and gone over to him -- I would not have dared to ask the
Rosh Yeshiva to come to me."
R' Moshe assured the man that there was nothing to be concerned
about. "It is already many years that these things mean nothing to
me."
(Reb Moshe p.229)
************************************
R' Yaakov Kamenetzky, zatzal, once found himself in a Shul in
Toronto where someone announced, "Yankele will now make a 'Siyum'
(ceremony marking the completion of a tractate)."
"But I haven't learned!" R' Yaakov called out in innocence.
|
| 989.239 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Shelach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jun 10 1993 19:54 | 138 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Shelach
Volume VII/Number 33 (320)
23 Sivan 5753/June 12, 1993
We read in this week's Parasha of Hashem's "complaint" to Moshe
(14:22), "They (Bnei Yisrael) have now listened to My voice." It
is important, however, to put these ten episodes in the proper
perspective, says R' Avigdor Miller, shlita. Bnei Yisrael in the
desert numbered millions of people living in a small space with no
visible sources of food or water. They were also surrounded, and
occasionally attacked, by enemies. It is no surprise, therefore,
that they complained about having to enter the Red Sea, not knowing
that it would split, or that they worried about the futures of
their wives and children.
Why then does Hashem criticize them? Because after what they
had witnessed they could rightfully be expected to be superhuman!
For example, in any other generation it would be permitted, indeed
required, to send spies to prepare the way for an invasion, but
this generation should have trusted completely in Hashem's
supernatural abilities.
Without the Torah's verdict, we would never know how to place
the blame for the subtle sins of our ancestors. Hashem, however,
measured them (as he measures all Tzaddikim) by a standard which is
beyond our comprehension.
(Rejoice O Youth! p.167)
************************************
"Moshe sent them from the Paran Desert by the word of Hashem..."
(13:3)
Rashi explains: "By the word of Hashem" means that G-d did not
object.
R' Yaakov Kamentzky, zatzal (1891-1986), asks: Can we really
equate Hashem's not objecting with sending the spies "by word of
Hashem"? Also, R' Kamenetzky asks, why does the Torah tell us that
the spy from the tribe of Ephraim was Hoshea bin Nun and only later
tell us that Moshe renamed him Yehoshua. Why not roll all of this
information into one verse?
This may be explained as follows: In Devarim (1:23) we read,
"The matter (i.e. sending spies) was good in my (i.e. Moshe's) eyes
and I took twelve men from among you." Why did Moshe approve of
sending spies, rather than demanding that Bnei Yisrael place their
trust in Hashem? Because trust in Hashem will only carry a person
as far as he truly believes it will; once Bnei Yisrael demanded
that spies be sent, it was too late to demand that they trust
Hashem. Sending spies became required!
Even so, Bnei Yisrael still had to ask Hashem who they should
send as spies. This they did, and the "Urim v'Tumim" (the oracle
on the Kohen's breastplate) responded with twelve names, among them
"Hoshea bin Nun." It was only Moshe who called him Yehoshua. This
is what our verse means when it says that Moshe sent the spies "by
the word of Hashem," i.e., the spies themselves were appointed by
the word of Hashem.
Why didn't the Urim v'Tumim advise that trust could have taken
the place of the spies? Because the Urim v'Tumim answers only the
precise question which it is asked. Thus we see in the Book of
Shoftim (ch. 20) that the Urim v'Tumim was asked, "Who should lead
us into battle?" and the Urim v'Tumim responded, "Yehuda," but did
not warn Bnei Yisrael that they would lose the battle. Bnei
Yisrael had already decided to go into battle, and had not asked
for advice on that point, so Hashem did not "interfere."
(Emet l'Yaakov p.431)
************************************
R' Moshe Zvi Neriyah, shlita (Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat haRoeh
and founder of Bnei Akiva), writes: Many years ago I accompanied
R' Aryah Levin, zatzal (died 1969) to a "Shivah" house -- of a
family, incidentally, that R' Aryeh did not know -- and I asked
him, "We read in Tehilim (95:10), 'For forty years I was angry with
a generation; then I said, "An errant-hearted people are they --
they do not know My ways."' Were the Jews in the desert considered
willful sinners or unintentional sinners?" I asked.
R' Aryeh replied, "Definitely unintentional sinners! True,
forty years is a long time to continue in this way, and the Jews
did see wonders in Egypt which no one else has ever seen. However,
the education of an entire nation is not easy, and it continues to
this day. Even today, most Jews 'do not [yet] know My ways'."
(b'Sdeh haRe'iyah p.411)
************************************
The Midrash says that Hashem struck the Canaanaties with a
plague coinciding with the visit of the spies, in order that the
spies could traverse the land unhindered. Seeing the Canaanites
burying and bitterly mourning their many dead, however, the spies
concluded that Cana'an was a murderous land.
The spies could have arrived at that conclusion, says R' Yaakov
Yisrael Kanievski, zatzal, (died 1986; the "Steipler Gaon"), only
because they wanted to; Chazal say that a person is led down the
path which he has chosen for himself. The spies were determined
(for some reason) to come back with a bad report, and they
therefore took the very thing which Hashem did out of kindness to
them and turned it against Him. Simple logic should have shown
them that their conclusion was wrong: If Cana'an was a murderous
land, its inhabitants would have been accustomed to it and would
have lost some of their sensitivity to death. When a person has
prejudged an event, however, logic will not sway him.
(quoted in Yalkut Lekach Tov p.134)
************************************
[The Midrash states that as the spies traversed Eretz Cana'an
they witnessed numerous people burying their dead. Unfortunately,
the spies drew the wrong conclusions from what they saw.
This calls to mind the following story:]
R' Yosef Kahaneman, zatzal (1886-1969; the "Ponovezher Rav"),
was once approached by a man who had just attended a funeral. The
man seemed puzzled and asked the Rav, "What is the reason for the
custom that one does not return from a funeral using the same route
that he took to get there?" (See Ta'amei haMinhagim no.1034;
Gesher haChaim 14:20)
The Ponovezher Rav pondered for a moment and then, with typical
perception, lent a new perspective to the matter. "How can any
thinking person go to a cemetery," exclaimed the Rav, "and come
back the same as he went?"
(reprinted with permission of the publisher from
In the Footsteps of the Maggid p.174)
|
| 989.240 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Korach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jun 17 1993 19:49 | 150 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Korach
Volume VII/Number 34 (321)
30 Sivan 5753/June 19, 1993
A person does not have certain faculties which he can use for
good and other which he can use for evil, says R' Chaim
Friedlander, zatzal (died 1986; Ponovezh Mashgiach). We learn this
from this week's Pararsha. The Midrash says, "What led Korach, who
was a wise man, to err? He saw with 'Ruach haKodesh' (Divine
inspiration) that a distinguished family, which included the
prophet Shmuel, would descend from him, and he said, 'With such
descendants, can I possibly lose this battle?'"
Ruach haKodesh is one of G-d's greatest gifts, yet it led Korach
astray. The reality of this world is that if a person wants to
err, he will. Having free choice means that every evil can be
rationalized.
On the other hand, if a person truly wants to purify himself, he
is guaranteed Hashem's help.
[Note: Shmuel descended from Korach's sons, who repented -- see
inside.]
(Siftei Chaim p.32)
************************************
Korach's rebellion was prompted by a lust for power, writes R'
Joseph B. Soloveitchik, zatzal (1902-1993), but being an
intelligent man, Korach knew that his rebellion needed an ideology
and a slogan. He therefore employed two main arguments, both of
which, says R' Soloveitchik, give us insight into contemporary
rebellions against Torah authority.
First, Korach argued, "By what right may any Jew - even Moshe -
assume leadership and power over a fellow Jew?" Every Jew, Korach
maintained, was equally chosen by G-d. What Korach failed to
recognize, however, is that there are two aspects to Hashem's
"choice" of the Jewish people.
On the one hand, there is choseness of the nation. Every
individual possesses holiness by virtue of being a member of the
Jewish people. This holiness is inherited, and it formed the basis
of Korach's ideology.
There is, however, a second source of holiness: individual
choseness. Every Jew is the direct recipient of holiness according
to his own unique personal efforts and achievements. Korach did
not understand that Moshe possessed a larger measure than others of
this second type of holiness.
Moshe told Korach, "'Boker' - in the morning - Hashem will make
known who is His" (16:5). "Boker" comes from the root "Baker" - to
discriminate or distinguish. Moshe explained to Korach that there
are differences between people.
Korach's second argument was that every person has the right to
interpret Halacha for himself. What Korach failed to understand,
however, is that Halacha is not governed by common sense -- but by
a unique methodology and manner of analysis. Common sense no more
governs Halacha than it does physics -- it was once believed that
objects fell because of their weight; common sense dictated that,
but we now know that is not true.
Korach argued that each person should interpret the Mitzvot in
the way that will mean the most to him. Common sense supports that
view, but Korach erred because it is the act of the Mitzvot which
is primary, while the emotion is but a reflection of the Mitzvah.
The Halacha cannot control emotions; man is too volatile. When
each person's emotions become primary, organized religion ceases to
exist and all goals are soon lost sight of.
The two primary duties of the Kohen Gadol -- the job that Korach
sought -- were lighting the Menorah and burning the incense. The
Menorah symbolizes the clarity of Mitzvah performance; the scent of
the incense represents the less tangible consequences of Mitzvah
performance.
(Shiurei haRav pp.38-45)
************************************
The Midrash says, "What led Korach to rebel? The laws of 'Parah
Adumah' led him to rebel." What does this mean?
R' Chaim Yehuda Meir Hager, zatzal (died 1968; the Vishuver
Rebbe") explains that Korach was specifically misled by the law
that the ashes of the Parah Adumah purify one who is impure, but
temporarily defile the pure person who prepares them. Korach
reasoned: I know that "Machloket" - dispute - can defile a person,
but isn't it worth becoming temporarily defiled in order to bring
about the pure results which I seek?
Why was Korach wrong? Because one can never guarantee that the
impurity of Machloket will be only temporary. As the Gemara
(Sanhedrin 7a) states: Machloket is like an overflowing canal --
once the dike is breached, the opening gets wider and wider.
(Zecher Chaim p.172)
************************************
"And the sons of Korach did not die." (26:11 in Parashat
Pinchas)
Chazal say that as Korach's sons were falling into Gehinom with
their father, they repented. Hashem therefore created a ledge
above Gehinom where Korach's sons were saved. Imagine that! says
R' Yechezkel Levenstein, zatzal. This whole process could not have
lasted more than seconds. We see, therefore, that even a single,
but sincere, thought of repentance can save a person.
(quoted in Nedivut Lev p.241)
************************************
[The Midrash translates the opening of our Parasha, "Korach
took," as referring to Korach's bad choice of a spouse, for it was
his wife who incited him to rebellion against Moshe. This calls to
mind the following story:]
When a granddaughter of R' Yaakov Yisrael Kanievski, zatzal
(died 19886; the "Steipler Gaon"), reached marriageable age, the
Steipler instructed a friend to find a young man who was a Torah
scholar and had good "Midot" (character traits). "Won't a person
who truly studies Torah for its own sake necessarily develop good
Midot?"
"A person who learns Torah diligently," replied the Steipler,
"has his 'Shtender (lectern) as his best friend. His Shtender is
always healthy, never asks him to take out the garbage, and never
needs a kind word. Why shouldn't he show good Midot towards it?"
************************************
"You should know," R' Yechezkel Abramsky, zatzal (1886-1976),
once said to his students during the week in which Parashat Korach
was read, "that you who study Torah without distraction are the
greatest 'Mezakei haRabim' - those who bring merit to the community
at large. The whole world depends on you. This is what Moshe said
to the Levi'im (who were the Torah scholars of the nation) in this
week's Parasha (16:7), "Much is yours, sons of Levi" -- a great
deal of merit awaits you. "Is it little in your eyes that Hashem
set you aside from the congregation?" (16:9). Don't you
appreciate your own greatness?
(quoted in P'ninei R' Yechezkel I p.13)
|
| 989.241 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Chukat | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Sat Jul 10 1993 00:13 | 159 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Chukat
Volume VII/Number 35 (322)
7 Tamuz 5753/June 26, 1993
This Parasha relates that the King of Arad heard that Yisrael
was coming, and he fought Yisrael. Chazal ask, "What did he hear?"
and answer that he heard that Aharon had died.
R' Chaim David haLevi, shlita (Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Tel
Aviv) writes: How can Chazal ask what the King of Arad heard?
Doesn't the Torah state explicitly that he heard that Yisrael was
coming? The answer, says R' haLevi, is that Chazal wondered where
the King of Arad found the courage to attack Bnei Yisrael. All the
other nations (we read in Sh'mot, chapter 15) were terrified of
Bnei Yisrael!
What gave the King of Arad that courage? He heard that Aharon
had died. Aharon had devoted himself to making peace between Jews,
whether two friends or a husband and wife. As long as Aharon
lived, the Jewish people remained united; when Aharon died, the
Jews became divided. Then the King of Arad knew that he could
fight the Jews.
(Aseh Lecha Rav IV p.31)
************************************
"This is the Torah -- a man who will die in the tent..."
(19:14)
Making a play on the words of this verse, Chazal say that the
Torah will remain only with one who "kills himself" studying it.
R' Avraham Yishayahu Karelitz, zatzal (1878-1953; the "Chazon
Ish"), explains:
This "death" means looking below the surface of life at life's
innermost details. This means conquering one's character, because
a person's traits are the superficial covering of his life.
Killing one's impulses leads to life on the Torah path.
There are many degenerate traits, writes the Chazon Ish, but
breaking even one of them gives a person life and enables Torah to
remain with him. Prominent among those traits is laziness.
Laziness is so pervasive that it can affect both thoughts and
deeds. Sometimes, laziness can even encourage a person to act, as
when, for example, a person knows that what he plans to do is
wrong, but he is too lazy to control himself and to declare war on
his impulses.
Laziness, the trait which brings a person to fall into trouble,
is the root cause for abandonment of the Torah.
(from Igrot Chazon Ish I, No.3)
************************************
"And the pure individual shall sprinkle [the ashes] on the
defiled individual..." (19:19)
The Talmud Yerushalmi (Demai ch.3) quotes R' Yehoshua ben Kabsoi
who said: "I used to understand from this verse than any one pure
individual can purify only one other person. Then I learned from
the treasure-house of Yavneh that one individual can purify many
people."
R' Eliezer Shach, shlita, explains that the treasure-house of
Yavneh refers to the Yeshiva which R' Yochanan ben Zakkai was able
to save from the Roman sword. That Yeshiva guaranteed the future
of Torah Judaism. Who would have thought that one person (in that
case, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai) could make such a difference?
The truth is, however, that one person can purify many people.
(Michtavim u'Ma'amarim p.32)
************************************
"Take the stick and assemble the congregation..." (20:8)
If Hashem did not intend for Moshe to hit the rock, why did He
tell him to take his staff with him? The answer, says R' David
Feinstein, shlita, is in the American expression, "Speak softly and
carry a big stick." A parent or teacher should always be ready
with a two-pronged approach: to teach, but to punish if necessary.
(Kol Dodi p.233)
************************************
"Because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me before the
eyes of Bnei Yisrael...." (20:12)
Whether Moshe's and Aharon's sin was in striking the rock to
bring out water instead of speaking to it, or whether their sin was
something else that the commentaries attribute to them [Ed. note,
see Hamaayan Vol. I No.12], the sin was clearly minor, writes R'
Avigdor Miller, shlita. Why then does Hashem say, "Because you did
not believe in Me....," accusing Moshe and Aharon of one of the
gravest of sins!
The answer is that striking the rock unnecessarily did show a
minuscule amount of disbelief. Any unnecessary exertion, no matter
how small, means that the actor does not realize the power of
Hashem. What we also see, however, is how strictly the righteous
are judged: because of Moshe's minuscule exertion, the Torah
recorded for eternity that he did not believe in Hashem. This same
standard applies whenever the Torah or prophets speak of a
righteous man's sins.
(Rejoice O Youth! p.175)
************************************
"Therefore the rulers will say, 'Come to Cheshbon'." (21:27)
Making a play on the words of this verse, Chazal say that one
who rules over his impulses will make a "Cheshbon" - calculation,
comparing the reward of each Mitzvah to the apparent loss from
performing it.
Once, after R' Shalom Schwadron, shlita, spoke about this topic,
someone told him the following story:
"During the brief period between the fall of the Czar and the
rise of the Communists, the Jews felt quite comfortable in Russia.
Personally, I went to my job on the diamond exchange, arriving
every day at about 8 AM.
"One morning, I set out a little early and, as I walked down the
street, I heard a Jew calling from a doorway, 'A tenth man! A tenth
man!' Being early, I went inside, only to see that I was not the
tenth man for the Minyan, but the fifth.
"I started to leave, but the man in the doorway begged me to
wait a few minutes more as it was his father's Yahrzeit. I
therefore sat down to recite Tehilim.
"Ten minutes passed, and only one more person came, but the man
in the doorway ignored my protests. Finally, at 8:30, a Minyan was
obtained. I had assumed that the man in the doorway would now
recite a Mishnah and say Kaddish, but he did not; he began at the
beginning of the prayers.
"By now, I was fuming, and I impatiently looked around
repeatedly to see if an eleventh man had entered. But no one came,
so I reconciled myself to losing a morning's work.
"With the prayers over, I rushed out and made my way to work.
Only then did I learn that the Bolsheviks had taken over that
morning and killed many Jews working on the diamond exchange. At
the very moment that I stood outside, they were still inside
looting.
"Who knows what would have happened had I arrived for work on
time that morning?" the man asked R' Schwadron rhetorically.
(told in several sources)
|
| 989.242 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Balak | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Sat Jul 10 1993 00:14 | 146 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Balak
Volume VII/Number 36 (323)
14 Tamuz 5753/July 3, 1993
Speaking at the dedication of a new "Shul", Dayan Yitzchak
Yaakov Weiss, zatzal (1902-1989), once said, "I remember when I was
a child, the 'Melamed' (teacher) explained the verse, 'Ma Tovu
Ohalecha Yaakov,' in two ways: 'How good your tents are,' and 'How
beautiful your tents are.'
"I remember wondering, 'What's the difference between "good" and
"beautiful"?' I finally decided that goodness refers to inner
qualities, while beauty refers to outer appearance.
"The Gemara (Sanhedrin 105b) interprets the verse of 'Ma Tovu'
as a reference to Shuls and 'Batei Midrashot' - places of Torah
study. These places, we may therefore say, should be both good and
beautiful. A Shul is beautiful if its outside is nicely designed
and if, as the Halacha requires, it is taller than our homes. A
Shul is good, on the other hand, if its interior conforms to
Halacha: Is the 'Mechitzah' properly constructed? Is the 'Bimah'
placed where the Halacha requires?"
(quoted in Tel Talpiyot p.46)
************************************
"G-d is not a man, who lies, nor a human being, who changes his
mind; has He said, and not done, spoken and not brought it about?
He did not see bad in Yaakov, nor wrong in Yisrael..." (23:19,21)
These verses present many questions, writes R' Chaim David
haLevi, shlita. I would have understood, "He did not see bad in
Yaakov," to mean that Yaakov (i.e. the Jewish people) does not do
bad. However, that is not how Chazal understood it. They
interpret it to mean that when Hashem does see bad in Yaakov, He
looks the other way and does not punish His people harshly. Why
did Chazal interpret the verse this way? (Even Rashbam, who always
adopts the "P'shat" - simplest meaning, follows this
understanding!) Furthermore, is this interpretation consistent
with reality as we observe it? We know of many occasions on which
the Jews were punished harshly!
Another question arises from the first verse quoted above. Why
do we praise Hashem as One who does not lie or change His mind?
Even man will ordinarily be embarrassed to lie or go back on his
word.
In these verses, explains R' haLevi, Bil'am recognizes that
there is logic in history and that history is leading us to some
goal. Events are not random.
The path which Bil'am saw through history began with the Exodus.
So powerful was Bil'am's vision of this path that he understood:
No matter what, Hashem will not change His mind. Hashem's plans
will be brought to fruition, and even man's sins will not stop it.
Sometimes Hashem looks the other way so that man's sins will not
interfere with His plans. In other words, Hashem does not punish
"impulsively," but designs a punishment which fits into His long-
range plans. Even a punishment as harsh as the decree that the
generation of the Exodus would die in the desert changed nothing in
the long run. It merely slowed history's development by 40 years.
(Aseh Lecha Rav IV p.60)
************************************
"Return to your land, for Hashem declines to allow me to go with
you." (22:13)
Rashi comments: Bil'am told the Moabite emissaries, "Hashem
will not let me go with you, but if your king sends higher
officials, I can go with them."
How could Bil'am say that? asks R' Chaim Shmuelevitz, zatzal
(1901-1979; Mirrer Rosh Yeshiva). Hashem clearly told him not to
go at all!
This is one of many proofs in the Torah that a person hears only
what he wants to hear. A person's self-interest -- in Bil'am's
case, his desire to curse the Jews -- can twist even the words that
a person hears.
(Sichot Mussar 5751 No. 27)
************************************
"Bil'am said to his donkey, '[I hit you] because you embarrassed
me; had I a sword in my hand, I would even kill you now'." (23:29)
Look what happens to one who seeks honor, observed R' Berel
Soloveitchik, zatzal (died 1981). In the end, he demands honor
even from his donkey! He would even kill his donkey and walk, just
so that it will not embarrass him.
(quoted in Shai laTorah p.193)
************************************
Bil'am refers to himself as "Shtum haAyin" (24:3). Rashi
explains that Bil'am was missing one eye. Onkelos, on the other
hand, translates "Shtum haAyin" as "Beautiful to see." How can
these two explanations be reconciled?
The story is told of a Nazi officer who offered to save the life
of a Jewish woman if she could tell him which of his eyes was
glass. No one had yet accomplished that feat.
The woman easily pointed out the glass eye. "It's the one which
doesn't look evil." she explained.
(Shai laTorah p.193)
************************************
In one of his lectures in the Yeshiva of Slutsk, R' Isser Zalman
Meltzer, zatzal (1870-1953), said: "On Fridays, the Yeshiva's
"Seder" (study hall period) officially ends at 1 PM, but in
practice, no one learns on Friday. Everybody has errands to run.
"In this connection, it is possible to explain the verse, 'How
good are your tents, Yaakov....' (24:5), as follows, based on
Rashi's comment that Bil'am was impressed that the doors and
windows of the Jews' homes never faced those of another home.
Metaphorically, Bil'am was searching for a sin that all Jews
committed -- sin is referred to as an 'opening' (B'reishit 4:7) --
for this would allow Bil'am to recite a curse that would apply to
all Jews. However, no two doors faced each other; while no Jew was
perfect, each one had his own private faults. This lead Bil'am to
exclaim, 'How good are your tents, Yaakov,' and so on.
"No doubt," R' Isser Zalman continued, "Yeshiva boys must run
errands. Why, however, are they all saved for Friday? If some
students ran their errands on Monday, others on Tuesday, and so on,
Seder could be held on Friday as on all other days.
"To what may this be compared? To a person whose jacket is
torn. As long as his shirt is whole, his skin does not show.
However, even if his shirt were torn, his skin would not show
unless his jacket, shirt, and undershirt were all torn at the same
spot. That kind of tear is what happens here on Friday."
(quoted in Torah laDa'at XVI, No.42)
|
| 989.243 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Pinchas | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Sat Jul 10 1993 00:15 | 153 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Pinchas
Volume VII/Number 37 (324)
21 Tamuz 5753/July 10, 1993
In this Parasha we read of Pinchas' reward for his zealotry (see
inside). A different kind of zealotry is described in the
following story, recorded by R' Moshe Zvi Neriyah, shlita:
The "Chazon Ish" relates that when the "Chafetz Chaim" planned
to move to Eretz Yisrael in 1925 -- he even purchased a house in
Petach Tikva -- the aged Kabbalist, R' Shlomo Eliezer Alfandri,
zatzal (18120-1935), predicted that the Chafetz Chaim would not
come. Events proved R' Alfandri correct.
"I am not a Navi (prophet)," explained R' Alfandri. "It was
only logical. When the Chafetz Chaim would arrive here, he would
say, 'Did I write my works on "Lashon haRa" for nothing?' He would
therefore hurry to try to make peace between the warring followers
of R' Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld [zatzal] and those of R' Avraham
Yitzchak haKohen Kook [zatzal]. However, the moment that the
Chafetz Chaim would cross the threshold of R' Kook's house, certain
zealots would burn the Mishnah Berurah.
"Hashem does not want that; therefore the Chafetz Chaim cannot
come here."
(b'Sdeh haRe'iyah p.229)
************************************
"Behold, I am giving him My covenant of peace." (25:12)
To human eyes, Pinchas' killing of Zimri and the Midianite
princess appeared to be an act of violence. The Torah testifies,
however, that it was an act which would engender peace, writes R'
Moshe Sternbuch, shlita, as King Shlomo said (Mishlei 3:17), "[The
Torah's] ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are
peace." A person who takes revenge on the wicked -- if his
intentions are purely for the sake of Heaven -- brings peace to the
world.
Imagine that an enemy besieges a city and a loyal officer of the
king dons his armor and goes out to battle. That person, like
Pinchas, would not be considered a warrior; he is interested in
peace.
On the other hand, says R' Yechezkel Sarna, zatzal (1895-1965;
Chevron Rosh Yeshiva), a person whose intentions are not pure can
never be called a peacemaker. This is why the Torah testifies as
to Pinchas' motives.
(Ta'am vaDa'at)
************************************
In a similar vein, R' Yaakov Moshe Charlop, zatzal (1883-1951;
Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Merkaz haRav), writes: The reason that
zealotry often leads to ongoing disputes, is that the zealotry was
exaggerated. When that happens, good people attach themselves to
the "portion" which was necessary, and the bad attach themselves to
the "extra."
On the other hand, if zealotry is pure of all ulterior motives,
it brings only blessing and peace. To paraphrase Chazal's words,
where a little bit of the light of truth has been cast, a great
deal of darkness is eliminated. The Torah testifies that Pinchas'
zealotry was of this latter type.
(quoted in b'Sdeh haReiyah p.345)
************************************
"And on the day of Shabbat..." (28:9)
R' Chaim Meir Hager, zatzal (1888-1972; the "Vizhnitzer Rebbe")
recalled that his father could be heard all week repeating,
"Shabbos Kodesh, Shabbos Kodesh." Said the Rebbe: My father's
behavior is alluded to in Yishayahu 58:13, "If you call the Shabbat
a delight..." Calling out "Shabbos" is a delight.
(quoted in Kedosh Yisrael p.129)
************************************
"On the day of the Bikkurim [i.e., Shavuot], when you sacrifice
the new gift to Hashem, in your weeks...." (28:26)
The Gemara records that certain heretics insisted that the Omer
sacrifice (and, therefore, Shavuot) must always fall on Sunday.
They based this conclusion on the verse (vaYikra 23:15), "And you
shall count [the Omer] from the day following Shabbat." (Chazal,
however, demonstrated that "Shabbat" here means the holiday of
Pesach.)
The Gemara says, "On whichever verse the heretics based their
heresy, the proof that they are wrong is close-by." If the
heretics had studied the discussion of Shavuot found in this
Parasha, notes R' Yechezkel Abramsky, zatzal (1996-1976), they
would have found that proof. The above verse tells us that Shavuot
falls "in your weeks," i.e., its date is not determined by the
calendar week but by the seven weeks beginning on the sixteenth day
after we (through Bet Din) declared Rosh Chodesh Nisan to be.
(Chazon Yechezkel Menachot 65a)
************************************
Chazal say that Bnei Yisrael were counted in this week's
Parasha, near the end of Moshe's life, just as they had been
counted when Moshe first took charge of them. R' Moshe Feinstein,
zatzal, asks: Doesn't this make Moshe look bad? After all, he
returned fewer people than he received!
The quality of the people that Moshe returned was vastly
superior to the quality of those he received, explains R'
Feinstein. Usually a teacher can make such strides with only one
in a thousand students. That Moshe Rabbenu succeeded with hundreds
of thousands -- almost as many as he received -- is truly
praiseworthy.
(Darash Moshe)
************************************
The "Three Weeks"
R' Yoel Schwartz, shlita (Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat D'var
Yerushalayim) writes:
When R' Yechiel Michel Tikochinski, zatzal (a leading "Posek" of
mid-20th century Yerushalayim and author of several important
works) arrived in Yerushalayim at age 10, his uncle invited him to
visit the Kotel. From the moment he saw the Kotel from a distance
until the pair arrived at the Wall, the child could not take his
eyes off of it. Later he asked his uncle, "How is it possible that
people go to and fro in the streets here and do not even look at
the Kotel?"
R' Yechiel Michel's love for the Land of Israel was equally
noteworthy. Once, a group of Roshei Yeshiva (Yeshiva deans) met in
his apartment in the Old City. In the middle of their discussions,
dust started raining down from the ceiling. "How can you live
here?" someone asked.
R' Yechiel Michel scooped up the dust in his palm and looked at
it lovingly. "This is the dirt that our holy patriarchs, our
prophets, and the sages of the Mishnah and Gemara walked on. How
much holiness has it absorbed?!"
(Zion Bet Chayenu II p.54)
|
| 989.244 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Matot - Masei | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jul 15 1993 19:29 | 150 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Matot-Masei
Volume VII/Number 38 (325)
28 Tamuz 5753/July 17, 1993
Bnei Yisrael's journey from Egypt to Eretz Yisrael consisted of
42 segments. In Parashat Masei, we read the names of the places
where Bnei Yisrael camped along the way.
R' Shlomo Aviner, shlita, notes that our Parasha in effect
summarizes the story of Bnei Yisrael's formation, as each camp
represents an event. Bnei Yisrael's experiences in the desert
included both high points and low points. The prophets describe
angels as "standing" -- they have no potential for growth. People
and nations, however, do not stand still; they move, sometimes in
the right direction and sometimes the wrong way. This is how they
grow.
One of the holiest of Hashem's Names in His 42-letter Name. R'
Aviner explains that the most important of the ways in which Hashem
reveals Himself in this world is through the history of the Jewish
people. Thus that history began with 42 steps, paralleling that
Name of G-d.
(Tal Chermon p.291)
************************************
"Exact Bnei Yisrael's revenge from the Midianites, then you will
be gathered to your people." (31:2)
Rashi notes (on verse 3) that even though Moshe heard that he
would die after this war, he did not delay the battle.
One might think that Moshe's reaction is a sign of unusual
righteousness, writes R' Chaim Eleazri, zatzal (Rabbi in Cantan,
Ohio), but such a belief is incorrect. This type of behavior is
expected of a person, and one who does not fulfill this expectation
is punished.
We learn this from the case of Yehoshua. Chazal ask: Why did
Yehoshua live a shorter life than his teacher Moshe? Because
Yehoshua delayed conquering the land so that he would live longer.
What Moshe did is no more than what the Mitzvot require. The
Torah demands self-sacrifice.
(Netivei Chaim IV p.340)
************************************
How could a Tzaddik such as Yehoshua delay conquering Eretz
Yisrael for the reason cited? R' Yitzchak Levi, shlita, suggests
that Yehoshua based his actions on Moshe's admonition to Bnei
Yisrael, "I know that after my death you will become
degenerate...." (Devarim 31:29). Chazal ask: Did that in fact
happen? Rather, as long as Yehoshua lived, the spirit of Moshe
lived as well. Moshe's prophecy was instead fulfilled after
Yehoshua's death.
Yehoshua knew that after his own death, Bnei Yisrael would
worship idols. This is why he wanted to prolong his life.
We now see even more clearly how exacting Hashem's accounting
is. Even though Yehoshua had an arguably worthy excuse, he
nevertheless contradicted Hashem's Will, and he was therefore
punished for it. Moshe could have argued that he should delay
fighting Midian in order that he could live to teach Torah to Bnei
Yisrael, but he did not do so. Yehoshua should have followed his
teacher's example.
(Parshiyot b'Sifrei haNevi'im p.135)
************************************
When the names of the princes of the tribes are listed in
chapter 34, most of them are referred to as being "of the tribe of
the sons of...." (Reuven, Shimon, etc.) However, two of them,
Binyamin and Yehuda are referred to only as being "of the tribe
of..." Why?
R' Moshe Sternbuch, shlita, explains that Binyamin and Yehuda
were the tribes which were destined to provide kings for Yisrael
(i.e. Shaul and David, respectively). Even though a king or other
leader, like every person, comes from a tribe, he should not
consider himself to be "of the sons of...." Rather, he must belong
to all of the people.
(Ta'am vaDa'at)
************************************
The Three Weeks
Chazal say, "When Av enters, we decrease our joy." R' Shimon
Schwab, shlita, notes that we are told to decrease our joy, but we
are not told to extinguish it. King David exhorts us several times
in Tehilim, "Serve Hashem with joy." Joy, says R' Schwab should be
like the flame on a stove. Sometimes we turn it up, and sometimes,
down. The pilot light, however, we never extinguish.
How can one be joyful in the midst of the mourning which we
experience during the Three Weeks? If nothing else, says R'
Schwab, we can be joyful in the knowledge that by mourning over the
Temple and the exile we are doing Hashem's Will.
(quoted in In the Footsteps of the Maggid p.266)
************************************
Why, of all months, is Av called "Menacham" - the month of
consolation? Because, says R' David Cohen, shlita (in the name of
R' Mendel of Kotsk), we are consoled by the knowledge that it is
Hashem, our loving Father, and not a stranger, who is afflicting
us.
(ibid. p.267)
************************************
Dear Readers:
This is the last issue of Volume VII of Hamaayan. After more
than six years and 324 issues, our staff is taking its first-ever
vacation. Think of it as a sabbatical, one which is well-timed, as
Hamaaayn is now in its seventh year. Appropriately enough, this
vacation will allow us to prepare to bring you Divrei Torah on the
"real" sabbatical, the Shemittah year which begins on this coming
Rosh haShanah. Our presentation will IY"H focus on both the
philosophy of the Shemittah and the broad outlines of its laws. An
unrelated feature which is also planned for next year is our return
to presenting biographies of our sages. As in our first years, we
will IY"H choose biographies which in some way (e.g. the subject's
Yahrzeit) relates to the date of each issue.
While we are gone, we are pleased to reprint past issues of
Hamaayan. This will continue through Yom Kippur. Please note that
the sponsorships which will appear on these issues are not
reprints. Our sincere appreciation goes out to those who heeded
our reminder to call in their sponsorships far in advance. Please
note also that the next available sponsorship is Parashat Lech
Lecha (8 Marcheshvan/October 23). Please write to us if you wish
to reserve that date.
Wishing you a pleasant and productive summer and a "K'tivah
vaChatimah Tovah,"
The Editors
|
| 989.245 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Devarim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jul 22 1993 21:20 | 165 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Devarim
6 Av 5753/July 24, 1993
From our archives.....
The Book of Devarim is known as "Mishneh Torah" - review of the
Torah, for it was taught to Bnei Yisrael during the thirty-six days
prior to Moshe's passing, and in it he reviewed for the Jews their
history, their destiny, and many of the Torah's Mitzvot. Sefer
HaChinuch introduces it as follows:
In this book, Moshe reviews for the generation that will enter
Israel those laws that they will need there, and he gives them
many warnings concerning the land. He also informs them of
the punishments that await those who transgress the Torah. In
some cases, new explanations are added to Mitzvot that were
taught previously.
We also find in this book "new" Mitzvot which we had not
previously learned. Let there be no doubt, however, that all
of these Mitzvot had previously been taught at Har Sinai [even
though no mention is made of this in the Torah]. Therefore,
we do not find anywhere in Sefer Devarim the expression, "And
G-d spoke to Moshe to say [to Bnei Yisrael]," the phrase which
usually introduces a new Mitzvah.
There are two "new" Mitzvot in this Parasha: Not to appoint
unqualified judges, and that a judge should fear no man, but should
always render a true verdict.
************************************
Parashat Devarim is always read on the Shabbat preceding Tisha
B'Av, the fast day which commemorates the destruction of both the
first and second Batei Hamikdash. The juxtaposition of this
Shabbat to the fast day is alluded to in the Parasha, where we read
Moshe's words: "How ("Eichah") can I carry alone all of the
burdens of leading you?" The Midrash says: Had you merited you
would have read only this verse [which alludes to the numerosity of
Bnei Yisrael]. Now you must read also the verse: "How ("Eichah")
did it come to be that [Yerushalayim] sits alone.... like a widow,"
i.e., the first verse of Eichah, which is read on Tisha B'Av.
************************************
Among the laws of Tisha B'Av is a prohibition on wearing shoes.
Although this is done as a sign of mourning, it alludes as well to
the eventual redemption. R' Zvi Elimelech of Dinov explains:
When Adam HaRishon committed the first sin, Hashem punished him
by cursing the earth on which Adam worked for a living. Ever since
that time, man has attempted to distance himself from the earth,
and has done so by wearing shoes. Thus, we find several instances
in Tanach where a person is told, "Remove your shoes, for the land
where you are standing is consecrated." In other words, to wear
shoes is to remind oneself and Hashem of Adam's sin, and when one
stands in a place which is inherently holy (such as Har Sinai or
the Bet HaMikdash) such a reminder is not proper.
On Yom Kippur and on Tisha B'Av we remove our shoes. On the
former holiday this is attributable to the fact that as Bnei
Yisrael stand in prayer like angels, the whole world is consecrated
and Adam's sin is temporarily disregarded. Thus, no separation is
needed between our feet and the earth.
On Tisha B'Av, the reason is as follows: Chazal teach that
Tisha B'Av is the birthday of Mashiach, in whose time Adam's sin
will be corrected. Thus, we celebrate by removing our shoes (Igra
D'Pirka).
************************************
Torat Chovot HaLevavot
by R' Bachya ibn Pekudah
With Hamaayan nearing the completion of its seventh year, our
staff has taken a well-earned sabbatical. For the next two months
we will reprint back issues, picking up in the middle of a series
on famous Torah works.
Biographical details about the author of Chovot HaLevavot
("Duties of the Hearts") are limited to the following: His name
was R' Bachya ben Yosef, from the family of ibn-Pekudah, and he was
a "Dayan" (Rabbinical court judge) in Saragossa, Spain, in the
middle of the 11th century. Nevertheless, his own work, as well as
the esteem in which later generations held him, leaves no doubt
about his greatness.
R' Bachya's piety and concern for introspection are evident in
his own description of the origin of his work. He notes that never
before had anyone presented the ethical teachings of Judaism in a
systematic way. Clearly, he writes, such a work would be of great
service to the multitudes. Nevertheless-
When I set out to do what I envisioned for this work, I
realized that I was not a person qualified for the task....
But before I canceled my plans and abandoned my work, I
examined my soul for perhaps it was merely seeking an easier
life and escape from the hard work [of preparing this book].
And even if I will not do a perfect job, is that any reason
not to try? How many worthy causes have never succeeded
because of such a fear?!
The title, Chovot HaLevavot, is taken from the following thought
(found in R' Bachya's introduction):
Mitzvot fall into two categories - obligations which devolve
upon the limbs and those which are duties of the heart. The
former are well-known....However, their fulfillment is
impossible unless one [first] accepts upon himself to observe
the latter... This principle is clearly established from many
verses in the Torah.
R' Bachya's work consists of ten sections which he calls
"She'arim" ("gates"). These are:
(1) Sha'ar HaYichud ("Gate of Unity"), regarding G-d's
existence and His unity;
(2) Sha'ar HaBechirah ("Gate of Recognition") - the
recognition of G-d's wisdom and goodness as it manifests
itself in the universe;
(3) Sha'ar Avodat Elokim ("Gate of Service of G-d") - the
obligation to accept upon oneself the service of G-d. Two
types of service are delineated, one based on the Torah, the
other on rationalistic thought. The necessity for both types
is discussed;
(4) Sha'ar HaBitachon ("Gate of Faith") - the meaning of
trusting in G-d;
(5) Sha'ar Yichud HaMa'aseh ("Gate of Dedication of Purpose")
- the obligation to divorce one's service of G-d from any
extraneous intentions;
(6) Sha'ar HaCheniah ("Gate of Humility");
(7) Sha'ar HaTeshuvah ("Gate of Repentence");
(8) Sha'ar Cheshbon HaNefesh ("Gate of Accounting of the
Soul"), regarding self examination, introspection, and
meditation;
(9) Sha'ar HaPerishut ("Gate of Abstinence"), regarding the
necessity that one not chase after all his desires; and
(10) Sha'ar Ahavat Hashem ("Gate of Love of G-d").
R' Bachya stresses the importance of ethical study,
corroborating every tenet presented in his work with a trio of
sources: Scripture, the teachings of Chazal, and intellect.
Later sages considered Chovot HaLevavot to be a fundamental
textbook of Jewish ideology. For example, R' Moshe Sofer (the
"Chatam Sofer") would preface every Talmud lecture with a reading
from this work. Furthermore, both the Mussar movement and some
Chassidic Rebbes adopted Chovot HaLevavot as their primer.
Chovot HaLevavot was written in Arabic, and was first translated
into Hebrew in 1161 (By R' Yehudah ibn Tibbon). Many other
translations have appeared as well, and the work has been
translated into many other languages, including English. Also,
several commentaries have been written on Chovot HaLevavot,
beginning with Manoach HaLevavot by R' Manoach Chanoch Handel ben
Shemariah (1540-1611). [R' Manoach was a leading "posek" of his
day, though he had the misfortune to issue one of the most
controversial "Gittin" (divorces) in history. (See Teshuvot Masat
Binyamin section 75-76.)]
(Partially reprinted from Artscroll: Rishonim with permission of
the publisher)
|
| 989.246 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vaetchanan | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Aug 17 1993 00:21 | 155 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Vaetchanan
13 Av 5753/July 31, 1993
From our archives....
Parashat Vaetchanan contains twelve new Mitzvot, many of them
contained in the section which we call "the first Parasha of Shma,"
i.e. the first of the three paragraphs which we recite twice daily
in our prayers. These include the commandment to teach Torah to
our children, and the obligations to recite Shma, put on Tefilin,
and attach Mezuzot to our doorposts.
In this Parasha we find a repetition of the "Aseret HaDibrot"
(the so-called, but misnamed, "Ten Commandments"). Yet there are
many differences between the text which is found here and that
which is given in Parashat Yitro. Maharal explains that all the
differences can be resolved in light of the following principle:
The first "Luchot" (tablets), the ones that Moshe shattered at the
foot of Har Sinai, and the second Luchot actually contained
different texts. The former expounded the Aseret HaDibrot from G-
d's viewpoint while the latter did so from man's viewpoint. For
example, the first Luchot attributed the Mitzvah of Shabbat to the
fact the G-d "rested" on that day, something that only Hashem
experienced, while the second gave as reason the fact that the Jews
were taken out of Egypt. This dichotomy is consistent with the
fact that Hashem "carved" the first tablets while Moshe made the
second.
************************************
The Gemara makes a remarkable statement: Whoever recites
"Vayechulu" (i.e. Kiddush) on Friday night is considered as if he
was a partner with Hashem in the creation of the world.
The Ohr HaChaim asks: How can someone become a partner in a job
which is already finished?! He explains as follows: We read in
the "Aseret HaDibrot" (not in the version found in this Parasha,
but in Parashat Yitro) that G-d created the world in six days.
Interestingly, however, the literal translation of the verse in
question says, "For six days G-d created the world..." This
teaches us, writes the Ohr HaChaim, that when Hashem originally
created the world it had the capacity to endure for only six days.
What has made it last longer? The merit of Shabbat. (Throughout
history, from Adam onwards, there has always been at least one
person who observed Shabbat.) Similarly, every person who keeps
Shabbat adds to the world's capacity to exist for another week, and
thus, the work of creation is never done. Rather, it must be
renewed each week, and those entrusted with this task are the
Shabbat-observers.
This thought allows us to explain another teaching of Chazal.
The Gemara (Shabbat 118a) states: If one rejoices with the
Shabbat, all the desires of his heart will be fulfilled. Why so?
Because the person who keeps Shabbat is like one of the builders of
the world, it seems only right that each of the partners in this
endeavor should have something added onto the world for his own
benefit.
There is another reason why a person who keeps Shabbat should
have all of his requests fulfilled. The Gemara (Shabbat 88a)
teaches that when Bnei Yisrael accepted the Torah the angels
descended from the Heavens and crowned them with jewels. Later,
however, after the sin of the Golden Calf, the angels returned and
confiscated these jewels. What was the nature of the gift that
Bnei Yisrael had held?
R' Simcha Bunim of Przysucha explained (in the name of the
Arizal) that Bnei Yisrael had been given the gift that their
prayers would be answered even before they were articulated.
However, because of the sin of the Golden Calf, this gift was taken
away from Bnei Yisrael.
But not completely! The Arizal taught that on Shabbat one's
prayers are indeed answered before they are said. (This is
reflected in the Halacha that we do not make personal requests in
the Shabbat prayers. They are not necessary.) This then is the
meaning of the statement that if someone keeps Shabbat, all of his
desires will be fulfilled; no special request required.
(Ramatayim Tzofim)
************************************
Regarding the fact that on Shabbat we pray a shorter "Shemoneh
Esrei" which does not incorporate all of the requests that we make
on weekdays, we find two explanations in the works of Chazal. The
Midrash Tanchuma (Vayera) states that it is not right for a person
to detract from the Shabbat spirit by agonizing over the sick, over
his livelihood, or over any other personal need. However, the
Gemara (Berachot 21a) states that Chazal ordained a shorter prayer
on Shabbat (seven, instead of 19 blessings) so that we will have
more time to enjoy the Shabbat.
R' Dovid Cohen, Shlita, explains that both reasons are required.
If we had only the reason of the Midrash Tanchuma, we should
replace the 19 weekday blessings with 19 (not seven) Shabbat
blessings. On the other hand, if we had only the reason given in
the Gemara Berachot, we might think that we should make the same
requests that we do on weekdays, but in an abbreviated form.
However, between the two sources we learn that a shorter, and
completely different, "Shemoneh Esrei" should be composed for
Shabbat.
(Mas'at Kapi)
************************************
Sha'arei Teshuva
by R' Yonah Gerondi
As Chovot HaLevavot (discussed last week) provides the
philosophical background for the Mussar movement, so Sha'arei
Teshuva is its "Shulchan Aruch" (legal code). That is to say that
R' Yonah does not merely exhort the reader to repent and do good,
he tells the reader how to go about this.
For example, R' Yonah lists and expounds upon twenty-one
principles of repentance. These are the means that a person should
use to begin and maintain his repentance. These range from
personal feelings such as shame and regret to public behavior such
as leading others to do Mitzvot. On the other hand, R' Yonah
informs us, there are 24 obstacles to repentance that a person must
avoid.
There are six means that bring one to repent, writes R' Yonah.
These range from the realization that one is suffering for his sins
to a simple desire to show gratitude to Hashem who created man by
returning one's soul to Him in the same unsullied state in which it
was received.
Not all Mitzvot or transgressions are of equal weight and
therefore, not surprisingly, not all repentance is the same. Thus,
R' Yonah describes the different levels of Divine retribution and
the atonement for each, from the obligation to bring a "Korban
Olah" (burnt-offering), on one extreme, to death, on the other. He
notes also, that repentance for a sin committed against another
person requires that one first appease the victim. Each level of
Mitzvah and transgression that R' Yonah describes is illustrated by
numerous examples of specific Torah laws. (Many of these are
quoted in later Halachic works, such as R' Yisrael Meir HaKohen's
Chafetz Chaim.)
Special attention (and about 1/5 of the whole work) is devoted
to four particularly egregious sins which are, unfortunately, taken
very lightly by the public (as apparently they were in R' Yonah's
generation 800 years ago). These he calls the "Four Classes:"
scoffers (those who engage in purposeless frivolity and levity),
liars and men of deceit, flatterers (those who see others' faults
and make no effort to encourage the sinners' repentance), and
slanderers (those who speak Lashon Hara). All of these, R' Yonah
(and the Gemara teach, will never merit to see G-d's presence.
|
| 989.247 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Eikev | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Aug 17 1993 00:22 | 148 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Eikev
20 Av 5753/August 7, 1993
From our archives....
Parashat Eikev includes eight Mitzvot. Among these are: to
bless Hashem after eating, to love the convert (a special
obligation on top of the Mitzvah to love every Jew), to keep the
fear of Hashem before us always, and to pray to Hashem (Sefer
HaChinuch).
The last two of the above commandments are learned from the
following verse: "Hashem your G-d you shall fear, and Him shall
you serve [i.e. pray to Him], and you shall attach yourself to Him"
(10:20). Chazal found a Mitzvah in the third part of the verse as
well. They asked: Can one possibly attach himself to G-d? [G-d
is not only incorporeal but so awesome that a soul which directly
experienced contact with Hashem would abandon its body in spiritual
ecstasy, thus killing that person!] Rather, one should attach
himself to Torah scholars in fulfillment of this Mitzvah.
Particularly one should patronize the business establishments of
Talmidei Chachamim and marry one's children into their families.
************************************
The Gemara (Berachot 48b) presents several views regarding the
origin of each of the four blessings of "Birkat HaMazon" (grace
after meals) and the extent to which each of these blessings is
required by the Torah or is only Rabbinically ordained. The
primary verse around which this discussion centers if found in this
week's Parasha (8:10): "And you will eat and be satiated and you
shall bless Hashem your G-d for the good land [Israel] which He has
given you."
The consensus among the commentators is that the first three
blessings of Birkat HaMazon are Torah obligations and the fourth is
of Rabbinic origin. Nevertheless, of the text which we recite
today, only the first Berachah was actually composed by Moshe.
The second blessing was composed by Yehoshua upon Bnei Yisrael's
entrance into Israel. The third was written by David when he
captured Yerushalayim, modified by his son, Shlomo, when the Bet
HaMikdash was built, and further rewritten when the Bet HaMikdash
was destroyed.
How, then, can these later Berachot be called Torah obligations?
Maharsha suggests that the Torah's intention in ordaining the first
three Berachot of Birkat HaMazon was not that Moshe should compose
all of them. Rather, the Mitzvah was that, as Bnei Yisrael
received each gift promised by the Torah [Israel, Yerushalayim, Bet
HaMikdash], a blessing should be written to acknowledge it.
The fourth Beracha is a Rabbinic obligation. The Gemara says
that this blessing was established by the sages of Yavneh (the
spiritual capital of Israel after the Roman occupation of
Yerushalayim). The specific reason for the composition of this
Beracha was the desire to commemorate two miracles which arose out
of the Roman conquest of the city of Betar: First, that the Romans
allowed the Jews to bury the thousand of dead, thus reversing their
initial refusal to allow this, and second, that during the entire
period that the bodies lay unburied, not one of them decomposed.
[Betar was the city/fortress of the Jewish military leader, Bar
Kochva, who was defeated by Emperor Hadrian in approximately 135
C.E. (65 years after the destruction of the second Temple).
Betar's population included 200,000 soldiers plus their wives and
children. The Midrash reports that there were 500 elementary
schools in Betar. When the Roman conquest, appeared imminent, the
entire population killed itself in Masada-like fashion. (Sefer
HaToda'ah). The anniversary of their burial is the 15 of Av which
fell during this past week.]
What is the connection between this event and Birkat HaMazon?
The Talmud Yerushalmi explains that this Beracha is actually tied
to the cup of wine which accompanies Birkat HaMazon (a custom which
is not strictly observed today), and not to Birkat HaMazon itself.
Similarly, the Halacha states that if people are drinking together
and they taste a second wine, they should recite a Beracha which is
an abbreviated version of the Beracha under discussion here (i.e.
the fourth Beracha of Birkat HaMazon). Why? Because the Midrash
says that the blood flowed from Betar so freely that all of the
vineyards in the region were fertilized by it for seven years. To
remind us of this horrible event, we recite a special Beracha in
connection with wine.
R' Natan Shapira of Horodno (grandfather of the Kabbalist of the
same name who authored the famous work Megaleh Amukot) offered
another reason for placing a reminder of Betar in Birkat HaMazon.
Unfortunately, when people eat big meals and are satiated, they
tend to forget, or at least put aside temporarily, their usual
awareness of the transience of this life and the importance of
spiritual pursuits. To combat memory of the martyrs of Betar, a
"shock-treatment" of sorts to remind a person of the tenuousness of
the human condition.
(Seder Birkat HaMazon)
************************************
Igeret HaRamban
by R' Moshe ben Nachman
Igeret HaRamban ("The Ramban's Letter") is an example of the
class of writings which has become an important part of the
"Mussar" (ethical teachings) library. The works in question are
the "farewell letters" and "ethical wills" of our sages.
Ramban's letter was sent in 1269 from Akko (Acre), Israel to his
son, Nachman, in Catalina, Spain. In this brief epistle, he
exhorts his son to pursue spiritual greatness and, particularly, to
act with humility. Ramban promises his son that adherence to the
instructions of the letter will ensure that his prayers will be
answered. As the letter's commentators note, this result will not
be miraculous or supernatural. It is simply Hashem's design for
the world that the prayers of the righteous be answered.
Many commentaries have been written on this work. Recent
examples are the works of R' Yechezkel Sarna (Rosh Yeshiva of
Yeshivat Chevron; died 1965) in Hebrew, and the English translation
and the exposition by R' Avrohom Chaim Feuer (A Letter for the
Ages: Artscroll, 1989).
Probably the second most famous letter-turned-Mussar classic
(after the above) is the Igeret HaGra, the letter that R' Eliyahu,
the Vilna Gaon (1720-1797), wrote to his wife and mother as he set
out on a visit to Israel (at the time, a trip of many months).
R' Yechezkel Sarna, zt"l, noted three major points in the Gra's
("Gaon Rabbi Eliyahu") letter. First, that the obligation and need
to study Mussar is not fulfilled by a quick, cursory reading of the
text. Such behavior he compares to sowing without plowing; the
seeds that are sown will quickly blow away in the wind. So too,
any lessons that might be gleaned from reading a Mussar text will
soon be lost unless one reviews constantly, letting each word
impress him. (R' Eliyahu recommends that one's primary Mussar
texts be the books of Mishlei (Proverbs) and Kohelet
(Ecclesiastes), as well as the Mishnayot of Pirkei Avot.)
Second, it is not enough to study Mussar in an academic setting.
One must understand how the "Yetzer Hara" (evil inclination)
exploits real-life situations, and learn to deal with these.
Finally, one should not pursue every bodily luxury that his body
craves.
|
| 989.248 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Reeh | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Aug 17 1993 00:22 | 141 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Re'eh
27 Av 5753/August 14, 1993
From our archives....
There are fifty-five Mitzvot in this week's Parasha, covering a
wide range of topics. One of these is the prohibition to erase the
name of G-d. This, writes Sefer HaChinuch, includes an injunction
against the destruction of anything that is associated with the
name of G-d (literally, "upon which the name of G-d is called")
such as a "Shul" or a "Sefer." For this reason, it is customary
that every Shul have a depository for "Shaimot" (or "Shaimes" in
Yiddish) where people can dispose of old prayerbooks and other
texts. [Note: This page, as well, should be treated with, and
disposed of in the proper manner.] Eventually, each collection of
"Shaimot" (literally, "names") is buried in a Jewish cemetery.
Another Mitzvah in this Parasha is that animals be slaughtered
properly. However, the Torah does not tell us how this is to be
done, stating instead that these laws are to be found in the Oral
Torah. This is a conclusive refutation of those heretics who deny
the validity of the Oral Tradition.
In those communities which follow the custom of reading a
chapter of Pirkei Avot on each Shabbat during the summer, the
selection for this week is chapter six. Interestingly, this
chapter is not really part of the Mishnah, but is rather a
"Beraita" (Aramaic for "outside," i.e. a work contemporaneous with
the Mishnah but "outside" of it). This is evidenced by the
chapter's introductory phrase, a sentence which will be discussed
here. Its literal translation is: "The sages taught [the
following] using the language of the Mishnah; blessed be He who
chose them [the sages] and their study."
Two questions come to mind. First, what attribute distinguishes
the teachings in this chapter that makes them like the language of
the Mishnah? Second, why is this a special cause for praise of G-
d?
Maharal explains as follows: Pirkei Avot, whose principal
purpose is to teach man ethics, has five chapters corresponding to
the five books of the Torah. The intention of that correspondence
is to remind the reader that perfecting one's ethical values is a
prerequisite to becoming a Torah scholar. Having (hopefully)
accomplished that goal, Pirkei Avot ends with one chapter devoted
to singing the praises of the Torah (which this chapter does).
Thus, continues Maharal, the purpose of this chapter from the
Beraita is actually to complete the thought begun by the Mishnah.
It is appropriate, therefore, that this Beraita should be stated in
the succint and clear language of the Mishnah, unlike an ordinary
Beraita which contains many extraneous matters and interpretations
of verses. [Incidentally, one of the reasons that some teachings
were placed in the Mishnah and others were left out (i.e. are part
of the Beraita) is that the Mishnah seeks to be as succint as
possible.]
A person who studies Torah and takes to heart the ethical
lessons of Pirkei Avot will be a true "Chacham" (sage), and will be
worthy of Hashem's and our love. Therefore, says Maharal, the
Mishnah observes, "Blessed be He who chooses [to love] them and
their study." (Derech Chaim).
R' Yitzchak of Volozhin (son of the famed R' Chaim of Volozhin)
notes that whereas the Mishnah is written in pure Hebrew, the
Gemara is written in Aramaic. This Beraita which speaks of the
praises of the Torah is intentionally written in the pure language
of the Mishnah, because that is also the language in which the
Torah is written. (Mili D'Avot).
The "Lubliner Rav," R' Meir Shapiro, said: It is understandable
that every Mishnah that teaches a Halacha should state the name of
its proponent [and if it doesn't, the Gemara does]. This is
because we cannot resolve a dispute between two sages unless we
know who is presenting each view. However, asked R' Shapiro, why
is it necessary that each teaching in Pirkei Avot should be linked
to a specific sage; after all, these are ethical teachings of
universal applicability?
The reason, explained the "Lubliner Rav" is that the Mishnah
wants us to know that each sage practiced what he preached. Thus,
if one studies the Talmud, he will see that each sage behaved
according to the maxims found in his name in Pirkei Avot.
This is what is meant by the statement that this chapter of
Beraita is in the language of the Mishnah. Just as the Mishnah
states each teaching in the name of its author, so too does this
chapter of Beraita. Furthermore, "Blessed be He who chose them and
their study," that is to say that the sages and their study go
hand-in-hand because each one lived up to his own teachings.
(Mi'Maayanot Netzach).
************************************
Tomer Devorah
R' Moshe Cordevero
Tomer Devorah, authored by R' Moshe Cordevero of Tzefat, Israel,
is one of the best known of the Mussar classics written from a
Kabbalistic viewpoint. The author (1522-1570) was the most
renowned Kabbalist in Tzefat in the generation preceding the
"Arizal" (R' Yitzchak Luria), quite an accomplishment in a time and
place which was said to have known the greatest concentration of
Torah knowledge in one location since the days of the Sanhedrin.
R' Moshe's teacher in Kabbalah was his brother-in-law, R' Shlomo
Alkabetz (author of many works including the prayer/poem "Lecha
Dodi"), and R' Yosef Karo (author of Shulchan Aruch and numerous
other works) taught R' Moshe Talmud and Halacha.
The purpose of Tomer Devorah is to explain the "Thirteen
Attributes of 'Rachamim'" (loosely translated "mercy"), and in
particular, to demonstrate how man can - and must - emulate each
one. The structure of the work is based, not on the best known
version of the thirteen attributes (see Sh'mot 34:6-7), but on
Psukim in the book of Micha (7:18-20). This is based on the
statement of the Zohar that the verses in Micha describe a higher
manifestation of the parallel verses in Sh'mot. [An explanation is
obviously beyond the scope of this page.]
In Tomer Devorah, "Ramak" (as the author is commonly known)
explains in Kabbalistic terms the effect of sin on the world. In
essence, the spiritual fulfillment which we seek may be thought of
as a nut within a shell (in Hebrew, "Kelipah"). Every Mitzvah that
we do chips away a small piece of that shell, but, unfortunately,
every sin restores part of the Kelipah to its place. Another point
that Ramak emphasizes is that the task of destroying all of the
"Kelipot" (the plural form) is impeded not only by sinners but by
their victims if the latter stand on ceremony and improperly
withhold forgiveness.
In emulating Hashem, says Ramak, we must love even those who do
not appear worthy of our affection. How can we achieve this? The
prophets taught that when we sin, Hashem still loves us because He
remembers the "Days of Old," i.e. when our nation was born.
Similarly, we should always remember that no matter how unworthy a
person seems, at least his parents love him. This suggests that he
must have some redeeming qualities.
|
| 989.249 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Shoftim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Aug 20 1993 19:59 | 157 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Shoftim
4 Elul 5753/August 21, 1993
From our archives....
Parashat Shoftim contains fourteen positive commandments and 27
negative injunctions. These include the positive commandment to
obey the Sanhedrin and the elders of the generation, as well as the
negative injunction, "Do not turn away from that which they will
command to you, neither towards the right nor towards the left."
(17:11)
Many people, especially those who have grown up in a democratic
society, do not realize to what extent G-d demands that we follow
the words of our Rabbis and sages. Rashi, in interpreting the
above verse, writes: "[Obey them] even if they tell you that right
is left and left is right." Ramban elaborates and explains that,
although we may sometimes be certain that the Rabbis have erred --
just as we know without question which side is right and which is
left -- nevertheless, G-d demands that we follow the teachings and
instructions of true Torah-authorities.
One of the laws in this week's Parasha is that the Bet Din must
execute a Jew who is caught worshipping idols. Chazal teach that
this can occur in two circumstances: first, a person may be caught
performing the service that is unique to a given idol (e.g. there
was one idol whose worship involved sweeping the floor in front of
it), or, alternatively, a transgressor might bow down to the idol.
While the former behavior is punishable only if it is the correct
service for the idol in question, the latter is forbidden before
all idols.
This is not to say that the Torah disdains all bowing or
kneeling in prayer. Kneeling was part of the Yom Kippur service in
the Bet HaMikdash (and, hence, in our Yom Kippur Mussaf), and
bowing is part of every Shemoneh Esreh recitation. However, there
are Halachic restrictions dictating when and where one may not bow
or kneel. For example, kneeling on any stone floor is forbidden.
The efficacy of kneeling during prayer is learned from Moshe's
response to Korach. The Torah (Bimidbar 16:22) says that, upon
hearing Korach's accusations, Moshe "fell on his face." Several
commentators state that he was praying. (Ibn Ezra; R' Bachya).
In Parashat Eikev, as Moshe tells of the three 40-day periods
that he spent on Har Sinai, he describes them as follows:
"When I ascended the mountain to take the tablets of stone....I
sat on the mountain for forty days and forty nights..." (Devarim
(9:9).
[The second time:] "I fell on my face for forty days and forty
nights..." (9:18).
[The third time:] "And I stood on the mountain as for the first
days, forty days and forty nights..." (10:10).
On these verses, Rabbenu Bachya comments: From here Chazal
derived a strategy for prayer. One should pray sitting, he should
pray standing, and he should pray bowed down. The Halachic Code,
Tur, notes that this is, in fact, our practice with regard to the
prayer known as Tachanun. First we bow our heads on our arms, then
we sit up straight, and finally, when we reach the verse, "And we
do not know what to do, so our eyes are towards You," we stand.
This expresses our plea to G-d that we have prayed in every way
that we know how, and we now place ourselves in His hands.
(Siddur Commentators emphasize the potential power of the
Tachanun prayer, coming, as it does, immediately after the Shemoneh
Esrei which is the spiritual "high" of the whole Shacharit service.
This explains the Halacha that talking is forbidden between
Shemoneh Esrei and Tachanun, for such an interruption would sever
the latter prayer from whatever spiritual level was attained during
the former prayer.
(Chayei Adam quoting Shitah Mekubetzet).
This idea is illustrated by the following story from the Talmud
(Baba Metzia 59b): After a protracted Halachic dispute [which is
described in the Gemara], the Sanhedrin was forced to excommunicate
R' Eliezer, one of the disputants. Caught in the middle of these
events was Ima Shalom, the wife of R' Eliezer and the sister of
Rabban Gamliel, the Sanhedrin's president. The Gemara says that
Ima Shalom thereafter prevented her husband from "falling on his
face," fearing that any expression of suffering by that Tzaddik
would have terrible consequences for Rabban Gamliel. [Even though
Rabban Gamliel had only done what his position required, Hashem
always responds in some way to the suffering of a Tzaddik.]
Is it possible, asks the Shitah Mekubetzet, that Ima Shalom
actually supervised her husband all day in order to prevent him
from bowing in prayer? Rather, this refers to the lesson described
above. Ima Shalom would wait while her husband recited Shemoneh
Esrei, and then, before he could begin Tachanun, she would
interrupt him. Even if he did later recite that prayer [which
describes the suffering of David HaMelech and, more generally, of
any petitioner], it would be with less spiritual "power."]
Why is a prayer recited while bowing so effective? For three
reasons, says Rabbenu Bachya. First, it is a sign that the
petitioner humbles himself before G-d. We read in Sh'mot (3:6)
that Moshe covered his face rather than see the revelation of G-d's
glory. This is because one who is truly awed by another does not
dare look at him.
Second, bowing one's head is a sign of regret and submission.
Thus we signal that we have sinned before G-d and seek His mercy.
Finally, bowing shows that we place ourselves completely in G-
d's hands. If one is bowed and his eyes are closed, he is
completely helpless. He cannot see where he is going, nor can he
defend himself from attack. Hashem, however, protects us in all
circumstances.
************************************
Reishit Chochmah
by R' Eliyahu de Vidas
R' Eliyahu ben Moshe de Vidas was born in Tzefat (where he later
studied under R' Moshe Cordevero (1522-1570)), and died in Chevron.
His best known work, Reishit Chochmah, is one of the most popular
and revered Mussar classics.
The title, "Reishit Cochmah," means "The beginning of wisdom,"
and is based on the verse (Tehilim 111:10), "The beginning of
wisdom is the fear of G-d." In this work, R' Eliyahu stresses the
Biblical and Midrashic sources of his lessons, feeling that the
mere words of the Prophets and the sages would be more influential
than any moral-philosopher could hope to be in molding the
character and aspirations of the reader. However, R' Eliyahu does
draw freely from earlier Mussar works such has Chovot HaLevavot and
Sha'arei Teshuva.
Perhaps the most "revolutionary" feature of Reishit Chochmah is
its extensive use of quotations from the Zohar, the Midrash which
is one of the primary texts for the study of Kabbalah. Many later
Mussar works followed in R' Eliyahu's footsteps, making use of such
excerpts and attempting to teach ethics from the mystical, as well
as philosophical viewpoint. (A notable example of such a work, and
one which quotes extensively from Reishit Chochmah as well, is
Shnei Luchot HaBrit - better known as the "Shlah HaKadosh" - by R'
Yeshaya Horowitz.
Like Chovot HaLevavot, after which it is likely patterned,
Reishit Chochmah is divided into sections covering such subjects as
"Yir'ah" (Fear or awe of G-d), "Ahavah" (Love of G-d), "Kedushah"
(Sanctity), and "Anavah" (Humility). Additionally, the work
contains several appendices. One is a summary of selected topics
from the works of R' Yisrael al-Nakava (died 1391). R' Yisrael's
work was otherwise unknown until its publication from manuscript in
1929.
(Based in part on The Early Acharonim)
|
| 989.250 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Ki Tetze | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Aug 25 1993 22:50 | 158 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Ki Tetze
11 Elul 5753/August 28, 1993
From our archives....
Parashat Ki-Tetze contain 27 positive commandments and 47
negative commandments. Among these is one which teaches that even
the most grevious sinner is nevertheless a creation in "G-d's
image." The Torah commands that after a man is executed for the
sin of idol worship he must be hanged briefly in order to publicize
that the judgement has been carried out and to warn others who
might commit the same transgression. Nevertheless, the Torah says,
"Do not leave the body hanging overnight, as it is a disgrace to G-
d that is hanged." (21:22) Rashi explains that because man is
created "in the image of G-d" (see B'reishit 1:27), it is as if a
king's identical twin brother were hanged as a common thief. Would
not the king be ashamed as long as his brother remains hanging?!
Of course, this thought should also be enough to prevent the king's
brother from turning to crime in the first place, for if he loves
his brother he would not wish to hurt him.
************************************
In many Siddurim, immediately following the Shacharit prayer, is
a collection of verses called "The Six Remembrances." There are
many psukim in the Torah which command us to remember one event or
another in our history, and six of these, according to many
authorities, constitute daily obligations. Because two of these
are found in our Parasha, all of them will be discussed here.
There six injunctions are:
(1) To remember the Exodus from Egypt: The Mishnah (end of the
first chapter of Berachot; quoted in the Pesach Haggadah) discusses
our obligation to remember the Exodus on a daily basis in addition
to the special Mitzvah which applies at the Pesach Seder. Rambam
writes (Hil. Kri'at Shma 1:3) that it is because of this obligation
that we recite all three chapters of "Shma" at night as well as
during the day. Even though the Mitzvah of Tzitzit (which is the
primary focus of the third chapter) is less applicable at night
than during the day, this chapter mentions the Exodus as well and,
because of our familiarity with it, is a convenient way to fulfill
our obligation.
Maharal (Tiferet Yisrael, ch. 52) notes that the daily Mitzvah
and the Pesach Mitzvah are certainly related. The Haggadah recites
for us the long list of miracles that Hashem did for us in Egypt,
culminating in our hasty departure from Egypt, an event
commemorated by eating Matzah. Says the Maharal: A person who did
not eat Matzah on Pesach cannot remember the Exodus during the rest
of the year. The Matzah is, so-to-speak, "food for thought." In
other words, if a person fulfills his obligation to "relive" the
Exodus on Pesach, then he can remember the Exodus all year around.
However, if the first is missing, the second is impossible.
R' Menachem Mendel of Kosov offers the following reason for
remembering the Exodus daily: "Every person, at least once in his
life, experiences a moment when he receives a brilliant insight
into something that he previously was only subconsciously aware of.
It is as if the doors of the mind burst open and a large
accumulation of knowledge suddenly escaped and arranged itself in
a coherent fashion. Such a moment, writes R' Mendele, is one that
should be cherished because its inspirational potential is
infinite.
For the Jewish nation in general, the Exodus was precisely such
a moment. Of course, Bnei Yisrael always knew of G-d's power,
majesty, glory, etc, but, as slaves in Egypt, it was difficult for
them to appreciate. However, at the moment of the Exodus, all of
that knowledge came into focus. If we cherish that moment, it can
serve us well. (Ahavat Shalom: Tazria)
The source of this Mitzvah is Devarim 16:3.
(2) To remember the day which we stood at Har Sinai: This
refers, of course to the giving of the Torah. We are also enjoined
to tell our children about it. (Dev. 4:9-10)
(3) To remember the treachery of Amalek: (Dev. ch.25)
(4) To remember the sin of the Golden Calf: (Devarim 9:7).
The purpose of this Mitzvah is not to shame us or depress us - thus
unlike the above events it is not commemorated by a special Torah
reading (Magen Avraham O.C. section 60) - but rather to teach us
how easily one can go astray. There can be no break from our
vigilance.
(5) To remember how Miriam was punished for speaking Lashon
Hara: (Dev. 24:9). As above, we have no desire to embarrass the
sinner. The Chafetz Chaim, in his introduction to a work whose
title is taken from this pasuk, explains as follows: It is easy to
forget the severity of the sin of Lashon Hara. Nevertheless, the
fact is that the Second Bet HaMikdash was destroyed as a direct
result of this transgression. Therefore, the Torah, our "manual"
for spiritual health, provides us with a cure for the disease of
Lashon Hara. That is to remember what befell the "Tzadeket" Miriam
when she became entrapped by this sin. (Zechor L'Miriam).
(6) To remember the Shabbat: (Sh'mot 20:8) This Mitzvah is
the reason that the weekdays do not have Hebrew names. Rather they
are called "The first day," "The second day," etc. thus allowing
us to always look forward to the Shabbat. Ben Ish Chai (Parashat
Ki Tisah) suggests having this Mitzvah in mind when reciting "Shir
Shel Yom" every morning. The reason for this Mitzvah, explains
Ramban, is that Shabbat reminds us that Hashem created the world,
and this, of course, is the foundation of our faith.
The Midrash asks: How can we mention both Amalek and Shabbat
[when all that Amalek stands for is completely inimical to all that
Shabbat represents]? The answer is, says the Midrash, that we are
promised that Amalek will be destroyed. When it is, the message of
Shabbat will reign supreme. (Anaf Yosef: Siddur Commentary).
************************************
Mesilat Yesharim
by R' Moshe Chaim Luzzato
Mesilat Yesharim ("The Path of the Just") is without question
the most popular of all the Mussar works. About it, the Chofetz
Chaim reportedly said, "Not every Mussar work is appropriate for
each person. Every work takes a different approach, just as each
person is different. However, every person, no matter what his
nature, can benefit from studying Mesilat Yesharim."
The author of this work, R' Moshe Chaim Luzzato ("Ramchal") was
born in Padua, Italy in 1707 and died in Akko, Israel in 1746. In
his 39 years he wrote numerous works which are classics in their
fields, having published his first book at age 17. Among Ramchal's
best known works are Derech Hashem; Da'at Tevunot and Kalach
Pitchei Chochmah (Kabbalah); and Derech Tevunot (methodology of
Talmud study). [All of these works have been translated into
English.]
The format of Mesilat Yesharim is based on the following
Talmudic dictum (Avodah Zarah 20b and elsewhere): Rabbi Pinchas
ben Yair said, "Torah leads to Watchfulness ('Zehirut');
Watchfulness leads to Zeal ('Zerizut'); Zeal, to Cleanliness
('Nekiyut'); Cleanliness to Separation ('Perishut'); Separation, to
Purity ('Taharah'); Purity to Saintliness ('Chasidut');
Saintliness, to Humility ('Anavah'); Humility, to Fear of Sin
('Yirat Chait'); Fear of Sin, to Holiness ('Kedushah')' Holiness
leads to 'Ruach Hakodesh,' and Ruach Hakodesh brings about the
resurrection of the dead." Ramchal discusses each of these
concepts in detail.
In his introduction to Mesilat Yesharim, Ramchal notes the
unpopularity of Mussar study. Men of intelligence, he writes,
believe that they are above the study of ethical treatises, and
that such activity is befitting only the simple-minded. The
simple-minded, Ramchal writes, do study Mussar, but in many cases,
they are too dense to appreciate the subtlety of the lessons. This
is not correct, however, writes the author. Mussar study is for
everybody, and even the most intelligent should not assume that all
of Mussar's lessons are obvious.
|
| 989.251 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Ki Tavo | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Sep 02 1993 20:42 | 147 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Ki Tavo
18 Elul 5753/September 4, 1993
From our archives....
Although Parashat Ki Tavo is best known as the Parasha of the
"Tochacha" - the rebuke and warning that Moshe gave Bnei Yisrael
regarding the consequences of abandoning the Mitzvot - this Parasha
also contains six commandments. The last of these, the 611th
Mitzvah in the Torah, is that we emulate G-d's ways. Sefer
HaChinuch describes this as follows:
"We are commanded to carry-out all of our actions in a straight-
dealing and beneficial way, and all our deeds should lean towards
kindness and mercy, just as we know from the Torah that this is
Hashem's way." The Sefer HaChinuch notes that Hashem does
sometimes become angry, but that the sins of man "force" Him to
react thus. Nevertheless, even in His anger, Hashem does not
punish the sinner to the full extent that he deserves, and so
should we be merciful when we are angered.
The Torah-commentators note that all of the "curses" of the
Tochacha have been experienced over the past 2000 years of exile.
We may therefore be certain that Hashem will keep the rest of His
word, and that the promised redemption will come soon.
************************************
Recent Mussar Works
With the advent of the Mussar Movement in the 1840's and the
revival of widespread Mussar study, the number of Mussar works
increased. Each of these works presents a different view or
method, but their goal is the same: to heighten the student's
awareness of his ethical failings, on the one hand, and
accomplishments, on the other. (Some authors focus more on man's
positive attributes and encourage him to make the most of them;
others look to man's negative side and exhort him to destroy it.)
One change which the Mussar movement introduced into the
structure of the Yeshiva is the position of the "Mashgiach Ruchani"
(spiritual supervisor). Whereas the Rosh Yeshiva (dean)
traditionally devotes his lessons to the scholarly material being
studied (usually the Talmud), the Mashgiach is responsible for
lecturing and leading study groups on the subject of ethics. (In
practice, many Roshei Yeshiva also give such lectures.) It is
these lectures and discussions which make up the bulk of the Mussar
works published over the last century and-a-half. In most cases,
the authors of these works did not actually write books, but
rather, their students published collections of their lectures,
often posthumously.
Some of the better known recent Mussar works are listed and
described below. However, this list is by no means exhaustive.
Ohr Yisrael: Some lectures and letters of R' Yisrael Salanter
(1810-1883), the father of the Mussar movement. The work was
published by R' Yitzchak Blazer (1837-1907), a student of R'
Yisrael and the Chief Rabbi of St. Petersburg (now Leningrad). R'
Yitzchak also published his own work entitled Kochvei Ohr.
Chochmah U'Mussar: (R' Simcha Zissel of Kelm' 1824-1898). R'
Simcha Zissel was a student of R' Yisrael and the teacher of most
of the third generation leaders of the Mussar movement.
Madregat HaAdam: (R' Yosef Horowitz; 1848-1920). The "Alter"
("Elder") of Novardok, as the author was known, established a large
network of Yeshivot which combined the study of Torah and Mussar
and produced such noted scholars as R' Yaakov Kanievski, the
"Steipler Gaon." "Novardok," as this branch of the Mussar movement
is known after the town where it was born, took it to the extreme
the outlook mentioned previously that man's primary struggle in
this world is to subjugate the many negative attributes with which
a person is born. (Compare "Slabodka" below).
Ohr Harzafun: (R' Natan Zvi Finkel; 1849-1927). This work is
a collection, arranged according to the Parasha, of the lectures
of the "Alter" of Slabodka, as R' Natan Zvi was known. The school
of Slabodka, taught that man's primary means of service in this
world would be, not to focus on his negative side, but to find
positive attributes within himself and elevate those further. The
students of Slabodka played leading roles in Jewish life during and
after World War II. Among them (followed by the Yeshivas with
which they were associated): R' Aharon Kotler (Kletsk, Lithuania
and Lakewood, N.J.); R' Yaakov Kamenicki (Yeshiva Tora VaDa'as in
Brooklyn and Monsey); R' Yitzchak HaLevi Ruderman (Ner Israel,
Baltimore); R' Yitzchak Hutner (Yeshiva Chaim Berlin in New York
and Yerushalayim); R' Mordechai Shulman (Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim in
New York; Slabodka Yeshiva in Israel); R' Dovid Leibowitz and his
son, R' Henach; R' Isaac Sher; and R' Yehuda Leib Chasman
(Slobodka Yeshiva in Chevron and, after the Arab massacre of that
Yeshiva in 1929, in Yerushalayim).
Ohr Yahel: (R' Yehuda Leib Chasman; 1869-1935) (see above).
Shiurei Da'as (R' Yosef Leib Bloch; 1860-1929). R' Yosef Leib
was the Rabbi of the town of Telshe (Telz) and the head of the
Yeshiva there (which later transplanted to Cleveland, Ohio).
According to his son's introduction to this work, R' Yosef Leib's
unique style lay in his teaching that the same principles and study
methods work equally well whether one is examining philosophical
insights or the intricacies of a Halachic debate.
Michtav M'Eliyahu (R' Eliyahu Dessler; 1891-1954). This
collection of lectures and letters covers subjects in Mussar,
philosophy, and Kabbalah. The lectures it contains were delivered
at the Yeshivot of London, Gateshead (England), and Bnei Brak,
where R' Dessler served as Mashgiach. Some of the material appears
as an independent piece; in other cases, a series of lectures or
letters comprise an entire treatise on a given subject. Among the
most famous of these are the treatises on "Chesed" (kindness) and
"Bechirah" (free-will). Another important subject discussed in
this collection is how we are to understand the sins of such
Tzadikim as King David and Yosef and his brothers. The same
student of R' Dessler who edited the Hebrew version of this work
recently published the first three volumes of an English
translation.
Lev Eliyahu: (R' Eliyahu Lopian; 1872-1970). This work was
originally published as a collection of essays and subsequently
republished, this time arranged by Parashot. R' Lopian was
probably the last survivor of the third generation of the Mussar
movement and of the students of R' Simcha Zissel of Kelm. R'
Eliyahu headed Yeshivot in Kelm and London, and for the last two
decades of his life was the "Mashgiach Ruchani" of the Yeshiva of
K'far Chassidim, Israel.
Ohr Yechezkel: (R' Yechezkel Levenstein; 1884-1974). R'
Yechezkel was the Mashgiach of the Mir and Ponoviezh Yeshivot in
Lithuania, Shanghai, and Israel. Each volume of his work covers a
distinct topic such as "Emunah" (faith) or "Middot" (good traits).
Sichot Mussar: (R' Chaim Shmuelevitz; 1901-1979). A collection
of lectures delivered by R' Chaim, the Rosh Yeshiva of the Mir
Yeshiva in Yerushalayim, between 1971-1973. (The lectures
delivered by R' Chaim during the other 12 years that he headed the
Yeshiva have, for some reason, not been published.)
The heritages of the three leading mussar schools were joined in
R' Chaim. The Rabbi of his hometown was R' Leib Chasman (see
above), a student of Kelm. R' Chaim was himself a grandson of the
Alter of Novardok. Finally R' CHaim married a granddaughter of the
Alter of Slabodka, and also taught together with the Alter's son
(R' Yehuda Eliezer Finkel) and grandson's (R' Chaim Zev and R'
Beinish) for many years.
|
| 989.252 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Nitzavim - Vayelech | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Sep 09 1993 19:22 | 143 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Nitzavim-Vayelech
25 Elul 5753/September 11, 1993
From our archives.....
The first half of this double Parasha, i.e. Parashat Nitzavim,
contains no new Mitzvot. Rather, it continues the theme of the
Tochacha (of last week's Parasha) by reminding us that when we
experience suffering we should take it as a sign that we must
return to G-d in repentance. It is no coincidence that this
Parasha is always read on the Shabbat preceding Rosh Hashana.
Parashat Vayelech contains the last two Mitzvot of the Torah.
The 613th commandment is that every person write a Torah scroll for
himself, and many commentators are at a loss to explain why the
fulfillment of this Mitzvah has fallen into disregard. Some
"Poskim" (Halachic decisors) write that nowadays when Torah
knowledge is spread through countless books rather than through
reading from a Torah scroll and expounding orally upon it, this
Mitzvah is fulfilled by buying books and studying from them.
************************************
As we noted in the previous page, this Parasha teaches the
Mitzvah of writing a Sefer Torah. R' Nissim, in his commentary to
R' Yitzchak Alfasi's Hilchot Megilah, notes that this is a separate
Mitzvah from the obligation to have a Sefer Torah from which to
read in the synagogue. The latter of these, agree nearly all
authorities, is not a Torah requirement.
Rambam (Hil. Tefilah 12:1) writes: "Moshe established that Bnei
Yisrael should read the Torah on Shabbat, Monday and Thursday, thus
ensuring that they would never go three days without hearing a
Torah reading. [Note the assumption that all congregations are
attending the weekday Minyan.] Ezra [at the beginning of the
Second Temple era] further decreed that the Torah should be read on
Shabbat afternoon." Kesef Mishneh explains that this was done for
the benefit of businessmen who were not learning as much as they
should on the weekdays.
The Mishnah in Megilah (3:6) learns from a Pasuk that the Torah
portion relating to each holiday should be read on that holiday.
The Gemara adds that on Yom Tov one must not only read the Torah
portion but study the laws that derive from it. Although these
lessons are alluded to in a verse of the Torah, they appear not to
have the stringency of Torah laws. (See Kesef Mishneh quoted
above.)
There are certain Torah readings which are considered Torah
obligations. The best known of these is Parashat Zachor, the
chapter which enjoins us to remember Amalek's attack upon us. Some
authorities consider the reading of Parashat Parah to be a Torah
obligation as well. Tosfot (Megilah 17b) notes that there are also
readings for special occasions which are Torah obligations. These
include readings for the ceremonies known as "Eglah Arufah"
(Devarim 21) "Vidui Ma'aser" (Dev. 26:12-15), and "Bikkurim" (Dev.
26:1-11).
There is an opinion that the same verse which requires Torah to
be read on Yom Tov requires it to be read on Shabbat, and that both
are Torah obligations. (R' Yoel Sirkes quoted in Taz, O.C. section
685). However, this view has not been accepted.
************************************
Sefer HaMitzvot
(and similar works by many authors)
It is a universally accepted principle that the Torah contains
613 Mitzvot, but nowhere does the Torah delineate which of its many
laws are among the 613 Mitzvot and which laws are merely subsidiary
to that group. Thus, an entire body of literature arose whose sole
purpose was to list, in some order, the 613 commandments of the
Torah.
The earliest of these were the Sefer HaMitzvot of R' Saadiah
Gaon (died 942) and the Sefer Halachot Gedolot. The authorship of
the latter work is uncertain, but it may have been written by R'
Yehudai Gaon (died 761) or by one of his students. The author is
commonly known as "Behag" after the initials of the Hebrew phrase
meaning, "Master of the Halachot Gedolot."
The best known of all of the Mitzvah lists is that authored by
R' Moshe ben Maimon ("Rambam"). Although written as an independent
work, this book also serves as a prologue to Rambam's magnum opus,
the Halachic Code, Mishneh Torah.
Rambam begins his Sefer HaMitzvot with an exposition of 14
"Shorashim" (roots) which served him in searching for the 613
commandments among all of the laws of the Torah. Among these, for
example, is the rule that only Torah-laws, but not Rabbinic
decrees, can be counted among the 613. (Rambam maintains that
"Behag" erred in this regard by counting Rabbinic Mitzvot such as
Chanukah among the 613.) Also, according to Rambam, the 613
Mitzvot must be those which are stated explicitly in the Torah, and
may not include a law which is derived from the Torah by exigetical
principles (i.e. the "Beraita of R' Yishmael", see page 48 in the
Artscroll Siddur).
Many commentaries have been written on Rambam's work, most
notably those of R' Moshe ben Nachman ("Ramban") and R' Yitzchak
Leon. The primary purpose of the latter is to defend the Rambam
against the Ramban's attacks.
Ramban's objections to Rambam's work are two-fold: He takes
issue with some of the Shorashim upon which Rambam relies, and he
disagrees with Rambam's application of those principles to some of
the Mitzvot discussed. As a result, Ramban replaces several dozen
of Rambam's Mitzvot with suggestions of his own. (Note: They do
not necessarily disagree regarding the applicability of a certain
law, but merely whether it should be counted as one of the primary
613 Mitzvot.)
Other scholars who wrote works in this vein were R' Moshe of
Couci, France (Sefer Mitzvot HaGadol or "Semag") and R' Yitzchak of
Corbeil (Sefer Mitzvot HaKatan or "Semak"). Both of these scholars
lived in 13th century France, and were among the "Ba'alei Tosfot."
A popular work of unknown authorship is the Sefer HaChinuch, a
Parasha-by-Parasha list of Mitzvot. [Readers will note that this
work was quoted in Hamaayan in nearly every issue during the past
year.] This work is believed to originate from 13th century Spain,
perhaps written by a brother of the well-known R' Aharon HaLevi.
The beauty of Sefer HaChinuch is in its clear and concise
language as well as in its arrangement. By contrast, Rambam's
Sefer HaMitzvot appears to list the Mitzvot in a random order.
(The word "appears" is emphasized because any student of Rambam's
works knows that he was the master of organization. However, no
one has conclusively proven what system Rambam used to organize his
list.)
A popular commentary on Sefer HaChinuch is R' Aharon Babad's
Minchat Chinuch.
A recent variant of the Mitzvah-list theme is the Chafetz
Chaim's list of Mitzvot which are applicable in our time (for
example, this work excludes any Mitzvah whose fulfillment requires
the existence of a Bet HaMikdash.)
|
| 989.253 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Haazinu | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Sep 14 1993 18:56 | 140 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Ha'azinu
3 Tishrei 5754/September 18, 1993
From our archives.....
Parashat Ha'azinu which is written in the Torah in the form of
a poem that is two columns wide, contains none of the Torah's 613
commandments. However, it is from a verse in this Parasha that
Chazal derived the idea that three people should "Bentch" (recite
the Grace after Meals) together (i.e. the Mitzvah of "Zimun").
That Pasuk is 32:3 which says: "When I will call the name of G-d,
you (the plural "you") should give praise to Him." Since the
minimum number that could be included in the plural is two, this
verse may be interpreted to suggest that three people should join
in praising Hashem, with one of them leading the other two. R'
S.R. Hirsch offers the following rationale for this Mitzvah. He
notes that the word "Lechem" (bread) is the root of "Milchamah"
(war), because most wars are caused by a shortage of food. By
joining together to thank G-d for our bread, we acknowledge that we
need not war over our sustenance because G-d provides it all.
************************************
Throughout the month of Elul, and continuing until the end of
Sukkot, it is our custom to conclude our prayers with Psalm 27,
"L'David Hashem Ori...." (Ashkenazim recite this chapter after
Shacharit and Ma'ariv; Sephardim, after Shacharit and Mincha.)
What is the connection between this Psalm and the time of year in
which we now find ourselves?
The Torah tells that when Moshe Rabbenu ascended Har Sinai in
order to receive the Torah, Bnei Yisrael committed the sin of
making a Golden Calf. Subsequently, Moshe ascended Har Sinai a
second time to seek atonement for the nation. The day of this
second ascension to Har Sinai was Rosh Chodesh Elul. Moshe
remained there for forty days, until Yom Kippur, when Hashem
announced that he had forgiven Bnei Yisrael. (Similarly, for all
future generations, the period between Rosh Chodesh Elul and Yom
Kippur is a propitious one for atonement and return to G-d.)
On each day that Moshe remained on Har Sinai the Shofar was
sounded in the Camp of Bnei Yisrael to remind them that they should
not sin again. However, the Shofar served an additional purpose,
as well: The Midrash says that each time that the Shofar was
blown, G-d's name was sanctified. The commentaries explain that
this was because the sound of the Shofar represented Bnei Yisrael's
repentance. As their Teshuva became more heartfelt and complete
each day, G-d was sanctified and glorified further.
What was the nature of their sin and how was their Teshuva
brought about? The answer is found in Sh'mot 32:8 - "They have
abandoned the ways which I have commanded them to follow, they have
made a Calf." The Midrash notes: Once a person abandons the ways
of the Torah which Hashem has commanded, he quickly turns to idol
worship. It follows then, that their Teshuva consisted of
returning wholeheartedly to the Torah.
This must, however, be explained more deeply. Why did Moshe
have to pray for repentance specifically for forty days? Is there
any connection to the fact that Moshe had spent forty days
receiving the Torah in the first place? Finally, why did it take
Moshe so long to bring down the Torah?
If Hashem had given Moshe only the Written Torah, He could, in
fact, have done so in only a few hours, or one day at most.
However, Moshe had to receive the oral component of the Torah - the
explanation of the Mitzvot - without which the written Torah cannot
be understood or kept. This, Moshe had to memorize, and he
therefore remained on Har Sinai longer. (In fact, it's remarkable
that it took only forty days, and the Midrash says that Hashem gave
Moshe as a gift the ability to perform this miraculous feat of
memorization.)
Moshe's prayer for repentance took forty days because the
"Torah" which Bnei Yisarel rejected (thus coming to make the idol,
as described above) was the Oral Torah which was given over forty
days. The Written Torah can be read from a book with relative
ease; the Oral Torah, however, is studied from memory and thus,
true devotion to it requires intense concentration. Any lapse, and
the Torah is potentially lose, replaced by sinful or even
idolatrous thoughts. [Ed. note: Although the so-called "Oral
Torah" is now partially written in the Talmud and its commentaries,
its true nature is to be studied orally.]
If Bnei Yisrael's sin was caused by insufficient devotion to the
Oral Torah, then obviously their repentance involved reestablishing
and strengthening their commitment to that body of Torah. Each day
they progressed farther, sanctified G-d's name more, and came
closer to atonement, until, on Yom Kippur they were forgiven.
The subject of "L'David Hashem Ori" is the Oral Torah. "Ohr"
(light) is a common metaphor for Torah. Furthermore, David
requests of G-d that he be allowed to sit in the study hall - the
place of the Oral Torah - during all of his days. It is fitting
that we should mention these thoughts at this time.
(R' Yitzchak Sorotzkin: Gevurat Yitzchak)
************************************
Ein Yaakov
edited by R' Yaakov ibn Chaviv
and R' Levi ibn Chaviv
In his introduction to his work, Ein Yaakov, the editor writes
that one of Rav Ashi's [the editor of the Talmud] four goals was to
record the "Drashot" (homilies) of the sages. These Drashot,
writes R' Yaakov, should not be treated lightly as many people tend
to do, because they contain many secrets and mysteries, and teach
us the truth about G-d. Ein Yaakov was written to assist the
would-be student of these Drashot.
The homiletic or "Aggadic" material in the Talmud is scattered
throughout the many tractates and volumes of that work. Thus, the
first goal of R' Yaakov's work was to publish a set of the Talmud
that contained only the Aggadic material (i.e. with the Halachic
discussions left out). This is the Ein Yaakov. Unfortunately, R'
Yaakov did not live to complete the work, and some of it was
continued by his son, R' Levi ibn Chaviv ("Ralbach"), Chief Rabbi
of Yerushalayim from 1525 to 1545. (R' Yaakov himself lived from
1445-1516, and was among the victims of the expulsion of the Jews
from Spain in 1492.)
Several portions of R' Yaakov's projected work were never
completed. Whereas the volumes edited by R' Yaakov contain
excerpts from the Talmud Yerushalmi as well as the Talmud Bavli, R'
Levi's volumes contain only the latter. Apparently, he was unable
to find a copy of the Talmud Yerushalmi.
Also, R' Yaakov had planned to include several indices in his
work. The main text of Ein Yaakov follows the order of the Talmud
where "Drashot" and "Aggadot" often seem to appear in a random
order (although some commentaries do attempt to explain the
placement of each selection). Therefore, R' Yaakov planned to
index the material by subject and by the weekly Torah reading.
However, this was never done.
|
| 989.254 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Yom Kippur | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Sep 23 1993 22:58 | 148 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Yom Kippur
10 Tishrei 5754/September 25,1993
From our archives.....
"A Plan for Teshuva"
from R' Tzaddok Hakohen
In proportion to a person's distance from evil and physical
desire is his closeness to Hashem and his appreciation of G-d's
light. Conversely, in proportion to a person's reaching-out to G-d
is his distance from evil.
Regarding this, Chazal said (Avot ch.3): If there is no wisdom,
there is no fear of G-d, [but] if there is no fear of G-d there can
be no wisdom. "Wisdom" refers to an appreciation of G-d's majesty,
while fear of G-d refers to the disdain of sin. This fear is like
an empty vessel into which G-d pours wisdom. In other words, as
man removes foolishness and evil from himself (by virtue of the
fact that he acquires fear of sin), he becomes an empty vessel in
which there is now room for Torah. However, the mind is incapable
of being empty, and it must necessarily be occupied either by Torah
or by foolishness and evil. If a person chooses the path which
allows room in his mind and heart for Torah, Hashem will fill that
void.
This is further alluded to by G-d's promise: "Make Me an
opening the size of a needle's eye, and I will make for you an
opening as large as an auditorium." We have previously said that
neither wisdom nor fear of sin can exist alone, but rather, each
needs the other. Thus, if a person makes a small opening for G-d -
i.e. acquires a minute amount of the fear of sin - Hashem will rush
to fill that opening with wisdom. This, in turn, brings about
greater fear of sin, which, in turn, leads to another infusion of
wisdom. Thus, from a tiny opening develops a larger one filled
with wisdom and fear of sin.
All of this can come about from one moment of awakening to
return to G-d.
(Tzidkat HaTzadik section 152)
************************************
The Yom Kippur Machzor
The following essay discusses some of the highlights of the Yom
Kippur prayers. They are listed in the order in which they appear
in the Machzor.
Vidui (confession): This is probably the most important part of
of the Yom Kippur prayers, so much so that it is recited in Mincha
of Erev Yom Kippur, even before the Day of Atonement begins. The
confession of sins is an essential part of repentance, the goal of
Yom Kippur. It is human nature for man to rationalize his sins,
and as long as he does not acknowledge wrongdoing, he cannot change
for the better.
Vidui is recited a total of ten times on Yom Kippur, and (as
noted above) once before the Day begins. The reason for the latter
is that between Mincha and Ma'ariv each person goes home to eat the
last meal before the fast, and we fear that, given the strictness
of the judgement against him and his own trepidation of the Day to
come, he may choke and be unable to repent on Yom Kippur itself.
It is interesting to note that all of Vidui is said in the
plural. There are two reasons for this: firstly that a person who
might be worthy of achieving forgiveness on his own may,
nevertheless, be forgiven as part of the congregation, and
secondly, that many people have not committed all of the sins
listed in the Vidui, and to recite it in the singular would be
lying. However, by saying it in the plural, we include the sins of
the whole community, and not just our own.
Finally, note that more than 1/4 of the Yom Kippur confession
pertains to the abuse of the power of speech, the sin for which the
second Bet Hamikdash was destroyed (i.e. Lashon Hara).
Tefilah Zakkah: This prayer was composed by R' Avraham Danzig,
author of the Halachic work Chayei Adam, who stated that it should
be recited before nightfall and again in the morning. (The custom
is to recite it after the final meal on Erev Yom Kippur and before
Mussaf of Yom Kippur.) This Tefilah is a combination of prayer and
confession. In it, we express our remorse at having used all of
our G-d - given faculties to flout His will, rather than to serve
Him, and we pledge to rededicate ourselves to His service.
According to the "Chafetz Chaim" the most important part of this
prayer is the following:
Because I know that there is hardly a righteous person in the
world who never sins between man and his neighbor, either
monetarily or physically, in deed or in speech, therefore my heart
aches within me because, for a sin between man and his neighbor,
Yom Kippur does not atone until one appeases his
neighbor....Behold! I extend complete forgiveness to everyone who
has sinned against me, whether physically or monetarily, or who has
gossiped about me or even slandered me...[One may add: except for
money that I wish to claim and can recover by law, and except for
someone who says, 'I will sin and he will forgive me.'] And just
as I forgive everyone, so may You grant me favor in every person's
eyes so that he will grant me complete forgiveness.
Kol Nidrei: For many people, this is the highlight of other
entire Yom Kippur service, but, ironically, it is not even an
ordinary prayer. Rather, it is an announcement that "All vows that
I have made during the past year, or will make during the coming
year shall be null and void." (This should not be taken as a
license to make vows with no intention of fulfilling them, because
the effectiveness of Kol Nidrei is restricted to very limited
circumstances.)
Why is this recitation placed at the opening of the Yom Kippur
service? Two explanations are offered: The Talmud teaches that
many severe punishments come because of broken vows, most notably
the death of one's spouse and children (G-d forbid). Thus, we take
this opportunity, at this somber moment, to remind ourselves of the
sanctity of our word. This is especially important now, because
much of our Yom Kippur prayer consists of commitments to change our
ways and serve Hashem better.
A second reason for the recitation of Kol Nidrei at this point
is to (so-to-speak) annul the vows which G-d has taken that He will
punish us for our sins. We say to Him: Just as You have provided
in Your Torah a means for annulling our vows, so may Yours be
annulled.
The Avodah (The Kohen Gadol's Service): The service which the
Kohen Gadol performed in the Bet HaMikdash on Yom Kippur differed
from the service of any other holiday, and was, in fact, the only
Temple service that was required to be performed by the High
Priest. Only on this day could the Kohen Gadol enter the Kodesh
HaKodashim, the holiest part of the Temple.
The absence of this Avodah is sorely felt today, as our ability
to be certain of achieving atonement is lessened. Thus, many
"Piyutim" (prayer-poems) have been composed to recall the details
of the Kohen Gadol's service and to mourn over its absence from our
lives. (The version found in the Ashkenazic Machzorim was composed
by R' Meshullam of Lucca 950-1020 who authored much of the Yom
Kippur service in general.)
The translation of Tefilah Zakkah, as well as much of the above
commentary, is reprinted, with permission of the publisher, from
the Artscroll Machzor.
|
| 989.255 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Chol Hamoed Succot | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Sep 29 1993 22:00 | 146 |
| [Note: This special issue of HaMaayan is being made available only
via EMAIL and net-news. All articles in this issue are
excerpted from the book: "HaMaayan: Three Years of Torah".
The date, volume number, and issue number for the original
appearance of each of the articles is noted at the article's
conclusion. ]
HaMaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Shabbat Chol Ha'Moed Sukkot
20 Tishrei 5752/September 28, 1991
Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah
Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah are one holiday - in fact, in
Israel they are celebrated on the same day - but they are not part
of Sukkot. Technically, therefore, none of the Mitzvot of Sukkot
apply on these days.
Many communities, however, have the custom that all or part of
one or both of the Shemini Atzeret meals is held in the Sukkah.
The reason for this goes back to the time when the timing of the
holidays depended on the sighting of the new moon, and new month
had begun. Many communities in the Diaspora had no timely means of
learning when the new month had begun, and therefore, observed two
days of every holiday. Today, although we are fortunate to have
printed calendars, the custom of our ancestors has already taken
the force of laew, and all our holidays have two days. It follows,
by the same logic, that the day which we observe as Shemini Atzeret
should also be observed as the final day of Sukkot. (It should be
noted, however, that many people did not adopt this custom of
eating in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeret, and each person is
obligated to follow the custom of his ancestors.)
The reason for this holiday is given in the Midrash by a
parable: The children (Jews) of the king (G-d) came from around
the world to spend a week (Sukkot) with their father. At the end
of the week, the king said, "I enjoy your company, please stay
another day (Shemini Atzeret)."
(Compiled from articles in HaMaayan, Vol. 1,#28, 1987 and
HaMaayan Vol. 2, #53, 1988)
************************************
Simchat Torah
On Simchat Torah, the yearly cycle of reading the Torah is
completed. This is a time of great joy, as much as is a wedding,
because Bnei Yisrael are said to be married to the Torah.
It is also the custom to begin the Torah again from B'reishit as
soon as we complete the cycle, lest it appear from our celebration
that we are happy to be relieved of a burden.
Why is the completion of the Torah celebrated on Simchat Torah,
rather than on Shavuot, the holiday which marks the giving of the
Torah? This may be explained by a parable:
A certain king once took a bride, and as is the custom, held a
sumptuous banquet in honor of the new queen. The guests noticed,
however, that the celebration was somewhat subdued. In fact, the
feast was quite small by the standards of the royal house.
Several months later, the nobles of the realm were surprised to
find that the king was preparing to hold a lavish reception, "In
honor," as the invitation announced, "of my new bride, the Queen."
All the invited dignitaries were perplexed. First of all, why did
the king call the queen, his "new" bride? Hadn't they been married
for nearly half-a-year? And why was he making a banquet now, after
having celebrated several months before?
With these questions in the back of their minds, the nobles went
off to the banquet. One sumptuous course was served after another.
There were roving orchestras and many of the best singers in the
land. But, there was no hint of the answers to the guests'
questions.
Finally, after dessert had been cleared away, the king rose to
speak. "Many of you are undoubtedly wondering," the king began,
"why I brought you here today. Allow me to explain.
"Not long ago, a neighboring king suggested to me that I become
his son-in-law. Naturally, I was honored, and being that the
princess was well spoken of, I married her. Nevertheless, she was
actually unknown to me and, as such, my joy was dampened somewhat.
For this reason, the wedding feast was not quite the celebration
that you had expected.
"At that time, I did not know what a treasure I had acquired.
But today I do. Now I appreciate my queen in a way that is
possible only after we've shared each others' lives for these past
few months. Please join in celebrating with me." With that, the
king proposed a toast.
On Shavuot, Bnei Yisrael accepted the Torah, not because they
knew its worth, but because G-d is a reliable Shadchan-matchmaker.
Only after living with the Torah for several months can we truly
appreciate it, and celebrate our completion of its reading.
(Heard from R' Shlomo Naiman)
(Originally appeared in HaMaayan, Vol. 2, #53, 1988)
************************************
The Joy of the Torah
R' Shlomo Yosef Zevin writes that there are two types of joy in
this world. He calls them simply, "direct joy" and "indirect joy."
"Direct joy" is that happiness which is achieved without any
suffering beforehand. "Indirect happiness" is that which comes
after prolonged preparation and agony. Most of this world's joys,
says R' Zevin, are of the latter type. For example, a baby is born
only after difficult labor pains.
Even more so, there are times when the agony is present, but the
likelihood of an eventual joyous outcome is not obvious to all.
Here the suffering one undergoes is even greater than in the case
of childbirth, says R' Zevin, where we know that a happy outcome
may be expected.
In reality, we take on faith that all that transpires will
ultimately work out for the best. For this reason Chazal enjoined
us that, "One is obligated to bless Hashem for the 'bad' as well as
for the 'good'." (Berachot 54a)
We also take on faith that all will be explained to us at some
future time, and then we will experience true joy. When we have
been purified from the state which nearly forces us to see all
events in a very shortsighted way, we will see clearly what Hashem
holds in store for us, and we will understand the meaning of true
joy.
On Simchat Torah, we get a taste of this happiness. The joy of
Sukkot, culminating of the last day, is not the outgrowth of agony
and suffering. It is the result of the purifying effect of Rosh
Hashana and Yom Kippur. As the above pasuk promises us, on Simchat
Torah we may experience only joy.
(L'Torah U'L'Moadim)
(Originally appeared in HaMaayan Vol. 3, #58, 1989)
|
| 989.256 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Breishit | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Oct 04 1993 20:28 | 169 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat B'reishit
Volume VIII/Number 1 (336)
24 Tishrei 5754/October 9, 1993
We are now nearly one month into the Shemittah year -- the
sabbatical year when farmers in Eretz Yisrael are commanded to
leave their fields fallow -- and Hamaayan will devote at least part
of each issue during this year to the Shemittah. Commentaries
write that the sabbatical year was given to us for much the same
purpose as the Shabbat. That purpose is to rest from our work and
study Hashem's deeds. Indeed, says Ramban (vaYikra 25:2), one who
does not observe the Shemittah denies creation, and the punishment
for such laxity is exile from Eretz Yisrael.
According to R' Avraham Yitzchak haKohen Kook, just as the
individual recoups his strength on Shabbat, so does the nation
during the Shemittah. For six years, each man works his field. As
much as a person performs kindness and charity, we know that a
person's primary preoccupation is his livelihood. Then comes the
Shemittah -- no one works the fields, no one collects his debts,
all Jews are on equal footing, able to focus on the needs of
society as a whole.
The Gemara (Megilah 17b) says that Mashiach will come after a
Shemittah. Since the exile began because of needless hatred -- the
breakdown of society -- R' Kook's observation may explain the
connection between Shemittah and the end of the exile.
"G-d saw that man's wickedness was great upon earth, and that
every product of the thoughts of his heart was only evil, all day.
And G-d reconsidered having made man." (6:5-6)
R' Yosef Ashkenazi explains these verses based on the famous
dispute between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai (Eruvin 13b) whether man
is better off having been created or if he would have been better
off if he had never been created. It is Bet Hillel who considers
man fortunate that he was created.
Chazal teach that there are 365 negative commandments and 248
positive commandments. Bet Shammai says, according to R'
Ashkenazi, "How can man avoid the punishment for these 365 negative
commandments?!"
Bet Hillel retorts, "Fortunate is the man who receives the
reward for keeping the 248 positive commandments." What about the
negative commandments? Chazal teach that Hashem rewards for a
thought which leads to a Mitzvah as He does for the Mitzvah itself.
Not so with a thought that leads to a sin -- such thoughts (though
not the actions which follow from them) usually go unpunished.
Therefore, says R' Ashkenazi, Bet Hillel reasons that man has 496
(i.e., 2 X 248) opportunities for reward compared to only 365
opportunities to sin. Indeed, man is fortunate.
For the generation of the flood, Hashem did punish for the
thoughts which preceded the sin. (Various commentaries discuss the
reasons.) Therefore, their opportunities for sin and punishment
were once again greater than their opportunities for Mitzvot and
reward, and it was better that they did not exist.
(Tzofnat Pa'aneach haChadash, Erech Briyat haOlam)
************************************
R' Yehuda Leib Eiger notes that the sanctity of the first letter
of the Torah is dependent on all the other letters, including the
last letter. If one letter is missing, the Sefer Torah cannot be
used as such.
The last words of the Torah are, "Before the eyes of all
Yisrael." Man cannot receive the Torah alone; unless the Torah is
before the eyes of all of Israel, the individual's Torah has no
"beginning" either.
(Torat Emet)
************************************
Rashi (B'reishit 1:1) writes that the Torah begins with Creation
in order to emphasize G-d's right to give Eretz Yisrael to whomever
He chooses. Indeed, the Torah prohibits the settlement of non-Jews
in Israel (see Devarim 7:2). The question then arises -- assuming,
as some authorities say, that the obligations of Shemittah can be
avoided by selling the land of Israel to non-Jews -- does one who
sells the land for that purpose violate any prohibition?
R' Avraham Yitzchak Kook writes that the prohibition is not
violated if one sells the land to a non-Jew who already lives in
Israel, because the prohibition only exists because of the Torah's
desire not to attract non-Jews to Israel. R' Kook notes, however,
that there are a number of problems with this approach, including:
Is there nevertheless a Rabbinic prohibition involved and, if so,
is this the type of Rabbinic prohibition which is set aside when
necessary to promote Jewish settlement in Israel? Also, are we not
in effect magnifying the level of a prohibition which has already
been violated (i.e. this non-Jew has been allowed to live in Israel
until now)? (Shabbat haAretz, Introduction, section 12)
R' Yechiel Michel Tikochinski writes that perhaps there is no
prohibition on selling land in Israel to a non-Jew when the sale is
ultimately to the Jew's benefit. The difficulty with this answer,
however, is that every sale benefits the seller, who receives the
purchase price, yet the Torah prohibited sales in general.
Another possibility is that there is no prohibition to return
the land to the non-Jew from whom the Jew first bought it. This
answer, says R' Tikochinski, is accepted by only one authority
(i.e. Maharasha).
Others say that the only basis for the prohibition is to prevent
the spread of idolatry in Israel. Thus the land can be sold to a
Moslem, as they are not idolators in the eyes of Halacha. (Sefer
haShemittah, p.108).
R' Shlomo Yosef Zevin writes that a distinction can be drawn
between selling the land for Shemittah and an ordinary sale where
the seller benefits from receiving the purchase price. The benefit
in this case is not just to the sellers, but the community as a
whole. (In a sense, the Mitzvah of living in Israel is itself the
beneficiary.)
Perhaps the strongest answer, in the eyes of R' Zevin and of R'
Zvi Pesach Frank, is the distinction between selling the land to a
non-Jew and allowing a non-Jew to settle in Israel. The Torah
explicitly prohibits only the latter; avoiding Shemittah requires
only the former. Thus, there is really no conflict.
(l'Ohr haHalacha; Har Zvi)
************************************
"The Rebbe Reb Heshel"
(R' Avraham Yehoshua Heshel of Cracow)
Died 20 Tishrei 5424 (1663)
R' Heshel -- the name Avraham was added late in his life -- was
born in Brisk. His father was the Rabbi there, and his mother was
a scion of many of the leading scholars of previous generations.
At a young age, R' Heshel became his father's assistant in heading
large Yeshivot -- first in Brisk, then in Lublin.
He succeeded his father upon the latter's death in 1644, and
raised many great students. These included R' David haLevi
("Taz"), R' Shabtai Kohen ("Shach"), and others. R' Heshel never
called them his students, however, but rather, his friends.
Another indication of R' Heshel's humility was the fact that he had
an assistant whose specific job it was to rebuke R' Heshel as the
assistant saw necessary.
R' Heshel also represented his generation before the king and
before wealthy coreligionists. R' Heshel spent two years in Venice
raising money to rebuild Jewish life in eastern Europe after the
pogroms of 1648-49.
Many famous Rabbis of later generations were his descendants.
R' Heshel also wrote many works, most of which were lost. Among
the fragments which remain and are collected in work called
Chanukat haTorah is the following explanation of Chazal's teaching,
"If one is haughty, it is as if he has worshipped idolatry." Says,
R' Heshel: Why does the verse (B'reishit 1:26) say, "Let Us make
man," rather than "Let Me make man." Because, Chazal explain,
Hashem wants to teach that even the greatest person should seek
counsel from others, just as Hashem did here from the angels.
However, if a person is haughty and ignores that teaching, how
does he explain the use of the plural in that verse ? To
him, it must mean that there is more than one God.
|
| 989.257 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Noach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Oct 13 1993 17:53 | 156 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Noach
Volume VIII/Number 2 (337)
1 Cheshvan 5754/October 16, 1993
Many commentaries cite the Zohar saying that there is a
relationship between Noach and Shabbat. On the most superficial
level, "Noach" is reminiscent of "Menuchah" -- rest. However, R'
Shlomo of Radomsk writes that Noach relates to "Nechamah" --
consolation. Shabbat, he explains, consoles us by reminding us of
the ultimate consolation -- Olam haBa, which Chazal call, "The day
which is entirely Shabbat." (Tiferet Shlomo)
Noach is also associated with farming. Chazal say that Noach
invented many of the farm implements which we take for granted; in
his day, the curse of the land which was told to Adam was mitigated
somewhat.
Parashat Noach is thus particularly meaningful when it is read
during the Shemittah -- the sabbatical year when farmers rest.
Noach, the expert farmer, has Menuchah, rest, and brings us
Nechamah, consolation.
************************************
"These are the generations of Noach, Noach ....." (6:9)
The Midrash asks: Couldn't the word Noach have been written
only once? This (i.e., the repetition) teaches that he was
pleasant ("Noach") for himself and for his sons, pleasant above and
below, pleasant in this world and in the next world.
R' Aharon Rokeach of Belz explains that, in most respects, a
person's accounts with Heaven are closed when he dies and he is
rewarded and punished based on those accounts. However, if a
person has left behind children or students, he can be rewarded or
punished based on their future deeds which are the result of his
influence. This is the meaning of the Midrash quoted above -- not
only was Noach rewarded for his own good deeds, but he taught his
sons well also.
(from an untitled collected of R' Aharon's Divrei Torah)
************************************
"Hashem said to Noach, 'You and your household enter the
ark...'." (7:1)
R' Chaim of Czernowitz asks: Why here is the name "Hashem" --
representing G-d's attribute of mercy -- used, while before (6:13)
we read "Elokim said to Noach..."? (The name "Elokim" represents
the attribute of justice.)
Noach himself was a great Tzaddik, and he was able to be saved
from the flood even without the intervention of the attribute of
mercy. Note that when Elokim spoke to Noach He said, "Make
yourself an ark." (6:14) Strictly speaking, the ark was for Noach
alone.
Our verse, however, addresses Hashem's decision to save Noach's
entire immediate family from the flood. They were saved only in
Noach's merit, and thus the attribute of mercy was required, for
when Hashem acts through that attribute, He saves the unworthy with
the worthy.
(Be'er Mayim Chaim)
************************************
Last week we discussed one of the problems inherent in selling
Eretz Yisrael for the Shemittah year. This week we address another
issue.
R' Yaakov David Willowsky ("Ridvaz"; 1845-1913) argued that
selling the land makes no sense. The whole basis for selling the
land is that it would ease the fulfillment of the Mitzvah to live
in Eretz Yisrael. However, argues Ridvaz, if we sell the land, it
is no longer Eretz Yisrael.
No, writes R' Avraham Yitzchak haKohen Kook. That position
assumes that the holiness of the land arises solely from the fact
that Mitzvot such as Shemittah are observed there. In fact, there
are two types of holiness connected with Eretz Yisrael: the
holiness which comes from the Mitzvot which can be done there and
the holiness of the land itself. To what is this analogous? To
the holiness of Torah. One aspect of that holiness relates to the
Mitzvot which one learns how to perform and the other aspect of
that holiness is the sanctity of Torah and its study.
Therefore, writes R' Kook, even if the special Mitzvot of Eretz
Yisrael (e.g. Shemittah) are suspended when the land is sold, the
inherent holiness of the land can never be extinguished, and,
similarly, the Mitzvah of living there. (Shabbat haAretz)
Selling land in Eretz Yisrael is not the only prohibition which
is sometimes set aside in order to facilitate settlement in Eretz
Yisrael. The Gemara (Gittin 8b) states that a non-Jew may be asked
to write a contract on Shabbat so that a Jew may buy land in Eretz
Yisrael from a non-Jew. (Note, however, that telling a non-Jew to
perform labor on Shabbat is only a Rabbinic prohibition.)
Why did Chazal allow a Rabbinic prohibition to be transgressed
for the Mitzvah of settling Eretz Yisrael? According to R' Yosef
Engel, there is more at stake here than settling in Eretz Yisrael -
- a Mitzvah which some say is not in force today. Rather, buying
land in Eretz Yisrael from a non-Jew is akin to annexing land to
Eretz Yisrael, and thus increasing its Kedushah (holiness).
************************************
THE "CHATAM SOFER"
(R' Moshe Sofer)
7 Tishrei, ca. 5623 (1762) - 25 Tishrei 5699 (1839)
R' Moshe Sofer (Schreiber) was born in Frankfurt-am-Main. R'
Moshe was a child prodigy, and many Yeshiva students are familiar
with the scholarly debate which he held with the author of Sha'agat
Aryeh when he (R' Moshe) was only four or six years old. (The
question was: Who were the witnesses at the marriage of Adam and
Chava?)
R' Moshe's primary teachers were R' Pinchas haLevi Horowitz
(author of Hafla'ah and other works) and R' Natan Adler. The
latter had many customs based on Kabbalah which his contemporaries
in 18th century Germany considered eccentric, and he was eventually
run out of Frankfurt. His devoted student, Moshe, followed him.
R' Moshe is known both for his written works and for the
profound influence that he had in fighting the Reform movement in
Hungary. He wrote on many areas of Torah, and his Torat Moshe on
Chumash and his Halachic responsa and Talmudic novellae (both
entitled Chatam Sofer) are each classics in their fields. Some of
his interpretations of Chumash are "pilpulistic," e.g., attributing
knowledge of Halachic arguments to non-Jewish biblical characters,
but his Halachic and Talmudic works are oriented more towards the
simple ("P'shat") meaning.
R' Moshe's Yeshiva in Pressburg (now Bratslava, Slovak Republic)
was the largest in Central Europe. Among his leading students were
his son (the "Ketav Sofer") and the "Maharam Shick" and the
"Maharam Asch."
In Ketav Sofer, R' Moshe's son offers an interesting insight
into Hashem's conduct of the world. Rashi writes that before the
flood, Hashem truly regretted (so-to-speak) creating man. Why
then, asks Ramban, was Noach saved?
Says the "Ketav Sofer": Sometimes the very evil of man makes
Hashem act mercifully. Justice requires that evil be allowed to
take its normal course and that man be punished for all of his bad
deeds. However, Hashem will sometimes kill the sinner, as an act
of mercy, before he has incurred the full wrath of Heaven. That is
what happened in Noach's time. Furthermore, once Hashem had
already "activated" His attribute of mercy, Noach was able to be
saved.
|
| 989.258 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Lech Lecha | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Oct 21 1993 18:08 | 167 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Lech-Lecha
Volume VIII/Number 3 (338)
8 Cheshvan 5754/October 23, 1993
Alshich haKadosh (vaYikra 25:7) notes that when the Torah speaks
of foreign lands -- for example, in the first verse of this Parasha
-- it uses the verb, "Lech" ("go"). However, when it speaks of
Eretz Yisrael, the Torah refers to "coming" (e.g. vaYikra 25:2 --
"Ki Tavo'u"). Why? Because Eretz Yisrael is the land to which the
Jewish soul comes home.
Chazal say that the purpose of the stories in Sefer B'reishit is
to demonstrate that the world belongs to Hashem and He gave Eretz
Yisrael to the nation which He chose. Alshich haKadosh writes:
Hashem wanted to strengthen His "claim" to be the creator of the
world and to have the right to give a sign into the land, i.e. that
the land would rest on the Shemittah, forcefully if necessary.
(Chazal say that Bnei Yisrael were exiled from Eretz Yisrael after
the destruction of the first Temple for the same number of years
that they failed to keep as Shemittot during the first Temple
period.)
This explains why, unlike many other Mitzvot, we do not have a
Rabbinically-ordained remembrance for Shemittah outside of Eretz
Yisrael. Shemittah itself relates solely to Hashem's gift of Eretz
Yisrael to us. Similarly, although the weekly Shabbat is mentioned
in the "Aseret haDibrot" ("Ten Commandments"), the Shabbat of
years, i.e. the Shemittah, is not. Whereas Shabbat testifies to
Hashem's creation of the world, and thus applies to Jews
universally, Shemittah testifies to His creation of Eretz Yisrael
alone, and does not belong in the Aseret haDibrot.
************************************
"I (Avraham) have lifted by hand to the G-d above, Creator of
heaven and earth." (15:22)
In this verse, Avraham took an oath that he would not benefit
from saving the inhabitants of S'dom from their enemies. The
"Mesorah" (tradition) says that this verse is related to a
similarly-worded verse (Tehilim 89:20): "I have lifted a young man
from the nation." What is the connection? R' Shalom Mordechai
haKohen of Brezan explains that if Avraham's victory over the four
kings could be explained naturally, Avraham could share in the
booty. However, if the victory was clearly miraculous, it would be
forbidden to derive personal benefit.
There are two conflicting Midrashim regarding how Avraham won
the battle. One says that he took 318 disciples to fight with him,
another says that only his servant Eliezer went with him. The
Mesorah holds like the latter view: Avraham lifted only one young
man (Eliezer) from the nation when he went to fight the four kings.
Clearly, then, his victory was miraculous, and that is why he
lifted his hand in an oath not to derive any benefit from the
spoils.
(Techelet Mordechai)
************************************
R' Mordechai Yosef of Izbica explains the reason that Avraham
did not want to take from the booty as follows: Avraham went to
save Lot -- not because Lot was righteous, but because of the two
righteous converts who would come from him (Ruth and Na'ama).
Avraham had to demonstrate that his only intention was to draw out
the good (in Lot) from among the bad. If he took from the spoils,
that motive would not be clear. Indeed, anytime a person needs to
clarify his own motives, the best way is to get rid of any possible
distractions and ulterior motives.
(Mei haShiloach)
************************************
Summary of the Laws of Shemittah
There are four basic Mitzvot associated with Shemittah, writes
R' Yechiel Michel Tikochinski in Sefer haShemittah. These are:
1) Letting the land rest -- This includes both a positive
commandment ("The land shall rest" -- vaYikra 25:2) and a negative
commandment ("Your field you shall not plant...." -- vaYikra
24:4). The negative commandment is transgressed only if one
physically works a Jewish-owned field, but the positive commandment
is transgressed even if a non-Jewish agent works the land.
2) Leaving all produce as "Hefker" -- This Mitzvah requires
that any fruits and vegetables which do grow during the Shemittah
be left unguarded so that all Jews may share in them. One can, of
course, post guards to protect his investment in the trees
themselves.
3) Treating the produce with the sanctity of Shemittah -- This
Mitzvah requires that produce of Shemittah be used only for eating,
that it not be wasted, and that it not be stored or hoarded beyond
the time when it is available in the wild. When it ceases to be
available in the wild, the Mitzvah of "Be'ur" (literally
"destruction") must be performed. (This Mitzvah will be discussed
in a future issue.)
4) Forgiving loans -- After the Shemittah, one is prohibited
from collecting loans that were made to Jews in previous years. By
means of a document called a "Prozbul", one can, however, assign
his loans to "Bet Din," which is authorized by the Torah to collect
them even after the Shemittah. Although some people execute a
"Prozbul" on Erev Rosh haShanah at the beginning of Shemittah, many
authorities hold that the appropriate time is at the end of
Shemittah.
[There is another Shemittah related law, but which does not
apply today, when the law of "Yovel" (the jubilee year) is not in
effect. This is the Mitzvah to count the years and the sets of
seven years towards the Yovel (similar to the way we count the
Omer). One Mitzvah which is not Shemittah related, though many
people mistakenly think it is, is the Mitzvah to free Jewish
slaves. That Mitzvah applies after any set of six years that the
slave has worked.]
************************************
R' Eliezer of Dzikov
died 3 Marcheshvan 5621 (1860)
R' Eliezer was the third son of the famed Chassidic Rebbe, R'
Naftali of Ropshitz. He began leading Chassidim in 1848, after the
death of his brother-in-law. Before that, he earned his living as
a wine merchant, as a Chazzan, and as Rabbi of Dzikov (Tarnobrzeg),
Galicia.
Like his father, R' Eliezer was very demanding of his Chassidim.
He insisted not only that they be righteous, but that they study
Torah. Late in his life, he turned away many would-be Chassidim.
He also refused to publish his Torah thoughts, saying, "What will
my Chassidim do with my book? They will stretch out on the couch
on Shabbat afternoon and fall asleep, and I don't want to share
their beds."
R' Eliezer was highly regarded by his contemporaries. One said,
"Whenever I rise to the heavens, I find that R' Eliezer has
preceded me there."
R' Eliezer's father, R' Naftali, was renowned for (among other
things) his wit. From the incident in next week's Parasha where
Avaraham rises from speaking with Hashem in order to tend to the
three Arabs (angels) who come to him, Chazal teach, "Tending to
guests is greater than facing the 'Shechinah'." Based on the
following incident, R' Naftali understood Chazal's teaching in
another light:
Once R' Naftali was collecting for a charity, and he came to a
certain inn where he was told that the innkeeper was not at home.
R' Naftali recognized, however, that the innkeeper was at home, but
that he was hiding. R' Naftali observed that he now understood in
what way welcoming guests is greater than facing the Shechinah --
when it came to facing Hashem, Moshe hid his face (Sh'mot 3:6);
when it came to welcoming guests, this innkeeper hid his whole
body.
Another time, R' Naftali commented on Chazal's teaching that
Hashem showed Moshe each generation and its leaders: Why did He
show Moshe the generation first, and only then, the leaders?
Because if Moshe had first seen the quality of the leaders, he
would have fainted from horror. Only after he saw the lowliness of
the generations could he appreciate the greatness of their leaders.
|
| 989.259 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring : Parashat Vayera | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Oct 27 1993 17:41 | 156 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Vayera
Volume VIII/Number 4 (339)
15 Cheshvan 5754/October 30, 1993
In this parasha we read of the covenant which Avraham and
Avimelech entered into at a place called Be'er Sheva. The Torah
explains that the place actually took its name -- "Be'er" - "The
well" - of "Sheva" -- from the covenant. R' Hirsch notes that the
word "Sheva" means both "7" and "swearing." Indeed, Avraham
memorialized the oath which the two took by setting aside seven
ewes. R' Hirsch explains that when one takes an oath, one "gives
oneself up to the seven." "As the creation of the visible concrete
world was completed in six days and the seventh [i.e., Shabbat]
became the memorial and reminder of the Invisible One being and
remaining in connection with the visible world as its Creator and
Master, so the number 7 remains altogether as the symbol indicating
and referring to this invisible Master."
It is not difficult to see why the Shemittah should be in the
seventh year. If one does not work the fields, he has little
choice but to give himself into the complete care of his Creator
and Master.
************************************
"Hashem appeared to him (Avraham) in the plains of Mamre...."
(18:1)
The midrash says that this was a reward to Mamre for advising
Avraham to circumcise himself. On this, all the commentaries ask:
Why did Avraham ask Mamre's opinion?
R' Yoel Teitlebaum, zatzal (the "Satmar Rav") notes that when
Hashem was prepared to create man, He asked the angels' opinion.
Rashi (B'reishit 1:26) explains that this teaches humility, for if
Hashem asked the angels' opinion, then certainly a great man should
ask the opinion of lesser men.
According to the midrash, the angels advised Hashem not to
create man. This teaches a second lesson, writes the Satmar Rav:
Although a great person should ask the advice of lesser people, he
should nevertheless do what he knows is right.
In this humility, Avraham asked the opinions of three men before
circumcising himself: Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre. Mamre was doubly
fortunate -- not only did Avraham ask his opinion, but he gave the
correct answer. As a reward for this, Hashem appeared to Avraham
in Mamre's territory.
(Divrei Yoel)
************************************
We read in this parasha of Avraham's attempts to save the people
of S'dom from their fate. R' Zvi Yehuda Kook taught that Avraham's
seemingly audacious behavior is even more remarkable precisely
because of his closeness to Hashem. "To a person who doesn't know
what serving G-d involves, it isn't a problem to speak boldly
against Him. But for someone so close to his Creator, this
requires 'mesirut nefesh' (sacrificing one's soul), a bravery to
the point of giving up one's life. Toward people 'very wicked and
sinful before the Lord' (B'reishit 13:13). This is the behavior of
a giant of kindness, and not of an ordinary man. Loving tzaddikim
(righteous people) is a straightforward gesture that doesn't
warrant an abundance of praise. However, Avraham Avinu was not a
simple tzaddik."
(Torat Eretz Yisrael, p.73)
************************************
"Shemittat Kesafim"
One of the mitzvot of the sabbatical year is "shemittat
kesafim," loosely translated, forgiving loans. Any debts that are
still outstanding on the last day of shemittah cannot be collected.
(Some poskim say that this ban takes effect on the first day of
shemittah.)
The Torah (Devarim 15:9) commands, "Guard yourself lest there be
an evil thought in your heart [when someone asks you for a loan],
saying, 'The seventh year, the shemittah year is close,' and [as a
result] you will be stingy with your brother and will not give
him..." Rather, whenever a Jews asks for a loan of someone who has
the means to give it, it must be given.
Is this fair? Must a person effectively throw away his money on
a loan which he can never collect? The answer is that this is a
test of our faith, as the next verse says, "Give him... for in
exchange for this Hashem will bless you." This may be a difficult
test, but it is a test nevertheless. (Nachalat Moshe)
Not all loans must be forgiven. For example, a loan secured by
collateral may be unaffected. Also, obligations owed to "bet din"
(Jewish court) are not forgiven.
Through a document called a "pruzbul" a person can protect all
of his loans. Essentially, the pruzbul assigns to "bet din" the
right to collect the loans. Since they are no longer owed to the
individual, they must still be paid.
How could Hillel, the inventor of the pruzbul, create a document
that would override a law of the Torah? The answer is that
shemittah today is not in effect according to Torah law. As long
as the majority of Jews are living outside of Eretz Yisrael,
shemittah (like "yovel" - the jubilee year) is only a rabbinic
mitzvah. Therefore, it was within the power of Hillel and the
Rabbis of his generation to qualify the mitzvah in this way. Why
did they enact the pruzbul? In order that credit would remain
available to those in need. The word "pruzbul," according to the
gemara, is Persian for "A cure for the rich and the poor." (For
further study see Gittin 36a-37b.)
************************************
R' Menachem Mendel of Kosov
born 5529 (1769) - died 17 Marcheshvan 5586 (1825)
R' Mendel of Kosov, the first "Rebbe" of the Kosov-Vizhnitz
chassidic dynasty, was the son of R' Koppel Chassid, the "chazzan"
in the court of the Ba'al Shem Tov. Legend recalls that those two
tzaddikim were once walking on a mountain path when the Ba'al Shem
Tov swept his arms over the plain of Marmarosh below -- today,
northern Rumania -- and said to R' Koppel, "This is a beautiful
garden -- take care of it." That is indeed what R' Koppel's
descendants, starting with R' Mendel, did for some 150 years
thereafter. (Shefer Harerei Kedem)
The Jewish communities of Marmarosh were relatively unlearned
and lax in their observance at the end of the 18th century. R'
Mendel began his work in 1790, traveling personally and sending
messengers throughout Marmarosh to re-teach the fundamentals of
Judaism. These teachers were welcomed with open arms, and many new
Jewish institutions such as schools and "mikvaot" were opened. R'
Mendel also taught the importance of fellowship and cooperation,
later to be a hallmark of Vizhnitz chassidim.
Today, as before the Holocaust, Vizhnitz is among the largest
and most influential of chassidic groups. Many attribute this to
the blessing of one of R' Mendel's teachers, "Royalty will not
leave your descendants, ever, and they will be able to fill all
their own needs and those of the Jewish people." (Note: In
translation, this blessing loses its kabbalistic overtones.)
One of R' Mendel's sons, R' David Hager of Zablotov, writes in
his Zemach David (on the verse (22:3): "And he took his two lads
("shnei ne'arav") with him, and his son Yitzchak...."): What gave
Avraham the strength to defeat all of Satan's arguments and tricks
(as described in the Midrash)? It was "shnei ne'arav" -- which can
be homiletically translated "the years of his youth." Avraham
remembered how Hashem had always been at his side during previous
tests, starting in Avraham's earliest youth, and that gave him the
strength to persevere in this test.
|
| 989.260 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Chayei Sarah | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Nov 03 1993 19:35 | 172 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Chayei Sarah
Volume VIII/Number 5 (340)
22 Cheshvan 5754/November 6, 1993
Rashi learns from the first verse of the parasha that all of
Sarah's years were equally good. Rabbi Akiva taught that Queen
Esther merited to rule over 127 provinces because of Sarah's 127
years of righteousness. The Arvei Nachal asks (among other
questions): How does the reward fit the deed -- Sarah's righteous
years came one at a time while Esther ruled over 127 provinces at
once?
The author explains that in Heaven time does not exist. It is
only when Hashem sends His sparks of holiness to us below that He
must divide them according to units of time so as not to overwhelm
us. This is why we have different types of events: Shabbat,
shemittah, yovel, etc.
A tzaddik who is great enough can rise to a level that is above
time. Moshe, for example, was able to see all of history because
he achieved that level where Hashem's light did not have to be
divided into day or year-size units. Moshe was above time.
[Perhaps this is how he was able to go forty days on Har Sinai
without eating.]
This is what Rashi means by Sarah's days being equally good --
the holiness with which Sarah infused each of her days influenced
every other day as well. Our question on Rabbi Akiva's teaching is
thus answered as well.
************************************
"And Avraham was old, coming along in days..." (24:1) -- With
all of the troubles that Avraham experienced, he might have become
old before his time. However, his faith in Hashem prevented this.
Avraham did not age until he was actually "coming along in days."
************************************
As we read this parasha, we are struck by Avraham's complete
confidence that Eliezer would succeed in bringing a wife for
Yitzchak from Charan. How could he be so sure? R' Yitzchak of
Volozhin explains with a parable:
A poor villager was supported for some time by his rich cousin.
One day that benefactor told his cousin, "Move near me so that I
can support you more easily and you will not waste money travelling
back and forth."
The poor man followed his cousin's advice and brought his family
to the big city. Sometime later, the poor man's son reached
marriageable age, but the poor man did not seem concerned about
this. In response to queries he explained, "Were I back in my
village, I would have no trouble marrying off my son. Now that my
cousin took me away from that village, it's his responsibility to
find my son a bride."
This is what Avraham said: Hashem took me away from my family
and home, where I would have had no trouble marrying off my son.
Now it is Hashem's responsibility to find Yitzchak's bride, and I
know that He will.
(Peh Kadosh)
************************************
Rashi (25:6) explains that the difference between a wife and a
concubine is that the former gets a "ketubah" (marriage contract)
and the latter does not. Why is this document called a "ketubah"
and not simply a "ketav"? (Both words mean a "writing.")
R' Elimelech of Rudnick notes that Chazal teach that G-d rests
in the midst of a married couple. The word "ish" (man) contains
the letter "yud"; the word "ishah" (woman) contains a "heh."
Together, these letters spell Hashem's name.
However, this is only Hashem's short name. How can Hashem's
full Name be brought into a marriage? With the two letter
difference ("vav" and "heh") that is between "ketav" and "ketubah."
************************************
Laws of Shemittah
(based on R' Tikochinski's Sefer haShemittah;
not for practical application)
This shemittah year began (as the shemittah always does) on the
first day of Tishrei (i.e., Rosh haShanah). However, in certain
rare cases we can rely on the minority view that some aspects of
shemittah do not take effect until Tu b'Shvat.
In the time of the first Temple, when the laws of shemittah had
the stringency of Torah law -- today they have only the stringency
of rabbinic law -- many laws of shemittah took effect even before
Rosh haShana. For example, an orchard could not be plowed after
Shavuot; a wheat field could not be plowed as early as Pesach of
the year before shemittah.
Even though it was permitted last year to work the fields right
up until Rosh haShanah, anything which was planted in the ground
should have been given enough time to take root in the sixth year.
For trees, this is presumed to be 44 days; for vegetables, 14 days.
This first day of Tishrei has another significance. Anything
which grows in shemittah is exempted from the laws of "ma'aser"
(tithes). However, if grain, legumes, or fruits reached the stage
before Rosh haShanah where the obligation to take ma'aser applied
to them, then ma'aser must be taken even if they are harvested in
the seventh year. When they are harvested, one may do so in the
normal manner, and need not use the special harvest techniques
required for shemittah produce. On the other hand, if these items
were too immature on Rosh haShanah for the obligation of ma'aser to
take effect, then no ma'aser need be taken. As for ma'aser on
vegetables, it is the harvest date, not their size on Rosh
haShanah, which matters.
An etrog is in a class by itself: it can be the fruit of the
sixth year for ma'aser purposes and of the seventh year for
shemittah purposes at the same time. (The etrog of shemittah will
be discussed again, later in the year, as special problems arise
when buying an etrog for the holiday after the shemittah.)
************************************
R' David Shlomo Eyebschutz
born 5515 (1755) - died 22 Marcheshvan 5574 (1813)
R' David Shlomo Eyebschutz of Soroka was one of the great
scholars among the early chassidic personalities. Not only is his
Levushei Serad printed in the standard editions of the Shulchan
Aruch, many European Rabbis would not give "semichah" (ordination)
to a student who was not intimately familiar with R' David Shlomo's
work.
As popular as Levushei Serad became in the field of halacha, so
R' David Shlomo's Arvei Nachal was in the area of chassidut. In
that work, a Torah commentary, the author -- a member of
chassidism's fourth generation -- quotes many of the chassidic
masters who preceded him. R' David Shlomo himself was never a
chassidic rebbe. He was rather, a practicing Rabbi and Rosh
Yeshiva in a number of cities. In 1809, he settled in Tzefat,
Israel, where he died and is buried.
[A d'var Torah from R' David Shlomo may be found on page 1 of this
week's issue.]
************************************
R' Yissachar Dov Rokeach of Belz
born 5614 (1854) - died 22 Marcheshvan 5687 (1926)
R' Yissachar Dov, the third Belzer Rebbe, was one of the great
Torah scholars of his generation, particularly in the obscure areas
of "Kodshim" (the Temple laws) and "Taharot" (the laws of ritual
purity and defilement). Thousands of paupers were fed at his
table, and he supported hundreds of Torah scholars who learned day
and night. During World War I, he was forced to wander from town
to town, until he returned to Belz in 1925. (From 1921-1925 he
resided in the home of R' Yisrael Vogel, whose grandson sponsored
last week's issue of Hamaayan.)
R' Yissachar Dov's influence in Galacia was beyond measure.
Chassidim used to say, "The whole world journeys to Belz." One of
those who made the trip was Sarah Schneirer, who founded the "Bais
Yaakov" movement with the Rebbe's blessing. Before then, Jewish
girls were educated at home to the best of their mothers'
abilities.
|
| 989.261 | How do we know it was Eliezer? | DECSIM::HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Tue Nov 09 1993 02:35 | 4 |
| The servant sent by Abraham to find a wife for Isaac is not named
in this parsha. How do we know it was Eliezer?
Dave
|
| 989.262 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Toldot | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Nov 11 1993 23:55 | 172 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Toldot
Volume VIII/Number 6 (341)
29 Cheshvan 5754/November 13, 1993
One of the mitzvot that is unique to Eretz Yisrael -- in
addition to shemittah -- is the taking of "ma'aser," i.e.,
separating one-tenth of each year's produce (except from the
shemittah). This should be given to a Levi.
Rambam (Hil. Melachim 9:1) writes that Yitzchak originated the
separation of ma'aser. (Note: One is obligated to separate
ma'aser from the produce even if there are no Levi'im around.)
Rambam's source may be verse 26:12 in this parasha, where we read
that Yitzchak measured the produce which he grew. Since Yitzchak
was certainly not the type of person who would just count his
wealth, Chazal say that he was measuring his produce in order to
separate a tenth for ma'aser. (Rashi)
The midrash relates that Esav tried to appear extra-exacting in
halachic observance by asking his father questions such as, "How do
I tithe salt?" In fact, salt requires no ma'aser. In light of
Rambam's statement, we can suggest that Esav chose to be "exacting"
in ma'aser because it was Yitzchak's "special" mitzvah.
R' Avraham ben David ("Ra'avad") disagrees; he maintains that
Avraham originated ma'aser. Kesef Mishnah explains that the Torah
in fact states (B'reishit 14:20) that Avraham gave Malkitzedek one-
tenth of the spoils from the war against the four kings. In
defense of Rambam, however, Kesef Mishnah notes that Avraham did
not give ma'aser from things that he grew; he only shared the booty
in order to honor Malkitzedek for coming out to meet him.
************************************
"One nation will be stronger than the other...." (26:23).
The prophet told Rivka that she was carrying twins (Yaakov and
Esav) who would constantly struggle for supremacy in the world.
Chazal sometimes translate the above verse literally, "One nation
will become stronger from the other." In the Gemara's words:
"Tzor (Tyre) only became powerful as a result of the destruction of
Yerushalayim." (Megillah 6a) R' Moshe Shick ("Maharam Shick")
explains that when Hashem brings wealth into the world, He does not
take it away. Rather, if the present possessor of the wealth
becomes undeserving, Hashem will transfer that wealth to another
individual. This second person may not necessarily be deserving;
he is only more deserving than the first individual was.
Esav's descendants, likewise, are not deserving of the success
which Hashem has given them in this world. All that Hashem
created, He created only for the Jews. However, if Yerushalayim is
not deserving, Hashem's gifts are transferred to Tzor.
In this vein, Maharam Shick interprets the Mishnah (Avot, Ch.
4): "Who is wealthy? One who is content with his portion." Who
is truly wealthy? Not one who has great riches, but only one who
merits riches on his own, not merely because they had to be
transferred from a less deserving person.
************************************
"May G-d give you from the dew of the heavens..." (27:28)
The midrash says: "May He give and give again." R' Yitzchak
Isaac Weiss, zatzal (the "Spinka Rebbe"), explains that the world
is designed such that Hashem's blessings constantly flow down to
man. However, if a person weakens his "bitachon" (trust in G-d),
the "pipes" (so-to-speak) which carry the blessings are damaged.
Then, Hashem must send His blessings anew.
In Parashat beHar we read, "If you will say, 'What will we eat
in the seventh year...?' And I will command My blessings to you"
(vaYikra 25:20-21). Of course, this does not mean that if you
don't ask, Hashem will not send His blessings. Rather, if you ask,
it will be necessary for Hashem to send His blessings anew, because
the original ones will have been "damaged."
(Chakal Yitzchak)
************************************
Law of Shemittah
(based on R' Tikochinski's Sefer haShemittah;
not for practical application)
There are four types of agricultural work which are prohibited
by the Torah during the shemittah. These are "zeriah" (sowing),
"ketzirah" (harvesting vegetables and legumes), "zemirah"
(pruning), and "betzirah" (harvesting from trees). In addition,
there is a positive commandment to let the earth rest, and this
effectively precludes plowing ("charishah").
The prohibition on sowing or planting is very broad. It
includes both edibles and non-edibles, such as flowers. Planting
in a pot is also prohibited -- by Torah law if the pot has holes;
by rabbinic law if it does not. However, hydroponics; i.e.
planting in water and nutrient solutions, without soil, is
permitted. Indeed, Israel today is among the world's leaders in
this technology. Note that a person who would "plant" in this
manner on Shabbat would be liable for punishment. This is because
the laws of Shabbat apply to the person -- he should not work --
whereas the laws of shemittah apply to the land, and hydroponics
does not involve the land.
[The Torah includes a special verse (Sh'mot 23:12) whose purpose
is to teach us that Shabbat must be observed even during the
shemittah year. Malbim explains that since both of these occasions
are called "Shabbat laShem" -- "G-d's sabbath" -- we might have
thought that observing one-at-a-time would suffice. However, as we
see, some activities which are permitted during the shemittah are
prohibited on Shabbat.
Another connection between Shabbat and shemittah is that the
number of days in the shemittah year (354) equals the number of
Shabbat and Yom Tov days that occur during a six year period. R'
Moshe of Przemsyl (leading student of the Maharshal) explains that
because the earth worked for us during the Shabbat and holidays of
the first six years of each shemittah-cycle, we must "pay back" by
allowing it to rest for an equal number of days. (Mateh Moshe,
paragraph 473)]
************************************
R' Shalom Shachna of Lublin
died 1 Kislev 5319 (1558)
R' Shalom Shachna was the leading student and successor of R'
Yaakov Pollak, founder of the "chilukim" or "pilpul" school of
Talmud study. This method taught the students to construct sharp,
even, hair-splitting, discourses, tying together far-ranging
Talmudic sources. It has been argued, however, that these
discourses were usually overly contrived, and many scholars of the
period (notably Maharal of Prague) oppopsed R' Yaakov's style.
Notwithstanding the above, many of the greatest 16th century
halachic authorities were students of R' Shachna. These included
R' Moshe Isserles ("Rema" -- also R' Shachna's son-in-law),
Maharshal, and R' Chaim ben Betzalel, better known as "R' Chaim,
the brother of the Maharal of Prague." Interestingly, these
students rejected the chilukim method, while still retaining the
highest regard for their teacher, Rema writes in one letter,
How can I open my mouth and lift my head to investigate and
decide the halacha for practical application when my teacher
is still alive, he is the crowning stone, the crown of glory,
the remaining ember, the light of Israel, may his light shine
like the glow of the Heavens, he is known at the gates, the
head of the strong ones, the sage, R' Shachna!
[Note: In Hebrew, some of the above rhymes.] R' Shachna, however,
always refused to be a "posek" (one who gives practical halachic
direction). (Melizei Esh)
R' Shachna's students also differed from each other in their
study interests. Rema is best known to us for his glosses on
Shulchan Aruch. These are the definitive halachic pronouncements
for Ashkenazic Jews. However, Rema was also well-versed in
philosophical works such as Rambam's Moreh Nevochim ("Guide to the
Perplexed"). His colleague, R' Chaim ben Betzalel (one of the
great sages of his generation, though today he is overshadowed by
his younger brother) took exception to this interest. He writes in
his Sefer haChaim (Ch. 1): Why are the Jews called, "A kingdom of
priests" (Sh'mot 19:6)? Because just as the priest in the Temple
is concerned only with the laws of the sacrifice that he is
bringing at that moment, and he pays no attention to such abstract
ideas such as the architecture of the Temple, so a Jew must focus
on the laws that are applicable at each moment, and should not be
overly engrossed in the philosophy behind them. Of course, to the
extent that understanding a mitzvah enhances its observance, R'
Chaim agrees that such study is worthwhile.
|
| 989.263 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Nov 12 1993 21:47 | 5 |
| >The servant sent by Abraham to find a wife for Isaac is not named
>in this parsha. How do we know it was Eliezer?
Talmudic tradition, according to "The Living Torah." I believe he references
Targum Yonasan, Yoma 35b, and Rashi.
|
| 989.264 | Earlier, Eliezer was referred as head of Abraham's household | CADSYS::POTAK::LEVITIN | Action = Life | Fri Nov 12 1993 22:28 | 11 |
| My Chumash had a comment about this. The reference is
to an earlier exchange between Abraham and G-d, in which
G-d tells Abraham he will father a great nation. But
Abraham says, "I have no sons. When I die, my wealth
will go to the head of my household, Eliezer."
The combination of this verse with the reference to
Abraham's most important servant in last week's portion
led Rashi (?) to conclude that Eliezer was sent.
Sam
|
| 989.265 | | TAVIS::JONATHAN | | Tue Nov 16 1993 18:10 | 20 |
| re .261
>The servant sent by Abraham to find a wife for Isaac is not named
>in this parsha. How do we know it was Eliezer?
Interesting question. I looked up the concordance and was amazed to find that
Avraham's servant, Eliezer, is mentioned only * once *, by name, in Breishit
XV 2 quoted in .264. There seems little doubt in the minds' of the
commentators that it is Eliezer, who is the man sent on the mission. The Torah
describes him as Z'kan beito moshel al kol asher lo (the senior of the house,
ruler over all that he (Avraham) had). [There are other people in the Torah
with the same name, for example, one of Moshe's sons].
On the sentence in XXIV 39, where Eliezer recounts to Lavan and Bethuel, the
conversation he'd had with Avraham prior to setting out, he says: "Perhaps
the woman will not want to come with me". To this, Rashi says that actually
Eliezer had a daughter himself and fancied Yitzchak as his own son-in-law.
According to Midrash Breishit Rabba, Avraham is said to have replied to
Eliezer: "Bni baruch v'ata arur, v'ein baruch midabek b'arur (My son is
blessed and you are cursed, and blessed does not "stick" with cursed )".
|
| 989.266 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayetze | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Nov 16 1993 21:14 | 171 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Vayetze
Volume VIII/Number 7 (342)
6 Kislev 5754/November 20, 1993
In this parasha, Yaakov is told, "And you shall spread out to
the west and to the east, to the north and to the south" (28:14).
Chazal say that this is a greater blessing than Yaakov's father and
grandfather received, because this is a blessing with no
boundaries.
Chazal say that one who observes Shabbat is given "an
inheritance without boundaries." This is the "neshamah yeteirah" -
- the "extra soul" -- which a person is given on Shabbat, whose
purpose is to make him capable of enjoying the weekdays. [This
includes having a bigger appetite on Shabbat than during the week.
(Rashi)]
Eretz Yisrael during shemittah is also "an inheritance without
boundaries." This is true, first of all, in a literal sense,
because each field must be opened to all. In a deeper sense, it is
the merit of shemittah which keeps the Jews in Eretz Yisrael, a
land to which they first came after their slavery in Egypt.
Slavery is the ultimate placement of boundaries or limits. In
fact, the name "Mitzrayim" (Egypt) means "boundaries." The merit
of shemittah, then, keeps us free of these limits and lets us live
in an inheritance without boundaries. (Based in part on Sefat
Emet, beHar 5661)
************************************
Our exile is referred to as a "day" -- "He made me desolate,
lonely the whole day" (Eichah 1:13). Hashem will redeem us at the
end of the day, but as long as we don't repent and learn Torah,
Hashem repeats the verse from this parasha (28:7): "The day is
still long, it is not time to gather in the flock, water the sheep"
-- water is a metaphor for Torah -- "and go graze" -- stay in
exile.
(Shelah haKadosh)
************************************
If Yaakov married Leah by mistake (only because Lavan tricked
him), why was he bound to remain with her? Usually, a "mekach
ta'ut" -- a transaction undertaken based on mistaken assumptions --
is voidable! Also, when Yaakov asked Lavan why he cheated him and
Lavan answered, "In our place the younger daughter is not married
before the elder," how was he responding to Yaakov's question?
Each of these questions answers the other. A person is expected
to know the customs of each place where he goes to transact
business. Therefore, Lavan said to Yaakov, "You cannot get out of
this marriage based on your mistaken assumption. I only did what
local custom expects."
************************************
R' Yosef of Salant notes several lessons that we can learn from
Yaakov's experience with Lavan. Rashi states that Yaakov worked as
faithfully during the second seven year period as he had during the
first. He did not say, as lesser people might, "Since he cheated
me, I will get even by taking it easy on the job."
Rather, Yaakov accepted with equanimity all that befell him. He
recognized that all that happened was Hashem's Will. What was the
result? When Hashem wished to destroy the Jews for their idol
worship, none of the patriarchs could save them. Only Rachel was
able to mollify Hashem. What did she say? "Just as I shared my
rightful husband with another woman, so You can overlook the
strange gods that my children have brought into Your Temple."
(quoted in Yalkut Lekach Tov)
************************************
We explained in an earlier issue how the pruzbul works to allow
a loan to be collected after shemittah. We assumed in that
discussion that shemittah today is only a rabbinic law, because
most poskim do subscribe to that opinion.
However, there is an opinion in the Gemara that pruzbul would
work even when shemittah is in force under Torah law. This is
because there is a principle in the Torah, "Hefker bet din hefker"
-- "That which the court declares ownerless is ownerless." This
gives bet din the right to transfer property from one person to
another, and in order not to discourage lenders, bet din has done
so with loans through the mechanism of pruzbul. (Gittin 36b)
************************************
The shemittah falls in years which are divisible by seven (e.g.
5754). However, this was not always the case. When the mitzvah of
Yovel was observed, that year was outside the shemittah cycle.
Thus, years 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, and 49 would be shemittot, but
not year 56. Because year 50 was outside any cycle, the next
shemittah would fall in year 57. (In all, there were exactly 14
shemittot per century.)
The mitzvah of Yovel is in force only when the majority of Jews
live in Israel, so today, we do not observe the Yovel. Why,
however, do we not take the Yovel year into account for purposes of
counting shemittot? R' Chaim Brisker explains this based on the
verse (vaYikra 25: 8 & 10), "And you shall count seven sevens of
years... and you shall sanctify the fiftieth year." Chazal teach
that this is a command to bet din to count off the years towards
Yovel, much as we count the Omer. Also, bet din is required to
sanctify the Yovel, just as it does Rosh Chodesh. In the time when
the Sanhedrin existed, if it did not sanctify the new moon, Rosh
Chodesh was not observed on that day.
Today, there is no Sanhedrin, and the Yovel cannot be
sanctified. As a result, not only do we not observe Yovel, it is
as if it does not exist. (Chidushei Rabbenu Chaim haLevi Al
haRambam, Hil. Shemittah v'Yovel 10:5)
************************************
R' Shlomo Luria
("Maharshal")
5270 (1510) - 12 Kislev 5334 (1573)
and
R' Moshe of Przemsyl
5300 (1540) - 9 Kislev 5366 (1606)
This week marks the yahrzeits of this teacher-student pair.
Both were important links in the development of halacha among
Ashkenazic Jews.
Maharshal's most important work is Yam Shel Shlomo, a Talmud
commentary. Maharshal's approach to halacha was unique in his
generation in that he refused to accept the views of his
predecessors without first tracing each subject to its source in
the Talmud. As a result, Maharshal did not hesitate to disagree
with his contemporary, R' Yosef Karo (author of Shulchan Aruch).
Maharshal particularly disagreed with R' Karo's basing his halachic
decision on the majority opinion from among three great sages
("Rif," "Rambam," and "Rosh"). Not only did this slight Ashkenazic
authorities such as "Ba'alei Tosfot," Maharshal felt that it was
overly mechanical and was not based on an independent evaluation of
the merits of each case.
Maharshal also wrote Chochmat Shlomo on many Talmudic
tractates. This work is devoted in large measure to ascertaining
the correct text of the Talmud and its principal commentaries,
Rashi and Tosfot.
Maharshal served as Rabbi and Rosh Yeshiva in three of the most
prominent communities of his days, Ostroh, Brisk, and Lublin. His
students included many prominent sages of the century.
Surprisingly little is known of R' Moshe of Przemsyl,
considering his importance. He was apparently born in Przemsyl;
his father was one of twelve people from that city who died a
martyr's death. It is also known that R' Moshe was Rabbi of Belz.
R' Moshe's work Mateh Moshe, one of several that he wrote, is
important for the many customs that it records. In particular, R'
Moshe records many practices and "minhagim" of his teacher.
Regarding the upcoming holiday of Chanuka, R' Moshe records the
custom that the candle known as the "shammash" is placed higher
than the other candles. As a mnemonic device, R' Moshe offers the
verse (Yishayahu 6:8): "Serafim [a type of angel] stand above
Him." "Serafim" literally means the burnt ones, and can allude to
the Chanuka Shammash the word used by the verse for "Him" is "Lo,"
whose gematria is 36, the number of candles lit during Chanuka.
|
| 989.267 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayishlach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Nov 24 1993 18:59 | 168 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Vayishlach
Volume VIII/Number 8 (343)
13 Kislev 5754/November 27, 1993
We read in this parasha, "Yaakov came whole to Shechem...and he
camped before the city" (33:18). The midrash tells us that this
happened on Friday, and that Yaakov arrived there in enough time to
establish the boundaries ("techumim") beyond which no one would
walk on Shabbat. We see, then, that Yaakov kept Shabbat.
The reward for keeping Shabbat is, in fact, associated with
Yaakov: It is "an inheritance without boundaries," just as Yaakov
was promised an Eretz Yisrael that would spread out in all
directions. It is interesting that a mitzvah which has many
aspects relating to boundaries -- the laws of carrying from one
domain to another, the laws of "techumim" -- should have a reward
which is without boundaries.
Shemittah, too, is associated with "inheritance" and with a
reward that defies the limits of our imaginations. The Mishnah
says that Hashem will give each Tzaddik 310 worlds or galaxies.
This is derived from the verse (Mishlei 8:21), "To give my beloved
an inheritance of 'yesh'"--that word's gematria is 310. However,
the Zohar says, the word "yesh" is also the acronym of two specific
mitzvot: Yovel and Shemittah.
************************************
"Save me from my brother from Esav..." (32:12)
The midrash says that Avraham was saved from Nimrod's furnace
because of Yaakov. This is difficult to understand, says R'
Yitzchak Isaac Weiss (the Spinka Rebbe). We are speaking of
Avraham, who Hashem called "My beloved!"
The answer is that Avraham and Yitzchak, on the one hand, and
Yaakov, on the other, represent two different approaches to serving
Hashem. Avraham and Yitzchak were both willing to give up their
lives "al kiddush Hashem" -- to sanctify G-d's name. If this
obligation ended their life's work, so be it. Yaakov, on the other
hand, was completely dedicated to fathering the twelve tribes which
would be the progenitors of the Jewish people. As we see in the
above verse, he felt that he could not afford to die, even to
sanctify G-d's name.
Why didn't Hashem allow Avraham to die in Nimrod's furnace or
Yitzchak on the altar of the "akeidah"? Because of Yaakov's
mission to create the Jewish people.
(Chakal Yitzchak)
************************************
"Yaakov was left alone, and a man fought with him until dawn."
(32:25)
One midrash says that this man appeared to Yaakov as a Torah
scholar. Another midrash says that he appeared as a gentile. We
also find two reasons given for the fact that Yaakov's being alone
was reminiscent of the verse, "And Hashem will be elevated alone on
that day" (Yishayahu 2:11). Another midrash says that Yaakov went
back for some earthenware jugs that had been left behind.
We have here two conflicting images of Yaakov's actions. One
set of midrashim suggests a lofty spiritual event. The other
suggests a purely mundane occurrence. How can these be reconciled?
Speaking on behalf of Russian Jewry in 1933, R' Avraham Yitzchak
haKohen Kook explained that these two views share a common element
-- the alacrity ("zerizut") with which Yaakov acted to accomplish
his goal. If one practices even the most mundane acts with
zerizut, he will carry this into his spiritual pursuits as well.
Some might be reluctant to take time out from their Torah-learning
and other mitzvot for the benefit of Russian Jewry, said R' Kook.
However, from helping our brethren with enthusiasm and zerizut, we
will merit also the day when Hashem will be elevated alone.
(Ma'amarei haReiyah p.260)
************************************
LEARNING ABOUT SHEMITTAH DURING SHEMITTAH
Shlomo haMelech wrote in Mishlei (15:23), "There is joy for a
person in what he says, and how good is a timely word." The Gemara
says (Sanhedrin 101a): Whoever reads a verse in its proper time
brings goodness to the world.
When a person hears a nice thought (a good "vort"), he has a
desire to repeat it. If he sees that it is well received, he does
not hold back for the most appropriate time, and continues to
repeat it. Often, this results in the thought's not being
appreciated properly.
Rather, a person should seek the most appropriate time to repeat
any thought or vort. How good is a timely word! Similarly,
although reading verses (or studying other Torah material) is
always good, reading each verse in its appropriate time is even
better, because the person needs it then (and will remember it).
(Talmidei Rabbenu Yonah, Berachot ch.5)
************************************
Perhaps for this same reason, Moshe Rabbenu ordained that the
Torah reading for each holiday should discuss that holiday. We are
also required to study the laws of each holiday before and during
the Yom Tov.
There is another reason for focusing on the laws of shemittah
now, especially for those living outside of Israel. Chazal teach
"Study leads to action." The Chazon Ish is reported to have said
that in the case of shemittah and other Eretz Yisrael-related laws,
this maxim can bring the "geulah" (redemption). If we study the
laws of shemittah, Hashem will be forced to give us the opportunity
to observe them in all their details. Since this is not possible
unless the majority of Jews live in Eretz Yisrael and the Bet
haMikdash and Sanhedrin are reestablished, learning these laws must
bring the redemption closer. (Even those in Israel cannot fulfill
the fullest measure of the shemittah's laws now, as discussed last
week.)
************************************
REUVEN
14 Kislev 2193-14 Kislev 2318
Reuven was the oldest son of Yaakov and Leah. Among the good
deeds for which he is remembered are (as enumerated in the Torah
and various midrashim): He was the first person to wholeheartedly
repent (see below), he did not resent Yosef's inheriting the rights
of the "bechor" (firstborn), and he tried to save Yosef from the
hands of his brothers.
At the time of the exodus, Reuven's descendants numbered among
the larger tribes, totalling 64,500 men above the age of twenty.
Because of their many flocks, they asked for and received their
share of land on the east side of the Jordan river (modern-day
Jordan).
In this parasha we read (35:22), "It happened, when Yisrael
resided in the land, that Reuven went and lay with Bilhah, his
father's concubine, and Yisrael heard, and Yaakov's sons were
twelve." The first part of this verse levels serious accusation
against Reuven, yet the end of the verse suggests that Reuven
remained a member in good standing of Yaakov's family. Indeed,
Chazal taught, "Whoever says, 'Reuven sinned,' is mistaken (Shabbat
55b).
Chazal are not trying to cover-up or deny that which the Torah
states very clearly. Rather, they are teaching us a principle
applicable to numerous stories of the Torah. Anyone who interprets
the Torah as if the Torah's characters are on his own level is
sorely mistaken. We know that the more righteous the individual,
the more strictly he is judged. Reuven sinned; otherwise he would
have had no need to repent. However, the Torah does not mean that
Reuven literally committed adultery; had he done so, he could never
have remained one of the progenitors of the twelve holy tribes.
Rather, the sin that Reuven committed--questioning his father's
decision to make Bilhah his primary wife after Rachel's death,
rather than Leah -- a natural reaction for us -- was as serious for
a person of his caliber as adultery would be for the average
person. In order that we may understand this, the Torah condemns
him in our own language. (Based on Michtav m'Eliyahu I p.163)
|
| 989.268 | Question about two camps | HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Mon Nov 29 1993 23:56 | 11 |
| At the end of Parashat Vayetze, Jacob has a confrontation with Laban,
concludes a treaty, and names the place Machenayim ([two] camps).
In the next parasha (Parashat Vayishlach), Jacob divides his people and
possessions into two camps. If Esau should attack, one camp might be
destroyed but the other might escape.
I never noticed the "two camps" theme until this year. There seems to
be some significance in it, but I can't put my finger on it. Can anyone
help?
Dave
|
| 989.269 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayeshev | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Dec 02 1993 19:33 | 144 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Vayeshev
Volume VIII/Number 9 (344)
20 Kislev 5754/December 4, 1993
In this week's parasha, we see the "supernatural" moral strength
of Yaakov's sons. In Yosef's case, we see a teenager, forced to
work as a slave, who can perhaps improve his lot if he gives in to
the seductions of his master's wife. Nevertheless, by keeping a
"picture" of his father in the forefront of his mind, he is able to
withstand the temptation.
In Yehuda's case, we see the king of the brothers admitting that
it was he who had relations with his daughter-in-law (Tamar), who
had been sitting at a crossroads disguised as an ordinary harlot.
Yehuda's descendant Nachshon ben Aminadav inherited this strength
and demonstrated it by being the first to jump into the Red Sea,
even before it had split.
Going a whole year without working the ground requires a similar
show of supernatural strength and faith, says R' Chaim Yishayahu
Hadari, shlita. Indeed, developing this strength is one of the
purposes of shemittah. (Shabbat uMo'ed baShevi'it)
************************************
Many explanations have been given for the dispute between Yosef
and his brothers. Most commentaries attribute the brothers' enmity
to philosophical disputes. However, R' Yehuda Rosannes explains in
Sefer Parashat Derachim that the brothers disagreed on a
fundamental halachic question: Were Yaakov and his sons Jewish?
Chazal say that the Patriarchs observed the Torah. Thus, Ramban
and other commentators strain to explain how Yaakov could marry two
sisters, something which the Torah prohibits. The question arises,
however: did they observe the Torah only "l'chumra" -- only when it
resulted in their obligations being more stringent than they would
have been without the Torah -- or even "l'kula" -- when it resulted
in their obligations being more lenient? Since they were not
commanded to observe the Torah, did they have the right to keep the
Torah's laws when it resulted in a leniency?
What is an example of such a case? Chazal say that Yosef
accused his brothers of eating meat from a live animal. R'
Rosannes explains that what Yosef's brothers ate was a "mefarkeset"
-- an animal that has been slaughtered in accordance with halachah,
but is still undergoing its death throes. Because the Torah
contains laws of "shechitah," an animal that has been slaughtered
is halachically dead, even if it is still moving. For non-Jews,
however, (who are also prohibited to eat the limb of a live animal)
death is defined differently, because the concept of ritual
slaughter has no meaning to them.
Yaakov's sons of course slaughtered their animals in accordance
with halachah, since they all agreed that they were required to
keep the Torah's stringencies. Yosef's brothers considered
themselves to be Jewish and therefore observed the Torah's
leniencies as well; they ate the meat of a "mefarkeset," which is
"kosher" only for Jews, but not for non-Jews. Yosef disagreed,
however, and felt that before the Torah was given, the Torah's
leniencies could not be relied on. In his view, his brothers were
eating the meat of animals which were technically alive, a capital
offense for non-Jews.
************************************
CHANUKAH
Many communities have the custom to recite Psalm 30 ("Mizmor
shir chanukat habayit l'David...") in honor of Chanukah. Some
recite it after Shacharit, in place of the "Shir shel yom," some
recite it in addition to the Shir shel yom, and others do not
recite it after "davening" at all, but rather sing it melodiously
when it is recited in its ordinary place near the beginning of
Shacharit. (She'elot uTeshuvot Divrei Moshe)
It is clear why this is read on Chanukah; it purports to be a
"song for the dedication of the house" -- presumably, the Temple.
The body of the Psalm, however, appears to have no connection to
Chanukah or the Bet haMikdash. Rather it seems to be the song of
one who had been sick and was cured.
R' Reuven Margaliot explains that (as we read in Shmuel II,
chapter 24, and Divrei haYamim I, chapter 21) David's discovery of
the place where the Temple altar should stand occurred at the end
of a horrible plague which struck the Jews. Specifically, David
saw a vision of an angel standing in a place called "Goren Arnon
haYevusi" (the threshing floor of Arnon of Yevus) waving a sword to
fell the inhabitants of Yerushalayim. The prophet Gad told David
that if he would build an altar at that place, the plague would
end. That place was the site of the Temple.
R' Yosef Yaavetz (1435-1507) writes that this Psalm expresses
the vindication that both David and Bnei Yisrael felt at the news
that the first Bet haMikdash would be built -- David, that he had
been forgiven for the sin of the golden calf. However, R' Yaavetz
emphasizes the point that was discussed in Hamaayan last week,
i.e., that these sins must be understood in light of the high level
of those who stand accused. To illustrate this point, R' Yaavetz
cites a midrash which says that when one of the Ten Martyrs
referred to in our Yom Kippur and Tisha b'Av prayers was being
tortured to death, he cried. Seeing this, one of his colleagues
asked, "Don't you deserve this? Wasn't there at least one time
when a widow or orphan came to your door during your afternoon nap,
and your maid sent them away?" So exacting is Hashem's justice on
the righteous, that this seemingly trivial accusation consoled the
great martyr.
************************************
SHIMON
21 Kislev 2194-21 Kislev 2314
Shimon was the second son of Yaakov and of Leah. Some say that
he was born on this day; however, other sources give 28 Tevet or 21
Shevat as his birthday.
Shimon was thirteen years old at the time that he and Levi
killed the people of Shechem, as described in last week's Parasha.
It was Shimon who suggested that the people of Shechem circumcise
themselves. According to one midrash, seven people (including
Shechem's grandfather) refused to circumcise themselves, and
instead plotted to kill Yaakov. However, Dinah (Yaakov's daugther)
learned of the plot and got word to her brothers Shimon and Levi.
(This midrash is alluded to by the "trupp" on verse 34:25.)
(Melizei Esh)
In this week's parasha, it is Shimon who proposes to kill Yosef.
It is also Shimon who is jailed by Yosef in next week's parasha, as
Yosef knows that Shimon is the one most likely to plot against the
Egyptian viceroy. The midrash says that as soon as the other
brothers left, Yosef released Shimon and treated him as an honored
guest.
R' Yosef Chaim David Azulai ("Chida") notes that Levi was
Shimon's partner in the plots against Shechem and Yosef, but one
was punished and one was not. Why? When further opportunities for
zealousness arose, Levi's descendants distinguished themselves; it
was members of the tribe of Levi who killed those who worshipped
the golden calf and those who sinned with the daughters of Moav.
Shimon's descendants, on the other hand, did not show the same
zealousness; in fact, the leader of the sin in Moav was Zimri, a
descendant of Shimon (Midbar Kedemot). In all of subsequent Jewish
history, no leader came from the tribe of Shimon.
|
| 989.270 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Miketz | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Dec 13 1993 19:24 | 160 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Miketz
Volume VIII/Number 10 (345)
27 Kislev 5754/December 11, 1993
We read in this parasha that Yosef remained in jail for two
years after he asked the "sar hamashkim" to remember him to
Pharaoh. Chazal explain that Yosef was punished for exhibiting a
lack of "bitachon" (trust in G-d). Even though the typical person
is obligated to try to improve his life by natural means, tzaddikim
are held to a higher standard. (Bet haLevi)
Having bitachon does not mean saying "Everything will turn out
okay." R' Moshe Schwab writes that bitachon means knowing that, no
matter what happens, Hashem's will will be done. The Chashmonaim
found the strength to fight the more numerous Syrian/Greeks because
the Chashmonaim knew that it could not be Hashem's will that the
Bet haMikdash remain defiled. (Ma'archei Lev)
Observing shemittah is also an exercise in bitachon. It cannot
be Hashem's will that Jews should go hungry as the result of
performing a mitzvah. We therefore know that Hashem will provide.
************************************
"Yosef jailed [his brothers] for three days. On the third day
Yosef said, 'Do this and live; I fear G-d. If you are true, leave
one of your brothers in prison, and you go bring food to your
families. And your youngest brother bring to me, and that will
prove your words.' and they did so.
"And one said his brother, 'But we are guilty, for we saw our
brother's suffering, when he begged us and we didn't listen --
therefore this has come upon us'." (42:17-21)
The verse states enigmatically, "And they did so." What did
they do? This cannot refer to bringing Binyamin to Egypt, for that
story will be told in depth later. What, then, does it mean?
R' Shimon Schwab, shlita, notes that this brief story begins
with Yosef's changing his mind. He had originally planned to
imprison nine brothers and send one home. Later he decided to
imprison one, and send nine home. Why? He explained to them that
it was because he feared G-d.
What did the brothers do? They also changed their minds. After
believing for 22 years that they had dealt properly with Yosef,
they said to themselves, "If fear of G-d can lead this Egyptian to
reconsider his position, certainly we should examine the
correctness of our views." Upon doing so, they realized that they
were wrong about Yosef, and they thus attributed their present
troubles to their treatment of him.
In the Birkat haChodesh which is recited on the Shabbat
preceding Rosh Chodesh (including today), we ask for "A life filled
with fear of Heaven and fear of sin." Why the double request?
Because fear of Heaven can become automatic. We must use our fear
of sin (which must be constant, as we are constantly tempted) to
reinvigorate our fear of Heaven.
(Selected Speeches)
************************************
Chanukah
The Mishnah (Avot, ch.5) lists ten miracles that occurred in the
Bet haMikdash on a regular basis. Why, then, asks R' Avraham
Yaakov haKohen Pam, shlita, were Chazal so moved by the miracle of
the oil that they ordained its permanent commemoration as the
holiday of Chanukah?
One answer is based on another question. The Pnei Yehoshua
asks: Since the halacha states that when the majority of Jews or
the majority of the Temple vessels are ritually defiled ("tamei")
the Temple service may be performed in a state of defilement, why
was the miracle necessary at all? The Jews could just as well have
used oil that was tamei!
The answer is that Hashem performed the miracle to show his love
for the Jews. R' Pam elaborates and notes that when two people
have a bitter fight, even if they make up, they rarely return not
their former friendship. Not so, is Hashem's love for us. After
we sin and repent, His love is as great as before.
The midrash relates that Eliyahu haNavi was once sitting in the
study hall and a student asked him, "Why, of all the prophets, did
Yishayahu merit to be the prophet of consolation?"
Eliyahu answered him, "Because he undertook his mission
joyfully."
The student continued, "Of what historical period was Yishayahu
speaking?"
Eliyahu answered, "If the Jews would repent now, Hashem would
rebuild the Bet haMikdash immediately, and He would hug the Jews
and kiss them and seat them next to Him forever and ever." This is
how great Hashem's love is, despite our thousands of years of sin.
Lighting the Chanuka candles should remind us of that love.
(Atarah laMelech)
************************************
R' Chaim of Czernowitz
born 5520 (1760) - died 27 (or 7) Kislev 5578 (1818)
R' Chaim Tirer was one of the seminal figures and authors of
chassidut. His teacher in halacha was R' Zvi Hirsh Kara; his first
chassidic rebbe was R' Yechiel Michel of Zlotchov, a student of the
Ba'al Shem Tov.
R' Chaim served as Rabbi of at least six communities, the
largest of which were Czernowitz and Kishinev. He served the
former from 1789 to 1807. In 1814, he settled in Zefat, where he
died.
R' Chaim's influence on the Jews of Bukovina (eastern Romania)
was immense. Due to his influence, the only public school serving
Jews was closed, and he vigorously fought anti-Semitic laws. He
was once fined for saying Kaddish in a mourner's house, in
violation of a law against "clandestine" synagogues. Due to his
influence, chassidim swept across Bukovina and Bessarabia without
the opposition that it encountered in Poland and Lithuania.
It is said that R' Chaim stood out among chassidic masters for
his love of Shabbat and his love of Eretz Yisrael. The only one of
his many works which was published in his lifetime was Sidduro Shel
Shabbat, in which he deals with many deep aspects of Shabbat. He
writes, "A person's countenance is not the same on Shabbat as it is
on a weekday." His love for Eretz Yisrael was also put into
practice, as he lived the last four years of his life there.
The best known of his other works are Be'er Mayim Chaim on Torah
and Sha'ar haTefilah on prayer.
In Sidduro Shel Shabbat (Part II, Drush 4), R' Chaim writes that
there are two kinds of miracles. Since Hashem is above time, He
may perform a miracle for a person based on the meritorious deeds
which that person will do in the future. Other times, a person may
actually deserve the miracle which is done for him. The Exodus was
the former type of miracle - the Jews, like their Egyptian masters,
were idolators, but the Jews were destined to receive the Torah,
and could thus be saved. The war of Chanukah, however, was a war
of "The pure against the impure, the righteous against the wicked,
and the deliberate sinners against those who kept the Torah."
There was thus no question that the Jews deserved a miracle.
On Pesach, R' Chaim continues, the full Hallel is recited only
on the first day, because the Jews were lifted with great force out
of the depths of their impurity to a level on which they remained
just long enough to leave Egypt. On the following days, they
returned to their former level. However, the Jews began on
Chanukah on a high level and remained there, and thus the full
Hallel is recited on all of the days of the holiday. If anything,
the Jews continued to grow during Chanukah, and this is why we
light an additional candle each night.
|
| 989.271 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayigash | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Dec 15 1993 18:58 | 168 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Vayigash
Volume VIII/Number 11 (346)
4 Tevet 5754/December 18, 1993
Our parasha concludes, "Yisrael stayed in the land of Egypt, in
the land of Goshen." Mei haShiloach writes that "Goshen" is
related to "vaYigash" - "drawing close." Yaakov was afraid to go to
Egypt because Chazal say that there is a taint of idolatry in
living outside of Israel. Hashem promised him, however, that the
holiness of Eretz Yisrael would go with him; he would always be
"close" to Eretz Yisrael.
Of course, living outside Eretz Yisrael is not the same as
living on the land. Yaakov observed the Torah before it was given,
but even he did not observe its laws outside of Eretz Yisrael
(Ramban). In fact, Rashi (Devarim 11:18) implies that even today,
Torah observance outside of Eretz Yisrael serves only as a
reminder, so that when we return to Eretz Yisrael we will know how
to observe the laws.
Interestingly, in the case of shemittah, Chazal did not even
institute such a reminder. Rather, shemittah is observed only in
Eretz Yisrael. Maharal explains that the concept of rest can apply
only to Eretz Yisrael which is the perfect land. Somebody who is
not perfect has no right to rest; the very concept of perfection
implies that there is rest, i.e. some finite points at which the
work is done. For the same reason, the Jewish people were given
Shabbat, the day of rest, because perfection can be achieved
through Torah observance. (Derech Chaim 5:9)
************************************
"He gave his voice to crying, and Egypt heard, and it was heard
in Pharaoh's house." (45:2)
Why does the Torah use the strange language, "He gave his voice
to crying"? Why not say, "He cried"?
R' Yosef Chaim of Baghdad relates that the Queen of Bohemia once
ordered that the Jews be expelled from her land. One Jew went to
the Interior Minister and broke into uncontrollable tears. "Why
are you crying so?" the Minister asked him.
"These are not my tears," the Jew answered, "but the tears of
all present-day and future children who will suffer as a result of
this decree." Similarly, says R' Yosef Chaim, Chazal say that when
Pharaoh's daughter found Moshe in a basket among the reeds, "He
looked like a child, but cried like a youth." What Pharaoh's
daughter actually heard were the collective tears of all of the
Jewish people.
Yosef realized that the Jewish people would suffer for centuries
because his brothers sold him to Egypt. In particular, the Ten
Martyrs were killed as atonement for Yosef's ten older brothers.
It was their tears which escaped from Yosef and were heard
throughout Egypt.
(Od Yosef Chai)
************************************
Rashi (45:24) writes that when Yosef sent his brothers from
Egypt he instructed them not to become engrossed in Torah study on
the road, lest they lose their way. Why, asks R' Chaim (the
brother of Maharal), didn't Yaakov give them that instruction
before their trip?
R' Chaim explains that Chazal teach, "If there is no flour,
there is no Torah." A scholar whose financial condition is
uncertain is incapable of concentrating on his studies. When
Yosef's brothers left home, they were concerned about the famine.
Yaakov did not have to instruct them not to become engrossed in
Torah study, because they would have been incapable of doing so
anyway. However, after Yosef guaranteed their financial futures,
then their ability to learn returned.
(Sefer haChaim, Part I, ch.4)
************************************
Laws of Shemittah
(based on R' Tikochinski's Sefer haShemittah;
not for practical application)
One of the tasks prohibited during shemittah is harvesting.
This does not mean that nothing may be harvested; after all, the
Torah says, "The sabbatical of the land will be yours to eat." We
cannot eat without harvesting!
Rambam writes that this mitzvah prohibits harvesting that way
one ordinarily harvests. Therefore, one should harvest with a
"shinui" (differently), e.g. harvesting smaller quantities than
usual, or harvesting by hand instead of with a machine. Fruits
which are ordinarily cut from the tree with shears should be
plucked by hand or with a knife. One can, however, put his whole
family to work harvesting these small amounts in order to obtain a
larger share of the produce.
In some communities in Israel today, the harvest is conducted
without any shinui whatsoever. This is done through the mechanisms
of "Otzar Bet Din" - "the treasury of the court." We have noted
before that the institution of the bet din is exempted from the
laws of shemittah. Rather than declaring their fields open to all,
farmers can donate their produce to bet din. The court, in turn,
can hire the farmer to harvest his own field and deliver the
produce to the court, which then distributes it equitably within
the community for free. The farmer not only gets a share of the
food, but he received some payment for the work of harvesting.
Pruning a tree is also generally prohibited during the
shemittah. However, cutting down a tree for wood is permitted,
even without a shinui. Mowing a lawn is also prohibited.
************************************
R' GERSHON HENACH LEINER OF RADZYN
born 5599 (1839) - died 4 Tevet 5651 (1891)
R' Gershon Henach Leiner was both a chassidic rebbe and an
innovative posek and halachic researcher. He was the son of R'
Yaakov of Izbica and the grandson of R' Mordechai Yosef Leiner of
Izbica, who had been a disciple of R' Mendel Kotzker. (The best
known chassid of the Izbica dynasty was probably R' Tzadok haKohen
of Lublin.)
When R' Gershon Henach was eighteen, he published the first
volume of Sidrei Tahara, a sort of "Gemara" on certain tractates of
Mishnah on which there is no Gemara. In that first volume, R'
Gershon Henach gathered from the existing Talmudic tractates all
discussions pertaining to the Mishnaic tractate "Kelim," and
arranged them as if they were a Gemara on that tractate. He even
composed commentaries in the styles of Rashi and Tosfot, and
printed them in the margins. This work was widely acclaimed,
except in the bet din of Vilna, which banned the work because of
its misleading appearance. (The danger of such a work was
demonstrated half-a-century later, when a previously unknown rabbi
claimed to have discovered some missing tractates of the Yerushalmi
Talmud, and succeeded in fooling many leading sages before he was
exposed. Ironically, if that rabbi had presented his work as the
original compilation that it really was, he might have received the
acclaim which he sought.)
R' Gershon Henach's second great legacy was his effort to renew
the mitzvah of "techelet." (The Torah sates that some of the
strings of the tzitzit should be dyed techelet - a certain shade of
blue; however, the correct ingredients of the blue dye were lost,
and Jews took to wearing tzitzit that were all white.) R' Gershon
Henach found kabbalistic sources which suggested that the mitzvah
of techelet would be renewed before Mashiach's arrival. He thus
undertook extensive biological and zoological studies in the hopes
of finding a "chilazon" (the creature out of which techelet was
made). He also traveled to the large aquarium in Naples, Italy,
and, some say, he visited the Vatican where he was allowed to
examine garments which the kohanim had worn in the Bet haMikdash
nearly 2,000 years earlier.
Eventually, R' Gershon Henach concluded that he had found the
chilazon, and he published his findings in Sefunei Temunei Chol and
other works. Soon, 12,000 chassidim were wearing tzitzit with
techelet. However, his "discovery" was not generally accepted.
R' Gershon Henach also published his grandfather's Torah
commentary Mei haShiloach which is quoted on page 1 of this issue.
|
| 989.272 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayechi | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Dec 22 1993 19:22 | 155 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Vayechi
Volume VIII/Number 12 (347)
11 Tevet 5754/December 25, 1993
We read of Yissachar in this parasha (49:15), "He saw that rest
was good, and the land pleasant, [so] he turned his shoulder to
bear it and he became an indentured laborer." R' Leibele Eiger
notes that the beginning and end of the verse are inconsistent. If
Yissachar saw that rest was good, why did he become an indentured
laborer?
True rest or contentment, R' Leibele explains, is that which
comes from never-ending spiritual toil. The Torah says (and we
recite in Kiddush), "Remember the Shabbat day to sanctify it, for
six days you shall work..." It is the hard spiritual work of the
first six days of the week which allows man to taste the true
spirit of Shabbat rest.
The above verse suggests that the same concept applies to
shemittah -- resting for toil on the land. A person whose focus
during the six years of work is on the material benefits which come
from working the land will probably find no rest during the
shemittah. He will be too concerned about the income which he
thinks he is losing. However, if one's focus while working the
land is on the mitzvot which are involved, then the opportunity to
perform yet another mitzvah -- leaving the land fallow -- will
likely be very fulfilling.
************************************
"He blessed them on that day... and he placed Ephraim before
Menashe." (48:20)
The Da'at Zekeinim says, "When did this blessing come true?
When the princes of the tribes brought sacrifices to the Mishkan
(Tabernacle) and Ephraim preceded Menashe."
R' Chaim Elazary, zatzal, writes that the Da'at Zekeinim is
teaching us that it is worthwhile to receive the blessing of a
tzaddik, even if it will be fulfilled only once. Look how much
time and effort Yaakov and Yosef spent debating the propriety of
this seemingly small blessing.
Not only that, but the one time when this blessing was fulfilled
was hundreds of years after the lifetimes of both Yaakov and
Ephraim. Tzaddikim's outlook on life transcends their own
lifetimes and eras. Their view encompasses future generations and
centuries.
(Netivei Chaim)
************************************
The midrash says that after Yaakov died, his sons were afraid of
Yosef and Esav. Specifically, they were afraid that Yosef would
now take revenge for what they did to him. In fact, once Yaakov
died, Yosef stopped inviting his brothers to eat at his house.
R' Moshe Gruenwald writes that it is impossible for one person
to observe the whole Torah, but when the Jews are united, Hashem
views the merits of each one as belonging to the others as well.
In this way, the entire Torah is kept.
Yaakov missed the opportunity to honor his parents during the 22
years that he was away. Esav was not lacking that merit. However,
Yaakov assumed that he would live peacefully with his children, and
the merit of their honoring their parents would be counted for
Yaakov as well. Thus, the whole family would be safe from Esav.
Instead, Yosef's brothers sold him as a slave. Not only was
this an act of disunity, but it was contrary to the honor due
Yaakov. Yosef also lacked the opportunity to honor Yaakov for the
22 years they were separated. Now Esav would have the merit to
overcome Yaakov.
Yosef wanted to demonstrate that there was no need to fear Esav.
He thus stopped inviting his brothers to his home, as if to say,
"The only reason that I invited you all of these years was in order
to honor our father."
(Arugat haBosssem)
************************************
Laws of Shemittah
(based on R' Tikochinski's Sefer haShemittah;
not for practical application)
Any produce of Eretz Yisrael which is of a species that people
normally plant and which was not planted in violation of halacha
(but grew during the shemittah) is called "sefichin" and may not be
eaten. This includes that which grew from seeds that fell and from
roots which remained in the ground. All of these are prohibited by
rabbinic law, as a decree lest a person plant during shemittah and
claim that it grew in the wild.
As a result, the only produce which may be eaten during the
shemittah is fruit from trees (which do not grow fast enough to
allow the type of deceit that Chazal feared), grasses which most
people do not plant, and produce which grew in places where people
do not ordinarily plant. Also, produce which began to grow in the
sixth year may be eaten during the shemittah.
Any produce of shemittah which may be eaten, must be eaten with
"Kedushat Shevi'it" - "the sanctity of the seventh year." That
means that they must be eaten, not wasted. Also, food which is fit
for human consumption may not be given to animals or pets.
However, humans may use the produce for any ordinary purpose, for
example, to make oil. Fruits of shemittah may not be used in
commerce, nor may they be exported from Eretz Yisrael. Finally,
they must be destroyed if they are not eaten before a certain time
(as will be discussed in a future issue.)
Some say that there is a positive commandment to eat the fruits
of shemittah. This means that if one has such fruits in his house,
he would be prohibited from fasting a voluntary fast.
************************************
R' Shlomo Eiger
born 5546 (1786) - died 5612 (1851)
R' Shlomo Eiger was the son of the renowned R' Akiva Eiger.
Originally, R' Shlomo lived in Warsaw, where he was among the
wealthier merchants. His business brought him in touch with the
highest levels of government, and government ministers were his
frequent house guests. Nevertheless, R' Shlomo was a consummate
scholar in all aspects of Torah, and many students gathered around
him.
At some point, R' Shlomo lost his entire fortune, and he
reluctantly entered the rabbinate. He first turned down an offer
to become Rabbi of Frankfurt am-Main, and he eventually settled in
Kalish. In 1840, he succeeded his father as rabbi of Posen.
There, R' Shlomo fought vigorously against reformers and
assimilationists who had made major inroads into German Jewry.
R' Shlomo left many unpublished works. Best known are his
glosses on the Talmud, now published in the back of the standard
edition of the Talmud. He also wrote Sefer haIkkarim, an
encyclopedia of Talmudic principles. R' Shlomo explains, for
example, that perhaps the reason that the sage Rava holds that any
act which is contrary to the Torah is void is because Chazal say,
"Nobody sins unless a spirit of lunacy has entered into him." It
is generally accepted that the acts of a lunatic are void.
R' Shlomo's youngest son, R' Yehuda Leib Eiger, became a chassid
of R' Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Izbica and others. His
contemporary, the first "Gerrer Rebbe," commented that the
opponents of chassidism were being punished by their sons and
grandsons becoming chassidim. A "d'var Torah" from R' Leib's Torat
Emet appears on page 1 of this issue.
|
| 989.273 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Shmot | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Dec 29 1993 18:30 | 173 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Sh'mot
Volume VIII/Number 13 (348)
18 Tevet 5754/January 1, 1994
R' Aaron Lewin asks in haDrash v'haIyun: Why did Hashem take
the children of His beloved Avraham to Egypt, to hand them over to
brutal and cruel masters who oppressed them and embittered their
lives? The answer, says R' Lewin, is that this is how Hashem
prepared Bnei Yisrael to be the "Kingdom of Priests" that possesses
every good trait. One who has never suffered cannot feel the pain
of the oppressed and the depressed. On the other hand, one who was
himself steeped in sorrow will, when his lot improves, understand
what is incumbent upon him to do for the less fortunate. This is
why so many commandments in the Torah conclude with the reminder,
"For you were a sojourner in Egypt."
We might add, that the shemittah can serve a similar purpose.
Obviously, a vast gulf separates landowner from the beggar. How
can the former understand the misery of the latter? The answer is
that by observing shemittah, when the landowner is suddenly on
equal footing with the beggar as both compete for the produce which
lies in the open fields, the landowner hopefully comes to
understand the plight of the less fortunate.
************************************
"...and the land filled with them. And a new king arose over
Egypt...." (1:7-8)
R' Meir Kahana, hy"d, quotes the midrash which states, "'The
land filled with them' -- the theaters and circuses filled with
them." Once this happened, the midrash continues, Hashem caused
the Egyptians to hate the Jews.
This is the way Jewish history goes, says R' Kahana. Hashem
sends us into exile for some purpose, whether as punishment or to
sanctify G-d's Name. However, we fail to recognize His purpose,
and instead turn the exile to our own material advantage. When the
time for the exile ends, Hashem therefore has to force us to return
to Eretz Yisrael, as he had to do with the generation of the
Exodus.
(Ohr haRa'ayon)
************************************
R' Yosef Dov haLevi Soloveitchik uses the above idea to explain
an enigmatic juxtaposition of verses in Tehilim (ch. 105), "Give
praise to Hashem...He turned their [i.e., the Egyptians'] hearts to
hate them [i.e., the Jews]." Why do we thank Hashem for causing
the Egyptians to hate us? The answer, as shown by a host of
midrashim, is that when we try to assimilate (as the Jews did in
Egypt), Hashem makes sure that we are not accepted.
(Bet haLevi)
************************************
The Torah relates that Moshe Rabbenu, the Patriarchs, and many
other great figures were shepherds. R' Avraham haLevi Horowitz
(father of the "Shelah haKadosh") explains that they did this
because they sought solitude where they would not be tempted to
speak "Lashon haRa." Based on this thought, R' Avraham explains
the well-known midrash that as a baby comes into the world, an
angel slaps his mouth and causes him to forget the Torah which he
learnt in the womb. In addition to its literal meaning, this
midrash is a parable for a person who goes out into the world.
Immediately, an angel, i.e., the "Yetzer haRa," slaps his mouth,
i.e., causes him to speak Lashon haRa (which is the greatest
blemish a mouth could have), and he forgets all that he learnt in
the Yeshiva beforehand.
(Yesh Nochalin 8:8)
************************************
We read in the Pesach Haggadah, "Look what Lavan tried to do to
Yaakov. Pharaoh decreed only against the males, while Lavan wanted
to uproot everything." Why is this statement in the Haggadah,
whose purpose is to relate the evil of the Egyptians and how Hashem
took vengeance upon them? Why downplay Pharaoh's evil as compared
to Lavan's?
R' Eliezer Dovid Gruenwald, zatzal, explains that Hashem has
already promised that the Jews will never be destroyed. The world
cannot exist without Jews. This is why Moshe prayed, "If You do
not forgive the Jews, wipe me out as well" (see Sh'mot 32:32). If
one Jew (Moshe) survived, the Jewish people would survive no matter
what Hashem did to the others; but if Moshe refused to be the lone
survivor, Hashem could not kill the other Jews.
Lavan's plan to uproot Yaakov's entire family was doomed to
failure, because it would have eliminated the Jewish people
entirely. Pharaoh, however, was more cunning -- and more evil. He
would kill only the males, and thus might succeed. We therefore
recount Hashem's miracle that Pharaoh did not.
(Chasdei David, p.51)
************************************
Chazal say that because the Nile saved Moshe, as we read in
this parasha, Moshe refused to strike the Nile to bring about the
plagues of blood and frogs. Similarly, because the earth allowed
Moshe to bury the Egyptian that he killed (and thus escaped
detection, Moshe thought), Moshe refused to strike the earth to
bring about the plague of lice.
Is it really necessary to show gratitude to inanimate objects,
asks R' Avigdor Nebenzal, shlita (Rabbi of the "Old City")? The
answer, he explains is that gratitude is not for the benefit of its
recipient. Rather, it is for the benefit of the one who shows
gratitude.
This parasha shows us the harmful effects of failing to show
gratitude. The parasha opens with a king "who did not know Yosef."
It is not possible that this king had never heard of Yosef; rather,
he minimized what Yosef had done for Egypt or he rationalized that
Egypt had already paid its debt to Yosef's family. To what did
this attitude lead? When Moshe came to Pharaoh, the king said, "I
don't know Hashem, and I will not release Bnei Yisrael" (5:2).
When one denies that he knows "Yosef," he will eventually deny
knowing Hashem also.
(Sichot l'Sefer Sh'mot)
************************************
HUNA BAR MAR ZUTRA NASI
and MESHARSHYA BAR PAKOD
On this day in 470 C.E. -- corresponding to year 781 of the
Seleucid era -- Huna the son of the Exilarch (the political head of
Babylonian Jewry) and Mesharshya ben Pakod were executed. Both of
then had been arrested on a Shabbat earlier in the month of Tevet,
together with Rabbana Ameimar bar Mar Yenuka. (He would be killed
in Adar of that year.)
These executions were part of ongoing Persian persecution of the
Jews. Four years later, all of the synagogues in Babylon (not the
country, but the city -- also known as Sura) were closed, and
Jewish children were handed over to the Magians (Persian priests).
This period coincided with the time when the Talmud Bavli was
being "sealed": by the sage Ravina II. R' Sherira Gaon writes:
On the fourth day of the week, which was the 13th of Kislev,
in the year 811 [500 C.E.], Rabbana Avina the son of R' Huna,
i.e., Ravina, died, and he was the end of halachic
determination.
With his death, the era of the Amoraim -- sages of the Talmud --
came to an end.
While Ravina was the final halachic authority of the Talmud, the
"literary" work of the Talmud, i.e., the clarification of language
and ideas, was continued by succeeding generations. This was the
era known as the "Rabbanan Savorai." The first of these sages was
R' Yosef, who is mentioned in two places in the Talmud. It is
believed that the Talmud Bavli was first written down in his day.
Regarding the counting of years by the Seleucid era, in Hebrew
this is known as "Minyan Shtarot" -- "the reckoning for contracts."
The midrash Seder Olam Rabbah (ch. 30) instructs that the Jews in
exile should date their contracts based on the number of years that
had passed since the Greek conquest of Eretz Yisrael. (According
to R' Shimon Schwab, shlita, this refers to the conquest by
Seleucus Nikanor, a general of Alexander the Great.) One reason
for counting thus was to give honor to the king and, hopefully, to
keep him on friendly terms. Our present method of counting, i.e.,
from creation, was introduced by R' Sherira Gaon in the 10th
century C.E.
|
| 989.274 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vaera | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jan 07 1994 00:15 | 164 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Va'era
Volume VIII/Number 14 (349)
25 Tevet 5754/January 8, 1994
We read in this parasha (as in last week's) that Hashem heard
Bnei Yisrael's cries, and He came to rescue them from Egypt. R'
Moshe Hager of Kosov notes that many people feel that Hashem does
not hear their calls for the redemption. They are, however, wrong.
The midrash equates our sustenance with the redemption. Just as
the redemption will be miraculous, so our sustenance comes
miraculously. Just as our sustenance comes every day, so
redemption takes place every day. Before our bodies can be
physically redeemed from exile, Hashem must gather all of the
spiritual sparks which are scattered in exile. This is a constant
and ongoing process, and it occurs in answer to our prayers for the
redemption. (Leket Oni, Purim, p.17)
The miraculous nature of our sustenance is most evident during
shemittah. Without the usual work, there is nonetheless food to
eat. Sometimes the miracle is overt; for example, it has been
reported that in the pre-shemittah year of 1958, the shemittah-
observing settlement of Kememiyut tripled its ordinary input,
despite all of the surrounding communities being devastated by
locusts. However, even when the miracle is hidden, it is
nonetheless present, and we must recognize it.
************************************
"I appeared to Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov as 'Kel Shakai,'
and My Name 'Hashem' I did not reveal to them. And also I have
kept My covenant with them...." (6:3-4)
R' Yosef Yaavetz (1435-1507; known as "R' Yaavetz heChassid")
questions the use of the conjunction "And also" in the second pasuk
above. Usually, he notes, "also" is used to connect two "positive"
or two "negatives," but here it connects a "positive" ("I have
kept") to a "negative" ("I did not reveal").
R' Yaavetz explains that the two verses are actually parallel.
Both teach that sometimes events are determined by the level where
the protagonist stands, and sometimes by other considerations. For
example, the Patriarchs never saw Hashem behave in the way
represented by His four-letter Name (which we pronounce "Hashem").
However, this was not because the Patriarchs were not on the
appropriate level; rather, history was not prepared for such
involvement by Hashem. Similarly, Hashem told Moshe, when it comes
to fulfilling My covenant with the Patriarchs, you must understand
the difference between what I choose to do and what history calls
for. I will fulfill my covenant with the Patriarchs, even though
Bnei Yisrael are not presently worthy. However, this requires them
to undergo the additional suffering about which you have questioned
Me (as described at the end of last week's parasha).
(Yesod haEmunah)
************************************
The idea that our suffering is really for our good is taught by
this parasha and emphasized repeatedly by the Prophets and the
Talmud. For example, the Gemara teaches that one is obligated to
bless Hashem for bad news, just like for good news. The prophet
Yishayahu writes (12:1), "I thank You G-d for being angry with me.
When your anger disappears, I will be consoled." The Gemara (Nidah
31a) explains this in terms of a man who missed a ship's departure
because of illness and later heard that the ship had sunk. More
recently, notes R' David Feinstein, shlita, we know of individuals
who thought that they were being punished by exile to Siberia, but,
in fact, managed to escape the Holocaust as a result.
(Kol Dodi)
************************************
The second of Shevat (next Friday) is the yahrzeit of King
Yannai, a member of the Chashmonai dynasty which ruled Israel
during the Second Temple Period. For a time, that day was
celebrated as a Yom Tov, because Yannai had persecuted the Torah
sages of his time, and with his death, this ended.
The Gemara (Berachot 48a) relates the following about Yannai's
relationship with the sages:
King Yannai and his queen broke bread together. However,
since Yannai had killed the sages, there was no one present
who knew how to lead "Birkat haMazon." Yannai said to his
wife, "Who will bring us someone who can 'bentch'?"
The Queen said, "Swear to me that if I bring you such a man,
you will not harm him." When Yannai took that oath, the Queen
brought her brother, the sage Shimon ben Shetach, out of
hiding.
Shimon was seated between the King and the Queen and Yannai
said, "Look how I honor you."
"You do not honor me," Shimon said, "It is the Torah which
honors me." Without feeding him, they gave Shimon a cup of
wine (as was the custom with those who lead the 'bentching')
and Shimon said, "How shall I say -- 'Blessed is He from whose
food Yannai and his friends ate'?"
R' Avraham Yitzchak Kook writes that one idea behind the
requirement that three people who ate together recite Birkat
haMazon together, is that it turns a purely personal, physical act
(i.e., eating) into a communal undertaking. This is beneficial,
because it allows each person to learn good traits and service of
Hashem from the others. (Olat haRe'iyah I p.357)
It is interesting to note that according to R' Kook (in Shabbat
haAretz, quoted previously in Hamaayan), the purpose of shemittah
is to distract each person from his personal pursuit of wealth, and
to bring together all Jews, as they forage side-by-side and on
equal terms in the fields which are now open to all. With this
purpose in mind, our 'bentching' during shemittah can take on a new
meaning as well.
************************************
R' MENACHEM MENDEL KROCHMAL
born 5360 (1600) - died 2 Shevat 5421 (1661)
R' Menachem Mendel was born in Cracow, Poland, and was a student
of R' Yoel Sirkes (the "Bach"). At a young age, R' Menachem Mendel
was appointed to the Cracow bet din (rabbinical court). His
teacher also gave him permission to found a yeshiva. Finally, he
was a member of the "Va'ad Arba Aratzot" - the "Council of the Four
Lands" - which was a semi-autonomous Jewish government in Poland
and Lithuania. (Through that council, the kings of Poland and
Lithuania recognized the greatest sages of that period as the sole
representatives and leaders of the Jews.)
After holding a number of other posts, R' Menachem Mendel was
appointed Chief Rabbi of Nikolsburg and Moravia. In 1659, he
presided over a convention at which the Jewish communities of
Moravia adopted a constitution. On another occasion, R' Menachem
Mendel forbade the consumption of fish on Shabbat, as the gentile
fisherman were gauging the Jews who were used to buying fish for
Shabbat at any price. He was also very active in assisting the
"Agunot" (women whose husbands have disappeared) of the massacres
of 1648/49, when at least 100,000 Jews were killed by Cossacks.
R' Menachem Mendel's best-known work is "She'eilot u'Teshuvot
Tzemach Tzedek", so-called because the gematrias of "Tzemach
Tzedek" and the Yiddish spelling of "Menachem Mendel" are equal.
It is quoted by many leading poskim, notably the Magen Avraham.
In his Pi Tzaddik, R' Menachem Mendel makes the following
observation on the verses in next week's parasha, "Bnei Yisrael
should ask of the Egyptians silver and gold vessels and
clothing...also the man Moshe is very great in the land of Egypt,
in the eyes of Pharaoh's servants and in the eyes of the nation."
Why is the Egyptians' attitude towards Moshe mentioned in that
verse? Because Chazal say that while Bnei Yisrael were busy
gathering-up the Egyptians' wealth, Moshe was busy looking for
Yosef's casket. Why? Because, say Chazal, Moshe loved Mitzvot
more than gold. We might think, however, that the real reason that
Moshe was not gathering riches was because he was so hated that the
Egyptians would not have given him a thing; not true, says the
verse, "The man Moshe is very great in the land of Egypt, etc."
|
| 989.275 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Bo | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jan 13 1994 18:48 | 165 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Bo
Volume VIII/Number 15 (350)
3 Shevat 5754/January 15, 1994
In this parasha, we find the first mitzvah which was taught to
Bnei Yisrael as a whole. This is the commandment to sanctify the
new moon. Chazal teach that just as the mitzvah was addressed
specifically to Moshe and Aharon, the outstanding sages of their
generation, so, in each generation, the outstanding individuals in
the Sanhedrin ("high court") are entrusted with the declaration of
"Rosh Chodesh" and the sanctification of the moon.
Another mitzvah which involves the calendar and is entrusted to
the Sanhedrin is counting "shemittot"-"sabbatical years." The
Sefer haChinuch (Mitzvah 330) writes that in the same way that we
count the Omer, the Sanhedrin would count, "This is the first
year," "This is the second year," ..."This is the eighth year which
is the first year of the second set of seven years," and so on,
until the "Yovel" ("Jubilee Year"). One reason for this, according
to the Chinuch, is to serve as a constant reminder that physical
possessions are not permanent -- in the fiftieth year, most land
that has been sold is returned to its hereditary owners --
hopefully leading people to deal more honestly in business.
************************************
"On the first day shall be a holy convocation, and on the
seventh day shall be a holy convocation for you...." (12:16)
[Jews outside of Israel keep not only the first and seventh days
of Pesach as Yom Tov, but two more days as well. This is because
at one time, Jews far from Israel did not know when the holiday
actually started. Why do we maintain this custom today, when our
calendar is fixed and well publicized?]
R' Zvi Yehuda Kook (who lived in Yerushalayim) said, "We were
once outside of Israel on the last day of Pesach, the second day of
Yom Tov in the Diaspora. We prayed according to the custom of the
people of Israel, and put on Tefilin in private, as required. [See
O.C. Ch. 496, Mishnah Berurah paragraph 13.] When this became
known to the residents of the community, who were not scholars,
they were filled with interest and wonder. They said, 'People come
from Jerusalem who put on Tefilin on Yom Tov!'
"I explained to them that in Israel there is no second day of
Yom Tov, and since we had left Israel for only a limited time, we
had to continue the customs of Eretz Yisrael.
"They said that if there was a difference in customs between
Israel and the Diaspora, then obviously the Jews of Israel were
right, and so they too should do like the Israelis and hold only
one day of Yom Tov.
"I told them that since they recognized the difference between
the Judaism of Israel and of the Diaspora, they could understand
that complete Judaism makes sense only in Eretz Yisrael. In the
Diaspora, Judaism is not precise."
(Torat Eretz Yisrael p.218)
************************************
"They could not delay...." (12:39)
Chazal praise the Jews in Egypt for speaking Hebrew, giving
their children Jewish names, and maintaining the Jewish style of
dress. Yet Chazal say that if the Jews had remained in Egypt
another instant, they would have become completely assimilated.
This demonstrates, says R' Zalman Sorotzkin, that the trappings of
Jewish living do not preserve Judaism; only the Torah, which the
Jews in Egypt had not yet received, can do that.
(quoted in Ta'am vaDa'at)
************************************
"And so that you shall relate in the ears of your son and your
son's son...." (10:2)
The Ba'al haTurim explains that the Jews would tell their sons
and their grandsons about the Exodus -- but apparently not later
generations -- because a person's concern (literally, "mercy") for
his descendants usually extends only that far. (Alternatively,
says the Ba'al haTurim, this parallels the three generations which
were enslaved in Egypt.)
R' Eliyahu David Rabinowitz Teomim (the "Aderet") notes that the
mitzvah of relating the story of the Exodus parallels the mitzvah
to teach Torah. This too is incumbent upon fathers and
grandfathers (Atrot Ader).
Some explain that a grandfather's teaching Torah to his grandson
is actually an element of the mercy to which the Ba'al haTurim
refers, for it sets the grandchild on the correct path (Shoham
Yakar).
The nature of a grandfather's obligation to teach Torah is
discussed in the responsa of R' Moshe Halberstam, shlita.
Specifically, he was asked, is a grandfather obligated to teach his
grandson under all circumstances, or only if the boy's father does
not do so?
R' Halberstam notes that there is no specific mitzvah among the
613 commandments to teach Torah to one's son. Rather, this mitzvah
is either an extension of the commandment to study Torah (which,
according to Rambam, includes both studying and teaching) or it is
part of the mitzvah to teach Torah in general (according to
"Semag"). Why then is there a special obligation to teach one's
son? Because teaching Torah is like giving charity; it begins at
home. Just as one must give charity first to his children, then to
his siblings, cousins, and neighbors, and only then to strangers,
so a person's obligation to teach Torah is greatest with regard to
those who are closest to him.
There is no obligation to give charity to one who does not need
it, concludes R' Halberstam. Accordingly, he writes, a grandfather
need not teach Torah to a grandson who is already learning.
(Divrei Moshe ch.69)
************************************
R' YITZCHAK ISAAC SHER
born 5635 (1875) - died 10 Shevat 5712 (1952)
R' Isaac Sher was born in Halosk, Russia, and in his youth he
studied under R' Baruch Ber Lebovitz and in the Volozhin Yeshiva.
Later, he became attached to R' Nassan Zvi Finkel (the "Alter of
Slobodka"), whose daughter he married.
In 1924, the Alter transplanted a large part of the Slobodka
Yeshiva to Chevron, leaving R' Isaac behind as the Rosh Yeshiva.
(The Yeshiva moved to Yerushalayim, where it is now known as the
Chevron Yeshiva, after the 1929 Arab massacre in Chevron.) In the
late 1930's, R' Isaac suffered a heart attack; thus, when World War
II broke out, he was stranded in Switzerland, where he had traveled
for recuperation.
After the Holocaust, R' Isaac began to rebuild his Yeshiva in
Bnei Brak, beginning in the summer of 1946 with three students.
The Yeshiva grew rapidly, with R' Isaac saying "mussar shmussen"
(talks on ethics) and his son-in-law, R' Mordechai Shulman,
lecturing on Talmud. In 1951, they were joined by R' Yechezkel
Abramsky.
One collection of R' Isaac's lectures, Lekket Sichot Mussar,
includes many talks on the nature of Torah study. In particular,
R' Isaac emphasizes the search for "p'shat" (plain meaning). The
majority of chapters, however, deal with mussar and "hashkafah"
(Jewish thought). In explaining the mitzvah of eating "marror"
(found in this week's parasha) he notes: Most people think that
the bitter herbs recall the physical suffering of slavery, but his
is not so. The Jews, from Yaakov and his sons onwards, accepted
their Divinely-ordained lot with love. Rather, the bitterness of
the Egyptian exile was in that, because the Jews lived in peace and
comfort for the first century in Egypt, they stopped performing the
mitzvah of circumcision, and they assimilated.
The Talmud Yerushalmi's choice of marror is lettuce. R' Isaac
explains that lettuce is sweet when its young, but becomes bitter
with age. This was the pattern of the exile as well; in fact, the
bitterness of the exile grew out of its sweetness.
|
| 989.276 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Beshalach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jan 20 1994 19:13 | 152 |
| PARASHAT BESHALACH
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Vol. VIII, No. 16 (351)
10 Shevat 5754/Jan. 22, 1994
In this parasha, we read of the mahn, the food which Hashem gave
the Jewish people in the desert. The Torah says that Hashem provided
Bnei Yisrael the mahn in order to test them. How would they react
to receiving their food in such a miraculous manner? Would they,
for example, believe Moshe that the mahn would come again tomorrow,
or would they try to store it overnight, contrary to Hashem's
command?
R' Yechiel Michel Tikochinski ztz"l offers a similar purpose
for the mitzvot of shemittah. For example, one is prohibited from
storing any significant quantity of shemittah produce, and one is
also prohibited from converting it into cash by doing business with
it. At the preordained time, one must destroy all remnants of the
shemittah produce.
In this way, R' Tikochinski writes, the mitzvah of shemittah
teaches bitachon-trust in Hashem. (Sefer haShemittah)
************************************
"And armed, Bnei Yisrael left Egypt." (13:18)
The above verse is translated according to Rashi. However, the
word which is translated as "armed"-"chamushim"-has a number of other
meanings as well.
According to one midrash, the word means "armed," but not with
weapons. Rather, the Jews were armed with good deeds. According to
another midrash, the word chamushim is related to the number chamesh-
five. Thus the verse is telling us, according to the midrash, that
each family left Egypt with five children. Finally, according to
yet another midrash, the verse is informing us that only one-fifth
of all of the Jewish people left Egypt. The other four-fifths died
during the plague of darkness, because they did not merit to
participate in the Exodus.
In fact, all of these midrashic interpretations are related.
Chazal say that when Hashem killed the Egyptian first-born, He could
find no merit in which to save the Jews. Therefore, He gave them
the mitzvot of korban Pesach and b'rit milah. How then can the above
midrash say that the Jews were armed with good deeds?
While four-fifths of the Jews died in Egypt, that was only the
adults. What happened to their children? They were adopted by other
Jews. When the midrash says that each family had five children, it
does not mean that literally; the statistical probability of each
family having the same number of children is quite small, and Jewish
families have anyway traditionally been larger. Rather, the midrash
means that each family had five sets of children (its own set and
four sets of orphans).
It was with the good deeds of adopting all of those orphaned
children that the Jews were armed when they left Egypt.
(heard from R' Yissochor Frand, shlita)
************************************
Before they entered Eretz Canaan, Yehoshua said to the Jews,
"Prepare provisions for yourselves." Did they need provisions? asks
the Midrash Tanna d'Vei Eliyahu. They had the mahn. Rather, he told
them to repent so that they would merit to enter the Land. Explains
the commentary Yeshuot Yaakov: Repentance is the primary provision
which man prepares in this world.
************************************
A meeting was once held in the home of R' Yitzchak Blazer (also
known as R' Itzele Petersburger), regarding some communal matter.
Afterwards, one of the rich men in attendance asked, "Do you believe
that mashiach can come tomorrow?"
"Of course," answered R' Itzele.
"If so," said the rich man, "your belief contradicts the Sages'
teaching that mashiach will not come until there is not a penny left
in anyone's pocket. Each of the wealthy men in this room has
interests spread all over the world. It is impossible that each of
us should lose every penny by tomorrow."
R' Itzele answered: "I believe with complete faith that mashiach
may come tomorrow. Even if a prophet would tell me that mashiach
will not come tomorrow, I would not believe him. Even if it were
a voice from heaven, I would not believe.
"Hashem told Avraham," R' Itzele continued, "'Your descendants
will be tortured and enslaved for 400 years,' yet we all know that
the Jews were in Egypt only 210 years. How is that? Chazal have
given many answers and taught many beautiful ideas based on this
question. Similarly, mashiach can come at any time. What about the
words of Chazal to the contrary? Let the darshanim worry about
that."
(Kochvei Ohr: Shevivei Ohr)
************************************
R' Leib Chasman quotes Rambam to the effect that the entire
story of Pharaoh's resistance to the Exodus teaches us how hard the
yetzer hara works to direct us off the path of acknowledging Hashem's
sovereignty. Look at Pharaoh! How many plagues would he suffer
before he recognized his Creator? Through five plagues, he kept his
resolve. Then he began to give in, only to change his mind once each
of the next five plagues was safely behind him. Chazal say that at
the Yam Suf (Red Sea) Hashem brought anywhere from 50 to 250
additional plagues on Pharaoh, yet he kept pushing forward. Such
is the resolve of the yetzer hara.
In fact, the only reminder that one should need of Hashem's
presence is the miracle of life itself.
(Ohr Yahel II p.56)
************************************
R' Yonah Navon
born 5473 (1713) - died 16 Shevat 5520 (1760)
R' Yonah was one of the teachers of R' Chaim Yosef David Azulai
("Chida"), and his uncle by marriage. In his bibliographical work
Shem haGedolim, Chida writes of his teacher:
He was one of the [greatest] Rabbis of the generation in the
Holy City of Yerushalayim. He practically did not leave posek
like himself in the entire region, and he was a pious man and
versed in kabbalah.
R' Yonah was sent abroad a number of times to raise funds for
the Jewish community of Yerushalayim. In 1738, he was in Tunis,
where he was warmly received and recognized as a great scholar.
(Although Chida himself was only 14 at the time, R' Yonah already
regarded him highly enough to speak of him in Tunis.)
Beginning in 1746, R' Yonah spent two years in Greece and
Turkey, and while there he printed several of hi sown works. Upon
his return to Yerushalayim, R' Yonah was appointed Rosh Yeshiva in
place of R' Chaim ben Attar (the "Ohr haChaim haKadosh"), who had
recently passed away.
R' Yonah passed away at age 37. The Navon family continued to
reside in Yerushalayim, and produced a number of distinguished
scholars (and a President of Israel).
************************************
In Midbar Kedemot, Chida quotes a midrash that the Jews did not
deserve to experience the splitting of the sea. Hashem saved them
because of the future merit of receiving the Torah.
|
| 989.277 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Yitro | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Jan 26 1994 19:25 | 203 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Yitro
Volume VIII/Number 17 (352)
17 Shevat 5754/January 29, 1994
In this parasha, we read of the giving of the Torah. Commenting
on the verse (Sh'mot 1:14), "They embittered their lives with hard
work," etc., the Zohar suggests that Avraham's prophecy that his
descendants would be subjugated for 400 years could have been
fulfilled by the Jews subjugating themselves to the study of Torah
(in the form which Torah existed then). Our ancestors' experience
of slavery in Egypt was "unnecessary."
Says R' Avigdor Nebenzal, shlita: We see that this is true from
the experience of the Levi'im. They were not enslaved in Egypt,
yet like their cousins, they merited to settle in Eretz Yisrael, in
fulfillment of Avraham's vision. Why? Because they spent the
exile in Egypt studying the Torah. It is true, notes R' Nebenzal,
that the portion which the Levi'im received in Eretz Yisrael was
different from that of the other tribes; the Levi'im received no
land, only a spiritual inheritance. This is because their exile in
Egypt was merely spiritual. It involved no physical suffering.
To a certain extent, the other tribes experienced that spiritual
exile as well. Chazal say that, for a time, Moshe convinced
Pharaoh to let the Jews rest on Shabbat. What did they do on that
day? They studied prophecies regarding their redemption, i.e.,
they studied Torah. One seventh of their subjugation then was
spiritual; in exchange, one seventh of their inheritance in Eretz
Yisrael was a spiritual rather than material gift--the gift of
shemittah.
(Sichot l'Sefer Sh'mot p.31)
************************************
"They traveled from Refidim...and Yisrael camped opposite the
mountain." (19:2)
Based on the fact that the word 'camped' is singular in number,
Chazal say that the Jews arrived at Har Sinai united as one. How
did this come about?
R' Mordechai Shulman zt'zl explains that it was the result of
traveling from Refidim. That was where the Jews had been attacked
by Amalek, as punishment for loosening their grip on Torah. They
learned there that if some Jews are lax in Torah, the whole nation
suffers. In turn, they recognized the concept of "Arevut" - mutual
responsibility for one another-and this united them.
(quoted in Legacy of Slabodka)
************************************
"Remember the day of Shabbat to sanctify it. Six days you shall
work..." (20:8)
Why didn't the Torah use the shorter expression, "Remember to
sanctify the day of Shabbat"? Also, why does the Torah mention
that we work six days a week? Surely we are not commanded to do
so!
R' Eliezer haLevi Horowitz of Tarnograd writes that unlike most
commandments, which apply constantly and should thus be easy to
remember, Shabbat is readily "forgotten" because most days are not
Shabbat. (For a similar reason, notes R' Eliezer, Chazal took
great precautions so that we should not eat Chametz on Pesach.
Otherwise, we would forget.)
How can we ensure that we will never transgress the laws of
Shabbat, even inadvertently. "Sanctify it." Sanctify what? Both
ourselves and the six days of work. When all of our deeds are based
on principles of holiness, we will be protected from inadvertent
transgression of the laws of Shabbat.
(Noam Megadim v'Kavod haTorah)
************************************
Why is taking G-d's Name in vain the only sin which the Torah
says can never be forgiven? Because, says R' Meir of Premishian,
the details of any sin which is recorded in Hashem's books can be
erased when the sinner repents. It is, however, prohibited to
erase Hashem's Name, so the sin always remains in the book.
(Divrei Meir)
************************************
The Gemara (end of Tractate Nidah) teaches: Whoever reviews
Halachot every day is guaranteed a place in the World to Come, as
it is written (Chabakuk 3:6), "Halichot olam lo" (Literally: "His
ways are everlasting"). This phrase can be read, "One who has
Halachot (a 'pun' on 'Halichot') the world is his."
R' Elazar M. Shach, shlita, notes that when one reads the full
context of the verse excerpted above, the thought becomes more than
just a pun. The prophet says, "He stood and He measured the earth,
He saw and He drove asunder nations... His ways are everlasting."
The phrase "He stood and He measured the earth" is an allusion to
the times when man's sins become so great that Hashem must deal
with mankind measure for measure. At those times, He destroys
nations or scatters them to the winds, He uproots mountains, and He
brings about other catastrophes.
How can man make it through these periods? The one who follows
Hashem's everlasting ways, i.e. the one who studies and abides by
Halachah, he is the one who is guaranteed a place in the World to
Come. In such a time of turmoil, everlasting Halachah is just the
steadying influence which is needed.
(b'Zot Ani Vote'ach p.8)
************************************
In this parasha, we learn of the giving of the Torah at Har
Sinai. However, not much detail is given regrading how much of the
Torah was said at that time and place. In Parashat beHar we read
that the laws of shemittah were taught at Har Sinai. Rashi writes:
What does shemittah have to do with Mount Sinai? All of the
commandments were given at Har Sinai! This verse teaches that
just as every detail of the laws of shemittah was taught at
Har Sinai, so every detail of every law was taught at Har
Sinai [even though it may not be recorded in the Torah until
later.]
In other words, shemittah is used as a "binyan av," i.e., an
example from which we can learn that just as it is true in this
case that the laws were taught at Har Sinai, so it is true in all
cases.
Why of all commandments was shemittah chosen to be this example?
Har Sinai was the place where the physical and spiritual worlds
meet. The Gemara (Sukkah 5a) says that there is a level below
which G-d will not descend, and there is a level above which man
cannot ascend, and Har Sinai is in the middle. Also, Har Sinai is
the place where the spiritual blueprint for man's physical life was
taught to the Jewish people.
Similarly, says R' Chaim Yishayahu Hadari, shlita in Shabbat
uMo'ed baShevi'it, shemittah is the time when, more than other
times, the spiritual and the physical meet. During shemittah, man
is freed from his material concerns as his needs are miraculously
taken care of. Through the freedom which man has during the
shemittah, man can rise above mundane matters into the spiritual
realms.
************************************
What does it mean that Hashem never descends below a certain
level? This appears to place physical limits on Hashem and also to
contradict our knowledge that Hashem fills the whole world!
R' Zvi Hirsch Chayes ("Maharitz Chayes") explains in his
commentary on Sukkah 5b that this is an allusion to Chazal's
teaching, "Everything is in Hashem's hands except for fear of
Hashem." Hashem controls all of our affairs, but He does not
determine whether we will fear Him. That is one area of human
endeavor to which Hashem does not "descend."
************************************
R' YEHOSHUA ROKEACH
(The Belzer Rebbe)
born 5585 (1825) - died Shevat 5654 (1894)
One Hundred Years Since His Passing
R' Yehoshua, the youngest son of R' Shalom of Belz, was the
second "Belzer Rebbe." R' Yehoshua was the first chassidic rebbe
to engage in politics; his Machzikei haDas ("Holders of the Faith")
party elected R' Shimon Sofer of Cracow (son of the Chatam Sofer)
to the Austrian parliament in 1879. The primary purpose of
Machzikei haDas was to fight the Reform and Haskalah movements,
and, in this, R' Yehoshua worked closely with other chassidic and
non-chassidic leaders.
R' Yehoshua continued his father's work of building a shul in
Belz. What was unusual about his project was the Belzer Rebbes'
intentions that the shul never be finished. Rather, each Jew who
passed through Belz would add a brick to this shul, which Mashiach
will, it is said, eventually transplant to Eretz Yisrael. (For the
time being, an exact replica has been constructed in Yerushalayim,
and it houses the Belzer institutions in the Holy City.) Many
miraculous stories are told of travelers and merchants who were
saved from washed-out bridges and other hazards of the road because
they tarried in Belz to add a part to the shul.
At the time of R' Yehoshua's death, many cities in Galicia had
large Jewish populations, and even Jewish majorities. A large
number of these individuals counted themselves among the chassidim
of Belz. R' Yehoshua's influence reached into Hungary as well.
R' Shalom of Belz, sometimes referred to as "Sar Shalom," notes
that the Torah tells that Yitro heard of Hashem's miracles and that
Yitro arrived at Bnei Yisrael's camp, but it never says that he
left his house. Sometimes, says R' Shalom, a person experiences a
spiritual awakening so urgent that it must be acted upon
immediately, lest it be lost. In such cases, there is no time to
plan the details of leaving home. Just go! (D'vash haSadeh)
|
| 989.278 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Mishpatim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Feb 02 1994 18:47 | 170 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Parashat Mishpatim
Volume VIII/Number 18 (353)
24 Shevat 5754/February 5, 1994
Each week of this year, we have tried to find some connection
between the week's parasha and the shemittah. In this week's
parasha, we find the actual commandment to observe the seventh year
as shemittah. Accordingly, this entire issue of Hamaayan is
devoted to that subject.
The following verses are the basis for all of the "divrei Torah"
(words of Torah) which appear on the inside pages of this issue:
"Do not pressure a stranger, as you know the stranger's soul,
for you were strangers in Egypt. And six years you shall sow your
land and gather its produce. And [in] the seventh, you shall
release it and leave it, and the poor of your nation will eat, and
their leftovers the animals of the field will eat; so you shall do
with your work, and on the seventh day you shall rest, so that your
ox and your donkey shall rest, and the son of your maidservant and
the stranger will be refreshed. From everything about which I have
warned you shall take care, and the names of other gods you shall
not mention, on your lips they shall not be heard." (Sh'mot 23:9-
13)
************************************
[Note: The "divrei Torah" on this page relate to the verses on
the front page.]
What is the connection between the prohibition of persecuting a
stranger and the mitzvah of shemittah? R' Yehoshua Leib Diskin
explains this in light of the halachah (Hil. Yovel u'Shemittah
4:30) that guards should be placed along Israel's borders during
the shemittah in order to prevent non-Jews from entering Eretz
Yisrael to share in the produce of the land. A "stranger," i.e. a
"ger toshav" -- a non-Jew who has accepted the seven Noahide laws
and who subjugates himself to the Jewish government -- is permitted
to take of the shemittah produce.
(Maharil Diskin Al haTorah)
************************************
"Six years you shall sow" -- even if one owns nothing but the
ruins in his courtyard, says the Da'at Zekenim, he is obligated to
plant there in order to separate "terumot" and "ma'asrot" (tithes)
from the produce.
We know that there is a mitzvah to separate tithes if one has
produce, says R' Chaim Elazari, but why is there a commandment to
plant? This is part of the mitzvah of settling Eretz Yisrael.
Included in this commandment are the obligations to ensure that the
land produces adequately, that the cities are built up, and all
other actions that promote the habitation of the land.
(Nitivei Chaim)
************************************
The mitzvah of shemittah shows the importance which the Torah
attaches to private property, writes R' Yosef Shaul Nathanson. How
so? The Torah commands that, once every seven years, Eretz Yisrael
become a socialist state. The clear implication of this is that at
other times, the laws of private property are in effect, and must
be strictly enforced.
(Divrei Shaul)
************************************
Chazal say that the first exile from Eretz Yisrael (at the hands
of the Babylonians) occurred because the shemittah was not
observed. Yet the Gemara (Yoma 9b) clearly states that it occurred
because of the three cardinal sins: idolatry, adultery, and
murder. How can these statements be reconciled?
R' Moshe Shick ("Maharam Shick") explains that shemittah, like
Shabbat, was given to us to be devoted to Torah study. If
shemittah is not observed, as any other time when Torah study is
lessened, the inevitable results are adultery, murder, and
idolatry.
(Maharam Shick Al Pirkei Avot 2:2)
************************************
[Note: The "divrei Torah" on this page relate to the verses on
the front page.]]
What is the connection between the mitzvah of shemittah and the
prohibition (in the next verse) of uttering the names of
idolatries? R' Meir Simcha haKohen explains that--at least
according to the halachic opinion that land owned by a non-Jew is
exempt from the obligations of shemittah--a person could
effectively profit from the shemittah. How? He could own a field
in partnership with a non-Jew, with the understanding that the Jew
would take 100% of the profits of the sixth year, and the gentile
would take 100% of the profits of the seventh (shemittah) year.
Don't do this, the Torah says. Aside from the issue of
shemittah, when one enters into a partnership with a non-Jew, he
risks ending-up in a secular court where he may be forced to take
an oath in the name of his partner's or the judge's god.
(Meshech Chochmah)
************************************
The verses before the mitzvah of shemittah relate generally to
justice. Chazal say that famine befalls the world when justice is
not practiced. Conversely, says R' Moshe Alshich, if justice is
practiced, the fields will produce bumper crops. In fact, the
fields will be so fruitful that "Six years you shall sow." Do not
worry about wearing out the land; it will be strong enough to be
planted continuously.
Even in the seventh year, the purpose of resting is not for the
land's benefit. "You shall release it and leave it" -- the mitzvah
is an obligation upon you, not a benefit for the land.
Similarly, the purpose of Shabbat is not to rest per se, but to
be refreshed in a spiritual sense. The literal meaning of the word
"v'yinafesh" (translated here as "refreshed") is "to obtain a
'nefesh' - soul." This is an allusion to the so-called "extra"
soul which a person, even the son of a maidservant, obtains on
Shabbat.
(Torat Moshe)
************************************
R' Avraham Yitzchak haKohen Kook writes: The fundamental sin
which brings about exile is that which destroys the Divine
character of the nation in general and the foundation of the
national holiness, [the sin] which prevents each person's pure and
holy aspirations from being realized and which dims the Divine
light which would shine on the nation as a whole, [the sin] which
hinders the equilibrium and calm which are needed for communal life
to exist. Chazal say that exile occurs because of adultery,
idolatry, and disregard for the shemittah (Shabbat 33a). The good
which is within the nation, like the good which is within the soul
by virtue of its being "in the image of G-d," needs a break from
the tumult of life which hinders the holiest and most idealistic
thoughts from developing. The nation whose recognition of G-d is
pure and clear and which is prepared by its nature to rise upward,
[nevertheless] needs fixed times of rest [which are] "A Shabbat for
Hashem" (vaYikra 25:2).
(Ma'amarei haRe'iyah p.282)
************************************
The "Chazon Ish" wrote in the summer of 1937: I was introduced
by R' Chaim Ozer, shlita, to write, to remove from us the shame of
the leniencies which come out every shemittah year that allows
those who are weak in their faith to shed their "emunah" (belief).
These people think that the mitzvot of the Torah [specifically,
shemittah] are impossible to keep, and they question the eternity
of Torah, may Hashem save us.
We are no worse off than our ancestors [the Chashmonaim] who had
to build a menorah for the Temple out of wood, yet even they
renewed the covenant of the shemittah...Let the shemittah be a time
devoted to building [the infrastructure of] the land.
(Igrot Chazon Ish III, No. 83)
|
| 989.279 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Terumah | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Feb 14 1994 20:27 | 175 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT TERUMAH
Vol. VIII, No. 19 (354), 1 Adar 5754, Feb. 12, 1994
In this week's parasha, we begin to read of the mishkan--the
tabernacle which Moshe constructed according to Hashem's command.
This discussion continues through the end of Sefer Sh'mot.
In Parashat Ki Tisah, we will learn that the construction of the
mishkan does not take precedence over the observance of Shabbat.
Why would we think that it does? R' Tzadok haKohen explains that
since the purpose of the mishkan is to make a "home" for Hashem among
us, and this is the purpose of Shabbat also, why do we need one if
we have the other? In truth, however, the holiness which we strive
for all week long, even in the mishkan, cannot really be noticed
until Shabbat, as is symbolized by our cooking and cleaning for
Shabbat before the day begins.
The Mechilta (a midrash) considers the possibility that there is
no Shabbat during the shemittah year. Again, explains R' Tzadok,
this is because the whole year is like Shabbat, for everyone is freed
from his material concerns, and all men are equal. Nevertheless,
the midrash concludes, there is something special about Shabbat, even
during the shemittah. (Pri Tzaddik, Mishpatim)
************************************
Parashat Shekalim
The special Torah reading known as "Parashat Shekalim" (Sh'mot
30:11-16) is read every year on the Shabbat preceding the month of
Adar, except (as this year) when Rosh Chodesh falls on Shabbat. It
is, in fact, unusual for Parashat Shekalim to coincide with Parashat
Terumah. Ordinarily, it falls a week earlier (or in leap years,
three to four weeks later). However, because Simchat Torah fell on
Friday (outside of Israel), each parasha is read this year at the
earliest possible time, thus making other events occur later in
relation to the Torah reading.
************************************
In the additional prayer (known as "Yotzer") which some
congregations recite in honor of Parashat Shekalim, we read: "O
Master, raise the light of Your face upon us, and let me raise a
shekel in the firm and exalted Temple." Why, asks R' Yehoshua (R'
Shia) of Belz, does the poet refer to a shekel? The mitzvah, in fact,
was to donate half of that amount to the Temple.
The Gemara (Berachot 20b) records the following conversation
between G-d and the angels. The angels asked, "How can you show
favor (literally, 'Raise Your face') to the Jews?"
Hashem answered, "Because I said in my Torah, 'You will eat, and
you will be satiated, and you shall bless,' yet they recite Birkat
haMazon even if they ate only the volume of an egg." In other words,
says R' Shia, Hashem shows us favor when we accept the commandments
upon us in a stricter manner than the Torah requires.
Is it possible to be strict with regard to the half-shekel?
Seemingly not; a half-shekel is a fixed amount. However, the
halachah states that if two people jointly bring one shekel to the
Temple, they must pay a surcharge to cover the fee that the Temple
treasurer will have to pay to change the large coins into smaller
ones. Thus, by bringing a whole shekel, one can give more than is
required, and one can merit to find favor in Hashem's eyes. When
will our Master "raise the light of His face upon us?" When we
"raise a [whole] shekel in the firm and exalted Temple."
(Sefer Mahari)
************************************
The Month of Adar
Chazal taught: "If one wants his property to be preserved, he
should plant an Adar." What does this mean? R' Zvi Elimelech of
Dinov explains as follows:
The Arizal taught that the month of Adar is associated with the
sense of smell. Without going into the esoteric meaning of this
statement, we see that it is reflected in the names of the heroes
of Purim: Esther (whose other name was Hadassah, meaning "myrtle"),
and Mordechai (which the Gemara in Tractate Chulin associates with
the spice "myrrh").
The Gemara teaches that one must recite a blessing before deriving
any benefit from this world, because everything belongs to Hashem,
and the berachah is our request for permission to use it. Then the
Gemara asks: How do we know that a blessing is recited over spices?
For it is written (Tehilim 150:6), "Every breath shall praise G-d."
Why, asks R' Zvi Elimelech, doesn't the first reason suffice for
spices as well? Why is a separate verse needed? The sense of smell
was the only one of the five senses that was not involved in Adam
and Chava's sin. Thus, we read (B'reishit 3:6-8), "The woman saw
. . . and she took of the fruit . . . and she ate . . . and they
heard," but no reference is made to smell. One of the purposes of
the blessings which we recite over physical pleasure, says R' Zvi
Elimelech, is to rectify the damage which our ancestors' sin caused
to our physical senses. Since the sense of smell did not participate
in that sin, we might have thought that no blessing is required over
pleasant smells. (Nevertheless, smell does have a physical aspect,
and our entire physical beings require elevation, so a berachah is
recited.)
Because the sense of smell was not affected by Adam and Chava's
sin, it is particularly associated with spirituality. Note that the
word "neshamah" means both "breath" and "soul," and the word "ruach"
means both "wind" (which carries smells) and "spirit." As we said
before, the sense of smell is connected to the month of Adar. Thus,
Chazal's statement can be understood: "If one wants his property to
be preserved, he should plant an Adar," i.e., he should undertake
spiritual goals with his property.
(Bnei Yissaschar, Adar I:9-10)
************************************
R' CHANANIAH YOM TOV LIPA TEITLEBAUM
(The Sigheter Rebbe)
born 6 Sivan 5596 (1836) - died 29 Shevat 5664 (1904)
Ninety Years Since His Passing
R' Chananiah Yom Tov Lipa Teitlebaum, known as the "Kedushat Yom
Tov" (after his work by the same name) was the second of a long line
in his family that served as Rabbi and chassidic rebbe in Sighet (now
in Rumania). R' Ch.Y.T.L.'s tenure in Sighet lasted 21 years, and
he was succeeded by his son R' Chaim Zvi (known as the "Atzei
Chaim"), and grandson, R' Yekutiel Yehudah. The present Satmar
Rebbe, R' Moshe Teitlebaum shlita (son of R' Chaim Zvi), also bears
the title of Rabbi of Sighet.
R' Ch.Y.T.L.'s second son was R' Yoel Teitlebaum, the famous
"Satmar Rav." It was he who rebuilt the chassidut of his ancestors
in the United States after World War II. Among non-chassidim, he
is best-known for his strong opposition to the State of Israel, while
his great Torah scholarship and acts of kindness, and his pedagogical
accomplishments are (unfortunately) less well known.
R' Ch.Y.T.L. headed a large Yeshiva and had thousands of
chassidim. He was a leader of Hungarian Jewry and was stalwart in
defending his opinions against those who he felt challenged
traditional Judaism. His epitaph reads:
A tzaddik, his loss is the generation's; a man
of strength [chayil-his initials]; his heart was
the heart of a lion; he fought Hashem's wars
with his soul and his wealth; he built a fence
and stood in the breach to stand faith
upright...and he judged Israel for forty years
[cf. Shoftim 16:31]
************************************
The midrash says that when the Jewish people said, "Na'aseh
v'nishmah" - "We will do and we will hear" - Hashem responded with
the verse at the beginning of our parashah, "Take terumah for Me."
R' Chaim Aryeh Lerner (who fondly recalls in his work Imrei Chaim
the time, when he was seven years old, that R' Ch.Y.T.L. ate lunch
in his home) writes in the name of Kedushat Yom Tov that the more
a person understood of the Torah, the more he would donate to the
mishkan. The mishkan, the Zohar says, paralleled the human body;
each commandment of the Torah also parallels a part of the body.
When Bnei Yisrael rose to the level of saying "Na'aseh v'nishmah,"
they were able to discern in what way each person's observance of
Torah was deficient. Then, each Jew made a donation to the mishkan
and earmarked it for the part of the mishkan that paralleled his
deficiency.
Similarly writes R' Lerner, it is told that one of the Rebbes of
Belz consulted with doctors, but never accepted a prescription. Once
the doctor identified the source of his illness, the Rebbe said, he
(the Rebbe) was then able to identify the spiritual ailment which
paralleled that physical complaint.
|
| 989.280 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Tetzaveh | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Feb 14 1994 20:35 | 204 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT TETZAVEH / ZACHOR
Vol. VIII, No. 20 (355)
8 Adar 5754, Feb. 19, 1994
R' Chaim Yishayahu Hadari, shlita, writes: In this week's parasha,
we read of the mitzvah of the menorah. Chazal note that Hashem does
not need the light of the menorah. In addition, writes R'
S.R. Hirsch, the Torah never says that we are to light the menorah.
All we are commanded to do is to arrange the wicks and to apply the
flame. If Hashem desires our service, then He will make the flames
burn, as a gift to us.
The shemittah is also a gift from Hashem, writes the Sefat Emet.
To earn the gift of the menorah's flame, we must follow the Torah's
procedures for preparing it. What must we do to obtain the gift of
shemittah? We must know that we are strangers in the Land and that
the Land is Hashem's.
The upcoming holiday of Purim is associated with gifts and giving
as well. One explanation for the custom of drinking on Purim is to
symbolize that we do not provide for our own needs. Even in our
drunken stupor, Hashem is giving us His gifts. On Purim, we give
freely to others, to reciprocate, so-to-speak, for Hashem's gifts to
us.
(Shabbat uMo'ed baShevi'it)
************************************
"You shall command Bnei Yisrael and they shall bring to you pure
olive oil, to raise an eternal light." (27:20)
The Ba'al haTurim notes: The gematria of "v'ata tetzaveh" ("You
shall command") equals the gematria of "nashim tetzaveh" ("Command the
women"). This is the Torah's hint that women should light Shabbat
candles. [Note also that the gematria of "ner tamid" ("eternal
light") equals the gematria of "Shabbat."]
************************************
In this week's parasha, we read of the twelve stones that were
placed in the kohen gadol's breastplate, each one symbolizing one of
the twelve tribes. The stone of the tribe of Binyamin was a "yashfeh"
(possibly a jasper). Mori v'Rabi R' Moshe Zuriel, shlita, explained
that this stone symbolizes Binyamin's ability to keep a secret.
Specifically, "yashfeh" is short for "yesh peh"--"there is a mouth."
Binyamin knew prophetically that his brothers had sold Yosef, yet
despite having the ability to reveal this secret to Yaakov, he did not
do so. Why? Because a prophet may not reveal his prophecy unless
commanded to do so.
[Ed. note: Binyamin inherited the trait of discretion from his
mother and passed in on to his descendants, as the Gemara notes
(Megillah 13b). Thus Rachel did not reveal Lavan's plot to exchange
her for Leah, Shaul did not prematurely reveal the fact that he had
been crowned king of Israel, and Esther did not reveal her origin
until Mordechai instructed her to.]
The idea that a prophet may not speak unless commanded to do so
explains certain seemingly incomprehensible stories in the Torah, R'
Moshe Zuriel noted. When the angels revealed that Sarah would give
birth, Sarah laughed. Was this the first time that she had heard
these tidings? Certainly Avraham had been told earlier, but he had
never been given permission to reveal his prophecy to Sarah, and he
did not do so.
Similarly, Rivka was told by the prophet that her son Esav would
grow up to be a rasha, yet she never told Yitzchak. Although
(according to many commentaries) Yitzchak was fooled by Esav's
pretense of mitzvah observance, Rivkah was never given permission to
reveal the prophecy that had been shared with her.
************************************
On the verse in Megilat Esther (4:10), "And Esther said to Hatach,
and she commanded him to (go to) Mordechai," the Targum says, "Hatach
was commanded to tell Mordechai not to start-up with Haman because the
battle with him is part of the ancient battle with Esav." Says R'
Shlomo Alkabetz: This is shocking! Did she think that Mordechai was
battling Haman over some personal matter like the inheritance of a
field or vineyard? It is a mitzvah to hate those who hate Hashem!
Esther's question, says R' Alkabetz, was why Mordechai was going
out of his way to see Haman. If Mordechai chose not to bow down to
Haman, why did he intentionally stand on a street corner where Haman
would pass by?
Why did he? Chazal say that Haman wore an idol around his neck and
considered himself to be a god. Mordechai knew that a decree had been
made against the Jews because they had bowed down to Nevuchadnezar's
golden calf, and Mordechai's intention was to atone for all of the
Jewish people through his sacrifice. [The Gemara says that bowing
down to Nevuchadnezar's idol was one of the causes of the decree that
the Jews be destroyed in Haman's time. Since they were saved,
Mordechai's ploy apparently succeeded.]
(Manot haLevi)
************************************
Chazal say that if Bnei Yisrael had properly observed one Shabbat,
no nation would ever have gained the upper hand over them. We learn
this from the juxtaposition of the story of Amalek's invasion to the
Torah's account of the Jews who went into the fields on Shabbat to
look for mahn. (Sh'mot, chapters 16-17). The gematria of Amalek,
notes R' Chaim Meir Hager (the Vizhnitzer Rebbe) zt'zl, is 240, which
is equal to the gematria of "ram"--"haughty." Shabbat, on the other
hand, is the symbol of humility, for by resting on Shabbat we
acknowledge G-d's ownership of everything and our dependence on Him.
The midrash says that Haman complained to Achashveirosh that the
Jews kept Shabbat and Pesach. Haman was from Amalek; Pesach, like
Shabbat, represents humility, the trait which is antithetical to
Amalek. (Matzah is a "humble" version of bread; the Torah (vaYikra
23:11) calls Pesach, "Shabbat.") Note that the gematria of "tzar
v'oyev Haman hara hazeh" (Esther 7:6) equals 702, the gematria of
"Shabbat," while the gematria of the words "ra hazeh" (from the same
verse) equals 287, the gematria of the Haggadah's reference to matzah:
"Ha lachma ania di achalu" ("This is the humble bread which [our
ancestors] ate").
(Imrei Chaim, Parashat Zachor)
************************************
One of the eight garments of the kohen gadol was the tzitz, a band
that he wore on his forehead, and which bore the words, "Kodesh
l'Hashem"--"sanctified unto G-d." The Torah says that those words
were engraved like on a signet ring (Sh'mot 28:36). What does this
symbolize?
R' Menachem Mendel Hager (the Vishuver Rebbe; older brother of the
above) explains: A signet ring bears a backwards picture or signature;
only when the impression is made does it appear in a legible form.
Similarly, a person must be exceedingly humble, but a leader (such as
a kohen gadol) must often exhibit traces of haughtiness in order to
make the proper impression upon his constituents. The tzitz which the
kohen gadol wore reminded of this; it stated that he was "sanctified
onto G-d," but, like a signet ring, it was legible only to those
standing opposite him. From his own perspective, it was not legible.
(She'eirit Menachem I)
************************************
Reb MORDECHAI MEISEL
born 5288 (1528) - died 9 Adar 5361 (1601)
Reb Mordechai Meisel was not the Rabbi of a community, nor was he a
prolific writer on Torah subjects. Rather, he was one of the most
celebrated lay leaders ("parnassim") in Jewish history. He was born
and grew up in Prague, and he suffered the expulsions of the Jews from
Moravia in 1542 and 1561. Upon returning to Prague in 1562, he began
amassing what became a huge fortune. From his own pocket, he built a
shul and mikavaot in Prague, and he dressed the poor, married-off
orphans, and gave them dowries. When the cities of Cracow and Posen
both suffered devastating fires in 1590, he lent them money to
rebuild. His philanthropy extended as far away as Eretz Yisrael.
In 1593, Reb Mordechai was named to the Emperor's cabinet, and he
was given the right to sign documents in the Emperor's name. During
his years in the royal court, there were no pogroms in the realm, and
Jews lived in peace. Thus, his tombstone reads:
A prince of G-d,
The breath of our nostrils,
The head and the officer of all the people of the Diaspora,
His kindness greatly overwhelmed us,
He did charity with every body and soul....
The crown of a good name is upon him
in all gates (i.e., towns),
Unique in his generation...
When Reb Mordechai felt that his days were numbered, he called the
Maharal of Prague to his bedside and bequeathed fortunes to charities,
Torah scholars, synagogues and yeshiva buildings, and similar causes.
He was eulogized in numerous communities, and rabbis and princes stood
side-by-side at his funeral.
************************************
12 Adar -- The Day of Turyanus
On the 12th of Adar, Turyanus (Trajan?) sought to kill two Jews by
the names of Pappus (aka Shemayah) and Lulianus (aka Achiyah). He
asked them, "Will G-d save you as He saved Chananiah, Mishael, and
Azaryah from the furnace of Nevuchadnezar?"
They answered, "Chananiah, Mishael, and Azaryah were perfectly
righteous, and deserved such a miracle. We do not. Furthermore,
Nevuchadnezar was important enough to be the instrument of such a
miracle. You are not. If you don't kill us, G-d has many agents who
can; He chose you only so that He can take His revenge upon you."
Nevertheless, Turyanus killed the two brothers. It is said that he
did not leave that spot, before he too was murdered.
Some say that Caesar's daughter was found dead, and the Jews were
suspected. Pappus and Lulianus "admitted" to committing the crime in
order to save the community at large. About them it says, "They are
the martyrs of Lod, and no one can stand in their section of Gan
Eden."
(Melizei Esh; see Ta'anit 18b)
|
| 989.281 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Ki Tisah | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Feb 24 1994 20:18 | 163 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT KI TISAH
Vol VIII, No. 21 (356), 15 Adar 5754, Feb. 26, 1994
In this week's parasha we read (34:21), "Six days you shall work
and on the seventh day you shall rest, from plowing and harvesting
you shall rest." The Malbim writes that we already learned in
Parashat Mishpatim, "Six days you shall carry out your deeds, and
on the seventh day you shall rest." What is added by our verse?
Malbim explains that the pasuk in Mishpatim was said to Bnei Yisrael
before the sin of the golden calf. As it stood then, Bnei Yisrael
would not have been farmers; life would have been as the prophet
Yishayahu says of the future (61:5), "And strangers will come and
they will graze your flocks and the sons of strangers will be your
farmers and vintners." After the sin of the golden calf, however,
when Jews are doomed to perform their own work, one might say, "How
can we rest on Shabbat and leave the fields idle? It's enough that
we can't work on the shemittah!"
In fact, says the Malbim, the opposite is true. Shabbat
observance actually brings a blessing.
************************************
[We read in this parasha how Moshe Rabbenu "persuaded" Hashem to
forgive Bnei Yisrael after the sin of the golden calf. The power
of tzaddikim such as Moshe Rabbenu is summed up by the popular
expression, "Tzaddik gozer v'haKadosh Baruch Hu mekayem"--"the
righteous man decrees, and Hashem fulfills." The following thoughts
and stories expound upon this saying.]
How does it work that "The righteous man decrees, and Hashem
fulfills"? R' Naphtali of Ropshitz explains as follows: The first
Rashi in the Torah states, "Hashem should have begun the Torah with
the first mitzvah, but He began with creation in order to show man
the power of His deeds." In fact, the first verse of the Torah
instills in creation the power for every person to create new worlds.
"He began with creation in order to show man the power of his--
referring to man's--deeds." This is accomplished through a person's
Torah study and mitzvot.
This explains how the righteous can decree that Hashem's will be
changed. What they are actually doing is creating a new world where
Hashem's decree does not apply.
(Zera Kadosh)
************************************
Another sage (R' Chaim of Volozhin?) explains as follows: We are
taught that Hashem created the world in order that His Name be
sanctified. Many people, however, do not see how everything that
befalls them is ultimately for their good, and, as a result, Hashem's
Name is denigrated rather than sanctified. When a tzaddik prays for
such a person, he is saying, "Hashem, since we do not see how Your
Name will be sanctified by the present course of events, wouldn't
Your Name be sanctified even more by acting in a way that we can
understand?!"
***********************************
And, in the spirit of Purim...
Two students were once comparing the virtues of their respective
teachers. "My Rabbi is so great," said one, "that he decrees and
Hashem obeys."
"So what," retorted the second. "My teacher is so great that
Hashem decrees and he obeys."
************************************
PESACH
We read in the Haggadah, "Baruch shomair havtachato l'Yisrael"--
commonly translated, "Blessed is He Who kept His promise to Yisrael."
In truth, this is difficult to understand; would we then think that
Hashem does not always keep his promises?
Rather, says R' Eliezer David Gruenwald zatzal, the above
expression should be translated: "Blessed is He Who guarded His
promise to Yisrael." We read in the Torah that Avraham questioned
Hashem, "How do I know that [my descendants] will inherit [the
Land]?" Logically speaking, Avraham argued, my children should
assimilate and disappear in Egypt, just as most nations do when they
migrate to a foreign land and remain there for several hundred years.
But this did not happen? Why, because Hashem guarded us from that
fate so that His promise would be fulfilled.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach: Chasdei David)
************************************
Why do we begin the Haggadah with "Ha lachma ania," a reference
to the "poor bread" (matzah)? This may be answered by a parable:
A poor shepherd caught the eye of a king, who brought the shepherd
to his court and appointed him as an official of the royal household.
Gradually, this former shepherd rose in rank, until he became
Minister of the Treasury.
Other royal ministers were jealous, and they told the king that
his treasury minister was embezzling funds. The king did not believe
them, but their constant attacks on his minister forced him to take
action.
One morning, the king and his ministers set out to pay a surprise
visit to the treasury minister's home. Arriving there, they were
surprised to see how humble the home was. There was certainly no
sign that the minister had come into new found wealth.
But one door of the house was locked, and there, the ministers
were sure, the king would find hidden treasure. The king demanded
that the door be unlocked, and all of the treasury minister's
entreaties were to no avail. Entering the room, the king was shocked
to see nothing but a stick and a knapsack. "What is the meaning of
this?" he asked.
"With my sudden rise to prominence," the former shepherd
responded, "I was afraid lest I become conceited. Therefore, I come
into this room every morning, dress in my old shepherd's garb, and
remember what it was like to be humble."
We, too, are faced with the shepherd's problem, the commentaries
say. Once we were humble slaves in Egypt, but suddenly we became
a proud nation with the Torah and a land of our own. We begin the
seder by looking at the matzah, and this reminds us of who we were
and Who made us what we are.
(Yalkut Lekach Tov: Haggadah Shel Pesach)
************************************
[The Shulchan Aruch states: "One asks and expounds ("dorshin")
upon the laws of Pesach thirty days before Pesach." The Mishnah
Berurah adds that today it is our custom that the Rabbi delivers a
Shabbat haGadol derashah on the Shabbat preceding Pesach.]
One year, R' Zvi Hirsch Berlin of Manheim did not deliver a
Shabbat haGadol derashah as was customary. Some members of his
community asked him why.
"Chazal tell us that," R' Zvi Hirsch answered, "that 'One asks
and expounds upon the laws of Pesach.' Now, what is meant by 'one
asks and expounds'? The implication is that if people come to ask
the Rabbi questions about the laws of the festival, then the Rabbi
should expound ("darshen"). Here, no one comes to ask any questions
in halachah--apparently everyone knows everything--and I am thus
exempted from giving sermons."
************************************
On the day before Pesach, R' Avraham Yitzchak haKohen Kook's house
would swarm with all types of people coming to visit him, making it
difficult for his wife to prepare for the seder. She complained to
her husband, and he consoled her: "Imagine, Raize Rivka, that I were
a wine merchant. Wouldn't you be thrilled by the large number of
people coming to our home to buy wine just before Pesach? And aren't
you glad that I'm a Rabbi rather than a wine merchant?
(Words of Wisdom, Words of Wit)
|
| 989.282 | two points | HGOVC::DAVIDCHERSON | the door goes on the right | Sun Feb 27 1994 07:47 | 29 |
| Ki Tesah always brings up two issues in my mind:
1. Isn't there a significance of Moshe Rabbeinu keeping the luchot
intact until he steps inside the mahane, instead of breaking them
before re-entering the mahane? I believe that he knew and could see
the events surrounding the calf.
2. How do others explain the behavior of Aharon in collecting the
gold/jewelry, etc. for the making of the calf? Why was he aiding in
this transgression? Aharon was know as a great "payasan", a
compromiser for peace, but was that his purpose? And do you think
that Aharon paid for his part in the transgression later on with the
death of his two sons, Nadav and Avihu? I know that Nadav and Avihu
were put to death for Avodah Zarah on their part, but I believe that
events have connection throughout Chumash.
A good point was made during Seudah Shlishit yesterday in connection to
Moshe's language in pleading for Am Yisrael with Hashem after the
transgression of the calf. Moshe's plea centered around his view that
B'nei Israel were "cholim", sick, and therefore their act was borne out
of that "sickness", and not intent. I made the direct association of
"sickness" to psychological depression, they were depressed because
Moshe did not come down from Har Sinai at the appointed time, and they
also felt that disconnected from Hashem.
Well perhaps this may also account as to why there are so many Jews in the
Psychological profession, :-.
/d.c.
|
| 989.283 | Aharon's behavior w.r.t. the golden calf | RUTILE::DAVIS | | Tue Mar 01 1994 15:55 | 10 |
| Re: .282
Perhaps Aharon was not the leader he needed to be, in the way Saul bowed
to the will of the people in not slaying Agag and all of the livestock.
An idea I have read is that Aharon demanded everyone's gold for the
calf, assuming that the people would decline, thus putting an end to the
incident. This put him on a slippery slope, since they agreed!
- Scott
|
| 989.284 | Another trivial factoid bearing on this parasha | HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Tue Mar 01 1994 21:03 | 7 |
| One member of our Torah study group explained how to make powdered gold.
You can't just file it because gold is too ductile. You must heat it to the
melting point and dump it in water. Compare this with Moses' dispostion of
the golden calf (he burned it, "ground" it to a powder, mixed it with water,
and made the people drink the mixture).
Dave
|
| 989.285 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayakhel | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Mar 08 1994 02:31 | 208 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT VAYAKHEL / PARAH
Vol. VIII, No. 22 (357), 22 Adar 5754, Mar. 5, 1994
In this week's parasha, we again find Shabbat juxtaposed to the
building of the mishkan. However, whereas in last week's parasha,
the mishkan was discussed before Shabbat was mentioned, here Shabbat
is mentioned first.
R' Tzadok haKohen explains that the difference is that last week's
mention of the mishkan and Shabbat was before the sin of the golden
calf. This week's parasha is after that sin. After the Torah was
given, but before the sin, the world had returned to the state of
before Adam and Chava's sin; therefore, Shabbat, the end of the week
of creation, is mentioned last. After the sin of the golden calf,
however, the world was again in the state of after Adam and Chava's
sin; Shabbat, the first day of their new world, is therefore
mentioned before the mishkan. (Pri Tzaddik, Sh'mot p.222)
The world of after the sin is a completely different one from the
world before. R' Zalman Rotberg shlita notes that not only man, but
even the earth, was on a higher spiritual plane before man was
expelled from Gan Eden. This is necessarily so because man is a
microcosm of creation. When is the time that the earth returns to
that higher plane? It is the shemittah, says R' Rotberg, and the
mechanism for it is man's Torah study during this year. (Tuv Da'at:
Imrei Da'at p.431)
************************************
This (Jewish) year marks a very unusual calendrical event: the
parashot vaYakhel and Pekudei are read separately, although this year
is not a leap year. Ordinarily, these two parashot are separated
in a leap year, which has four or five "extra" Shabbatot, but are
read together in a so-called "simple year."
The reason that vaYakhel and Pekudei are separated this year is
that this year has the most Shabbatot--particularly, the most non-yom
tov Shabbatot--that a non-leap year can have. This occurs because
the following two situations coincided this year: First, Rosh
haShanah fell on Thursday and Friday. This means that Simchat Torah
also fell on Friday (Thursday, in Israel), causing the first parasha
(B'reishit) to be read on the earliest possible date.
Second, the two months on the Jewish calendar which have variable
lengths (Cheshvan and Kislev) were both at their longest (30 days)
this year. Had one of those months been shorter, Pesach this year
would have two Shabbatot within it, instead of only the one that it
has.
With that extra Shabbat, we separate vaYakhel and Pekudei. This
situation has occurred once in the last 20 years, and will next occur
in 38 years (unless the Sanhedrin is reestablished first.)
(Note that, in theory, Cheshvan and Kislev can both be short
months, i.e., with only 29 days. However, that could not occur this
year, as it would cause Tisha b'Av to fall on Friday, a situation
which our calendar is designed to prevent.)
[Our thanks to Mr. Alan Sussman who pointed out this "phenomenon"
and helped us decipher it.]
************************************
Chazal say that the mitzvah of Shabbat is juxtaposed to the
mishkan (in our parasha and in other places) to teach that the
mishkan may not be built on Shabbat. In addition notes R' Yaakov
David Willowsky ("Ridvaz"), the creation of the world--which Shabbat
commemorates--parallels the mishkan. On the first day, Hashem
created the world as a place to interact with man; so, in the
mishkan, Hashem "resides" among men. On the second day, Hashem
separated water from water; the curtain in the mishkan separated the
holy from the Holy of Holies. On the fourth day, Hashem created
plants, which are used to bake bread to be sacrificed in the mishkan.
On the fourth day Hashem created the sun; so the Menorah shone in
the mishkan. On the fifth day, Hashem created birds; so the kruvim
(cherubs) spread out their wings in the mishkan. On the sixth day,
man was created; in the mishkan, Aharon, a perfect prototype of man
served Hashem.
(Nimukei Ridvaz)
************************************
Chazal say that when Hashem created the world it continued to
spread out until Hashem commanded it to stop. Similarly, Bnei
Yisrael had to be commanded to stop bringing donations to the
mishkan. The purposes of these two commands were exactly opposite
of each other, writes R' Gedaliah Schorr, zatzal. In the case of
the creation of the world, if the world had been "over-developed,"
Hashem's glory would have been too hidden for us to perceive. If,
on the other hand, the mishkan had been "over-developed," Hashem's
glory would have to revealed and would have overwhelmed us.
(Ohr Gedalyahu)
************************************
The verse states: "The nation was held back from bringing
[donations]" (36:6). True, Moshe commanded them not to bring more
donations, says R' Aharon Lewin, but what "held them back"? The sage
Hillel said, "My legs take me where I want to go"--as if on their
own. Similarly, when a person is in control of his inclinations,
that which he is commanded not to do becomes impossible to do. Moshe
command held Bnei Yisrael back.
(haD'rash v'haIyun 296)
************************************
PESACH
"They baked the dough which they had taken out of Egypt into
matzah cakes, for it did not leaven, for they were thrown out of
Egypt and they couldn't wait. . . ." (Sh'mot 12:39)
Is this the reason that Bnei Yisrael baked matzah? Actually,
Hashem had commanded them earlier to eat matzah on Pesach!
Chazal teach that Hashem took the Jews out of Egypt early because
they were about to assimilate. In fact, however, the Jews had not
been enslaved the full 400 years that Hashem had told Avraham they
would be strangers in a foreign land.
Because of this, Chazal say, the Jews had to suffer future exiles,
to complete the unfinished work of the Egyptian exile. Because the
Jews "were thrown out of Egypt and they couldn't wait," therefore
there was still reason to "bake[] the dough which they had taken out
of Egypt into matzah cakes."
If the first exile had been a closed chapter in Jewish history,
there might be no reason for us to eat matzah, the bread of
suffering. However, when Hashem commanded Bnei Yisrael to eat
matzah, He "already" knew that there would be future exiles, and
future opportunities to eat the bread of suffering. Thus, there is
no inconsistency between the timing of the commandment and the reason
that our verse gives.
(based on R' Chaim Halberstam of Sanz's
Divrei Chaim, Pesach)
************************************
One explanation that is often given for how Hashem "justified"
taking Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt after fewer than 400 years is that
Bnei Yisrael were worked harder. But harder than what? asks R'
Avraham Shmuel Binyamin Sofer (the Ketav Sofer). There is no record
that Hashem ever specified how hard the Jews would work.
Any work that the Jews had to do for the Egyptians was harder than
doing the same work for any other nation, the Ketav Sofer answers.
After all that Yosef had done for Egypt, the Egyptians' turning
against the Jews was more than Bnei Yisrael could bear. Thus, by
enslaving the Jews in Egypt, even though Hashem had never told
Avraham that he would do so, it appeared as if Hashem was making them
work harder than He had told Avraham they would.
(Ketav sofer, Parashat Bo)
************************************
CORRECTION
Two weeks ago, we misquoted the Ba'al haTurim not once, but twice.
The d'var Torah should have read:
The Ba'al haTurim notes: The gematria of "tetzaveh" ("Command!")
equals the gematria of "nashim tzaveh" ("Command the women"). This
is the Torah's hint that women should light Shabbat candles. [Note
also that the gematria of "ner tamid" ("eternal light") equals the
gematria of "beShabbat."]
Our thanks to Aharon Segal (age 12) of Silver Spring, Md. who
noticed that the numbers didn't quite add up.
************************************
R' Yosef Shaul Nathanson
born 5568 (1808) - died 27 Adar I 5635 (1875)
R' Yosef Shaul, a prolific author (best known as the author of
the responsa Sho'el u'Meishiv) and Rabbi of L'vov for 18 years, was
born in Brezan. He married the daughter of R' Yitzchak Ettinger,
and together with his brother-in-law, he wrote a commentary on
tractate Bava Kama.
As Rabbi of L'vov, R' Yosef Shaul accepted no salary. To the
contrary, he supported many poor members of the community from his
own pocket. Halachic questions came to R' Yosef Shaul from all over
the world, and many of his responses are published in the 14-volume
work mentioned above.
Among R' Yosef Shaul's numerous other works are Divrei Shaul on
the Torah, Divrei Shaul on the aggadic parts of the Talmud, and Edut
b'Yehosef on Rambam.
In Divrei Shaul--Mahadura Tinyana, R' Yosef Shaul explains the
famous midrash that Moshe commanded that the aron hakodesh (the "Holy
Ark") be built before the mishkan, and Betzalel convinced him to
reverse the order, lest they have no where to place the aron. How
could Moshe agree to change that which Hashem had commanded based
on Betzalel's logic?
The midrash in fact states that Betzalel knew what G-d had
commanded. His name, "Betzalel," signifies that he was "b'tzel E-l"-
"in G-d's shadow"--as if he had eavesdropped on Hashem's command to
Moshe. R' Yosef Shaul explains that Moshe reversed the order, not
after talking to Betzalel, but beforehand, in order to test Betzalel.
Why? Because Betzalel was Moshe's great-nephew (Miriam's grandson)
and Moshe wanted to show the Jews how qualified Betzalel really was.
Betzalel's unique qualifications, adds R' Yosef Shaul, are borne out
by the Torah's description of Betzalel as the one who "thought
thoughts," while the other artisans of the mishkan merely worked with
their hands.
|
| 989.286 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Pekudei | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Mar 10 1994 18:59 | 201 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT PEKUDEI / HACHODESH
Vol. VIII, No. 23 (358), 29 Adar 5754, Mar. 12, 1994
Rabbenu Bachya concludes his commentary on this parasha and the
Book of Sh'mot as follows: "Hashem said, 'In this world, I rested
My Shechinah amongst you in the Temple, and for your sins, It left
you. In the future, however, It will not leave you.' In the
future," writes Rabbenu Bachya, "prophecy will return to Israel and
the Shechinah will be in Its place; everyone will learn to know
Hashem, and no one will learn warfare; a new heart will be created,
and [man's] heart of stone will be removed and torn; there will be
no prosecutor (Satan) and no evil inclination--this is our
consolation, which the final redemption will bring."
This future of which Rabbenu Bachya writes will begin with the
seventh millennium of history (this year being 5754); Chazal
(Sanhedrin 97b) say that in that era, tzaddikim will have wings and
will hover over the waters. R' Moshe Chaim Luzzato ("Ramchal")
explains that right now the body is a person's master, but that in
the World to Come, the soul will rule over the body. At that time,
the body will be like a guest or a homeless person, traveling
wherever the soul takes it.
The seventh millennium is often referred to as a time "which is
completely Shabbat." In other words, says Ramchal, the body will
be completely at rest because the soul will be supreme (Da'at
Tevunot). Both our own Shabbat and the shemittah, the commentaries
say, are a microcosm of that world.
************************************
"These are the accountings for the mishkan . . . the work of the
Levi'im in the hands of Itamar, the son of Aharon the kohen."
(38:21)
In this parasha, Moshe gives an accounting of all of the
donations that were given for the construction of the mishkan, and
how they were spent. When did this take place? After the mishkan
was completed and dedicated, says R' Yonatan Eyebschutz.
How do we know? Aharon's sons Nadav and Avihu died on the last
day of the mishkan's dedication. Had they been alive, surely
Itamar, Aharon's fourth son would not have been in charge of the
Levi'im. In fact, says R' Eyebschutz, it was because Nadav and
Avihu died that Moshe had to give this accounting.
Ordinarily, says R' Eyebschutz, it is customary to appoint three
co-treasurers over a charity so that they can check on each other
and prevent theft. It is therefore not necessary for the community
to demand an accounting from them. Moshe, Nadav, and Avihu were
those co-treasurers of the mishkan. Once two of them died,
however, there was no reason (so-to-speak) to trust Moshe, and he
was required to give and accounting.
(Tiferet Yehonatan)
************************************
When the Torah speaks of washing from the kiyor (the wash basin
in the mishkan), it does not say that the kohanim should wash, but
rather that "Aharon and his sons" should wash (Sh'mot 30:19,
40:31). The purity of Jewish leaders in every generation is not
from their being leaders, but from their being a continuation of
the chain of leadership from Aharon.
(based on Olat Re'iyah I p.119)
************************************
"Moshe was unable to enter the Ohel Moed because the cloud
hovered over it. . . ." (40:35)
R' Ephraim of Lunschitz (author of Kli Yakar) writes that,
physically, Moshe could enter the mishkan. The entering the
mishkan to which our verse refers is initiation into the Divine
secrets which the designs of the mishkan and its utensils
represent.
What kept Moshe out of the mishkan was the depth of the secrets
and the comparatively limited ability of the one seeking those
secrets. The "cloud" shrouding the secrets, i.e., the barrier
which exists because man is a physical being, was thick. Just as
clouds come between man and the light of the sun, so man's physical
nature is a barrier between his mind and the light of the
intellect.
The midrash says that in the future Hashem will split the River
of Egypt creating seven paths for Bnei Yisrael to cross. This,
says R' Ephraim, refers to the channels which Hashem will create so
that the Seven Wisdoms will reach man unimpeded, just as before
Bnei Yisrael received the Torah they had to cross through the Yam
Suf (Red Sea).
(Olelot Ephraim 117)
************************************
PESACH
The staff (mateh) with which Moshe and Aharon brought about five
of the plagues was created at the closing moments of Creation,
according to the Mishnah in Pirkei Avot. What is the significance
of this fact? R' Moshe Tirani ("Mabit"; 1500-1580) explains that
the mateh was the instrument of Bnei Yisrael's leaving Egypt. The
purpose of leaving Egypt was to receive the Torah which, in turn,
was the purpose of the entire Creation. It was thus fitting that
the staff be created during the six days of Creation.
Why was the mateh necessary at all? Certainly the ten plagues
and Hashem's other miracles could have taken place had there been
no mateh! However, says Mabit, Hashem wanted there to be a
tangible reminder connecting Creation to the Exodus. Moreover,
that connection demonstrates that the plagues were not a deviation
from nature; rather, the events leading up to Bnei Yisrael's
receiving the Torah were a part of Hashem's original plan. At the
same time, the mateh was created as a free-standing object during
the closing moments of Creation (rather than, for example, being
made out of one of the original trees that Hashem created) to
demonstrate Hashem's direct involvement in the Exodus.
(Bet Elokim: Sha'ar haYesodot ch.23)
************************************
PARASHAT HACHODESH
"This month is for you [the] beginning of months. . . ." (Sh'mot
12:2)
Read literally, this verse states that every day of the month of
Nisan is Rosh Chodesh, says R' Yishayah Horowitz (the "Shelah
haKadosh"). And, in fact, it is prohibited to fast on every day of
this month, just as if it was Rosh Chodesh.
During the first 12 days of Nisan the Princes of the 12 tribes
brought sacrifices for the dedication of the mishkan. Although the
twelve sacrifices were physically identical, the Torah lists their
contents twelve separate times. Each sacrifice added new spiritual
content to the service in the mishkan because of the different
manner of service that each tribe represented.
(quoted in Haggadah Shel Pesach
miBa'al haShelah haKadosh)
************************************
R' Avraham Shaag
born 4 Iyar 5561 (1801) - died 29 Adar II 5636 (1876)
R' Avraham Shaag was one of the leaders of Hungarian Jewry in
the 19th century. His father was a leading disciple of the Noda
b'Yehuda, and some say that the name Shaag, which means "roar"
derives from the Noda b'Yehuda's referring to R' Avraham's father
as the lion among his students.
At the tender age of 13, R' Avraham was enrolled in the
Pressburg Yeshiva, the Torah academy for which all other Hungarian
yeshivot were considered mere preparatory schools. The Rosh
Yeshiva, R' Moshe Sofer (the "Chatam Sofer") would later say about
R' Avraham, "For eighty kilometers around Pressburg there is not
another like him."
R' Avraham's first rabbinic post, when he was 25 years old, was
in Shuttelsdorf. During his two-and-a-half decades there he
transformed the city from a spiritual wasteland to a vibrant Torah
center. From Shuttelsdorf, he moved to Kobersdorf, one of
Hungary's leading communities. There he was recognized as a
leading posek (halachic authority) and teacher, and also as someone
who was influential with the Hungarian nobility.
R' Avraham played a leading role in the fight against Reform.
He was the senior Orthodox delegate to a Government-ordered
conference on Jewish affairs which was held in 1868. (Although
Hungary's Jewish population was 70% Orthodox, the elections were
fixed so that just under half of the delegates were Torah-
observers.) At first the Orthodox delegates were able to
filibuster the proceedings, but eventually various anti-Torah
resolutions were adopted. Only after three years of vigorous
Orthodox lobbying did the Hungarian parliament order that the
conference's resolutions not be implemented, as they violated the
Hungarian constitution's guarantee of freedom of religion.
(Guardian of Jerusalem)
After the conference, R' Avraham decided to emigrate to Eretz
Yisrael. However, succumbing to popular demand, he postponed his
trip until 1873. Once in Yerushalayim, R' Avraham was welcomed by
the leading scholars, who encouraged their students to take
advantage of his wisdom. (R' Avraham, incidentally, owned the land
outside the Jaffa Gate which is now the wide pedestrian plaza
between the wall and Jaffa Road.)
Accompanying R' Avraham to Eretz Yisrael was his young student
R' Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, who was later to be Chief Rabbi of the
old Ashkenazic community (the so-called "Old Yishuv").
R' Avraham's responsa are entitled Ohel Avraham, and he also
published a book of sermons. R' Avraham writes: We read in
Tehilim, "G-d spoke one; I heard two." This is a reference to the
giving of the Torah, when, for example, Hashem said "zachor" and
"shamor" simultaneously, and we miraculously heard both. This is
verse applies, albeit in another sense, to Hashem's saying, "I am
Hashem, your G-d, who took you out of Egypt." Why didn't Hashem
say, "I am . . . who created the world"? Because by mentioning the
Exodus, Hashem taught us two things: that He created the world, and
that we are His chosen nation. (Melizei Esh)
|
| 989.287 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayikra | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Mar 17 1994 20:18 | 185 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
Edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT VAYIKRA
Vol. VIII, No. 24 (359), 7 Nisan 5754, Mar. 19, 1994
The Book of vaYikra is Torat Kohanim--it contains the laws of the
priesthood. The first two parashot deal with the various classes
of sacrifices that could be brought in the mishkan--tabernacle--and
later in the bet hamikdash.
Rambam (Maimonides) appears to state in Moreh Nevochim III:46
(Guide to the Perplexed) that animal sacrifices are a "second-class"
mitzvah. The reason that Hashem commanded the Jews to bring animal
sacrifices was that our ancestors and their contemporaries were
accustomed to bringing sacrifices to idols, and Hashem knew that the
Jews would not easily be weaned from that practice.
Rambam quotes many verses in Tanach which, according to Rambam,
prove that Hashem doesn't really want our animal sacrifices. For
example, in Shmuel I 15:22 the prophet Shmuel asks Shaul
rhetorically, "Does Hashem want burnt offerings and sacrifices as
[much as He wants you] to heed the word of Hashem? Behold, listening
is better than a good sacrifice, to pay attention is better than the
fat of rams."
************************************
Ramban (Nachmanides) takes very strong issue with Rambam's
position. According to Ramban, sacrifices--as their Hebrew name
"korbanot" implies--bring us close ("karov") to Hashem. How this
works is one of the secrets of the Torah. according to Ramban.
(Commentary on the Torah: vaYikra 1:9)
Ramban attacks Rambam's proofs, showing that, in context, the
verses which he cites do not support his view. For example, the
verse quoted on the first page of this issue is the prophet's rebuke
of Shaul for sparing the animals of Amalek in order to bring them
as sacrifices. Of that, not of korbanot in general, the prophet
said, "Does Hashem want burnt offerings and sacrifices as [much as
He wants you] to heed the word of Hashem?" In addition, Ramban notes
that even Adam and his sons brought animal sacrifices. Rambam's
understanding of korbanot would not explain how the practice started.
Among those who comes to Rambam's defense is Abarbanel. In the
fourth chapter of his introduction to vaYikra, Abarbanel explains
that Rambam speaks of two purposes behind animal sacrifices.
Although Rambam offers his own explanation of the reason for
korbanot, he does not write that it is the only reason and that
sacrifices do not bring a person closer to Hashem. Some mitzvot,
e.g., learning Torah and praying perform that function directly,
while others do so only indirectly or after accomplishing a secondary
goal. Animal sacrifices fall into that second group--they bring the
offeror closer to Hashem by distancing him from idolatrous beliefs,
i.e., by channeling the very same energies which he had previously
used in the service of idolatry into the service of Hashem.
Abarbanel himself is of the opinion that there are three types
of korbanot and a different reason behind each one. There are olot--
burnt offerings, there are chataot and ashamot --sin offerings, and
there are shelamim (see below).
The sacrifices which Adam and his sons brought were olot. The
purpose of this sacrifice is to bring a person closer to Hashem by
saying to him, "Just as this animal has died and is entirely burnt
on the altar, so, when you die, you will return completely to
Hashem." This is why Chazal say that this sacrifice atones for
sinful thoughts; such thoughts are possible because a person loses
sight of his end.
The purpose of sin offerings is to atone for unintentional sin.
Because people are sometimes careless, though they do not wish to
sin, Hashem desires to punish them through their pocketbooks. This
will surely induce them to be more careful in the future.
Finally, the third class of korbanot are the shelamim. These are
largely voluntary sacrifices which a person brings to express
gratitude to Hashem. In particular, when a person invites family
and friends to help him eat the sheep or ram which he has slaughtered
as a korban shelamim, he will have the opportunity to speak to them
of Hashem's kindness to him.
************************************
Many other commentators throughout the ages have written about
the ideas behind the sacrifices. The Maharit (R' Yosef Trani; 1568-
1639) offers a reconciliation of Rambam's and Ramban's view which
is perhaps similar to Abarbanel's. Rambam, he explains, is not
offering a reason for offering sacrifices. That is, as Ramban
states, a complicated and mystical matter. Rambam is merely stating,
however, what would happen if man had not been commanded to bring
sacrifices. As we know, man needs outlets for his spiritual
yearnings. [Ed. note: This is offered by many as an explanation for
why so many non-observant Jews are involved in the popular causes
of the day as well as in cults.] If Judaism did not offer the
opportunity to bring sacrifices, Rambam is explaining, Jews would
very likely seek that opportunity elsewhere. (Quoted in Tal Chermon
p.153)
Other explanations behind animal sacrifices, at least those
connected with sins, are found among chassidic commentaries. R'
Yaakov Leiner of Izbica explains that they symbolize that it is not
our true desire to sin. Only because we too have "animal souls,"
i.e., a physical aspect, do we sin. When the repentant person
performs smichah~resting his hands on the animal before it is
slaughtered~he symbolically places all of the blame on his "animal
soul." (Bet Yaakov, vaYikra).
R' Moshe Teitlebaum writes: "If a man sinned, did the animal sin?"
Why then should an animal be slaughtered as an atonement for a
person? He explains that bringing animal sacrifices is intended to
make a person ask that very question. More specifically, he should
ask himself: "If animals, which were created solely to serve man,
but were not created by man, make such a sacrifice for me, then how
much more so should I, who was created solely to serve Hashem, and
was created by Hashem, sacrifice myself for Him!"
Alternatively, R' Moshe offers the following explanation: As was
just noted, animals were created solely to serve man. Imagine that
a high-ranking minister who had a seat in the king's throne room
sinned and was sentenced to death. Surely the king will take that
minister's chair and remove it from the throne room! Similarly,
every person "owns" a share of the world and its creatures, i.e.,
it was created to serve him. When he sins, his share is destroyed.
(Yismach Moshe).
Finally, the medieval sage R' Yitzchak Arama writes that perhaps
we cannot find any rational explanation for animal sacrifice. After
a person has dared to sin and contravene Hashem's will, however, the
most fitting atonement is that he do whatever Hashem commands,however
irrational it may appear. (Akeidat Yitzchak)
************************************
PESACH
Why do we eat karpas? The best known reason is that the Hebrew
spelling of karpas suggests "60 ferach" --i.e., "60 (x
10,000=600,000) Jews worked hard as slaves." Some say that karpas
was the herb which Bnei Yisrael used to heal the sores they got while
working and through beatings. Finally, the name karpas reminds us
of the "ketonet pasim"--Yosef's coat which played a role in bringing
about the enslavement of the Jews.
(R' Yehuda Lebowitz:
Notes to Ritva's Hilchot Seder haHaggadah)
R' Shlomo Luria (Maharshal) writes that one should wrap the matzah
in a sack, throw it over his shoulder, and walk around the room in
this manner saying, "This is how our ancestors left Egypt, their
belongings tied to their clothes, on their shoulders." R' Shlomo
Kluger explains this custom as follows:
Hashem told Moshe, "When Bnei Yisrael leave Egypt, they should
not leave empty-handed. Rather, each woman should borrow items of
value from her neighbor, etc." Isn't this verse redundant? If each
woman is borrowing things from her neighbor, of course they will not
leave Egypt empty-handed!
The Gemara says that after slaughtering the korban Pesach in the
bet hamikdash, each Jew would carry it home, thrown over his shoulder
the way an Arab carries his load. Why is it important for the Gemara
to tell us that the Korban was carried like an Arab's load? To
remind us that the reason the Jews ended up in Egypt in the first
place was that Yosef's brothers sold him to a caravan of Arabs.
Did the Jews deserve to be paid for the work that they did in
Egypt? Only if they were subjugated unfairly. However, since we
now know that this exile was a punishment for the sale of Yosef,
apparently the Jews did not deserve to be paid. This is why the Jews
could only borrow items from their Egyptians neighbors. [Ed. note:
R' Kluger does explain why the Jews were nevertheless allowed to keep
what they "borrowed," but that does not directly relate to our
question.] To remind Bnei Yisrael of this, Hashem told Moshe, "The
Jews should not go empty-handed." They should carry these items in
their own hands, and not place them on the animals or wagons. More
explicitly, they should carry these items on their shoulders the way
an Arab carries his load, so that they would be reminded of the
reason that they went to Egypt in the first place.
This is what Maharshal tells us to do: We too should know why
our ancestors were enslaved in Egypt. Carrying the Matzah around
the room on our shoulders reminds us of the reason.
(Yeriot Shlomo)
|
| 989.288 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Pesach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Mar 22 1994 19:07 | 224 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
Edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT TZAV
SHABBAT HAGADOL / PESACH
Vol. VIII, No. 25 (360), 14 Nisan 5754, Mar. 26, 1994
In most Pesach Haggadot, the text of the Haggadah itself is
prefaced by a 16-word poem that begins with the words "Kadesh
u'rechatz," and lists by name the 15 portions into which the seder
may be divided. In Haggadah Shel Pesach Be'er Miriam (by R' Reuven
Margaliot), this poem is attributed to Rabbenu Shmuel of Falaise,
one of the French Ba'alei Tosfot. Others attribute it to Rashi.
Because the word "seder" means "order," it is only fitting that
the seder follow such a fixed order as is described by this poem.
For this reason, many households have the custom of reading (or
singing) "Kadesh u'rechatz" before reciting kiddush, and of
announcing the name of each portion of the seder before that portion
is begun.
In the pages that follow, Hamaayan presents one d'var Torah for
each of the 15 sections of the seder. They are drawn from 15
different Haggadot, and represent a broad spectrum of commentaries,
from the chassidic and philosophical to the halachic. As always,
please remember that nothing in Hamaayan should be relied upon in
actual practice. All halachic questions should be referred to a
competent Rabbi.
************************************
Kadesh-Reciting Kiddush
R' S.R. Hirsch writes that although we already fulfilled the Torah
obligation of kiddush through our prayers in shul, we repeat kiddush
at home because the sanctity ("kedushah") of the day must first and
foremost find its expression in our homes. Kiddush must be recited
at the place where our meal will be eaten, as the festive meal is
the most obvious manifestation of the joy we feel on the festival,
and that joy must be preceded by sanctity.
(The Hirsch Haggadah)
Rechatz-The first washing
In Temple times, one would wash before consuming a damp fruit or
vegetable in order to eat it in ritual purity. Although we cannot
achieve such purity today, we observe this law of netilat yadaim
(washing) at the seder in order to express our hope that we will soon
be obligated to observe it, due to the arrival of Mashiach and the
rebuilding of the bet hamikdash. This is an expression of the
freedom that we feel on Pesach.
(The Artscroll Haggadah)
Karpas-Eating a vegetable
Of what does the salt-water in which we dip the karpas remind us?
R' Menachem Mendel Hager of Vishuva notes that, throughout the
Talmud, salt is used as a metaphor for suffering. Chazal teach that
suffering is actually good for a person for it expiates his sins,
but, being only human, we quickly reach a point where we can stand
no more. Salt reminds us of this, for a little bit of salt improves
the taste of food, but if that same food is too salty, it is not
edible. As we begin to recall the suffering of the slaves in Egypt,
this thought should be on our minds.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Vishuva-Vizhnitz Shearit Menachem)
Yachatz-Breaking the middle matzah
Why is the middle matzah broken rather than the top or bottom one?
There are two berachot that are recited before eating matzah at the
seder: "Hamotzi"~the blessing for "bread" and "Al achilat
matzah"~the special blessing over the mitzvah of eating matzah on
the first night of Pesach. The halachah is that whenever we recite
Hamotzi it is preferable to have a whole loaf of bread or matzah
before us, whereas the berachah on the mitzvah of eating matzah is
preferably recited over a broken matzah, symbolizing that it is
"Lechem oni"~"The bread of poverty (or affliction)."
There is a halachic principle which states, "One may not pass over
a mitzvah (or a Mitzvah-object)." Generally speaking, all mitzvot
should be done in the order in which they present themselves to us
(and all mitzvah-objects should be used in the order in which they
are brought before us). This rule obligates us to recite "Hamotzi"
over the first matzah that we see when we are ready to eat, i.e. the
top one in the pile of three, and because of the halachah cited above
this matzah must be whole, not broken. The blessing of "Al achilat
matzah" must be recited on the second matzah we see, i.e. the middle
one, and this one should be broken. If we had broken the bottom
matzah instead of the middle one, we would have to pass over the
middle (whole) matzah to reach the broken one, and this should not
be done.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach miBa'al Shlah haKadosh)
Maggid-Telling the story of the Exodus
We begin our story with the statement "Avadim hayinu...."~"We were
slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt." Rav Kook writes that this sentence
describes three levels of degradation: (1) We were slaves, (2) to
a foreign king, (3) in a foreign land. The Haggadah then goes on
to recount that G-d saved us from all three of these troubles: (1)
We were taken out of slavery, (2) by Hashem, our own King, and (3) we
were taken from Egypt and brought to Eretz Yisrael.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Olat Re'iyah)
Rachtzah-Washing a second time
Although the "Kadesh u'rechatz" poem is, in its most simple
meaning, the order of service that we follow at the seder, numerous
commentaries see it also as a complete plan for a Torah way of life.
One of its messages is: "First 'Kadesh u'rechatz'-'Sanctify and wash
(purify) yourself'-and only later, 'maggid rachtzah'-'Tell others
to wash themselves'."
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Zichron Niflaot and others)
Motzi-The blessing over the matzah
R' Moshe Sternbuch shlita writes: Feeling joy when performing
mitzvot is one of the highest forms of service of G-d. We should
feel especially joyous when eating matzah, for Chazal teach that this
mitzvah, properly fulfilled, can save one from judgement on Rosh
Hashana.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Moadim u'Zmanim)
Matzah-The blessing over the mitzvah of matzah
Chazal teach that chametz represents the evil influence of the
yetzer hara and that our task on Pesach is to eradicate this
"chametz". The word "matzah" can be translated "battle" and matzah
is therefore an appropriate food to eat when we battle the yetzer
hara. Eating matzah is mandatory on the first night of Pesach only,
for after that the "battle" is (hopefully) over, However, we remain
forbidden to eat chametz for several more days (i.e. the rest of
Pesach), for we must keep the yetzer hara from returning.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Shem miShmuel)
Maror - Eating the bitter herb
R' Yitzchak Meir of Ger said: The bitterness of the exile
actually contributed to our redemption, for it made our situation
unbearable and inspired us to pray.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Kohelet Moshe)
Korech-Making the matzah/maror sandwich
There is a view in the Talmud that two mitzvot may not be done
at the same time because the concentration required for one may
disturb the concentration required for the other. R' Yosef Shaul
Nathanson notes that the sage, Hillel, was nevertheless able to eat
matzah and maror at the same time because he was always concentrating
on fulfilling G-d's will, and nothing could distract him from this.
As an example of Hillel's constant devotion, the Talmud tells us that
he considered the weekday meals to be mitzvot equal to the Shabbat
meals; all of them fulfilled the purpose of strengthening him to
serve G-d.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Migdal Eder haChadash)
Shulchan Orech-Setting the table for dinner
This expression literally means "He is setting the table" (in the
present tense), and it alludes to G-d. The story is told of a beggar
who "worked" the homes of his neighborhood for only two hours a day,
yet collected more than any of the beggars who struggled from door
to door all afternoon long. When he was asked the secret of his
success, the beggar said, "I knock on doors only at mealtimes. Since
the table is already set, no one minds feeding me as well. You,
however, arrive at the houses when people are busy with other things,
and they cannot be bothered to open the kitchen just for you."
Hashem, says R' Yosef Chaim of Baghdad, is not like a human. He
(G-d) is always "setting the table" for us and thus we find
sustenance at all times.
Sefer Orach Chaim: Peirush Al Haggadah Shel Pesach)
Tzafun-Eating the afikomen
R' Eliyahu Ki Tov writes that in Aramaic, "afikomen" means "Bring
out ('afiku') dessert ('man')." It, therefore, symbolizes our
freedom, for the poor and oppressed cannot afford the luxury of a
leisurely conclusion to their meal.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Yalkut Tov)
Barech-bentching
The Gemara says that after a person eats, he has only one heart.
What does this mean? Before a person eats, he has a yetzer tov
("good inclination") and yetzer hara ("evil inclination"). After
he eats, however, he has only one. If he has eaten "For the sake
of Heaven," the yetzer tov subjugates the bad, but if he ate merely
to fulfill his own desires, then it is the yetzer tov that is
subjugated.
Reciting birkat hamazon enables the yetzer tov to prevail, for
in it we acknowledge that all food is G-d's.
(Haggadat R' Tzadok haKohen)
Hallel-Singing G-d's praises
The paragraphs of Hallel are divided at the seder into two groups,
one of which is recited before the meal and the other after. (To
see this division, compare Hallel as found in the Haggadah with
Hallel as found in the siddur.) Malbim explains that the section
recited before the meal contains two paragraphs: one describes G-d's
greatness in general terms, and the other deals specifically with
the Exodus. These paragraphs are closely related to the story we
tell tonight, and are therefore recited immediately upon concluding
the mitzvah of maggid and just before eating the matzah.
In contrast to these, the paragraphs of Hallel which are recited
after the meal are interpreted by Chazal as referring to the future,
not the past, redemption. As such, they are more appropriately
placed after our performance of the major Pesach mitzvot (matzah,
maror, etc.), for then we can look ahead to the future. (See next
paragraph.)
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Im Be'ur Midrash Haggadah)
Nirtzah-Our observance has been accepted
In the poems and songs of this section of the Haggadah we pray
that all of the tefilot which we have recited at the seder be
accepted by Hashem. If one has performed all of the seder according
to halachah, he may feel confident that his service has indeed been
accepted by G-d. We should pray that we may see the fulfillment of
the verse: "As in the days of your Exodus from Egypt, I [G-d] will
[again] show you wonders." Then we can confidently proclaim: "Next
year in Yerushalayim."
(Haggadah Shel Pesach miBet haLevi-Brisk)
|
| 989.289 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Shemini | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Apr 07 1994 20:01 | 173 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT SHEMINI
The 13th day of the Omer
Vol. VIII, No. 26 (361), 28 Nisan 5754, Apr. 9, 1994
Near the end of this parasha (11:44) we read, ". . .you are to
sanctify yourselves and you shall become holy. . . ." On this the
Gemara (Berachot 53b) comments: "'You are to sanctify yourselves'--
this is the washing before eating; 'and you shall become holy'--
this is the washing after eating."
In what way does washing before eating make one holy? asks R'
Yaakov Zvi Mecklenburg (author of haKetav v'haKabbalah). There is
another context in which washing is called "kiddush"~
"sanctification"--this is the kohanim's washing before beginning
the Temple service. Ramban explains that it is a sign of respect
that, when one approach's a king's table, one washes his hands.
One should see the table on which he eats as an altar or as the
King of Kings' table as well. Every meal should be viewed as being
eaten in the presence of the King of Kings. When one washes in
preparation, he thus sanctifies himself. (Yalkut Lekach Tov)
************************************
"Moshe said to Aharon and to his sons Elazar and Itamar, 'Do not
leave your heads unshorn and do not tear your garments so that you
will not die [lest] He become angry at the whole nation. . . '."
(10:6)
Why should Hashem become angry at the entire nation just because
one of the kohanim dies for his own sin? asks R' Aharon Cohen (son-
in-law of the Chafetz Chaim). This teaches that the Jewish people
depend on the merit of tzaddikim--the righteous. If the righteous
should die, even for their own sins, the entire Jewish nation is
placed at risk.
(Pirchei Aharon)
************************************
The Gemara states that the middle words of the Torah are "darosh
darash," found in verse 10:16 in this parasha. Taken literally,
however, this appears not to be true. What the Gemara may mean,
though, is that of all cases of repeated words, e.g. "darosh
darash" or "yarok yarak" (beMidbar 12:14), this is the middle
instance. Similarly, when the Torah says that the "vav" of the
word "gachon" (11:24) is the middle letter of the Torah, it means
that it is the middle occurrence of an unusually sized letter.
(heard from R' Moshe Zuriel shlita)
************************************
"Anything which moves on its belly and anything which walks on
[from] four up to many legs, from among the rodents ("sheretz")
which crawls on the earth, you shall not eat. . . ." (11:42)
R' Chaim ben Bezalel (brother of the Maharal of Prague) writes
that throughout history there have been three focuses for the evil
inclination: idolatry, immorality, and money. The non-kosher
status and ritual impurity of the sheretz is due to its similarity
to those who incessantly chase after wealth.
How so?
R' David Kimchi (Radak) writes that the word "rasha," meaning
"evil person," derives from the verse (Iyov 34:29): "He will make
calm and who will move?" The word used for "move" is "yarshi'a".
In other words, an evil person is one who is constantly on the
move, incessantly chasing after wealth, as opposed to a tzaddik
(like Yaakov) who sits in his tent and studies Torah, while making
do with what is readily available.
The word "sheretz," notes R' Chaim, contains within it the word
"ratz"~"runs." In addition, the Torah connects the sheretz with
the species which have "[from] four up to many legs." Thus the
rodent is doubly reminiscent of the "rasha" described by Radak, and
that is why it may not be eaten and is ritually impure.
(Sefer haChaim II:5)Rav Yaakov Bei Rav
************************************
PIRKEI AVOT
"Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, 'The world exists because of
three things: truth, justice, and peace'." (end of the first
chapter)
Many commentators wonder how this teaching differs from an
earlier mishnah in the same chapter, "The world stands on three
things: Torah, the Temple service, and acts of kindness."
According to Rabbenu Yonah, the earlier mishnah is explaining why
the world was created, while our mishnah explaining what keeps the
world going.
However, this requires clarification. If the merit of Torah,
the Temple service, and acts of kindness was enough to bring the
world into existence, certainly it is enough to keep it in
existence! Why should a different set of merits be required?
R' Yosef Yaavetz explains: The earlier mishnah (the teaching of
the kohen gadol Shimon haTzaddik) referred to the time when the
Temple still existed. Why, however, does the world continue to
exist now that one of its three legs, the Temple service, is
missing? In answer to that question Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (who
lived after the Destruction) says, "The world exists because of
three things: truth, justice, and peace." The explanation for this
is that a lesser merit can indeed keep the world in existence even
though it would not have sufficed to support the creation the
world. Thus, even though we are lacking the Temple service, truth,
justice, and peace keep our world alive.
(Midrash Shmuel)
Ramban (Sh'mot 21:20) notes that the word "stand" can sometimes
mean "exist". Indeed, in that verse in Sh'mot, this definition has
serious halachic consequences. Specifically, the verse states that
if one person is injured by another, but he "stands" after 24
hours, the one causing the injury is not executed as a murderer.
Does this mean that he must physically stand, or only that he must
survive (exist)? According to Ramban, it is only the latter.
************************************
Rav Yaakov Bei Rav
born 5235 (1475) - died 30 Nisan or 1 Iyar 5306 (1546)
R' Yaakov ben Moshe Bei Rav was one of the leading scholars of
Tzefat and was its Av Bet Din (President of the rabbinical court)
in that city's most glorious era. He was born in Spain and was a
disciple of R' Yitzchak Abohab (the second), the teacher of
Abarbanel. After the expulsion, he led to North Africa, where, at
the age of 18, he was appointed Rabbi of Fez.
After wandering through Algeria, settling in Yerushalayim, and
then moving to Egypt, R' Yaakov set up a yeshiva in Tzefat. There
he attracted such students as R' Yosef Karo, author of Shulchan
Aruch and other works, and R' Moshe Trani (the Mabit). These men
were already accomplished scholars when they came to drink from R'
Yaakov's scholarship.
R' Yaakov's wrote several works and is cited frequently by his
contemporaries. He is best known, however, for his part in the
semichah controversy. (Although we refer to rabbinical ordination
as "semichah," our semichah does not have the same halachic
significance as the semichah that was practiced from the time of
Moshe Rabbenu until the fourth century. Semichah today merely
means that the recipient has achieved a certain proficiency in his
knowledge of halachah. In earlier times, however, there was a
difference between the types of halachic decisions which could be
made by a "Rabbi" who had received semichah and one who had not.
For example, only one who had semichah could judge a capital case.)
Semichah can be awarded only by one who has semichah, which no one
does today. However, R' Yaakov understood from Rambam's Mishneh
Torah (Sanhedrin 4:11) that if all scholars residing in Eretz
Yisrael would consent to give one of their number semichah, they
could do so. He, in turn, could give semichah to others. With
that done, they could establish a sanhedrin.
R' Yaakov is said to have been motivated by a desire to aid
Spanish Jews who had masqueraded as Christians achieve atonement.
This required them to receive makkot--39 lashes--but only a
sanhedrin can mete out that punishment. R' Yaakov did receive
semichah, and he awarded it to others (including R' Yosef Karo, who
passed it on to R' Moshe Alshich, the Torah commentator).
It is said that R' Yaakov sent a certificate of semichah to R'
Levi ibn Chaviv (Ralbach), Chief Rabbi of Yerushalayim, but that
the latter did not accept it. Not only did Ralbach disagree with
R' Yaakov's interpretation of the crucial statement of Rambam, he
felt that the semichah was not valid even according to R' Yaakov's
interpretation because some scholars had not been consulted. (As
mentioned above, reinstating semichah requires the agreement of all
of the scholars of Eretz Yisrael. The leading scholar in Egypt,
Radvaz, sided with Ralbach.
|
| 989.290 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Tazria Metzorah | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Apr 13 1994 19:38 | 167 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT TAZRIA-METZORA
The 20th day of the Omer
Vol. VIII, No. 27 (362), 5 Iyar 5754, Apr. 16, 1994
Chazal say that, if man is worthy, he is told that he preceded
all of creation; if he is unworthy, he is told that even the gnat
was created before he was! However, asks R' Yoel Teitlebaum (the
Satmar Rav) isn't it a fact that man was created last? How can man's
behavior change that fact?
Man's body was the last of the creations, but man's soul was the
first. If man devotes his life to spiritual pursuits and puts his
soul first, then we may say that he preceded all of creation.
However, if he devotes his life to the fulfillment of his body, then
he is the last of the creations and even the gnat precedes him.
(Divrei Yoel: Tazria)
Our parasha begins with the laws of childbirth and continues with
the laws of tzara'at, the disease which afflicts one who speaks
lashon hara. Based on the above we can understand why these laws
are juxtaposed to each other. If man focuses on the differences
between himself and others, he will inevitably speak lashon hara.
However, if he looks beyond his birth and his physical being, if he
concentrates on his spiritual life, he will see all that he shares
with the rest of mankind. In fact, says the Satmar Rav, this is what
Hillel meant when he told the convert (in the famous story), "'Love
your fellow as yourself' is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary."
************************************
"On the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be
circumcised." (12:3)
Why does the Torah set the circumcision for the eighth day? R'
Levi ben Gershom ("Ralbag") explains this halacha from a purely
pragmatic standpoint.
Before the eighth day, he writes, the child may not be strong
enough to withstand circumcision. On the other hand, if the
circumcision were pushed off for much longer, until after the parents
have had a chance to get to know their newborn, then the parents
might be reluctant to subject him to what they might believe to be
a painful procedure. Also, the older the child is, the more painful
the circumcision would actually be.
(Commentary to Parashat Metzora)
************************************
The mishnah (Nega'im 2:5) states: "A person sees all nega'im--
tzara'at wounds--except his own." Literally, this means that a
person, even a kohen, may not be the judge of whether he himself has
tzara'at. Rather, he must go to another kohen.
Figuratively, however, this statement is frequently interpreted
as referring to the fact that people are rarely objective about their
own faults. A person sees everyone else's faults, but not his own.
If so, asks R' Eliezer David Gruenwald, z'tzal, how can a person
assess where he stands? Another mishnah states, "One does not search
[for chametz], not by the light of the sun, and not by the light of
the moon, but only by the light of a candle." The strong "light of
the sun" represents wealth, and the weak "light of moon" represents
lack of success. Neither of these is an accurate indicator of
whether Hashem is happy with a person. Only the "light of a candle,"
an allusion to the verse, "A mitzvah is a candle", is an accurate
indicator.
What does this mean? If a person wants to know where he stands
in his service of Hashem, he should look at his attitude towards
mitzvot. If a person considers mitzvot to be a burden, then he has
a long way to go. However, if he enjoys performing mitzvot, then
he is on the right track.
(Chasdei David, p. 11b)
************************************
In a similar vein, the Dubno Maggid commented on the verse in
Yishayah (43:21), "You did not call Me, Yaakov, for you grew weary
of Me, Yisrael." If one grows weary of calling out, it is certain
that he is not calling to Hashem. To what may this be compared?
To the difference between a coal seller and a diamond merchant. The
former may grow weary of carrying his merchandise; the latter never
does.
************************************
PIRKEI AVOT
"The Master of your work ('melachtecha') can be counted on to pay
the reward of your actions ('pe'ulatecha')." (end of chapter 2)
Why does the mishnah first use the word "melachah"--"work" and
then switch to the word "pe'ulah"--"action"? Rav Moshe Shick
("Maharam Shick"; 1807-1879) explains as follows:
The gemara (Rosh haShanah 17b) questions the meaning of the
following verse (Tehilim 62:13): "Yours Hashem is kindness, for You
pay each man according to his deeds." Is there kindness involved
in paying man what is rightfully his? Rather, the gemara explains,
Hashem first pays man according to his deeds, and later He pays out
of kindness.
How so? Chazal teach Avot ch.5), "According to the pain is the
reward." That being the case, a tzaddik who has conquered his evil
inclination should not be entitled to very much reward for the good
deeds of his old age, as his effort (once his yetzer hara is subdued)
is minor compared to the spiritual work of his youth. Nevertheless,
the above verse teaches, Hashem, in His kindness, pays the tzaddik
the same reward for the good deeds of his old age that He would have
paid for those good deeds in the tzaddik's younger years.
The word "melachah," Maharam Shick explains, describes greater
effort than the word "pe'ulah." The Master for whom you toiled and
performed your difficult spiritual work ("melachtecha") in your
youth, the mishnah teaches, can be counted on to pay the same reward
for your relatively easier actions ('pe'ulatecha') in your old age.
The end of the mishnah states as proof of the above explanation:
"Know that this is true, for the primary reward is in the future."
A tzaddik's primary challenge in his old age is to make his body
perform good deeds; his soul is already purified, but his body is
tired. Why then would Hashem save the tzaddik's reward for the
World-to-Come, rather than rewarding the body now? The answer must
be, says Maharam Shick, as we said above: Hashem rewards the
tzaddik's soul for his good deeds, even though its work is relatively
light.
(Maharam Shick Al Pirkei Avot p.48)
************************************
In the autumn of 1919 (11 Tishrei 5680), Rav Avraham Yitzchak
haKohen Kook wrote:
It is incumbent upon us to inform our brothers, from all parties
(all of whom seek the good of our nation and the broadening of our
right to Eretz Yisrael), that the foundation of the British
government's proclamation [i.e., the Balfour Declaration], which has
planted a tender sapling [from which] our redemption will blossom,
is primarily based on the perspective which all the world's nobility,
and particularly British nobility, has, that our connection to Eretz
Yisrael is just, that it is sanctified with a Heavenly sanctity.
They see this through a holy lens, [i.e.,] the Tanach (Bible) which
is holy to the vast majority of cultured people in our time.
Israel's enemies, whether internally or externally, commonly use
the accusation that the young [generation of] Israelites has lost
its connection to the Holy Book and therefore has no right to the
land of the Tanach. We are obligated to stand guard and to show the
whole world that the Jewish soul is alive . . . and that the land
of the Tanach belongs to the people of the Tanach. [We must show
the whole world] that, with its entire soul, the young generation
lives in the spirit of the Holy Land, the spirit of this Holy Book.
This is the truth--that in their innermost spirits, our sons are
students of Hashem and the ideal of their lives is all holy, all
Biblical.
It is our holy duty, that the first steps should be recognized
[as bearing] the holy imprint of the Tanach, which has been
intertwined with our lives for all generations. In this great hour,
our original, national nature must stand out, as we build our lives
as a society on our land. Only Israel's return to its land, to its
source and its kingdom, to its Divine inspiration, to its prophecy
and its Temple--this alone will eventually bring that lofty radiance
to the world, which all of the lofty souls of mankind aspire to.
(Mo'adei haRe'iyah: Yom haAtzma'ut p.397)
|
| 989.291 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Acharei Mot - Kedoshim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Apr 20 1994 19:47 | 186 |
| PARASHAT ACHAREI MOT--KEDOSHIM
The 27th day of the Omer
Vol. VIII, No. 28 (363), 12 Iyar 5754, Apr. 23 1994
We read in this week's parasha (19:28), "You may not cut your
flesh for the dead . . . I am Hashem." Rashi writes earlier in the
parasha (19:17) that the expression "I am Hashem" means "I can be
trusted to pay the reward of your good deeds."
Look in what context Hashem promises to reward us, says R' Isaac
Sher (Rosh Yeshiva of Slobodka). "Don't injure yourselves, and I
will reward you."
This is just one reminder of Hashem's immense love for us, notes
R' Sher. Another is the verse in Shir haShirim (6:3), "I am to my
Beloved and my Beloved is to me." Hashem actually allows us to call
Him, who is so exalted, our "Beloved." Not only that, but that verse
concludes, "Who shepherds us amongst roses." What does this mean?
That Hashem desires to make our lives as pleasant and "sweet-
smelling" as possible.
The above mitzvah (regarding injuring oneself) is taught again
in Devarim (14:1): "You are Hashem's children; do not cut yourselves
. . . ." Again, we see that Hashem rewards us as His children even
for doing what is obviously good for us. However, we also see what
is expected of us. Chazal say that the term "children" also means
"students," particularly, of Torah. We must therefore act like
Hashem's children, firstly, by learning Torah, and also by carrying
ourselves with the regal bearing and pride in our Torah that children
of the King of Kings should. (Leket Sichot Mussar II p.7)
************************************
One of the mitzvot in this week's parasha (17:13) is "kisui hadam"
--covering the blood of certain animals after they are shechted--
ritually slaughtered. This mitzvah applies to those species which
are classified as "chayot" (e.g., deer) and to birds. However, it
does not apply to behemot--domesticated animals such as sheep and
cows. The Sefer Chassidim (R' Yehuda heChassid; 1150-1217) writes
( 372) that the reason for kisui hadam is so that the angel which
watches over wildlife will not see the blood and complain that the
innocent animals under his charge are being murdered.
Why is this a concern only regarding birds and not regarding
behemot? R' Chaim Eliezer Shapiro (the Munkatcher Rebbe) zatz'l
writes that Hashem permitted the eating of animals and birds because
by doing so one makes the animal or bird part of himself. Thus, one
raises the slaughtered creature from the lower level of spirituality
which a non-human organism possesses to the human's much higher
level. However, this is the case only if the creature is eaten for
the express purpose of achieving spirituality; if the one eating is
a rasha and eats only to fulfill his gluttonous desires, then the
animal's spirituality is not raised.
A sheep or cow cannot be eaten by one person; it is therefore
inevitable that at least some part of the animal will be eaten by
a person who will possess the proper intent. Thus, the blood of a
cow or sheep need not be covered because one who slaughters one of
those animals is doing it a favor. A bird, however, can be eaten
by one person; if he does not eat it properly, the angel that watches
over the birds will complain.
[Ed note: R' Shapiro writes that he offers the above only as the
beginning of a possible answer. It does not account, however, for
the fact that the blood of a deer must also be covered, even though
a deer, too, cannot be consumed by one person.]
(Divrei Torah II 103)
************************************
R' Avraham Yitzchak haKohen Kook zatz'l notes a common thread
which connects kisui hadam with the shemittah, particularly with the
law that the fruits of shemittah may not be eaten by humans after
the time of year when they are no longer available in the wild for
animals. Both of these laws increase our sensitivity towards animals
which, in turn, refines our souls. [Note that sensitivity towards
animals is not an end in itself--see Ramban, Devarim 22:6.] In
particular, man must understand that it is not might, i.e., man's
ability to kill animals at will, which makes man superior to other
living things. Rather, it is man's ethical sensibilities and
pursuits which make him the superior creature.
(Orot haMitzvot)
************************************
PIRKEI AVOT
"One whose deeds ("ma'asav") are greater than his wisdom . . .
all the winds in the world may blow, but they will not move him, as
it is written [Yirmiyah 17:8], 'He will be like a tree planted by
the waters, that sends forth its roots to the veins of water and will
not perceive that the heat is coming, whose leaves will be always
be fresh, and he will not worry in a drought year, and he will never
cease to yield fruit'." (Chapter 3)
R' Yaakov Chaim of Baghdad zatz'l (1854-1921; son of the more
famous R' Yosef Chaim of Baghdad) suggests that the word "ma'asav"
used here means "creations." Specifically, the mishnah refers to
a person's students. Chazal say that one's students are his
creations.
We are also taught in Pirkei Avot that if one's deeds (or,
according to R' Yaakov, his creations or students) are numerous, his
wisdom will last. This may be understood, says R' Yaakov, in light
of the proverb, "I learned most of all from my students."
(Z'chut Avot)
Why is it that a person learns so much from his students? R'
Shimon Shkop (died 1940) explains that Torah, like money, is
entrusted to a person by Hashem. If a person proves himself a
reliable caretaker, he is entrusted with even more wealth. Thus,
one who gives charity is rewarded with greater monetary wealth, while
one who teaches Torah is rewarded with greater knowledge.
* * * * *
The verse from Yirmiyah quoted above refers to one who places his
faith in Hashem. (The previous verse is, "Blessed is the man who
will trust in G-d. . . .") R' Joseph Breuer (1882-1980) comments
on these two verses:
Blessings will accompany those who, whatever the
obstacles[,] will keep their lives firmly and enduringly
rooted in G-d and who are upheld by the profound awareness
that not even the most potent resources on earth can
replace the one true Source of power and might
[represented by the river], near which alone the tree
[i.e., man], as it were, must place itself. The tree must
eagerly send forth its roots to the veins of water flowing
from that source if it wishes to survive the withering hot
desert in ever-verdant freshness. If it chooses this
course, the tree will never have cause to fear the
scorching breath of the desert winds, which it will never
have to experience.
[Note that the last sentence is a play on the similarity between the
Hebrew words for fear and seeing.]
(Sefer Yirmiyah: Translation and Commentary) ************************************
Rav Netanel Weil
died 15 Iyar 5529 (1769)
R' Netanel Weil is best known as the author of the commentary on
the Rosh by the name of Korban Netanel. He was a descendant of the
leading German authority Mahari Weil (died 1455), and he likewise
served as Rabbi of a number of German and Austrian towns, most
notably, Karslruhe.
The name "Rosh" refers both to the person of Rabbenu Asher ben
Yechiel (14th century Germany and Spain) and to that scholar's major
halachic work. In R' Netanel's introduction to Korban Netanel, he
explains (in verse) that the purpose of his work is to resolve any
apparent contradictions in the text of the Rosh and to explain the
Rosh's words, as Ashkenazic Jews at that time considered the Rosh
to be the final halachic authority.
R' Netanel also composed a brief Torah commentary, known as Torat
Netanel. Much of his commentary is oriented towards halacha. It
is interesting to note that, in the first paragraph of his commentary
on this week's parasha, he takes the relatively unusual step of
adducing a point of halacha regarding family purity from an aggadic
source. Commenting on the verse in this week's parasha (16:16), "[I
am G-d] Who dwells amongst [the Jews] in the midst of their
impurity," the midrash states that the impurity of the Jews (when
they sin) is that of a nidah, not that of a corpse. While a kohen
cannot enter a room in which there is a corpse, even a kohen gadol
may sit on the same bench with his wife when she is a nidah, as long
as the bench does not move. R' Netanel writes that the poskim
overlooked this midrash. (For an interpretation of this midrash,
see the below.)
************************************
What does the midrash (see above) mean when it states that Jews
who sin are impure like a nidah and not like a corpse? One obvious
difference between the two forms of impurity is that the corpse's
tum'ah (ritual impurity) is permanent, while the nidah can be
purified in a mikvah. Moreover, the tum'ah of a corpse comes from
the fact that it is dead and it serves no more purpose; the tuma'ah
of a nidah, on the other hand, is part of a reproductive cycle, and
thus has a constructive component.
The prophet Michah wrote (Michah 7:8), "For I have fallen, I will
arise." Chazal say that when the righteous fall, it is only so that
they may rise. Likewise, the present impurity of sinful Jews is
merely part of the process by which they will rise to new levels of
purity.
|
| 989.292 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Emor | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Apr 25 1994 20:25 | 196 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT EMOR
The 34th day of the Omer
Vol. VIII, No. 29 (364), 19 Iyar 5754, Apr. 30 1994
In this parasha, we read of the blasphemy committed by the "son
of an Israelite woman, who was also the son of an Egyptian man."
Chazal point out that this mother and father were the only Jew and
Egyptian who had a relationship during all of the centuries that
Bnei Yisrael were in Egypt. So set apart did the Jews keep
themselves, the midrash notes, that they did not even change their
distinctive Jewish clothing, names, or manner of speech (language).
It was in this merit that they were redeemed.
What does the behavior described above signify? asks R'
Yechezkel Levenstein zatz'l. Why does it create the merit in which
to be redeemed? The answer is that thus Bnei Yisrael showed that
they were not Egyptians and did not want to remain in Egypt.
Generally, one who is persecuted will attempt to imitate his
persecutor and minimize his distinctiveness, but not so the Jews in
Egypt. (In contrast, R' Levenstein commented in a 5723/1963
lecture, "People occasionally write notes asking that I pray for
the ill, and I practically cannot decipher the names listed.")
The midrash (Devarim Rabbah 2) observes that the decree that
Moshe would not be buried in Eretz Yisrael was first made when he
allowed the daughters of Yitro to think that he was Egyptian. (See
Sh'mot 2:19). The surest way to hasten the redemption, says R'
Levenstein, is to stand out and acknowledge that we do not belong
in exile. (Ohr Yechezkel: Emunah p.231)
************************************
"Hashem said to Moshe, 'Say to the kohanim, the sons of Aharon,
and tell them. . . '." (21:1)
Rashi comments that the redundancy, "Say . . . tell them,"
teaches that the elders should be warned to teach the children.
How is this lesson implied in these words?
R' Moshe Feinstein explains that teaching one's children has two
parts. It is not enough to teach the commandments and the laws;
one must tell and demonstrate(!) to his children how dear those
laws are. [R' Moshe was wont to say that the most destructive
expression that parents could use was, "It's difficult to be a
Jew."] One must "say" the laws, and then one must "tell them" how
beloved the laws of the Torah are.
(Darash Moshe)
************************************
"And you shall count for yourselves, from the morrow of the rest
day ('Shabbat'). . . ." (23:15)
The Oral Tradition notes that the "Shabbat" referred to here is
not the seventh day of the week but is the first day of Pesach.
Why does the Torah call it Shabbat?
R' Eliezer David Gruenwald explains as follows: On Shabbat, we
conclude the kiddush with the phrase, "He who sanctifies the
Shabbat." On yom tov, we conclude that blessing, "He who
sanctifies Israel and the times [i.e., holidays]." Why do we not
mention the sanctification of Israel on Shabbat? The reason is
that the holiness of Shabbat does not depend on the Jews, while the
sanctification of yom tov does. Shabbat invariably comes along on
every seventh day; this would happen if there were no Jews. Yom
tov, however, depends on the calendar, and the arrangement of the
calendar is given over to the sanhedrin, the leaders of the Jews.
Before the holidays can be sanctified, Israel must be sanctified;
not so Shabbat.
There is one holiday which is similar to Shabbat in this
respect. That is Pesach, particularly the first day. Chazal teach
that Bnei Yisrael were not really deserving of the Exodus, and it
took place only so that the Jews could become deserving,
retroactively, by receiving the Torah. (The Omer, which the above
verse instructs us to count, marks the days until that event.)
Pesach, therefore, like Shabbat, took place independently of the
sanctification of Israel, and it is appropriately called "Shabbat."
(Chasdei David p.6)
************************************
". . .when he blasphemes the Name [of G-d], he shall be put to
death. And a man~if he strikes any human life, he shall be put to
death." (24:16-17)
From the juxtaposition of these laws, we learn that if one slaps
another's cheek, it is as if he has slapped G-d, so-to-speak.
(Ba'al haTurim)
************************************
PIRKEI AVOT
"One who learns in order to teach will be given the opportunity
to both learn and teach." (Chapter 4)
R' Amram Gruenwald (1831-1870) was one of the leading students
of the Ketav Sofer of Pressburg, yet he declined to enter the
Rabbinate. His wife agreed with his inclinations, and in fact
married him on that condition.
After R' Amram died at a young age, however, his widow regretted
her earlier feelings. Had he been actively teaching others, she
said, his time on earth would have been extended.
The biographer of R' Moshe Gruenwald (R' Amram's oldest son;
author of Arugat haBosem) notes that the widow's instincts find
support in the writings of the Chatam Sofer. We are taught, says
the Chatam Sofer, that man is sent to this world to perfect
himself. It would stand to reason, therefore, that tzaddikim, who
have accomplished their missions, should die young. Yet numerous
tzaddikim, we know, do live to ripe old ages!
The reason for this, concludes the Chatam Sofer, is that even
after the righteous have accomplished their own missions on earth,
if they are actively helping others improve themselves, then their
lives will be extended for the sake of those others.
R' Amram's son uses this idea to explain a Gemara in Sanhedrin
(107b). The Gemara says that Avraham was the first person in
history who showed signs of aging. He writes (in Arugat haBosem,
Parashat Chayei Sarah) that Avraham was the first person who was
engaged in outreach; members of earlier generations spent their
entire lives improving themselves. As an act of kindness, Hashem
kept those generations young-looking; most likely a 700-year old
man would be embarrassed were it known that he had not perfected
himself in seven centuries of life. Avraham, however, had nothing
to fear, because he had another "excuse" for living a long life,
i.e., he had already perfected himself, and now he was busy helping
others.
(Toldot Arugat haBosem p.57)
[Note: R' Eliezer David Gruenwald, quoted on the previous
page, was also a son of R' Amram.]
************************************
LAG BA'OMER
One year, R' Yisrael Hager (the Vizhnitzer Rebbe) decided not to
make his annual Lag ba'Omer outing to the forest with a bow and
arrow. His son asked him, "But isn't it the universal Jewish
custom to do so?"
"Yes, yes," said the Rebbe, "after one has learned the entire
Talmud and all of the poskim (halachic works)."
Nevertheless, he agreed to go that year as well. (Kedosh Yisrael
p.162)
************************************
Rav Menachem Mendel of Rimanov
died 19 Iyar 5574 or 5575 (1814/15)
R' Mendel was a fourth generation chassidic leader, a student of
R' Elimelech of Lyzhensk. At age eleven, R' Mendel had even
visited R' Dov Ber of Mezeritch, the successor to the Ba'al Shem
Tov.
It was said that R' Mendel brought sustenance to the entire
world. He did this by lecturing on the subject of the Mahn on
every Shabbat for 40 consecutive years.
Among R' Mendel's most notable students were R' Zvi Elimelech of
Dinov (the Bnei Yissaschar) and R' Naftali of Ropshitz. It was, in
fact, R' Mendel who recommended R' Naftali for the rabbinate of
Ropshitz after a bat kol (heavenly proclamation) to that effect was
heard in Rimanov.
During the Napoleonic wars, the majority of Russian Rabbis
opposed Napoleon because of the fear (borne out by experience) that
the "Enlightenment" spread by the French conquest would weaken
religious observance. The Russians, on the other hand, were
violently anti-Semitic, and R' Mendel supported Napoleon.
It is related that during the matzah-baking one year, R' Mendel
said, as he put the dough into the oven, "Five hundred more
Russians are falling in battle."
R' Naftali quickly reached into the oven and threw some of the
dough to the ground, exclaiming, "Rebbe, Napoleon is impure and
should be pushed-off to Pesach Sheni." [See beMidbar 9:1-14.]
(The story continues that R' Naftali then fled to the Maggid of
Koznitz (another Rebbe) and would not leave there until the Maggid
assured him that he would not be punished by Heaven for offending
his Rebbe.)
R' Mendel, the Maggid of Koznitz and the Chozeh of Lublin all
died in one year. Chassidim say that the three Rebbes had agreed
amongst themselves to "force" Mashiach to come, but apparently, the
time had not come.
Many of R' Mendel's customs were preserved among the chassidim
of Ropshitz. Some of his teachings are preserved in the works of
others, including Menachem Tzion, Divrei Menachem, Ateret Menachem,
and D'vash haSadeh.
|
| 989.293 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Behar Bechukotai | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri May 06 1994 02:06 | 209 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
Edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT BEHAR-BECHUKOTAI
The 41st day of the Omer
Vol. VIII, No. 30 (365), 26 Iyar 5754, May 7, 1994
In this week's parasha we find the tochachah, literally "rebuke."
This section foretells the curses and troubles which will befall the
Jewish people when they abandon the Torah (and specifically, the
mitzvah of shemittah.) Chazal say that this tochachah was fulfilled
when the first Temple was destroyed and the Jews were exiled to Bavel
(Babylon).
Near the end of this tochachah we read (26:42), "I will remember
My covenant with Yaakov, and also My covenant with Yitzchak, and also
My covenant with Avraham I will remember and I will remember the
Land." Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik zatz'l comments that even when
the Jews are hiding themselves in their places of exile, even if they
no longer wish to be identified as Jews, Hashem will not allow that.
Something will always arise to remind Jews of their Jewishness.
What is that something in our day? It is the end of the verse,
"I will remember the Land," says Rav Soloveitchik. Hashem causes
turmoil in Eretz Yisrael in order to awaken us to who we are. And
why? The next verses explain: "I will not reject them . . . to break
My covenant with them, for I am Hashem, their G-d"~Hashem does not
want the covenant of Sinai, i.e., the covenant of Torah and mitzvot,
to be lost. (The Rav Speaks: Five Addresses p.150)
************************************
"These are the mitzvot that Hashem commanded Moshe. . . ." (27:34)
The Ba'al haTurim comments: The gematria of mitzvot, with each
of the letters spelled out, equals 612. This is also the gematria
of the phrase "talmidei chachamim"~"Torah scholars."
What is this teaching us? asks Rav Elazar Rokeach. After all,
there are actually 613 mitzvot! Chazal say that Moshe was excused
from the mitzvah of being married and bearing children so that he
would always be available to speak with Hashem. Similarly, any Torah
scholar who cannot interrupt his learning for a moment, need not
marry.
Thus, the mitzvot that Hashem commanded Moshe (for his
ownobservance) were only 612. So, too, talmidei chachamim who cannot
bear to stop learning long enough to fulfill the obligations of
marriage also need keep only 612 commandments.
(Ma'aseh Rokeach)
************************************
Rav Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim (the Aderet) writes: The fact
that the gematria of "talmidei chachamim" equals the gematria of
"mitzvot" when the latter word is spelled out teaches that if one
wishes to fulfill the mitzvot in all their details, he must become
a talmid chacham. A lesser person cannot properly fulfill the
commandments in their entireties.
(Atrot Eder)
************************************
". . . the city [Yerushalayim] was handed over to the Chaldeans
who are attacking it, in the face of the sword, the famine, and the
pestilence. . . . Yet You said to me, Hashem Elokim, 'Buy yourself
a field with silver and appoint witnesses [to the transaction]'~but
the city has been handed over to the Chaldeans." (Yirmiyah 32:24-25;
haftarah for Parashat beHar)
The Gemara teaches that there were more than one million prophets
in Jewish history, but only those prophecies which have eternal
messages were recorded in Tanach. What then does Hashem's command
that Yirmiyah buy a field in Eretz Yisrael teach us?
Says Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook zatz'l: The prophet is teaching us that
even when Eretz Yisrael is under siege (as it is today) and even when
settling the land appears to be dangerous, the mitzvah to "buy
fields" still continues.
(quoted in Torat Eretz Yisrael p.187)
************************************
"What more impressive revelation of Divine Providence could
there have been," writes Rav Joseph Breuer zatz'l, "than the fact
that, even as He seems about to strike a fatal blow, G-d is preparing
the future restoration of the land?"
(Sefer Yirmiyah: Translation and Commentary)
************************************
PIRKEI AVOT
Ben Bag Bag says: Turn it (the words of Torah) over again and
again, for everything is in it. . . . Ben Heh Heh says: According
to the pain is the reward. (end of Chapter 5)
Rav Shlomo Kluger zatz'l writes that these two sages were
converts, and each is offering his reason for converting. Ben Heh
Heh says that one who is commanded to perform the mitzvot and does
so is greater than one who performs them even though he is not
commanded, because the yezter hara tempts the former but does not
tempt the latter. Thus Ben Heh Heh converted so that his "pain" from
observing mitzvot would be greater.
Ben Bag Bag disagrees and holds that one who is not commanded is
greater than one who is, because the former is a volunteer. Why then
did Ben Bag Bag convert? Because of the greatness of true Torah
study, which is the unique province of Jews.
Alternatively, says Rav Kluger, the two sages are arguing whether
one should study Torah exclusively or whether one should work for
his livelihood. Ben Bag Bag praises Torah study. Ben Heh Heh,
however, states that one who studies Torah while coping with the pain
of seeking a livelihood is greater, so long, of course, that the
person is pained by having to interrupt his Torah study in order to
work.
(Magen Avot)
************************************
Rav Yehoshua Heller zatz'l of Telz writes: Ben Bag Bag's statement
"Turn it over again and again . . . and don't move away from it" is
based on the verse in Kohelet (11:6), "In the morning sow your seed
and in the evening don't be idle." Note that the structure of one
parallels the other: both start with a positive directive and
continue with a negative injunction. Moreover, the imagery is the
same, i.e., turning over the Torah as one turns over land in order
to sow.
Ben Bag Bag is teaching, then: study the Torah in depth and
implant it within you in your youth and you will not leave it when
you are older.
(Toldot Yehoshua)
************************************
ANNOUNCEMENT
In response to readers' requests, the following is a reminder of
how to use the "Learning Schedule" on the first page of Hamaayan.
The first line is the "Daily Mishnah," a program of Mishnah study
covering two mishnayot every day. For annual calendars contact Rabbi
Elias Karp 4701 15th Ave. Apt. 3C, B'klyn NY 11219.
The second line is the "Daily Halachah." This program covers the
Orach Chaim section of Shulchan Aruch at a pace of 3 paragraphs a
day. However, the program is presently studying Kitzur Shulchan
Aruch in order to cover certain important halachot not covered in
Orach Chaim. The next cycle of Orach Chaim begins on Sunday, 5 Sivan
/ May 15. Address as above.
The third line is the "Daf Yomi," covering the Talmud Bavli at
one page a day. For calendars contact Agudath Israel of America,
84 William St. NY NY.
The last line is the "Daf Yomi" in the Talmud Yerushalmi.
The learning listed for "Today" is always for that Shabbat.
************************************
Rav Sa'adiah Gaon
born 4652 (892) - died 26 Iyar 4702 (942)
Rav Sa'adiah is one of the best known "Geonim" ~ the term used
to describe the heads of the two major Babylonian yeshivot after the
year 589. (The period of Jewish history from 589 to 1038 is also
known as the era of the "Geonim." In contrast, that word is today
used to mean "genius.")
Rav Sa'adiah Gaon was born in Egypt. At age twenty he authored
his first work, on grammar. (Some say that the grammarian and poet
Donash ben Labrat was his nephew and student.) Beginning at age 23,
Rav Sa'adiah became a leading fighter against the Karaite movement,
which denied the Oral Torah. So famous did Rav Sa'adiah become that
the yeshiva in the Babylonian city of Mata Machsaya took the
unprecedented step of bringing him from Egypt to serve as Gaon. At
that time, Rav Sa'adiah was 36 years old.
At first Rav Sa'adiah's appointment was ratified by the Exilarch
(the political leader of the Jews in Bavel), David ben Zakkai.
However, within a few years they had a falling out over what Rav
Sa'adiah believed to be an incorrect legal ruling by the Exilarch.
As a result, Rav Sa'adiah moved to Baghdad.
It was during the next seven years that Rav Sa'adiah composed most
of his works (many of them in Arabic). These include his arrangement
of the siddur and compilation of the laws of prayer, his work on the
fundamentals of Judaism, Emunot v'Deot, and his compilations of the
613 mitzvot in both prose and poetic forms. (The latter are known
as "Azharot.") After seven years, Rav Sa'adiah was returned to his
position as Gaon.
Rav Sa'adiah also wrote commentaries on a number of books of
Tanach. In the introduction to his commentary on Daniel he comments
on the verse in this week's parasha (26:42), "I will remember My
covenant with Yaakov, and also My covenant with Yitzchak, and also
My covenant with Avraham. . . ." (This verse follows the curses
which Chazal say describe the destruction of the first Bet haMikdash
and the first exile.) Rav Sa'adiah writes:
The Torah alludes to us that the second Temple would stand for
420 years, the number of years that Hashem had a covenant with the
Patriarchs. This is why the Patriarchs are listed in reverse order.
Yaakov lived 147 years, all of which were in a covenant with Hashem.
So too Yitzchak's 180 years. The first time the word
"berit"~covenant~is mentioned in connection with Avraham was 93 years
before his death. And 93+180+147=420.
|
| 989.294 | Questions regarding .-1 | HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Fri May 06 1994 22:41 | 11 |
| > "These are the mitzvot that Hashem commanded Moshe. . . ." (27:34)
Can someone help me understand this part of the divar? Moses was in fact
married and had a son (whose circumcision under mysterious circumstances
is recorded). Yet, many of the mitzvot have to do with things done only
in the land of Israel - which Moses was never permitted to enter.
How can we say Moses was commanded even 612 mitzvot? How can we say he
was excused from a mitzvah which he had, in fact, fulfilled?
Dave
|
| 989.295 | | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun May 08 1994 04:19 | 50 |
| Re: .294
>> "These are the mitzvot that Hashem commanded Moshe. . . ." (27:34)
>
>Can someone help me understand this part of the divar? Moses was in fact
>married and had a son (whose circumcision under mysterious circumstances
>is recorded).
The commentary is based on the Talmid in Shabbat 87a which states
that Moses practiced celibacy from the time of the Revelation so
as to always maintain a state of purity since he was constantly
being called upon to receive G-d's Presence (Shechina).
> Yet, many of the mitzvot have to do with things done only
>in the land of Israel - which Moses was never permitted to enter.
>
>How can we say Moses was commanded even 612 mitzvot? How can we say he
>was excused from a mitzvah which he had, in fact, fulfilled?
An even stronger question can be asked about the Patriarchs,
whom the Sages say fulfilled the Torah's laws...centuries
before the Law was received! For example, Rashi has Jacob
telling Esau (of all people!) that he had fulfilled the 613
precepts although he had lived in the wicked Laban's house
for 20 years. 613 mitzvot! Was Jacob a Kohen? Was there a
Temple? Did he fulfill any of the myriad laws applicable only
in the Land? Not to mention the fact that he married two sisters--
an explicit Torah prohibition.
The comment in all cases is hyperbole; it was impossible for
any of the Patriarchs or indeed Moses himself to have observed
all the mitzvot. It is simply meant to indicate that they
observed everything they could as best they could. Those which
were impossible for them to observe cannot possibly be counted against
them, but possibly we learn from here that those who do their utmost to
obseve the precepts that they can observe are credited with having
observed not only those, but even the others, since their actions
prove that that *would have * observed them, given the chance.
But all this contrasts with Moses' separation from marital relations,
which was an apparent abrogation of the precept of procreation. Given
the especial circumstances, he was in fact excused from the mitzva.
But since he technically could have continued living normally, he
was not *credited* with the mitzva as were the Patriarchs, and as was
Moses himself regarding for example the laws dependent on the Land
of Israel. (Respecting Jacob's marrying two sisters, see the
commentaries.)
>
>Dave
|
| 989.296 | another perspective... | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Tue May 10 1994 03:47 | 40 |
| re: Note 989.295
I'd like to offer a different perspective on your answer to the question of
Moses' inability to observe the Torah:
> ...., but possibly we learn from here that those who do their utmost to
> obseve the precepts that they can observe are credited with having
> observed not only those, but even the others, since their actions
> prove that that *would have * observed them, given the chance.
...or perhaps we learn that the "credit" granted is on the basis of Gen 15:6,
i.e., Abram/Abraham (who precedes Torah by more than 4 centuries and at
Gen 15:6 precedes even circumcision) *believed* G-d who *credited* that
trust to Abram as righteousness. Your interpreation on the hyperbole of
the commentary is an interesting picture; I actually like it from that
perspective (i.e., what righteous person wouldn't want to observe the
*whole* of G-d's instruction?).
But it doesn't address the fact that many people you no doubt consider
heroes of the faith (including Moses and the Patriarchs) couldn't possibly
have become "tzaddikim" by observing mitzvot that didn't exist or couldn't
be fulfilled in their day. I think the order of the Tanakh gives an
important clue as to how one becomes a tzaddik.
Just as the giving of Torah follows Abraham's trust, Psalm 119 (truly a
masterpiece on delighting in the Torah) follows the Psalm which proclaims that:
- His lovingkindness/mercy endures forever
- it's better to *trust in Him* than in men or princes
- He is our Strength, Song, & Salvation
- it is He who we ask to open the gates of righteousness
- it's in Him we *trust* for Salvation, etc.
Why would anyone even bother to observe, let alone *delight* in the Torah if
he didn't first trust G-d? Isn't there a prophet who says that the
righteous will *live* by faith? Once one trusts in Him (Gen 15, Ps 188), he
is, as was Abram, made righteous in G-d's eyes. One *then* is truly free to
*delight* in doing His will and obeying His teaching (Ps 119).
Steve
|
| 989.297 | | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed May 11 1994 07:02 | 46 |
| Re: .296
Correct me if I read your point incorrectly, but you seem to be
asserting the classical Christian premise that "faith" is more
important than "works," specifically to acheive the appellation
"tzaddik."
There are a number of misconceptions built into this premise.
First is the definition of "faith." Although the Hebrew word
_emunah_ is usually translated as "faith," this translation
actually does violence to the true meaning of the word. The
word actually derives from _emet_, truth, affirmation. We
are not to believe blindly or based on a set of arbitrary
dogmas; we are to seek truth, to establish and affirm the
truth through the facts, through nature, through history
through science.
_Emunah_ therefore requires a great deal of work, of searching,
of striving, of seeking and reseeking, of affirming and re-
affirming...a lifetime of work, concluding on one's dying
day (see Avot 2:4).
But _emunah_ is only the beginning. We can affirm the Torah's
message all day long, but it all rings rather hollow if we
don't try to implement its message in practice. The _tzaddik_
(righteous person) therefore, is constantly doing, seeking at
once to maintain and upgrade both his _emunah_ and his deeds.
The first time the word "tzaddik" is used in the Torah (Gen.
6:9), we are told that Noah was a righteous (tzaddik) and
wholesome person...who *walked* in G-d's ways. Or, in Ez.
(chap 3 and 18), "if a _tzaddik_ repents of his righteousness
and *does* evil." How indeed is one to understand the many
references to G-d himself as a _tzaddik_ if not in terms of
His deeds? (e.g. Zeph. 3:5, Ps. 145:17). In each case, deeds
are referred to explicitly. Again, the misconception could
arise from a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word.
_Tzaddik_ in no way means "saint." It derives from _tzedek_,
justice...one who seeks justice and righteousness, one who
seeks to emulate G-d's ways (one of the 613 mitzvot, Deut. 28:9).
Is perfection acheivable? The point is moot. Ours is not to
*acheive* perfection, ours is to *seek* perfection, in both
belief and action. G-d will decide how sucessful we were, but
we must do our part.
|
| 989.298 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Bemidbar | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed May 11 1994 20:03 | 186 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT BEMIDBAR
The 48th day of the Omer
Vol. VIII, No. 31 (365), 4 Sivan 5754, May 14, 1994
This parasha, which nearly always is read on the Shabbat before
Shavuot, begins, "Hashem spoke to Moshe in the Sinai Desert."
Rabbenu Bachya comments, "'In the Sinai Desert' - where Mount Sinai
is." He continues: The Torah was given through three creations:
fire, water, and desert.
Fire - as is written (Sh'mot 19:18): "And Har Sinai was covered
with smoke because Hashem came down upon it in fire."
Water - as is written (Shoftim 5:4): "Hashem, when You left Se'ir,
when You strode from the Field of Edom, the land quaked, also the
skies dripped, also the clouds dripped water." [This is a reference
to when Hashem offered the Torah to the sons of Esav.]
Desert - as is written: "Hashem spoke to Moshe in the Sinai
Desert."
Why was the Torah given through these three? To teach us that
just as these three are available for "free," i.e., they exist in
the world in unlimited quantities, so too the Torah is available for
free to anyone who wants it. Also, the Torah was given in the desert
to teach us that the Torah only stays with those who humble
themselves like the desert.
************************************
"For every firstborn is Mine; on the day that I smote every
firstborn in the land of Egypt, I sanctified every firstborn of
Yisrael, from man to animal, they shall be Mine, I am Hashem." (3:13)
Says Rav Natan Zvi Finkel (the "Alter of Slobodka") zatz'l: This
verse demonstrates the attention that Hashem pays to a person's
smallest suffering. Because the Jewish firstborn experienced fear
at the time that Hashem smote the Egyptian firstborn, Hashem rewarded
them by raising them above the rest of Bnei Yisrael and giving them
a special holiness.
In truth, Hashem had promised that He would distinguish between
Egyptian homes and Jewish homes, and He commanded that the Jews place
blood on their doorposts as a sign. The Jewish first born should
not have been afraid at all. In fact, they were probably happy that
their oppressors were suffering. Nevertheless, they did experience
a small measure of fear, or at least discomfort, and Hashem took note
of it.
(Ohr haTzafun II p.110)
************************************
The Levi'im who carry the Aron haKodesh are commanded not to look
at it before the Kohanim cover it (4:20). Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlita
writes that this is a warning to the "Levi'im" of today, i.e., the
Torah scholars (see Rambam, Hil. Shemittah v'Yovel 13:13, quoted
below) that they cannot see the essence of Torah. Each person can
attain Torah knowledge at his own level, but no one can plumb its
depths. Accordingly, we cannot change the Torah based on our
perception that the reasons for its laws no longer apply.
(Ta'am vaDa'at)
************************************
We read in this week's parasha that Moshe counted the adult males
who would serve in the army, but did not count the tribe of Levi with
them. Rambam writes: "Why didn't Levi receive a portion of the land?
Because that tribe was set aside to serve Hashem and to teach His
ways to others. . . . Therefore they do not go out to war like the
other Jews. And not only the tribe of Levi, but any man alive who
desires to separate himself, to stand before Hashem, to serve Him
and to know Him, and to divest himself of worldly worries, he is
sanctified as the Holy of Holies and Hashem will be his lot
forever. . . ."
This Rambam is one of the primary sources for those who take the
position that yeshiva students ought to be exempted from army
service. The opposing position, as enunciated by Rav Aharon
Lichtenstein shlita (in a published article), notes that only those
of the highest moral and religious standards were allowed to serve
in the Jewish armies in the times of Tanach. For example, the gemara
comments on Devarim 20:8 that if someone feared that he had committed
a minor sin, even if he had only spoken a few words in the middle
of davening, he would not go out to war with the army.
************************************
PIRKEI AVOT
"This is the way one acquires Torah: Eat bread with salt, drink
water in a measure, sleep on the ground, and live a painful life.
. . ." (Chapter 6)
Rav Itzele Petersburger zatz'l asks: What detail is added by the
phrase "live a painful life"? Isn't eating only bread with salt,
drinking a small amount of water and sleeping on the ground itself
painful?
In the tochachah - rebuke - in Parashat Ki Tavo we read (28:66),
"Your life will hang in the balance, and you will be frightened night
and day, and you will not be sure of your livelihood." The gemara
(Menachot 103) explains that the first part of the verse refers to
someone who brings home a year's worth of food at a time but doesn't
know if next year's produce will be plentiful, the second part refers
to someone who brings home food once a week, and the last part refers
to someone who has to earn his living on a daily basis. The last
of these is the greatest curse of all!
The above Mishnah advises that the way to acquire Torah is to live
a life a pain, i.e., to earn one's living on a daily basis. Why
would the Mishnah advise someone to do that which the Torah treats
as a curse? Rav Itzele explains that we must remember to whom the
tochachah is addressed: sinners. Such people have no faith in Hashem
and therefore feel suffering when they don't have enough food for
tomorrow.
One who has faith, by contrast, does not see such a life as one
of pain. To the contrary! Chazal ask why Hashem made the mahn fall
every day rather than letting people store it for longer periods,
and they answer that Hashem desires the people's prayers. People
who are financially established may remain more distanced from
Hashem.
(Kochvei Ohr, ch.11)
Is it impossible to be wealthy and live well and be a Torah
scholar? No, explains Rav Eliyahu Dessler, but it is dangerous to
try. Based on the kabbalistic writings of Ramchal, Rav Dessler
explains that material forces tend to be opposed to holiness. They
can, however, aid the search for holiness and should not be distanced
entirely. The difficulty is, of course, knowing how much or how
little to distance them.
Chazal say that Og was already living in Noach's time, before the
flood, and he asked Noach to save him. Noach agreed, on the
condition that Og would serve Noach's descendants. Nevertheless,
Noach did not allow Og to enter the ark but only let him sit on the
roof throughout the flood.
What was the end result? That centuries later, Og tried to kill
Avraham (see Rashi, Breishit 14:13). And this, says Ramchal, is a
parable for how the forces of materialism behave.
(Michtav m'Eliyahu IV p.38)
************************************
SHAVUOT
Rav Yehuda Ze'ev Segal zatz'l offers the following "Words of
Awakening" regarding Shavuot:
Now that we have reached the holiday of Shavuot, baruch Hashem,
one must know that Shavuot is exactly like Yom Kippur - it is the
day of judgment over Torah study. . . .
[Moshe Rabbenu asked Hashem to postpone giving the Torah for one
day.] Moshe sensed that the Jews were not yet ready to receive the
Torah. Contrary to what we think, being ready to receive the Torah
does not mean having a new suit. On Shavuot we must accept the Torah
anew.
Decorating the shul with flowers for Shavuot is a nice custom,
but a person must "decorate" himself as well. This can be done only
by accepting the Torah and studying Torah.
[How does one prepare to receive the Torah?] Rabbenu Yonah
comments on the Mishnah: "If there is no derech eretz there is no
Torah." A person must correct his character flaws and then the Torah
will reside within him. However, the Torah never resides in a body
which has bad character traits.
A key character trait is gemilut chassadim - performing acts of
kindness. One must not wait for opportunities to perform kindness;
one must seek them out! And when one meditates upon the idea of
kindness, he sees that there are so many ways to help others.
When Rabbi Yisrael Salanter was on his deathbed, he took the time
to reassure his nervous attendant that there was no reason to fear
a corpse. This is greatness! Did Rabbi Yisrael not have many lofty
matters to meditate upon?
[Another character trait:] The blessing we say in the morning,
"Who forms the light and creates darkness, makes peace and creates
all," is based on a similarly-worded verse in Yishayah (45:7).
However, that verse actually has the phrase "creates bad" instead
of "creates all." Why do we change it? So that our daily language
will be "clean."
(Yir'ah vaDa'at I 173)
|
| 989.299 | re: Jem, .297 | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Wed May 11 1994 23:19 | 67 |
| re: Note 989.297
Shalom Yehoshua,
> Correct me if I read your point incorrectly, but you seem to be
> asserting the classical Christian premise that "faith" is more
> important than "works," specifically to acheive the appellation
> "tzaddik."
Not more important. Faith and works are both important and somewhat
inseparable. I'm asserting that "faith" (in G-d and His Promise) *precedes*,
and must be the motivation for "works". I'm asserting (as is clearly seen
in Gen 15:6) that it was on the basis of his faith (and that alone) that
Abraham was credited as righteous by G-d. The natural fall-out of such
faith will be works. Consider the binding of Isaac - would one who had no
faith even consider, let alone take steps to do what Abraham did? And if
such a one did so without trusting, what good would that be?
> _Emunah_ therefore requires a great deal of work, of searching,
> of striving, of seeking and reseeking, of affirming and re-
> affirming...a lifetime of work, concluding on one's dying
> day (see Avot 2:4).
I'm not disagreeing with this; just underscoring the order of works following
trust as I see it in the Tanakh. I believe this order is carried through
in what you call the "Christian Bible". There is a lifetime of truly good
works, prepared in advance to be done by those who trust (see Ephesians
chapter 2), and that "faith without works is dead" (see James, also chapter 2).
> But _emunah_ is only the beginning. We can affirm the Torah's
> message all day long, but it all rings rather hollow if we
> don't try to implement its message in practice. The _tzaddik_
> (righteous person) therefore, is constantly doing, seeking at
> once to maintain and upgrade both his _emunah_ and his deeds.
You sound very much like James ;-)
> The first time the word "tzaddik" is used in the Torah (Gen.
> 6:9), we are told that Noah was a righteous (tzaddik) and
> wholesome person...who *walked* in G-d's ways.
Good point. Consider for a moment - G-d tells Noah to build an ark because
it's going to rain; but to this point, rain didn't exist! Didn't Noah have
to trust in G-d and in the promises He made him *before* doing the work of
building a boat (i.e., walking in G-d's ways)?
> How indeed is one to understand the many
> references to G-d himself as a _tzaddik_ if not in terms of
> His deeds? (e.g. Zeph. 3:5, Ps. 145:17).
G-d displays His righteousness in the deeds/works He does for us. Just look
around you. Does His work not tell you that He loves you? Does his work
not inspire you to praise Him? Does His work not tell you that He is
righteous, beneficent, benevolent, just, true, merciful, gracious,
compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in love, mighty, glorious,
magnified and sanctified (ad infinitum.......)?
> Is perfection acheivable? The point is moot. Ours is not to
> *acheive* perfection, ours is to *seek* perfection, in both
> belief and action. G-d will decide how sucessful we were, but
> we must do our part.
I agree with almost all of this. I would only specify that "our part"
starts at Gen 15:6...trust. Or in other words - trusting in Him is by no
means the end of the story, but it's clearly the right place to start...
Steve
|
| 989.300 | For Jews, "works" comes first | HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Thu May 12 1994 03:14 | 15 |
| >> Correct me if I read your point incorrectly, but you seem to be
>> asserting the classical Christian premise that "faith" is more
>> important than "works," specifically to acheive the appellation
>> "tzaddik."
>
>Not more important. Faith and works are both important and somewhat
>inseparable. I'm asserting that "faith" (in G-d and His Promise) *precedes*,
>and must be the motivation for "works".
Judaism teaches the opposite. Good "works" for the right reason is, of course,
the ideal. But we would start with "works". We feel (for example) that if a
person gives to charity for the "wrong" reasons, and that person persists in
giving to charity, s/he will eventually give for the "right" reasons.
Dave
|
| 989.301 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Naso | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed May 18 1994 20:40 | 176 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
Edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT NASO
Vol. VIII, No. 32 (362), 11 Sivan 5754, May 21, 1994
In this week's parasha we read of the commandment that the kohanim
should bless the Jewish people. The berachah which the kohanim say
before performing that mitzvah is, "Asher kedishanu b'kedushato shel
Aharon. . . ." - "Blessed are You Hashem . . . Who has sanctified
us with Aharon's sanctity. . . ."
Just as the greatness of the Jewish people is not a product only
of their deeds, writes Rav Yaakov Moshe Charlap zatz'l, but is
primarily inherited (indeed, our good deeds are possible because of
our lineage), so the sanctity of the kohanim is inherited. One who
denies this principle denies the fundamentals of Judaism.
This was Korach's mistake. As we will read in three weeks, Korach
said, "All Jews are holy." He maintained that anyone who prepared
himself could be a kohen. Moshe replied, "In the morning Hashem will
show who is His." Just as Hashem established clear boundaries in
time, so He created boundaries in lineage and between different
people's (and groups of people's) missions on Earth. (Mei Marom XIII
p.129)
************************************
"The kohen shall inscribe these curses on a scroll and erase it
into the bitter waters." (5:23)
The curses referred to are the verses of this parasha, including
the Name of G-d. The gemara (Sukkah 53b) observes that, although
it generally is forbidden to erase G-d's Name, Hashem says, "Let My
Name be erased if it will bring about peace between husband and
wife."
Rav Yosef Ze'ev Lipovitz zatz'l (1889-1962) writes that this is
one of several laws of the Torah which shows us how much Hashem
values man. We see this also in the incident in the beginning of
Parashat Vayera in which Hashem appears to Avraham, and Avraham says
to Him (see Rashi there), "Please wait here while I go to welcome
my guests."
In Megilat Ruth (read on Shavuot) we find that Boaz greeted his
workers, "G-d be with you." They responded, "G-d bless you." Rav
Lipovitz notes that we take these greetings for granted, but Chazal
say that it was Boaz who introduced them. While this use of Hashem's
Name might appear to be demeaning to Hashem, Boaz learned from the
sources cited above that this is not so. To the contrary, feeling
such closeness to Hashem elevates man.
(Nachalat Yosef: Megilat Ruth p. 63)
************************************
"All the days of his abstinence [from wine] for the sake of
Hashem, he shall not come near a dead person." (6:6)
The Ba'al haTurim explains the reason that a nazir must distance
himself from corpses: Because the shechinah may rest on him due to
his vow [giving him ruach hakodesh], but people may say that he is
communicating with the dead.
It is terrifying, says Rav Leib Chasman zatz'l, to realize what
the Ba'al haTurim is teaching us. Who is the nazir? Probably, he
or she is a person who was born with a predisposition towards
holiness. He or she probably grew up in an atmosphere of holiness
and rose from level to level before taking the ultimate step of
taking the vow of abstinence from wine. Nevertheless, it is possible
even for such a person to fall off of his "pedestal," even to the
point that one could suspect him of divining with the bones of a
corpse (a Torah prohibition for which the punishment is death).
(Ohr Yahel II p.117)
************************************
At the conclusion of the parasha we read that the princes of
each of the twelve tribes brought sacrifices to the mishkan on the
first twelve days of its existence. One prince brought his sacrifice
on each day.
Each of the twelve sacrifices was identical to each of the others.
Which of the princes, then, performed the most noble act? Some might
say that it was the first, as all of the others merely imitated him.
No, say the commentaries, it was the second!
Why? Because, if the second prince had brought a different
sacrifice, it would appear as if he were trying to outdo the first.
As a result, each of the remaining ten princes also would try to
outdo all of those who came before him. No, the second prince
decided, he would make it "socially" acceptable to make exactly the
same "simchah" (which bringing a sacrifice is) as other people had
made.
(heard from Rav Yissochor Frand shlita)
************************************
When the Torah describes the sacrifices brought by the twelve
nesi'im (princes), it first lists the details of each - even though
they were identical - and then summarizes the total number of animals
and implements brought to the mishkan. Ramban explains that the
sacrifices are totalled up to show that Hashem regarded them all
equally. Why, however, are they also set out separately?
Rav Shneur Kotler, zatz'l explains as follows: Each of the nesi'im
independently originated the idea of bringing a sacrifice to the
mishkan. Furthermore, each one had a different kavanah (spiritual
intention) in bringing his korban. Incredibly, though, each one
brought the identical sacrifice!
Even though individuals have different backgrounds and serve
Hashem with different intentions, says Rav Kotler, if their ultimate
goal is the same--that Hashem's will be done--then the means that
they use will be similar. [This is in contrast to those who believe
that, because people are different, each needs his own "Torah" and
his own way of serving Hashem.]
Rav Kotler offers an additional insight into the sacrifices of
the nesi'im: Chazal say that when Moshe solicited donations for the
mishkan, the princes did not contribute. They said, "We will hold
back, and we will make up whatever is lacking." As it turned out,
nothing was lacking and the nesi'im did not get their chance to
contribute. Therefore, when the mishkan was dedicated, the nesi'im
hurried to be the first to bring sacrifices.
Since this story, with its implied criticism of the nesi'im, is
recorded by Chazal it must mean that the princes erred in some way
in their logic. How so? Rav Kotler explains based on the opening
verses of Parashat Terumah. There Hashem first tells Moshe to
solicit donations from Bnei Yisrael and afterwards tells him to build
the mishkan. Shouldn't the purpose of the donations have been
identified before the donations were solicited? asks Rav Kotler.
However, the Torah is teaching that there was no fixed amount of
donations required for the mishkan. Rather, the mishkan would be
as simple or as ornate as Bnei Yisrael were moved to make it.
It follows, says Rav Kotler, that the nesi'im could not make up
the donations that were lacking because, by definition, nothing could
be lacking.
(Noam Siach)
************************************
Yehuda
born 15 Sivan 2195 (2566 B.C.E.)
died 15 Sivan 2314 (2447 B.C.E.)
Yehuda was the fourth son of Yaakov and Leah. Leah derived his
name from the statement, "This time I will thank ('odeh') G-d ('Y-
h')." Leah knew prophetically that Yaakov's four wives would bear
12 sons, and she thanked Hashem for giving her more than one-fourth
of them. Chazal say that Leah was the first person who ever thanked
Hashem. This is not to be taken literally, but rather means that
Leah did more than simply thank Hashem; she acknowledged having more
than her share, more than what she rightfully "deserved." (The
lesson is that one should feel this way about everything Hashem gives
him.)
Yehuda had five sons, two of whom died childless. His primary
heir was Peretz, an ancestor of Nachshon ben Aminadav (the nasi of
Yehuda mentioned in this week's parasha), Kalev ben Yefuneh (one of
the spies that Moshe sent to Eretz Yisrael), and Boaz, Naomi, and
Elimelech whose story is told in Megilat Ruth. King David was also
a descendant of Peretz.
The Midrash Shocher Tov (Ch. 18) relates that when Yitzchak died,
Yaakov and Esav entered the Me'arat haMachpelah to bury him. Yaakov
was crying uncontrollably and his sons waited outside so that he
would not be embarrassed. Seeing that they were alone, Esav tried
to kill Yaakov, but Yehuda sensed what was happening and entered the
cave. He then killed Esav by stabbing him in the back. Why did he
attack Esav from the rear? Because Esav's face resembled Yaakov's.
Chazal say that ten measures of bravery were sent down to the
world and Yehuda took nine of them.
|
| 989.302 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Behaalotecha | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed May 25 1994 19:35 | 145 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
Edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT BEHA'ALOTECHA
Vol. VIII, No. 33 (363), 18 Sivan 5754, May 28, 1994
"And the man, Moshe, was exceedingly humble." What is humility?
Humility does not mean becoming the victim of an inferiority complex,
writes Rav Shimon Schwab shlita. To be humble does not mean to
consider oneself smaller or more unworthy than all other human
beings. This would merely be an inverted form of pride - as long
as I am inferior to all other human beings, I am still somebody
special.
To be humble means to be nobody special, to be just like
everybody; to be convinced that everybody given my chance could and
would do the same as I do and maybe even prove himself superior to
me.
Any ostentation is a form of conceit, writes Rav Schwab. To daven
with only a yarmulke where most wear a hat or to wear a hat where
most do not, to pull the tallit over one's head where it is not the
custom or to refrain from doing so where it is the custom, these are
all forms of conceit. (Selected Writings p.206)
************************************
In this week's parasha, we read of the obligation to blow trumpets
and shofarot are various times. These include when sacrifices are
brought in the Bet haMikdash and when a city is under siege.
The Rambam counts these two cases of blowing trumpets as one
mitzvah. How are they related?
Rav Shlomo Goren shlita explains based on a statement in the Otzar
haGeonim that the law that one is permitted to perform a forbidden
labor on Shabbat when a person's life may be saved is derived from
the law that sacrifices are brought on Shabbat. Bringing sacrifices
removes people from danger and so, too, performing labor on Shabbat
is permitted for that purpose.
The purpose of blowing trumpets when a city is under siege is to
arouse Hashem's mercy and to save lives. Bringing sacrifices removes
people from danger and saves lives, and thus the mitzvah to blow
trumpets in conjunction with the sacrificial service is part of that
purpose.
(Torah haShabbat v'haMoed p. 274)
************************************
"But now, our life is parched, there is nothing; we have nothing
to anticipate but mahn. And the mahn was like a coriander seed. .
. ." (11:6-7)
Following Bnei Yisrael's complaint, the Torah describes the mahn,
as if to say, "Look what My sons are complaining about! The mahn
has such and such virtues."
Rav Avraham Yaakov Pam shlita observes that this statement, "Look
what My sons are complaining about!" can be applied to many daily
situations: For example, a person comes home from work and, instead
of noticing the children which G-d gave him, he notices the mess
which his children have made. A child comes home from school and,
instead of seeing how hard his mother has worked to make supper, he
complains, "Tuna, again?"
In particular, Rav Pam writes, when people are fortunate enough
to marry off their children, many seem to be more interested in
quibbling with their in-laws over small details of the ceremony than
in enjoying the moment.
(Atarah laMelech)
************************************
At the end of the parasha, we read that Miriam spoke lashon hara
of Moshe to Aharon. The Chafetz Chaim notes that we learn several
laws from this story:
1) Lashon hara does not become permitted just because the one
spoken about is very humble and doesn't mind.
2) Even if the speaker had previously done a great favor for
the one spoken about, for example, saving his life (as Miriam had
done for Moshe), one still may not speak lashon hara.
3) The prohibition of lashon hara applies even if only one
person hears and even if that person loves the one spoken about (as
Aharon loved Moshe).
4) One may not downplay the greatness of a nation's leaders
(which is what Miriam did).
(Shmirat haLashon II)
************************************
"The nation did not travel until Miriam['s strength] was
gathered." (12:15)
Rashi explains that in the merit of Miriam's waiting for Moshe
when he was an infant in a basket on the Nile, the Jewish people
waited for Miriam.
This is difficult to understand, says Rav Moshe Sternbuch
shlita. After all, Miriam waited only because she was curious!
This question may be answered based on the interpretation given
by Rav Yechezkel Abramsky zatz'l to the question which each Jew is
asked after 120 years: "Did you watch for the redemption?" One is
not asked, "Did you hope for the redemption?" - that is too
elementary. Rather, a person is asked, "Did you actively watch to
see how and when the redemption will unfold?"
Miriam, too, had no doubt that Moshe would be saved. She stood
by, however, to see how Moshe would be saved from the Nile. In the
merit of that faith, Bnei Yisrael waited for her.
(Ta'am vaDa'at)
************************************
The Twentieth of Sivan
The Magen Avraham (O.C. 580) writes that it is customary in all
of Poland to fast on the 20th of Sivan. The Siddur Rav Yaakov Emden
(p. 307) even includes a series of special prayers for this day, and
explains as follows:
The 20th of Sivan was established as a fast day by our brothers
in Poland because of the persecutions of Tach and Tat of the
sixth millennium [the Hebrew years corresponding to 1648-49],
when the blood of Jews was spilt like water. Therefore, the
great ones among them decreed fasting and crying on this day,
every year, to mourn and cry and be pained by the killing of
the righteous and pious and of Jews in general, through cruel
and unusual forms of death, and [to mourn and cry] over G-d's
pain, so-to-speak.
The events described by Rav Yaakov Emden are known to us as the
Chmielnetzki massacres, after a Cossack leader who rebelled against
Polish rule and vented his rage on the Jews. Although the massacres
lasted many months and as many as 100,000 Jews may have died, the
20th of Sivan was chosen for this observance because many Torah sages
were killed on that day. Among the best known of these was the
mekubal, R' Yechiel Michel of Nemirov.
This day was also a day of suffering for Jews of an earlier
period. In Blois, France, in 4931 (1171), approximately 55 Jewish
men and women, including many Torah scholars were burnt at the stake.
(Atarah laMelech)
|
| 989.303 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Shelach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jun 02 1994 21:33 | 127 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT SHELACH
Vol. VIII, No. 34 (364), 25 Sivan 5754, June 4, 1994
At the end of this parasha we read of the mitzvah of tzitzit.
The Torah says that we should see the tzitzit and be reminded of all
of the mitzvot; we should be careful not to let our eyes wander, lest
we be drawn to sin. Based on this, Chazal say that there are two
agents of sin: first the eye sees, then the heart desires.
In his work Ayin Roah, Rav Yoel Schwartz shlita discusses the
wonders of the eyes of different creatures and the uniqueness of the
human eye. For example, man, alone among all creatures, chooses his
mate based on sight. The eye also is symbolic of many things: the
large white, outer expanse represents the sea; the iris represents
the continents of the world; and the pupil represents Yerushalayim,
the center of the world.
The Zohar writes that a deceased man's son should be the one to
shut the deceased's eyes. Rav Schwartz explains that since the eyes
represent the whole world, this represents that the son is
undertaking to finish his father's mission in the world.
************************************
What made the spies predisposed to see Eretz Yisrael in a bad
light? Why didn't the Jews of the generation of the Exodus want to
enter Eretz Yisrael?
Rav Avraham Yitzchak haKohen Kook zatz'l explains that those Jews
were too spiritual. They thought to themselves, "Why do we need to
enter the Land? To plow? To sow?"
As we see from their fate, they were in error. Planting and
sowing in Eretz Yisrael is itself a spiritual act.
(quoted in b'Sdeh haReiyah p.397)
************************************
"Moshe sent [the spies] from the Paran Desert by the word of
Hashem." (13:3)
Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zatz'l explains: What was "by the word of
Hashem"? Hashem did not approve of sending the spies; He had
promised Bnei Yisrael that the land was good and that should have
been sufficient. However, Bnei Yisrael never asked Hashem whether
they should send spies. They only asked Hashem, through the urim
v'tumim or through the prophet, who they should send.
An important principle of interpreting the words of the urim
v'tumim is to know that Hashem answers only the question which He
was asked. We see this in the book of Shoftim, regarding the
incident in which the tribes joined together to attack the tribe of
Binyamin. Twice they asked the urim v'tumim, "Who should go first?"
and it answered, "Yehuda." Nevertheless, Yehuda lost those two
battles to Binyamin because the tribes had never asked, "Should we
go?"
(Emet l'Yaakov)
************************************
"Speak to Bnei Yisrael and say to them: When you will come to the
land . . . the one who brings his offering to Hashem shall bring a
meal offering . . . [and] wine for a libation." (chapter 15)
Rashi comments: "He informed them that they will enter the land."
After decreeing that the generation which had believed the spies
would die in the desert, Hashem wanted to reassure Bnei Yisrael that
the Jewish people (as a people) would continue to exist and would
enter and conquer Eretz Yisrael.
Why did Hashem choose this mitzvah, of all mitzvot, to give them
that reassurance? asks Rav Moshe Feinstein, zatzl. He answers that
wine libations and meal offerings are not a mitzvah that one is
ordinarily obligated to observe. Only if one has voluntarily
accepted upon himself the obligation to bring an animal sacrifice
does he then become obligated to bring these sacrifices as well.
We see the same thing in the experiences of Yehoshua and Kalev,
the two spies who brought back good reports. Nobody forced them to
stand up to their ten colleagues and literally to risk their lives.
But because they did so, Hashem gave them more mitzvot: Kalev became
a nasi and Yehoshua became responsible for conquering and dividing
the Land.
This is what Chazal mean by "Mitzvah goreret mitzvah" - "one good
deed draws another one after it."
(Darash Moshe)
************************************
Rav Shlomo Halberstam of Bobov
born 5607 (1847) - died 1 Tamuz 5665 (1905)
Rav Shlomo was a grandson of Rav Chaim of Sanz, the son of Rav
Chaim's son Rav Meir Nasan. Rav Shlomo's maternal grandfather was
Rav Eliezer of Dzikov, who had first introduced Rav Chaim to
chassidut.
Rav Meir Nasan himself died at age 20, and Shlomo was raised in
Dzikov and taught by his maternal grandfather. At the age of 17,
Rav Shlomo was chosen as Rabbi of the town of Bikovsk. When the
young Rabbi asked his grandfather Rav Chaim how a Rav should conduct
himself, Rav Chaim replied, "Just as you do."
Rav Shlomo served as Rabbi in four towns: Bikovsk, Oshpitzin
(Auschwitz), Vishnitza (not to be confused with Vizhnitz) and Bobov.
When he assumed the post in Vishnitza, he explained that he was not
worthy to hold a post which previously had been held by illustrious
Rabbis. Rather, he felt like an artisan of mediocre ability who had
been hired to clean the dust and grime off the masterpieces of
earlier artists. He also said that since, in the past, the city was
unable to be at peace with any of its Rabbis: not with a great
scholar (Rav Chaim's father-in-law, Rav Baruch Frankel), not with
a chassidic rebbe, and not with a Rabbi who was both, perhaps it
would be happy with him, who was neither.
In fact, while in Vishnitza, Rav Shlomo did begin to serve a
chassidic rebbe. In 1892, he moved to Bobov, and it is for that town
that his dynasty is named. As a rebbe, Rav Shlomo devoted his
energies particularly to the education of the young.
Rav Shlomo's son and successor, Rav Ben-Zion, was killed in the
Holocaust. Rav Shlomo's grandson and namesake is the Bobover Rebbe
and Rav in Brooklyn.
|
| 989.304 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Korach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Jun 08 1994 20:10 | 179 |
| PARASHAT KORACH
Vol. VIII, No. 35 (365), 2 Tamuz 5754, June 11, 1994
In this week's parasha, as well as in the parashot which precede
it and follow it, we read of some of the occasions on which the
Jewish people tested Hashem during the forty years in the desert.
Many ask: How is it possible that a generation which was on such a
high spiritual level, a generation which witnessed all the miracles
that this generation saw, could falter so many times?
Rav Yaakov Weinberg shlita (Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Israel) explains
that it was precisely the Jews' high level which caused these
problems. They reached such a lofty level that they could not
maintain it all of the time. And when they slipped, the fall was
so much greater.
We find a similar idea in Chazal's teaching, "The best of doctors
is destined to Gehinom." Why? Because when a person is constantly
on the high plane brought about by constantly serving others through
truly dedicated medical practice, he is on a level which cannot be
maintained all of the time. He is therefore at a greater risk of
falling and needs to exercise extra care. (Heard from Rav Weinberg,
12 Sivan 5754)
************************************
"They and all that was theirs descended alive to the pit; the
earth covered them over and they were lost from among the
congregation." (16:33)
If "the earth covered them over," don't I know that "they were
lost from among the congregation"? asks Rav Yoel Teitelbaum (the
Satmar Rav). The answer is as follows:
The midrash states that every piece of property that Korach and
his followers owned was swallowed by the ground. Even if another
Jew had previously borrowed a needle from Korach, the opening in the
ground reached out to swallow that needle.
Why was this necessary? The Rambam explains that the reason that
Bnei Yisrael were commanded to have no benefit from anything
associated with idolatry is because there are some people who, if
they have benefit from an object, tend to view the object itself and
its properties as a cause of their success. For example, if a person
was healed by herbs that had formerly belonged to avodah zarah, he
might associate special powers with the herbs and thus give credence
to idolatry.
So, says the Satmar Rav, Hashem did not want Bnei Yisrael to
retain any of Korach's property so that no one would say, "I used
the money that I borrowed from Korach and I succeeded in business,"
or, "Look how beautiful this garment is; I made it with a needle that
I borrowed from Korach." Therefore, "the earth covered them over,"
in order that they would be completely "lost from among the
congregation."
(Divrei Yoel: Parashat Naso)
************************************
". . . and Aharon's staff was in the midst of their staffs."
(17:21)
Hashem said that the leader of each tribe should give his staff
to be placed in the mishkan and the staff of the one who was chosen
by Hashem as kohen would blossom. Why, asks Rav Yonatan Eyebschutz,
did Moshe put Aharon's staff in the center of the group?
Chazal teach that Eretz Yisrael is the point from which the whole
world was created. Therefore, each type of soil that exists in the
world exists in Eretz Yisrael also and a vein connects each soil
deposit in Eretz Yisrael to that of other lands. King Shlomo
recognized the location of these veins and deposits and therefore
was able to plant every type of produce that grows in the world in
Eretz Yisrael.
Moshe was afraid that when Aharon's staff blossomed the cynics
among Bnei Yisrael would maintain that Moshe had merely found one
of these soil veins and placed Aharon's staff in it. Therefore,
Moshe clustered the other tribes' staffs around Aharon's so that at
least one other staff would be over that same soil vein as was
Aharon's.
(Tiferet Yehonatan)
************************************
". . . In the morning Hashem will reveal who is His own and the
holy one. . . ." (16:5)
Chazal say that tzaddikim had mahn fall at their front doors while
others had to walk some distance to gather their food. Therefore,
says Rav Aharon Hacohen (son-in-law of the Chafetz Chaim), it would
be obvious in the morning who was the righteous one and who was not.
(Pirchei Aharon)
************************************
". . . and you shall give G-d's terumah from it to Aharon the
kohen." (18:28)
This is the mitzvah of terumah--giving a portion of each harvest
to the kohen. The gemara notes, however, that this mitzvah did not
become obligatory until Eretz Yisrael was conquered, some 14 years
after Aharon's death. How then can terumah be given to Aharon?
Here, says the gemara, we find an allusion in the Torah to the
resurrection of the dead. It is after that event that we will give
terumah to Aharon.
This presents a problem, writes Rav Yehuda Rosannes. The reason
that terumah and ma'aser (tithes) are given to the kohanim and
levi'im is that they did not receive a portion of the Land. However,
there are those who hold that, when mashiach comes, even the kohanim
and levi'im will be given portions in Eretz Yisrael. Why then should
they continue to receive these gifts?
The answer, explains Rav Rosannes, is that when Yehoshua, and
later Ezra, conquered and settled Eretz Yisrael, the Land became
sanctified. That event made the produce of the Land subject to the
laws of terumah and ma'aser. And although we were expelled from the
Land, the original sanctity of the Land never ceased. Accordingly,
the obligation to separate terumah and ma'aser must continue, for
where else will the sanctity go (in the phraseology of the gemara)?!
It is, however, true that should mashiach conquer new lands and annex
them to Eretz Yisrael, the laws of terumah and ma'aser will not apply
there.
(Parashat Derachim: Derech haKodeshVI)
********************************
Rav Simcha Bunim Alter
24 Nissan 5658 (1898) - 7 Tamuz 5752 (1992)
Rav Simcha Bunim Alter, the fifth Gerrer Rebbe, was a son of the
third Rebbe, Rav Avraham Mordechai Alter, and a grandson of the Sefat
Emet. For many years, he was considered to be his father's right-
hand man, and when he father passed away in 1948--at the height of
the siege of Yerushalayim--many chassidim expected Rav Simcha Bunim
to become the Rebbe. Wanting to avoid controversy, Rav Simcha Bunim,
a successful businessman, took his family and left for an extended
stay in France and Belgium. Only in 1977, at the age of 79, did Rav
Simcha Bunim succeed his brother as Rebbe. (Rav Simcha Bunim's only
son, Rav Yaakov Aryeh Alter, showed similar grace in stepping aside
so that his uncle, the famed Rav Pinchas Menachem Alter, could become
Rebbe in 1992.)
In his humility, Rav Simcha Bunim did not wear the traditional
garb of a chassidic rebbe. On one occasion, he was refused admission
to see another prominent rebbe because the latter was "waiting" for
a visit from the Gerrer Rebbe. On another occasion, Rav Simcha Bunim
sensed that someone was standing outside his house, but was not
entering because he did not have a black hat. Immediately, Rav
Simcha Bunim took off his own hat and invited the man in.
Like all Rebbes of Ger, Rav Simcha Bunim placed great emphasis
on Torah study as the primary service of Hashem, and his own
erudition was immense. It is related that the Rebbe was once walking
with two other Jews when one of them stated a halachah that appeared
to the third member of the party to be contrary to a teaching of
Tosfot (a major Talmud commentary). The man started, "But
Tosfot. . ."
Rav Simcha Bunim immediately whispered, "But there is another
answer in that Tosfot!"
Rav Simcha Bunim is particularly known for his efforts to reduce
exorbitant expenditures among his chassidim, even those who could
afford it. To that end, newlyweds were strongly encouraged to settle
outside of Yerushalayim and Bnei Brak, and today there are thriving
Gerrer communities is Israeli towns such as Ashdod and Arad. Rav
Simcha Bunim also restricted his followers' expenditures on weddings.
When one chassid complained that he could afford a lavish affair,
Rav Simcha Bunim retorted, "Then you can afford to buy a new Rebbe."
It was Rav Simcha Bunim who introduced the concept of Daf Yomi
in the Talmud Yerushalmi.
(Sources: Meorot me'Olam haKabbalah v'haChassidut, pp. 572-574;
Jewish Observer, October 1992)
|
| 989.305 | | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Wed Jun 08 1994 23:37 | 7 |
| re: .304
Isn't the Hebrew word for "pit" in 16:33 "sheol"? Someone told me that
this is related to another Hebrew word for "question" and suggested
pondering what it might mean to "go down alive into the question...".
Steve
|
| 989.306 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Chukat | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jun 16 1994 19:41 | 165 |
| PARASHAT CHUKAT
Vol. VIII, No. 36 (371), 9 Tamuz 5754, June 18, 1994
Many explanations have been given as to exactly what sin Moshe
and Aharon committed in this parasha (in the incident of hitting the
rock). This leads Rav Yitzchak Meir of Gur (the first Gerrer Rebbe)
zatz'l to ask: Who are we to presume to interpret the deeds of Moshe
and Aharon?
He explains: Since Hashem gave us the Torah and left some details
unclear, He implicitly gave us permission to study and interpret them
[according to the rules of interpretation which were taught at
Sinai]. In each generation, Hashem reveals such interpretations as
are needed for that generation. This is why Rabbi Akiva discerned
things which had not been revealed to Moshe; with the destruction
of the Temple in Rabbi Akiva's generation, such additional revelation
was needed. (Chiddushei haRim al haTorah)
With this same idea, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik zatz'l answered
those who ask, "How can the State of Israel be considered a gift from
G-d? Do we--a generation of assimilation and mixed marriages--
deserve it more than the greater generations before us? No, Rabbi
Soloveitchik, explained. Rather, we need it, while previous
generations were capable of living as righteous Jews without it.
This is the meaning of the verse (Yishayah 57:17), "I have seen his
ways and I will heal him"--if Hashem would not heal us, our ways
would lead to our being completely lost. (Yemei Zikaron p.244)
************************************
"This is the Torah, a person that shall die in a tent." (19:14)
Literally, this verse is part of the laws of tumat met ~ the
impure state connected with a corpse. Homiletically, however, Chazal
interpret: "In whom is Torah found? In one who 'kills himself' in
the 'tents' of Torah study."
Rav Shimon Schwab shlita asks: Why is Torah study equated to the
impurity of death? He explains that when a person is alive, his soul
is imprisoned within his body. However, when he dies, his soul is
unrestrained and it is free to fill the house in which the body lays
[as does the tumah of the corpse].
The same is true of Torah; its nature is to expand and spread.
If a person tries to keep his Torah knowledge to himself, he will
not succeed in his studies. Rather, he should "kill himself" over
it, i.e., he should make it his nature to spread his Torah knowledge,
just as his soul will spread out after his death.
Rav Schwab offers another interpretation of "killing oneself" over
Torah. We learn in Pirkei Avot (ch.6) that among the steps necessary
to acquire Torah is, "Directing one's learning and saying something
in the name of the one who said it." The first part of that phrase
is related to the verb which describes thinking on one's own of an
explanation which was previously taught by another. If you think
of a "novel" Torah thought and later learn that another said it
first, and if you then say it in his name and not your own, then you
are truly "killing" yourself, i.e., negating your own ego, for the
sake of Torah, and Torah will become yours.
(Me'ayen Bet haShoevah)
************************************
Just as a Torah scholar feels a need to teach, as explained by
Rav Schwab above, so he feels a continual need to study. Rav
Yitzchak Hutner zatz'l notes that a wise man never views knowledge
as a luxury. For a Torah scholar, any bit of Torah knowledge,
however trivial it may appear, is worth learning. This explains the
law that if a Torah scholar accidently kills and therefore incurs
the penalty of exile, his students are exiled with him. Since a
person learns even from his students, to deprive this teacher of his
students is a fate equivalent to death, which he does not deserve.
(Pachad Yitzchak: Shavuot IV)
************************************
Rav Moshe Shick ("Maharam Shick") zatz'l explains the mishnah,
"Who is a wise man? One who learns from all people," in a similar
vein. Whether one retains wisdom, he writes, is beyond his control;
retention is a gift from G-d. Therefore, it makes no sense to praise
a person for retaining knowledge, since it is not his own
accomplishment.
What is praiseworthy is searching for knowledge. And if a person
is truly searching for wisdom, why should he care whether it comes
from one who is "great" or "small"?!
(Maharam Shick al Pirkei Avot 4:1)
************************************
"The Egyptians did evil to us and to our forefathers." (20:15)
Rashi comments: From here we learn that the Patriarchs suffer when
troubles befall the Jewish people.
With this mind, says Rav Eliezer David Gruenwald zatz'l, we can
understand the statement in the Haggadah: "We were slaves . . . and
if Hashem had not taken our forefathers out of Egypt. . . ." Since
the paragraph begins in first person, why does it switch to speak
of our forefathers? The answer is that the Patriarchs were redeemed
from Egypt with us. In fact, in the Patriarchs' merit, Hashem took
Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt earlier than they deserved.
(Chasdei David p.23)
************************************
"He waged war against Yisrael." (21:23)
What should we learn from war? Rav Elazar Shach shlita asked in
an address delivered during the Yom Kippur War. Those who don't
believe that the Torah has a view on all aspects of life are likely
to see war as nothing more than a natural occurrence. But Rambam--a
philosopher and a worldly person, Rav Shach pointed out--tells us
this is not so. Rambam (Hil. Ta'aniot 1:1-3) writes:
It is one of the positive commandments of the Torah that we
should cry out and blow trumpets over every trouble which
befalls the public, as it is written [beMidbar 10:9], "Against
an enemy who oppresses you, and you shall blow trumpets. . . ."
This is part of the way of repentance: when trouble comes and
they will cry out and blow trumpets, they will know that their
troubles are all because of their sinful deeds. . . .
However, if they do not cry out and blow [the trumpets], rather
they say that this trouble befell them in the natural course
of events, this is cruelty.
Such behavior is cruel, explains Rav Shach, because it is like
taking a knife and cutting one's flesh, in other words, that very
attitude causes the suffering to continue. The one who has such
thoughts is like a pursuer, i.e., one who attempts to cause harm to
another, for he will not repent and help bring the suffering to an
end.
(b'Zot Ani Boteach p.19)
************************************
Rav Yerucham Yehuda Leib Pearlman zatz'l (1835-1896) was known
as the "Gadol--the great scholar--of Minsk." When he was
approximately sixteen, he left home (in Brisk) to study in Kovno.
He carried with him a letter of recommendation from the Rabbi of
Brisk, Rav Yaakov Meir Padua, which he delivered to the Rabbi of
Kovno, Rav Yitzchak Avigdor.
Rav Yitzchak Avigdor gave the letter a cursory glance and threw
it on a pile of other letters on his desk. "Okay," he said to the
youth, "go find a seat in one of the study halls in town and some
kind Jew will probably feed you. If you have any questions in your
learning or novel insights to share, I am always available." He then
turned back to speak to those who were gathered around him.
The youth was somewhat taken aback by the Rabbi's coldness. He
stood by listening to the halachic discussion taking place, and
finally said, "In my opinion, this matter is resolved by the
following sources," which he then listed.
Now it was Rav Yitzchak Avigdor's turn to be taken aback. Smiling
at the youth, he said, "Go to the old bet midrash, where I pray, and
learn there. The honor which you deserve will be forthcoming."
When the youth left, Rav Yitzchak Avigdor reread the letter which
the boy had brought from the Rabbi of Brisk. Letters of
recommendation are known to exaggerate, he explained, but realizing
that he had not given it the proper consideration he applied to
himself the verse (Tehilim 116:11), "I said in my hurry, 'All men
are deceitful'."
(haGadol miMinsk p.22)
|
| 989.307 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Balak | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Jun 20 1994 20:26 | 155 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT BALAK
Vol. VIII, No. 37 (372), 16 Tamuz 5754, June 25, 1994
From the verse in our parasha (24:5), "How good are your tents,
Yaakov, your dwelling places, Yisrael," Chazal derive that a
synagogue retains its holiness even when it is in ruins. Rav
Yishayah Horowitz (the "Shelah haKadosh") explains: Even though
Hashem's anger at the Jews was manifested through the destruction
of the two Temples and the exile of the Jews among the nations, it
was all for the best, just as a father punishes his child for the
child's own good. The destruction of the Bet haMikdash was the
beginning of its rebuilding, for through that destruction and the
exile, the sins of the Jews are wiped out. This is why we show
respect to a ruin just as to a standing shul.
When Aharon built the Golden Calf on the 16th day of the month
of Tamuz (today's date), he said (Sh'mot 32:5), "Tomorrow will be
a holiday to G-d." Chazal say that "tomorrow" sometimes means "after
a time." In the future, the 17th of Tamuz and all of the other fast
days related to the destruction of the Temple will be holidays, for
then we will truly appreciate how the destruction was the beginning
of the building of a more glorious Temple. (Shnei Luchot haB'rit:
Parashat Balak)
************************************
What was the purpose of the miracle in which Bilam's donkey spoke
him? Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains as follows:
Hashem told Bilam to speak only the words which Hashem commanded.
Hashem then put blessings in Bilam's mouth rather than the curses
which Bilam had planned to utter. But why go to all the "effort"?
If Hashem wishes that the Jewish people should be blessed, let Bilam
say what he will and it will have no effect!
The answer is that Hashem wanted to implant fear in the minds of
the nations of Canaan. This could be done by showing that the
greatest prophet/sorcerer in the non-Jewish world was powerless
against the Jews.
However, what if the nations thought that Bilam was not bested
by G-d, but rather that the Jews had bribed Bilam? Then Hashem's
purpose would not be served. Therefore, Hashem caused Bilam's donkey
to speak in front of the nobles of Moav, demonstrating that
supernatural forces were at work.
(Meshech Chochmah)
************************************
"Bilam said to the donkey, 'Because you mocked me! If only there
were a sword in my hand I would now have killed you'." (22:29)
Rav Baruch of Kosov asks: Why did Bilam say, "I would now have
killed you"?
He explains: Rashi writes that this incident left the nobles of
Moav wondering, "This man (Bilam) is traveling to destroy an entire
nation with his mouth, yet he needs a sword to kill the donkey!?"
Bilam's intention, says Rav Baruch, was to head off this question.
Chazal say that Bilam's ability to curse arose from his knowledge
of the precise moment in the day when Hashem "burns" with anger.
At any other time of day, Bilam was no more powerful than another
human. Bilam said, "If only there were a sword in my hand I would
now have killed you"--at certain other times I would not need a
sword, but now I do.
(Yesod haTorah)
************************************
Chazal say that although there was never again a prophet among
Bnei Yisrael like Moshe (see Devarim 34:10), there was one among the
gentiles. That was Bilam. The reason for this is so that the
gentiles could never complain that Hashem gave the Jews a prophet
and did not give one to the gentiles.
However, asks Rav Menachem Mendel Stern of Sighet, the gentiles
may still complain: "Look what kind of prophet You gave us!" How
is having a Bilam a consolation for not having a Moshe?
Every person, explains Rav Stern, has two sides to his soul. One
side is good, the other is bad. Moreover, the evil of the bad side
is in direct proportion to the goodness of the opposite side. (This
is how a person retains his free will.) Accordingly, the very
"greatness" of Bilam's evil demonstrates the enormous potential for
good that was within him. He even could have been comparable to
Moshe.
(Derech Emunah)
************************************
The mishnah (Avot ch.4) says that anyone who has a good (i.e.,
generous) eye, a humble spirit, and meek soul is a disciple of
Avraham. Anyone who has the opposite traits is a disciple of Bilam.
Rav Shalom Noach Brazovsky (the Slonimer Rebbe) shlita suggests that
every person can use this guidance as a barometer of where he stands.
(quoted in miMa'ayanot haNetzach p.280)
************************************
"Yisrael settled in [a place called] 'Shittim' and the people
began to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moav." (25:1)
Rav Tzadok haKohen writes: The name "Shittim" implies "shtut"--
foolishness. This is the trait which leads to immorality.
The cure for foolishness and immorality is Torah study.
Symbolizing this is the fact that the Aron (ark) which housed the
Tablets was made of shittim (acacia) wood.
(Machshevot Charutz p.14)
************************************
CHUR BEN KALEV BEN YEFUNEH
died 16 Tamuz 2448
Chur was the son of Kalev ben Yefuneh and Miriam the Prophetess
(Moshe's sister). Chur was, in turn, the grandfather of Betzalel,
the artisan of the mishkan.
On the fortieth day after Moshe ascended to Har Sinai, Bnei
Yisrael mistakenly came to the conclusion that he would not return,
and they made the Golden Calf, as related in the Torah. Chur stood
up to Bnei Yisrael calling them, "People of a chopped neck"--meaning
that they have incurred the death penalty. Chur's expression also
may mean that Bnei Yisrael had a short memory, as if they had no
heads, for they had forgotten the miracles that Hashem had done for
them. Immediately, they murdered him.
The Torah (Sh'mot 32:5) states, "Aharon saw, and he built an altar
before [the calf]." "What did he see?" the Midrash Rabbah asks.
"He saw that Chur had been murdered." The gemara (Sanhedrin 7a)
explains that Aharon reasoned, "If they kill me they will fulfill
the verse in Eichah, 'If a kohen and a prophet will be killed in
Hashem's tabernacle,' and then there will never be an atonement for
them." For the sin of the Golden Calf, by contrast, he knew that
they could be forgiven.
Chur was one of the two people that Moshe had taken with him when
he climbed the mountain overlooking Yehoshua's battle with Amalek.
The Torah says that Moshe sat with Aharon on one side and Chur on
the other--"Echad (one) on this side and echad on this side." Rav
Avraham Stern (father of the well-known Debrecener Rav) cites the
opinion of Tosfot that this group represented the merit of the
Patriarchs and Matriarchs. He explains that the names of the
Patriarchs (Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov) combined have 13 letters
(in Hebrew), and the names of the Matriarchs (Sarah, Rivka, Rachel,
Leah) have the same number. Thirteen is the gematria of the word
"echad." Accordingly, "Echad on this side and echad on this side"
means, the Patriarchs on one side and Matriarchs on the other.
(Melizei Esh)
|
| 989.308 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Pinchas | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jul 01 1994 19:49 | 158 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT PINCHAS
Vol. VIII, No. 38 (373), 23 Tamuz 5754, July 2, 1994
We read in this parasha that Hashem designated Moshe's successor,
the person who would take Bnei Yisrael into Eretz Yisrael. Chazal
say that had Moshe entered Eretz Yisrael, he would have built the
Bet haMikdash and it would never have been destroyed.
Rav Aryeh Leib Zunz zatz'l (1768-1833) writes that the reason that
Moshe refused at first to be Hashem's agent to bring about the Exodus
was that Moshe wanted Hashem to agree that the Temple would never
be destroyed. This is what Moshe meant by (Sh'mot 3:13), "When they
ask me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" Hashem's four
letter Name (which we never pronounce) is the name which belongs in
the Bet haMikdash. However, when Hashem answered with a different
name, Moshe understood that the Bet haMikdash would be destroyed.
After Moshe refused to lead Bnei Yisrael, Hashem did agree to
preserve the Bet haMikdash forever. However, when Bnei Yisrael
sinned in the desert, they lost this privilege (see page 2).
(Shiyurei Kometz haMinchah: Drush l'Bein haMetzarim)
************************************
The midrash (baMidbar Rabbah 19:13) says that the reason Moshe
did not enter Eretz Yisrael was in order that he might lead the
generation of the desert into the Land at the time of the
resurrection. Rav Yehudah Rosannes zatz'l asks: If that generation
deserves to return, why does it need Moshe? If it does not deserve
to return how will Moshe help it?
Hashem has taken an oath (Tehilim ch.95): "For forty years I was
angry with the generation; then I said, 'They are an errant-hearted
people, they do not know My ways.' Therefore I have sworn in My
wrath, they shall not enter My [land of] rest." Because of Hashem's
oath, that generation may not enter Eretz Yisrael.
However, the halacha provides that if a person makes a vow
excluding another from his house, then if the house is razed and
rebuilt, the vow is nullified. Had Moshe entered Eretz Yisrael, he
would have built the Temple, and had he done so, it would never have
been destroyed. [Ed. note: Due to space considerations, an
explanation of that fact is omitted.] However, because the Temple
was destroyed, Hashem's oath is nullified. This is what is meant
by Moshe's dying in the desert so that his generation could enter
the Land.
(Parashat Derachim)
************************************
In discussing the calendar in Hamaayan for Parashat vaYakhel,
we wrote:
Note that, in theory, Cheshvan and Kislev can both be short
months, i.e., with only 29 days. However, that could not occur
this year, as it would cause Tisha b'Av to fall on Friday, a
situation which our calendar is designed to prevent.
While it is true that Tisha b'Av never falls on Friday, a reader has
pointed out that the calendar was not "designed" to prevent this.
Rather, Ra'avad (Hil. Kiddush haChodesh 7:7) and the Magen Avraham
(O.C. 428) write that the entire calendar revolves around two
principles: that Yom Kippur should not fall on Friday or Sunday and
that Hoshana Rabbah should not fall on Shabbat. The Chafetz Chaim
notes in Be'ur Halachah that as a result of this, Tisha b'Av will
never fall on Friday.
Having referred to Ra'avad's comments in Hil. Kiddush haChodesh
7:7, it is worthwhile to quote an additional portion of those
comments. He writes of another scholar, "[He writes what he does]
because he takes pride in this wisdom [of the calendar], which he
believes he has understood in its entirety. I, however, am not one
of its people and even my teachers did not reach it-- therefore I
have not checked his words. . . ."
************************************
The midrash states, "If Moshe had killed Zimri, Moshe's grave-site
would not be unknown." Rav Yehuda Assad zatz'l explains:
The reason Hashem hid Moshe's grave-site was to prevent it from
becoming a cultic shrine. Why wasn't Aharon's grave-site hidden (it
was known in Talmudic times)? Since Aharon served as a kohen,
everyone knew that he was G-d's servant. People do not elevate a
servant to the level of a deity.
Pinchas' reward for killing Zimri was being made a kohen. Had
Moshe killed Zimri, Moshe would have become a kohen and, like Aharon,
his grave-site could be known.
(Divrei Maharia)
************************************
"And the daughters of Tzelofchad approached, [they were] from the
family of Menashe, the son of Yosef." (27:1)
Rashi says that Yosef is mentioned here to teach us that just as
Yosef loved Eretz Yisrael (and asked to be buried there), so his
descendants loved Eretz Yisrael. Their request for a share of the
land was not motivated by materialistic concerns.
Rav Moshe Feinstein zatz'l asks: Whether or not Tzelofchad's
daughters received a share of the land, they would still live there.
Why, then, did they insist on owning their own portions? The Torah
is teaching us that if one loves something, he should want to own
it. Thus we can understand the halacha which requires a person to
own a Torah library (Yoreh Deah 270:2). For studying alone, it is
enough to borrow Torah works. However, to enhance one's love of
Torah, he should try to own its works.
(Darash Moshe)
************************************
Among the voluminous teachings of Rav Menachem Mendel Schneerson
zatz'l (the "Lubavitcher Rebbe," who passed away three weeks ago on
3 Tamuz 5754) numerous discourses which delve into the plain meaning
of Rashi's Torah commentary sit side-by-side with chassidic
discourses. In fact, the Lubavitcher Rebbe's rules for interpreting
Rashi have been gathered into a separate work by one of his
chassidim.
On the verse in our parasha, "And the sons of Korach did not die"
(26:11), Rashi explains: "They were originally among the conspirators
but at the time of the actual dispute [with Moshe] they had repentant
thoughts. Therefore, a place was set aside for them high up in
Gehinom and they sat there."
In a discourse delivered in 1977, the Lubavitcher Rebbe dealt at
length with this Rashi. Just a few points are brought here.
Chazal say that Korach gained the courage to challenge Moshe by
seeing through ruach hakodesh that the prophet Shmuel would be his
(Korach's) descendant. What he did not see, Chazal say, is that his
sons would repent and only then Shmuel's ancestors would be born.
But if Korach's sons entered Gehinom with him, how did they father
Shmuel's ancestors? To answer this question, Rashi writes that
Korach's sons "sat" in Gehinom. Korach's sons did not die with him,
and eventually they were released.
Why is this fact revealed here, in the middle of the census taken
in Parashat Pinchas, rather than earlier, in Parashat Korach? Rashi
answers this by saying that they had repentant thoughts; their
repentance was only in their hearts, but they did not express it in
any way. Therefore, had they not been swallowed up by the earth
along with Korach it would have caused a desecration of G-d's name.
However, by the time the census was taken in Parashat Pinchas,
nearly all of the adults who had witnessed Korach's rebellion had
died. Accordingly, it was now "safe" to release Korach's sons.
Why is this fact revealed in the census of the tribe of Reuven
(with its sons Datan and Aviram) and not in the census of the tribe
of Levi? To answer this Rashi explains, "[The sons of Korach] were
originally among the conspirators," i.e., no less than were Datan
and Aviram. But in contrast to Datan and Aviram's horrible deaths,
the sons of Korach were saved merely by thinking of repentance.
(Likutei Sichot)
|
| 989.309 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Matot - Masei | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Jul 06 1994 22:06 | 141 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT MATOT-MASEI
Vol. VIII, No. 39 (374), 1 Av 5754, July 9, 1994
In Parashat Masei we read that cities were to be set aside to
be homes to the Levi'im and that these same cities would be the
cities of refuge to which those who murdered unintentionally would
flee. Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlita quotes the Sefer haChinuch which
explains that the Levi'im were capable of influencing those who were
removed from mitzvot without being influenced by them. This is why
Levi'im and murderers were thrown together.
The Levi'im of our day, i.e., the Torah scholars (see Rambam, end
of Hil. Shemittah), must be careful in this regard, Rav Sternbuch
continues. While they must engage in outreach, they must protect
themselves from harmful influences.
It is related that a certain community once asked the Chazon Ish
whether a certain scholar would be an appropriate Rabbi for them.
He responded affirmatively. However, when that very same scholar
asked the Chazon Ish's opinion about the community, the sage advised
the scholar not to accept the post. That which is good for the
community, he explained, is not necessarily good for the individual,
for he may be affected by harmful influences. [Note, incidentally,
how each time the Chazon Ish was asked for advice, his answer
considered only the best interests of the one asking the question.]
(Ta'am vaDa'at)
************************************
"If a man takes a vow . . . he shall not desecrate his word."
(30:3)
The mishnah (Avot ch.4) teaches, "Do not question a person about
his vow at the moment that he makes it." Rashi explains that one
should not say, "If you phrase the vow in such-and-such a way, a
Rabbi will be able to annul it later." Do not do this, Rashi says,
because vows often are made in a moment of anger. If you point out
the loopholes (literally, "openings") to the angry vow-taker he may
retort, "No! I mean my vow to be complete, with no openings." If
he does that, he will be bound forever.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach shlita explains further: The type of
"loophole" or "opening" which allows a Rabbi to annul a vow is an
unforeseen circumstance. [For example, where one vows not to enter
a certain building, and his son later marries in that building.]
Logic might dictate that one should ask the vow-taker, "Do you mean
it? What if such-and-such circumstances arise which will make your
vow difficult to keep?" This would ensure that the person who seeks
annulment answers the Rabbi's questions truthfully. If we wait until
the new circumstances actually have arisen, the one bound by the vow
will have a motive to answer untruthfully.
Nevertheless, we do not ask the question. Why? We see, Rav
Shlomo Zalman explains, that the "opening" is not the key element
in the annulment. The key is regret. Even though regret alone is
not enough of a basis to annul a vow, regret and an "opening" are
enough. Therefore, so long as the person did not state explicitly
that his vow encompassed even these new circumstances, it does not
matter whether he might have said so. His regret shows that he took
the vow--whatever its content--only out of anger; releasing him,
therefore, does not constitute desecrating his word. (The "opening"
is simply required to discourage frequent vow-taking.)
(She'elot uTeshuvot Minchat Shlomo 30)
************************************
"For you are coming to the land of Canaan. . . ." (34:2)
The midrash asks: "Why did Canaan merit to have the land named
after him? Because when he heard that Bnei Yisrael were coming, he
left." Specifically, the tribe known as the "Girgashi" resettled
in other lands.
This seems backwards, notes Rav Yitzchak Goldwasser shlita. When
they left, it ceased to be their land! However, the explanation is
as follows:
The gemara (Berachot 35a) teaches that the world belongs to G-d,
but it is given to man after he recites a blessing acknowledging that
everything comes from G-d. (This is why we recite berachot before
eating.) As long as the Canaanites lived in the Land, it was not
clear whether they recognized G-d's ownership of it, and it therefore
was not given-over to them entirely. However, when the Canaanites
vacated the Land so that G-d could give it to Bnei Yisrael, they
demonstrated that they did recognize G-d's control. Therefore, the
Land became theirs, and was named after them, retroactively.
(quoted in Yalkut Lekach Tov)
************************************
"[T]he six cities of refuge that you shall provide for a murderer
to flee there, and in addition to them you shall give forty-two
cities." (35:6)
The Torah is eternal, notes Rav Avraham Yehoshua Heschel of Apta
zatz'l. What practical lesson does this verse teach us today, when
there are no cities of refuge?
If a person is killing his soul through his unintentional sins,
he should achieve repentance by sacrificing himself entirely to the
service of G-d. The requirement of self-sacrifice for Hashem is
found in the shma. The first verse of that prayer has six words;
the rest of the first paragraph has forty-two words.
(Ohev Yisrael)
************************************
In Hamaayan for Parashat Emor, we alluded to the dispute between
Rav Menachem Mendel of Rimanov and Rav Naphtali of Ropshitz over
whether the Jews should support Napoleon in his war against Russia.
Rav Mendel of Rimanov expressed the wish that Napoleon succeed--"even
if he advanced from L'vov to Rava [two cities] ankle-deep in Jewish
blood, for we know that the birth-pangs of mashiach are bitter as
wormwood."
Rav Naphtali retorted enigmatically with an expression borrowed
from Tractate Keritot (6b), "A third and a quarter we have not
heard."
The Klausenberger Rebbe, Rav Yekutiel Yehuda Halberstam zatz'l
(who passed away three weeks ago, on the 10th of Tamuz, after seventy
years as a chassidic rebbe) explained that the dispute between these
two sages was the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua
(Sanhedrin 97b) regarding the role which repentance plays in the
final redemption.
Rabbi Eliezer holds that the redemption will come only as a result
of repentance. Rabbi Yehoshua says that if the Jews do not repent,
Hashem will send another Haman against them and force them to repent.
Rav Mendel held that Napoleon was this "Haman." He believed that
Napoleon would cause the Jews to repent and mashiach would come.
Rav Naphtali responded, "I have never heard of a Jew who is so
estranged that he is only 'one-third' or 'one-quarter' of a Jew, but
who repents because of suffering." He therefore felt that there was
no purpose in Jewish blood being spilt. (Sukkat Bet Ropshitz p.18
note 38)
|
| 989.310 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Devarim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jul 14 1994 00:08 | 159 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT DEVARIM
Vol. VIII, No. 40 (375), 8 Av 5754, July 16, 1994
In the first verse of this parasha we read that Moshe spoke to
Bnei Yisrael "on the other side of the Jordan, in the desert, in the
wilderness, opposite the Sea of Reeds, between Paran and Tofel, and
Lavan and Chazerot and Di Zahav." Obviously Moshe did not speak in
all of these places at once; rather, Rashi explains, Moshe addressed
Bnei Yisrael with a subtle rebuke for the sins which they and their
parents had committed in each of the places listed here.
Rav Dov Meir Rubman zatz'l observes that this verse demonstrates
the greatness of that generation. Moshe's rebuke was ever so subtle.
To what may it be compared? To a match thrown at a can of kerosene;
it takes only one spark to ignite the entire can.
So, too, Moshe spoke only one or two words regarding each of the
sins that Bnei Yisrael had committed, but they understood. (Zichron
Meir)
************************************
In the first verse of our parasha, Moshe alludes to the sin of
the Golden Calf by the phrase, "Di zahav"--"enough gold." The gemara
(Berachot 32) teaches that this was Moshe's defense of Bnei Yisrael,
"It's Your fault, Hashem; You gave them all of that gold."
Rav David Kronglas zatz'l explains that just as man's reward is
proportional to the "trouble" which each mitzvah entails, so,
conversely, his punishment is proportional to how easy it would have
been to avoid each sin. Even though a person cannot excuse himself
entirely for his sins, nevertheless, Hashem takes into account the
difficulty of each person's trials.
(Sichot Chochmah uMussar:
Ma'amar "Mishpatecha Tehom Rabbah")
************************************
"Hashem our G-d spoke to us at Chorev [i.e., Mount Sinai] saying,
'Much for you is your dwelling at this mountain'." (1:6)
Rashi quotes the midrash: "Much greatness and reward are coming
to you for dwelling at this mountain. You made a mishkan, a menorah
and other vessels; you received the Torah. . . ."
Why is building the mishkan listed before receiving the Torah?
asks Rav Yissachar Dov Rokeach (the Belzer Rebbe) zatz'l. Wasn't
the actual order the reverse?
Rav Yissachar Dov answers based on the following two points:
First, the gemara (Megillah 29a) teaches that when we have no Bet
haMikdash, our shuls and batei medrash (study halls) function as
miniature Temples. Second, the difference between the Bet haMikdash
and the mishkan is that the latter carries its holiness wherever it
travels, while former is stationary.
The above midrash is teaching us: How can you make a mishkan, even
today and even outside of Eretz Yisrael? By "receiving" the Torah
(for the study hall is a miniature Temple).
(Sefer Maharid)
************************************
"Do not show favoritism in judgement." (1:17)
How can Mishlei (24:23) say, "Haker panim b'mishpat lo tov"--
"Showing favoritism in judgement is not good," implying that it is
not recommended, but it is permissible? Our parasha states
explicitly to the contrary.
Rav Baruch haLevi Epstein zatz'l suggests that Mishlei is not
referring to showing favoritism. Rather, this should be translated
literally, "Recognizing faces in judgement is not good." Rambam
writes that judges are permitted to take into account the facial
expressions and other demeanor of the parties in judging their
credibility. While this is permitted, says Mishlei, it is unreliable
and "not good."
(Tosefet Berachah)
************************************
"That which is difficult for you, bring to me and I will hear it."
(1:17)
Sometimes it is enough to ask the question and to have the sage
hear it, even if one gets no answer, Rav Yisrael Alter (the Gerrer
Rebbe) zatz'l said in his father's name. Silence also can be an
answer.
(quoted in Ta'am vaDa'at)
************************************
"At me, too, Hashem became angry because of you, saying, 'You,
too, shall not come there." (1:36)
Moshe was punished so severely because he could have sanctified
G-d's Name ever so little more by talking to the rock and drawing
out water than by hitting the rock to accomplish the same result.
Says Rav Reuven Dessler zatz'l (father of the author of Michtav
m'Eliyahu): The difference between the sanctification of G-d's Name
which occurred and that which might have occurred is so subtle that
it is imperceptible to us. Yet we all have opportunities to commit
the same sin. If a person has a certain talent or has the ability
to study Torah, and he does not use that gift to the fullest, he is
lessening the potential for G-d's Name to be sanctified. We see from
Moshe's case that a person is punished not only for his sins, but
also for his unfinished or unperfected deeds.
(Kitvei haSaba miKelm v'Talmidav p.554)
************************************
Rav Don Yitzchak Abarbanel
died 10 Menachem-Av
An Autobiographical Note
(from his commentary to Sefer Melachim)
This is what happened to me when I wrote my commentaries to the
Books of Yehoshua, Shoftim, Shmuel, and Melachim--the opposite of
what happened to Chiel of Bet El when he rebuilt Yericho. [Ed.
Yehoshua placed a curse on the ruins of Yericho that whoever rebuilt
the city would lose his eldest son when the foundations were laid,
and his youngest son when the city was completed. Abarbanel
continues:] I opened my mouth to praise G-d [by writing these works]
in the early days--which were better than these --when I resided
quietly in my birthplace, the Kingdom of Portugal. However, the
demands of the King and the nobles prevented me from finishing my
task, and finally, I was struck by the hand of G-d,and the King of
Portugal [mis]took me for his enemy. He raised his right hand to
destroy me, and he confiscated my vast wealth, leaving only my body
to escape to the Kingdom of Castille [now Spain]. There I paid my
debts, and wrote my commentaries on the first of the three books
mentioned. [What follows is a play on the names of these books:]
"'Yehoshua,' for G-d has saved me from the sword of the King;
'Shoftim,' for there is a G-d in the world who will judge between
me and my oppressors; 'Shmuel,' for I have asked this [i.e.
retribution] from G-d." All this happened in the year 5244 (1484).
However, when I desired to begin my commentary on the Book of
Melachim, I was called to the palace of the King of Spain, the
supreme of all mortal kings, who reigned over Castille, Aragon,
Catalonia, Sicily, and all the islands of the [Mediterranean] Sea.
When I arrived at the court of the King and Queen [Ferdinand and
Isabella], I remained many days, and G-d caused me to find favor in
their eyes and in the eyes of the leading nobles of the realm. I
served them for eight years, and amassed all manner of wealth that
one man can give another. All this, however, caused my toil in Torah
to cease; I abandoned my heritage, the Kings of Yehuda
and Israel, and served gentile Kings. [Ed. This statement is probably
intended to have a double meaning. First, because of his service to
the Spanish King, he was unable to write his commentary on the Book
of Melachim which is a history of the Kings of Yehuda and Israel.
Second, the Abarbanel family took great pride in its descent from
King David, and therefore, probably considered itself demeaned to
serve foreign Kings.]
(continued next week)
|
| 989.311 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vaetchanan | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Jul 18 1994 21:49 | 128 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT VA'ETCHANAN
Vol. VIII, No. 41 (376), 15 Av 5754, July 23, 1994
In this week's parasha we find the Aseret haDibrot (the so-called
"Ten Commandments") repeated. Chazal say that these Commandments
were miraculously engraved on the luchot (tablets) in such a way that
the writing penetrated all the way through the stone, yet it could
be read from whichever side one viewed the luchot. Also, because
the engraving penetrated the luchot, another miracle was required
to make the centers of some letters (e.g., the samech) float in the
air. What do these miracles teach us?
Rav S.R. Hirsch zatz'l explains that the writing penetrated the
luchot to teach us that we must make the Torah penetrate to our
innermost beings. It should not be superficial. The writing could
be read from either side to teach that our dedication to Torah must
be seen from all sides. We should not be Jewish when we go to
certain activities and not to others. Finally, the floating stone
centers of the letters remind us that the G-d who gives "life-force"
to these letters gives it to us as well. (Collected Writings Vol.
I, p.281)
************************************
"But you who cling to Hashem, your G-d, you are alive today."
(4:4)
Rav Moshe Chaim Luzzato ("Ramchal") zatz'l writes that all the
rewards for the commandments are essentially of one type. This is
what the prophets expressed (Yishayah 58:14; Tehilim 37:4), "Find
pleasure in Hashem." All the soul wants is to cling to its Cause
(i.e., its Creator), and when it clings to Him to the maximum extent
possible, that is its greatest joy.
And when this clinging is permanent, that is eternal life, as is
written, "But you who cling to Hashem, your G-d, you are alive
today." There also are intermediate levels before one reaches this
ultimate level, and these are the different levels of reward that
exist.
Because the soul's clinging to Hashem must be complete, therefore
there are 613 commandments, paralleling the 613 limbs and organs of
the body, and the soul also has 613 spiritual "limbs and organs."
It also follows that even physical rewards are an outgrowth of this
clinging.
(Da'at Tevunot II, 12-14)
************************************
"And you shall repeat them to your sons and speak of them, when
you sit in your homes. . . ." (5:7)
Rav Daniel Movshovitz writes in a letter that the reference here
to the home does not refer to the wood and stone structure. It
refers to the family. The beginning of a person's judgement in
Heaven will address whether he set aside times for Torah study and,
in particular, whether he dedicated times to study Torah and discuss
the subjects of faith and trust in G-d with his family.
It doesn't matter so much what one learns at these times. Rav
Yerucham (a great teacher of mussar) used to read the Tze'enah
u'Re'enah (a Yiddish translation and commentary on the Torah) at
meals. This is because the simple lessons of faith contained in that
work often make a more long-lasting impression than do complicated
discourses.
(Kitvei haSaba miKelm v'Talmidav p. 610)
************************************
Abarbanel's Autobiographical Note:
continued from last week
In the ninth year [of his service to the King and Queen, i.e.
1492], the year whose gematria equals [=252, of the sixth
millennium], which means "He disperses," the King of Spain conquered
Granada and the metropolis of the same name. At that time, he said
to himself, "How can I show gratitude to the G-d who strengthened
me in battle?" He decided to show his gratitude by gathering all the
people of his realm into his own religion, and especially the Jews
who, in his own eyes, walked in the dark. Any Jew who refused to obey
this edict would be banished from the land, never to set foot in his
kingdom again. All this was the decree which went out from the King's
court, expelling the Jews from all the provinces of Spain and from
the islands of Sicily, Majorica, and Sardinia in three months time.
[Abarbanel continues:] I, being in the King's court, became hoarse
from appearing before the King and beseeching him to reverse this
edict. "Decree upon us taxes and fines, and every Jew will gladly
pay to support his land." I called upon my friends, the nobles, to
beseech on behalf of my people, and they assembled before the King
to speak on my behalf. The King, however, with the Queen inciting
him, turned a deaf ear to their pleas. I did not rest, and I was not
quieted, but the evil came, nevertheless. Wherever the Jews lived,
there was great mourning, for never before was there a mass exile
to this extent and of this magnitude.
The Jews all said to each other, "Let us be strong and remain in
our faith. If they will kill us, we will die; if they let us live,
then we shall live. Let us go, in the name of G-d." The picked up
and left Spain, 300,000 strong, men women, children, and the elderly,
on one day, from all the provinces of the King. Some went to
Portugal, and some to Navarre, two neighboring kingdoms. They endured
great suffering, hunger, and poverty. Some set out in ships, and
they, too, suffered greatly for some were captured by pirates and
sold as slaves, while others drowned in the sea. In the end, G-d's
will was fulfilled: those who were to be felled by the sword, were
felled by the sword. Those who were to fall by hunger, did. And so
it was, may G-d's name be blessed.
I, too, chose this latter way, and set sail across the sea. I
arrived with my family and my household in Naples [Italy], a glorious
city, whose kings are kind and benevolent, and I remain here now.
Finally, this year, whose gematria equals "strangers in a foreign
land" [i.e. 5253/1493], I said to myself, "Let me fulfill my vow to
write a commentary on the book of Melachim. This will serve the
purpose of commemorating the great destruction which befell us, just
as the destruction of the Temple is related in the Book of Melachim.
In this way, I have done the opposite of Chiel of Bet El, for he
began to build at the expense of his eldest son, and finished with
the youngest. I, however, who saw great suffering, began my works
with the smallest of troubles, i.e. my personal exile from Portugal,
and I completed my work on these four books after the greatest of
all exiles, this banishment from Spain. May all who hear of this find
salvation for the suffering of their ears.
|
| 989.312 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Eikev | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Jul 18 1994 21:52 | 158 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT EIKEV
Vol. VIII, No. 42 (377), 22 Menachem-Av 5754, July 30, 1994
In this parasha, the Torah refers to Eretz Yisrael as "the land
in which you will not lack anything." The gemara in Berachot (36b)
states that this is because the Land itself lacks nothing.
Rav Avraham Yitzchak haKohen Kook zatz'l writes: The ultimate
level which the Jews should attain in Eretz Yisrael is that not only
will material wealth and luxuries not injure their spiritual standing
they (i.e., wealth and luxuries) will strengthen one's service of
G-d. Therefore, the Land does not lack a sample of everything, even
that which should only grow at the end of the world.
Similarly, Rav Kook continues, all of the world's wisdoms also
must be present in Eretz Yisrael, even those which should belong to
the nations of the world. This is why the midrash (Eichah Rabati)
calls Eretz Yisrael, "[The land which is] many in wisdoms." (Ein
Ayah)
************************************
"Hashem said to me, 'I have seen this people, and behold, it is
a stiff-necked people. Leave Me alone and I will destroy them'."
(9:6)
The Sforno explains that this stiff-neckedness is stubbornness.
Too often, we do not change our course no matter how clearly the
Rabbi proves that our thoughts or actions are incorrect. It is as
if our necks are hard as steel and we cannot turn.
Rav Chaim Friedlander zatz'l adds: The cure for stubbornness is
very difficult. Even Moshe Rabbenu found no means of impressing the
stubborn people other than smashing the Tablets. Imagine if our
Rabbi would go to the Aron Kodesh, take out a sefer Torah and throw
it to the ground, torn in shreds, to dramatize how far we have
strayed. That is what Moshe did, except that he used not a sefer
Torah but the Tablets which were G-d's handiwork.
Even Hashem's first reaction when He saw our stubbornness was
simply to destroy us, for stubbornness is so hard to correct. Surely
if there were a better way, Hashem would not choose destruction.
(Siftei Chaim I p.27)
************************************
"Then I threw myself down before Hashem as the first time--forty
days and forty nights. . . ." (9:18)
Chazal teach that whoever prays at length is guaranteed a
response, so long as he does not study his prayer. Yet in another
place, Chazal say that studying the prayers is something for which
a person is rewarded in this world and in the next!
Rav Yaakov Lorberbaum of Lissa (known as the "Ba'al haNesivos")
zatz'l explains that two different kinds of study are meant.
Studying the meanings of the prayers is commendable. What one should
not do, however, is spend time "studying" for what he should pray.
We do not know our own needs, and we should leave that concern to
Hashem.
(Nachlat Yaakov)
************************************
"You shall teach them to your children. . . ." (11:19)
People commonly say that they are raising their children to be
"good Jews." However, this is not enough, says Rav Shneur Kotler
zatz'l. In explaining what a person should have in mind when making
use of material pleasures, Rambam (Hil. De'ot 3:3) writes:
He should have in mind that his body should be strong so
that his soul will be able to know Hashem, for it is
impossible to understand wisdom when one is hungry or sick
or if one of his limbs is in pain. And one should hope
that he will have a son who may become a wise man and a
great person in Israel.
Similarly, says Rav Kotler, others write that the obligation
which the Torah imposes on a person regarding teaching Torah to his
children is to make them into great Torah scholars, not merely to
make them into good Jews. This is not a separate or special mitzvah;
this is what the basic mitzvah of teaching our children entails.
(Noam Siach p.13)
************************************
"In order that your days and your children's days may be
prolonged. . . ." (11:21)
The halacha states that Bet Din can compel a person to hire a
Torah-teacher for his children. Why? asks Rav Yitzchak Hutner
zatz'l. Doesn't this violate the basic principle (Chulin 110b) that
Bet Din cannot force a person to perform a mitzvah whose reward is
stated in the Torah?
Rambam teaches that a mitzvah which is coerced has meaning because
every Jew wishes to do good, except that the yetzer hara prevents
him from carrying out this desire. The coercion which Bet Din
applies is simply intended to counter-balance the effects of the
yetzer hara.
However, says Rav Hutner, when the Torah states the reward for
a mitzvah openly, it is indicating that this mitzvah should be
performed because of a person's "open" desires, not because of his
hidden, innermost feelings. Therefore, Bet Din is instructed not
to compel the performance of this mitzvah.
The reward for teaching Torah to one's children is openly stated,
in a sense, but it is also hidden. This is because the reward is
not found in the same verse as the commandment (verse 19), but two
verses away (verse 21). Only with Chazal's help do we know that the
reward in verse 21 applies to the mitzvah in verse 19. And since
the reward is thus "hidden," we can allow Bet Din to bring out a
person's hidden desire to perform the mitzvah.
(Pachad Yitzchak: Igeret 12)
************************************
Rav Ephraim Zalman Margaliot
19 Kislev 5521 (1761) - 24 Menachem-Av 5588 (1828)
Rav Ephraim Zalman Margaliot was a prolific writer and a major
posek (halachic decisor), but, except for a brief period in his
youth, he never served in the rabbinate. Rather, he was the senior
partner in the firm of "E.Z. Margaliot and His Partner, K.K. Privel--
Wholesalers," which dealt in coral and had branches throughout
Europe.
Rav Ephraim Zalman's vast wealth allowed him to devote the
majority of his time to Torah study. His best known works are:
She'eilot uTeshuvot Bet Ephraim, a collection of his responsa;
Mateh Ephraim, on the laws and customs of the High Holidays.
Sha'arei Ephraim, on the laws of the Torah reading;
In the introduction to the last-named work, Rav Ephraim Zalman
explains that he addressed this subject because it is nearly
impossible for a Rabbi to know every halacha which he is asked
without researching it, but that questions relating to the Torah
reading (e.g., whether the Torah is kosher or who should receive an
aliyah) are particularly embarrassing because the entire congregation
is waiting and watching while the Rabbi decides how to proceed.
As a private citizen, Rav Ephraim Zalman was active in the
communal life of the city of Brody. It was he who brought the famed
Rav Shlomo Kluger to Brody. Rav Ephraim Zalman would also deliver
sermons on occasion. (Sarei haTorah)
One of Rav Ephraim Zalman's brothers was Rav Chaim Mordechai
Margaliot, author of Sha'arei Teshuvah (which is printed in the
Shulchan Aruch and in the Mishnah Berurah).
|
| 989.313 | The "shema"? | HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Tue Jul 19 1994 01:48 | 4 |
| Why was the "shema" prayer not even mentioned in the commentary on the
parashah that contains it?
Dave
|
| 989.314 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Reeh | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Aug 03 1994 19:39 | 146 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT RE'EH
Vol. VIII, No. 43 (378), 29 Menachem-Av 5754, August 6, 1994
At the end of this parasha, the Torah repeats some of the basic
laws of the holidays and instructs that the holidays of Shavuot and
Sukkot should be joyous. But why is there no similar commandment
regarding Pesach? Certainly there is a mitzvah to be joyous on
Pesach as well.
Rav Shlomo Goren shlita explains that Pesach is the holiday of
national freedom, but without spiritual freedom. Spiritual freedom
came on Shavuot, with the giving of the Torah. [Ed. Chazal say that
the only free person is one who studies Torah.]
National freedom without spiritual freedom, i.e., without Torah,
is not an object of joy, writes Rav Goren. Only when the Torah
introduces Shavuot can it command us to be joyous, and,
retroactively, we can be joyous on Pesach as well.
As King David wrote (Tehilim 19:9) "Hashem's orders are upright;
they make the heart glad." (Torat haShabbat v'haMo'ed, p.26)
************************************
"Their trees of worship you shall burn in fire." (12:3)
Here the Jews are commanded to completely destroy any tree in
Eretz Yisrael which the Canaanites had made an object of idol
worship. Yet earlier, in Parashat Mishpatim (23:24), the Jews were
commanded simply to smash them or break them, a less complete
destruction. Why?
Rav Yechezkel Abramsky zatz'l explains as follows: The trees in
Eretz Yisrael never belonged to the Canaanites; they were always Bnei
Yisrael's trees because Hashem had given the Land to the Patriarchs.
Accordingly, the Canaanites could not affect the halachic status of
the trees which they worshipped. The trees did not become prohibited
to enjoy, and the Torah said (in Parashat Mishpatim) to break those
trees only as a reminder not to worship idols.
However, after Parashat Mishpatim was taught, Bnei Yisrael
worshipped the Golden Calf. They thereby indicated that they did
not object to the idolatry of the Canaanites, and that had the
halachic effect of ratifying the Canaanites selection of certain
trees as objects of idol worship. Thereafter, those tree became
prohibited to enjoy and had to be burnt.
(quoted in Ta'am vaDa'at)
************************************
"If there shall be a destitute person among you. . . ." (15:7)
Chazal teach that it is meritorious for one who gives charity to
allow the pauper anonymity. However, a pauper has no right to insist
on it. Rav Yitzchak Hutner zatz'l explains that one is never
obligated to give something away for nothing. In the case of
charity, the payment that a person is entitled to receive is
gratitude. Accordingly, a the charity-recipient has no right to
remain anonymous if the giver insists on receiving gratitude. (And,
notes Rav Hutner, the poorest person has as big a store of gratitude
as the richest person.)
Nevertheless, it certainly is meritorious to forego the gratitude
which is due, especially considering the pain that it causes the
pauper.
(Pachad Yitzchak, Igeret 15)
************************************
"You may not slaughter the Pesach in one of your gates [i.e.,
cities] which Hashem gives you." (16:5)
Chazal teach that the Jews in Egypt fell through the 49 gates of
impurity and Hashem had to lift them out. So too, at any time, a
person may fall through those gates, and Hashem may rescue him.
However, says Rav Eliezer David Gruenwald zatz'l, a person should
not be satisfied with the "gates" that Hashem "gives" him, but should
work on his own to climb through further gates of holiness.
(Chasdei David)
************************************
"You shall make a holiday of Sukkot for yourself" (16:13)
Rav Shlomo Halberstam (the Bobover Rebbe) shlita notes that the
root of the word "Sukkah" is the name for one of the forms of Ruach
haKodesh--Divine Inspiration, i.e., the ability to see that which
is hidden. Thus, this verse may be read as a lesson that every
person should set aside times ("make a holiday") devoted to
introspection, i.e., seeing himself.
(quoted in Sukkat Bet Ropshitz p.31)
************************************
"For seven days you shall celebrate to Hashem . . . and you shall
be only joyous." (16:15)
From this last phrase Chazal deduce that one must be joyous on
an eighth day as well, i.e., Shemini Atzeret. However, numerous
commentaries ask: Doesn't the word "only" suggest that something is
being excluded, rather than that something is being included?
The Vilna Gaon is quoted as explaining that something is indeed
being excluded. The Torah is teaching that after the seven days in
which we were joyous and performed numerous mitzvot (sukkah, lulav,
etc.), there comes a holiday when the only mitzvah is to be joyous.
(Kol Eliyahu)
************************************
Rav Shmuel Salant
born 1816 - died 29 Menachem-Av 5669 (1909)
Rav Shmuel of Salant was a dominant force in the life of the
Ashkenazic community of Yerushalayim known as the "Old Yishuv"--the
"Old Settlement"--for nearly seven decades. A native of the town
whose name he bore--he was the son-in-law of Rav Zundel Salant, Rav
Yisrael Salanter's teacher--he was appointed Rabbi and President of
the Rabbinical Court of Yerushalayim while still in Europe in 1840.
In 1841, Rav Shmuel arrived in Yerushalayim.
In the 1840's, the Ashkenazic community was far smaller than its
Sephardic counterpart. Interestingly, it is reported that the
Moslems, who require ritual slaughter similar to that of the Jews,
would not eat meat shected by an Ashkenazi because the Turkish sultan
did not recognize the Ashkenazim as Jews until 1866.
One of Rav Shmuel's primary tasks was to organize the Ashkenazic
community into a coherent structure such as the Sephardim had. He
founded the Etz Chaim Yeshiva, which continued to be the preeminent
Ashkenazic yeshiva in Yerushalayim until the first third of this
century. Rav Shmuel refused to use the title "Rabbi of Yerushalayim"
in his correspondence, saying that he had not been universally
elected. Indeed, from 1859 to 1878 Rav Shmuel voluntarily left the
post in favor of Rav Meir Auerbach. During the second half of the
19th century, many Ashkenazic Jews in Yerushalayim considered their
Rabbi to be, not Rav Shmuel, but Rav Yehoshua Leib Diskin.
On his deathbed, Rav Shmuel named Rav Chaim Sonnenfeld as his
successor, but predicted that Rav Chaim's appointment would not be
confirmed because Rav Chaim was Hungarian, whereas most of the
Ashkenazic community was Lithuanian. This was indeed the case, and
the Rabbinate of the Old Yishuv remained vacant for ten years.
(Guardian of Jerusalem)
|
| 989.315 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Shoftim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Aug 12 1994 19:40 | 164 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT SHOFTIM
Vol. VIII, No. 44 (379), 6 Elul 5754, August 13, 1994
This parasha deals with the appointment of judges, kings, and
prophets whose task is to enforce the mitzvot and rebuke Bnei Yisrael
for their failings. Additionally, the parasha discusses many of the
laws that come into play when the nation goes out to war. All of
these may be interpreted not only literally ("p'shat"), but on the
level of "drush" (allegory), where they are related to the month of
Elul, in which this parasha is always read.
Besides the many physical wars which the Jewish people have been
forced to wage, every Jew wages a constant spiritual war against the
"yetzer hara" (evil inclination). But never is this war more heated
than during Elul, when, in preparation for the Day of Judgement on
Rosh haShana, each person takes stock of his actions and looks for
ways in which to improve himself. These spiritual wars share
strategy with our physical battles. For example, just as the Torah
commands that in time of war we blow the shofar to awaken us to pray
for G-d's mercy (see beMidbar 10:9 and Ibn Ezra there), so during
Elul we blow the shofar to awaken ourselves from our spiritual
slumber. The prophets and judges referred to in this parasha also
can help us awaken. (see Ohr Gedalyahu)
************************************
"Do not pervert judgment." (16:19)
Rav Shalom of Belz zatz'l notes that there are several warnings
for judges here. First, there is the literal warning, i.e., not to
twist the law to favor one party.
Second, the letters of the Hebrew Aleph-Bet which precede the word
pervert spell out the word bribery. This, too, is prohibited for
it perverts judgment.
Third, the letters which precede those letters spell out "~~~"
(grudge). One should not judge a party against whom he bears a
grudge, for then judgment will be perverted.
Fourth, the set of letters before that are whose gematria equals
108, the same as the gematria of "gehinom." A judge should always
picture that gehinom is open before him if he perverts judgment.
Fifth, the letters before that spell waste. This is what awaits
one who perverts judgment.
(Sefer Maharash)
************************************
"Portion for portion they shall eat, except what was sold by the
families." (18:9)
This verse has been translated according to the Kli Yakar. He
explains that if a kohen cannot eat his entire portion of the
sacrifices, he may sell it. He is not required to give it away to
a poor kohen.
Why not? Because it was "sold by the families." Eretz Yisrael
was divided up amongst the tribes based upon the census taken by
Moshe, and it was never re-divided and re-allocated even if the
relative sizes of the tribes changed. So, too, the early kohanim
established shifts and family-groups for the purposes of working in
the Bet haMikdash and receiving shares of the sacrifices. Thus, the
families of kohanim "sold" their rights to each other--much as the
families of the tribes "sold" their rights to all of Eretz Yisrael
(outside of their own tribal boundaries) to each other.
(Rav Ephraim of Lunschitz: Kli Yakar)
************************************
In this parasha we find the laws pertaining to one who kills
unintentionally. Although such an accident can occur in many
different ways, the Torah presents the laws in a setting of one who
is felling trees and loses control of his ax.
Rav Joseph Soloveitchik zatz'l explains this choice as a warning
that accidental deaths occur when man views the world as a forest
to be felled. When nothing is important other than moving from one
tree to the next and conquering it, i.e., moving from one material
conquest to the another, that is when life becomes so devalued that
manslaughter is inevitable.
(Yemei Zikaron p.118)
************************************
"There shall not be found amongst you . . . one who practices
divinations, an astrologer, one who reads omens, a sorcerer; or an
animal charmer, one who acquires of Ov or Yidoni, or one who consults
the dead. . . . You shall be wholehearted with Hashem, your G-d."
(18:10-11, 13)
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 65b) explains that consulting the dead
refers to fasting and then sleeping in a cemetery so that forces of
impurity will rest upon oneself. The Gemara continues:
Rabbi Akiva used to cry when he came to this verse. [He said,]
"If fasting for the purpose of bringing impurity on oneself can
succeed, how much more so can fasting in order to bring purity on
oneself succeed!"
Rav Avraham Yoffen zatz'l explained Rabbi Akiva's message: The
complete man learns to ascend from the very source from which the
evil man draws sin. And the evil man seeks out evil in the source
of the good.
The Navi relates that when Eliyahu brought fire down from Heaven
on Mount Carmel, he prayed, "Answer me. Answer me." The first time
he prayed that Hashem should answer him by sending fire. The second
time, Chazal explain, he prayed that people should not accuse him
of sorcery. This was necessary because Divine revelation itself can
be twisted for an evil purpose.
(quoted in the ArtScroll Mussar Haggadah p.76)
************************************
Rav Eliyahu Meir Bloch zatz'l taught (in the name of his father)
that just as a stone is not a complete building and a hand is not
a complete person, so a complete person is not yet a complete Jew.
What makes a Jew complete? Being wholeheartedly devoted to G-d.
What does this have to do with the prohibition on telling the
future found the in the adjacent verses? All of the above practices
are the behavior of those who find the present dark and meaningless.
Their only hope is in the future. Not so one who is wholeheartedly
devoted to G-d. His present is filled with satisfaction and
happiness.
(Shiurei Da'at p.35)
************************************
DAN
born 9 Elul 2193 - died 9 Elul 2318
Dan was the fifth son born to Yaakov, the first son of Yaakov's
wife Bilhah. He had only one son, Chushim, but by the time of the
Exodus, the tribe of Dan was the second largest (after Yehuda).
Ohaliav ben Achisamach from the tribe of Dan was the assistant
architect of the mishkan.
The tribe of Dan was the "Me'asef l'chol hamachanot"--it followed-
-literally "gathered"--all of the camps. Commentaries explain that
the tribe of Dan travelled last in the desert and was tasked with
gathering the members of the other tribes who had been rejected by
the Clouds of Glory. Many members of Dan were themselves on a lower
spiritual level, so that when they rose, they had a greater potential
to raise others with them. (See Michtav m'Eliyahu II p.266)
In later times, the best known member of the tribe of Dan was
Shimshon (Samson). Chazal say that Yaakov had thought that Shimshon
would be mashiach, but then he saw that Shimshon would die. This
is why Yaakov prayed (B'reishit 49:18), "I long for Your salvation,
Hashem."
Dan's original territory in Eretz Yisrael was in the area of
present day Tel Aviv and to the south, including Gaza. Because the
Plishtim who inhabited that region were too powerful to be conquered,
some members of Dan migrated northward to the Golan Heights. The
northern-most boundary of Eretz Yisrael for a long time was near the
present day Kibbutz Dan.
|
| 989.316 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Ki Tetze | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Aug 17 1994 20:28 | 129 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT KI-TETZE
Vol. VIII, No. 45 (380), 13 Elul 5754, August 20, 1994
This parasha teaches us the Torah's attitude towards beauty, says
Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik zatz'l. "When you will go out to war
against your enemies and you will see a beautiful woman among the
captives"--when you fight your enemies--Canaanites, Persians, Greeks,
Romans, or Germans--you will undoubtedly see beautiful aspects of
their cultures. Therefore, you should know: You are permitted to
bring home everything beautiful that you see, but don't be fooled
by external beauty. This is symbolized by the Torah's demand that
the captive woman change out of her foreign clothes. The Torah
demands a waiting period after the captive woman is brought into the
home--i.e., examine this new-found culture very carefully. Is it
something that you want in your home? (Yemei Zikaron p.125)
************************************
"You shall not see the ox of your brother or his sheep cast off
[i.e., lost] and turn yourself away from them; you shall surely
return them to your brother." (22:4)
Rav Yaakov Yosef haKohen of Pollonye interprets this
homiletically: "You shall not see the ox of your brother cast off"--
it is better not to see your brother in a state of spiritual decline
(becoming like an ox). "[T]urn yourself away."
But if you do see, "[Y]ou shall surely return [him]."
(Toldot Yaakov Yosef)
************************************
"He happened upon you on the way, and he struck the weaklings who
were straggling at the rear, when you were faint and exhausted, and
he did not fear G-d." (25:18)
Why do we reserve special hatred for Amalek more so than for
other nations which attacked us without provocation? Rav Velvel
Brisker zatz'l asks.
The Gemara (Bava Kama 79) says: Why is a burglar punished more
severely than is a robber? Because a robber equates G-d with man
[he is afraid of neither], while a burglar places G-d lower than man
[he fears man more than he fears G-d, therefore he steals when man
is not looking].
Rav Velvel explains: A burglar is a greater sinner than is a
robber because a burglar has begun to think through the consequences
of his action, but has stopped those thoughts before they can lead
him to G-d. This is worse than a robber who has not thought out his
actions at all--therefore he fears no one--but at least he has not
snubbed G-d.
Similarly, had Amalek attacked Bnei Yisrael head-on, we would
not fault him. However, by attacking only the weakest Jews, Amalek
acknowledged that there is something to fear. And despite that, he
showed that he did not fear G-d.
(Chidushei haGriz)
************************************
"Remember what Hashem, your G-d, did to Miriam on the way, when
you were leaving Egypt." (24:9)
"Remember what Amalek did to you on the way when you were leaving
Egypt." (25:7)
There are a number of commandments, these two and others, which
require us to remember certain events. Why does remembering
historical events play such an important role in Jewish thought and
practice?
Rav Yoel Schwartz shlita explains as follows: Tehilim (107:43)
states, "[One] who is wise will keep [i.e., remember] these [events]
and will study Hashem's acts of kindness." One might think that
studying the event comes before committing it to memory, but King
David tells us otherwise. The reason for this is that many events
cannot be understood until long after they have passed. In order
to understand them later, we must commit them to memory and "keep"
them.
Rav Schwartz continues: Long ago, the Arabs named us the "People
of the Book." There is a great deal of truth to this beyond its
literal meaning. What is the difference between a book and a
newspaper? The latter represents a fresh start every day;
yesterday's front page headlines are easily and often thrust aside
in light of the new day's breaking developments.
Not so a book, whose each page builds upon the foundation laid
by the preceding pages. This is our attitude towards history. Each
event is a building block for tomorrow. This is why remembering is
so important to us.
(haTekufah b'Aspaklariah Toranit p.147)
************************************
Rav Eliezer Yitzchak Fried
of Volozhin
born 5570 (1810) - died 19 Elul 5613 (1853)
Rav Eliezer Yitzchak was a nephew and also a son-in-law of Rav
Yitzchak son of Rav Chaim of Volozhin. He briefly succeeded his
father-in-law as head of the Volozhin Yeshiva (the first modern
yeshiva) upon his father-in-law's passing in 1849.
Rav Eliezer Yitzchak assisted in the administration of the yeshiva
already in his father-in-law's days. A document from that period
still exists in which Rav Eliezer Yitzchak reports the yeshiva's
curriculum to the Russian government. He writes:
For this coming year, 1847, the students will learn the
following subjects: Talmud-the first tractate of the fourth
order; its name is Bava Kama [and it] deals with concepts
concerning causing damage to another's property and includes
various explanations, some practical and some expository, which
relate to religious law.
The document reports that the yeshiva had thirty students at the
time, but the actual number probably was much greater.
A very small number of Rav Eliezer Yitzchak's halachic responsa
are preserved in the work Chut haMeshulash.
After Rav Eliezer Yitzchak's own untimely passing, he was followed
in the post by his (now) better known brother-in-law, Rav Naftali
Zvi Yehuda Berlin (the Netziv).
|
| 989.317 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Ki Tavo | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Aug 26 1994 01:36 | 144 |
| Hamaayan's editor is on vacation.
This issue is reprinted from Volume VI of Hamaayan.
Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT KI-TAVO
Vol. VIII, No. 46 (381), 20 Elul 5754, August 27, 1994
Chazal teach that the curses and rebukes in Parashat Bechukotai
refer to the exile which followed the first Bet haMikdash, while
those in this Parasha refer to the period after the second Temple,
i.e. the current exile. R' David ibn Zimra ("Radvaz") notes that
the "Tochachah" in our Parasha contains the four-letter name which
we pronounce "Hashem" and which usually represents G-d's attribute
of kindness. This reminds us that we will eventually be redeemed
from this terrible exile. The Pesikta (a Midrash) offers a very
different explanation for the appearance of the attribute of kindness
in this Parasha, stating that the cause of the exile is that people
are cruel when they should be kind, and vice-versa.
There are 98 curses in this Parasha, and 98 is the gematria of
the word "Chinam". Chazal say that our exile is caused by "Sin'at
Chinam" - baseless hatred, and apply to it the verse in Yeshayahu,
"You were sold 'Chinam' - for nothing, and you will not be redeemed
by money." We were sold into exile because of Sin'at Chinam, and
money - alluding to Mitzot - will not save us as long as we do not
replace that hatred with unity and love.
(R' Chaim Yosef David Azulai:
Midbar Kedemot, Ma'arechet Tav, No. 19)
************************************
"And he [Yaakov] went down to Egypt, and he became a great, a
powerful, and a large nation there." (26:5)
Chazal comment that Bnei Yisrael stood out in Egypt. R' Yom Tov
ben Avraham Alesvilli ("Ritva") writes: This was true firstly
because they lived in a compact area, thus making their numbers more
noticeable. Hashem brought this about so that they could support
and aid each other. As we know from our own experience in exile,
being distanced from our brethren is a bitter decree.
Secondly, Bnei Yisrael stood out by their clothing, for even in
Egypt they already practiced Mitzvot such as Tzitzit. This is
suggested by the phrase, "He became a great nation there." Egypt
is a large country, yet anywhere that a Jew went within it, he stood
out, for he wore the uniform of Avraham's descendants.
Finally, the Jews in Egypt had large families, larger even than
which Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov were used to. This was a sign
from Hashem that He had not abandoned Bnei Yisrael, even in their
bitter exile.
************************************
"They oppressed us." (verse 6)
Chazal say that this refers to appointing officials who taxed Bnei
Yisrael. Their purpose, Ritva explains, was to slow Bnei Yisrael's
rate of increase. This Midrash states that in the beginning, Pharaoh
himself made bricks with Bnei Yisrael in order to persuade them to
work. Later, however, Bnei Yisrael were forced to work even harder,
and against their will. This process is alluded to by the Maror
which we eat, for when it is young, it is soft, but when it ripens,
it becomes hard.
************************************
"Hashem saw our suffering, and our toil, and the pressure which
we were under." (verse 7)
This "pressure" refers to assimilation, Ritva says, for when the
Egyptians saw that they could not destroy us physically, they tried
to draw us to their gods. This led Hashem to bring the redemption
early, for the lure of assimilation is almost too difficult to bear.
(Bi'ur haHagadah Shel Leil Pesach)
************************************
The Month of Elul
Rambam writes that twenty-four patterns of behavior make "Teshuva"
(repentance) more difficult to accomplish, and forgiveness more
difficult to obtain. Of these, the following sins make one's Teshuva
unacceptable because of their severity: 1) causing others to sin;
2) turning another person from the Torah path; 3) passively
permitting one's children to leave the Torah path; 4) planning one's
repentance before committing a sin.
The following cause a person to miss the opportunities for
Teshuva: 5) Disassociating oneself from the congregation; 6)
Distancing oneself from Torah sages; 7) making fun of Mitzvot; 8)
making fun of one's teachers; 9) despising rebuke.
The following make Teshuva logistically difficult because the
offended party cannot be tracked down or because the damage done is
difficult to assess: 10) Insulting the public at large; 11) sharing
in stolen property; 12) failing to announce a found object; 13)
taking the property of paupers; 14) taking bribes.
The following are sins which most people do not think of as being
wrong, and one is unlikely to repent from having done them: 15)
Accepting food from one who does not have enough for himself; 16)
using collateral which belongs to a pauper; 17) gazing at women or
men (as the case may be) to whom one is forbidden; 18) receiving
honor through another's shame; 19) suspecting the innocent.
The following sins become habits which are difficult to break:
20) Gossip; 21) "Lashon Hara"; 22) having a bad temper; 23) thinking
evil thoughts; 24) being friendly with an evil person.
(Hil. Teshuva, chapter 4)
************************************
R' David Ibn Zimra
R' David ben Shlomo ibn Zimra ("Radvaz") was born in Spain, but
left with the expulsion around the time of his Bar Mitzvah. He may
have lived in Morocco, but eventually settled in Tzefat, where he
studied under R' Yosef Saragossi.
In 1514, Radvaz settled in Cairo and was soon recognized as Chief
Rabbi of Egypt. (He did not rely on this position for his
livelihood, but was rather a successful businessman.) Radvaz made
many enactments for the community, including abolishing the practice
of dating Jewish documents from the reign of Alexander the Great.
(This practice was known as "Minyan Shtarot.") He also headed a
large Yeshiva whose students included R' Betzalel Ashkenazi, author
of Shitah Mekubetzet, and R' Yitzchak Luria (better known as the
"Arizal").
After forty years in Egypt, Radvaz returned to Eretz Yisrael,
again settling in Tzefat, where he was received with great honor.
Although R' Yosef Caro was the head of the Tzefat "Bet Din"
(rabbinical court), he always deferred to Radvaz when it came time
to sign a decision, due to the latter's advanced age and great
erudition. Radvaz's published works include responsa, Kabbalistic
treatises, and a commentary on those portions of Rambam's code which
the Maggid Mishneh (an anonymous work) did not explicate.
Radvaz died in 1573.
|
| 989.318 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Nitzavim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Sep 09 1994 20:18 | 150 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT NITZAVIM
Vol. VIII, No. 47 (382), 27 Elul 5754, Sept. 3, 1994
R' Moshe Alshich writes: Chazal teach that whenever Moshe spoke
to Bnei Yisrael, he honored the "Nesi'im (leaders of the tribes) by
addressing them first. This week's Parasha begins, however, "You
are all standing today before Hashem." No preference was shown to
the Nesi'im over anybody, even the lowly water carriers and wood-
choppers.
This difference results from the purpose of the assembly described
here: to enter into a new covenant with G-d. Everyone was "standing
before Hashem." While among ourselves we must respect our elders
and leaders, we do not really know who is great or small in Hashem's
eyes.
This lesson should not lead a person to feel haughty (thinking
that perhaps Hashem considers him to be the greatest member of the
congregation), but should rather be humbling. The story is told of
a person who used to honor everyone, regardless of age or station.
When his neighbors inquired of his reason for doing so, he explained,
"If one is older than I, he has done more Mitzvot; if he is younger,
he has committed fewer sins. If he is wiser than I, he should be
honored for his wisdom; if he is less intelligent, he should be
honored because he cannot be held as responsible for his sins as I
am for mine."
(Torat Moshe)
************************************
[In our Tisha b'Av issue (two years ago, when this originally
appeared), when we began our series commemorating the expulsion of
the Jews from Spain, we quoted the statement of Rabbenu Yonah that
when we speak of the destruction of a great community we must include
in our discussion a statement of hope for a better future, and our
trust in Hashem that He will bring about that future. In that
spirit, we conclude our series on this page with some words by R'
Yitzchak Abohab on the subjects of Teshuva and the coming of
Mashiach, both of which are themes that run through this week's
Parasha. The following is condensed from Menorat haMaor, Book III,
Part 2, Chapters 9-10.]
Chazal relate: R' Yehoshua ben Levi met Eliyahu haNavi at the
entrance to the tomb of R' Shimon bar Yochai, and he asked Eliyahu,
"When will Mashiach come?"
"Go ask him," Eliyahu responded, and he directed R' Yehoshua ben
Levi to the gates of Rome, where Mashiach sits among the beggars.
"When will you come?" R' Yehoshua ben Levi asked.
"Today," Mashiach replied.
The next day, R' Yehoshua ben Levi again met Eliyahu. "Did you
see him?" Eliyahu asked.
"Yes. He told me that he would come 'Today,' but he did not,"
R' Yehoshua ben Levi replied.
"He meant," Eliyahu explained, "to refer to the verse (Tehilim
95:7), 'Today, if you will heed My [Hashem's] voice'." From this,
R' Yehoshua ben Levi learned (the Gemara says), that if we repent
and are deserving, Mashiach will come immediately. If not, he will
come at the time which Hashem has predestined.
The king, the Mashiach, who will eventually be revealed, will
return the crown of King David to its former glory. He will build
the Bet haMikdash, gather in the exiles, and live a long time. After
gathering-in the exiles, he will defeat Gog and Magog, as many
prophets have foretold. It will appear to mankind that the entire
world has been created anew, for the Jews will reside securely side-
by-side with the evil-doers of the world. In the words of the
prophet Yishayahu (11:6), "The wolf will live with the lamb." All
Jews will eat only kosher food and will set aside fixed times every
day for Torah study. There will be no more wars, and every person's
sustenance will be readily available. This is what Chazal mean by
their statement (Ketubot 111b): R' Chiya bar Yosef said, "In the
future, the earth will produce ready-made cakes and clothing of
silk." Regarding all of this the Gemara (Pesachim 88a) says in the
name of R' Yochanan, "The day on which the exiles are gathered-in
will be as great as the day that heaven and earth were created."
************************************
T H E M O N T H O F E L U L
R' Moshe Tzvi Neriah, Shlita, records that on the evening
following Yom Kippur, 5694 (1934), R' Yitzchak Hutner, later dean
of Yeshiva Chaim Berlin in Brooklyn, paid one of his regular visits
to R' Avraham Yitzchak haKohen Kook, and asked the following
question: Rabbenu Yonah, in his work Sha'arei Teshuva, speaks highly
of Hashem's kindness in allowing Teshuva to erase one's sins. Why,
however, don't Mussar teachers emphasize the teaching of the Gemara
(Kiddushin 40b) that a sin can negate a Mitzvah?
R' Neriah continues: The master [i.e. R' Kook] answered him, but
I forgot the answer. Forty years later, I met R' Hutner at a
wedding, and he restored what I had lost. He explained (in R' Kook's
name) that of the two truths stated above, the "original" one is the
fact that Teshuva erases sins. [Chazal say that Teshuva was created
before the world existed.] However, in order for man to maintain
his free-will, every advantage must be balanced by a disadvantage.
Therefore, Hashem decreed that just as Teshuva erases sins, a sin
can negate a Mitzvah.
Nevertheless, R' Neriah concludes, Hashem's kindness is always
greater than His deeds which appear unkind. Thus Chazal tell us that
not only can Teshuva erase sins, it can turn those very sins into
merits.
(bi'Sdeh haRe'iyah p.424)
************************************
Rav Shalom Rokeach of Belz
born 5539 (1779) - died 27 Elul 5615 (1855)
Rav Shalom was the first Belzer Rebbe. He was a disciple of both
Rav Yisrael, the Maggid of Koznitz, and Rav Yaakov Yitzchak, the
"Chozeh of Lublin," but primarily the latter. When he would leave
Koznitz for Lublin, the Maggid would plead, "Stay with me and you
will see Eliyahu haNavi. Stay with me and you will see the
Patriarchs," but to no avail. Rav Yaakov Yitzchak would say, "He
who deprives himself of the privilege of beholding Eliyahu haNavi
and the Patriarchs in order to return to his teacher is a true
chassid."
It is said that in his youth Rav Shalom once remained awake for
1,000 consecutive nights studying Torah. On the final night, Rav
Shalom was visited by Eliyahu.
The town of Belz had been blessed with many distinguished Rabbis,
most notably Rav Yoel Sirkes (the "Bach"). Under the leadership of
Rav Shalom and his descendants, it became one of the most prominent
centers of the chassidic world as well. Rav Shalom's legacy includes
the great shul which he began to build in Belz; many stories are told
of travelers who were miraculously saved from perils of the road
because they stopped to add a brick to the never-finished structure.
Rav Shalom's wife was his cousin Malkah. She too was known for
the wise and effective advice which she gave to the chassidim.
Paraphrasing B'reishit 14:18, Rav Shalom said, "Because Malkah is
a tzadeket (righteous woman), Shalom is king."
Rav Shalom was succeeded by his youngest son, Rav Yehoshua ("Reb
Shia").
|
| 989.319 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayelech | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Sep 09 1994 21:26 | 139 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT VAYELECH
Vol. VIII, No. 48 (383), 5 Tishrei 5754, Sept. 10, 1994
The Gemara (Rosh Hashana 16b) teaches: R' Cruspedai said in the
name of R' Yochanan, "Three books are opened on Rosh Hashana - one
for the righteous, one for the wicked, and one for those who are in
between. The names of the perfectly righteous are written in the
"Book of Life"; those of the completely wicked are written in the
"Book of Death"; those who are in between are left in limbo. If they
repent, they are given life; if not, death."
Why, asks R' Reuven Bengis (1865-1954), are there three books?
Would not two books suffice, since those who are neither righteous
nor wicked will eventually (on Yom Kippur) be awarded life or
sentenced to death?
The answer may be as follows: The Gemara (Berachot 34b) states,
"In the place where a 'Ba'al Teshuva' (one who has repented) stands,
even one who is perfectly righteous cannot stand." In some respects,
the Gemara teaches, a Ba'al Teshuva - one who has confronted the
"Yetzer haRa" and defeated it - is considered to be superior to a
Tzaddik - one who has not been tested so. Thus we can understand
the purpose of the third book; when Yom Kippur is over, the names
of those who have repented are inscribed in this book, and it becomes
the Book of Ba'alei Teshuva.
(quoted in Nedivut Lev, p.24)Lulav & Etrog
************************************
"I am one hundred twenty years old today." (31:2)
Rashi comments: "[Moshe said,] 'Today my years and days are
completed; today I will die'." Chazal teach that Tzaddikim often
die on their birthdays, and so Moshe did. The Zohar teaches that
that day was Shabbat. Specifically, Moshe (as well as Yosef and
David) died on Shabbat afternoon, and that is why we recite the
prayer "Tzidkatcha" which states our recognition that Hashem is just.
This, however, presents a problem. Later in Parashat Vayelech
we read that on the last day of Moshe's life, he wrote thirteen Torah
scrolls. If that day was Shabbat, how did he do so?
Commentaries suggest two answers. First, perhaps Moshe did not
really die on Shabbat, but was only buried on that day. How is that
possible? Moshe actually died on Friday, an instant before Shabbat
began. In our observance of Shabbat we add extra minutes before the
day begins and extra minutes afterwards because, among other reasons,
we do not know exactly what defines the beginning or end of a day.
Hashem, however, does know, and it was He who buried Moshe. He knows
when Shabbat ends, and He was able to bury Moshe while our ancestors
were still observing Shabbat. Thus, it appears as if Moshe was
buried on Shabbat.
Alternatively, suggest R' Yosef Chaim of Baghdad, there was no
Shabbat that week, for the Midrash states that within Bnei Yisrael's
camp, the sun shone for 36 hours that Friday. Thus, Moshe was able
to write, while for the world-at-large, it was Shabbat.
[Ed. note: The second answer provided above takes one side of
a Halachic dispute whether a day can pass independent of sunrise and
sunset. For example, how often does Shabbat occur at the North Pole
where day and night last six months each. Those who disagree with
R' Yosef Chaim state that every seventh 24-hour period would be
Shabbat.]
************************************
Yom Kippur
Although all year long the phrase, "Baruch Shem Kevod...," is
recited after the first verse of "Shma" quietly, on Yom Kippur it
is recited aloud. R' Avraham Yitzchak haKohen Kook explains this
as follows (based on Ye'arot Dvash):
Chazal say that we are greater than angels, for they utter G-d's
name after three words, while we do so after two. This refers to
the prophecy of Yeshayahu from which we learn that the angels prayer
is, "Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, Hashem...." We, on the other hand, pray,
"Shma Yisrael Hashem...." Nevertheless, because we know our own
shortcomings and are wary of appearing to have too high an opinion
of ourselves, we immediately say, "Baruch Shem," which is the formula
which one recites if he has inadvertently taken Hashem's name in
vain. Yet, because we don't want to plant any ideas in the mind of
the prosecuting angel, we are careful to recite that formula in an
undertone.
On Yom Kippur, however, the prosecuting angel has no power over
us. (Chazal note that the Gematria of "haSatan" - "the prosecutor" -
is 364, representing the fact that on one day of the year he is
powerless.) Therefore, on Yom Kippur we are not afraid to recite
"Baruch Shem" aloud.
(Olat Re'iyah, II p.345)
************************************
Lulav & Etrog
Following the Shemittah Year
As the reader will be aware, the year which has just ended was
a shemittah year, i.e., the sabbatical year in which working the land
of Eretz Yisrael was forbidden. Among the laws of shemittah is that
produce of the shemittah year--for example, fruits which grow on
trees that were planted in earlier years-- may not be exchanged in
commerce. (This is known as the law of "L'ochlah v'lo lischorah"--to
eat [the produce] and not to do business with it.")
Fruits of shemittah must be treated with certain kedushah
(holiness). If they are sold, then the purchase money also receives
that holiness. However, there is a concern that the seller of the
fruits will not know how to treat the money which he receives with
the holiness of shemittah, and therefore, we do not sell the fruits.
Because of this law, special procedures are required when buying
an etrog this year, for that etrog most likely grew in Eretz Yisrael
during the shemittah. The mishnah (Sukkah 39a) states:
One who buys a lulav during the shemittah should receive the
etrog as a gift, for one is prohibited to buy it during the
shemittah.
Although the mishnah speaks of buying an etrog during shemittah,
this law applies to us after shemittah because in the time of the
mishnah etrogim were sold as soon as they were picked [i.e., in the
same Jewish year], whereas the etrogim which we buy were picked last
year, i.e., before Rosh haShanah.
The gemara elaborates:
If the "seller" will not give the etrog as a gift, then the
"buyer" should pay for the lulav and etrog as a unit.
Rashi explains that one should tell the seller that he is paying
extra for the lulav and nothing for the etrog. Since the buyer and
seller thus assign no sale price to the etrog, none of the money
receives the kedushah of shemittah.
|
| 989.320 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Haazinu | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Sep 13 1994 18:46 | 165 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
PARASHAT HA'AZINU
Vol. VIII, No. 49 (384), 12 Tishrei 5754, Sept. 17, 1994
Parashat Ha'zainu begins, "Listen, heavens, and I will speak, and
let the earth hear the words of my mouth." Rashi explains that with
these words, Moshe called upon the heavens and the earth to bear
witness to Hashem's covenant with the Jewish people.
At first glance, R' Shmuel of Socatchov writes, it is difficult
to see how the heavens and earth can be witnesses, when they do not
speak. (See Tehilim 19:3.) Nevertheless, the heavens and earth can
bear witness, as we see in the following Midrash:
"R' Meir said, 'In the beginning when the Jewish people were
meritorious, they testified for themselves. Later, when Bnei Yisrael
degraded themselves, the tribes of Yehuda and Binyamin testified for
everyone. Even later, the prophets had to testify for everyone.
After that, the heavens and earth had to testify.'" The Midrash
continues in this vein until it reaches the small ant, which now
"testifies" for everyone.
What does this mean? Kohelet (8:1) states, "A person's wisdom
lights up his countenance." When a person purifies himself, a
certain radiance appears on his face, not unlike the rays of light
which surrounded Moshe when he came down from Har Sinai. This is
the "testimony" that Bnei Yisrael provided for themselves. However,
when Bnei Yisrael sinned, only the worthier tribes of Yehuda and
Binyamin could still "testify" in this way. Later, only the prophets
merited this shining countenance. Even later, when prophecy ceased,
the heavens and earth took their place, in that the continued
existence of the heavens and earth testifies to the fact that the
Jews are keeping the Torah.
In light of the above idea, we can understand why the source for
the Mitzvah of "Birchot haTorah" is found for the first time in this
Parasha. The Avnei Nezer [a major 19th-century "Posek" and the
father of R' Shmuel of Socatchov] said that the purpose of Birchot
haTorah is to introduce Godliness into Torah study by distinguishing
that study from the pursuit of ordinary wisdoms. However, R' Shmuel
notes, this only became necessary as Moshe was about to die; as long
as he was alive, Hashem's "voice" emanated from Moshe's throat
(Chazal say), and the radiance of Moshe's countenance left no doubt
as to the Godliness of the subject matter. We, however, must recite
the Berachot in order to raise our Torah study to a truly meaningful
level.
(Shem miShmuel, year 5672)
************************************
At the end of last week's Parasha, Moshe is ordered to "write
down this 'Shira' - song," an apparent reference to the poem in this
Parasha. Chazal, however, understand the word "Shirah" as a
reference to the entire Torah. In what way is the Torah like a song?
It is sometimes difficult to understand how, within the Torah,
the ultimate truth, there can be room for multiplicity of opinions.
R' Baruch haLevi Epstein notes that different people, hearing the
same song, often come away with very different impressions of the
melody or the lyrics. No person is necessarily "wrong"; perhaps one
has concentrated on the string section of the orchestra, another on
the brass section, and a third on the vocalist.
The same is true of the Torah; every qualified musician has his
own contribution to make to the concert. Only when the orchestra
is heard as a whole, however, does one understand the complete work.
(Tosefet Berachah)
************************************
Sukkot
The Gemara (Sukkah 11b) offers two explanations for the Mitzvah
of Sukkah: either that our ancestors actually lived in Sukkah-like
structures during their sojourn in the desert, or that our Sukkot
are intended to remind us o the "Ananei haKavod" - the "Clouds" which
surrounded Bnei Yisrael. These explanations, the Malbim says, may
parallel two of the reasons which the Gemara (2a) gives for the
Halacha that the "Schach" may not be more than 20 "Amot" (about 32
feet) above the Sukkah's floor. One reason is that placing the
Schach too high would require building walls which are so thick, they
will almost be permanent. This is counterproductive, for the whole
purpose of the Sukkah is to remind us of the transient and temporary
nature of life in this world, as symbolized by the fact that for 40
years, our ancestors lived in temporary Sukkah-like huts.
Alternatively, the Schach should not be placed too high because then
the people eating in the Sukkah are less likely to take notice of
it, and will thus fail to be reminded of the Ananei haKavod, of which
the Schach is supposed to be reminiscent, and to be "uplifted"
thereby.
(haTorah v'haMitzvah, Vayikra 23::43)
************************************
Why, asks R' Moshe of Trani (the "Mabit"), did Hashem give us a
holiday commemorating the "Clouds" which surrounded Bnei Yisrael in
the desert, and He did not give us holidays commemorating the other
miracles which He performed, namely giving us "Mahn" to eat and a
traveling well whose waters to drink?
The answer, says the Mabit, may be that the "Ananim" were a
greater gift because they were a luxury. Without "bread" and water,
our ancestors could not have survived in the desert for forty years,
but did they really need the Clouds? The gift of the Clouds more
clearly demonstrates Hashem's kindness, and is thus more worthy of
a special holiday.
Chazal say that the Mahn fell in Moshe's merit, the well traveled
in Miriam's merit, and the clouds surrounded Bnei Yisrael in Aharon's
merit. It is interesting to note that while Moshe and Miriam
performed essential tasks -- teaching Torah to the men and women,
respectively -- Aharon's special role was as a marriage counselor
and healer of broken friendships. Similarly, bread and water are
essential, while the Clouds were important, but not necessary.
(Bet Elokim, Sha'ar haYesodot, ch.37)
************************************
R' Shlomo Zalman haKohen Kook (the father of Chief Rabbi Avraham
Yitzchak haKohen Kook) offered the following explanation for the way
we shake the Lulav while reciting the verse "Hodu Lashem...":
On "Hodu" - "praise" - we point the Lulav eastwards, for King
David wrote, "From when the sun is in the east.... Hashem's name is
praised."
On "Tov" - "good" - we point westwards, for the Gemara says that
the "Shechinah" - the epitome of goodness - resides in the west.
On "l'Olam" - "forever" - we point up, for it is written,
"Forever, Hashem, your word is found in the Heavens."
On "Chasdo" - "His kindness" - we point downwards, as it is
written, "Hashem's kindness fills the earth."
On the two times when the word "Ki" - "because" - appears we
point north and south. Chazal teach that north and south represent
wealth and wisdom, respectively, neither of which is an end in
itself, but only a means to serve Hashem. Similiarly, the word "Ki"
can never stand alone, but only serves the rest of the sentence.
(quoted in Olat Re'iyah, II p.392)
************************************
The Duke of Manheim asked R' Zvi of Berlin: "Why do children ask
the "Four Questions" on Pesach and not on Sukkot? It would appear
that Sukkot brings more changes to their lives than Pesach does!"
"On Pesach," R' Zvi answered, "the child sees everyone sitting
around the table, at ease like free men, and not like people in
exile. This arouses the child's curiosity and he asks, 'Why is this
night different?' On Sukkot, however, the child sees Jews exiled
from their homes and without a true roof over their heads. That does
not surprise him at all; Jews have always lived that way, ever since
they first went into exile."
(reprinted with permission from
A Touch of Wisdom, A Touch of Wit,
(Artscroll, 1991) p.274)
|
| 989.321 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Breishit | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Sep 26 1994 18:56 | 151 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
B'REISHIT
Vol. IX, No. 1 (385), 26 Tishrei 5755, October 1, 1994
This week's parashah tells of the creation of the world, but the
story is incomplete, and it does not really tell us how the world
was created. When pondering this, it is instructive to recall the
following teaching of Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv, the "Alter of Kelm"
zatz'l.
The Alter writes that the greatest knowledge of Hashem is lack
of knowledge. When it comes to knowing G-d, the greatest student
is the one who recognizes that he knows nothing.
We find this idea in the verses which describe how angels praise
G-d. There are several levels among angels--those known as "Ofanim"
are closer to the "Throne" than those known as "Malachim." Yet when
the latter angels praise Hashem they say, "Kadosh, kadosh, kadosh.
. ." repeating three times that Hashem is holy; the former by
contrast say simply and without fanfare, "Blessed is Hashem's honor
wherever He is." They do not claim to actually know anything about
Hashem. (HaSefer HaKattan)
************************************
"G-d saw everything that He had made and, behold, it was very
good." (1:31)
Chazal learn from a verse in BeMidbar (21:27) that there is an
obligation of self examination. However, says Rav Joseph B.
Soloveitchik zatz'l, we learn something even greater from this verse:
We learn that Hashem Himself conducted an examination of His deeds.
Accordingly, we learn that self examination is not only worthwhile,
it emulates the Divine.
(The Rav Speaks p.99)
************************************
"On the seventh day G-d completed His work which He had done. .
." (2:2)
Rav Achai Gaon writes in his Sheiltot (No. 1) that Shabbat is like
the dedication of a house; for six days Hashem builds His palace,
and every seventh day He celebrates its dedication.
With this in mind, writes Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl shlita, we can
understand why work is prohibited on Shabbat. Imagine if a king were
dedicating a palace; human nature would be that his subjects would
come and murmur among themselves, "This room is too long" or "This
ceiling is too low" or similar critiques. However, when we visit
Hashem's palace, we need to learn that we cannot possibly improve
upon His creation. Six days a week we may work at improving the
world, but on the day when we are Hashem's guests, we must be totally
at rest.
(Sichot L'Rosh HaShanah p.110)
************************************
From the Haftarah. . .
"Everyone who is called by My Name and whom I have created--for
My glory I created him. . ." (Yishayah 43:7)
Rav Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin ("Netziv") zatz'l writes that the
creation is sized precisely in order to spread Hashem's glory
throughout the world, for that is the purpose of creation. A person
is not complete if he is not fit to spread Hashem's honor to that
extent--not that every person is expected to accomplish that, but
he must be ready and willing.
(HaEmek Davar)
************************************
"A river issues forth from Eden to water the garden, and from
there it is divided and becomes four headwaters." (2:10)
The verses list four rivers. Two of these are known today by
their same names--Chidekel and Perat, i.e., the Tigris and Euphrates.
Another of these, Pishon, is identified by Rashi as the Nile.
How can it be, asks Rav Yosef Shani shlita, that the Nile shares
a source with the Tigris and Euphrates, which are on a different
continent? The answer may be found in a dispute between the sages
Rav and Shmuel regarding the first verse of Esther. One says that
the two places Hodu (India) and Kush (Ethiopia) are adjacent; the
other says that they are at far ends of the [known] world. Rav and
Shmuel are not arguing about facts, says Rav Shani. The one who says
that India and Ethiopia are adjacent is merely teaching [some 15
centuries before scientists discovered the same thing] that the
continents were at one time connected and perhaps shaped differently
than they are today.
(Afikim BaNegev)
************************************
"Hashem, Elokim, took man and placed him in the Garden of Eden
to work it and to guard it." (2:15)
Chazal say that Adam HaRishon was given 613 commandments. The
midrash learns this from the verse which states that Adam was placed
in Gan Eden "to work it"--this refers to the positive commandments--
"and to guard it"--this refers to the negative commandments.
Why then does the Torah list only one, i.e., the commandment that
Adam not eat from the Tree of Knowledge? Rav Yitzchak Hutner zatz'l
writes in a letter (No. 24) that all of Adam's 613 commandments were
parts of his one commandment. How so? We don't necessarily know.
However, he writes, we must believe the Torah and Chazal's
interpretation of it.
Moreover, he writes, we are obligated to accept and internalize
teachings such as the above (that Adam's 613 commandments were parts
of his one commandment not to eat from the Etz HaDa'at) even though
we cannot possibly picture how they could be true.
(Pachad Yitzchak: Igrot U'Chetavim)
************************************
Rav Moshe Shmuel Glasner
21 Adar I 5617 - Shemini Atzeret 5685 (1924)
Rav Moshe, a great-grandson of the Chatam Sofer, was born in
Pressburg and later moved with his family to Klausenberg, where his
father served as Rabbi. Rav Moshe succeeded his father in that post
in 1878 and filled it until 1923, when he settled in Yerushalayim.
Throughout, he was active in the Mizrachi.
Rav Moshe's best known work is Dor Revi'i on Tractate Chullin.
The title page explains that the purpose of the work is to explain
those places where Rambam's understanding of the tractate differs
from that of other Rishonim. His other works include responsa and
a Torah commentary.
In his introduction to Dor Revi'i, Rav Moshe writes that although
he was a child prodigy, his father taught him not to be haughty by
telling him that his forbearers already had paved the way for him.
In this way, he explained the last verse in our parashah, "And Noach
found favor in G-d's eyes." Since Noach was the son and grandson
of tzaddikim, he found G-d's favor ready made for him. Not so
Avraham; he had to work hard and withstand ten trials before Hashem
told him (B'reishit 22:12), "Now I know that you fear G-d."
Also in the introduction to Dor Revi'i, Rav Moshe discusses the
nature of the Oral Torah. He explains the reference in this week's
parashah (2:3) to "[G-d's] work which G-d created to make," to mean
that Hashem created the world and the Torah so that man could further
build them with his mind.
Our thanks to Dr. David Glasner for
providing material for this biography.
|
| 989.322 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Noach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Oct 04 1994 18:16 | 157 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
NOACH
Vol. IX, No. 2 (386), 3 Cheshvan 5755, October 8, 1994
In the well known Rashi at the beginning of this parashah, we
learn that some sages compared Noach favorably to Avraham, and some,
unfavorably. Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulai ("Chida") zatz'l explains
that both views are correct.
The midrash (Shocher Tov 36) relates that Avraham asked Shem the
son of Noach, "In what merit did you leave the ark?"
Shem answered, "In the merit of the charity which we performed
[caring for the animals]."
Immediately, Avraham said to himself, "If such is the reward for
caring for animals, how much greater must be the reward for caring
for humans!" At that moment, Avraham established an inn in Be'er
Sheva.
It turns out that Noach (through Shem) was a major influence on
Avraham; in that sense, Noach was the greater of the two. On the
other hand, Avraham carried the lesson which he learned to its
logical conclusion, while Noach did not. Thus Avraham was greater.
(Lechem min HaShamayim)
************************************
"For all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth." (6:12)
Rashi teaches that the above condemnation includes the animals
and even the earth itself. But how is this possible? Neither
animals nor clumps of earth have the free-will to sin!
Rav Shalom Noach Brazovsky (the Slonimer Rebbe) explains as
follows: The animals and the earth did not sin. At the time of the
flood, as on Rosh HaShanah, Hashem judged the world--does it deserve
to exist?
How does one determine that? The whole world was created for man;
if man uses it for good, the earth has a reason to exist. If (G-d
forbid) man himself has no right to continued existence, the animals
and the very soil lose their "rights" (i.e., their reason) as well.
(Netivot Shalom)
************************************
Rav Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik (the "Bet HaLevi") zatz'l
explains differently: In short, just as man's behavior affects
himself, as we can readily see, so it affects his environment. Even
if a person sins in secret, he changes the world by increasing the
presence in the world of the evil influence associated with that sin.
This, in turn, actually leads the environment to deviant behavior.
(Bet HaLevi: Parashat Noach)
************************************
The gemara (Eruvin 18b) teaches that the dove brought back a
bitter olive branch to the ark as if to say, "Let my food be bitter,
but let it come from the hand of G-d."
Rav Mordechai Shulman zatz'l asks: Don't we acknowledge in Birkat
HaMazon that we all eat from G-d's hand? What then did the dove
mean?
G-d can feed us directly or through intermediaries. But the dove
understood that feeling close to G-d is such an exalted attainment
that if a person is given a choice of working hard to achieve this
spiritual high and instead chooses the easy way out, the deficiency
created in his soul because of the great potential squandered can
never be filled. That "easy way" is receiving one's sustenance
through an intermediary. It remains a shame and embarrassment for
all eternity.
(quoted in Legacy of Slabodka, p.122)
************************************
"Hashem descended to look at the city and tower which man had
built." (11:5)
Rashi comments: Of course, Hashem did not need to descend in order
to see, but He did so to teach judges not to convict until they see
and understand.
Rav Eliezer David Gruenwald zatz'l elaborates: What Chazal are
teaching is that one should not judge another until he stands in his
shoes. This is the meaning of Tehilim 37:10, "Just a little longer
and there will be no wicked, you will contemplate his place and he
will be gone." When you will contemplate his place and stand in his
shoes, your assessment of his wickedness will change.
(Chasdei David)
************************************
"Come, let us descend, and there confuse their language, that they
should not understand one another's language." (11:7)
The gemara (Sanhedrin 109) and the Zohar teach that this was just
one of many punishments which Hashem meted out to the tower-builders.
Why then does the Torah single this out?
Rav Yoel Teitelbaum (the Satmar Rav) zatz'l explains that taking
away these people's ability to speak Hebrew was not a punishment;
it was Hashem's mechanism for stopping their plans. He explains:
When people cooperate and work out their plans in the Hebrew
language, miracles will occur for them. For that very reason,
sinners cannot be permitted to conspire in Hebrew.
(VaYoel Moshe p.433)
************************************
Noach is called "tzaddik tamim in his generations" (plural).
"Tzaddik" refers to his relationship vis-a-vis man; in the generation
of the flood, when the most common sin was theft, he was a tzaddik.
"Tamim" refers to his relationship vis-a-vis G-d; in the generation
of the flood, when the most common sin was heresy, he was a tamim.
(Kli Chemdah: Parashat Ha'azinu
in the name of HaGaon HaSephardi Mahari Ze'evi)
************************************
Rav Yosef Engel
died 1 MarCheshvan 5680 (1919)
Rav Yosef was one of the most prolific writers on Talmudic,
halachic and kabbalistic subjects of the last century. His rebbe
refused to teach him any longer when he reached the age of 12, and
between that age and his marriage at 19, he wrote eleven sefarim.
After his marriage, he lived as an illegal alien in Russian Poland
(he was born in Austrian Poland). As a result, he did not see his
family for 27 years. During this period he published his first works
Shiv'im Panim LaTorah and Lekach Tov. His only child, Miriam, was
born during this period. Her husband was the heir to the leadership
of the Kotzker chassidim, but he abdicated that position in order
to remain near his father-in-law, Rav Yosef.
In 1903, Rav Yosef published the first volume of Bet HaOtzar, a
Talmudic encyclopedia. The second volume was published in 1908, but
the manuscripts of thirty additional volumes have been lost.
At age 46, Rav Yosef left his wealthy father-in-law's home and,
for the first time, had to seek a living. He found a position--
honorable, but beneath his level--as one of several rabbinical judges
in Krakow.
Subsequently, during a debate on the court, the Av Bet Din (chief
rabbinical judge) abdicated the position and ordered Rav Yosef to
take his former seat.
During World War I, Rav Yosef fled with hundreds of other Rabbis
to Vienna. He died there and is buried there.
|
| 989.323 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Lech Lecha | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Oct 12 1994 18:55 | 150 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
LECH LECHA
Vol. IX, No. 3 (387), 10 Cheshvan 5755, October 15, 1994
The midrash states that there is no Shabbat on which we do not
read the "Parashah of Lot." Is this true? Certainly not, if the
midrash means that every week we read the story of Lot!
What the midrash means, says Rav Shimon Schwab shlita, is that
there is no week in which we do not relive the story of Lot. How
so?
When we first meet Lot he is living in the holiness and sanctity
of Avram's (Avraham's) home. He suddenly becomes wealthy and, the
next thing we know, he is living in Sdom. Similarly with us. Every
week we keep Shabbat in holiness and sanctity, but what happens the
moment Shabbat ends--do we return to the money-chase? If so, we are
reliving the Parashah of Lot. (Selected Writings p.305; Me'ayen Bet
HaSho'aivah p.29)
************************************
Rav Dovid Kronglas zatz'l quoted the Sefer Sha'arei Orah: Avraham
was known for his chessed, often translated "kindness." What is
chessed? It is anything that a person does without being forced to
do it.
Accordingly, all of Avraham's service to Hashem was chessed. He
had no teachers, and his parents did not teach him how to serve
Hashem. All that he did was voluntary, and was, so-to-speak, a
kindness to G-d.
(Sichot Chochmah U'Mussar p.16)
************************************
We read in Parashat B'reishit: "This is the story of the heavens
and the earth at their creation." The word for "at their creation"--
"b'hibar'am" --is expounded upon in several ways.
Firstly, the word has a raised letter "heh." This signifies, say
Chazal that the world is like that letter; it has a wide opening at
the bottom, and any sinner who wishes to "drop out" may do so.
Secondly, the word "hibar'am" is composed of the same Hebrew
letters as the name "Avraham." This teaches that the world was
created in anticipation of Avraham's merit.
Taken together, notes Rav Chaim Friedlander zatz'l, these two
drashot on the same word outline the choice of paths which lies
before each of us. We can be like Avraham or we can (G-d forbid)
choose to be among those who drop out.
(Siftei Chaim I p.32)
************************************
"The bird of prey descended upon the carcasses, and Avram drove
them away." (15:11)
In this vision, known as the Berit bein HaBetarim, Hashem showed
Avram (Avraham) the four nations which would enslave the Jewish
people. Each was represented by a different animal which Avram
slaughtered (i.e., the carcasses). The bird of prey represented
mashiach. Why did Avram drive it away? Because, writes Abarbanel,
Avram knew that a premature arrival of mashiach, while it would bring
some salvation to the Jews, would prevent a complete redemption.
This he wanted to prevent.
(Yeshuot Meshicho)
************************************
"Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre--they shall take their share." (14:24)
Someone once asked Rav Yehuda Horowitz of Dzikov zatz'l why he
did not make an effort to share his Torah learning with others.
"There are two kinds of soldiers," he replied. "One goes out to
war, while the other stays behind to protect the home-front. Yet
we see from the above verse that Avram (Avraham) considered the
latter equally deserving of a share in the booty. David HaMelech
too instituted this practice in his army.
"I am like that latter type of soldier. Others go out to wage
war by spreading Torah knowledge. I remain behind and protect the
home-front."
(quoted in Zecher Tzaddik L'Verachah p.91)
************************************
"Your name shall no longer be 'Avram'; your name shall be
'Avraham' because I have made you the father of nations." (17:5)
This is a commandment, which one who calls the first patriarch
"Avram" transgresses. By contrast, it is permitted to call the third
patriarch by his original name "Yaakov" (even after his name was
changed to "Yisrael"), because Hashem Himself called him that.
Why is it so terrible if one calls Avraham "Avram"? Rav Yechezkel
Abramsky zatz'l explains that the patriarch's new name signifies that
he is the father of nations, that is to say the father of converts
to Judaism. Converts are allowed to call Hashem (e.g., in prayer),
"The G-d of our fathers," because they are "children" of Avraham.
They are not, however, children of Avram.
Thus, one who calls the patriarch "Avram" in effect disowns a
portion of the Jewish people, something which is not acceptable.
(Chazon Yechezkel: Berachot 13a)
************************************
Rabbenu Asher
5010 (1250) - 15 Marcheshvan 5088 (1327)
Rabbenu Asher ben Yechiel was born in Germany and was a member
of one of the most distinguished rabbinic families of the Middle
Ages. Among his ancestors was Rabbenu Gershom Me'or HaGolah ("The
Light of the Exile"), best-known in popular circles for his
enactments banning polygamy and forbidding divorce without the wife's
consent.
Rabbenu Asher continued the tradition of his illustrious
ancestors, both through his own works and through his eight sons.
The most famous of these were Rabbenu Yaakov, author of the Tur
Shulchan Aruch, Rav Yechiel, the principal teacher of Rabbenu Yaakov,
and Rav Yehudah, who left behind many responsa from his tenure as
a rabbi in Toledo.
Rabbenu Asher, generally known by the acronym "Rosh," was one of
the leading students of R' Meir of Rothenburg. After his teacher's
death (while a hostage) and the murder of a colleague, Rabbenu
Mordechai, by Crusaders ym"sh, Rosh decided to leave Germany. He
arrived in Spain in 1306, and, with the help of Rav Shlomo Aderet
("Rashba"), was appointed Rabbi of Toledo. Rosh and Rashba, the
leading scholars of their respective countries, had been
corresponding for years.
Rosh's major work is his halachic compilation, found in our
editions of the Talmud immediately following the tractate itself.
This work is a major source of the law down to our time. Also found
in our editions of the Talmud are Rosh's commentaries to several
tractates, notably Nedarim, Nazir, and Tamid. Among his other works
are a commentary on the Torah and a short ethical treatise entitled
Orchot Chaim.
When Rosh settled in Spain he brought with him the study method
of the German and French scholars known as the "Ba'alei Tosfot."
The Tosfot HaRosh, his own work in this style, is regularly used to
elucidate the meaning of those Tosfot which are printed alongside
the gemara.
|
| 989.324 | Translate "toldot" please | HAMAN::GROSS | The bug stops here | Wed Oct 12 1994 23:36 | 18 |
| > We read in Parashat B'reishit: "This is the story of the heavens
>and the earth at their creation."
By coincidence, I have a question involving just this passage. So I'll
ask it even though this week's portion is not involved.
If I have it right, the Hebrew word "Toldot" is here translated as "story".
If so, I have also seen this word translated as "generations" or "products".
I have learned this word is related to the word "Yeled" (child). Can anyone
comment on the best translation for this word?
Also: "Toldot" is the name of a parasha coming up real soon. I was told that
the parashot are named after the first unique word (or phrase) in the portion.
However, parasha Noach (Noah) has the word "toldot" preceeding the word
"Noach" -- as in "This is the story of Noah...". Why did the story of
Isaac get the name "Toldot" and not the story of Noah?
Dave
|
| 989.325 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Oct 13 1994 01:50 | 5 |
| The meaning of words often depends on context. "Toldot" is a good example.
It makes sense to name the parasha Noach since it's the only parasha that
talks about him and his story is a big chunk of the parasha. Yitzchak is
a major figure in several parshiyot.
|
| 989.326 | Vayera: The World of Sodom | TAV02::JEREMY | | Mon Oct 17 1994 23:28 | 72 |
| A thought about Sodom. Rashi (Gen 18:24 ff.) says that the reason
Abraham began his negotiation on behalf of Sodom with fifty
righteous people, was due to the fact that there were five "bor-
oughs" (_kerachim_) in Sodom, and each required a quorum of ten
for its salvation. He then asked if forty-five would do the
trick, meaning nine for each borough, G-d Himself being counted
as the tenth. Having received a positive answer, Abraham asked if
four of the boroughs could be saved if there were only four sets
of quorums (quora?), and so forth.
Rashi further explains that Abraham did not ask if less than a
_minyan_ could save Sodom because he knew it couldn't from the
fact that there were eight _tzaddikim_ in Noah's time (Noah, his
three sons, plus four wives), and the world was destroyed
nonetheless.
Question: if ten _tzaddikim_ (or even nine) would have saved the
*entire world* in Noah's time, why on earth would the same number
be required to save not even a whole city, but only each of its
puny boroughs!?
Our Sages in the Midrash ask the following question: how could
G-d have destroyed Sodom? Did He not make a solemn oath never to
destroy all flesh again (Gen 9:11 ff.)? The answer given is that
the oath pertained to a deluge of water, but Sodom was destroyed
by a deluge of fire.
What kind of question is this? What is the comparison between the
destruction of the solitary city of Sodom and that of the entire
world? Why answer that one was fire and one water--the implica-
tion being that destroying Sodom with fire would have constituted
a broken oath on the part of the Almighty--there's a much simpler
answer: G-d promised never to destroy the world again; he said
nothing about individual cities.
What was the sin of Sodom? G-d says to Abraham (Gen 18:20):
The cry of Sodom and Amora is great (rabba)...
The Talmud (Sanh. 109b) relates the word _rabba_ to the word for
young girl (_riva_), and tells the story of the horrible death of
Plotit, daughter of Lot at the hands of the Sodomites for the
"sin" of offering water to a thirsty man. What was the root of
the Sodomite wickedness? They wanted no strangers in Sodom,
period. They were the Xenophobes par excellence. They wished to
keep their wealth to themselves, and literally to hell with the
rest of the world (see Avot 5:10, "what's mine is mine and what's
yours is yours...some say this is the characteristic of Sodom").
Sodom had effected (and even codified in their local statutes) an
absolute divorce from the rest of the world.
What is the special "merit" of ten _tzaddikim_ which would have
saved the entire world in Noah's time? On one level, the answer
is simple: a group, even a group as small as ten which is totally
dedicated to righteousness can serve as models for multitudes,
and literally have the potential to change the entire world. The
world was a rotten place in Noah's time, but the main sin was
theft (cf. Gen. 6:13). As bad as this is, it still implies a cer-
tain openness in society, leaving the door open for even the
criminals to be influenced for the better should a righteous per-
son or group come along who would strike a chord and inspire re-
pentence.
The same _minyan_ which might have inspired a world-wide spiritu-
al revolution in Noah's time could not even get beyond the county
line in Sodom, however, so hermetically sealed was even one re-
gion in Sodom from another. Sodom was literally a world apart,
impervious to any influence whatsoever. If "...the world is built
by kindness...(Ps. 89:3)," the G-d forbid its destruction is
brought about by the opposite.
Yehoshua
|
| 989.327 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayera | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Oct 24 1994 19:02 | 158 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
VAYERA
Vol. IX, No. 4 (387), 17 Cheshvan 5755, October 22, 1994
The midrash relates that Hashem appeared to Avraham on Mamre's
property because Mamre had advised Avraham to circumcise himself.
But why had Avraham asked for advice?
Rav Aryeh "Leibchik" Broida zatz'l (brother of the "Alter of
Kelm") notes that sometimes people experience some sudden stimulus
which leads them to perform a mitzvah on an emotional high. Such
a spiritual experience, however, will not lead to consistent
observance; consistency requires an intellectual commitment.
(For example, Rav Leibchik writes, people have an instinctive
emotional objection to speaking Lashon HaRa of the dead. However,
this does not carry-over to preventing the much graver sin of speak
evil of the living.)
When Hashem told Avraham to circumcise himself, Avraham was deeply
moved. But he knew that the mitzvah should not be performed out of
such feelings. Therefore, he went to his friends Aner, Eshkol and
Mamre and talked it over with them until his emotional high had
"worn-off."
Another midrash states that we might not know which is greater--
the deeds of the righteous or the deeds of the wicked; therefore the
Torah tells us that the deeds of the righteous are greater. Rav
Leibchik explains this strange midrash in light of the above. We
might not know which is greater--the consistent goodness of the
righteous or the sudden righteousness of the wicked. The Torah
teaches us, therefore, that consistency is the greater good.
************************************
"His wife looked behind him, and she became a pillar of salt."
(19:26)
Why were Lot and his family not permitted to witness S'dom's
destruction? Rav Kook zatz'l explains that the effect on a person
of witnessing a sinner's punishment depends upon the person's own
standing. If one is basically righteous, witnessing the sinner's
punishment will encourage a person to improve himself even more.
However, if one is mired in evil--as Lot and his family were--it is
better that he does not see his friends' end. This is because the
threat of punishment can be more intimidating than the punishment
itself; if one knows what he is contending with, he may convince
himself that he can withstand it.
(Ein Ayah: Berachot Ch.9, No.11)
************************************
"Avraham arose early in the morning, to the place where he had
stood before Hashem." (19:27)
From this verse, the gemara (Berachot 6b) derives that one should
have a fixed place for prayer. Why is this necessary? asks Rav
Gavriel zatz'l (uncle of Rav Chaim Chizkiyah Medini, author of Sdei
Chemed). After all, Hashem is everywhere!
This may be answered with an example from everyday life. Even
people who own fine china and crystal also own cheaper dishes, but
only the former are kept on display. Assigning something a prominent
place is a sign that that thing is valued.
Similarly, assigning a fixed place to prayer and keeping that
place clean and respectable is a sign that one values prayer. This,
in turn has a positive effect on the manner and efficacy of one's
prayer.
(quoted by Rav Medini in his
Kuntres Nitzchiyut Yosef)
************************************
"[H]e split wood for the offering. . ." (22:3)
The wood which Avraham chopped for the akeidah obtained the status
of hekdesh--something set aside for service of G-d. Avraham later
used this wood for sacrificing the ram which he offered in place of
Yitzchak. This teaches, writes Rav Eliezer David Gruenwald zatz'l,
that man's good intentions are equivalent to good deeds. Avraham
could burn the ram with the wood that had been set aside for
sacrificing Yitzchak because sacrificing the ram was equivalent in
G-d's eyes to offering Yitzchak.
In light of this, we can understand the midrash which teaches that
the Yam Suf split for the Jews because Avraham burned the ram.
Chazal say that the prosecuting angel argued before G-d that the sea
should not split; the Jews did not deserve it. However, explains
Rav Gruenwald, Hashem looked at the Jews' intentions rather than at
their deeds. If they had not been persecuted so, they would have
served Hashem even in Egypt.
(Chasdei David p.107)
************************************
Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulai zatz'l ("Chida") writes that Ephraim
(Yosef's son) was named after Avraham and Yitzchak. How so?
"Ephraim" means "two ashes"--it refers to the ashes of Avraham which
Hashem keeps before Him, as if Avraham had given his life in Nimrod's
furnace, and to the ashes of Yitzchak, as if Yitzchak had died in
the akeidah. [Hashem views righteous thoughts as deeds--see above.]
(Midbar Kedemot)
************************************
Rav Shlomo Aharon Wertheimer zatz'l explains further that the
trials of Nimrod's furnace and of the akeidah complement each other.
On the one hand, if Avraham had sacrificed Yitzchak, he would have
had to live with the pain for the rest of his life. Not so
(obviously) if he had given his own life. On the other hand, there
are some individuals who would do anything to save their own lives
(see Iyov 2:4), so perhaps the furnace was the greater trial.
Avraham, however, passed both types of tests.
(MiKedem L'Ayin)
************************************
Rav Rephael Hamburger
born 24 Marcheshvan 5482 (1721) - died 26 Marchesvan 5564 (1803)
Rav Rephael ben Yekutiel Ziskind HaKohen, a descendant of Rav
Mordechai Yaffe (author of Levushim) and an ancestor of the Chafetz
Chaim, was a leading student of Rav Aryeh Leib Gunzberg, author of
Sha'agat Aryeh. Rav Rephael was an extremely gifted child, and his
father took great care to guide him in the path of Torah, especially
after the child's miraculous recovery from a nearly fatal illness
at the age of ten.
After that illness, young Rephael became a student of Rav Aryeh
Leib, who was then in Minsk. Seven (some say nine) years later,
despite his youth, Rav Rephael was named Rosh Yeshiva in place of
his teacher, who had resigned. This illustrious position was
followed by others, culminating in the Rabbinate of the so-called
"Triple Cities"--Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbeck. He was appointed
to that position on 27 Nissan 5536 (1776).
In 1799, Rav Rephael resigned, explaining that he wanted to spend
the last years of his life taking extra care to avoid listening to
Lashon Hara. This, he felt, would be impossible as a practicing
Rabbi. Even before that, every visitor to Rav Rephael would be warmly
welcomed but, at the same time, admonished not to speak Lashon Hara.
Rav Rephael composed several works, including Torat Yekutiel,
Marpeh Lashon, and She'eilot U'Teshuvot V'Shav HaKohen. Certain
Reformers who were enemies of Rav Rephael persuaded a leading sage
of the generation to publish his notes on the work Torat Yekutiel.
They then intercepted the manuscript on its way to the publisher and
altered its respectful tone to one of degradation and insult towards
Rav Rephael.
When Rav Rephael resigned his last rabbinical position, the King
of Denmark (in whose realm the Triple Cities then were) wrote to him
expressing his sorrow at the news of the Rabbi's retirement and
thanking him for his activities on behalf of his people and humanity
in general.
|
| 989.328 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Chayei Sarah | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Oct 26 1994 17:38 | 142 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
CHAYEI SARAH
Vol. IX, No. 5 (389), 24 Marcheshvan 5755, October 29, 1994
Rashi writes that Sarah died when she heard that Yitzchak was
"almost not slaughtered." Many commentators struggle to explain this
strange language, which implies that Yitzchak was indeed killed, but
that Sarah died because she thought he had not been! According to
one explanation, Sarah thought that Yitzchak was spared from being
sacrificed because G-d found him unfit. That disappointment killed
her; there was no purpose to her being a parent other than to raise
a child who would find favor in G-d's eyes.
(In fact, however, G-d accepted Avraham's offering, as though
Yitzchak was actually killed. This is why we find allusions in our
prayers to the "ashes of Yitzchak.")
Some say that Sarah thought that Yitzchak had been killed. But
as great as it is to die al kiddush Hashem (sanctifying G-d's Name),
it is even greater to live al kiddush Hashem. Sarah was disappointed
that Yitzchak was not (she thought) found worthy of that.
************************************
This parashah reminds us that events do not always unfold as we
would wish, says Rav Elazar Shach shlita. But we should not
complain. Hashem's ways are beyond our grasp.
Hashem promised Avraham that all of Eretz Yisrael would be his.
Nevertheless, when it was time to bury Sarah, Avraham had to purchase
a plot, and at an exorbitant price to boot. Yet Avraham did not
complain, and we should learn from his example.
(Michtavim U'Ma'amarim)
************************************
In the progression of verses describing Eliezer's encounter with
Rivkah, we see that only after she offered him lodgings did he thank
Hashem for sending him the right wife for Yitzchak. Why, asks Rav
Joseph B. Soloveitchik zatz'l, was this so important? Why was the
quality of welcoming strangers so valued in Avraham's house?
When a Jew senses that he is far from perfection; that he cannot
always show others the way; that he has much to learn from others,
from strangers; that others, though they are less than he, can tell
him something new--then every guest is important, since by means of
every man one might discover fresh insight into eternal truth.
On the other hand, if one is convinced of his own righteousness,
of his scholarship, and of his wisdom, he will have no room for
guests.
(The Rav Speaks p.159)
************************************
"These are the years of Avraham which he lived..." (25:7)
What do the words "which he lived" add? They teach that although
Avraham was a Ba'al Teshuvah, and some of his years were wasted as
a pagan, his later accomplishments were so great that all of his
years are considered equal.
(Rav Moshe Feinstein zatz'l)
************************************
"Lavan and Betuel replied. . ." (25:40)
Lavan is considered to be a rasha because he spoke before his
father. What did he do wrong? asks Rav Shimon Schwab shlita.
Honoring one's parents is not one of the Seven Noachide Commandments!
The answer is that honoring one's parents--aside from being a
mitzvah--is a matter of derech eretz (common courtesy) and hakarat
hatov (gratitude). When Rabbi Elazar's students asked him how far
the mitzvah of honoring parents goes (as recounted in the Talmud),
he related to them the story of a non-Jew who was willing to forfeit
a fortune rather than wake up his father. What Rabbi Elazar was
teaching, Rav Schwab explains, was that this man's actions are merely
what common courtesy and gratitude require (otherwise, as a non-Jew,
he would not have acted so). That, however, is only the foundation
for the obligation to honor parents which the Torah places upon us.
(Selected Writings p.290)
************************************
"These were the years of Yishmael's life. . . over all his
brothers he dwelt ("nafal"). And these are the offspring of
Yitzchak. . . ." (25:17-19)
These verses from this parashah and the next have been said to
be an allusion to the Balfour Declaration (which was announced this
week in 1917):
"These were the years of Yishmael's life" is a reference to the
Ottoman Empire, most of whose subjects descended from Yishamel.
"Over all his brothers he dwelt" is a reference to the vast area
of that Empire. Also, the use of the word "nafal" (which also means
"fell") for dwelt can allude to the Ottoman Empire's falling in a
war of brothers, i.e., World War I, which pitted most of the nations
in the civilized world against each other.
"And these are the offspring of Yitzchak," the ascendancy of
Yitzchak's offspring, is the aftermath of that war.
(heard from Rabbi Julius Hyatt shlita)
************************************
Rav Chaim of Volozhin
Born in Volozhin in 1749, Rav Chaim studied with the two sages
who served as that town's rabbis in his childhood: Rav Refael Hakohen
Hamburger (see his biography in last week's Hamaayan) and Rav Leib
Ginzburg, author of Sha'agat Aryeh. From age 19, Rav Chaim studied
under the "Vilna Gaon". Though Rav Chaim was appointed Rabbi of
Volozhin in 1783 (and held that position for all but one of his
remaining years), he still spent considerable amounts of time with
his teacher, studying Talmud, halachah, and kabbalah, and presenting
questions that had arisen in his own studies.
Rav Chaim was the primary heir of the Vilna Gaon. Not only did
his yeshiva popularized the Gaon's method of Torah study, every
aspect of his behavior was patterned after the Gaon's teachings.
Like the Gaon, Rav Chaim was a leader of the mitnagdim (opponents
of the nascent chassidic movement), although slightly more moderate
in his views towards that group.
Rav Chaim's best known work, Nefesh HaChaim, is a treatise on the
way to serve Hashem, and is implicitly a response to the chassidic
movement. (Essentially, the difference between the two approaches
is in the relative weight assigned to Torah study versus prayer, and
also in the content of one's study. A mitnaged places greater
emphasis on halachah; a chassid, on mussar (ethics) and kabbalah.
Today, many of the most serious differences between the two groups
have disappeared.)
In 1802, Rav Chaim founded the Volozhin yeshiva, "The Mother of
Yeshivot." Not only was this the first yeshiva (as we know them),
most later Yeshivot based their approach on Volozhin's.
|
| 989.329 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Toldot | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Nov 02 1994 20:13 | 148 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
TOLDOT
Vol. IX, No. 6 (390), 2 Kislev 5755, November 5, 1994
The Torah tells us that both Yitzchak and Rivkah prayed for
children, but that Hashem accepted Yitzchak's prayer. "The prayer
of a tzaddik [Rivkah] who is the child of a rasha [Betuel] cannot
be compared with the prayer of a tzaddik [Yitzchak] who is the son
of a tzaddik [Avraham]," Chazal explain.
At first glance, the opposite should be true, says Rav Moshe
Sternbuch shlita, for the child of a rasha has the merit of fending
off bad influences. But it is not so; the son of a tzaddik has to
work even harder in order to be a tzaddik in his own right. Chazal
are teaching that it is easier to reject the influence of family
members such as Betuel and Lavan than it is to build upon the
righteousness of parents like Avraham and Sarah.
There is a very important lesson here: A person should never rest
on his laurels. Being a tzaddik is a continuous growth process.
(Ta'am VaDa'at)
************************************
"These are the children of Yitzchak the son of Avraham, Avraham
fathered Yitzchak." (25:19)
In his own eyes, Yitzchak's only worth was that he was the son
of Avraham. For his part, Avraham felt that, of all he had done,
his only meaningful legacy was leaving behind a righteous son. Each
of these Patriarchs was very humble in his assessment of his own
deeds.
(Rav Yechiel of Alexander zatz'l)
************************************
"He cheated me twice--he took my birthright. . ." (27:36)
Esav complained to Yitzchak that Yaakov took the birthright by
trickery, taking advantage of Esav's hunger. Rav Yehuda Zev Segal
zatz'l notes that in Parashat Vayechi we learn that Yaakov saw events
very differently. We read there (48:22, as interpreted in Bava Batra
123a), that Yaakov related to Yosef that he took the birthright
through prayer.
What was Yaakov teaching Yosef? It may appear that Esav
fortuitously came to Yaakov in a famished state and agreed to trade
the birthright for some lentils, but that is not what happened.
Yaakov had been praying that the birthright would be his, and Esav's
hunger was merely the tool that Hashem used to answer Yaakov's
prayers.
(Yirah VaDa'at I p.29)
************************************
"And you [Yaakov] shall remain with him [Lavan] a short while,
until your brother's wrath is calmed. Until your brother's anger
subsides from you...." (27:44-45)
What is the meaning of the apparent repetition in these verses?
Rav Yitzchak of Volozhin asked. A certain test to determine if your
friend is angry at you is to examine your deepest feelings towards
him. "People's faces are like water," Chazal said, meaning that they
reflect the feelings of those with whom they interact.
How was Yaakov to know when Esav's wrath had been calmed? When
his brother's anger had subsided, i.e. when he [Yaakov] felt no anger
towards Esav, he would know that it was safe to return.
(Peh Kadosh)
************************************
Rav Yechezkel Levenstein zata'l taught: The Torah's account of
Yaakov's receiving the blessings which Yitzchak had planned to give
to Esav demonstrates the delicate balance between our obligation to
place our trust in G-d (i.e. emunah) and our obligation to act on
our own behalf.
Rivkah knew prophetically that Yaakov was to receive the blessings
and that his attempt to deceive Yitzchak would not result in his
being cursed (as Yaakov feared). Furthermore, it is evident that
a great miracle was occurring at this time: Yaakov and Esav were
63 years old at the time of this episode, and Yitzchak was still
unable to tell them apart! (Even his blindness should not have had
such an effect after living together with Yaakov and Esav for more
than six decades.) The only possible explanation is that it was
Hashem's intention that Yaakov should receive the blessings, and He
therefore "blinded" Yitzchak's other senses, as well. Even though
Yitzchak tried to identify the person who stood before him claiming
to be Esav, and even though Yitzchak recognized Yaakov's voice,
Hashem ensured that Yitzchak would nevertheless be fooled.
Despite all of this, Yaakov was constantly afraid of being
recognized. Despite the prophecy that was revealed to his mother
(see above), he took the precaution of dressing in Esav's clothes
and covering his arms with hairy goats' skins. Why? Because despite
the fact that all emanates from Hashem, a person is obligated to
strive on his own behalf.
There are two reasons for this. Firstly, a person thus becomes
a "partner" with Hashem in the running of the world. Also, this is
Hashem's way of increasing the reward of those who do reach true
emunah. As long as man appears to succeed based on his own efforts,
emunah is more difficult to achieve, and therefore more rewarding.
When a tzaddik or talmid chacham dies, everybody feels the loss.
It seems as if a certain amount of Torah and spirituality are lost
forever. However, this is not true. This is only a test devised
by Hashem, designed to see who will make the added effort required
to grow spiritually now that an obvious source of support is gone.
So, too, Hashem hides the aid that He gives us, making it appear as
if we are alone, waiting to see who will find Him.
(Ohr Yechezkel, Vol. 3, pp. 115-116)
************************************
Rav David Luria
born 1796/7 - died 5 Kislev 5615 (1855)
Rav David Luria was neither a communal rabbi nor a rosh yeshiva,
but he is well known as a commentator on gemara and midrash. His
commentaries are known as "Radal"--the acronym of "Rav David Luria."
He also composed halachic responsa and a commentary on Rambam's
Mishneh Torah.
Rav David was a student of Vilna's rabbi, Rav Shaul
Katzenellenbogen. At Rav Shaul's request, Rav David was blessed by
Rav Chaim Volozhin that he would achieve great fame.
Radal's dedication to learning was legendary. It is said that
he did not sleep more than one hour during the short summer nights
and three hours in the winter, in addition to an afternoon nap of
precisely 12 minutes. Also unparalleled was his joy at each new
sefer he acquired.
In 1854, he was offered the rabbinate of Warsaw. He refused this
position despite the encouragement of the Gerrer Rebbe that he take
it. However, Rav David did involve himself in communal needs,
including a meeting in 1846 (together with Rav Yitzchak of Volozhin)
with Sir Moses Montiefore.
(Sir Moses was a wealthy, observant British Jew who lobbied for
Jewish causes around the world, most notably in Russia and Syria.
His vast wealth also supported many Jewish settlers and institutions
in 19th century Eretz Yisrael.)
|
| 989.330 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayetze | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Nov 10 1994 20:49 | 146 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
VAYETZE
Vol. IX, No. 7 (391), 9 Kislev 5755, November 12, 1994
At the Pesach seder, we point out that Pharaoh planned to kill
only the Jewish males, while Lavan sought to uproot Yaakov's entire
family. Why do we use that occasion to downplay Pharaoh's evil?
Rav Eliezer David Gruenwald zatz'l explains: Hashem has promised
that the Jewish people will never be destroyed. Thus, for example,
when Hashem told Moshe that He would kill Bnei Yisrael and rebuild
the nation from Moshe's progeny, Moshe said, "Erase me from Your
book." Moshe meant, "Kill me too, so there will be no one left."
Moshe knew that Hashem could never do that, and would have to forgive
Bnei Yisrael.
In contrast, a decree against some--even most--of the Jews can
succeed [as we have unfortunately seen]. Pharaoh knew this; Lavan
did not. When Lavan attempted to uproot the Jews entirely, he could
not succeed. Pharaoh, however, was more evil--he devised a plan that
had a chance of success. (Chasdei David)
************************************
". . .if He will give me bread to eat and clothes to wear. . .
and Hashem will be an Elokim to me." (28:20-21)
In one of the Shabbat zemirot we say, "Draw Your kindness to me,
G-d Who is vengeful." The Ba'al Shem Tov used to explain, writes
Rav Eliezer David Gruenwald zatz'l, that one way which Hashem
punishes the righteous is with His kindness. The guilt which the
tzaddik feels at receiving kindness of which he is unworthy is the
greatest punishment.
This is what Yaakov prayed here. "Elokim" is the Name of G-d
which denotes justice. "When Hashem metes out justice to me, let
it be through 'bread to eat and clothes to wear'."
************************************
"She bore a son and declared, 'This time let me thank Hashem';
therefore she called him Yehudah, then she stopped giving birth."
(29:35)
Why did Leah stop giving birth at this point? asks Rav Eliezer
David Gruenwald zatz'l. Because she said, "This time let me thank
Hashem." She thanked Hashem only for the present, but she did not
pray for the future. (Leah did have more children later, but the
Torah points out that there was a break here.)
Not so Rachel. She said, "May Hashem add (yosef) another son to
me."
In light of this we may understand the verse in Hallel, "I will
raise a cup of salvation and call out in G-d's Name." At the same
time that one raises a cup of salvation in gratitude, one must call
out to G-d for future assistance.
[This idea is found also in Rav Chaim Eliezer Shapira's Divrei
Torah in the name of the "Chozeh of Lublin."]
************************************
"If G-d will be with me, will guard me on this way that I am going
(28:20)
Why did Yaakov refer to "this way that I am going" rather than
just "this way"? Rav Chaim of Czernowitz zatz'l explains that Yaakov
was minimizing his request and emphasizing that his vow would take
effect even if Hashem guarded him only a little bit.
How so? Chazal say that at its earliest stage the yetzer hara
is called "one who is going." When the yetzer hara becomes more
entrenched in a person it is called a "visitor." We see that "one
who is going" refers to a very short stay, even less than a "visit,"
and this is what Yaakov planned his trip to Charan to be. He said,
"If Hashem will protect me, even if it is only during a very short
stay , my vow will take effect and I will be indebted to Hashem."
(Be'er Mayim Chaim)
************************************
"She ran and she told her father." (29:12)
Rashi explains that Rachel ran to tell her father of Yaakov's
arrival because Rachel's mother was deceased. Otherwise, it is the
nature of a girl (especially in Middle Eastern societies) to run to
her mother.
Ramban writes that Rachel went to her father because Yaakov was
his relative. Why would her mother care that Yaakov had arrived?!
Which of these is p'shat, the "plain meaning" of the verse, of
which Chazal said, "No verse ceases to have a p'shat"? Both, says
Rav Isaac Sher zatz'l. There is not necessarily one p'shat; rather
there are multiple plain meanings corresponding to the multiple
levels on which readers may find themselves.
To the uninitiated, who is not familiar with Chazal's system for
understanding verses [including the fact that every nuance of the
Torah's language suggests inferences that we should make], Ramban's
p'shat is the simpler one. After all, the Torah does not say that
Rachel's mother had died! But Rashi's statement is also p'shat--why
would the Torah tell us to whom Rachel spoke, if not so that we could
infer that her mother had died? Rashi's explanation is indeed
superior to Ramban's because there is no reason for Rachel's mother
to be disinterested that her husband's nephew was visiting!
(Kuntres Talmud Torah in Lekket Sichot Mussar)
************************************
Rav Eliezer Lau
born 23 Shevat 5599 (1839) - died 14 Kislev 5678 (1917)
Rav Eliezer was a scion of a prominent Hungarian rabbinical
family. His great-grandfather and namesake was a Galician rabbi of
renown and author of numerous works. These included Shemen Rokeach
(responsa), Torat Chessed (Talmudic principles), and Sha'ari Deah
(halachah).
Rav Eliezer's grandfather was Rav Binyamin Ze'ev, rabbi and rosh
yeshiva in Verbau. He wrote Sha'arei Torah.
The next generation was Rav Yirmiyah Lau, rabbi of Ohel. Until
a decade before Rav Yirmiyah's arrival, that town had been the seat
of a leading chassidic court (which today is Satmar). Its rabbis,
however, including Rav Yirmiyah Lau, were fervent mitnagdim.
Rav Eliezer was a child prodigy, and began to receive marriage
proposals when he was 13 years old. (He married at 19.) After his
marriage, he went into business while leading advanced Torah classes
as well. Upon his father's death, he became rabbi of Ohel. Later
he became rabbi of Ungvar.
In Ungvar, Rav Eliezer established a yeshiva. He also was active
on behalf of the poor of Eretz Yisrael. Particularly interesting
was his lobbying the government so that Jewish students in public
schools would be excused from writing on Shabbat. (He was
successful.) In the eyes of most Jews of the time, a family which
sent its children to public school did not deserve any assistance
from the community.
After Rav Eliezer's passing, his son published his Pekudat
Eliezer.
|
| 989.331 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayishlach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Nov 17 1994 18:55 | 139 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
VAYISHLACH
Vol. IX, No. 8 (392), 16 Kislev 5755, November 19, 1994
We read in this parashah that Yaakov had the name "Yisrael" given
to him. But unlike Avraham, whose name was changed, Yaakov had a
name added.
Rav Chananiah Yom Tov Lipa Teitlebaum (the Sigheter Rebbe)
explains that the name "Yaakov" had to be retained because Bnei
Yisrael were destined to sin and to be exiled. That name symbolizes
that Hashem--represented by the letter "yud" in "Yaakov"--descends
into the depths--represented by the word "eikev" (heel) in "Yaakov"--
together with the Jewish people. Hashem, so-to-speak, suffers with
us.
David HaMelech writes (Tehilim 124:1), "If not that Hashem had
been with me, I would say, 'Yisrael'." As was said, the name
"Yaakov" symbolizes that Hashem is with us in exile. If not for that
fact, Yaakov's name would have been changed to "Yisrael" and "Yaakov"
would not have been retained. (Kedushat Yom Tov, Parashat Toldot)
************************************
"I have become small from all the kindness which You have done
for Your servant." (32:11)
A person's obligation to serve G-d is proportional to what G-d
gives him. For example, there is a mitzvah of ma'aser (tithes).
Who does a greater deed--the one who has 1,000 bushels and gives 99
(i.e., 9.9%) or the one who has ten bushels and gives one (10%)?
The answer is that the latter has performed the mitzvah, and the
former--who gave 99 times as much--has sinned.
Yaakov said here, "In the past, I tried to serve You in a manner
commensurate with Your kindness towards me. But lately, You have
done so much for me that my deeds are too small."
(based on Chovot HaLevavot:
Sha'ar Avodat Elokim ch.6)
Rav Yoel Teitlebaum (the Satmar Rav) offers another interpretation
of this verse: Yaakov became smaller in his own eyes as a result
of G-d's kindness. How so?
We read in the Tehilim, "Hashem is a vengeful G-d; a vengeful G-d
appears." The Ba'al Shem Tov explains that G-d can punish a person
by "appearing" to him and making him realize against whom he has
sinned. Such a person's feelings at that moment would be analogous
to a child's shame when he realizes that the person at whom he has
been playfully throwing stones is the king.
Thus said Yaakov, "I have become small and filled with shame by
all the undeserved kindness which You have done for me."
(Nedivut Lev quoting Divrei Yoel)
************************************
[In this parashah we read of the continuing confrontation between
Yaakov and Esav. We also read of Esav's grandson, Amalek, the arch-
nemesis of the Jewish people in all generations. An important battle
in that "war" was the Purim story; here--despite its being
unseasonal--we present a comment of the late Rav Shlomo Goren on
Megilat Esther.]
We read in the megillah that Esther asked Achashveirosh for
permission to continue the battle in Shushan for a second day. Why?
We can assume that she knew that there were Amalekites remaining in
the city,and she wished to have a second chance to root them out.
Rambam writes that since the time of Sancheirev (late in the first
Temple period), we do not know who the Amalekites are. How then did
Esther know? One possibility, says Rav Goren, is that the Jews used
kabbalistic means, as discussed by Ramban (Breishit 5:2). However,
there is a simpler explanation, and one which will allow us to
understand an enigmatic verse in Megilat Esther.
The megillah says that Esther wrote to the Jewish people telling
them that the King had given them permission to defend themselves
(8:10) and also that they should be prepared for the battle (8:13).
What was this preparation? Says Rav Goren: It stands to reason that
Haman did not expect the Persians to rise up spontaneously on the
13th of Adar and wipe out all of the Jews. He must have made plans,
including dividing-up Jewish neighborhoods, assigning block captains,
and so on. Very likely, his cohorts even started visiting Jewish
houses to inventory the booty which they expected to collect. And
all of these plans would have identified the individuals involved.
What Esther obtained from Achashveirosh was more than permission
for the Jews to defend themselves. She was given all of Haman's
property, including these documents. She, in turn, sent them to the
Jews in the provinces with orders to study them and know who the
Amalekites were.
(Moadei Yisrael)
************************************
Rav Shlomo Goren
born 5677 (1917) - died 24 Marcheshvan 5755 (1994)
Rav Shlomo Goren, the fourth Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Israel,
passed away three weeks ago on Shabbat Parashat Chayei Sarah. Born
in Poland, he was brought to Eretz Yisrael at age eight. His
teachers included Israel's (then Palestine's) first Ashkenazic Chief
Rabbi, Rav Kook. Rav Goren's father-in-law was Rav David Cohen (the
"Nazir"), one of the leading students of Rav Kook.
Rav Goren also obtained a secular education at the Hebrew
University.
In 1948, Rav Goren was named Chief Rabbi of Tzahal (Israel Defense
Forces). In that capacity, he was immersed in the area of hetter
agunot--finding means to permit widows of MIAs to remarry. He worked
closely with leading poskim such as Rav Zvi Pesach Frank, Rav
Yitzchak Herzog, and the Chazon Ish. In addition, he made many trips
behind cease fire lines, into Arab-occupied territories, interviewing
Jordanian Legionnaires, bedouins, and Arab shepherds who might have
information about missing Israeli soldiers.
Following the Six-Day War, Rav Goren was elected Chief Rabbi of
Tel Aviv. Thereafter, he was elected Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of
Israel. Many criticized the overtly political character of that
election.
Rav Goren's works include Meishiv Milchamah (halachot of war,
hetter agunot, and burial), Har HaBayit (laws pertaining to the
Temple Mount), Torat HaShabbat V'haMoed (laws of Shabbat and yom
tov), and Moadei Yisrael (studies in the halachah and philosophy of
the holidays).
In the last years of his life, Rav Goren returned to public life.
In connection with the current "peace process," he publicized a psak
(halachic ruling) that the laws of the Torah take precedence over
military commands and that Israeli soldiers must mutiny rather than
forcibly remove settlers from any part of Eretz Yisrael. (A dvar
Torah by Rav Goren appears on page 3.)
|
| 989.332 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayeshev | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Nov 23 1994 23:35 | 129 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
VAYEISHEV
Vol. IX, No. 9 (393), 23 Kislev 5755, November 26, 1994
The Torah relates that Yaakov was inconsolable after Yosef's
disappearance. Chazal say that the 22 years of Yosef's absence were
in kind for the 22 years that Yaakov was away from home and did not
honor his parents.
Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv zatz'l (the "Alter of Kelm") notes that what
G-d chose as a fitting punishment for Yaakov was ignorance, i.e.,
that Yaakov was ignorant of Yosef's fate. G-d did not consign Yaakov
to gehinnom and He did not bring him illness or poverty; the worst
fate that can befall a person is ignorance!
This should teach us how we are punishing ourselves when we remain
ignorant. A person who does not study Torah to the best of his
ability is bringing on himself a fate worse that gehinnom. (Ohr
Rashaz)
************************************
"Yehuda said, 'What gain will come from killing our brother, and
covering up his blood?'" (37:26)
The gemara (Sanhedrin 6a) states: "Whoever blesses Yehuda is
called [roughly translated], 'One who destroys '."
Rav Mordechai Yosef of Izbica zatz'l explains that Hashem may test
a person's inner thoughts by causing him to forget the severity of
a prohibition. In such a case, the person has only his instinct to
guide him on the right path. So it happened to Yosef's brothers;
Hashem hid the severity of murder from them, but Yehuda realized
instinctively that they would accomplish nothing by killing Yosef.
Nevertheless, one should follow his instincts only in an
emergency, when he forgets his learning. Otherwise, the Torah should
be one's guiding light. Thus, whoever blesses Yehuda, i.e., the
manner in which he saved himself on this occasion, is actually
behaving in a destructive manner.
(Mei Hashiloach)
************************************
"And it was on the third day, Pharaoh's birthday, that he made
a feast for all his servant and he counted the butler (sar hamashkim)
and the baker (sar haofim) among his servants." (40:20)
We can understand that due to Pharaoh's happiness at his own
birthday he would grant an amnesty to the butler, says Rav Chaim
Friedlander zatz'l. But why would his birthday cause him to kill
the baker?
Pharaoh made himself out to be a god, Rav Friedlander explains.
Therefore he saw his birthday as a time to judge the world. This
is not so far off from the truth--it is what Hashem does on Rosh
Hashanah, which is the world's birthday. (Hashem, of course, does
not have a birthday.) On Rosh Hashanah, as on Pharaoh's birthday,
each servant of the King is judged to determine whether he has met
his obligations sufficiently that his "services" will be required
for another year.
(Siftei Chaim I p.84)
************************************
In this parashah we read how the wife of Potiphar attempted to
seduce Yosef. According to the midrash, Yosef responded, "At any
moment, I may be called upon to become a sacrifice like my
grandfather Yitzchak. How can I render myself unfit? At any moment,
G-d may come to me in a prophetic vision. How can I render myself
impure?"
Why didn't Yosef just say that what Potiphar's wife wanted was
wrong? asks Rav Meir Rubman zatz'l. Why did he need these contrived
defenses?
We learn from this, answers Rav Rubman, that a person should have
a spiritual "game-plan" guiding him. Yosef did not turn down
Potiphar's wife merely because her request was immoral--that was
certainly true--but because her request was not consistent with
Yosef's plan for his spiritual development.
When a person learns gemara, says Rav Rubman, he might do it
because he wants to know that page of gemara or he might do it
because learning gemara is part of attaining spiritual greatness.
Clearly the latter will have a more beneficial and long-lasting
effect.
In Parashat Kedoshim we read of the commandment to be holy. After
discussing several other mitzvot, the Torah commands that we avoid
incestuous relationships. If G-d wants us to be holy, is this what
He needs to tell us? The answer is the same as above: Don't avoid
incestuous relationships only because they are wrong. Avoid them
because they will divert you from a path of holiness.
(Zichron Meir)
************************************
Yahrzeits This Week
Rav Zvi Yehuda Rabinowitz-Teomim was the twin brother of Rav
Eliyahu David R-T, av bet din of Yerushalayim. Rav Zvi Yehuda held
a number of rabbinical positions in Lithuania. Each of these
brothers, in turn, was the father-in-law of Rav Avraham Yitzchak
Kook; Rav Kook's only son was the grandson and namesake of Rav Zvi
Yehuda. Rav Zvi Yehuda died on 24 Kislev 5648 (1887) at age 48.
Rav Chaim Chizkiyah Medini was the author of the encyclopedic
halachic work Sdei Chemed and of other works. He was born in
Yerushalayim in 1833. He was ordained at age thirteen and shortly
after was appointed a dayan (rabbinical court judge) in Costa,
Turkey. In 1891, he was appointed Chief Rabbi of Chevron, where he
was highly respected by Jew and Arab alike. He died on 24 Kislev
5665 (1904).
Rav Avraham ben haGRA was one of the sons of the Vilna Gaon and
was himself a great scholar and author. Like his father, he never
took a rabbinic position. He died on 25 Kislev 5569 (1808). The
Vilna Gaon's father had passed away on the same day fifty years
earlier.
Rav Yaakov Yokel Ettlinger was Rabbi of Altona and elsewhere and
author of several importants works, including She'eilot U'Teshuvot
Binyan Zion and the Talmud commentary Aruch LaNer. Some Talmud
tractates (e.g., Sukkah) are not studied in depth without the latter
work. Best known among Rav Yaakov's students was Rav Shamshon
Raphael Hirsch. Rav Yaakov died on 25 Kislev 5632 (1871).
|
| 989.333 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Miketz | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Nov 30 1994 20:51 | 150 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
MIKETZ-CHANUKAH
Vol. IX, No. 10 (394), 30 Kislev 5755, December 3, 1994
The haftarah for Chanukah opens: "'Rejoice and be happy daughter
of Zion, for I am coming and I will dwell amongst you'--this is the
word of G-d." Rav Shmuel Felkinfeld zata'l explains this to mean
that in the time of mashiach Hashem will dwell openly among us.
Currently, Hashem does miracles for us, but we don't recognize
them. The Zohar explains the reason for this with a parable: A king
banished his son who had rebelled, but he still watched over his son
from a distance and protected him. However, the king did not want
his son to know this, lest his son not take the king's anger to heart
and fail to repent.
In light of this we can understand the verses in Tehilim (ch.90):
"Gladden us according to the days You afflicted us, the years when
we saw evil. May Your works be visible to Your servants and Your
Majesty upon their children." This means: Gladden us openly as You
had done secretly during our exile. When the works that You had done
for Your servants--a description of the Jews in their lesser status--
become visible, Your majesty will appear upon the children--the Jews
in their higher status. (Bet Shmuel Acharon, Parashat Miketz--see
the biography on page 4)
************************************
The gemara asks how we can recite the berachah, "He commanded us
to light," over the Chanukah candles. Where did G-d give such a
command? The gemara answers that this is included in G-d's command
that we obey the sages, i.e., in Devarim 17:12, "Do not turn away
from all that they will command neither right nor left."
Rav Zvi Elimelech of Dinov zatz'l writes that this reference to
"right and left" is also a reference to the occasion (in Parashat
Vayechi) when Yaakov reversed his hands while blessing Menashe and
Ephraim. How is that related to our discussion?
Sefer Rokeach teaches that Chanukah is alluded to in the Torah
(in Parashat Emor) where the mitzvah of lighting the menorah in the
Temple follows the listing of the holidays. Indeed, Parashat Emor
is a parashah largely devoted to the laws pertaining to kohanim, and
Chanukah is a holiday that was instituted by kohanim (the Macabees).
The menorah section in Parashat Emor begins --"Command Bnei
Yisrael." The gematria of this phrase is 1,100, one more than the
gematria of the opening phrase of the Al Hanissim prayer: "In the
days of Matityahu son of Yochanan."
From where do we know that gematrias which differ by one are
considered equal? We learn this from Yaakov's statement that Ephraim
and Menashe (gematria of 726) are equivalent in his eyes to Reuven
and Shimon (gematria of 725). And when did Yaakov say that? On the
occasion when he reversed his right and left hands.
(Bnei Yissaschar)
************************************
Chazal say that the name "Chanukah" alludes to the fact that the
Chashmonaim rested from their war on the 25th day of the month. Rav
Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld zatz'l noted that this is alluded to in the
Torah. The 25th place (of the 42) where the Jews camped in the
desert after the Exodus was "Chashmonah."
(quoted in Sha'arei Zohar: Shabbat 21a)
************************************
"They lit lights in the courtyards of Your holy places." (from
the Al Hanissim prayer)
Was the menorah in the courtyard? No, it was in the building of
the bet hamikdash itself! What then does this mean?
A possible answer is that the miracle of the oil included that
the small jug of oil from which the menorah was lit did not empty
until many barrels of oil had been filled from it. A similar miracle
is recorded in Sefer Melachim (in the haftarah for Parashat Vayera).
To publicize this, the Macabees lit candles and lights throughout
the Temple complex, including the courtyards.
If we assume this, we can answer several questions. One is the
famous question of the Bet Yosef: If one day's supply of oil burned
for eight days, the miracle lasted only seven days! Why then are
there eight days of Chanukah? The answer would be that the extra
day (the first day) commemorates this other miracle just-mentioned.
This also answers another question: From where did the Macabees
obtain the oil with which to bring the oil sacrifices that were
required as part of the daily meal offerings?
(Ner L'Meah #80)
************************************
There is a well known dispute between Bet Hillel and Bet Shamai,
i.e., whether we light one candle on the first day and increase to
eight on the last day or start with eight and work down. What is
the basis for their dispute?
Rav Moshe Schwab zatz'l suggests that they are debating the
relative importance of preparing to perform a mitzvah. According
to Bet Shamai, how a Jew prepares to do a mitzvah is more important
than the mitzvah itself. At the beginning of Chanukah, a person has
eight full days before him; the preparation required for those eight
days is on his mind and he lights eight candles. The next evening,
the first day has passed; there are now only seven days upcoming.
Bet Hillel argues that the mitzvah act itself, not the
preparation, is key. Thus, on each day of Chanukah we wish to have
our accomplishments "under our belts." By the first night of
Chanukah, we have already completed a small part of the first day
and we can light one candle. On the second night, we add a candle
to symbolize the new day which is (partially) completed. Thus, we
add a candle each night.
(Ma'archei Lev)
************************************
Rav Shmuel Felkinfeld
born 5497 (1737) - died 27 Kislev 5567 (1807)
Rav Shmuel was a leading posek (halachic authority) of his time.
He was known as the Bet Shmuel Acharon, the name of his works. Rav
Shmuel was a descendant of several great Rabbis, including Rema, and
he takes pains in his works to defend the positions of his ancestors.
One of Rav Shmuel's contemporaries is reported to have said that
there had not been anyone in Poland as incisive as he in two
centuries.
Rav Shmuel's wife was his cousin Rachel Hadassah. The derashah
which he gave at his wedding was printed in the back of his responsa
at his wife's request.
His rabbinical posts included Bilgorai, Peshwarsk, Tarnopol, and
one of the greatest Jewish communities of Europe, Posen (today,
Breslau in eastern Germany). He was also elected Rabbi of Pressburg
(Hungary; now Slovakia), but for unknown reasons he never assumed
that post.
Rav Shmuel corresponded with many of the great authorities of his
time including Rav Ephraim Zalman Margaliot, Rav Yechezkel Landau
(the Noda B'Yehuda), and Rav Moshe Teitlebaum (the Yismach Moshe).
Starting in 1795, Rav Shmuel instituted the practice that every
Shabbat for six months he would speak about the same section of
gemara. These talks included both halachah and aggadah. In
particular, Rav Shmuel's teachings and writings focused on laws
pertaining to dinei mamonot--civil law.
(A dvar Torah by Rav Shmuel appears on the front page.)
|
| 989.334 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayigash | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Dec 13 1994 21:44 | 142 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
VAYIGASH
Vol. IX, No. 11 (395), 7 Tevet 5755, December 10, 1994
When the Egyptian viceroy revealed himself to his brothers as
Yosef he said, "I am Yosef your brother who you sold to Egypt." Why
did he say, "your brother"?
Rav Shalom Noach Brazovsky shlita explains that Yosef loved his
brothers even at the very moment that they were selling him into
slavery. This is an awesome accomplishment--how can it be attained?
The secret is to perfect oneself, particularly in the area of
morality. That trait is known in kabbalah as "Yesod"--"foundation"
because it is the basis of all perfection. Yosef's experience with
Potiphar's wife proves that he had perfected that trait.
In general, improving oneself is the secret to seeing others
favorably. Looking at others is like looking in the mirror, and one
tends to see his faults in others. Thus, if one has no faults and
possesses the inner peace which comes from moral behavior and
thoughts, he will not notice the faults of others. (Netivot Shalom
I p.92)
************************************
"Come down to me, do not delay." (45:9)
The Ba'al HaTurim notes that this word "redah" ("come down")
appears one other time in Tanach: "Come down and lie with the
uncircumcised" (Yechezkel 32:19)
Rav Meir Horowitz of Dzikov zatz'l explains the connection between
these two occurrences. Rashi (B'reishit 47:19) states that there
were two reasons why Yaakov did not want to be buried in Egypt. One
is that the dust of Egypt would eventually turn to lice (i.e., in
the third plague). The other is that the at the time of techiyat
hameitim (the resurrection of the dead), the dead who are buried
outside of Israel will have to tunnel their way to Eretz Yisrael.
Yosef was afraid that Yaakov would not come to Egypt lest he die
there and be buried there. But Bnei Yisrael were in Egypt for 210
years, and all ten plagues occurred during the last year. Therefore
Yosef said, "Come down to me." The gematria of "redah" is 209--the
number of years before the plagues. Yosef meant, "Even if you die
here and are buried here ('Come down and lie with the uncircumcised
[Egyptians]'), we will be sure to take you out of Egypt before the
plagues start." But Yosef did not think of the second reason.
(Imrei Noam)
************************************
"Pharaoh said to Yaakov, 'How old are you?'
"And Yaakov responded, 'My years are 130, few and bad were they,
and they did not attain the years of my fathers'." (47:8-9)
The midrash says that for each of the 33 words in this exchange,
one year was subtracted from Yaakov's life. We can understand that
Yaakov was punished for his complaint, but why should he be punished
for Pharaoh's question?
Yaakov looked so old that Pharaoh thought that he must have lived
for centuries. It was for allowing himself to look this way (thereby
causing Pharaoh to ask his age) that Yaakov was punished. Gray hairs
come from worry, but if Yaakov had accepted all of his life's
travails with perfect equanimity and faith, he would never have
turned gray.
(Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zatz'l)3
************************************
"They told [Yaakov] saying, 'Yosef is still alive,' and that he
is ruler over all the land of Egypt; but [Yaakov's] heart rejected
it for he could not believe them. However, when they related to him
all the words that Yosef had spoken to them and when he saw the
wagons that Yosef had sent to transport him, then the spirit of
Yaakov was revived." (45:26-27)
Chazal (quoted by Rashi) explain that Yosef sent a sign to Yaakov,
reminding him that the last subject they had studied together was
eglah arufah--the laws of the heifer which is killed as an atonement
when a murder victim is found on the highway. An atonement is
necessary in such a case because the citizens of the nearest city
should not have left this man to travel alone and without provisions.
What was the sign that Yosef sent? It appears from Rashi that
it was the wagons. "Wagon" in Hebrew is "agalah", a spelling
identical to "eglah"--"heifer."
However, says Rav Ahron Soloveitchik shlita, there was more to
Yosef's message than that play on words. The sin of the nearby city
for which an eglah arufah atones is lack of compassion. When the
Torah says that "[Yaakov's] heart rejected it for he could not
believe them," it does not mean that Yaakov denied that Yosef was
alive. What Yaakov could not believe was that the Yosef who was
alive in Egypt was the same religious, moral son who had left
Yaakov's home 22 years before. But when Yaakov saw the wagons, when
he saw how Yosef had provided for Yaakov's and his family's travel
to Egypt in comfort and style, Yaakov knew that the same Yosef was
indeed "alive."
(Logic of the Heart, Logic of the Mind p.20)
************************************
Rav Yehoshua Isaac Shapira
("Reb Eizel Charif")
born 5563 (1803) - died 4 Tevet 5633 (1872)
Rav Eizel was born near Vilna, the "capital" of the world of
mitnagdim (opponents of the chassidic movement), to a chassid of Rav
Shneur Zalman of Liadi. Reb Eizel's early teachers included the
chassid and kabbalist, Rav Aharon of Staroselje, but when the young
student moved to the yeshiva of Minsk he abandoned his chassidic
roots. Eventually, he became a fierce mitnaged.
While still young, Rav Eizel was hired as a maggid (preacher) in
Minsk. In the 63 months that he spent in Minsk, he completed the
study of the Talmud 63 times. His first full rabbinic post was in
Kutna, but he could not remain in that chassidic town. Next he moved
to the prestigious rabbinate of Tiktin. In 1853, he became Rabbi
of Slonim.
Rav Eizel was greatly respected among his colleagues. Already
during his lifetime he was known as the "Charif"--"the sharp one."
When a dispute arose between the two heads of the yeshiva of
Volozhin, Rav Eizel was one of the arbitrators who was called in.
(The arbitrators' decision resulted in the Netziv's heading that
yeshiva.)
In addition to his brilliance, Rav Eizel had far ranging
knowledge. For amusement, guests at weddings which he attended would
challenge him to recite whole works by heart. He used to say, "My
father in law made me charif--the acronym of 'Chatan (son-in-law of)
Rav Isaac Fein'--but my mother-in-law is responsible for my vast
knowledge because she cared for all my needs."
Rav Eizel authored numerous works. When he was asked the reason
for this he said, "Some have the custom that if a hair falls out of
their beard they hide it in a sefer. Today, so many modern Jews are
shaving that we need more sefarim."
|
| 989.335 | Update | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Dec 14 1994 19:58 | 8 |
| There are now quite a few "parsha" pages available via email that I've
just been made aware of. I will try IY"H to post each of them as it is
received, lehagdil Torah u'leha'adirah.
I know we've lost a lot of people, but there are still a few out there,
so let's make this notesfile look alive!
Yehoshua
|
| 989.336 | Vayechi: Rabbi Riskin | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Dec 14 1994 19:59 | 130 |
| 'Shabbat Shalom', by Rabbi Shlomo Riskin
----------------------------------------
QUESTION OF QUESTIONS: WHO ARE THESE?
-------------------------------------
"These two sons who were born to you in Egypt before I came here are
mine, as Reuben and Simeon they shall be mine. Any children that you
have after them shall be considered yours." (Gen. 48:5-6)
AN interpretation suggested to me by my son Hillel about a verse in
this week's portion of Vayehi has led me to think that perhaps the most
momentous question of Genesis could be hidden in an innocuous-sounding
exchange between Jacob and Joseph.
Buried in one line of dialogue is a thought which could have profound
implications for the destiny of the Jewish people - and could well be the
Question of Questions.
The portion opens with Jacob in his old age asking Joseph to carry
his bones to the burial place of his fathers. When Jacob later takes
sick, Joseph arrives with his sons Ephraim and Menashe. On his deathbed,
Jacob narrates his whole history: how he was blessed by God that he would
be fruitful, that his descendants would inherit the Land, and that there
would eventually be an ingathering of all nations to the Land and faith
of Israel.
But don't we know this already? And if the point is so important,
why does he not repeat it to the rest of the brothers, who will soon be
arriving to receive their blessings?
Even stranger still, in his very next breath he tells Joseph that he
wants his two sons to be considered his, Jacob's, not Joseph's, although
Jacob does agree that any sons Joseph may have afterwards are to be
Joseph's own.
Then Jacob returns to his own history, recounting the tragic death of
Rahel. Almost as an afterthought he turns to the sons of Joseph and
suddenly asks: "Who are these?" (Gen. 48:8).
Given that Jacob has just been talking about Menashe and Ephraim, his
question doesn't make sense. Doesn't he know who they are? Is Jacob
losing his wits?
On the contrary! Jacob remains profoundly perspicacious until
his last breath.
Jacob's death is the final step before nationhood. With his passing
the era of the patriarchs comes to an end.
Dying, Jacob understands clearly how his life parallels the
subsequent experiences of the Jewish people. Born in Israel, he goes into
exile for 20 years and returns to the land of his forefathers in an
attempt to live out his remaining years in peace. But circumstances don't
allow peace to prevail. He is forced to leave Canaan for Egypt, where the
Jewish nation, with a single sense of identity, will be born.
Furthermore, Jacob stands at the mid-point of five generations. He
gazes back and sees his grandfather Abraham, he looks ahead and sees his
grandchildren Ephraim and Menashe.
For Menashe and Ephraim, the Land of Israel is only a memory. They
weren't born here, and will not die here. Their entire lives are spent
in exile. Most Jews in the world can identify with them.
When Jacob asks Joseph to "give him" his sons, his true intention can
be deduced from the fact that Jacob asks for them while recounting the
promise that God made him at Luz - that his descendants will inherit the
Land. Jacob sees a successful Joseph, acculturating within the Egyptian
milieu. So he places the "claim of Israel" on Menashe and Ephraim. He
wants them to be his, and not Joseph's; he wants their first allegiance to
be to Israel, not to Egypt. "And now, your two sons who have been born to
you in the land of Egypt, before I came to here, they are to be mine.
Ephraim and Menashe are to be mine just as Reuben and Simeon. The
children who you have born after them may be yours." (48:6,7).
Hence Jacob, after sadly remembering the loss of his beloved wife in
Israel, insists on asking the question which must confront every Jew in
every generation: "Who are these?"
Do these sons belong to Joseph, viceroy of Egypt, or to Jacob, scion
of Abraham? Do they belong to the Diaspora, or to the Land of Israel, to
the culture of Egypt or to the culture of Tora?
And Joseph replies to his father: They are my sons, whom the Lord has
given me in this country of Egypt! And Jacob said: Allow them to be
"taken" by me, for only then shall I bless them.
The answer is clear. Joseph "gives" his sons to Jacob as his legacy,
and receives not only a double blessing, but sees his boys become tribal
heads equal to Reuben and Simeon, Jacob's eldest sons. Later in the
portion Jacob will inform Joseph that all future generations will use
Ephraim and Menashe as a paradigmatic blessing: "They will say: 'May God
make you like Ephraim and Menashe.' " (Gen. 48:20)
Menashe and Ephraim were children of Egypt who were nevertheless
claimed by and chose to adopt Jacob/Israel as their true father.
Only if our children make a similar choice will they remain part
of the eternal Jewish people.
Shabbat Shalom
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) The Jerusalem Post/Shlomo Riskin, 5754/1993
For details of The Jerusalem Post electronic version, please contact
JPOST@zeus.datasrv.co.il
If you are not receiving this automatically and wish to do so on a weekly
basis, just send the following one line message:
mail: listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
subject: <none>
body of message: subscribe riskin [first-name] [last-name]
Distributed by:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Rothenberg | ^
Internet: | \-/---\-/ To the speedy fulfillment of
rothberg@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il | X X a true peace....Mashiach!
Tel/Fax: | /-\---/-\
+972 2 525 377 | v
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| 989.338 | Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Vayechi I | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Dec 14 1994 20:01 | 75 |
| Return-Path: razi@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
Jerusalem One
==========================================================================
Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Vayechi
==========================================================================
No 522: 12 Tevet 5755 (17 December 1994)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Zomet Institute is having serious financial difficulties, because of recent
government budget cuts. We turn to anyone who can help with contributions,
to enable continued work on modern challenges in the spirit of halacha. Tax
free contributions can be sent in the USA to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds,
41 East 42nd Street, New York 10017, earmarked for Zomet.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
TO EXPLAIN A MIDRASH
by Rabbi Yehudah Shaviv
"Yaacov called his sons, saying: Gather together and I will tell you what
will befall you in the end of days. Stay together and hear, Bnei Yaacov,
listen to your father Yaacov" [Bereishit 49:1-2].
"Gather together: leave Egypt, and stay together in Raamses; gather out of
the ten tribes and into the tribes of Yehudah and Binyamin ... The rabbis
say, Yaacov commanded them about disagreements. He said to them, 'gather
together into a united group.' As is written , 'You, son of man, take one
piece of wood and write on it, for Yehudah and Bnei Yisrael his companions'
[Yechezkel 37:16]. By uniting, Bnei Yisrael prepared themselves for
redemption" [Bereishit Rabba 88:2].
When Yaacov starts talking to his sons, the call "Gather together" is out
of sequence, since they have already gathered. The verse might be
understood as a direct quote of Yaacov's words. However, the next verse, in
saying once again "stay together," implies that Yaacov has already started
talking to his sons, who have already joined into a single group. The
authors of the midrash understood this and wanted to explain why the words
are repeated. It is clear to them that this is connected to the "end of
days" that Yaacov wants to describe, and the sages interpreted this to mean
the end of exile and the era of redemption.
According to the first interpretation of the midrash, the two verses refer
to two stages of redemption: "Gather" as a first stage, and "stay together"
as a second. This model is not only true for redemption from Egypt, it is
also true for the later redemption. It is thus a description of the process
that "will befall you in the end of days." On the other hand, the second
interpretation, that of the rabbis, refers to disagreement. In other words,
Yaacov is providing the key to redemption. He says: If you are gathered
together in unity, you can be sure that the end of exile has been reached,
and you can begin to prepare for redemption.
It is vital for Yaacov to tell his sons of the importance of unity as he
begins his words. After all, he is about to tell each and every one of the
tribes about his own unique traits, and about his unique fate. To
fanatically maintain the unique character of each one can bring about
division and argument, and Yaacov must therefore teach his sons to avoid
dissidence. Even if the details of the "end" were hidden from Yaacov at
that stage, as the midrash claims, the need for unity to achieve final
redemption is revealed and clear.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SHABBAT-ZOMET is an extract from SHABBAT-B'SHABBATO, a weekly bulletin
distributed free of charge in hundreds of synagogues in Israel. It is
published by the Zomet Institute of Alon Shevut, Israel, under the auspices
of Mafdal, the National Religious Party.
Translated by: Moshe Goldberg
To subscribe, send a message to: listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il, with
a blank subject line and the message:
sub shabbat-zomet <first name> <last name>
Archives of past issues are available on the gopher server at jerusalem1.
Contact Zomet with comments about this bulletin or questions on the
relationship between modern technology and halacha at:
zomet@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
Or: Phone: +972-2-931442; FAX: +972-2-931889 (Attention: Ezra Rosenfeld)
|
| 989.339 | Vayigash : Rabbi Riskin | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Dec 14 1994 20:01 | 135 |
| 'Shabbat Shalom', by Rabbi Shlomo Riskin
----------------------------------------
JOSEPH'S WAGONS OF INDEPENDENCE
-------------------------------
"And they told him, saying: 'Joseph is still alive, and he is ruler
over all the land of Egypt.' And his heart fainted, for he believed them
not. And then they told him all the words of Joseph...and when he saw
the wagons that Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob their
father revived." Genesis 45:26-27)
ONE minute Jacob stands in utter disbelief. The news is amazing.
Yet, when Jacob sees wagons a moment later, the Tora tells us his spirit
is revived. Clearly, this is not just another set of wheels.
Chances are that the reported death of Joseph changed Jacob's life.
The causeless hatred between Jews that was responsible for the Temple's
destruction can be traced back to the hatred of the brothers for Joseph.
Tragically, the three generations of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob do not
remove all interpersonal barriers for the fourth. Instead of inheriting
an idyllic age, Joseph is an object of sibling rivalry that dwarfs
whatever conflict may have existed between Esau and Jacob, or Isaac and
Ishmael.
Who must assume ultimate responsibility for his heinous sale?
The brothers are the guilty party. But were they the sole - or
even the principal - culprits? The Midrash hints at a daring suggestion
based on the report that the Patriarch's heart revives only when he sees
the wagons.
Rashi ponders what it is about these wagons that had the power to
convince their father. He explains that it was a sign between father and
son; when Joseph had parted from Jacob, the two had been studying the
biblical laws of the broken-necked heifer, and since Joseph now was
sending a wagon (agala in Hebrew, a word very similar to the noun
egla, meaning heifer), Jacob took it as verification of the report.
But is this all our Sages are teaching? Could there be a deeper
reason why the sign between Jacob and Joseph involved the broken-necked
heifer?
The law involves the case (Deuteronomy 21:1-9) of a man found dead
between two cities, the murderer unknown. The authorities must measure
the distance to the cities and the elders and sages of the nearer one must
bring a heifer to the river. There they break its neck, and the priests
cry out that God should forgive the elders.
The heifer is an atonement for the innocent blood that was spilled.
In Jewish tradition, those who bring a sin offering are responsible for
having perpetrated a crime, albeit unintentionally.
But why must the elders atone for the murder? Certainly, we do
not suspect them of the crime.
The Tora is saying that if a murder is committed in a specific city,
the elders of that city must assume responsibility - and guilt. If the
man had been killed because his assassin needed money for food, why was
there no soup kitchen in the town? If the man was killed because the
murderer was deranged, then there should have been some way of treating
him to keep him from reaching this point.
According to the Tora, societal conditions which can lead to murder
dare not be ignored. Crime is not committed in a vacuum. If the
perpetrator of the deed is not discovered, the town's leadership must
perform an act of atonement. Since they are empowered with communal
responsibility, they must assume the guilt for insufficient preventive
measures or the lack of any.
Let's take another look at the brothers' hate for Joseph. What
caused it? One might argue that Joseph brought it upon himself. In
Vayeshev, we read how Joseph brought his father bad reports about his
brothers. But in the next verse we are told that Jacob loves Joseph more
than all the brothers; he even has a special garment made for him.
Jacob's special love for Joseph is understandable. After all, he is
the eldest son of his beloved Rachel, for whom he labored 14 years and who
tragically died before her time. When Jacob looks at Joseph, he sees his
beloved wife. As Jacob's love for Joseph grows, so does Joseph's
obnoxious treatment of his brothers. Joseph is basking in his father's
favoritism; he cannot even understand why his brothers don't rejoice over
his dreams of domination. Jacob seems oblivious to the family friction
his attention is causing.
If the broken-necked heifer directs us to the responsibility which
must be assumed by the elders of a city, then the elder of this family
must likewise assume responsibility for the sibling rivalry which was
allowed to fester until it resulted in tragedy.
The symbolism goes one step further. A wagon in Biblical times was
the major means of travel, a synonym for distance. Jacob's inordinate
love for Joseph gave the boy self-confidence and faith in God. But it
also crippled his relationship with his peers, and might have paralyzed
his potential by its very overpowering nature.
When Jacob "sees the wagons," perhaps this alludes to his realization
that, in order for Joseph to become the leader he was destined to become,
he had to leave home and develop his own character. Had he stayed, he
would have suffocated. The separation, initially tragic, ensured that
Joseph's divine destiny would be actualized.
If it's hard to be a parent today, we can take comfort in knowing
that for Jacob it wasn't easy either. But through the love of an
independent yet faithful Joseph, Jacob's spirit not only revives, but
will live eternally.
Shabbat Shalom.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) The Jerusalem Post/Shlomo Riskin, 5754/1993
For details of The Jerusalem Post electronic version, please contact
JPOST@zeus.datasrv.co.il
If you are not receiving this automatically and wish to do so on a weekly
basis, just send the following one line message:
mail: listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
subject: <none>
body of message: subscribe riskin [first-name] [last-name]
Distributed by:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Rothenberg | ^
Internet: | \-/---\-/ To the speedy fulfillment of
rothberg@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il | X X a true peace....Mashiach!
Tel/Fax: | /-\---/-\
+972 2 525 377 | v
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| 989.340 | Va'y'chi - the super-closed parsha | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Dec 14 1994 20:03 | 22 |
| The natural sub-divisions of the Torah are called "Parshiot". They come
in two forms: P'tucha (open) and S'tuma (closed). An open parsha begins
on its own line, the previous parsha having ended somewhere on the
previous line (not at its end). The sofer writing the Torah will leave
the rest of the line blank preceding a parsha p'tucha. In the case of a
closed parsha, the sofer will leave a blank space (min. width of 11
vavs), but begin the new parsha on the same line that the previous
parsha ended.
Each of the Torah's 54 weekly portions begins on a new parsha - except
for Va'y'chi. Rashi and other commentaries ask the question: Why is
Va'y'chi a closed parsha? Why is Va'y'chi so closed that the width of a
single letter only separates it from the end of VaYigash? Why is Va'y'chi
super-closed?
Two answers are offered. Yaakov Avinu wanted to tell his sons about the
future. G-d "closed off" his ability to do this. Furthermore, with the
deaths of Yaakov and his sons, the first stage in what is soon to become
the Nation of Israel comes to an end. This parsha is closed.
|
| 989.341 | Va'y'chi -Aaaaa...choo! | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Dec 14 1994 20:03 | 22 |
|
The Torah tells us that Yaakov Avinu got sick before he died. The Gemara
says that until Yaakov there was no "weakness". referring to weakness
and illness specifically associated with approaching death. Before
Yaakov, people reached their allotted years and simply expired with
their final breath. It was as if they died "with a sneeze". Torah Temima
mentions that life was breathed into Adam "through his nostrils"
(Br. 2:7) and that those who died in the Flood are described as having
had the "spirit of life in their nostrils" (Br. 7:22). Hence, the
association of sneezing with life.
Subsequently, the sneeze became viewed as a symptom of illness, instead
of death. This accounts for the wide-spread practice of wishing one who
sneezes "good health". Jewish sources not only teach that one says
"Assuta" to the 'sneezer', but that the person himself should say the
same words that Yaakov Avinu said on his deathbed during the blessings
to his sons: Li'shu'atcha Kiviti HaShem, thus acknowledging that health
and sickness, life and death, are in G-d's hands.
Note: This D.T. is in honor of Rabbi Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, who taught me
the vital lesson that even a sneeze can teach us Torah. - PC
|
| 989.342 | Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Vayigash II | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Dec 14 1994 20:05 | 71 |
| Jerusalem One
============================================================================
Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Vayigash
============================================================================
No 521: 7 Tevet 5755 (10 December 1994)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Zomet Institute is having serious financial difficulties, because of recent
government budget cuts. We turn to anyone who can help with contributions,
to enable continued work on modern challenges in the spirit of halacha. Tax
free contributions can be sent in the USA to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds,
41 East 42nd Street, New York 10017, earmarked for Zomet.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RELIGIOUS ZIONISM IN ACTION: "Chemdat" Yeshivot
by Nissim Swed
"The world only exists because of words mouthed by schoolchildren." The
Center for Religious Education was established to respond to needs of the
national religious schools that are not provided by the Ministry of
Education. The Center has established a chain of "Chemdat" Yeshivot (an
acronym for National Religious Torah Education). These yeshivot provide
religious studies in the afternoon and evening as an extension of the
regular school program. The objective of these schools is to increase Torah
study, to educate the students in performance of mitzvot and Torah study as
a way of Jewish life, and to absorb the values of Judaism and its outlook
on life, all in order to increase the student's feeling of belonging to the
Jewish nation and being part of our heritage.
The studies each year are centered around a specific theme. In the five
years of the Center's existence, the themes have been: between man and man,
honoring Torah and the sages, the land and its mitzvot, prayer, and -- the
current theme -- Shabbat.
These subjects are different from what is studied in the normal school
program, both in content and teaching methods. The studies are carried out
in elementary schools or Hesder yeshivot that have agreed to help Chemdat.
Educational material published by the Pedagogical Center of Chemdat
includes a workbook for the students and a teaching guide, and regional
seminars are held to guide teachers in the topics and methodology to be
used. The Pedagogical Center is open all year round and serves as a source
for written materials and teaching aids. This Center, operated jointly with
the Lifshitz College for religious teachers in Jerusalem and supported by
the Religious Affairs Ministry, has as its objective to supply aid for all
needs of Torah education.
The high point of Chemdat activities is a national contest, with
participants who have won regional contests. A bulletin named "Kli Chemdat"
is published to maintain contact among the various parts of the
organization.
This year, there are hundreds of Chemdat Yeshivot in operation, from Kiryat
Shemonah in the north to Eilat in the south, and the concept is ripe for
further expansion.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SHABBAT-ZOMET is an extract from SHABBAT-B'SHABBATO, a weekly bulletin
distributed free of charge in hundreds of synagogues in Israel. It is
published by the Zomet Institute of Alon Shevut, Israel, under the auspices
of Mafdal, the National Religious Party.
Translated by: Moshe Goldberg
To subscribe, send a message to: listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il, with
a blank subject line and the message:
sub shabbat-zomet <first name> <last name>
Archives of past issues are available on the gopher server at jerusalem1.
Contact Zomet with comments about this bulletin or questions on the
relationship between modern technology and halacha at:
zomet@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
Or: Phone: +972-2-931442; FAX: +972-2-931889 (Attention: Ezra Rosenfeld)
|
| 989.343 | Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Vayigash III | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Dec 14 1994 20:06 | 80 |
| Jerusalem One
============================================================================
Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Vayigash
============================================================================
No 521: 7 Tevet 5755 (10 December 1994)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Zomet Institute is having serious financial difficulties, because of recent
government budget cuts. We turn to anyone who can help with contributions,
to enable continued work on modern challenges in the spirit of halacha. Tax
free contributions can be sent in the USA to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds,
41 East 42nd Street, New York 10017, earmarked for Zomet.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
TORAH, SOCIETY, AND STATE: "Let Your Servant Remain Instead of the Boy"
[Bereishit 44:33]
by Rabbi Uri Dasberg
Yehudah was ready to give up his life for Binyamin. This is a phenomenon
that was repeated in recent times, when leaders of Jewish communities gave
their lives in order to save their communities from the Nazis -- or so they
hoped.
The halachic ruling is, "one soul is not set aside for another." When one
is presented with the terrible choice between himself and another human
being, he has the solution presented by Rabbi Akiva, who also lived in a
time of tragedy, "Your brother shall live together with you" [Vayikra
25:36]; your own life comes before that of your brother. "Any case where
there is a mortal danger in trying to save someone else, it is not required
to save him ... If there is a doubt about the seriousness of the danger,
one who puts himself in danger is a 'chassid shoteh' [a righteous fool]"
[responsa of the Radbaz]. However, this is for the case when an individual
is called upon to save another individual. Will the ruling be different if
the life of an individual is to be weighed against those of an entire
community? If an individual is a "chassid shoteh" in trying to save a
single life, will he be considered a martyr if he is killed in trying to
save an entire community?
Torah giants of the previous generation disagreed on this point. Rabbi A.Y.
Kook held that an individual must sacrifice himself for a group, while
Rabbi Meir Simchah of Dvinsk explained that Moshe was told to return to
Egypt only after all the people that wished to harm him had died, and he
was no longer in danger. However, all agree that in time of war there is a
special mitzvah to be willing to put one's life in danger [Rambam, Laws of
Kings].
Standing up to the Nazi beast, even if by a downtrodden community head, may
be considered as an act of holy war, and it is therefore not to be judged
in the regular category of saving lives. The words of the Rambam, "Anyone
who fights with all his heart, with no fear, with the objective of
sanctifying the Holy Name, can be certain ... that he will build a proper
house in Yisrael, will be a credit to himself and his children for ever,
and will be rewarded in the world to come," apply without a shadow of a
doubt to Dr. Yaacov Vigodezky. A member of the Jewish Council in Vilna, he
was tortured to death by the Nazis in Serbo because of his refusal to
provide them with Jews for work and concentration camps. He is a martyr
even though his actions did not save the Vilna community. The soldier in
the field is not expected to balance the accounts, or to be able to predict
the outcome of his actions. He must at all times do whatever he feels has
the best chance of succeeding in saving others, even if this may cost him
his life.
Reference: Eliyahu Ben-Zimra, "Sinai" vol 80
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SHABBAT-ZOMET is an extract from SHABBAT-B'SHABBATO, a weekly bulletin
distributed free of charge in hundreds of synagogues in Israel. It is
published by the Zomet Institute of Alon Shevut, Israel, under the auspices
of Mafdal, the National Religious Party.
Translated by: Moshe Goldberg
To subscribe, send a message to: listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il, with
a blank subject line and the message:
sub shabbat-zomet <first name> <last name>
Archives of past issues are available on the gopher server at jerusalem1.
Contact Zomet with comments about this bulletin or questions on the
relationship between modern technology and halacha at:
zomet@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
Or: Phone: +972-2-931442; FAX: +972-2-931889 (Attention: Ezra Rosenfeld)
|
| 989.344 | Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Vayechi II | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Dec 14 1994 20:06 | 92 |
| Jerusalem One
==========================================================================
Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Vayechi
==========================================================================
No 522: 12 Tevet 5755 (17 December 1994)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Zomet Institute is having serious financial difficulties, because of recent
government budget cuts. We turn to anyone who can help with contributions,
to enable continued work on modern challenges in the spirit of halacha. Tax
free contributions can be sent in the USA to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds,
41 East 42nd Street, New York 10017, earmarked for Zomet.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RELIGIOUS ZIONISM IN ACTION: At the Crossroads of Life and Torah
by Nissim Swed
This week's column will be about Zomet Institute, which brings you this
weekly bulletin. This publication is just one of the many activities of
Zomet (the name, which is Hebrew for "crossroads," is also an acronym for
"Torah and Science Teams").
Zomet Institute has three main areas of activity, all based on the desire
to demonstrate the unity of Torah and our national existence. The challenge
is to show that the living Torah has deep meaning for each and every
generation.
The best known of the activities of Zomet is the interface between halacha
and technology, or, in a phrase coined by Zomet, "Halachic Technology." The
researchers, rabbis, and engineers of Zomet are constantly plowing new
ground in defining ways to operate a modern country on Shabbat. The work
brings novel approaches to establishing a Jewish country with such modern
services as an army, a police force, foreign service, fire fighting
services, hospitals, emergency medical services, communications media,
hotels, agriculture, industry, and utilities such as water and electricity.
The best way to prove the practicality of a proposed solution is to
actually build a model, and Zomet is involved in real day to day projects
of this type.
Hundreds of solutions within the confines of "Halachic Technology"
demonstrate Zomet's ability to achieve its goals. Most of these items have
been offered to sectors which have a large religious population or in areas
which are willing to support a strong Jewish character of the State of
Israel. The main clients for "Halachic Technology" are the Kibbutz HaDati
and medical facilities of Kupat Cholim and of the Ministry of Health. These
examples demonstrate the general applicability of Zomet's approach, and
Zomet is still waiting to be allowed to expand its capability to other
sectors, such as the IDF.
A second central theme of Zomet's work is theoretical research on the
relationship between society, the state, and the Torah. The fourteen
volumes of "Techumin," contain more that 700 articles on these subjects, a
total of about 7,500 pages. Volume 15 is in preparation, together with
volume 5 of an English edition that is named "Crossroads -- Halacha and the
Modern World." This rich world of thought and practical answers paves the
way for a Torah state, providing guidelines for such subjects as the army
and security, medical halacha, economics and justice, family and society,
Yisrael and the gentile world, agriculture, Torah and science, and the Holy
Temple and redemption.
The third objective of Zomet's work is to spread the Torah messages of
religious Zionism. Examples include this weekly bulletin and computer-based
data bases on Jewish subjects. This also led, during the term of the
previous Chief Rabbis, to connections with national kashrut organizations
and other religious services. Zomet is involved in questions of state and
religion, and as such has taken part in formal discussions of the Basic Law
of Human Rights, and of the holiness of the Temple Mount, among others.
Zomet Institute is a non-profit public institution, and it has been having
financial difficulties this year, even so far as to being forced to
consider having to close down some of its varied activities. In the past, a
large part of the operating budget came from the Ministry of Religions, but
with recent new directions of the Ministry, such topics as the Jewish
state, Torah and science, halacha and technology, and the challenges of
religious Zionism are at very low priority.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SHABBAT-ZOMET is an extract from SHABBAT-B'SHABBATO, a weekly bulletin
distributed free of charge in hundreds of synagogues in Israel. It is
published by the Zomet Institute of Alon Shevut, Israel, under the auspices
of Mafdal, the National Religious Party.
Translated by: Moshe Goldberg
To subscribe, send a message to: listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il, with
a blank subject line and the message:
sub shabbat-zomet <first name> <last name>
Archives of past issues are available on the gopher server at jerusalem1.
Contact Zomet with comments about this bulletin or questions on the
relationship between modern technology and halacha at:
zomet@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
Or: Phone: +972-2-931442; FAX: +972-2-931889 (Attention: Ezra Rosenfeld)
|
| 989.345 | Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Vayechi III | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Dec 14 1994 20:08 | 105 |
| Jerusalem One
==========================================================================
Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Vayechi
==========================================================================
No 522: 12 Tevet 5755 (17 December 1994)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Zomet Institute is having serious financial difficulties, because of recent
government budget cuts. We turn to anyone who can help with contributions,
to enable continued work on modern challenges in the spirit of halacha. Tax
free contributions can be sent in the USA to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds,
41 East 42nd Street, New York 10017, earmarked for Zomet.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
POINT OF VIEW: Holocaust Lessons
by Rabbi Dr. Itamar Warhaftig
"Gather together and I will tell you what will befall you in the end of
days" [Bereishit 49:1].
The fast of the Tenth of Tevet has been designated by the Chief Rabbinate
as a memorial day for martyrs of the Holocaust. As the Rambam explains in
the Laws of Fasting [1:2], fast days such as this, established in the wake
of a calamity, have as their objective to bring us to a reckoning and
repentance. How much more so must we all do a self appraisal as a result of
the traumatic events of our generation, which were unmatched for horror and
evil since the creation of man.
There are many lessons to be learned from the Holocaust, for each according
to his understanding and feelings, and I will discuss one of these, namely,
the silence -- even apathy -- of the leaders and much of the population of
Eretz Yisrael about the fate of their brothers in Europe. Much has been
written about this, and this column is not the place for new research, but
it is an issue which disturbs me deeply.
It is true that a poor settlement, not yet a state, could not accomplish
much. And, various actions that were performed, such as sending in
paratroopers near the end of the war, should not be ignored. But the
question remains, why didn't the people set up a loud cry? Why didn't they
show the pain and the proper solidarity with their brothers who were being
murdered in the Diaspora? I once read a story of a father who told a rabbi
that he wanted to send his son to religious education, but that he was
unsuccessful in overcoming his wife's objections. The rabbi said, "If that
is the case, at least sit down and cry."
One positive way of looking at this matter is to assume that this silence
was part of the "hidden face" of G-d during the time of the Holocaust (see
Devarim 31:18). Part of the calamity takes on an aspect of errors of
judgement. Our sages tell us that Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakai made a mistake
in his meeting with Emperor Aspasyanus in that he did not ask to save
Jerusalem from destruction, an occurrence that fulfilled the verse, "He who
turns wise men back and makes their wisdom into foolishness," [Gittin 56b].
But if this were the case, we would expect after the Holocaust to see the
advent of a painful reckoning, a feeling of guilt, and repentance for the
sins of omission.
It is well known that research about the Holocaust was hidden from the
public for years, and only lately have there been many publications from
various points of view. Perhaps it is still not too late to show our
repentance by reaching at least one resolution for the future: we will
never again ignore the fate of any of our brethren, wherever they may be.
The Almighty is described by the verses: "He suffers at all their
suffering," and "I am with him in suffering" [Tehillim 91, Taanit 16a]. See
also Rashi's interpretation of the verse, "I will be what I will be"
[Shemot 3:15]. And, we are all commanded to go in His ways.
The act of participating in the sorrow and the suffering of other Jews
appears both in halacha and aggada. Rashi explains the verse, "And Moshe's
hands were heavy; they took a stone and placed it under him" [Shemot 17:12]
according to the Talmud: "He did not sit on pillows and mats; he said, just
as Yisrael is in sorrow, so will I be" [Taanit 11a]. The Talmud adds: "When
the community of Yisrael is troubled, let no man declare, 'I will sleep in
my house and eat and drink, and my soul will be at peace,' but he must
commiserate with the community."
The Rambam defines one who separates himself from the community as one who
"does not join in their troubles and does not fast on their fast days ...
and acts as though he is not one of them; he (therefore) does not have a
portion in the world to come" [Teshuva 3:11]. It is said that the Chafetz
Chaim slept on the ground for a time during the First World War as a sign
of sympathy for the suffering of the Jews.
But along with our criticism, it is also necessary to give credit for
recent examples of Jewish solidarity. The IDF flew a large contingent to
Argentina to help get Jews out of the ruins after a terrorist attack.
Similarly, the kidnap and murder of Nachshon Wachsman awakened hidden wells
of Jewish solidarity. Let us pray for more and more instances of showing
responsibility for fellow Jews of the world, in every place, at all times.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SHABBAT-ZOMET is an extract from SHABBAT-B'SHABBATO, a weekly bulletin
distributed free of charge in hundreds of synagogues in Israel. It is
published by the Zomet Institute of Alon Shevut, Israel, under the auspices
of Mafdal, the National Religious Party.
Translated by: Moshe Goldberg
To subscribe, send a message to: listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il, with
a blank subject line and the message:
sub shabbat-zomet <first name> <last name>
Archives of past issues are available on the gopher server at jerusalem1.
Contact Zomet with comments about this bulletin or questions on the
relationship between modern technology and halacha at:
zomet@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
Or: Phone: +972-2-931442; FAX: +972-2-931889 (Attention: Ezra Rosenfeld)
|
| 989.346 | Parshas Vayechi: PARSHA Q&A | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Dec 14 1994 20:09 | 136 |
| Jerusalem One
================================================================
Parshas Vayechi
================================================================
* PARSHA Q&A *
In-Depth Questions on the Parsha and Rashi's commentary.
For the week ending 14 Teves 5755
16 & 17 December 1994
===========================================================================
Parsha Questions
1. How many years did Yaakov live in Egypt?
2. Who informed Yosef that Yaakov was ill?
3. Why was it Divinely decreed that Rachel be buried in the vicinity of
Bethlehem?
4. Initially, why was Yisrael unable to bless Efriam and Menashe?
5. Which evil kings descended from Efraim? Which from Menashe?
6. Name one great descendant of; a) Efraim; b) Menashe.
7. What burial ground did Yaakov give to Yosef?
8. In what way did Yosef have the status of bechor (first-born)?
9. Which tribe is compared to a lion?
10. How did the tribe of Zevulun use the profits of its commerce?
11. Which member of the tribe of Dan took vengeance against the Philistines?
12. Which tribe had numerous olive trees in its territory?
13. Which tribe is compared to a deer?
14. Which king from Binyamin was the wolf "that will tear and eat in the
morning (49:27)"?
15. Which members of Binyamin "will divide the spoils in the evening
(49:27)"?
16. Why did the Egyptians mourn the death of Yaakov?
17. From whom did Yaakov buy his burial place?
18. Which dignitaries paid their respect during the burial procession of
Yaakov?
19. Which of Yaakov's grandsons joined in carrying his coffin?
20. What did Yosef make his brothers swear to him before he died?
Bonus QUESTION:
In verse 49:10, Yaakov promises, "the scepter will not be removed from
Yehuda." For most of our history we have been without a king. Even when
we had kingship, during the second Temple period the kings were from the
tribe of Levi and not Yehuda.
Explain Yaakov's statement in light of Jewish history.
I Did Not Know That!
Yaakov lived to see the population of the Jewish People multiply in Egypt
from 70 to 300,000.
Ba'al HaTurim
===========================================================================
Answers to this Week's Questions
All references are to the verses and Rashi's commentary, unless otherwise
stated
1. 47:27 - Seventeen years.
2. 48:1 - Efraim.
3. 48:7 - So that in the future when Nevuzaradan would take the Jewish
captives into Bavel, they would pass by Rachel's tomb and she would pray
for their redemption.
4. 48:8 - The Shechina departed from him.
5. 48:8 - From Efraim- Yerovam and Achav. From Menashe- Yehu and his sons.
6. 48:19 - a) Yehoshua. b) Gideon.
7. 48:22 - Shechem.
8. 48:22 - His descendants received two portions in the Land when it was
divided.
9. 49:9 - Yehuda.
10. 49:13 - They provided for the needs of the tribe of Yissachar so that
Yissachar could learn Torah.
11. 49:16 - Shimshon.
12. 49:20 - Asher.
13. 49:21 - Naftali.
14. 49:27 - King Shaul.
15. 49:27 - Mordechai and Esther.
16. 50:3 - Because he had brought blessing to Egypt and the famine ended.
17. 50:5 - From Esav.
18. 50:10 - All the kings of Canaan and all the princes of Yishmael.
19. 50:13 - Menashe and Efraim.
20. 50:25 - That they will bring his bones to Eretz Yisrael.
Bonus ANSWER:
Yaakov did not promise that Yehuda would reign continuously or that no
other tribe would produce leaders. Yaakov promised that kingship would not
be removed completely from Yehuda. Even during periods when Yehuda isn't
in power, Yehuda is guaranteed that the role of leadership will return
again.
Gur Aryeh
===========================================================================
Can't make it to Israel for the Winter JLE program?
There is still another option available:
The Ohr Somayach WINTER LEARNING RETREAT
held in our Monsey New York campus from December 22-29.
This FREE program is open to college students who are interested in
experiencing a taste of Jewish learning.
For information, speak to Rabbi Zalman Corlin
E-Mail: ny000586@mail.nyser.net
Voice: 800-431-2272 (212-344-2000)
===========================================================================
SUBSCRIBE!
to one of the many weekly "lists" published by Ohr Somayach Institutions:
weekly - Summary of the weekly Torah portion.
dafyomi - Rav Mendel Weinbach's insights into the Daf Yomi.
ask - The Rabbi answers YOUR questions on Judaism.
parasha-qa - Challenging questions on the weekly Torah portion.
os-special - All the SPECIAL publications produced by Ohr Somayach.
os-alum - "Yachad" - the Ohr Somayach Electronic Alumni Newsletter.
judaismo - Spanish-Language newsletter on the Parsha & Judaism.
There is NEVER a charge for any of the above lists (though your local
information provider, such as AOL, Prodigy or CompuServe, might charge a
nominal fee). To subscribe to any of these lists, send the message:
subscribe {listname} {your full name}
to: listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for Parsha Q&A.
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Eliyahu Kane
Production Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
Production Design: Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
(C) 1994 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 989.347 | Parshas Vayigash: TORAH WEEKLY | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Dec 14 1994 20:10 | 204 |
| Jerusalem One
================================================================
Parshas Vayigash
================================================================
* TORAH WEEKLY *
Highlights of the Weekly Torah Portion and Haftorah.
Plus Ani Ma-amim - The Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith.
For the week ending 7 Teves 5755
9 & 10 December 1994
===========================================================================
This issue is dedicated Z''N Golde B''R Mordechai - Gertrude Feinberg Guy
A mother and grandmother who inspired her son and her grandchildren
to lives of Torah and Mitzvot
===========================================================================
This issue is being sent out to over -> 1070 <- Internet Subscribers!
===========================================================================
Summary
With the discovery of the goblet in Binyamin's sack, the brothers are
frozen in confusion. Yehuda alone steps forward and eloquently but firmly
petitions Yosef for Binyamin's release, offering himself in his stead. As
a result of this act of total selflessness, Yosef finally has irrefutable
proof that his brothers are different people from the ones who cast him
into the pit, and so, he now he reveals to them that he is none other than
their brother Yosef. The brothers shrink from him in shame, but Yosef
consoles them, telling them that everything has been part of Hashem's plan.
He sends them back to their father Yaakov, with a message to come and
reside in the land of Goshen. At first, Yaakov cannot accept the news, but
recognizing hidden signs in the message which positively identify the
sender as his son Yosef, Yaakov's spirit is revived. Yaakov, together with
all his family and possessions, set out for Goshen. Hashem communicates
with Yaakov in visions by night. He tells him not to fear going down to
Egypt and its negative spiritual consequences, because it is there that
Hashem will establish the Children of Yisrael as a great nation even though
they will be dwelling in a land steeped in immorality and corruption. The
Torah lists Yaakov's offspring, and hints to the birth of Yocheved, who
will be the mother of Moshe Rabbeinu. Seventy souls in total descend into
Egypt where Yosef is reunited with his father after twenty-two years of
separation. He embraces his father and weeps, overflowing with joy. Yosef
secures the settlement of his family in Goshen. Yosef takes his father
Yaakov and five of the least threatening of his brothers to be presented to
Pharaoh, and Yaakov blesses Pharaoh. Yosef instructs that in return for
grain, all the people of Egypt must give everything to Pharaoh, including
themselves as his slaves. Yosef then redistributes the population, with
the exception of the Egyptian priests who are directly supported by a
stipend from Pharaoh. The Children of Yaakov/Yisrael become settled and
their numbers multiply greatly.
===========================================================================
Commentaries
"And we said to my lord that we have a father who is very old and the
youngest [brother] is a child of [his] old age" (44:20).
"We have a father who is very old" -- our "father" represents the ancient
heritage of the Jewish People. Our continued success in surviving and
flourishing as a holy nation is founded on keeping faith with our heritage,
staying true to the teachings of our "father". We also have "a youngest
brother" -- those unborn generations to whom we have the responsibility to
pass on the torch of the Torah. We are the link in the chain between the
past -- "our father" and the future -- "our youngest brother". No matter
how much pressure there is on us in the present, we have a duty both to
"our father" and to "our youngest brother" that this golden chain from the
past to the future remains unbroken.
"And Yosef said to his brothers `I am Yosef'" (45:3).
When we study history and learn of wars, pogroms and holocaust; when we
read of natural disasters in the newspapers, and see pictures of continents
ravaged by hunger and famine, the question arises "Where is G-d?" From the
moment the brothers came to Egypt to buy food they encountered one disaster
after another. The brothers asked each other, "Why is Hashem doing this to
us?". Just as with the words "I am Yosef", all of the brothers' questions
were answered and the purpose of the previous twenty-two years became
blindingly clear, so too in the future, when the world hears the words "I
am Hashem", will all the dilemmas of history be solved in an instant.
(Chafetz Chaim)
"He [Yosef] fell on his [father's] neck, and wept exceedingly" (45:14).
Whereas Yosef poured out his heart in a sea of tears at the emotional
release of seeing his father after so many years, Yaakov's reaction is not
mentioned at all. In fact, at that very moment, Yaakov was reciting the
Shema. Why did Yaakov choose just this, of all times, to say Shema? The
answer is, that a tzaddik harnesses every opportunity and emotion in the
service of Hashem. When Yaakov felt a supreme surge of joy and love at the
sight of his beloved son, his first wish was to suppress his own personal
joy and channel his emotions into a sublime expression of his love for his
Creator. Thus, he recited the Shema, the ultimate acceptance of Hashem's
sovereignty: "And you shall love Hashem, your G-d with all your heart..."
(Gur Aryeh)
The Sfas Emes, commenting on the same verse, states that the nature of
Yaakov was to be removed and elevated entirely outside and beyond the
natural world. Thus, in his love for Hashem, he removed his attention
completely from the natural love he had for Yosef. On the other hand, the
nature of Yosef was to be enmeshed in love of Hashem even while being
involved in the natural world -- thus he was able to say the Shema even
while he was kissing his father.
===========================================================================
Haftorah:
Yechezkel 37:15-28
"Say to them `Thus says my L-rd Hashem/ Elokim: Behold! -- I take the
wooden tablet of Yosef which is in Ephraim's hand, and of the tribes of
Yisrael his comrades, and shall place them with it together with the wooden
tablet of Yehuda, and I will make them one wooden tablet, and they shall
become one in My hand'" (37:19,20).
Throughout the centuries of exile, the eye of the prophet sees the Jewish
People still divided into the two antagonistic kingdoms of Yehuda and
Ephraim. The stamp of Ephraim/Yisrael is religious nihilism, fanatical
enmity towards every specifically Jewish point of view, and indiscriminate
tolerance of every non-Jewish religious point of view. The other kingdom -
- that of Yehudah/Yisrael -- cannot escape the reproach of picking out
which mitzvos are to be kept, and the more or less mechanical performance
of those which are kept. When these two shattered halves of the Jewish
People are again united, it will not be a sad compromise, "murdering" the
Torah, with Ephraim/Yisrael making superficial concessions to the right
producing a "Kosher-Style" smorgasbord of glatt treif on the one hand,
while Yehuda/Yisrael -- the "fanatical ultra-orthodox" (as they appear to
Ephraim/Yisrael) -- "moderate" their demands to comply with the "modern
world". Rather, Hashem promises that both will be refined and purified,
assured of help to achieve this purity, and these "two wooden tablets" will
become "one in My hand."
(Adapted from Rabbi Mendel Hirsch)
===========================================================================
Ani Ma'amin
The Rambam's 13 principles of faith
Principle #9:
"I believe with complete faith that this Torah will not be exchanged,
nor will there be another Torah from the Creator, may His Name be
Blessed".
The difference between a unique revelation and a revelation which could be
repeated is the same as a difference between a Torah that is absolute and a
Torah that is relative. Since the Torah is absolute, it can never become
inappropriate, or "out of date". It can never be in need of modification.
Reflecting the very nature of Creation, it is totally applicable in all
situations for all time. However, the materialistic self-involvement of
the "me" society sees mitzvos such as Shabbos as being archaic. In fact,
never has there been a time in which Shabbos is so necessary, not just to
retain our Judaism, but to transcend the hedonism and abandonment of
today's world.
(Adapted from Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg)
G-d will not replace nor change His Law
for all time, for anything else.
Yigdal
===========================================================================
Can't make it to Israel for the Winter JLE program?
There is still another option available:
The Ohr Somayach WINTER LEARNING RETREAT
held in our Monsey New York campus from December 22-29.
This FREE program is open to college students who are interested in
experiencing a taste of Jewish learning.
For information, speak to Rabbi Zalman Corlin
E-Mail: ny000586@mail.nyser.net
Voice: 800-431-2272 (212-344-2000)
===========================================================================
SUBSCRIBE!
to one of the many weekly "lists" published by Ohr Somayach Institutions:
weekly - Summary of the weekly Torah portion.
dafyomi - Rav Mendel Weinbach's insights into the Daf Yomi.
ask - The Rabbi answers YOUR questions on Judaism.
parasha-qa - Challenging questions on the weekly Torah portion.
os-special - All the SPECIAL publications produced by Ohr Somayach.
os-alum - "Yachad" - the Ohr Somayach Electronic Alumni Newsletter.
judaismo - Spanish-Language newsletter on Parsha & Judaism.
There is NEVER a charge for any of the above lists (though your local
information provider, such as AOL, Prodigy or CompuServe, might charge a
nominal fee). To subscribe to any of these lists, send the message:
subscribe {listname} {your full name}
to: listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for Torah Weekly
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Yaakov Asher Sinclair
Production Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
Production Design: Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
(C) 1994 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 989.348 | Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Vayechi IV | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Dec 14 1994 20:10 | 78 |
| Jerusalem One
==========================================================================
Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Vayechi
==========================================================================
No 522: 12 Tevet 5755 (17 December 1994)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Zomet Institute is having serious financial difficulties, because of recent
government budget cuts. We turn to anyone who can help with contributions,
to enable continued work on modern challenges in the spirit of halacha. Tax
free contributions can be sent in the USA to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds,
41 East 42nd Street, New York 10017, earmarked for Zomet.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
TORAH, SOCIETY, AND STATE: Is Shabbat Set Aside or Superseded?
by Rabbi Uri Dasberg
Yaacov was the first one to become sick -- "Yosef was told: behold, your
father is sick" [Bereishit 48:1]. Yaacov requested that one become sick, so
that he will have some warning before he passes on from this world. This
can give him a chance to make preparations or to try to change his fate by
prayer or action. Before this request by Yaacov, a man would sneeze, and
his soul would depart through his nostrils. This is the source of wishes
such as "assutah" or "bless you" after a sneeze, even in modern times.
It is permitted to desecrate Shabbat in order to save one who is mortally
sick, just as it is permitted to violate almost all of the mitzvot in such
a case. This is the justification for medical work in hospitals. It is
interesting to ask how much preparation must be made before Shabbat in
order to avoid the necessity of violating Shabbat in case a sick person
should appear. For example, a phone may be used to call for help for a sick
person on Shabbat. Must a man who has heart trouble and therefore is in
danger of becoming sick obtain a special telephone for Shabbat use (such as
the "Shabbatphone" made by Zomet Institute), or can he say, if I ever have
a problem, it will entail mortal danger, and then any kind of phone will be
permitted anyway?
The answer depends on a disagreement among the sages whether Shabbat is
deferred by mortal danger or superseded [Talmudic Encyclopedia volume 13,
pages 250-254]. Thus, can one who is sick on Shabbat do anything he wants,
or only those actions directly related to saving him from danger? (An
example would be to ask if it is permitted to turn on the heat for a
mortally ill person even if the cold itself would really not cause him any
harm.) However, this disagreement pertains to the case where the sick
person already has appeared before us, and only then is there a possibility
that all aspects of Shabbat may have been set aside. In the typical
hospital situation, it may be that there is not yet a specific sick person,
so that we must preserve Shabbat and make every effort not to be caught in
a situation of mortal danger that will force us to violate it.
It can be shown from various halachic rulings that it is necessary to
prepare as much as possible before Shabbat in an effort to prevent the need
for desecration because of danger. For example, it is prohibited to start a
boat trip less than three days before Shabbat, in order to avoid violations
if possible. Another example is related to performing a brit on Shabbat;
the brit is not performed if all necessary preparations to prevent danger
to the baby were not made in advance. It is clear from both of these cases
that we are obligated to do what we can to prevent reaching a situation
which will require violation of Shabbat.
Reference: Rabbi Uri Cohen, "Od Avi Chai," pages 307-310
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SHABBAT-ZOMET is an extract from SHABBAT-B'SHABBATO, a weekly bulletin
distributed free of charge in hundreds of synagogues in Israel. It is
published by the Zomet Institute of Alon Shevut, Israel, under the auspices
of Mafdal, the National Religious Party.
Translated by: Moshe Goldberg
To subscribe, send a message to: listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il, with
a blank subject line and the message:
sub shabbat-zomet <first name> <last name>
Archives of past issues are available on the gopher server at jerusalem1.
Contact Zomet with comments about this bulletin or questions on the
relationship between modern technology and halacha at:
zomet@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
Or: Phone: +972-2-931442; FAX: +972-2-931889 (Attention: Ezra Rosenfeld)
|
| 989.349 | Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Vayigash IV | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Dec 14 1994 20:11 | 78 |
| Jerusalem One
============================================================================
Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Vayigash
============================================================================
No 521: 7 Tevet 5755 (10 December 1994)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Zomet Institute is having serious financial difficulties, because of recent
government budget cuts. We turn to anyone who can help with contributions,
to enable continued work on modern challenges in the spirit of halacha. Tax
free contributions can be sent in the USA to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds,
41 East 42nd Street, New York 10017, earmarked for Zomet.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"AND YOSEF WILL PUT HIS HAND ON YOUR EYES" [Bereishit 46:4]
by Rabbi Baruch Gigi
Once again Yaacov is forced to leave Eretz Yisrael and to wander, this time
to exile in Egypt, and he is worried. G-d promises: "Do not be afraid to go
down to Egypt ... Yosef will put his hand on your eyes" [46:4]. Two main
interpretations of this verse have been given: (1) Yosef will place his
hand over your eyes, that is, he will close Yaacov's eyes at the moment of
death, the final kindness performed by the living [Saadia Gaon, Ibn Ezra].
This may imply that Yosef will be granted a long life. (2) Yosef will take
charge of your worldly needs and will provide for you [Rashbam, Sforno].
However, it is difficult to accept that either meaning is a response to
what was on Yaacov's mind at the time, that Yosef would outlive him or that
his physical needs would be taken care of. Another possible interpretation
is that Yosef will guide Yaacov in his life in Egypt. G-d is explaining to
Yaacov the meaning of his promise, "And I will come back up with you"
[46:4]. Yaacov is afraid of the effects of the long stay in Egypt; if he
and his offspring will be too strongly influenced by the culture of their
hosts, this sojourn might -- G-d forbid -- lead to an end of the nation
within Egypt. Therefore, he is given a promise that Yosef will act as a
guide on the correct path.
Yosef, who has spent many years in Egypt, has the experience needed to
follow a suitable route among the impurities of Egypt. In the middle of a
struggle with his evil inclination, Yosef had a vision of his father's
image [Sotah 36b]. He was able to overcome his desires, and was blessed
with the verse, "His bow was firm" [49:24]. From that point on, he had no
qualms about declaring loud and clear, "I am an 'Ivri'" [Yonah 1:9]. Even
after he achieved a high position, and was crowned as second to the king,
he still considered himself an "Ivri," eating at a separate table [43:32].
Yosef's strength is in his EYES: His blessing is concerned with eyes -- "A
charming son to the eye" [49:22]; he was viewed favorably in others' eyes
[39:21]; others find favor in his eyes [47:25]; he proposes to his
brothers, "I will set my eye on him" [44:21]. Yosef will use his EYES to
guide his father's house in Egypt in keeping to their unique ways even in
the midst of the abominations of the land.
Covering one's eyes is a protection against seeing foul things. Covering
the eyes during the recital of the "Shema" helps one to accept the yoke of
heaven. When Yaacov feared that his offspring were not pure, they all put
their hands before their eyes and called out, "Shema Yisrael," as if to
say, "We are fulfilling the concept, 'his hand is on your eyes;' we have
not been defiled by the impurities of Egypt." Once this promise has been
fulfilled, there is no doubt that the other promise in this verse will also
be fulfilled: "And I will come back up with you" [46:4].
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SHABBAT-ZOMET is an extract from SHABBAT-B'SHABBATO, a weekly bulletin
distributed free of charge in hundreds of synagogues in Israel. It is
published by the Zomet Institute of Alon Shevut, Israel, under the auspices
of Mafdal, the National Religious Party.
Translated by: Moshe Goldberg
To subscribe, send a message to: listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il, with
a blank subject line and the message:
sub shabbat-zomet <first name> <last name>
Archives of past issues are available on the gopher server at jerusalem1.
Contact Zomet with comments about this bulletin or questions on the
relationship between modern technology and halacha at:
zomet@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
Or: Phone: +972-2-931442; FAX: +972-2-931889 (Attention: Ezra Rosenfeld)
|
| 989.350 | Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Vayigash V | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Dec 14 1994 20:11 | 106 |
|
Jerusalem One
============================================================================
Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Vayigash
============================================================================
No 521: 7 Tevet 5755 (10 December 1994)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Zomet Institute is having serious financial difficulties, because of recent
government budget cuts. We turn to anyone who can help with contributions,
to enable continued work on modern challenges in the spirit of halacha. Tax
free contributions can be sent in the USA to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds,
41 East 42nd Street, New York 10017, earmarked for Zomet.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
POINT OF VIEW: "The Abomination of Egypt" [Bereishit 46:34]
by Rabbi Yisrael Rozen
"... As in the days of her whoring in Egypt ... those whose flesh is the
flesh of donkeys ..." [Yechezkel 23:19-20].
Last week, this column attempted to decry the phenomenon of slaughter of
"sacred cows" and undermining values of tradition and national lore. I
wrote that "it would not surprise me if 'intellectuals' soon ... turn to a
denial of the value of family life [and] burn the Tanach in a Jerusalem set
on fire." To my utter dismay both of these dire predictions came true
within one week, at a single stroke. As part of a decision of the Israeli
Supreme Court, in the heart of Jerusalem, part of the Tanach was wiped out
and family life in Yisrael has been dealt a stunning blow.
In the midst of the holy days of Chanukah, "abomination" [Vayikra 18:22]
was not only permitted but was recognized by a court of law as a legitimate
way of life. Judges entered the holy temple and "defiled all the oil;"
modern-day Hellenists have won a victory for their ideals of the human body
and materialism.
Next week, during the fast of Assarah B'Tevet, Yisrael mourns the beginning
of the destruction of the Temple, caused by cracks and crevices in the wall
of Jerusalem. In modern times we have expanded this tradition by also
mourning for those lost in the Holocaust, and I come today to mourn all of
these things. However, we are also witnessing a modern counterpart to three
tragic events that befell our ancestors on 17 Tammuz: "The tablets of the
Ten Commandments were shattered ['Thou shalt not commit adultery'],
Apostumous burned the Torah, and an idol was erected in the Temple" [Taanit
4:6]. The Torah has been removed from its Ark and has been exiled into a
dark corner.
The decision by the Supreme Court to recognize single-sex couples as a
family unit is another step in the unholy "temple" of individual rights.
The Basic Law of Human Rights and the ultimate power given to the Supreme
Court in interpreting this law have the potential to be milestones in the
destruction of the Jewish character of Israeli society. The Supreme Court
should have served as an anchor for national, social, and cultural needs,
and as a brake against prevailing evil winds. At the very least one might
expect the court not to take sides on matters of world outlook that are
hotly contested. The court should realize that its decision has effects far
beyond the monetary issues in the specific case that has now been
concluded.
We have already heard in the modern "enlightened" world of a will
bequeathing an estate to the family dog, and of a court that upheld this
will. How soon can we expect a similar ruling in an Israeli court? As we
read in this week's Torah portion, "any shepherd is an abomination in
Egypt" [46:34]; animals were considered a diety in this same Egypt that
invented the concept of the "sacred cow." We should take warning that
anyone who slaughters the sacred cow of proper family life may be on a path
leading to the verse, "Humanity has no superiority over animals" [Kohelet
3:19]. This brand of enlightenment can be described by the words of our
sages: "You did not act as the best among the nations, rather you acted
just as the spoiled ones" [Sanhedrin 39b].
Can anyone be found who will repeat the actions of David Ben-Gurion, when
he surveyed the opinions of about a hundred prominent Jews on the question
of "Who is a Jew?" This included writers, rabbis, poets, philosophers,
artists, and public figures from all sectors of the Jewish people. I have
serious doubts if such a move is possible under the rule of the current
Israeli Supreme Court.
And, where is the Shas party and its sages of the "Chachmei HaTorah?" In
foreign affairs they give in to the government and let it do as it pleases.
However, what has happened to their determination not to allow a change of
the religious "status quo" of the country? What could be a bigger change
than this drastic modification of personal status? What else does the
Supreme Court have to do to the marriage laws of this country in order to
wake up the leaders of Shas, to cause them to disassociate themselves from
responsibility for such fateful decisions regarding religion, culture, and
morality?
The Festival of Lights has been turned into a time of "enlightenment!"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SHABBAT-ZOMET is an extract from SHABBAT-B'SHABBATO, a weekly bulletin
distributed free of charge in hundreds of synagogues in Israel. It is
published by the Zomet Institute of Alon Shevut, Israel, under the auspices
of Mafdal, the National Religious Party.
Translated by: Moshe Goldberg
To subscribe, send a message to: listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il, with
a blank subject line and the message:
sub shabbat-zomet <first name> <last name>
Archives of past issues are available on the gopher server at jerusalem1.
Contact Zomet with comments about this bulletin or questions on the
relationship between modern technology and halacha at:
zomet@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
Or: Phone: +972-2-931442; FAX: +972-2-931889 (Attention: Ezra Rosenfeld)
|
| 989.351 | Parshas Vayechi: TORAH WEEKLY | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Dec 14 1994 20:12 | 170 |
| Jerusalem One
=================================================================
Parshas Vayechi
=================================================================
* TORAH WEEKLY *
Highlights of the Weekly Torah Portion
Parshas Vayechi
For the week ending 11 Teves 5754
24 & 25 December 1993
=========================================================================
Summary
Yaakov lived his last seventeen years in Egypt. The final parsha in the
book of Bereishit records his final moments. Yaakov summons Yosef, who
consents to his father's request, vowing to bury him in the burial cave of
his ancestors in Canaan. Later, Yaakov becomes ill, so Yosef brings his two
sons for a blessing. During this meeting Yaakov gives Yosef a double
portion in Israel by "adopting" his two sons and explains why Yosef's
mother Rachel was buried in Beit Lachem, an apparent slight to her honor.
Yaakov begins to bless Yosef's sons, giving precedence to the younger
Ephraim, but Yosef interrupts to tell him that Menashe is older. Yaakov
explains that he intended to bless the younger one with his strong hand
because Yehoshua will descend from him. Yaakov then calls the rest of his
sons so he can bless them too. He offers constructive criticism to Reuven,
Shimon, and Levi and encourages the good qualities of the others. Yaakov
passes away at the age of 147. A large funeral procession departs Egypt to
bury Yaakov in the Ma'arat Hamachpayla alongside other Patriarchs and
Matriarchs in Canaan. After Yaakov's passing, Yosef's brothers fear that he
will avenge their cruel sale of him into slavery. Yosef reassures them, and
even promises to help support them and their families. Yosef foretells to
his brothers that HaShem will redeem them from Egypt, and makes them swear
that they will bring his bones with them out of Egypt. Yosef passes away at
the age of 110.
=========================================================================
Commentaries
"And Yaakov lived in the Land of Egypt" (47:28)
Rashi explains that the parsha which begins with this verse is "closed"
(written in such a way that it appears to be part of the previous parsha),
because when Yaakov passed away the eyes of the Jews were "closed" and
their hearts were pained due to the pains of enslavement. Yet, as the
parsha begins Yaakov is still alive, and the terrible times have not yet
begun! The Torah is criticizing them for not sensing that they were in
exile as a result of living so comfortably in Egypt. Since they were so
dependent on the kindness of the Egyptian king, they should have realized
that this was not their land. In reality, they were under other people's
control, and in a dangerous exile, even though the Egyptians treated them
well at the time. Since they did not recognize the exile, it felt like the
physical oppression came suddenly, closing their eyes and inflicting pain
on their hearts. But if while Yaakov was alive they had felt the danger,
they would not have suffered as much when the situation changed. After
Yaakov's passing, when his burial could only be accomplished with the
permission of Pharaoh, they realized what they should have felt while
Yaakov was still alive, that "their eyes were already closed" and they were
already suffering in a dreaded exile. This is a very powerful lesson today:
Not to forget that life in the diaspora, as comfortable as it may be, is
not where we belong forever.
(Adapted from Rav Moshe Feinstein)
"And He blessed them on that day saying, "Israel will use you as a blessing
saying 'HaShem should make you like Ephraim and Menashe''..."(48:20)
Yaakov blessed Ephraim and Menashe that every Jew would bless his sons with
these words, "HaShem should make you like Ephraim and Menashe." The custom
in many Jewish families is that every Shabbos evening, before Kiddush, we
bless our daughters that they should be like Sarah, Rivka, Rachel and Leah,
whereas we bless sons to be as Ephraim and Menashe. Yaakov chose Ephraim
and Menashe to be the role models for future Jewish sons because they had
been raised together with the nobility of Egypt, and young impressionable
children usually do not enjoy being different than their peers. However,
Yaakov saw that Ephraim and Menashe had nevertheless developed spiritually,
in the midst of an extremely corrupt society. He therefore said that every
father should bless his sons to have the spiritual strength of Ephraim and
Menashe.
(R. Shmuel Hominer-Eved HaMelech)
"Yaakov called for his sons..." (49:1).
Yaakov called for all of his sons and gave them his final blessings. Yet
if we look at the "blessings" we will see that Yaakov actually criticized
his pious sons Reuven, Shimon and Levi, despite the fact that our
commentaries teach us that their "mistakes" would have been credits by our
own standards. However, his criticism was only directed at certain
character traits which led to their unique "mistakes", and not at their
actions. In his "blessings", Yaakov criticized the negative traits and
praised the good actions. Despite the unique nature of Yaakov's comments to
his righteous sons, we learn a very important lesson for when our children
misbehave: We must be more concerned with correcting the cause of their
actions than the behavior itself. In contrast, good behavior is important
in an intrinsic sense, because good qualities without good deeds are of
little value.
(Based on Lev Eliyahu)
"Yaakov called his sons and said, "Gather yourselves [together]..." (49:1).
Yaakov had a unique message for each son. He nevertheless had them all
gather together first. Yaakov was conveying an important lesson, that each
son and the tribe that would descend from him had specific abilities, and
should play his unique role for the Jewish people. For example Yehuda would
produce kings and Levi priests. They should not forget, however, that they
are part of a greater whole. If they do not remain united then their own
personal abilities will be worthless. After the Macabean revolts, when the
Hasmonean priests (from the tribe of Levi) retained control of the royal
line for too long, they were punished by Providence for stepping into
Yehuda's sphere. Yaakov's message reminds us to develop our children's and
our own individual potential while directing our goals for the sake of the
entire Jewish people which will further our personal and national
development.
(Eyunim BaMikra, Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky)
=========================================================================
Haftorah: MELACHIM I (2:1-12)
As in the parsha, the Haftorah deals with the final words of one of the
Jewish people's greatest figures, King David, to his son Solomon. As King
David's time to depart this world approaches, he commands his twelve year
old son Solomon to strengthen himself despite his tender years, to act as a
man of wisdom and piety, and to guard, fulfill and live by the Torah in all
ways. King David explains that by living by the Torah, Solomon will become
wise and will draw on this wisdom in serving HaShem in the widest range.
Furthermore if he will serve HaShem in truth, with all of his heart and
soul, he will merit the fulfillment of HaShem's promise that the kings of
Israel will always be from their descendants. As Yaakov had advised his
children how to succeed as a people, King David advised Solomon how to
succeed as a king.
(Rabbi S.R. Hirsch)
=========================================================================
Test your knowledge of the current parsha!
Help prepare an intellectually stimulating vort!
Subscribe to Ohr Somayach's Parsha Q&A list!
Each week, you'll get several questions based on the text, Rashi or the
Haftorah, plus a interesting bonus question, and answers to last week's
quesitons.
For example:
Bonus Question: After revealing himself to his brothers, Yosef tells them:
"Hurry and go up to my father... Come down to me, don't delay." (passuk
45:19). What was the rush ?
Answer: Yosef knew that the Jewish People were to be 210 years in Egypt
and during that time there would be much suffering. By maximizing the
amount of time his father and brothers spent in Egypt, Yosef hoped that the
merit of their righteousness would help mitigate some of the suffering. In
addition, the more time Yaakov and his sons would live in Egypt, the more
influence they would have on their children's lifestyle in exile. We have
seen throughout our history that the nature of each exile was shaped by
those who went into exile first. In the Babylonian exile, our Prophets and
Scholars led the way, and Torah flourished. Our current exile, in which
those who discarded Torah led the way, has until recently had a much
different character. Yosef wanted his father and brothers to come quickly
into Egypt to teach by example the proper way a Jew should live in exile.
To subscribe to this list, send the message:
subscribe parasha-qa {firstname} {lastname}
to:
listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
Compuserve Members: You MUST preface all addresses with INTERNET:
=========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Instutitions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
=========================================================================
|
| 989.352 | P A R A S H A - P A G E: VAYIGASH 5755 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Dec 14 1994 20:13 | 287 |
| P A R A S H A - P A G E
distributed courtesy of:
Mordecai Kornfeld | Yeshivat Ohr Yerushalayim| Tel: 522633
6/12 Katzenelenbogen St. | D.N. Harei Yehuda | Fax: 341589
Har Nof, Jerusalem, 93871 | Moshav Beit Meir, Israel | US:718 5208526
___________________________________________
To receive the weekly Parasha-Page, write to:
listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
and put in as your message body the following line *only*:
sub parasha-page [Your full name]
To cancel your subscription, send a message to the same address,
and write as your message body the following line only:
signoff parasha-page
(NOTE: Don't add words to the message, and check your spelling. Please
address any comments to my personal account: yoy@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il)
========================================
VAYIGASH 5755
Yosef told his brothers, "Come close to me," and they came
close. He then said, "I am Yosef, whom you sold to Egypt!
...Behold, you see with your own eyes ... that it is my mouth
that is speaking to you."
(B'reishit 45:4,12)
"You see with your own eyes" --... that I am your brother,
because you see that I am circumsized, just as you are, and also
that "it is my mouth that is speaking to you", i.e., I am
speaking the Holy Tongue (Hebrew).
(Rashi ad loc.)
Rashi tells us that these two statements of Yosef were intended
to convince his brothers he was was indeed their brother Yosef. He
told them to "come close" to show them that he was circumcised, and he
pointed out to them that he was speaking the Holy Tongue to them, a
sure sign of the family of Yakov Avinu. Apparently the brothers did not
believe Yosef at first, when he revealed to them his identity. It was
necessary for him to prove to his brothers that he was indeed telling
the truth.
A number of questions arise concerning this description of the
events. Firstly, as the Ramban points out, why did the brothers not
believe Yosef when he identified himself? Rashi tells us in several
places (42:3,13,14) that the brothers were aware of the possibility
that they might encounter Yosef in Egypt, and were in fact anxious to
find him, buy him back and bring him home. Here they find a man who
mentioned Yosef's name, as well as the fact that his brothers sold him
as a slave to be taken to Egypt. Both of these facts were never
divulged by the brothers in their conversations with him. If so,
wouldn't they be the perfect proof of his identity? How could there
possibly be any room for doubt in the brothers' minds after this, that
further evidence was necessary?
It should also be recalled that in 43:33 we are told that Yosef
was able to seat his brothers at the table in precise age order, a feat
which they themselves marveled at (ibid.). Even if the brothers did
not guess Yosef's identity then and there, it should at least have
verified the truth of Yosef's statement when Yosef eventually revealed
himself to them. (See also Rashi to 43:7, who adds that Yosef displayed
to his brothers a familiarity with even their private lives, based on
his memories of them from his youth.)
Another difficulty presents itself. How could the brothers
ignore Yosef's constant efforts to have Binyamin brought to him, his
profuse show of favor to Binyamin when he did come (see 43:34 and Rashi
to 43:33), and finally his attempted abduction of him? Surely the
peculiar attitude of the viceroy of Egypt toward Binyamin, coupled with
the fact that he seemed to know so much personal information about them
and their family, should have given them enough evidence for them to at
least suspect that they had found the man they were so anxiously
looking for!
Thirdly, even if we accept that the brothers needed further
convincing for some reason, how would these two items prove Yosef's
identity at all? Rashi tells us (in 41:55) that all the Egyptians
underwent circumcision during the first stage of the famine. Besides,
all the various nations that descended from Abraham practiced
circumcision, so how could this be considered an identifying
characteristic of a son of Yakov? (This problem is raised in the
supercommentaries on Rashi -- Mizrachi, Gur Aryeh.)
Using his knowledge of Hebrew to prove his identity is no less
perplexing. As the Ramban asks, wasn't Hebrew the language of the land
of Canaan? Why, then, would it be so unusual for a high government
official to be able to speak many foreign languages, especially that of
a neighboring country? Surely many Egyptians spoke Hebrew well!
Besides, what motive would anyone else have -- especially a
powerful governor of a powerful nation -- in claiming to be Yosef?
II
In order to address these questions, let us first examine
another comment of Rashi's in last week's Parsha:
"Yaakov saw that the sale (Shever) of food was taking place in
Egypt..." -- Yaakov saw through divine inspiration that there
was something to look forward to (Sever) for him in Egypt,
although it was not a clear enough prophecy for him to realize
that this glimmer of hope was the discovery of Yosef.
(Rashi to 42:1)
Perhaps it was not simply a flash of divine inspiration that
occurred to Yaakov that gave him the premonition that Yosef might
be found in Egypt, but also an insight into the course of events
happening there, as follows:
The Gemara tells us that Yaakov was the personification of the
Talmudic statement that "With the arrival of the Torah scholar, there
arrives blessing." (Brachot 42a). Indeed, in B'reishit 31:9-12 we see
that Yaakov was blessed, through supernatural means, with an inordinate
amount of economic success in his dealings with Lavan. Lavan himself
noted the connection between Yaakov's presence and financial
prosperity (30:27). Furthermore, after Yaakov had just lavished a
fortune of gifts upon his brother, we read that Yaakov arrived in
Shechem "complete," which Rashi (33:18) explains to mean that he
immediately regained all the money that he had spent on Esav. Even in
the years of famine, when the rest of the residents of Canaan had long
since depleted their supplies of grain, Rashi (42:1) tells us that
Yaakov and his family were blessed with sufficient food for themselves.
In fact, when Yaakov arrived in Egypt, we are told that the famine
which was to have plagued the area for another five years abruptly
ended in his merit (Rashi 47:19). Wherever Yaakov went, and in
whatever situation he was to be found, there was sure to be prosperity
and blessing -- both to him and to those in his vicinity.
In 37:2 Rashi (quoting B'reishit Rabba) points out the amazing
similarities between the life's events of Yaakov and those of Yosef
(they were both hated, they were both pursued by their brother(s),
etc.). Similarly, the Gemara in Brachot tells us that Yosef shared
this quality of bringing blessing to his surroundings with his father
as well. This can be seen explicitly in several places in the Torah:
"Everything he did, Hashem made successful in his hands" (39:3);
"Everything that he did Hashem made successful" (39:23). (And of
course, let us not forget that he became the viceroy over all of
Egypt!) And, like his father, his ability to bring blessing wherever
he went extended to those around him as well: "As soon as (Potiphar)
appointed him to be in charge of his house... Hashem blessed the
household of the Egyptian because of Yosef" (39:5).
Yaakov saw that whereas the famine was affecting the *entire*
region, the seven years of plenty were mysteriously limited to Egypt
alone (see Ramban to 41:2). If Egypt was benefiting from such an
unusual degree of prosperity, it occurred to Yaakov, it might be that
Yosef had something to do with it. The fact that this prosperity
started as soon as the new leader took control in Egypt only heightened
Yaakov's feeling that a single person was somehow involved in the turn
of events. The brothers may have come to the same conclusion. This may
be why they came to Egypt with full confidence that Yosef was to be
found there (Rashi, 42:3,13,14)
This analysis of their thinking, however, only seems to *add* to
our wonder. Why did the brothers not suspect that the ruler himself was
Yosef, especially after he told them his identity outright?
The answer to this question is that the brothers did not
consider even as a remote possibility that their brother ascended to
such a senior position in Egypt. He could not speak the Egyptian
language; he was a foreigner; and he had -- at least at one time --
been a slave. Any one of these factors, as the Sar Hamashkim (Minister
of Drinks) pointed out, would have disqualified Yosef for any senior
appointment under normal circumstances (see Rashi to 41:12).
Furthermore, the brothers knew that this ruler was married and had
children. They knew that Yosef was a holy man and would never have
married an idolatrous Egyptian woman! (In fact, the Midrash [Pirkei
D'Rabbi Eliezer, 38] says that the "daughter of Poti Phera" whom Yosef
married was actually an adopted daughter, for Poti Phera had adopted a
foundling from the land of Canaan -- who turned out to be none other
than the daughter of Dinah, and the granddaughter of Yaakov!)
No, the possibility that this ruler of Egypt was Yosef was out
of the question. If so, what was Yaakov's, and the brothers',
premonition? Perhaps they suspected that this ruler had been the
*master* of Yosef in the past, and that this association with his
righteous son was brought such unusual prosperity to his land (the same
kind of prosperity that Potiphar, Yosef's first master, had indeed
experienced)!
Now we can understand why the brothers did not become suspicious
when they saw that the ruler knew so much personal information about
them and their missing brother. A master may certainly have questioned
his slave about his past, and this would be especially true in the case
of such a holy and extraordinarily successful servant. The brothers
indeed knew that they were on to something when they heard all that
Yosef told them, but they thought that "something" was not Yosef
himself, but the man who *owned* Yosef! This, in answer to the first
question, explains why the brothers weren't convinced by all of Yosef's
knowledge about their past.
III
With this in mind, we can explain how the brothers viewed the
curious behavior of Yosef towards Binyamin, and why they suspected the
Egyptian ruler of falsely presenting himself as their brother. The
brothers knew that the famine was now affecting Egypt as well as all
the other surrounding countries. Whatever mysterious merit had been
working on its behalf during the seven years of plenty seemed to have
dissipated. Since it was well known that the Egyptian culture was
steeped in lewdness and immorality (see Rashi B'reishit 12:19), the
brothers suspected that Yosef, as righteous as he was, may have
succumbed to the licentious temptations of his surroundings and thereby
lost his ability to be a source of blessing to himself and his
environment. Alternatively, perhaps Yosef did indeed remain steadfast
in his righteous ways, they reasoned, and was persecuted for doing so
(as did in fact happen to him in the house of Potiphar -- 39:7-20!),
and was no longer in the service of this viceroy.
If this ruler was now deprived of the services of his righteous
servant, as indicated by the fact that Egypt was now suffering along
with the rest of the region, it would be quite understandable that he
would want to substitute Yosef's capabilities with someone of equal
qualifications. Surely he would know from Yosef that he had other
brothers and that one of them was a full brother (and was more likely
to share his characteristics) who was moreover not involved in the
grievous sin of selling Yosef as a slave. This was Yosef's only brother
who remained righteous, and would therefore be able to bring blessing
himself. It was only natural, therefore, that the viceroy should want
to use all means possible to try to get Binyamin to come to Egypt and
to seize him as his slave once he came.
Bearing all this in mind, we can now understand how Yehudah was
trying to persuade Yosef not to keep Binyamin. He told Yosef that
keeping Binyamin would certainly lead to the death of their father.
This father, as the ruler certainly knew, was the source of all the
blessings that Yosef merited, and bringing about his death would
definitely frustrate any plans he might have of obtaining the blessing
of prosperity through enslaving Binyamin. Furthermore, Yehudah argued,
if Binyamin leaves his father he himself will die (see Ramban to
44:22), and there will certainly be no benefit gained by keeping him
away from his father!
We can now understand why the brothers refused to believe Yosef
even after he revealed himself to them. They were suspicious that he
was responding to Yehudah's argument. He had become convinced that
keeping Binyamin would not accomplish anything, as the blessing that
the ruler was seeking would not be able to function. "This ruler is
now trying to get us to bring our father Yaakov himself to join him in
Egypt, in order that he may herald the return of the rescinded
blessing!" they thought. "To this purpose, he has taken up the tactic
of masquerading as Yosef himself!"
Since this was the suspicion of the brothers, it is obvious that
hearing the viceroy mention Yosef's name and the fact that he was sold
by his brothers would do nothing to alleviate their skepticism toward
the ruler.
IV
But if so, how did the signs of circumcision and knowledge of
Hebrew manage to convince the distrustful brothers after all else had
failed? Besides, as we pointed out earlier, the proofs of circumcision
and knowledge of Hebrew were themselves far from "solid" proofs of
Jewish identity, in the land of Egypt!
There is an authoritative story about the Vilna Gaon, recorded
at the end of the book Divrei Eliyahu as follows:
Once there was a man who fled to an unknown location shortly
after his wedding, leaving his wife an "Aguna" (i.e., unable to
remarry, as her husband had never formally divorced her). About fifteen
years later a man came to her town claiming to be the abandoned woman's
long-lost husband. No one in town was familiar enough with the man to
be able to positively identify him after so long a lapse of time. He
tried to prove his identity by mentioning all sorts of personal details
about himself and his wife, including very private matters that only a
husband could know. Nevertheless, the woman didn't trust him. She
insisted that she would not accept him until the matter was brought
before the Torah scholars of the generation. The family decided to
refer the question to the Vilna Gaon: How could they ascertain whether
this man was indeed the long-absent husband, or not?
The Gaon suggested that the man be asked to show his alleged
father-in-law the seat in the synagogue that the father-in-law sat in.
A new husband normally accompanies his father-in-law to the synagogue
on the first Shabbat after the wedding and sits next to him, so the man
should have no trouble identifying the seat. His advice was taken.
The man was unable to identify his supposed father-in-law's seat, and
was exposed as an impostor. As it happened, this man had simply met
the true husband, and had learned from him all about the husband, his
wife and her family, down to the most personal details. Shortly
thereafter, the true husband did return, and was immediately recognized
by all.
When asked how this particular test of true identity occurred
to him, the Gaon replied that if someone would stoop to such depths of
deceit -- and the sin of adultery -- to steal someone's wife, he would
never have the slightest interest in anything that has to do with
sanctity or religion. He may have quizzed the husband about many
personal matters, but the thoughts of the synagogue would certainly
never enter his mind.
Perhaps we can apply the moral of this story to our Parsha. If
Yosef was suspected of being an impostor, the only way to disprove this
allegation would be to show that he was aware of matters of *holiness*.
A charlatan might know every detail about the person he is trying to
impersonate through extensive questioning, but he would not think of
asking questions involving sacred issues! Yosef was not exhibiting the
physical property of being circumcised or the intellectual ability of
being able to master the Hebrew language; he was showing the brothers
that he was aware that the circumcision was a sign of the *sanctity* of
the House of Israel, and that the Hebrew language was the *Holy
Tongue*, which embodies the sanctity of prophecy and of Divine creation
(see Ramban, Sh'mot 30:13). When the brothers saw that he was aware
of these facts, they were convinced that they were not dealing with an
Egyptian scoundrel, as they had originally suspected. This man was
indeed the real Yosef!
|
| 989.353 | A Christmas Story By Shmuel Golding | TAV02::JEREMY | | Thu Dec 15 1994 13:02 | 172 |
| A Christmas Story
By Shmuel Golding
Young Naphtali had lived in Babylon all his life and
understood well the ways and customs of the people among whom
he lived. Being a Jew, he had been brought up to worship the
God of his fathers, the God of Israel, and had been taught
that the worship of idols was an abomination. However,
Naphtali felt on this particular day of the year, the winter
solstice, when all Babylonia was celebrating the birth of
their god Tammuz, an emptiness inside himself, a feeling of
not belonging to that great and powerful nation. Naphtali had
a great desire to be like all the other youths of his age and
to participate in the joyous festival that everyone was
celebrating. He saw how a tree had been taken from the forest,
decked with silver and gold and presents wrapped in blue and
purple laid by an image carved from the tree. He heard the
music of the pipers and saw the people dancing. Naphtali too
wanted to dance and today of all days to become a part of the
nation and its people.
Naphtali was not alone, there were other Jews of his own
generation who felt that the old prophet, Jeremiah by name,
was exaggerating when he warned against following the ways of
the nation. "What does Jeremiah know about the good life? Can
he not see how better off our people are here in Babylon",
reasoned Naphtali, "compared to our sufferings in Israel, the
old country?" "And see", continued Naphtali, "how many of our
people have intermarried with the Babylonians and have become
one people and full citizens of this mighty land. To say their
god is but an object of wood shows that Jeremiah does not
understand the true spirit of this religion."
At first, it was celebrations, the processions, the carrying
of their god who seemed so lifelike, human almost, being
lifted high in the streets that won Naphtali's admiration.
When finally he was caught up in the ways of the Babylonians,
he had to find some answers to give to his family, friends and
relatives. Dura his Babylonian girlfriend helped him. She was
able to explain the simple fundamental tenets of the religion
and help him to convince his concerned family how the god of
Babylon is also the same one god as the God of Israel. The
universality of this god embraced all people, therefore Jews
were also welcome to worship at his altars. Naphtali saw (by
twisting the words of the Torah of Moses) that the exile and
the worship of Tammuz were desired by God and foreseen by
Moses and the Prophets. Naphtali had become a Jew for
Tammuz-Adonis. All at once he found the loneliness of being a
Jew in exile gone, the people of the land became his closest
and dearest friends, their festivals were his festivals and he
was at last able to share their joy on the birthday of their
god.
Moshe Posen had lived all his life in America. He knew very
little about his Jewishness, only that he was a Jew, had been
given a bar mitzvah which seemed to him to have been more bar
than mitzvah, and had attended a few High Holy day festivals
in his life. These festivals seemed to him to be dull and the
synagogue service boring, yet that was the full extent of
Moshe Posen's Judaism.
Now, being a smart and good mannered person as most Jewish
boys are, he had many friends among the people of that land.
Indeed Moshe Posen was proud to be an American, a citizen of
the great and powerful country. But alas, there was one time
in particular each year when Moshe Posen didn't feel right.
He felt rejected, not a real American, something was missing
in his life. This feeling of not belonging came every winter
solstice when the Christians were worshipping Jesus their god.
He looked on in admiration as trees were brought into town
from the forests, and people went about decorating them with
silver and gold tinsels, and placed presents at the foot of
the tree wrapped in purple, blue and bright coloured
wrappings. He loved to hear the people sing their carols to
their god. In fact, Moshe Posen having been so close to the
people of the land, knew more Christmas carols than he did
Jewish hymns and found it hard to refrain himself from singing
them at this joyous time of the year. His father however was
an accommodating fellow who knew how hard it was for a youth
to feel himself an outsider and so a compromise was made.
Every Chanukah, a Christmas tree would be brought into the
house and decorated in the same fashion, the only difference
was that it would be called a Chanukah tree and the presents
given would be Chanukah gifts.
For a time this pleased Moshe Posen but soon, like many others
of his generation, he wanted more of the real Christmas
spirit. Moshe Posen finally accepted Jesus, the god of the
Christians and soon began to distort the Hebrew Bible in such
a way as to find justification for his new found beliefs. In
fact, today he argues that he is not following the ways of the
people of the land but has become a fulfilled Jew. He contends
that the Torah of Moses and all the Prophets, spoke about this
god Jesus, whose birth Moshe Posen unashamedly celebrates.
What is more, Moshe Posen was so successful in persuading
other misled Jews to follow him, that the people he joined
made him one of their ministers and with their support he was
able year by year to print a full page advertisement in a
leading paper stating "I am a Jew and I celebrate Christmas".
Moshe Posen, despite all his efforts to convert his fellow
Jews, could influence only those, who like himself, were
assimilated and ashamed of being Jewish. The scholars and wise
leaders of the community knew that their Hebrew scriptures
stated "Who is like unto thee, O Lord among the gods?" (Ex
15.11). The God of Israel was one God, unique, without any
equal, whereas Jesus, the god of Moshe Posen was so much like
the old gods of Babylon, Egypt and Persia that even the church
scholars were embarrassed by the similarities.
Mithra, sun-god of Persia, was born in human form from a rock
on December 25th. Shepherds were his first adorers. The first
day of the week, Sunday, the day of the sun, was the Mithraic
holy day.
Osiris, the greatest of the Egyptian gods, was born on
December 25th and addressed as King of Kings and Lord of
Lords. He was put to death by treachery and rose again
entering into heaven.
Isis, the great mother of Egypt and wife of the god Osiris was
made pregnant by light and thus gave birth to Horus on
December 25th, the winter solstice.
Tammuz-Adonis, the vegetation god of Syria and Babylonia was
born of the virgin Myrrha also on December 25th. After meeting
with a violent death, Adonis descended to the underworld where
through the intervention of Aphrodite he was resurrected and
ascended to the upper world at the time of the spring
solstice.
Dionysus-Bacchus, wine and vegetation god of Greece, was born
on December 25th. He died a violent death and is said to have
come to life again. A goat or bull, and in some places a man,
substituted for a lamb, was torn to pieces and his flesh eaten
by the followers during a ritual marked to celebrate
Dionysus's death. At these rites, the priests "magically"
turned water into wine. The worshipers of Dionysus believed
themselves to be killing their god, eating his flesh and
drinking his blood.
Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, Krishna's birth was
announced by a star and adored by shepherds after his birth.
Krishna was crucified and resurrected, ascended into heaven
and expected to return in the latter days.
Taken altogether, the coincidences of the god Jesus with the
heathen gods are too close and too numerous to be accidental.
In the eyes of the worshipers of the God of Israel, Moshe
Posen was a lost soul, more than that, an outcast and a
deceiver of his people. This was the price Moshe Posen had to
pay, but he felt that it was worth it especially at Christmas
time, when he at last was accepted as a fully fledged
completed American.
Hear ye the word which the Lord speaketh unto you O house of
Israel ... Learn not the way of the nations ... The customs of
the people are vanity. For it is but a tree which one cutteth
from the forest ... They deck it with silver and gold ... They
are brutish and foolish. The vanities by which they are
instructed are no better than [the idol itself] stock. This is
but a sickness . Not like these is the portion of Jacob.
Israel is the tribe of his inheritance. [See Jeremiah 10]
References on pagan gods:
Jews, Jesus and the New Testament by Sidney Kaye
Bible Myths by T.W. Doane
|
| 989.354 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayechi | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Dec 15 1994 20:10 | 147 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
VAYECHI
Vol. IX, No. 12 (396), 14 Tevet 5755, December 17, 1994
Chazal say that Yaakov wished to reveal when mashiach would
arrive, but the Shechinah left him so he could not do so. Rav Shmuel
Engel zatz'l explains that, while Hashem's knowledge of the future
does not reduce our free will, once Hashem "speaks," the future
cannot be changed. Yaakov was a prophet on the level of Moshe;
unlike other prophets who had to interpret their visions, the
Shechinah spoke directly from Yaakov's body.
We are taught that mashiach can come at one of two times: the
preordained date called the "End" or an earlier time, if we are
deserving. However, had the Shechinah, through Yaakov, spoken the
exact date of the End, than we would have lost our chance to bring
mashiach earlier.
Yaakov did not understand that this was the reason for the
Shechinah's departure, and he thought that his sons were not
deserving. In response, Chazal say, they said the Shema, proclaiming
that "Hashem" and "Elokim" are one and the same. How was this
relevant at that moment? "Hashem" represents G-d's mercy; "Elokim"
represents His strict justice. Yaakov's sons meant to tell him,
"What appears to you as an act of strictness (i.e., Hashem's not
allowing you to say when the End will be), is in reality an act of
mercy, so that mashiach can come sooner." (Siftei Maharash)
************************************
As noted on the front page, Yaakov wanted to reveal the "End,"
but Hashem stopped him. Rav Shaul Yedidyah Elazar Taub (the
"Modzhitzer Rebbe") zatz'l explains that Yaakov wanted to indelibly
teach his sons that everything that Hashem does is for the best, as
will become clear at the End. However, Yaakov had to be stopped
because if we could never forget this lesson, our free will would
be lost.
The midrash continues and says that Yaakov then began to speak
of "different things"--"devarim acheirim." The Talmudic sage Rabbi
Meir was nicknamed "Acheirim," and his nature was to never judge
something by its cover. This is why he was able to study Torah from
a heretic; he "ate the fruit and discarded the rind." So, too,
Yaakov hinted to his sons, when events appear unjust, don't judge
them superficially.
(Yisah Berachah)
************************************
Although here the Shechinah left Yaakov, in general the Shechinah
is "found" near the head of a sick person. Rav Chaim ben Bezalel
zatz'l (brother of Maharal) explains that as man's body weakens, his
spirit is better able to break the shackles which bind it and thereby
attain spirituality. Also, sickness is a humbling experience, and
G-d comes to those who are humble.
(Sefer HaChaim 2:8)
************************************
"Reuven, you are my firstborn, my strength and my initial vigor,
foremost in power. Water-like impetuosity--you cannot be foremost.
. . Shimon and Levi are comrades, their weaponry is a stolen craft."
(49:3-5)
The midrash (Yalkut Shimoni 953) states that because Reuven,
Shimon, and Levi accepted their father's criticism they merited to
have their descendants enumerated in the genealogy of Moshe and
Aharon (see Sh'mot ch. 6). Rav Henach Lebowitz shlita notes that
from the fact that Chazal praised these men so, we can learn that
it must have been difficult for them to be criticized. This is true
even though they were tzaddikim and would want to know how to improve
themselves.
In Tanach, another great person is criticized--King David--and
again we see that it must have been difficult to accept. Thus, the
midrash says that Avigayil told David, "Don't think that because you
are king you are above criticism. You should criticize yourself."
This is a tool for our use when we find it difficult to accept
criticism. If someone criticizes us, it is but a sign that that is
a fitting time for introspection. And self-criticism is a most
effective tool for self-improvement.
(Chidushei HaLev)
************************************
"Then Yosef exacted an oath from the sons of Yisrael saying, 'When
G-d will indeed remember you, then you must bring my bones up out
of here." (50:25)
Ramban writes that the Patriarchs and their families (who lived
before the Torah was given) did not observe the Torah outside of
Eretz Yisrael. (Thus, for example, Yaakov was able to marry two
sisters.) What difference did it make then if Yosef's brothers took
an oath, since the oath would not be binding?
Rav Chaim Chizkiyah Medini zatz'l explains (in the name of Chida)
that that which they did not keep the Torah was only if their sojourn
outside of Eretz Yisrael was temporary. They did this so that they
would not be attracted to life outside of Eretz Yisrael. [They
missed doing mitzvot!] However, once Yaakov and his sons moved to
Egypt, they knew that they would never return to Eretz Yisrael alive.
Accordingly, they kept the Torah even in Egypt.
(Shiyurei HaPe'ah 1:6)
************************************
Rav Avraham Shmuel Binyamin Sofer
(The "Ketav Sofer")
born Rosh Chodesh Adar 5575 (1815) - died 19 Tevet 5632 (1872)
The Ketav Sofer (as he is known after the title of his works) was
the oldest son of Rav Moshe Sofer (the "Chatam Sofer"), and a
grandson of Rabbi Akiva Eiger. The Chatam Sofer, one of the greatest
luminaries of the 19th century, maintained that his son was greater
than he.
On the 25th of Tishrei 5600 (1839) the Chatam Sofer died and his
son was crowned as Rabbi of Pressburg (Bratslava, Slovakia) and rosh
yeshiva in his place. During his reign, the yeshiva in Pressburg
was the jewel of the Hungarian Torah world, and nearly all of
Hungary's great rabbis were Ketav Sofer's students or the students
of his students.
Similarly, Ketav Sofer was Hungary's leading rabbi and numerous
halachic queries were addressed to him. When, in 1869, a conference
was held in Budapest to strengthen Orthodox Jewry against the
onslaught of reform, the delegates chose Ketav Sofer as chairman and
keynote speaker. As a result of that conference, Emperor Franz Josef
granted autonomy to the Orthodox Jewish communities of Hungary. At
Ketav Sofer's instigation, the Emperor also decreed that students
of the Pressburg yeshiva could obtain exemption from army service.
In his Ketav Sofer on the Torah, the author addresses Chazal's
statement that Parashat Vayechi is "closed," i.e., it begins in the
middle of a paragraph, because, "The eyes [i.e., hopes] of the Jews
were closed by their suffering." Why is this alluded to in the midst
of verses which describe how happily Yaakov lived in Egypt? Ketav
Sofer explains that Yaakov's children believed that the 400 years
of exile began from Yitzchak's birth; all of Yitzchak's and Yaakov's
tribulations were parts of the exile. However, when the Jews saw
how happily Yaakov's years in Egypt passed, they feared that the 400
years had not yet begun.
|
| 989.355 | TORAH WEEKLY: Shemos | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Dec 18 1994 13:34 | 191 |
| * TORAH WEEKLY *
Highlights of the Weekly Torah Portion and Haftorah.
Plus Ani Ma'amin - The Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith.
Parshas Shmos
For the week ending 21 Teves 5755
23 & 24 December 1994
===========================================================================
Summary
With the death of Yosef, the era of the Avos comes to an end. The Book of
Shmos (Exodus) chronicles the creation of the nation of Israel from the
descendants of Yaakov. At the start of the Parsha, Pharaoh fears the
population explosion of Jews in Egypt, so he enslaves them. However, when
their birthrate continues to increase, he orders the Jewish midwives to
kill all baby boys. Yocheved gives birth to Moshe and places him in a
basket in the Nile. Pharaoh's daughter finds and adopts the baby even
though she realizes he is a Hebrew. Miriam, Moshe's older sister, offers
to find a nursemaid for Moshe. She arranges for his mother Yocheved to be
his nursemaid and help raise him. Years later, Moshe witnesses an Egyptian
beating a Hebrew, and Moshe kills the Egyptian. When Moshe realizes his
life is in danger, he flees to Midian where he rescues Tzipporah, whose
father Yisro approves their marriage. Moshe witnesses the "burning bush"
in Chorev where Hashem commands him to lead the Jewish People from Egypt to
Eretz Yisrael, which He has promised to their ancestors. Moshe protests
that the Jews in Egypt will doubt that he is Hashem's agent, and Hashem
helps Moshe perform three miraculous transformations to boost his
credibility in the eyes of the people: his staff into a snake, his healthy
hand into a leprous one, and water into blood. When Moshe declares that he
is not a good speaker he is told that his brother Aaron will be his
spokesman. Aaron greets Moshe on his return to Egypt and they petition
Pharaoh to release the Jews. Pharaoh responds with even harsher decrees
declaring that the Jews must produce the same quota of bricks as before,
but without being given supplies. The people become frustrated, and Hashem
assures Moshe that Pharaoh will be forced to let the Hebrews leave.
===========================================================================
Commentaries
"And these are the names of the Bnei Yisrael" (1:1).
Even though the Torah had already enumerated Yaakov's children in their
lifetimes, their names are listed here again after their passing from the
world, to show how dear they are to Hashem. For a person often repeats
something that is dear and highly-prized. The Children of Yisrael are
likened to the stars, which Hashem counts and calls by name when they come
out, and also again when they pass from the world and are gathered in. We
must always remember that since we are compared to the stars, we must
emulate the stars, and just as the purpose of the stars is to radiate light
even to the darkest and most distant corner of the universe, so it is the
job of the Jewish People to radiate spiritual light to the most benighted
and spiritually desolate corners of the world.
(Based on Rashi, Gur Aryeh and Sfas Emes)
"And he (Pharaoh) said to his people -- Behold! The people, the Children of
Yisrael are more numerous and stronger than we are. Come let us outsmart
him lest he become numerous and it may be that if a war should occur, he,
too may join our enemies..." (1:9-10).
Three thousand years of anti-semitism echo down to us through these two
verses. The words here "than we are" can also be understood to mean "from
us" -- in other words, Pharaoh told the Egyptians that the Jews were `get-
rich-quick merchants' whose wealth came "from us", through exploiting the
famine; and so their wealth really belonged to Egypt. In every land in
which they have lived, the Jewish People have become successful and
affluent by their own hard work and ingenuity, but the Jew-hater scowls and
jeers, "The Jews are ruining the country!" Pharaoh speaks to "his people"
-- implying that the Jews, despite having been in Egypt for over a hundred
years, are still to be thought of as foreigners, not really `one of us'.
Thus, they are an ever-present threat, a `fifth-column' that could at any
moment "join our enemies". The Jewish People did not become a people until
Sinai; anti-semitism however, apparently preceded the birth of the nation
by nearly a hundred years!
(Based on Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh, Rabbi Y.D. Soleveitchik and Iturei Torah)
"It was on the way, in the lodging, that Hashem encountered him and sought
to kill him. (Moshe)" (4:24).
In his haste to fulfill the mitzvah of redeeming the Jewish People from
Egypt, Moshe Rabbeinu failed to perform the mitzvah of bris mila on his
son; hence, he was liable for the death penalty. Thus, through his
inadvertent neglect of one mitzvah, the redemption of the Jewish People
hung precipitously in the cosmic balance. We can learn from this that the
precious work of bringing the final redemption of the Jewish People is
conditional on the scrupulous performance of every mitzvah in the Torah,
and that all plans for redemption, even by the true redeemer, are in deep
jeopardy from a failure to keep even one mitzvah properly.
(Mayana shel Torah
===========================================================================
Haftorah: Isaiah 27:6-28:13, 29:22-23
"To whom shall one teach knowledge, who can be made to understand a
message. Those weaned from (mother's) milk, removed from the
breasts!" (28:10).
"From the day that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed," our Sages teach us,
"prophecy was given to fools and infants". When Yisrael dwelled in their
holy Land, celestial energy -- both spiritual and material -- descended to
its correct landing place. Since the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash,
however, this energy has gone astray -- the material energy has alighted on
desolate lands and the spiritual radiance has descended onto totally
unsuitable people -- "fools and infants." This is what the prophet means
when he asks whether "those weaned from (mother's) milk" can be "made to
understand a message". The holy Zohar predicted that in the year 5600 the
"flood gates of wisdom" would be opened. This coresponds to the year 1840
in the secular calendar, the time of the industrial revolution. Since then
we have witnessed an ever-accelerating development of science and
technology. If the Jewish People had been worthy, this tremendous
outpouring of knowledge would have found its proper home in the wisdom of
Torah and holiness. Now, since we were not worthy, this diffusion of
higher energy has found its way to the superficial wisdoms and precipitated
the invention of weapons of mass destruction to humanity's profound loss.
(Ahavas Yonason and Rabbi Bunem m'Pschiske)
===========================================================================
Ani Ma'amin
The Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith
Principle #11:
"I believe with complete faith that the Creator, Blessed is His Name,
rewards with good those who observe His commandments, and punishes
whose who violate His commandments."
A truck screeches to halt inches from a small child who has chased his ball
into the road. The driver holds his hand down on the horn for several long
seconds, rolls down his window, shouts an unintelligible stream of
invective at the errant child, rolls up his window and proceeds about his
business. Five minutes later, this scene is repeated by a different
driver, and some ten minutes later a third truck screeches to a halt
narrowly missing the same child. However, this time the driver jumps out
of the cab and chases the child, scrambling over trash-cans and fences
until he finally catches him. The driver then beats the `living-daylights'
out of the child . Why should this driver react so much more violently than
the other two drivers? The reason is that this driver happens to be the
child's father! The fact that Hashem punishes us is a sign that He cares
for us, for if He were indifferent to our actions, we could have no
relationship with him, because no relationship can exist on a unilateral
basis.
He recompenses man with kindness according to his deeds;
He gives to the wicked evil according to his wickedness.
Yigdal
===========================================================================
Can't make it to Israel for the Winter JLE program?
THERE IS STILL TIME LEFT TO SIGN UP FOR:
The Ohr Somayach WINTER LEARNING RETREAT
held in our Monsey New York campus from December 22-29.
This FREE program is open to college students who are interested in
experiencing a taste of Jewish learning.
For information, speak to Rabbi Zalman Corlin
E-Mail: ny000586@mail.nyser.net
Voice: 800-431-2272 (212-344-2000)
===========================================================================
SUBSCRIBE!
to one of the many weekly "lists" published by Ohr Somayach Institutions:
weekly - Summary of the weekly Torah portion.
dafyomi - Rav Mendel Weinbach's insights into the Daf Yomi.
ask - The Rabbi answers YOUR questions on Judaism.
parasha-qa - Challenging questions on the weekly Torah portion.
os-special - All the SPECIAL publications produced by Ohr Somayach.
os-alum - "Yachad" - the Ohr Somayach Electronic Alumni Newsletter.
judaismo - Spanish-Language newsletter on the Parsha & Judaism.
There is NEVER a charge for any of the above lists (though your local
information provider, such as AOL, Prodigy or CompuServe, might charge a
nominal fee). To subscribe to any of these lists, send the message:
subscribe {listname} {your full name}
to: listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for Torah Weekly
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Yaakov Asher Sinclair
Production Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
Production Design: Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
(C) 1994 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an issue.
|
| 989.356 | PARSHA Q&A: Shemos | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Dec 18 1994 13:36 | 135 |
| * PARSHA Q&A *
In-Depth Questions on the Parsha and Rashi's commentary.
Parshas Shmos
For the week ending 21 Teves 5755
23 & 24 December 1994
===========================================================================
Parsha Questions
1. According to Rashi, why were the Egyptians afraid of the Jewish People?
2. Which cities did the Bnei Yisrael build in Egypt?
3. Who was Shifrah? Who was Puah?
4. Why did Pharaoh decree death only on male newborns?
5. How did Hashem reward the midwives?
6. How old was Moshe's mother when he was born?
7. How did Moshe's mother know that he was "good"?
8. Moshe killed an Egyptian who was striking a Hebrew man. What was the
name of the Hebrew man's wife?
9. Who were the two Hebrew men who were fighting with each other?
10. How did Pharaoh find out that Moshe killed an Egyptian?
11. Why did the Midianites drive away Yisro's daughters from the well?
12. How did Yisro know that Moshe was a descendent of Yaakov?
13. The Torah says, "the king of Egypt died" (2:23). How does Rashi explain
this event?
14. Why did the Jewish People merit that Hashem would take them out of
Egypt?
15. How long did Hashem try to persuade Moshe to go to redeem the Jewish
People?
16. Why was Moshe reluctant to assume the role of leader of the Jewish
People?
17. Which Tribe did not have slavery imposed upon it?
18. Who were the: a) nogsim; b) shotrim ?
19. Why were the shotrim beaten?
20. How were the shotrim rewarded?
Bonus QUESTION:
Rashi (2:12), states that before Moshe killed the Egyptian, he looked
prophetically and saw that the Egyptian would have no righteous
descendants. Since the Egyptian had committed adultery, a crime carrying
the death penalty, he deserved to be executed. Why did Moshe need to
ascertain whether or not he would have worthy descendants before executing
justice?
I Did Not Know That!
Pharaoh was afraid that the Canaanite kings would attack Egypt to recover
the wealth that Yosef acquired from them. He felt that since the Jewish
People came from Eretz Canaan they would join the attackers. For this
reason he decided to "deal wisely" with the Jewish People (1:10).
Ba'al HaTurim
===========================================================================
Answers to this Week's Questions
All references are to the verses and Rashi's commentary, unless otherwise
stated
1. 1:10 - The Egyptians were afraid that the Jewish People would drive them
out of Egypt.
2. 1:11 - The storage cities of Pisom and Raamses.
3. 1:15 - Shifrah was Yocheved. Puah was Miriam.
4. 1:16 - He knew through astrology that a boy would be born who would
redeem the Jewish People.
5. 1:21 -Their descendants received the gift of establishing the lineage of
Kohanim, Leviim and Kings.
6. 2:1 - 130.
7. 2:2 - When he was born the house was filled with light.
8. 2:11 - Shelomis bas Divri.
9. 2:13 - Dasan and Aviram.
10. 2:15 - Dasan and Aviram informed him.
11. 2:17 - Because a ban had been placed upon Yisro for abandoning idol
worship.
12. 2:20 - Because the water of the well rose up to Moshe.
13. 2:23 - He was stricken with tzara'as.
14. 3:12 - Because they were destined to receive the Torah.
15. 4: 10 - 7 days.
16. 4:10 - He didn't want take a position that would be superior to that of
his elder brother, Aaron.
17. 5:4 - Levi.
18. 5:6 - a) The Egyptian taskmasters; b) The Jewish officers.
19. 5:14 - They refused to pressure the Jewish People to work harder.
20. 5:14 - They became members of the Sanhedrin.
Bonus ANSWER:
Adultery carries the death penalty, but only when there is a trial in court
with witnesses. Moshe knew of the Egyptian's guilt through prophetic
means. Since this knowledge came through prophecy, Moshe needed to
investigate if the Egyptian had any hidden merit that would save him.
Gur Aryeh
===========================================================================
Can't make it to Israel for the Winter JLE program?
THERE IS STILL TIME LEFT TO SIGN UP FOR:
The Ohr Somayach WINTER LEARNING RETREAT
held in our Monsey New York campus from December 22-29.
This FREE program is open to college students who are interested in
experiencing a taste of Jewish learning.
For information, speak to Rabbi Zalman Corlin
E-Mail: ny000586@mail.nyser.net
Voice: 800-431-2272 (212-344-2000)
===========================================================================
SUBSCRIBE!
to one of the many weekly "lists" published by Ohr Somayach Institutions:
weekly - Summary of the weekly Torah portion.
dafyomi - Rav Mendel Weinbach's insights into the Daf Yomi.
ask - The Rabbi answers YOUR questions on Judaism.
parasha-qa - Challenging questions on the weekly Torah portion.
os-special - All the SPECIAL publications produced by Ohr Somayach.
os-alum - "Yachad" - the Ohr Somayach Electronic Alumni Newsletter.
judaismo - Spanish-Language newsletter on the Parsha & Judaism.
There is NEVER a charge for any of the above lists (though your local
information provider, such as AOL, Prodigy or CompuServe, might charge a
nominal fee). To subscribe to any of these lists, send the message:
subscribe {listname} {your full name}
to: listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for Parsha Q&A
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Eliyahu Kane
Production Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
Production Design: Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
(C) 1994 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an issue.
|
| 989.357 | Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Shemot | TAV02::JEREMY | | Thu Dec 22 1994 12:01 | 221 |
| Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Shemot
No 523: 21 Tevet 5755 (24 December 1994)
EXPLAIN A MIDRASH
by Rabbi Yehudah Shaviv
"Let the work prey heavily on the people and occupy them, so they will not
pay attention to falsehoods" [Shemot 5:9].
"This teaches us that they had scrolls that they would enjoy each Shabbat,
while they rested from their work, foretelling that G-d would redeem them.
Pharoah said, 'Let the work prey heavily on the people ... so they will not
pay attention to falsehoods;' let them not enjoy themselves, do not let
them rest on Shabbat" [Shemot Rabba 5:18].
Evidently the Midrash links the word "yish'u" to the root "sh'ashua," play
or enjoyment (see the disagreement among commentators, such as Rashi, Ibn
Ezra, Rashbam, and the Tosafot). What scrolls did they read for amusement?
Maharazu explains: "The scrolls contained all of Bereishit, namely, the
stories of Adam and Noah, of the flood and the tower of Babel, and the
prophecies and promises for the future." This would imply that the main
subject of the scrolls was the promise to the forefathers, especially to
Avraham, that the era of suffering and slavery would be followed by
redemption and great riches. However, the lesson of Bereishit is that the
world is run according to just rules, including rewards for the righteous
and punishment for evil. But Bnei Yisrael were witness to what seemed to be
a topsy-turvy world -- evil people successful and in power, enslaving and
oppressing the righteous Bnei Yisrael. (In addition, remember that Egypt
was descended from the accursed Cham.)
On the other hand, Rabbi Matityahu Shtrashon suggests in his commentary to
Bava Battra 14b that the scrolls were parts of the book of Job, which,
according to some sources, was written by Moshe. But it is still not clear
how reading about Job's suffering could be a source of hope and
encouragement. One possibility is that Bnei Yisrael were occupied with the
question of why they were being subjected to this long and oppressive
exile. Could it be that this was punishment for their sins? In the story of
Job, it was possible to read about a man who was "whole and good, with fear
of G-d, who stayed away from evil" [Job 1:2], but who in spite of this was
inflicted with pain and suffering. Thus, suffering is not necessarily a
proof of lack of merit, and there are even cases where a righteous one
suffers. It may also be that the end of the story of Job provided
consolation; in the same way that all of his good fortune was eventually
returned to him, Bnei Yisrael could hope for redemption and return to Zion.
POINT OF VIEW: Dynamite of a Prize
by Rabbi Yisrael Rozen
"If they will also not believe these two signs" [Shemot 4:9].
Two weeks ago, just as Shabbat was ending, three prizes were bestowed on
the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, and the world's premier
terrorist. The world gave them ultimate recognition in the form of a Nobel
Peace Prize.
Our national leaders have been caught up in the excitement of "peace
celebrations," and they have been travelling the world to be decorated with
medals and prizes. However, the very concept of receiving a prize or a
reward for noble acts is foreign to Judaism, even for such lofty an ideal
as a "peace agreement" (a matter which is debatable in itself).
If any Jewish child had been on the streets of Oslo as the prize was being
awarded, he would no doubt have volunteered the text of the well-known
Mishnah: "Do not act as slaves serving a master in order to achieve a
reward, but as slaves who serve not in order to recieve a reward, and do
not forsake the fear of G-d" [Avot 1:3]. His teacher would no doubt add
that the word for reward, "prass," is not of Hebrew origin, and is in fact
reminiscent of the Hebrew word "pirsum," meaning publicity.
It can further be assumed that if he were a bit older, say past Bar-Mitzvah
age, our Jewish youth would quote the same Mishnah but with a greater
emphasis on the closing phrase, "do not forake the fear of G-d." What is
important is not the fear of man, or even honors awarded by man. And, he
might add an additional Mishnah: "Jealousy ... and the desire for honor can
remove one from the world" [Avot 4:28]. And he would say:
"The nations of the world award a prize and thereby believe that they are
recognizing efforts leading to a true peace. However, I have a strong
feeling that the real motivation in this case is the desire for a prize.
The main point is the honor and the awards ceremony." Our young analyst
might find himself wondering if the prize is a result of the "peace," or if
the "peace" was concocted in order to give birth to a prize.
If instead of children we had chanced upon a more mature Jew proud of his
heritage and had asked him for an opinion, he would without hesitation have
answered: "Peace? What are you talking about? More than 100 of our brethren
have been sacrificed, between the two gatherings at Oslo; why all the
celebrations? In any case, let this prize and a thousand similar ones not
be awarded, if they include the participation of one whose sword is defiled
with innocent blood, even if he pretends to carry an olive branch. His
sword is deeply scarred with a covenant calling for destruction of our
people."
And we will take the prerogative to add: "The pure of heart in Jerusalem
would not partake of a meal unless they knew who else would be joining
them, and they would not witness a document unless they knew who else would
be signing with them" [Sanhedrin 23a]. But the latest Nobel prize gathered
together those who are not pure in heart with those whose hands are not
clean, and all take on the image of rulers of Jerusalem.
Our imaginary acquaintance could show us how versed he is in language by
explaining nuances and puns on the Hebrew word "prass" [prize]. For
example, he might explain that the meal that went with the prize was not a
worthy one, as described in the words of our sages, "kedei achilat prass"
[the minimum amount needed to define a meal]. In Aramaic, the word means
"half;" we are witnessing a reward for a job half done, for half a peace,
which in many ways is worse than a whole lie. Speaking of Aramaic, we can
find the same root in the enigmatic words about destruction written by the
Hand of G-d on a wall, "menei menei tekeil uFARSIN" [Daniel 5:25].
Finally, if we had happened to come across one who is also versed in
secular matters, he would ask: "What do you expect of the one who invented
dynamite, anyway? The Nobel Prize may yet explode in the faces of those who
so proudly received it, conceived and born as it was in the unholiness of a
powder keg about to explode."
TORAH, SOCIETY, AND STATE: Self Defense and Helping Others
by Rabbi Uri Dasberg
If one chances upon two people hitting each other, how far can one go in
order to save the underdog? What about one who is attacked, what is he
allowed to do? First of all, one must remember that a bystander is in a
worse position to judge the situation than two antagonists, since they are
the ones who know all the circumstances of the fight. One who is not
connected to the incident must take into account that he might be saving a
sinner and not the innocent party.
In attempting to save a victim, one must also be careful how he treats the
aggressor. According to Rabbi Yonatan Ben Shaul [Sanhedrin 74a], one is not
permitted to kill an attacker if he can be stopped by injuring him.
However, the victim himself is not bound by such a restriction -- "He is
excited and is trying to save himself," and he is therefore not required to
figure out how to cause a minimum of harm to his attacker [Mishne Lamelech,
"Chovel Umazik," 8:10]. But this is a privilege enjoyed by a potential
victim, and not by an outsider who is trying to help.
On the other hand, in some ways a bystander has greater rights than the
victim himself. An outsider is not liable for damages. Thus, one who stops
to help a victim in a car accident will not have to pay for damage to the
car during the rescue. This exemption is not strictly based on the law, but
is a ruling by the sages in order that nobody will hesitate because of
financial considerations to save another's life [Rambam, "Chovel Umazik"
8:10]. This fear, that one may hesitate because of monetary problems, is
not relevant to the victim himself. To return to our example of a car
accident, a crash victim will undoubtedly try his utmost to extricate
himself, even if it is clear that he will have to pay later for any
damages.
There is also a difference between a victim and a bystander in what is
permitted after the attack has stopped. Halacha permits a spontaneous
reaction in proportion to an attack, even after it is over. For example,
one is not punished for harming a first-born animal that chased him (in
general, it is prohibited to cause a blemish to a first-born), even if the
damage was caused after the attack stopped [Bechorot 35a]. But such a
spontaneous reaction is recognized only if it was done by the victim
himself, and not by an outsider who was not directly connected with the
incident.
Reference: "Techumin," volume 10, pages 62-89.
RELIGIOUS ZIONISM IN ACTION: "They Kept the Children Alive" [Shemot 1:17]
by Nissim Swed
"Anyone who saves a single soul of Yisrael is likened to one who saved an
entire world." This lofty aim is the ideal of the Efrat Association, which
has as its objectives encouraging births of Jewish children, preventing
abortions, and strengthening family life.
What is the source of the name Efrat? From the verse, "Azuvah died, and
Kalev married Efrat, who gave birth to Chur" [I Divrei Hayamim 2:19].
According to the Targum, Efrat is Miriam, the sister of Moshe. The name
Efrat hints at her activities in increasing the population of Yisrael.
The Association is headed by Dr. Eli Shusheim, a tireless worker who
travels the length and breadth of the country to lecture and spread the
message of Efrat. He and his staff, including many volunteers, spend night
and day trying to convince pregnant women not to have an abortion. (In
recent years, the number of abortions in Israel has been constant at about
50,000.)
Efrat works in various ways to fight abortions. For example: distribution
of written and oral material to the general public about the importance of
proper family life; publication of printed matter and educational films;
campaigns for government support of population increase and benefits for
large families; guidance and medical aid to pregnant women; and help in
finding a "warm home" if necessary for unmarried pregnant women.
Their main battle is against unnecessary abortions. This is most often the
work of volunteers who talk to women appearing at the committees for
approval of abortions, in order to convince them how serious an act an
abortion is. The volunteers try to keep them from stopping their pregnancy.
Admittedly their success rate is quite low, about 1 to 5 percent, but even
this number is equivalent to hundreds of lives saved.
The extent of abortions in Israel has significant meaning for the
demographic makeup of the country. We are in danger of the Jews becoming a
minority in our country within a generation or two, especially in view of
recent statistics about high birth rates among Arabs in Israel. As Dr.
Shusheim summarized recently in an article in Hatzofeh, "It is appropriate
that the national religious sector, those who may be the last ones to carry
the Zionist banner, take on the fight against abortions as a national
challenge of the highest priority."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SHABBAT-ZOMET is an extract from SHABBAT-B'SHABBATO, a weekly bulletin
distributed free of charge in hundreds of synagogues in Israel. It is
published by the Zomet Institute of Alon Shevut, Israel, under the auspices
of Mafdal, the National Religious Party.
Translated by: Moshe Goldberg
To subscribe, send a message to: listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il, with
a blank subject line and the message:
sub shabbat-zomet <first name> <last name>
Archives of past issues are available on the gopher server at jerusalem1.
Contact Zomet with comments about this bulletin or questions on the
relationship between modern technology and halacha at:
zomet@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
Or: Phone: +972-2-931442; FAX: +972-2-931889 (Attention: Ezra Rosenfeld)
|
| 989.358 | P A R A S H A - P A G E: Shmot | TAV02::JEREMY | | Thu Dec 22 1994 12:09 | 184 |
|
P A R A S H A - P A G E
produced by Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Edited by Rav Yakov Blinder
Mordecai Kornfeld | Yeshivat Ohr Yerushalayim| Tel: 522633
6/12 Katzenelenbogen St. | D.N. Harei Yehuda | Fax: 341589
Har Nof, Jerusalem, 93871 | Moshav Beit Meir, Israel | US:718 5208526
} ============================================}
This week's Parasha-Page was dedicated in memory of Yechiel Tovia ben
Menachem }Manis, who passed away on the 24th of Tevet.
Please contact me if you would like to dedicate a future issue.}
} ============================================}
This Parasha-Page was dedicated in memory of Yechiel Tovia ben Menachem }
} Manis, who passed away on the 24th of Tevet
Please contact me if you would like to dedicate a future issue.}
} ============================================}
Shmot 5755}
} Hashem said to Moshe, "Go, now, and I will be with your mouth and }
} I will instruct you what to say." But [Moshe] said, "Please, my }
} L-rd, send your mission through someone else." Hashem became }
} angry with Moshe, and He said, "Is not your brother Aharon the }
} Levi? I know that *he* knows how to speak. He is now coming out }
} to greet you, and he will see you and rejoice in his heart."}
} (Shmot 4:12-14)}
} "Aharon your brother the Levi" -- He was originally supposed to }
} be a mere Levi, while the priesthood was supposed to have come }
} from you. Now, however,(because of your insistence on rejecting }
} My call) this will no longer be the case; rather, he will be the }
} Kohen, and you will be the mere Levi, as it says, "And as for }
} Moshe, the man of G-d, his children are counted with the tribe of }
} Levi."}
} "And he will see you and rejoice in his heart." -- It is not as }
} you think, that he will mind that you are attaining a high }
} position." Because of this goodness of heart that Aharon }
} displayed, he was awarded the privilege of wearing the }
} breastplate, which was worn over the heart.}
} (Rashi, 4:14)}
} Moshe lost the privilege of being the progenitor of the priestly }
class because of his excessive refusals of Hashem's requests to carry }
out His mission. On the other hand, Aharon merited just this position }
through his trait of goodness of heart and his ability to rejoice in the }
ascendancy of his younger brother. Are these two traits of Moshe and }
Aharon related? What exactly is the character attribute that is }
considered crucial to becoming the founder of the institution of Kehunna }
}(the priesthood), and how was that trait shown lacking in Moshe and }
present in Aharon?}
} II
} Rav Yakov Kaminetzky, Zatzal, points out in his book Emet LeYakov }
}(B'reishit 34:17, 47:4, 49:7) that it perhaps was not coincidental that }
Levi became the progenitor of the tribe designated to be the spiritual }
leaders of the entire Jewish nation. It was Levi who exhibited a fiery }
zealousness in his reaction to Shechem's abduction of his sister Dinah }
}("Shall he treat our sister like a harlot?"). He risked his life }
attacking the city of Shechem in order to avenge what he perceived as a }
Chillul Hashem (desecration of the sanctity of G-d's Name). This is the }
quality that Hashem sought in the priests that would serve in the Beit }
Hamikdash. The accomplishment dearest to the priests' hearts must be the }
sanctification of the Name of Hashem -- it must be dearer to them than }
even their own lives. Levi showed that quality, and that is why he was }
chosen for the holy service.}
} Rav Yakov proves this contention from a verse in last week's }
Parsha (B'reishit 49:7): "Cursed is their (Shimon and Levi's) anger, }
for it is fierce... I will spread them out among Israel." Rashi }
comments there that Levi's being "spread out among Israel" is a }
reference to their traveling from place to place to collect their }
Levitical tithes. Thus, we see that Yakov Avinu himself made the }
association between Levi's fierce impetuousness and selfless }
zealousness, and his rights to the Levitical and priestly dues. Someone }
who considers his devotion to the sanctity of G-d's Name more important }
than his own personal safety is worthy of becoming His representative in }
the priestly service of the Beit Hamikdash.}
} As Rav Yakov demonstrates, this trait of Levi surfaces several }
other times throughout the Torah. In Sh'mot 32:26, when the Jews sinned }
with the Golden Calf and Moshe cried out, "Whoever is for Hashem, let }
him come to me!", we read that the only ones who responded were the }
Levi'im: "All the children of Levi gathered to him." The Levi'im were }
even willing to eradicate the sinners in their own families, as the }
Torah tells us in Sh'mot 32:29 and D'varim 33:9.}
} Rashi to B'midbar 26:13 quotes the midrash which relates that }
after the death of Aharon the B'nei Yisrael lost heart and began to }
march back to Egypt. It was again the tribe of Levi that pursued them }
and, through fierce fighting and with numerous casualties, managed to }
bring the people back to their journey towards Eretz Yisrael.}
} In Yehoshua 22:13, it was the Kohen Gadol, Pinchas, who headed }
the delegation that went to reprimand the eastern tribes who had built }
an unauthorized altar in their territory, and to warn them that they }
would be faced with armed resistance if they did not capitulate. We also }
find that the prophet Eliyahu, who according to most opinions was a }
Kohen, was outstanding in his zealous behavior (see I Melachim, Ch. 18 }
and 19:14).}
} Perhaps we can add to Rav Yakov's observation, that even after }
Biblical times we find this trend continuing. The zealots who found the }
courage to defy the powerful Greek army in the Chanukah story were none }
other than the Chashmonaim, Kohanim from the family of the Kohen Gadol.}
} The Mishnah in Sanhedrin (9:6) tells us that if a Kohen would }
ever dare try to perform the sacrificial service in a state of ritual }
impurity, he would not be brought for a trial to the religious court. }
Rather, his fellow Kohanim would split open his head with hatchets. }
Guarding against the desecration of the Temple grounds and the }
sacrificial rite, one of the main functions of the Kohanim and the }
Levi'im (see Rashi B'midbar 3:7), had to be carried out with zealous }
fervor
} III
} We can draw support to Rav Yakov's suggestion that the Kohanim }
were chosen for their zealousness from a number of additional sources. }
Whenever the tribe of Levi was granted a new or expanded role as }
spiritual representatives of the people, we find that this was as the }
result of some matter of zealousness that they exhibited.}
} When the Levi'im were first appointed to their position, }
replacing the firstborn of Israel as the spiritual leaders of the }
people, this was as a response to their positive reaction in the wake of }
the episode of the Golden Calf (Rashi B'midbar 8:17).}
} Pinchas was granted the status of a Kohen (which he would not }
ordinarily have been entitled to despite his being descended from }
Aharon) as a result of his zealousness in the face of the sin of Baal }
Peor (Rashi B'midbar 25:7,13).}
} Perhaps this is also why Yocheved merited to become the }
ancestress of the Kohanim and Levi'im after she refused to slay the }
Jewish male-babies, in the beginning of this week's Parsha (Rashi Shmot }
}1:21). When Yocheved valued the honor of heaven over her own life, and }
risked her life to defy Pharaoh's orders to eliminate the Jewish nation, }
she demonstrated the zealousness of the priestly servants of Hashem.}
} IV
} Although both the Kohanim and the Levi'im are the chosen servants }
of Hashem, the holy service of the Kohanim in the Beit Hamikdash is }
clearly of a more intimate nature than that of the Levi'im. While the }
Levi'im guard the temple grounds and sing the praises of Hashem, it is }
the Kohanim who attend to all of the Korbanot [sacrificial offerings] }
and the daily Temple services. Therefore, in light of Rav Yakov's }
thesis, it would be appropriate for the Kohanim to be chosen from the }
more zealous members of the tribe of Levi.}
} In our Parsha, Hashem tells Moshe that He is ready to rescue the }
people of Israel from their dire situation in Egypt, to take them out }
and lead them to their promised land. Yet when Hashem offers Moshe }
Rabbeinu to be the agent of this historical event, he tries to refuse. }
The trait of zealousness to rectify any desecration of the holiness of }
G-d's Name -- as the enslavement to Egypt certainly was -- despite }
personal discomfiture, was not present to a sufficient degree in Moshe. }
By his refusal to accept this divine mission, he showed that he did not }
have the proper qualities for being the founder of the institution of }
the Kehunna.}
} Aharon, on the other hand, demonstrated just this quality. When }
he learned that his younger brother was to become the spokesman and }
leader for the entire nation before Pharaoh, while he himself was to be }
the attendant and assistant, he displayed not the slightest hint of }
jealousy or uneasiness about this demeaning situation. Aharon was too }
preoccupied with rejoicing over the fact that the process that was to }
lead to the Exodus from Egypt was finally getting under way, that the }
Israelites would finally be removed from the depravity of Egyptian }
culture and would be free to worship Hashem, to entertain such petty }
personal thoughts. This, then was the man who showed himself worthy of }
becoming the first Kohen, and the ancestor of all future Kohanim. The }
very first appointment to a position of Kehunna was thus also the result }
of a show of zealousness. Aharon was chosen to be Kohen for }
demonstrating that his yearning to see the revelation of Hashem's glory }
took precedence over any personal considerations!}
==================================================
To receive the weekly Parasha-Page, write to:
listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
and put in as your message body the following line *only*:
sub parasha-page [Your full name]
To cancel your subscription, send a message to the same address,
and write as your message body the following line only:
signoff parasha-page
(NOTE: Don't add words to the message, and check your spelling. Please
address any comments to my personal account: yoy@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il)
|
| 989.359 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Shmot | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Dec 22 1994 18:46 | 144 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
SH'MOT
Vol. IX, No. 13 (397),
21 Tevet 5755, December 24, 1994
In this parashah we read that Hashem, through Moshe, warned
Pharaoh of the impending plagues. All told, the plagues lasted
twelve months.
Rav Leibchik Broida zatz'l (brother of the "Alter of Kelm") writes
that one of the reasons that the plagues lasted so long (rather than
merely 10 weeks or so) was so that Bnei Yisrael could enjoy the
revenge which was being exacted from their enemies. As everyone
knows, there is nothing sweeter than revenge.
What lesson is the Torah teaching us? That despite the
prohibition on exacting revenge, there is a place for it. And where
is that? Man should take "revenge" on his greatest enemy--the yetzer
hara (evil inclination).
Chazal say that man should serve Hashem with both of his
inclinations: the good and the bad. How can man serve Hashem through
the yetzer hara? The Alter of Kelm explains that if a person asks
himself why this great enemy was placed as an impediment to his
service of Hashem, he will realize that Hashem demands hard work.
When he then succeeds in serving Hashem completely, the yetzer hara
will have aided him. (Kitvei HaSaba MiKelm VeTalmidav)
************************************
Chazal teach that because the midwives refused to kill the Jewish
boys, Hashem rewarded them that the kohanim and levi'im were
descended from them. How is this reward measure-for-measure?
Rav Berel Soloveitchik zatz'l explains that Pharaoh's decree was
not against all Jews, only against the males. He would not have
eradicated the Jews; one's Jewishness follows his mother. However,
whether one is a kohen or levi is determined by his father's status,
and the midwives made it possible for these groups to exist.
(quoted in Shai LaTorah)
************************************
After Moshe sets out to look at the burning bush, Hashem tells
him to remove his shoes because he is standing on holy ground. But
wasn't the ground just as holy before Moshe's arrival? asks Rav
Shalom of Belz, zatz'l. Why only after Moshe turns to look does he
have to remove his shoes?
In truth, Rav Shalom, answers, Hashem's holiness is everywhere
(although more in some places than others). However, man's material
nature causes the holiness to be masked, and only after some effort
on man's part and a helping-hand from Hashem can holiness enlighten
a place. Until then, it is as if the holiness is sleeping.
So here, it was Moshe's action in turning to look at the burning
bush that "awakened" the holiness, and only then did Moshe have to
remove his shoes.
(quoted in several works)
************************************
We hope you like our new look. We apologize to those readers who
did not receive Hamaayan for Parashat Vayigash due to our computer's
being down.
************************************
"Moshe responded and said, 'Behold they will not believe me. .
.'" (4:1)
In response to Moshe's fear, Hashem gave Moshe a sign to show Bnei
Yisrael. Nevertheless, Chazal say that Moshe was punished for
speaking lashon hara about Bnei Yisrael.
Wasn't Moshe's question legitimate? asks the Chafetz Chaim zatz'l.
Shouldn't he be prepared when he goes before Bnei Yisrael and
Pharaoh?
The Chafetz Chaim answers in the name of Rav Eliyahu Shick zatz'l:
Moshe's concern was legitimate, but he should have said, "Perhaps
they will not believe me," not, "Behold they will not believe me."
Chazal teach that when Hashem told Moshe (Devarim 31:14), "Your
days are drawing near to die," Moshe exclaimed, "I praised You with
the word ('hain'--'behold') [see Devarim 10:14] and now You inform
me of my death with the same word?!"
Hashem answered, "You also sinned with that word." The Chafetz
Chaim explains that this is the idea expressed above. Moshe's sin
was not in thinking that Bnei Yisrael might not believe him. Rather,
his error was in the way he phrased his concern, including using the
word "hain."
(Shmirat HaLashon)
************************************
"Go, return to Egypt, for all the people who seek your life have
died." (4:19)
Chazal say that they (i.e., Datan and Aviram) had not actually
died. Rather, they had lost their wealth, and thus their influence.
That they were still alive is evident in the pasuk, says Rav
Yechezkel Abramsky. The verse does not say, "The people who sought
your life," but rather, "The people who seek your life."
(quoted in Peninei Rav Yechezkel)
************************************
Rav Naftali Kohen
born 5420 (1660) - died 24 Tevet 5479 (1719)
Rav Naftali was a great-grandson of Rav Yitzchak Kohen, son-in-law
of Maharal. On his mother's side, Rav Naftali was a descendant of
Rav Yaakov of Nuremberg (died 1501).
In his youth, Rav Naftali was kidnapped and imprisoned by Tatars,
but he escaped. As an adult, he became one of the leading kabbalists
of his time and a proficient writer of amulets. He also answered
many halachic questions from his contemporaries.
Rav Naftali held a number of prominent rabbinic posts, including
Posen (1689-1704) and Frankfurt-am Main (1704-1711). However, he
had to flee Frankfurt when a fire which started in his house
destroyed 500 homes. Indeed, he was briefly imprisoned at that time.
Rav Naftali was among the prominent opponents of Nechemiah Chayun,
the spokesman for the false messiah Shabtai Zvi Ym"sh. Rav Naftali
also authored many works, of which Semichat Chachamim is best known.
In his later years, Rav Naftali set out for Eretz Yisrael. He
died on the way, in Constantinople (Istanbul), eight years to the
day after the fire in Frankfurt. (Melizei Esh)
The Belzer Rebbe is a descendant of Rav Naftali. Another
descendant was a former ambassador of Israel to Great Britain. He
related that when his saintly aunt lay on her death bed in Istanbul,
she requested to be buried next to her ancestor. When the chevrah
kadisha (burial society) investigated whether it could fulfill her
wish it found that the closely packed graves in the long unused
cemetery appeared to have moved aside to make room for her.
(Glimpses of Jewish Frankfurt)
|
| 989.360 | Torah Weekly - Vaera | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Dec 25 1994 14:41 | 185 |
| * TORAH WEEKLY *
Highlights of the Weekly Torah Portion and Haftorah.
Plus Ani Ma'amin - The Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith.
Parshas Vaera
For the week ending 28 Teves 5755
30 & 31 December 1994
===========================================================================
This issue is dedicated in the memory of
Rebitzin Esther Golda Nusbaum O.B.M. on the Shloshim
===========================================================================
Summary
Hashem tells Moshe to let the Jewish People know that He is going to take
them out of Egypt, but they do not listen. Hashem commands Moshe to go to
Pharaoh and ask him to free the Jewish People. Although Aaron shows
Pharaoh a sign by turning a staff into a snake, Pharaoh's magicians
duplicate this sign, thus emboldening Pharaoh to refuse the request.
Hashem punishes the Egyptians by sending plagues of blood and frogs, but
the magicians copy the miracles on a smaller scale, again encouraging
Pharaoh not to grant Moshe's request. However, after the plague of lice,
even Pharaoh's magicians concede that only the One, true G-d could be
performing these miracles. Only the Egyptians, and not the Jews in Goshen,
suffer during the plagues. The onslaught continues with wild animals,
pestilence, boils and fiery hail. However, despite Moshe's offers to end
the plagues if Pharaoh will let the Jewish People leave Egypt, Pharaoh
continues with a hardened heart, and refuses to let them go.
===========================================================================
Commentaries
"G-d spoke to Moshe and said to him - I am Hashem. I appeared to Avraham,
to Yitzchak and to Yaakov..." (6:2).
Only Moshe Rabbeinu achieved a level of prophecy in which he talked to
Hashem "face-to-face" -- as via a translucent mirror. Even the Avos --
Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov -- never achieved this degree of clarity, and
their contact was comparatively imprecise, like through a cloudy pane of
glass. For this reason, Rashi comments that "I appeared to the Avos" --
i.e., the reality of their contact with Hashem was only on the spritual
level of appearance; but with Moshe Rabbeinu "G-d spoke and said to him --
I am Hashem," with crystal clarity.
(Maskil l'David on the Zohar)
"Moshe spoke before Hashem saying -- Behold, the Children of Yisrael have
not listened to me, so how should Pharaoh listen to me? And I have sealed
lips" (6:12).
The power of a spiritual leader flows from the people. In every generation
Hashem promises us there will be spiritual leaders, the great Torah Sages,
who are granted the ability to advise and direct the nation. But, when the
Jewish People refuse to listen to these spiritual giants, and follow after
politicians who have no more insight than the rest of us, then our
spiritual leaders become powerless to influence or to help the people.
Thus, if the Children of Yisrael had listened to Moshe, his mouth and lips
would have been opened, and his words would have affected even Pharaoh; but
since the Children of Yisrael did not listen -- Moshe's "lips were sealed."
(Based on the Sfas Emes)
"Pharaoh sent and behold, of the livestock of Yisrael not even one had
died, yet Pharaoh's heart became stubborn and he did not send out the
people" (9:7).
The phrase "not even one had died," can also be translated as "none died
except one." In other words, whereas the Egyptian fields were desolate of
livestock, the Jewish fields teemed with life with the exception of one
natural death. When presented with an obvious miracle, the skeptic will
reach for the most improbable explanation to protect his vested interest
rather than admit to the more obvious explanation. One can imagine how The
Cairo Times might have reported the incident -- Banner headline three
inches high --
*------------------------*
| JEWISH COW DIES! |
| It's no miracle! |
| Jews hit by plague... |
*------------------------*
and buried at the bottom of the back page in tiny print "Egyptian cattle
totally wiped out...". "Pharaoh's heart became stubborn and he did not
send out the people." The stubborn heart which wants to make itself the
center of Creation will always find an excuse to deny Hashem, however
implausible that excuse might be.
(Heard from Rabbi Moshe Silverberg)
===========================================================================
Haftorah: Yechezkel 28:25 - 29:21
"Behold I am over you, Pharaoh...!" (29:3).
There once was a butler of large mansion who decided one day to impersonate
his master. A guest was due to arrive who had never met the real master.
The butler bedecked himself in his master's finest clothes, and greeted the
guest in a fake aristocratic manner, ostentatiously showing-off the
enormous mansion, its priceless art collection, and the acres of sumptuous
gardens. The butler was having a grand time `lording it up' until the real
master appeared on the scene and roundly put the butler in his place.
Similarly, Pharaoh did not stint from self-aggrandizement, conducting
himself as supreme overlord, answerable to none. He even made himself into
a god and proclaimed "I did not know Hashem." Therefore Hashem reminds
Pharaoh "Behold I am over you, Pharaoh...!" -- "Know that I rule over you,
and you are in My hands to do with as I see fit -- you are no more than a
usurping butler!"
(Based on Kochav m'Yaakov)
===========================================================================
Ani Ma'amin
The Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith
Principle #12:
"I believe with complete faith in the coming of the Mashiach,
and even though he may delay, nevertheless I anticipate every
day that he will come."
"Wait for him for he will surely come; he will not delay."
Chabakkuk 2:3
Our longing for the arrival of Mashiach must be motivated only by the
desire to see the revelation of the glory of the Kingdom of Heaven here in
our world, as the pasuk says, "Hashem will be King over all the earth." As
a result of this revelation, everything in our physical and spiritual
existence will achieve its perfection.
We must not look forward to the coming of Mashiach, however, only because
he will put an end to our troubles, and bring us all to Eretz Yisrael, a
land flowing with milk and honey, where we will enjoy all the best. For
then we are merely waiting for our own sake. The prophet insists, however,
that when we "wait for him" only so that Hashem's glory will be revealed in
the world -- then will he come without delay.
Just as Chana in her time prayed to Hashem to give her a son who would
bring His erring people back to Torah, so must we, in our days of such
widespread estrangement from the Torah, await the arrival of Eliyahu and
Mashiach when the Kingdom of Heaven will be restored. This must be our
sole motivation for waiting; and this will be the intention of the
challenge that we will face in the Hereafter:
"Did you look forward to salvation?"
Chafetz Chaim, Likutei Amarim, Perek 11
"By the End of Days, He will send our Mashiach,to redeem those who
wait for His final salvation."
Yigdal
===========================================================================
SUBSCRIBE!
to one of the many weekly "lists" published by Ohr Somayach Institutions:
weekly - Summary of the weekly Torah portion.
dafyomi - Rav Mendel Weinbach's insights into the Daf Yomi.
ask - The Rabbi answers YOUR questions on Judaism.
parasha-qa - Challenging questions on the weekly Torah portion.
os-special - All the SPECIAL publications produced by Ohr Somayach.
os-alum - "Yachad" - the Ohr Somayach Electronic Alumni Newsletter.
judaismo - Spanish-Language newsletter on the Parsha & Judaism.
There is NEVER a charge for any of the above lists (though your local
information provider, such as AOL, Prodigy or CompuServe, might charge a
nominal fee). To subscribe to any of these lists, send the message:
subscribe {listname} {your full name}
to: listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for Torah Weekly
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Yaakov Asher Sinclair
Production Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
Production Design: Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
(C) 1994 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 989.361 | PARSHA Q&A: Parshas Vaera | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Dec 25 1994 14:42 | 137 |
| * PARSHA Q&A *
In-Depth Questions on the Parsha and Rashi's commentary.
Parshas Vaera
For the week ending 28 Teves 5755
30 & 31 December 1994
===========================================================================
This issue is dedicated in the memory of
Rebitzin Esther Golda Nusbaum O.B.M. on the Shloshim
===========================================================================
Parsha Questions
1. What does the Torah mean when it states that the name "Hashem" was not
known to the Avos (Patriarchs)?
2. In what capacity did Aharon assist Moshe?
3. How did Hashem command Moshe to conduct himself with the Jewish People?
4. How did Hashem command Moshe to conduct himself with Pharaoh?
5. In Verses 6:14-19, why does the Torah list the genealogies of the tribes
of Reuven, Shimon and Levi?
6. Who among Yaakov's sons outlived all the others?
7. When did the period of slavery in Egypt begin?
8. In Bereshis 15:13, Hashem tells Avraham that his descendants will live
as strangers for 400 years. When did this period begin?
9. When a man is considering a prospective bride, which of her family
members should he scrutinize most closely?
10. Name two ancestors of the wife of Elazar ben Aharon?
11. Why did the Egyptians worship the Nile?
12. Why wasn't Moshe the one to strike the Nile River to initiate the
plagues of blood and frogs?
13. How long did the plague of blood last?
14. Why did the plague of tzfardea (frogs) affect Pharaoh's house first?
15. How many frogs were there in the beginning of the plague of tzfardea?
16. Why wasn't Moshe the one who struck the dust to initiate the plague of
kinim (lice)?
17. Why did Hashem remove the arov at the end of the plague and not let them
die the way the tzfardea died?
18. The Torah states that as a result of the plague of dever (pestilence),
"all the cattle of Egypt died" (9:6). In verse 9:10, the Torah states
that the plague of shechin (boils) affected the Egyptians' cattle.
Resolve this contradiction.
19. Why did Moshe pray to Hashem only after he left the city?
20. Why did the wheat and spelt survive the plague of barad (hail)?
Bonus QUESTION:
Rashi on 7:25 states that each plague lasted for 7 days.
Through the prayer of Moshe, the tzfardea died within the week.
How does Rashi's statement apply to the plague of tzfardea?
I Did Not Know That!
"V'hotzesi eschem" (I will bring you out),
"v'hitzalti eschem" (I will deliver you),
"v'ga'alti eschem" (I will redeem you), and
"v'lakachti eschem" (I will take you)
6:6-7.
Each of these four terms used by the Torah to describe the redemption of
the Jewish People from Egypt corresponds to a later redemption from one of
the four exiles the Jewish People would experience.
Ba'al HaTurim
===========================================================================
Answers to this Week's Questions
All references are to the verses and Rashi's commentary, unless otherwise
stated
1. 6:3 - The name "Hashem" denotes faithfulness to fulfill promises. The
promises made to the Avos were not fulfilled during their lifetime.
2. 6:13 - He acted as Moshe's spokesman.
3. 6:13 - To deal with them in a gentle and patient manner.
4. 6:13 - To show him respect.
5. 6:14 - Since Reuven, Shimon, and Levi were reproached by Yaakov prior to
his death, the Torah stresses their genealogies in order to show that
they were indeed men of worth.
6. 6:16 - Levi.
7. 6:16 - After the death of Levi.
8. 6:18 - It began with the birth of Yitzchak.
9. 6:23 - Her brothers.
10. 6:25 - Yisro and Yosef.
11. 7:17 - The Nile River was their primary water source.
12. 7:19 - Since the river had provided protection for Moshe when he was
cast into it as an infant, it was inappropriate for Moshe to now strike
the river.
13. 7:25 - Seven days.
14. 7:28 - Pharaoh himself advised the enslavement of the Jewish People.
15. 8:2 - One.
16. 8:12 - Because the dust protected Moshe by hiding the body of the
Egyptian that Moshe killed.
17. 8:27 - So that the Egyptians would not benefit from their hides.
18. 9:10 - In the plague of dever only the cattle in the fields died. The
plague of shechin affected the surviving cattle.
19. 9:29 - Because the city was full of idols.
20. 9:32 - They matured later and their stalks were still soft. Therefore,
they were able to resist the bombardment of hail-stones.
Bonus ANSWER:
After the death of the tzfardea, the Torah states, "And the land stank"
(8:10). This aspect of the plague lasted seven days.
Gur Aryeh
===========================================================================
SUBSCRIBE!
to one of the many weekly "lists" published by Ohr Somayach Institutions:
weekly - Summary of the weekly Torah portion.
dafyomi - Rav Mendel Weinbach's insights into the Daf Yomi.
ask - The Rabbi answers YOUR questions on Judaism.
parasha-qa - Challenging questions on the weekly Torah portion.
os-special - All the SPECIAL publications produced by Ohr Somayach.
os-alum - "Yachad" - the Ohr Somayach Electronic Alumni Newsletter.
judaismo - Spanish-Language newsletter on the Parsha & Judaism.
There is NEVER a charge for any of the above lists (though your local
information provider, such as AOL, Prodigy or CompuServe, might charge a
nominal fee). To subscribe to any of these lists, send the message:
subscribe {listname} {your full name}
to: listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for Parsha Q&A
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Eliyahu Kane
Production Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
Production Design: Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
(C) 1994 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 989.362 | Rabbi Frand on Shmos | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Dec 25 1994 15:27 | 182 |
|
The halacha shiur was based on a pasuk from this week's parsha. When
Moshe Rabbeinu grew up he went out to see what was happening in the
world. He saw an Egyptian beating a Jew, killed the Egyptian, and
buried the body. The next day he saw two Jews fighting and attempted to
separate then. One of them asked, "Are you going to kill us like you
did the Egyptian?". Moshe realized "Achain, nodah hadavar" [surely the
matter is known - hem]. Immediately thereafter, "Vayishma Par'o es
hadavar hazeh" [Par'o heard of this matter - hem]. Rashi (quoting a
medrash) states that the two Jews were Dasan and Aviram [ who would
cause trouble for the entire trip through the desert, maybe Edgar G.
Robinson was good casting - hem] and that they were the ones who told
Par'o.
This action is known as mesira (handing over) and is a very serious sin.
Someone who turns a fellow Jew over to the nonJewish authorities has
committed one of the most serious crimes. Rabbi Frand spoke of this
several years ago in the tape on Tazria-Metzorah [see above how to order
the tapes - hem] and only gave a brief summary of the halacha before
considering tonights question.
The Rambam (and the Shulchan Aruch) says that one is forbidden to turn a
fellow Jew over to the nonJewish authorities even if that person is a
complete rasha and has caused one pain. This crime (of mesirah) is so
serious that "Kol hamoser, ain lo chailek baolam habo" [an informer has
no share in the world to come -hem]. Indeed, it is permissable to kill
the informer before he can reach the authorities. The basis for this is
that a moser is in the category of a rodaif [pursuer - hem] just as much
as someone who is attempting to kill someone else (especially in the
times of the Talmud or the Shulchan Aruch given the way the authorities
acted). This is not a question of punishment but a question of
prevention. Thus, if the informer has *already* done so, one may not
kill him. It is forbidden to do anything after the deed is done.
The question tonight dealt with a tragic and unfortunate case that we
pray never happens. Dr. Avraham of Israel (who has written a great deal
on medical halacha) posed a question to the Tzitz Eliezer. A child had
been brought into the emergency room with a skull fracture, internal
bleeding, and burns from boiling water and cigarettes. It was obviously
a case of Pikuach Nefesh [life threatening situation - hem] caused by
the abusive behavior of the child's parents.
There were two questions being posed. The first was that, given the
halachos stated above about moser, is the doctor allowed to turn the
parents in to the police knowing that they will end up in prison. This
is especially relevan outside of Eretz Yisroel since the police are
nonJewish authorities.
Dr. Avraham's statement of the question almost answers the question.
Since the child's life would be in danger if he were returned to the
parents, the parents themselves are in the category of rodaif and can be
stopped by any means (including death). Thus, turning them in to the
police is actually being lenient.
However, based on the statement of the shulchan aruch "even if he is a
rasha and has caused you pain", what about a case of "low level" abuse,
which is not pikuach nefesh.
The Tzitz Eliezer goes on to say that, even if the parents were not in
the category of rodaif, the doctor would still be allowed to call the
police. He bases this answer on a statement in the Rama. "Someone who
has been beaten by his neighbor is allowed to go and report him to the
police, even if this will put the neighbor in great danger." The shach
reconciles the two statements by explaining that the Ramah was speaking
about a case in which the only motivation is to stop the attacks. The
original statement of the Shulchan Aruch dealt with a case in which the
only motivation was revenge for actions in the past. Only self defense
is allowed.
The Tzitz Eliezer uses this to rule that it is mutar to report the
parents for any and all types of abuse (physical or psychological).
The Aruch Hashulchanstates that the halacha of moer only applies to
governments which are not restricted in their actions by their own laws.
Rabbi Frand used North Korea as a modern example. However the Aruch
Hashulchan goes on to write "like some governments in Africa, but the
governments in Europe are not in this category". Rabbi Frand wondered
why the Aruch Hashulchan wrote this since he was living under Czarist
Russia. Perhaps it was to appease the censor. Indeed, even in the
United States, with a valid judicial system, once one is actually put in
prison, all bets are off and ones life would be in danger.
The Tzitz Eliezer also points out that when bais din finds itself
powerless to act, they can authorize a person to go to the nonJewish
authorities for help. This also would apply to the case of the doctor.
He can check with bais din and be told to go to the police.
The Tzitz Eliezer brings a question that was sent to the Mabit from
Tzefat [I think in the last century]. There was a person in Tzefat who
was completely out of control. The local Bais Din arranged for him to
be arrested by the nonJewish authorities. They then made a deal to
intercede and get him released if he would leave the country. The
wife's family then pointed out that his wife would be left an aguna.
Bais Din spoke with him and "convinced" him to give her a get. Once he
got out he tried to claim that the get was invalid because it had been
coerced by the action of the nonJewish authorities acting for the Bais
Din. The question sent to the Mabit was whether or not the get was
kosher.
However, the Tzitz Eliezer pointed out that there had been no question
about the action of the local Bais Din in turning the man over to the
police. That meant that everyone agreed that the action was correct.
As a final point, we must realize that each case is different and one
must consult a competent halachic authority before taking such an
extreme action.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dvar torah dealt with the same pesukim that began the halacha shiur.
Moshe realized that "the matter" had become known, and Par'o heard about
"this matter". The pshat, is that "the matter" is the killing of the
Egyptian. However, there is a medrash that says that when Moshe said
that "the matter has become known" he was referring to a much deeper
matter. Moshe rabbeinu was saying that now he understood what Bnei
Yisroel had done that they should be oppressed so gravely. The only
other person around at the time had been the Jew that he saved. In
order for Dasan and Aviram to have heard about it, the information had
to have been passed along in a chain of lashon harah. If that were the
case, how could they be worthy of redemption.
The Chofetz Cheim says that we know that Bnei Yisroel had committed
aveiros and had sunk to the forty ninth level of tum'a. However, this
medrash blames lashon harah for the punishment that overtook them. We
see that a person or a nation can have committed many sins, but the
catalyst that triggers the punishment is lashon hara.
The Zohar states that a person who speaks lashon hara sets in motion a
force that says to Hashem "These people must be punished". Normally,
Hashem has the option of examining one's good points or bad points. The
principle of midah k'neged midah [measure for measure - he] teaches us
that lashon hara says "Look at the bad points", so Hashem does.
The Chfetz Chaims asks "Who knows how many people have lost not just
their money but their lives because of this aveirah". A person can
trigger a judgemnet on the entire community. There is no community in
the world today that is not shocked by the tragedies that are becoming
all too common. We don't have a navi or kohen gadol who can tell us why
Hashem is allowing this to happen, but we are required to consider what
could be the cause. The Zohar says that lashon hara brings death,
destruction, and suffering to the world.
zthe irony is that it appears as if things should not be that bad. We
may not know how many talmidei chachamim were learning Torah in Europe
before the war or in the great yeshivos of Bavel, but look around at the
centers of learning today. Lakewood, the Mir Yeshiva, Ner Israel here
in Baltimore, [ I would add Yeshiva University as well], in all of them
it is hard to find an empty seat in the Bais Medrash. There are eleven
or twelve kollels in Mexico City. Why is all this learning not helping?
That is the strength of lashon hara. Torah from a mouth that speaks
lashon hara does not help.
There is a pasuk in mishlei, yaish misasher veain kol [there are those
who become wealthy and have nothing - hem]. A person becomes rich,
makes money hand over fist, puts it all in the bank, and at the end of
the year, his expenses have eaten up all of it. Similarly a person can
be doing constant mitzvos, but, if he speaks badly of people, he will
come to the Bais Din in Olam habo and find he has nothing.
That is why at the end of shemonah esrai we first say "guard my tongue
from evil" and only after that "open my heart to your Torah".
Rabbi Frand told of an incident that could serve as a mashal. Shortly
after they got a computer, his daughter was working on a term paper on
Edgar Allen Poe. She had been working on this paper for almost two
months and it was due the next day. She went to put in the finishing
touches before printing it and ran downstairs in terror. "It's gone".
The file had disppeared from the system. Rabbi Frand described the
panic, the terror she felt. The entire family gathered around the
computer. Even though it was quite late, he called someone who had been
helping set up the system. The person had Rabbi Frand's daughter drop
into DOS and after a number of commands, managed to retrieve the file.
Now consider what would happen after 120 years when someon goes to
examine the records of all the mitzvos he had done only to find them
erased. Imagine the feeling when one realizes that this cannot be
retrieved.
Let's not lose it. Let us guard our tongues.
Ki hapeh kodesh kadashim
|
| 989.363 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Va'era | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Dec 29 1994 18:49 | 170 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Va'era
Vol. IX, No. 14 (398), 28 Tevet 5755, December 31, 1994
In this week's parashah, we read that the sorcerers of Pharaoh
used black magic to imitate the plagues brought by Moshe. Where has
this magic disappeared to? asks Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zatz'l. Why
don't we see it today?
Rav Kamenetsky explains that Hashem created the world with the
forces of good and evil perfectly balanced. This is the only way
that we could exercise our free will to do good or to sin. So long
as prophecy abounded, black magic did as well. Today, however, when
G-d is less visible, He has made the forces of evil which He created
less visible as well.
Accordingly, we can understand why Rambam writes that demons do
not exist ("shaidim"), in clear contradiction to numerous statements
of the Talmud. While the sages of the Talmud were not prophets, each
possessed such spiritual greatness that he could revive the dead.
To balance this good influence, Hashem allowed demons to roam. By
Rambam's time, however, there was no need for them. (Emet L'Yaakov)
************************************
"...I am G-d, and I will take you out from doing the work of the
Egyptians, and I will save you from their service, and I will redeem
you with an outstretched arm and with strong judgements. And I will
take you as my nation..." (6:6-7)
[The four italicized phrases are called the "Four Expressions of
Redemption," each one represented by one of the four cups of wine
which we drink at the Seder. There also is a fifth such expression:
"And I will bring you to the land..." (Sh'mot 6:8). This parallels
the fifth cup--the cup of Eliyahu--the subject of our discussion.]
The Haggadah commentary Divrei Negidim, a work that many attribute
to the Maharal of Prague, notes that the kindness which Hashem
displays in providing our daily sustenance is greater than the
kindness that He showed in creating the world. How so?
To be a "creation" (rather than a creator) means to be dependent
on another. It therefore means being inherently deficient. Thus,
despite Hashem's kindness in creating us, we are necessarily lacking
because we are no more than "creations." However, when Hashem gives
us food, He gives us the ability, to a certain extent, to stand on
our own. Thus, Hashem's kindness in feeding us is the greatest
kindness of all.
This explains the structure of Psalm 136 which is known as
"Hallel Hagadol"--"The Great Hallel." In this chapter of Tehillim
we recall Hashem's wonders in creating the world and in redeeming
us from Egypt. Each line of the Psalm culminates with the expression
"For His kindness endures forever." How does this chapter conclude?
"He gives bread to all flesh, for His kindness endures forever.
Acknowledge the G-d of the Heavens, for His kindness endures
forever." This expresses our recognition (noted above) that this
last kindness--giving us bread--is greater than the earlier ones.
The fifth cup of wine which some have the custom to drink at the
Seder represents the kindness that Hashem does for us when He feeds
us. After we retell the story of the Exodus and drink four cups of
wine, we recite Hallel Hagadol and turn our attention to the fifth
cup of wine. (Some people first pour the cup at this point.) In
many homes, it is the custom that the head of the household alone
drinks this cup, because it is that person who has primary
responsibility for receiving Hashem's gift of bread. In other
households, this cup is left for Eliyahu Hanavi--known as the "Angel
of Peace"--for peace is a prerequisite to receiving all of Hashem's
blessings, sustenance included. (See Mishnah Uktzin 3:12)
(Haggadah Shel Pesach L'Maharal, London ed., p. 174)
************************************
"I, too, have heard the suffering of Bnei Yisrael from the slavery
that the Egyptians have enslaved them, and I remembered my covenant."
(6:5)
The gemara (Berachot 5a) teaches that suffering cleanses one of
sin. The Talmudic sages Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish offer two
different sources for this lesson:
Rabbi Yochanan says, "If the Torah ordains that a Canaanite slave
should go free if his master knocks out his tooth or his eye, then
certainly a person's suffering [sent from his master, Hashem]
cleanses him of his sins."
Resh Lakish says, "We learn this lesson through a gezeirah shavah
(comparing two verses that share a common word, one of the 13
divinely-ordained methods for interpreting the Torah). The word
'brit' (covenant) is used in connection with suffering, and it is
used in connection with salt. Just as salt cures meat, so suffering
cures man." [Until here from the gemara]
What is the practical difference between the two ways of deriving
the above lesson? The halachah is that a slave goes free only if
his master intentionally knocked out his tooth or eye. However, salt
cures meat whether the salt was poured on the meat intentionally or
not. Similarly, Rabbi Yochanan maintains that suffering cleanses
a person only if he is aware of the cause of that suffering, and Resh
Lakish disagrees.
Hashem said to Moshe, "I have heard the suffering . . . from the
slavery that the Egyptians have enslaved them." Bnei Yisrael saw
the Egyptians as the source of their suffering, and forgot that
Hashem brought them to Egypt for a reason. They were not aware of
the cause of their suffering and, therefore, according to Rabbi
Yochanan, they could not be redeemed. However, Hashem says, "I
remembered my covenant (in Hebrew 'brit')," alluding to the opinion
of Resh Lakish that they could be redeemed nevertheless.
(Rav Sar Shalom of Belz)
************************************
A merchant once asked Rav Moshe Sofer (the Chatam Sofer) for a
blessing, explaining that business had been very bad recently. "I
have heard," answered Rav Moshe, "that your brother is very poor,
and you are not helping him."
"But I just told you," said the merchant, "that my business is
not doing as well as it used to."
"Let me ask you," responded Rav Moshe, "what is meant by the
verse, 'I, too, have heard the suffering of Bnei Yisrael.'? What
is added by the word, 'too'?
"The answer is," continued the Chatam Sofer, "that even though
each one of Bnei Yisrael was undergoing great suffering, each one
noticed the suffering of his friend, and it pained him. In just that
merit, Hashem too heard their suffering."
(Al Hatorah)
************************************
Rav Moshe Shick
("Maharam Shick")
born 21 Adar 5567 (1807) - died 1 Shevat 5639 (1879)
Maharam Shick was one of the greatest students of the Chatam
Sofer. Despite being orphaned at age six, little Moshe knew all of
Tanach and Mishnah by age ten. The next year, he joined the yeshiva
of his uncle, Rav Yitzchak Frankel (also known as Reb Isaac
Shusberg), and at age 14, he went to the famed Pressburg yeshiva of
the Chatam Sofer. When Rav Moshe was 20, his teacher proposed to
take him as a son-in-law, but Rav Moshe chose to marry his own cousin
instead.
In 1861, Rav Moshe became rabbi of Khust (today in the Ukraine).
He was recognized as one of the leading poskim (halachic authorities)
in Hungary and also established a large yeshiva there. His routine
in the yeshiva was as follows: After davening, he taught halachah
(from the Orach Chaim section of Shulchan Aruch) while still wearing
tefilin of Rabbenu Tam. He delivered an in-depth gemara lecture
every Sunday through Wednesday, while Thursday was reserved for
testing the students. He wore his Shabbat clothes while lecturing,
and introduced each class with 1/2-hour of mussar. In the evenings,
he lectured on other subjects, including halachah and chumash.
Rav Moshe was one of the leading fighters against reform, both
in Hungary (where he was a leader of the 1869 conference of Orthodox
Rabbis) and in Germany. The name "Shick" represents his opposition
to the modern trends of the day, as it is the acronym of the phrase
"Shem Yisrael Kodesh"--"A Jew's name is holy."
Maharam Shick left behind many works, including books on halachah,
Talmud, and chumash.
|
| 989.364 | P A R A S H A - P A G E: Va'era | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Jan 01 1995 15:56 | 191 |
|
P A R A S H A - P A G E
Parshat Va'era 5755
If you do not send out My people, I will send among you and
among your servants and among your people and in your houses
vicious animals; the houses of Egypt will be full of the
vicious animals, as well as the ground they are on.
(Sh'mot 8:17)
In this verse the extent of the plague of Arov -- vicious
animals -- is described. The plague is to be extremely far-reaching;
the animals will find their way into every nook and cranny of Egypt's
population centers. But there is something puzzling about the
description offered here. Having already said that the scourge would
affect all the houses and people of Egypt, why does the Torah have to
say that it will also affect "the ground they (i.e. the Egyptian
people) are on"? What added aspect of the punishment of Arov is being
alluded to in this seemingly superfluous phrase?
The commentators offer a number of very interesting suggestions
that deal with this question. I would like to present here four of
their suggestions.
1.
According to Sforno (c. 1300), the word "they" in the phrase
refers not to the Egyptian people, but to the *houses_of_Egypt*,
mentioned earlier in the verse. Moshe Rabbeinu was telling Pharaoh
that the vicious animals would not only converge upon the Egyptians'
houses from the outside. Rather, even the ground that the houses were
on would also be full of vicious animals. Because of this, even if an
Egyptian were to lock his house securely, the very ground under the
house would crawl with harmful creatures -- scorpions, rats, moles,
noxious spiders, and the like. Not only the houses would be affected,
but "the ground they (the houses) are on"! (See also Malbim ad loc.)
2.
There is a Mishna (Kilayim 8:5) that states that when the
creature known as "Adnei HaSadeh" dies, it conveys ritual impurity
(Tum'ah) on the same level of severity as a dead human -- i.e. it can
impart Tumah to anything under the same roof as its carcass. What is
this creature that is considered a beast, yet is close enough to a
human being that it shares the same laws of ritual impurity?
Rav Shimshon of Sens (c. 1100 A.D.) explains in his
commentary based on the Talmud Yerushalmi, that there used to be a
creature that was identical to a human being, except that it was
attached to the ground by means of a lengthy umbilical cord. This
beast -- which the Mishah calls "Adnei HaSadeh", and which was also
known as the "Yiddoa" -- was extremely vicious, and would kill
anybody or anything that would come within its reach. It was thus very
difficult to hunt this creature. In order to overcome it, a hunter
would attempt to sever the creature's cord from a safe distance by
shooting arrows at it. If the cord became severed, the Adnei HaSadeh
would soon die.
According to this, it is possible that the phrase "the ground
they are on" is added to include this beast on the list of vicious
animals that were to plague the Egyptians. Not only would lions,
bears and the like come from all over the area to terrorize the
populace, but also the Yiddoa, which under normal circumstances could
not wander farther than the end of its cord, would participate. This
was made possible because "the ground they (the *animals*) are on,"
the earth from which these creatures grow, would also be miraculously
transported to Egypt!
[This interpretation is quoted in the name of three of
the sharpest masters of Torah interpretation -- the
Vilna Gaon (quoted in Gan Raveh), Reb Heschel of
Cracow (quoted in Chanukat HaTorah), and Rav Shimshon
of Ostropolia (quoted in Koheleth Moshe, p.12).]
3.
There is a rule of Shmittah (the Sabbatical Year) that states
that we may not store the produce of the Shmitta year in our homes
after a particular kind of food is no longer available naturally to the
"animals of the field" (Shmot 23:11). Thus, Shmitta food may not be
preserved or stored for long periods of time; once it is no longer
in season it is forbidden to eat.
The Mishnah in Sheviit (9:2) states that for purposes of
determining when the season for a particular food is finished, Eretz
Yisrael is divided into three geographical sectors -- Judea, Galilee
and the Transjordan. When a food becomes depleted in the fields of
one of these areas, that food may no longer be consumed in that area,
as it is no longer available to the "animals of the field" there,
although it may still be found in the fields in other areas. The
Gemara in Pesachim 52b asks why it is that a food is considered to be
unavailable to the "animals of the field" in, say, Judea when that
food no longer grows in the field in Judea. Can't the animals of
Judea still eat the produce of the neighboring areas -- Galilee or
Transjordan? The Talmud answers that in fact the animals of Judea
would not eat produce from the neighboring lands, because "the animals
of Judea do not eat the produce of Galilee." Apparently, animals will
normally eat only produce that grows in their own habitat, in their
own soil.
Based on this, HaRav Yosef Rosen, the Rogatchover Gaon (d.
1936), suggests that the meaning of the phrase "the ground they (i.e.
the *animals*) are on" means that not only would the wild beasts
wander from far and wide to torment the Egyptians, but soil from their
natural habitats would miraculously be supplied along with them. In
this manner, the animals would be able to be nourished from produce
grown in the soil of their natural habitat. If not for this source of
nourishment, the plague would be very shortlived, as the migrating
animals would soon be forced to retreat to their places of origin to
find food. Now that Hashem promised to bring not only the animals, but
"the ground they are on," the plague was destined to be a much more
bitter and longlasting one!
[Tzafnat Pa'aneach on the Torah]
4.
In Bechoros 8b a story is related that R. Yehoshua ben
Chananiah once entered into an argument with the Roman Caesar. R.
Yehoshua claimed that the Torah scholars were wiser than the
academicians of Athens, while the emperor believed the opposite. To
prove his point R. Yehoshua wagered that he could trick the elders of
Athens into leaving their headquarters in Athens and coming to the
Caesar's palace in Rome. Rebbi Yehoshua traveled to Athens and,
after an intriguing debate with the Elders, he succeeded in his
mission.
When he presented the Elders before the Caesar, however, the
Caesar did not believe that the men R. Yehoshua brought before him
were indeed the famed acedemics of Athens. These men lacked the
arrogance that the Elders were famed for, and showed instead a meek
and discomfited demeanor. R. Yehoshua had anticipated this, knowing
that the Elders would feel humbled as long as they were away from
their home country. He took a handful of earth that he had brought
with him from Athens and threw it in the air. The Elders, sniffing the
familiar smell of their local habitat, were immediately able to
regain their composure and their customary arrogance. Apparently a
person feels timid when not in his natural environment.
Another Talmudic source for this idea is found in Eruvin 61a.
The Gemara there tells us that even an aggressive and vicious person
tends to act in a tame and humbled manner when he is not in his own
land. "Even after seven years, a dog will not bark in an unfamiliar
place," the Gemara explains. Both humans and animals lose their
aggression when away from their home environment.
Yet another source for this observation may be found in Sotah
47a. The Gemara there discusses the episode in II Melachim 2, where
Hashem produced two bears who came out of a forest and attacked a
group of malicious youngsters who had taunted the prophet Elisha.
The Gemara explains that it was actually a double miracle that was
performed, for not only were there no bears beforehand, but there
was also no forest in that place before Hashem brought it forth to
avenge the shaming of Elisha.
Why, asks the Gemara, was a double miracle necessary? Why
did Hashem create a forest where there was none? Was it not
sufficient for Him to create only the bears, without the forest?
The Gemara answers that the bears without the forest would not have
sufficed. Bears are not violent in their behavior when they are not
near their forest, and therefore the bears would not have attacked
the youths had the forest not been there. Even a bear, when it is
not in its familiar surroundings, becomes timid.
Hagaon R. Yehoshua Leib Diskin (Rav of Brisk and later of
Jerusalem at the turn of the century) offers an interesting
explanation of our Pasuk based on these Talmudic statements. The
point of the plague of Arov was to cause the Egyptians suffering at
the hands of ferocious animals. If the animals' natural viciousness
was tamed by their lack of assertiveness in a strange environment, the
purpose of the punishment would have been defeated. Thus Hashem
declares here that He will bring along with each animal some of the
"ground that they (the *animals*) are on," as R. Yehoshua ben
Chananiah did for the elders of Athens, in order to provide them
with the feeling of their familiar surroundings. In this manner the
wild beasts could fully exercise their naturally endowed tendencies
toward viciousness and cruelty, just as we find witrh the bears of
Elisha!
[Chiddushei Maharil Diskin on the Torah; see also
Panim Yafot]
___________________________________________
** TECHNICAL INFORMATION **
To subscribe to parasha-page, mail the following message to
listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il:
sub parasha-page [your first name] [your last name]
(EXAMPLE:sub parasha-page Mordecai Kornfeld)
[HINT: If you have problems, check the way you spelled "parasha-page"]
To unsubscribe, send the following message to the same address:
signoff parasha-page
produced by Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
edited by Rav Yakov Blinder
=====================================================
This week's Parasha-Page was made possible thanks to a grant from
the Tur-Malka Foundation.
If you would like to dedicate a future issue of Parasha-Page, please
contact me for details.
=======================================================
|
| 989.365 | TORAH WEEKLY: Bo | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Jan 01 1995 15:58 | 179 |
| * TORAH WEEKLY *
Highlights of the Weekly Torah Portion and Haftorah.
Plus Ani Ma'amin - The Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith.
Parshas Bo
For the week ending 6 Shevat 5755
6 & 7 January 1995
Summary
Hashem tells Moshe that He is hardening Pharaoh's heart so that through
miraculous plagues the world will know for all time that He is the one true
G-d. Pharaoh is warned about the plague of locusts and is told how severe
it will be. Pharaoh agrees to release only the men, but Moshe insists that
everyone must go. During the plague, Pharaoh calls for Moshe and Aaron to
remove the locusts, and he admits that he has sinned. Hashem ends the
plague but hardens Pharaoh's heart, and Pharaoh again does not free the
Bnei Yisrael. The country, except for the Jewish People, is then engulfed
in a palpable darkness. Pharaoh calls for Moshe, and tells him to take all
the Jews out of Egypt, leaving their flocks behind. Moshe replies that
they will not only go with their own flocks, but Pharaoh must add his own
too. Moshe tells Pharaoh that Hashem will bring one more plague, the death
of the firstborn, and then the Children of Yisrael will leave Egypt.
Hashem again hardens Pharaoh's heart, and Pharaoh warns Moshe that if he
sees him again he will put him to death. Hashem tells Moshe that the month
of Nissan will be the first month in the calendar year. The Bnei Yisrael
are commanded to take a sheep on the 10th day of the month, and guard it
until the 14th. Everyone should then slaughter his sheep as a Pesach
sacrifice, put its blood on their doorposts, and eat the meat. The blood
on the doorpost will be a sign to Hashem to pass -- over their homes when
He strikes the firstborn of Egypt. The Jewish People are told to
memorialize this day as the Exodus from Egypt by never eating chametz on
Pesach. Moshe relays Hashem's commands, and the Jewish People fulfill them
flawlessly. Hashem sends the final plague, killing the firstborn, and
Pharaoh sends the Jews out of Egypt. Hashem tells Moshe and Aaron the laws
concerning pidyon haben (the redemption of the firstborn son), and
tefillin.
===========================================================================
Commentaries
"...but for all the Children of Yisrael there was light in their dwellings"
(10:23).
Our Sages teach us that the plague of darkness that engulfed Egypt was no
ordinary darkness, but a darkness so intense that "a man didn't see his
brother those three days" (Rashi). It was a darkness like a blindness, in
which people would collide with each other. This was followed by another
three days in which the darkness was twice as thick, so that "no man rose
from his place -- he who sat could not stand up, and he who stood could not
sit down" (Rashi). This second darkness was palpable -- like an
immobilizing gel. During all this time, the Torah tells us that "for all
the children of Yisrael there was light in their dwellings." Why did the
Torah specify that the light was "in all their dwellings"? Why couldn't it
have just said "The Jews had light", or "The darkness didn't affect the
Jews"? Darkness has two dangers: First, darkness brings confusion -- a
pillar can be mistaken for a human being, and vice versa. Second, a person
becomes afraid to stumble into a pit or a wall and is paralyzed in a
straight-jacket of fear. We live in an era of great spiritual darkness in
which people are either bumping into each other in their blindness trying
to find the next fake guru or instant spiritual high -- they can't tell the
difference between a pillar and a man; or they've reached the stage of
complete spiritual immobility, afraid to fall into a pit, they've given up
and are stuck. In these times of great darkness, it is the radiance and
purity of the Jewish home and all it stands for, that continues to shine
like a beacon to a benighted world "...but for all the Children of Yisrael
there was light in their dwellings."
"They (the Bnei Yisrael) requested silver and gold articles from the
Egyptians. Hashem made the Egyptians respect the people and they granted
their request" (12:25-26).
Hashem had promised Avraham Avinu that the Jewish People would leave the
servitude of Egypt with great wealth, but why was it necessary that the
Egyptians respect the Jews, rather than just to give out of fear. The goal
of Creation, writes the Netziv, is that Hashem's glory should fill the
entire earth -- that all human beings should recognize Him. When this
eventually happens, as Hashem's representatives we will command the respect
and favor of the nations. However, this occurs only when we fulfill and
perform the mitzvos properly, for a mitzvah performed properly is G-dly and
perfect, and can only command respect and admiration. But if we fail to
perform the mitzvos properly, we will be considered fools. Any current
scorn by the nations of the world is not a sign of our perfection, but
rather that something is lacking in our service of Hashem, that we have
failed in our role of leading a life of holiness, separate from the nations
and their lifestyles. However, when we fulfill our role properly, the
entire world will want to share in our service of Hashem. Prior to our
first redemption from Egypt -- the model of the final redemption to come --
Hashem brought us favor in the Egyptians' eyes so that we would not forget
this ideal. The Egyptians readily gave us vessels of gold and silver to
enhance our service of Hashem in the desert. May we merit, through our
meticulous performance of the mitzvos, the respect and honor and admiration
of the entire world. Then all the nations will follow our lead in serving
Hashem and bringing the world to perfection.
(Adapted from Rabbi Zev Leff -- "Outlooks and Insights")
===========================================================================
Haftorah: Jeremiah
46:13-28
"But you, be not afraid, My servant Yaakov, and be not frightened, Yisrael,
for I will save you from afar!" (46:27).
When Yisrael does teshuva (returns in repentance to Hashem), the final
redemption is hastened and comes before the appointed time. If they do not
do teshuva, the redemption will come anyway at the predestined hour.
Therefore Hashem tells Yisrael through His prophet `not to fear,' for "I
will save you from afar!" Even if you are far away from Judaism, and
teshuva is a word unknown to you, He will surely redeem you when the time
for the redemption arrives.
(Mayana shel Torah)
===========================================================================
Ani Ma'amin
The Rambam's 13 principles of faith
Principle #13:
"I believe with complete faith that there will be a resuscitation of the
dead whenever the wish emanates from the Creator, blessed be His Name
and exalted is His mention, forever and for all eternity."
"See, I have placed before you life and good, death and evil." --
Devarim 30:15
Whenever we sin, something in our relationship with Hashem dies. That
love, that desire to learn, to pray, to do a mitzvah -- wanes. It would
then be natural that, just as a diseased limb does not grow back after
amputation, there should be no hope of recovery from a diseased spiritual
limb. But Hashem, in His mercy, innovated the concept of teshuva, which
gives new life to those vital spiritual organs which sustain our existence.
It revives our love for Hashem and revitalizes our relationship with Him.
The act of teshuva is then a powerful resurrection of our dulled souls. It
is a resurrection of the dead, for when good replaces evil, life replaces
death. The resurrection we achieve with our teshuva will make us worthy of
the ultimate resurrection of the dead in the days of Mashiach.
(Rabbi Moshe Eiseman)
===========================================================================
This issue is dedicated in honor of
Judy & Peter Sheldon Sandra & Stephen Seltzer
of WestCliff, England and of Roslyn Heights, New York
on the engagement of their children
Ella Sheldon and Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
Ohr Somayach Institutions is an international network of Yeshivot and
outreach centers, with branches in North America, Europe, South Africa and
South America. The Central Campus in Jerusalem provides a full range of
educational services for over 550 full-time students. The Jewish Learning
Exchange (JLE) of Ohr Somayach offers summer and winter programs in Israel
that attract hundreds of university students from around the world for 3 to
8 weeks of study and touring.
===========================================================================
This publication is available via FAX and REGULAR POST within Israel.
For information, please send E-Mail to newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
or send a fax to 972-2-812890 with your name & fax number,
or write to the address below.
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for Torah Weekly
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Yaakov Asher Sinclair
Production Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
Production Design: Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
(C) 1994 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 989.366 | PARSHA Q&A: Bo | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Jan 01 1995 15:59 | 142 |
| * PARSHA Q&A *
In-Depth Questions on the Parsha and Rashi's commentary.
Parshas Bo
For the week ending 6 Shevat 5755
6 & 7 January 1995
Parsha Questions
1. According to Rashi, why did Pharaoh refuse to allow the children of the
Jewish People to go into the desert?
2. How did the plague of arbeh (locusts) brought by Moshe differ from the
plague brought in the days of Yoel?
3. How did the first three days of the plague of darkness differ from the
second three days?
4. During the plague of darkness, what happened to the Jews who were
wicked?
5. Where was Moshe when he received the prophecy regarding Makas Bechoros
(the plague of the first born)?
6. Makas Bechoros took place exactly at midnight. Why did Moshe tell
Pharaoh that it would take place "about midnight" (11:4)?
7. Why did the first born of the slaves die?
8. Why did the first born of the animals die?
9. Why did Hashem give the first mitzvah (Rosh Chodesh) to Aaron, and not
only to Moshe?
10. Up to what age is an animal fit to be a Korban Pesach?
11. Prior to the exodus from Egypt, what two mitzvos involving blood did
Hashem give to the Jewish People?
12. Which parts of the Korban Pesach were the Jewish People forbidden to
eat?
13. Where did the Jewish People place the blood from the Korban Pesach?
14. Who among the first born of Egypt survived Makas Bechoros?
15. Why did Pharaoh ask Moshe to bless him?
16. Why did the Jewish People carry their matzos on their shoulders rather
than have their animals carry them?
17. Who comprised the erev rav ("mixed multitude")?
18. What three historical events occurred on the 15th of Nissan, prior to
the event of the Exodus from Egypt?
19. What is the source of the "milk and honey" found in Eretz Yisrael?
20. The only tamei (non-Kosher) animal whose first-born is redeemed is the
donkey. Why were the donkeys favored?
Bonus Question:
Pharaoh told Moshe, "You shall not again see my face."
Moshe responded, "You have spoken correctly, I will not see your face
again." (10:28-29).
How did Moshe know that Hashem wouldn't send him to see Pharaoh again?
I Did Not Know That!
"You shall eat matzos until the twenty-first day of the month..." (12:18).
The word "matzos" is written without the letter "vav" (the numerical value
of vav is six), to teach that during the last six days of Pesach a person
is not obligated to eat matzah.
Ba'al HaTurim
===========================================================================
Answers to this Week's Questions
All references are to the verses and Rashi's commentary, unless otherwise
stated
1. 10:11 - He felt that since children don't bring sacrifices, there was no
need for them to go.
2. 10:14 - The plague brought by Moshe was comprised of one species of
locust, whereas the plague in the days of Yoel was comprised of many
species.
3. 10:22 - During the first three days, the Egyptians were unable to see.
During the second three days they were unable to move as well.
4. 10:22 - They died.
5. 11:4 - In front of Pharaoh.
6. 11:4 - Moshe was afraid that Pharaoh's astrologers would miscalculate
the time. Therefore, if he said the plague would begin exactly at
midnight, they might make a mistake and accuse Moshe of lying.
7. 11:5 - Because they also subjugated the Jewish People and rejoiced in
their suffering.
8. 11:5 - Because the Egyptians worshipped them as gods and when Hashem
punishes a nation He also punishes its gods.
9. 12:1 - As a reward for toiling together with Moshe in bringing about
the plagues.
10. 12:5 - One year.
11. 12:6 - Circumcision and Korban Pesach.
12. 12:8 - The bones and the sinews.
13. 12:13 - On the inner side of the door-post of their houses.
14. 12:29 - Pharaoh.
15. 12:32 - In order that he would not die in the plague.
16. 12:34 - Because the commandment of matzah was dear to them.
17. 12:38 - People from other nations who became converts.
18. 12:41 - The angels came to promise that Sarah would have a son, Yitzchak
was born, and the exile of the "covenant between parts" was decreed.
19. 13:5 - The milk is from goats and the honey is from dates and figs.
20. 13:13 - They assisted the Jewish People during the exile.
Bonus Answer:
Sifsei Chachamim:
When a tzaddik decrees that something will be, then Hashem fulfills his
decree.
Rabbi S.R. Hirsch:
Moshe had already been told about makas bechoros (plague of the
firstborn), and that this would bring about the redemption immediately.
He told Pharaoh about it immediately and then left him, knowing there
was nothing further to talk about.
===========================================================================
This issue is dedicated in honor of
Judy & Peter Sheldon Sandra & Stephen Seltzer
of Westcliff, England and of Roslyn Heights, New York
on the engagement of their children
Ella Sheldon and Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
Ohr Somayach Institutions is an international network of Yeshivot and
outreach centers, with branches in North America, Europe, South Africa and
South America. The Central Campus in Jerusalem provides a full range of
educational services for over 550 full-time students. The Jewish Learning
Exchange (JLE) of Ohr Somayach offers summer and winter programs in Israel
that attract hundreds of university students from around the world for 3 to
8 weeks of study and touring.
===========================================================================
This publication is available via FAX and REGULAR POST within Israel.
For information, please send E-Mail to newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
or send a fax to 972-2-812890 with your name & fax number,
or write to the address below.
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for Parsha Q&A
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Eliyahu Kane
Production Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
Production Design: Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
(C) 1994 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 989.367 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Bo | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jan 05 1995 01:42 | 169 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Bo
Vol. IX, No. 15 (399), 6 Shevat 5755, January 7, 1995
Before Bnei Yisrael left Egypt, Hashem told Moshe, "Please speak
to the nation and let them borrow from their fellows silver vessels
and gold vessels" (11:2). Chazal say that Hashem said "Please" in
order that "that tzaddik" (i.e., Avraham in Gan Eden) should not
accuse Hashem of keeping His promise to enslave the Jews and not
keeping His promise of a great reward for them. We must understand,
says Rav Meshulam Roth zatz'l: Does Hashem keep His promise only so
that Avraham will not complain? And why is Avraham called "that
tzaddik"?
Rav Roth explains that the title "that tzaddik" alludes to a
specific incident, i.e., when Avraham refused to take a share of the
booty so that no one would say that the King of Sdom made Avraham
wealthy. This was a great act of righteousness because it
demonstrated Avraham's desire to have no master other than G-d
himself.
Just as Avraham did not wish to be beholden to the King of Sdom,
he would not want his descendants to be beholden to the Egyptians.
He would not want Bnei Yisrael to receive gifts from their enslavers.
Therefore, Hashem said, "Please speak to the nation and let them
borrow from their fellows," rather than taking gifts. The borrowed
items would later become the Jews' possessions (as ownerless
property) when the Egyptians drowned in the Red Sea. "Please do not
let Avraham say that I kept My promise in a way that displeases him,"
Hashem said. (Raglei Mevaser)
************************************
"Not so, let the men go and serve Hashem, for that is what you
are asking." (10:11)
How could Pharaoh say this? asks Rav Yitzchak Karo zatz'l (uncle
of Rav Yosef Karo). This is not what Moshe had requested!
Furthermore, why did Pharaoh say (in the present tense), "[T]hat is
what you are asking"? He should have said, "[T]hat is what you
asked," for surely Moshe was not now making his request for the first
time!
Pharaoh was treating Moshe like a businessman, Rav Karo explains.
If a seller asks for $100, chances are he will take eighty. If he
asks for $80, he will take sixty. Similarly, Pharaoh said, "True
you have asked that all of Bnei Yisrael be freed, but that was merely
your opening position. I understand that what you truly are asking
is that the men be allowed to go and serve G-d."
(Toldot Yitzchak)
************************************
There are three verses which address the wealth which the Jews
took from Egypt: (1) "Each woman will request from her neighbor
silver vessels, golden vessels, and garments." (3:22)
(2) "Please speak to the nation and let them borrow from their
fellows silver vessels and gold vessels." (11:2)
(3) "Bnei Yisrael carried out the word of Moshe; they requested
from the Egyptians silver vessels, gold vessels, and garments."
(12:34)
Why does the second of these verses not mention garments? asks
Rav Yosef Meir Weiss (the Spinka Rebbe). He explains that of these
three verses, only the second is Hashem's command. The first is
Hashem's statement of fact, i.e., that is what will happen. The
third verse is the Torah's statement of what did happen--exactly as
Hashem had said. But the second verse is a command, and Hashem had
no reason to command Bnei Yisrael to ask for clothes. The clothes
which they wore in the desert grew with their wearers; as for
newborns, since Bnei Yisrael should have entered Eretz Yisrael almost
immediately (if not for their sins), there would have been no
children born in the desert.
(Imrei Yosef)
************************************
The midrash states: "'Thereafter they will leave [Egypt] with
great possessions'--this is the meaning of 'All the Jews had light
in their homes'." (The first verse quoted is B'reishit 15:14, the
second is Sh'mot 10:23)
Rav Nachum Mordechai Friedman (the Tchortkover Rebbe) zatz'l
explains as follows:
As quoted on the first page, Hashem was "concerned" lest Avraham
feel that his descendants did not receive their due upon leaving
Egypt. But why would Hashem expect that the tzaddik who refused the
material wealth offered by the King of Sdom (see first page) would
want the wealth of the Egyptians?
Another question: Why did Avraham pray that Sdom should not be
destroyed, but he did not pray that his children should not be
enslaved? Rav Nachum Mordechai explains that there are two ways to
contribute to the correction of Adam's sin--through Torah study and
mitzvot, or through being exiled to a spiritual wasteland.
Avraham understood that this was the purpose of his descendants'
enslavement. First they would collect the spiritual "sparks" from
Egypt, then they would receive the Torah. And this was Hashem's
concern--not that Avraham would demand material wealth for his
descendants. Rather, as the Arizal teaches, Bnei Yisrael's
"cleaning-out" Egypt materially merely reflects that Egypt had become
barren of spirituality as well.
Finally, we may understand the midrash with which we began, i.e.,
that the great wealth with which Bnei Yisrael left Egypt was a
spiritual "light."
(Doreish Tov: Pesach)
************************************
Yet another explanation of this midrash is offered by Rav Meir
Bergman shlita (son-in-law of Rav Shach). Of course, Hashem keeps
His promises, not only because Avraham might complain. However, the
great reward which Hashem intended to give the Jewish people was a
spiritual reward, not a material reward.
Hashem had "intended" that the suffering of slavery would refine
the Jews and enhance their spirituality. But people have free will,
and Bnei Yisrael allowed themselves to sink into the 49 Gates of
Impurity. Thus, the spiritual reward which Hashem had intended was
no longer fitting. Instead, Hashem had to shower the Jews with
silver, gold, and clothing, simply for the sake of keeping His
promise to Avraham.
(Sha'arei Orah Vol. II)
************************************
Rav Yerucham Yehuda Leib Pearlman
("The Gadol of Minsk")
born 5595 (1835) - died 7 Shevat 5656 (1896)
Rav Yerucham Yehuda Leib was born and raised in Brisk. His
prodigious abilities were immediately recognizable, and by the age
of six he would eavesdrop on the Talmud lecture in Brisk's central
bet midrash and even participate on occasion. At a tender age, he
rejected the then prevailing pilpul method of learning; however, he
admitted to his student and biographer, Rav Meir Halpren, that his
own brilliance and method of learning presented its own problems.
For example, when Rav Yerucham Leib accepted his first rabbinical
post, his congregants sometimes found his rulings to be unacceptable.
This was because he viewed every question through his encyclopedic
knowledge of the entire Talmud and all of its commentaries. However,
he learned (and taught his above-mentioned student), that there is
also a time for not looking at a question too deeply, but simply
opening-up a compilation such as Chayei Adam and quoting from it.
In addition, each community's unique customs must be respected.
For a time, young Rav Yerucham Leib exiled himself to Kovno, where
he studied in the bet midrash of Rav Yitzchak Avigdor. Rav Yisrael
Salanter attempted to attract the young genius to the mussar
movement, but eventually concluded that this was that rare individual
who had nothing to gain from mussar study. Interestingly, years
later Rav Yerucham Leib appointed Rav Meir Halpren to the task of
giving him daily mussar and questioning his actions. One recurring
topic of discussion was the obligation of the Torah scholar to
sacrifice his personal growth for the good of the community. (Some
of the discussions are reprinted in Rav Halpren's biography of his
teacher.)
Rav Yerucham Leib greatest rabbinical position was in Minsk (from
1883), the city with which his name has become most closely
associated. He wrote several works by the name Ohr Gadol, one of
which is printed in standard Mishnah editions.
|
| 989.368 | P A R A S H A - P A G E: Parshat Bo 5755 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Jan 08 1995 13:57 | 204 |
|
P A R A S H A - P A G E
produced by
Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Edited by R. Yakov Blinder
Mordecai Kornfeld | Yeshivat Ohr Yerushalayim| Tel: 522633
6/12 Katzenelenbogen St. | D.N. Harei Yehuda | Fax: 341589
Har Nof, Jerusalem, 93871 | Moshav Beit Meir, Israel | US:718 5208526
___________________________________________
Much thanks to the Tur-Malka Foundation for making this week's
Parasha-Page possible.
If you would like to support the Parasha-Page, and help further the
(literally) world-wide dissemination of Torah, please contact me:
yoy@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il -- Mordecai Kornfeld.
=====================================================================
Parshat Bo 5755
Keep the Matzot [of Pesach] from becoming Chametz (fermented),
for on this very day I took your multitudes out of the Land of
Egypt.
(Sh'mot 12:17)
R. Yoshiyah said, "Do not read the word as `Matzot,' but rather
as `Mitzvot' -- `Keep the Mitzvot from becoming Chametz' -- for
just as one should not allow Matzot to ferment, so should one
not allow Mitzvot to "ferment." Rather, if a Mitzvah comes into
your hand, do it immediately.
(Rashi ibid., from Mechilta ad loc.)
The Mechilta tells us that in this verse, the Torah is hinting
at a much broader halachic concept than just baking Matzot for
Pesach. The Torah is teaching us that we must perform Mitzvot [= the
commandments of Hashem] with Z'rizut -- swiftly.
The Maharal MiPrague raises two questions concerning this
statement of the Mechilta. Firstly, how can R. Yoshiyah change the
reading of the word from the traditional vocalization in order to
superimpose his homiletical interpretation on the Torah's words?
Normally there must be some indication from the theme or context of a
verse that supports such interpretations. The suggested "changes" in
reading are only a tool to graphically demonstrate a point that can
actually be learned from the traditional reading of the verse at hand
(See Parasha-Page, Chukat 5754 and Ki-Tetzeh 5754.) What, then, is the
connection between the simple meaning of our verse and R. Yoshiyah's
homily?
Secondly, in what way does a Mitzvah become "fermented", or
spoiled, if it is not done immediately?
II
The Maharal addresses these two issues by assessing more
carefully the nature of the Mitzvah of Matzah. In D'varim 16:3 we
read "Do not eat leaven...; for seven days you should eat Matzot...
because you left Egypt with haste." The Torah clearly tells us that
the Mitzvah of eating Matzah on Pesach is to remind us of the haste
with which the Exodus took place. The Matzah we eat brings to mind
that when the Jews left Egypt, they were so hurried that "they baked
the dough which they had taken out Egypt into cakes of unleavened
Matzah, because they were expelled from Egypt and they were not able
to delay" (Sh'mot 12:39). The Passover Haggadah makes this point even
more clearly: "What does this Matzah that we eat represent? It
represents the fact that the dough of our forefathers had not had a
chance to rise when Hashem suddenly appeared to them and redeemed
them, as it says, 'They baked the dough which they had taken into
Matzot...' " (See also S'forno to Sh'mot 12:17.)
But this fact itself, the Maharal points out, requires
explanation. Why must we remember that the Exodus from egypt
happened so swiftly and suddenly? What is the underlying message
involved in the great haste of the Jews leaving Egypt?
The Maharal explains that the lesson of the haste is that
Hashem Himself (-as opposed to any natural forces) took us out of
Egypt. Any act done directly by Hashem takes place instantaneously.
The reason for this is because there is no element of mass or matter
related to Hashem. A physical object has inertia that it must overcome
in order to go into motion, but Hashem, Whose actions are purely
spiritual, and are unimpeded by any physical qualities, can -- and
does -- act with infinite speed. Besides, Hashem exists outside of the
very framework of space and time, and therefore even when His actions
are taking place on this physical world, they can take place without
the passage of time.
(Although the Maharal does not openly make note of the fact,
firm basis for his words can be found in the words of Chazal. In
Chagigah 12b, the Gemara alludes to the fact that, in the words of
Rashi (ad loc.), "all earthly acts are sluggish, while heavenly acts
take place swiftly." - MK)
This, says the Maharal, is the key to the understanding of the
Mitzvah of Matzah. The Matzah that we eat reminds us of how rushed the
events revolving around the exodus from Egypt were. This hurriedness
is the mark of a divine act. It is the sure sign that the hand of
Hashem was at work, shaping our destiny. " `Hashem took us out of
Egypt' -- It was not an angel nor a Seraph nor a messenger, but Hashem
Himself Who took us out of Egypt" -- (Passover Haggadah.) Therefore,
it is necessary for us to remember the *swiftness* of the exodus. It
is the Torah's way of insuring that the future generations will always
realize the extent of Hashem's love for the Bnai Yisroel. Hashem took
a "personal" involvement in the redemption -- this was why it was
carried out instantaneously.
III
Now we can explain Rav Yoshiya's interpretation of our Pasuk.
The reason it is so important to do a Mitzvah swiftly, explains the
Maharal, is also related to what we have just explained. A Mitzvah is
the divine will on this world. When we perform a Mitzvah, we want to
demonstrate that it is not simply a mundane act. We would like to show
that we are executing the will of our creator. Doing a MItzvah with
"Z'rizut" accomplishes just that. By performing a Mitzvah swiftly, we
are adding to it the mark of our creator, and showing all that what we
are doing is His will!
This also explains what is meant by the "fermenting" of a
Mitzvah that is not done with the desired swiftness. Doing a Mitzvah
slowly, makes it appear to be a worldly act ("all earthly acts are
sluggish"). In this sense, it is "fermented" or "spoiled." If we don't
appreciate that the Mitzvot we do are none other than the will of
Hashem, even our Mitzvot can become mundane acts!
(Maharal, Gur Aryeh, Sh'mot 12:17;
Gevurot Hashem, Ch. 36)
IV
Perhaps the Maharal's insight into the concept of Z'rizut in
performing Mitzvot can be used to illuminate a seeming inconsistency
in the words of Chazal regarding Z'rizut.
The Torat Cohanim (Tazria, Parsha I, quoted also in Gemara
Pesachim 4a) teaches that although a circumcision may be performed at
any time during a baby's eighth day, it is preferable to do it as
early in the day as possible. This is derived from what the Torah
writes about Avraham. The Torah tells us that "Avraham rose up early
in the morning" to fulfill Hashem's commandment (B'reishit 22:3). Just
as Avraham hurried to carry out Hashem's command the first thing in
the morning, so are we to take the first opportunity to perform a
Mitzvah. This concept is referred to as "Z'rizim Makdimim LeMitzvot"
[="The zealous do their Mitzvot as soon as they are able"].
Why is it necessary for Chazal to learn the importance of
Z'rizut in performing Mitzvot from two separate sources? If the
Mechilta already learned the importance of swiftness from the Matzot
we bake for Pesach, why did the Torat Cohanim have to learn the same
concept from Avraham's early rising? Secondly, why do Chazal use two
different expressions whey describing the morals learned from these
two Pesukim? In one case, they tell us " *not* to ferment Mitzvot ",
emphasizing the negative, while in the other case they tell us to
"*do* Mitzvot early", in the positive!
According to the Maharal's explanation, the above difficulties
can be easily resolved. We may propose, based on the teachings of the
Maharal, that there are two completely different ideas involved in
doing a Mitzvah swiftly. Firstly, doing a Mitzvah swiftly shows that
one is anxious and eager to do Mitzvot -- "Chibuv HaMitzvah" (showing
fondness for the Mitzvah). This is the more obvious reason for doing a
Mitzvah with Z'rizut. Secondly, as the Maharal pointed out, doing a
Mitzvah swiftly shows that we consider it a heavenly act, and
accordingly we would like to do it as heavenly acts are done,
instantaneously. We may call this, "Kiddush HaMitzvah" (sanctifying
the Mitzvah).
It immediately becomes evident that the first concept only
tells us *when* a Mitzvah should be performed. It should be performed
at the first opportunity. The speed at which the act is done, however,
does not help to show "Chibuv HaMitzvah". If anything, performing a
Mitzvah with undo haste would indicate a desire to get it over with,
rather than eagerness. The second concept, though, does not relate to
*when*, but to *how* the Mitzvah should be done. It should be
performed with haste. Once the Mitzvah is already under way it should
be finished swiftly, in order to make it clear to all that it is a
spirirtual act; it is the will of Hashem. Doing the Mitzvah at the
first opportunity or leaving it to a later time, however, does not
contribute any spiritual dimension to the act of the Mitzvah.
We may now suggest that the Torat Cohanim is dealing with the
first concept -- Chibuv HaMitzvah. We learn from Avraham Avinu to rush
to *start* the performance of a Mitzvah at the first opportunity. The
Mechilta, on the other hand, learns the other ideal -- *Kiddush
HaMitzvah* -- from the Matzot we bake before Pesach. If we want our
Mitzvah to be a spiritual act, then we must carry it out as swiftly as
possible. This is what the Mechilta means by saying, "If a Mitzvah
*comes_into_your_hand*, do it immediately", i.e., if you have already
started to perform a Mitzvah, then complete it *immediately* ( -- or,
as the Midrash Lekach Tov puts it, "do it *swiftly*")!
This also explains the difference between the tone of the two
expressions. The first expression is made in a positive manner,
because it is only a recommended embellishment to the performance of
the Mitzvah that is added by doing it early. If we don't show our
fondness for the Mitzvah, however, the Mitzvah that is eventually
performed is in no way affected by this. The second concept is stated
in a negative tone because if the Mitzvah is not done in accordance
with this concept, it is not merely lacking embellishment. Rather,
sluggishness in performing a Mitzvah makes the Mitzvah appear to be a
mundane act, thus "spoiling" the Mitzvah, as the Maharal so
beautifully explained! Thus, the teachings of the Mechilta and of the
Torat Cohanim do not contradict each other at all. Rather, they
complement each other wonderfully!
============================================================
To receive the weekly Parasha-Page, write to:
listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
and put in as your message body the following line *only*:
sub parasha-page [Your full name]
To cancel your subscription, send a message to the same address,
and write as your message body the following line only:
signoff parasha-page
(NOTE: Don't add words to the message, and check your spelling. Please
address any comments to my personal account: yoy@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il)
========================================
|
| 989.369 | Torah Weekly - Beshalach | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Jan 08 1995 13:58 | 165 |
|
* TORAH WEEKLY *
Highlights of the Weekly Torah Portion and Haftorah.
Plus Ani Ma'amin - The Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith.
Parshas Beshalach
For the week ending 13 Shevat 5755
13 & 14 January 1995
===========================================================================
Summary
After Pharaoh sends the Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt, Hashem leads them with
pillars of clouds and fire on a circuitous route towards Eretz Yisrael,
avoiding the Philistines. Pharaoh regrets the loss of so many slaves and
chases the Jews with his army. The Bnei Yisrael are very afraid as the
Egyptians draw close, but Hashem protects them. Moshe raises his staff,
and Hashem splits the sea, enabling the Bnei Yisrael to cross safely.
Pharaoh, his heart hardened by Hashem, commands his army to pursue the
Bnei Yisrael, whereupon the waters crash down upon the Egyptian army.
Moshe and Miriam lead the men and women, respectively, in song thanking
Hashem (see note on Shabbos Shira). The people complain about the lack of
water after traveling for three days only to find bitter waters at Marah.
Moshe miraculously produces potable water for them, and in Marah they
receive certain mitzvos. The people complain to Moshe and Aaron that they
had better food in Egypt. Hashem sends quail so they can have meat and
provides the man (manna) for them. The manna was a miraculous bread that
fell from the heavens every day except on Shabbos, but there was a double
portion on Friday to supply the Sabbath needs. Nobody was ever able to
obtain more than his daily portion. However, the manna collected on Friday
lasted to the next day so the Jews could rest on Shabbos. Some manna was
set aside as a memorial for future generations. After the Jews complained
for water again, Moshe miraculously produces water from a rock for them.
Amalek then attacks the Jews. Joshua leads the battle while Moshe prays
for their welfare.
===========================================================================
Commentaries
"And the Children of Israel went in the midst of the sea on the dry land
and the waters were a wall to them..." (14:22).
In this verse the Torah says the Children of Israel walked through the sea
on the dry land, but seven verses later the order is reversed and it says
they walked on the dry land in the sea. The Vilna Gaon explains that when
the Jews arrived at Yam Suf, the sea looked like it was going to do
anything but split. The Egyptians were thundering down upon them and
nothing was happening! It was not until Nachshon Ben Aminadav, Aaron's
brother-in-law, literally took the plunge and waded into the water up to
his neck, that finally the waters parted. The first verse is referring to
Nachshon -- for him the sea became dry land. The rest of the people,
however, only walked on the dry land created by Nachshon's trust in Hashem.
Also, the word for "wall" in this second verse can also be read as "anger".
In other words, the wall of water was so to speak "angry" at the Jews for
having such little bitachon, so little faith in Hashem, and it wanted to
drown them. We see from that this that each and every Jew is expected to
be a Nachshon, each and every Jew is expected to be a pioneer of faith, to
dive into the sea of doubt and indecision. For if this were not the case,
what right would the sea have to be angry? Every Jew has a natural trust
in G-d. However, if we choose not to live up to that inbuilt quality,
nature itself rebels against us.
"Then Moses and the Children of Yisrael chose to sing this song to Hashem"
(15:1)
In the normal course of events, we fail to perceive the hand of G-d at
work. We wonder how most of the seemingly unrelated, daily phenomena that
surrounds us could be part of a Divine, coherent plan. We see suffering
and evil, and we wonder how they can be the handiwork of a Merciful G-d.
Rarely -- very rarely -- there is a flash of insight which illuminates the
whole picture and we see how all the pieces of the puzzle fit into place --
we realize how every note and each instrument and player harmonize in
Hashem's symphony of Creation. This realization is what the Torah calls a
song -- when all the apparently unrelated phenomena meld into a coherent,
merciful and comprehensible whole, singing in unity.
(Adapted from the ArtScroll Stone Chumash)
===========================================================================
Shabbos Shira
The Shabbos on which Parshas Beshalach is read is also called Shabbos Shira
because of the song (shira) that the Jewish People sang as a praise to
Hashem after crossing the sea. This song is "sung" each day as part of the
morning prayers. Although many other important events are taught in this
week's Parsha, the shira implanted faith and joy in the heart of every Jew
in each and every generation. For this reason, the Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh
comments that the Torah says "Then Moses and the Children of Yisrael will
sing this song to Hashem" -- in the future tense. For not only were those
who witnessed the miracle able to perceive Hashem's majesty and sing His
praises, but also planted in the heart of every Jew, and locked into his
spiritual genes for all time is this ability to recognize his Creator and
to praise Him.
===========================================================================
Haftorah: Judges 4
As the subject of this week's Parsha is the Song at the Sea, so the subject
of the Haftorah is the song of Devorah the Prophetess. Yisrael, having
completely forgotten it's mission, has "taken the daughters of the
Canaanite population among whom they lived, for wives, and given their own
daughters to their (the Canaanite) sons, and served their gods." (Shoftim
3:5-7). Hashem decrees that they should undergo sufferings as a result of
this. Part of this suffering comes in the form of an immensely cruel
Canaani general whose name is Sisera, literally "The Pacifier" or "The
Silencer." But in this extremity, Yisrael turns its heart to Hashem, and
in the glorious Song of Devorah, the pearl of poems of all times, we see
this change in heart of the people, brought about by the awakening and
purifying power of suffering. All was due to the unforgettable merit of a
glorious woman, borne up by the Spirit of Hashem, fired through and through
with enthusiasm for His Word, who put the men to shame, who with her
"flaming words" inflamed the courage and steeled their powers of action.
Not the sword of Barak, but the spirit of Devorah, the words of Devorah,
won the victory.
(Adapted from Rav Mendel Hirsch)
===========================================================================
Ani Ma'amin
The Rambam's 13 principles of faith
Principle #12:
"I believe with complete faith in the coming of the Mashiach, and even
though he may delay, nevertheless I anticipate every day that he will
come."
"For your seed shall be strangers in a land not theirs and they will
enslave and oppress them for four hundred years."
Bereishis 15:13
Our Sages teach us that although the exile was supposed to last for 400
years, it lasted only 210. The suffering of the Jews in Egypt during the
years of oppression was so intense that it was calculated by Hashem as the
equivalent of 400 years of actual oppression. This should give us cause,
in our own days, to look forward to our redemption because when Hashem
wishes to hurry the time of redemption, He finds a way of calculating the
intensity of our suffering or some other consideration in order to achieve
His purpose.
Chafetz Chaim, Shem Olam, Part II, Perek 13
===========================================================================
This publication is available via FAX and REGULAR POST within Israel.
For information, please send E-Mail to newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
or send a fax to 972-2-812890 with your name & fax number,
or write to the address below.
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for Torah Weekly
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Yaakov Asher Sinclair
Production Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
Production Design: Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
(C) 1995 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 989.370 | PARSHA Q&A: Parshas Beshalach
| TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Jan 08 1995 13:59 | 127 |
| * PARSHA Q&A *
In-Depth Questions on the Parsha and Rashi's commentary.
Parshas Beshalach
For the week ending 13 Shevat 5755
13 & 14 January 1995
===========================================================================
Parsha Questions
1. Why did Hashem direct the Jewish People away from the land of the
Philistines?
2. Why did four-fifths of the Jewish People fail to leave Egypt?
3. Why did Pharaoh decide to pursue the Jewish People?
4. How was Hashem honored through Pharaoh?
5. On what day did the Yam Suf divide?
6. Why did the Egyptians want to pursue the Jewish People?
7. From where did the Egyptians obtain animals to pull the chariots?
8. In whose merit did the Yam Suf split?
9. When Moshe stretched out his hands to divide the Yam Suf, which waters
divided?
10. Why were the dead Egyptians cast out of the sea?
11. From which verse do we see that the Egyptians merited a burial?
12. Why did "fear seize the inhabitants of Pelashes"? (15:14)
13. When did Miriam receive her prophesy? What was her prophesy?
14. Which sections of the Torah did the Jewish People receive at Marah?
15. What is a chok (statute)?
16. On which day did the food supply from Egypt run out?
17. Which individuals left over the manna until the next morning?
18. How did the non-Jewish world experience the taste of the manna?
19. Which prophet of a future generation rebuked the Jewish People by
showing them jar of manna that was prepared by Moshe?
20. Why did Moshe's hands become heavy during the war against Amalek?
Bonus QUESTION:
When the Jewish People were trapped between the Egyptian army and the Yam
Suf, Moshe prayed to Hashem for help. Hashem replied to Moshe that "Now is
not the time to pray at length. The Jewish People are in danger" (Rashi
14:15). Why did Hashem find fault with Moshe's prayer?
I Did Not Know That!
When Moshe lifted his hands the Jewish People prevailed" (17:11). Could
Moshe's hands win or lose the battle? Rather whenever the Jewish People
looked toward Heaven and subjugated their hearts to Hashem, they would
overcome their enemy.
Rosh Hashanah 29a
===========================================================================
Answers to this Week's Questions
All references are to the verses and Rashi's commentary, unless otherwise
stated
1. 13:17 - So that it would be more difficult for the Jewish People to
return to Egypt.
2. 13:18 They died during the plague of darkness. (i.e., 3 million
survived, 12 million didn't!).
3. 14:2 - When he saw that the Jewish People turned back toward Egypt, he
thought that they had lost their way.
4. 14:4 - Through punishing him. When Hashem punishes the wicked His name
is glorified.
5. 14:5 - The seventh day of Pesach.
6. 14:5 - To regain their wealth.
7. 14:7 - From those Egyptians who feared the word of Hashem and kept their
animals inside during the plagues.
8. 14:15 - In the merit of the Jewish People's forefathers and also in
their own merit since they trusted in Hashem and left Egypt.
9. 14:21 - All the waters of the world.
10. 14:30 - So that the Jewish People would see the destruction of the
Egyptians and be assured of no further pursuit.
11. 15:12 - "The earth swallowed them."
12. 15:14 - Because they slew the members of the tribe of Efraim who had
escaped from Egypt at an earlier time. They feared vengeance for this
act.
13. 15:20 - In Egypt she foretold that her mother would give birth to the
deliverer of the Jewish People.
14. 15:25 - Shabbos, Red Heifer, Judicial Laws.
15. 15:26 - A law whose reason we don't understand.
16. 16:1 - The 15th of Iyar.
17. 16:20 - Dasan and Aviram.
18. 16:21 - The sun melted what remained in the fields. This flowed into
the streams from which animals drank. Those who ate these animals
experienced the taste of the man.
19. 16:32 - Yirmiyahu (chapter 2, verse 31).
20. 17:12 - Because he was remiss in his duty, since he, and not Yehoshua,
should have led the battle.
Bonus ANSWER:
Hashem's complaint against Moshe was that he prayed a long prayer. Since
Hashem answers a prayer only after the prayer is concluded, Moshe was
delaying the salvation of the Jewish People by praying at length.
Gur Aryeh
Moshe told the people to "Stand and watch" how Hashem will save them, and
thought that no further action on their part was necessary. Hence, all
that remined for him to do was to pray. Hashem told him, however, that the
people needed to "take the first step."
Rabbi S.R. Hisrsch
===========================================================================
WHAT DO YOU DO WITH PARSHA Q&A?
Test your kids? Test yourself? Look-up the answers or flip over the page?
We'd like to know! Fax, E-mail or send via Post your responses --
we'll share them with all the Q&A readers!
===========================================================================
This publication is available via FAX and REGULAR POST within Israel.
For information, please send E-Mail to newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
or send a fax to 972-2-812890 with your name & fax number,
or write to the address below.
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for Parsha Q&A
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Eliyahu Kane
Production Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
Production Design: Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
(C) 1995 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 989.371 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Beshalach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Jan 11 1995 19:30 | 149 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
Beshalach
Vol. IX, No. 16 (400), 13 Shevat 5755, January 14, 1995
The midrash at the beginning of this week's parashah states that
only one-fifth (and some say, one in 500) of all Jews left Egypt.
The remainder were unworthy of the Exodus and died during the plague
of darkness (when the Egyptians would not notice). Can we take this
literally? asks Rav Shimon Schwab shlita. This would mean that
somewhere between 2.5 million and 30 million Jewish men died in three
days!
When Kayin killed Hevel, Hashem said to him, "The sounds of your
brothers bloods (plural) are screaming (also plural) to Me from the
earth." Chazal say that the use of the plural alludes to the
descendants of Hevel who would never be born. Similarly, says Rav
Schwab, the horror of the Holocaust is not only in the 6,000,000 who
were killed, but in the tens of millions who will never be born.
Perhaps, says Rav Schwab, only a few hundred Jews died in Egypt.
However, the loss of their unborn descendants is a tragedy for us
as well. (Selected Essays)
************************************
"Hashem said to Moshe, 'Why do you cry out to Me? Speak to Bnei
Yisrael and let them journey forth. And you, lift up your staff.
. .'" (14:15-16)
Rav Shalom Mordechai Schwadron (the first) zatz'l (see his
biography on page 4) explains Hashem's instructions as follows: When
we act, we should have Hashem's honor in mind. However, when Hashem
acts, He does so for our honor. Therefore, Hashem said to Moshe,
"Why do you cry out to Me"--i.e., for My honor? "Speak to Bnei
Yisrael"--for they are My concern.
Regarding the next verse, the midrash says that when Bnei Yisrael
reached the Red Sea, they stood accused of being idolators just like
the Egyptians. Therefore, Hashem told Moshe to lift his staff. This
was the same staff which had turned into a snake when Moshe had
spoken lashon hara about Bnei Yisrael (in Parashat Sh'mot, on the
same occasion when Moshe was struck by tzara'at). Moshe was to
"show" the staff to the accusing angel in order to warn the angel
of what happens to one who speaks lashon hara about the Jewish
people.
(Techelet Mordechai)
************************************
"And I--behold!--I shall strengthen the heart of Egypt. . ."
(14:17)
Rambam writes that sometimes a person can sin so much that the
ability to repent is taken from him. This happened to Pharaoh.
However, Rav Shalom Mordechai Schwadron (the second) ~"~~~~ infers
from Rambam's words, even such a person can repent; the way he can
do this is by praying that he be allowed to repent.
The midrash says that Pharaoh was about to pray in that vein,
except that Hashem sent Moshe to meet Pharaoh and interrupt his train
of thought. What does it mean then, asks Rav Schwadron, that the
person who has lost the ability to repent can regain it through
prayer? It appears from Pharaoh's experience that Hashem even takes
the opportunity to pray away from such a sinner!
Rav Schwadron answers that there is a difference between losing
the ability to repent and losing the ability to pray. We are taught
that just as there are laws of nature in the physical realm, so there
are such laws in the spiritual realm. One of these laws is that one
who sins excessively is unable to repent. This is not a punishment--
it is a causal relationship to the sin. However, losing the ability
to pray does not follow from the sin; even one whose soul has
"forgotten" how to repent can still pray. However, a sinner as great
as Pharaoh may be punished such that he will not even be able to
pray.
(Ma'amar Hateshuvah V'hatefilah,
printed at the beginning of Da'at Torah Part IV)
************************************
"Hashem said to Moshe, 'For how long will you refuse to keep My
commandments and instructions?'" (16:28)
The gemara (Sanhedrin 11a) teaches: From Moshe's writing in the
Torah that Hashem included him in this criticism, the biblical figure
Shechaniah ben Yechiel learned that one should allow himself to be
disgraced in order to bring about a greater good (e.g., communal
repentance) and avoid shaming the individual. The sage Shmuel
Hakattan learned this same lesson from Shechaniah's actions on a
certain occasion, Rabbi Meir learned it from Shmuel Hakattan's
actions, and Rabbi Chiya learned it from Rabbi Meir.
Why, asks Rav Chaim Elazary zatz'l, doesn't the gemara simply say
that Rabbi Chiya learned from Moshe? The answer is that Rabbi Chiya
himself felt that it would be haughtiness on his part to imitate
Moshe. How so?
Mishlei (19:2) says, "One who is fleet-footed sins." The Vilna
Gaon explains that spiritual improvement is like a ladder--one must
climb step-by-step, and one should not skip a step. One who is too
quick ends up sinning, for he does not progress properly.
The Torah does not speak of improving one's personality, because
there are no absolutes in this area. Rather, there is a place for
each trait and a proper measure of that behavior (including so-called
negative characteristics), depending upon the circumstance.
Therefore, says Rav Elazary, Rabbi Chiya could not imitate Moshe.
Who says that what was right for Moshe was right for him? And could
Rabbi Chiya compare himself to Moshe? That would be overly
ambitious, and therefore haughty.
Thus, Rabbi Chiya could not choose Moshe Rabbenu as his role
model. Rather, he (and each person mentioned above) chose a person
closer in time to imitate.
(Netivei Chaim)
************************************
Rav Shalom Mordechai Hakohen Schwadron
("The Brezhaner Rav")
died 16 Shevat 5671 (1911)
Rav Shalom Mordechai Hakohen (known by the acronym "Maharsham")
was born in Zlotchov, where his renowned uncle, Rav Yechiel Michel
of Zlotchov, had been the maggid (preacher). Despite being a
recognized scholar, Rav Shalom Mordechai at first turned down
rabbinic posts, preferring to engage in business. Later, he accepted
a number of posts, the best-known of which was Brezhan (in Galicia).
Maharsham was a leading posek (halachic authority) of his day,
answering questions from laymen and great rabbis alike. His responsa
are gathered in She'eilot U'teshuvot Maharsham. His second best-
known work is Da'at Torah, a commentary on parts Shulchan Aruch.
He also left many other published and unpublished works. To many
chassidim, the decisions of the Maharsham have the same weight as
the Mishnah Berurah has to Lithuanian Jews.
One of Maharsham's grandsons is another Rav Shalom Mordechai
Hakohen Schwadron shlita, better known as the "Maggid of
Yerushalayim." (He is the subject of the Artscroll "Maggid" series.)
Rav Shalom Mordechai (the grandson) has edited many of his
grandfather's works, as well as being the arranger/editor of the
mussar works Lev Eliyahu (by Rav Eliyahu Lopian zatz'l) and Ohr Yahel
(by Rav Leib Chasman zatz'l).
Divrei Torah from grandfather and grandson appear inside this
week's issue.
|
| 989.372 | P A R A S H A - P A G E: Beshalach | TAV02::JEREMY | | Thu Jan 12 1995 12:54 | 181 |
| Parshat Beshalach 5755
On that day, and the Hashem saved the Israel from the Egyptians,
and the Bnai Yisroel saw the Egyptians dead on the shore of the
sea....At that time ["Az Yashir"] Moshe and the Bnai Yisroel
sang the following song to Hashem....
(Sh'mot 14:30, 15:1)
After the Israelites saw the undisputed downfall of their
Egyptian oppressors they were moved to sing the "Song of the Sea" to
Hashem to praise Him for their miraculous exodus. Why, however, does
the Torah emphasize that it was "at that time" that they sang ["Az
Yashir"]? It would seem more propper for the Pasuk to simply state
"*Then* Moshe and the Bnai Yisroel sang ["Vayashir"]. The Torah seems
to be bringing out a point involving the timing of the song. What is
the message of the words "Az Yashir" ? (See Rashi ad loc.)
The Sh'lah (c. 1550) offers an interesting approach to explain
why the Torah emphasizes that it was only *at_that_time* that the Bnai
Yisroel sang their song of praise. In Divrei HaYamim II 20:15-21 we
read that the Jewish King Yehoshaphat is promised victory in his battle
against his enemies, by a prophet named Yachzi'el. Following this
prophecy of victory, the king appointed singers to go out before the
army's front lines and sing praises to Hashem for His salvation. From
here, the Sh'lah points out, it is evident that when victory and
salvation are assured through the prophecy of a prophet, it is
appropriate to praise Hashem for His salvation immediately, even before
the predicted triumph actually takes place.
(We may add to the Sh'lah's words that although a guarantee of
victory is enough to elicit praises to Hashem, even before a salvation
actually occurs, the praises are not to be sung immediately upon
hearing the prophecy. It is when the salvation itself actually begins
that we are to sing praises to Hashem for saving us. This can be
concluded from the fact that even Yehoshaphat only had the singers sing
as they marched out to the battlefield. Or, based on D. H. II 20:19,
perhaps it is appropriate to sing the praise of Hashem twice: once
immediately, and another time at the start of the salvation -MK)
The Bnai Yisroel, the Sh'lah continues, were already told of
their impending liberation from the Egyptians on Rosh Chodesh Nissan,
several weeks before the events at the Red Sea occurred (see Sh'mot
12:17-18). It would thus have been proper for them to break out in
song before the drowning of the Egyptians. (As I noted above, it may
not have been necessary to praise Hashem immediately upon hearing the
prophecy on Rosh Chodesh. Nevertheless, on the 15th of Nissan -- the
night of the Exodus from Egypt -- they should have already started to
sing to Hashem, for at that point Hashem's promise actually began to
come to fruition. -MK)
This, then, is the reason that the Torah stresses that the
people did not sing to Hashem until after seeing the Egyptians dead on
the shore. The Torah is admonishing the Bnai Yisroel for not having
placed their full faith in Hashem's promise of salvation. They ought to
have thanked Hashem immediately on the 15th of Nissan; instead it was
only "at that time" -- after the victory was complete -- that the
"people believed in Hashem and in Moshe" (14:31) and they sang the song
to Hashem.
Based on this insight the Sh'lah explains why the Hallel song
is not recited in its entirety during the Pesach prayers except for the
first day (or the first two days in the diaspora). On Pesach we attempt
to actually relive the Exodus from Egypt, as the Haggadah mentions
several times. Perhaps we are trying to rectify the weakness of faith
shown by our forefathers, who waited until the seventh day of Pesach,
when the sea split. We therefore sing the praises of Hallel to Hashem
for the *entire* salvation of Pesach on the first night (and day) of
Pesach, which is the time of the *beginning* of Hashem's salvation. It
is therefore no longer necessary for us to say Hallel throughout the
remainder of Pesach!
II
The Sh'lah teaches us that it is proper and expected to sing out
to Hashem even before His salvation has been completed, as long as it
has begun. This would seem to stand in contradiction to the words of
the Vilna Gaon. In commenting on the blessing (in the Sh'moneh Esrei)
of Re'eh Be'Onyenu, the son of the Vilna Gaon quotes his father's
explanation of the verse in Tehillim 13:6: "I trust in Your kindness;
my heart rejoices in Your salvation; I will sing out to Hashem when he
deals kindly with me." The Gaon asserts that the three parts of this
verse are discussing three different periods:
"I trust in Your kindness" - Before the salvation, King David
trusts that Hashem will save him.
"My heart rejoices in Your salvation" -- As the salvation
takes place, King David rejoices in it.
"I will sing out to Hashem when he deals kindly with me" --
After the salvation has been completed, King David then sings praise
and thanks to Hashem (see Siddur HaGra, Birchat Re'eh Be'Onyenu).
From the Gaon's words it would seem that although one's heart
may be filled with joy upon learning of Hashem's impending kindness to
him, it is time to sing thanks to Him only after the act of salvation
is actually accomplished. (The Brisker Rav clearly states such an idea
in the name of his father, Rav Chaim Soloveitchik [quoted in Emek
B'rachah, p. 124]. Basing his words on the Pasuk in Tehillim that the
Gaon explained, Rav Chaim contends that even if a person is assured by
a prophet that salvation is guaranteed, it is not proper to sing praise
to Hashem for His kindness until it is actually experienced. The
source for Rav Chaim's contention is undoubtedly the aforementioned
comment of the Gaon.)
Support can be found for the Gaon's words in the Midrash Shocher
Tov. The verse in Tehillim 18:4 states: "I call out praise to Hashem,
and I am saved from my enemies." Although on the surface this verse
seems to imply that praises of Hashem are called for in *advance* of
His salvation, the Midrash Shocher Tov (ad loc.) insists that this
verse must be understood as if it were written in inverted order:
"After I am saved from my enemies I call out praises to Hashem." (It
is not infrequent for a Vav which introduces a second clause of a
sentence to indicate a *cause* for the first clause, rather than an
effect -Ed.). This Midrash is clearly in agreement with the Gaon's
understanding. Only after being saved does King David sing praise to
Hashem.
The Midrash continues, however, and quotes another opinion.
According to Rav Huna the verse may be read as it stands, without
inverting the order of the words: "I call out praise to Hashem, and
(afterwards) I am saved from my enemies." It is a reference, says Rav
Huna, to the episode of Yehoshaphat and his battle that the Sh'lah had
quoted, where songs of praise were indeed sung *before* the salvation
actually came about.
At first it would appear that there are two distinct opinions in
the Midrash. According to one opinion, songs of praise are not to be
sung until after victory is granted, in accordance with the view of the
Gaon; according to the other opinion the songs may be, and should be,
sung as soon as the act of salvation is begun. However, it does not
seem likely that there are two disparate opinions in this matter. The
story of Yehoshaphat in Divrei HaYamim clearly seems to support Rav
Huna's opinion. How, then, could there be disagreement on this matter?
III
It would appear that in reality both approaches to singing
praise to Hashem are valid, but for different situations. There are
times when song should precede salvation and there are other times when
it should follow it, as follows:
When salvation is predicted by a prophet, such a victory is so
assured that there is no doubt whatsoever in the person's mind as to
the outcome of the battle that he is about to face. Since he has been
guaranteed success by a prophet of Hashem, there is no reason to wait
for the entire salvation process to come to its completion. However,
when such salvation has not been promised by a prophet, and thus not
guaranteed, then a person should thank Hashem only *after* the
salvation has been completed. Although one must always have faith that
Hashem will do for us what is best, we cannot know that He will see fit
to save us. Perhaps we are not worthy of His kindness! Therefore, only
when full victory has been granted can a person sing out the praises of
Hashem for His salvation.
King David, although his faith in Hashem was absolute ("I trust
in Your kindness"), and he knew that Hashem would grant him only what
was best for him, was nevertheless not *assured* that victory would be
his. The Gemara (B'rachot 4a) mentions that although David knew himself
to be worthy and righteous, he was always concerned that he may sin at
any moment. He was constantly worried that he would make himself no
longer deserving of special Divine protection. Thus, although trusting
in Hashem, David was never certain that victory would be his until he
actually experienced it. That is why in his case, praises of Hashem
were sung only "when He deals kindly with me" -- after the salvation.
Yehoshaphat, on the other hand, when he was guaranteed victory
through prophecy -- and prophecies spoken through a prophet are never
rescinded (see Parasha Page, Vayishlach 5755) -- was able to sing to
Hashem even before the decisive victory occurred. The same applies to
the Bnai Yisroel upon their liberation from Egypt. Since the prophet
(Moshe Rabbeinu) had promised them salvation in Hashem's name, they
ought to have started singing praises to Hashem at the very start of
the exodus.
The Midrash is thus not recording two separate viewpoints about
which should come first -- salvation or song. If the verse in Tehillim
18:4 is taken to refer to David (which is the simple meaning of the
verse) then it must be understood as an inverted sentence. If,
however, it can be taken as a reference to the events of Yehoshaphat's
battle, it may be interpreted without resorting to inversion!
___________________________________________
To receive the weekly Parasha-Page, write to:
listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
and put in as your message body the following line *only*:
sub parasha-page [Your full name]
To cancel your subscription, send a message to the same address,
and write as your message body the following line only:
signoff parasha-page
(NOTE: Don't add words to the message, and check your spelling.
Please
address any comments to my personal account:
yoy@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il)
========================================
|
| 989.373 | Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Beshalach | TAV02::JEREMY | | Thu Jan 12 1995 19:39 | 56 |
| Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Beshalach
No 526: 13 Shevat 5755 (14 January 1995)
"G-D IS AT WAR WITH AMALEK" [Shemot 17:16]
Source: Rabbi Y.M. Charlap
"G-d has sworn by His throne" [17:16] -- He swore that his name is not
whole and his throne is not complete until Amalek's name is completely
erased [Rashi]. A war continues until one side wins. However, the Almighty
is omnipotent, and he certainly does not have to defend his position. What
meaning can there be to a constant war between G-d and Amalek? In addition,
how are we to fulfill this mitzvah in the modern era, when Amalek has long
since ceased to exist?
Rashi has two related explanations for the passage "As he happened upon you
on the way" [Devarim 25:18]: "Referring to a chance encounter ... another
explanation is ... all the nations were afraid to fight, but they came and
paved the way for the others. This can be compared to a boiling pool, too
hot to be entered ... Once the first one enters, he cools the water so that
others can follow."
What line of reasoning did Amalek show the other nations, that led them not
to fear Bnei Yisrael, who had just left Egypt? Amalek's ideology was that
there is no guidance in the world. All of the events of Egypt were in
Amalek's eyes a CHANCE OCCURRENCE. Amalek was willing to try his luck and
fight Yisrael. If he lost, it would have been bad luck, but in no way would
it have been a proof of the existence or guidance of the Almighty.
The basis for Rashi's commentary is that Amalek's name almost always
appears in the Torah in proximity to a word with the Hebrew root
kof-reish-heh [chance, or luck]. The same root is used when the Amaleki
youth tells David "I HAPPENED to be at Mount Gilboa" [II Shmuel 1:6], and
when Haman tells his loved ones, "everything that HAPPENED to him"
[Megillat Esther 6:13]. Haman's loved ones, who are not descendants of
Amalek, warn him, "If [Mordechai] is of Jewish ancestry ... you will be
defeated" [6:13]. They are telling him that there is control, things are
not left to chance. The very name of the holiday, Purim, refers to a
lottery, to emphasize the struggle between Amalek's ideal of luck and the
belief in Providence: "Who knows if it is not for just this opportunity
that you achieved royalty?" [4:14].
Since this is the main idea of the dispute, the war against Amalek is the
only one where Bnei Yisrael have to demonstrate their faith continuously.
In other wars, the Kohen talks to the soldiers to strengthen their faith
only "as you approach the war" [Devarim 20:2]. However, at any time during
this war, "when he [Moshe] let his hand down," when faith was allowed to
falter, when chance and luck were given the lead, "Amalek prevailed"
[Shemot 17:11].
Everything is under G-d's control, but He has left the matter of faith to
us alone. He performs daily miracles; but it is up to us to recognize that
they are miracles. Our task is to defeat the Amalekean ideology of "luck."
In this way, anyone who takes it upon himself to insist that "there is no
luck," is fulfilling the mitzvah of eradicating Amalek and participating in
rejuvenating the missing parts of the Almighty's throne.
|
| 989.374 | Torah Weekly - Yisro | TAV02::JEREMY | | Mon Jan 16 1995 13:34 | 192 |
|
* TORAH WEEKLY *
Highlights of the Weekly Torah Portion and Haftorah.
Plus Ani Ma'amin - The Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith.
Parshas Yisro
For the week ending 20 Shevat 5755
20 & 21 January 1995
===========================================================================
Summary
Hearing of the miracles Hashem has performed for the Bnei Yisrael, Moshe's
father-in-law, Yisro, arrives with Moshe's wife and sons, reuniting the
family in the wilderness. Yisro is so impressed by Moshe's detailing of
the Exodus from Egypt that he converts and joins the Jewish People. Seeing
that the only judicial authority for the entire Jewish nation is Moshe
himself, Yisro suggests that subsidiary judges be appointed to adjudicate
the smaller matters, leaving Moshe free to attend to larger issues. Moshe
accepts his advice. The Bnei Yisrael arrive at Mt. Sinai where the Torah
is offered to them. After they accept, Hashem charges Moshe to instruct
the people not to approach the mountain, and to prepare themselves for
three days in order to receive the Torah. On the third day, amidst thunder
and lightning, Hashem's voice emanates from the smoke-enshrouded mountain,
and He begins speaking to the Jewish People, giving to them the Ten
Commandments:
1. Believe in Hashem
2. Don't have other gods
3. Don't use Hashem's name in vain
4. Observe the Shabbos
5. Honor your parents
6. Don't murder
7. Don't commit adultery
8. Don't kidnap
9. Don't testify falsely
10. Don't covet
After receiving the first two commandments, The Jewish People, overwhelmed
by this experience of the Divine, request that Moshe relay Hashem's word to
them. Hashem instructs Moshe to caution the Jewish people regarding their
responsibility to be faithful to the One who spoke to them.
===========================================================================
Commentaries
"And Yisro heard..." (18:1).
What did Yisro hear? Our Sages teach us that the two deciding factors that
made Yisro decide to convert to Judaism were the splitting of the sea, and
the subsequent attack on the Jewish People by the Amaleki. One can
understand why the splitting of the sea (in which the lowliest maidservant
experienced a greater revelation than the prophet Yechezkel) should have
been a powerful incentive to join the Jewish People, but why was the attack
by Amalek so persuasive? After the end of the Second World War, there were
several well-known London celebrities, hitherto `religious' atheists, who,
when hearing of the chilling and overwhelming cruelty of Hitler and his
accomplices (y"s), began to believe in Hashem _ they understood that
superficially civilized behavior, devoid of active faith, can sink to
depths of bestiality and savagery far lower than the cruelest predatory
animal. Our Sages teach us that this is what Yisro heard. He heard that
Amalek, even after hearing of a miracle on the unheard of scale of the
splitting of the Sea, could, without hesitation, come out to fight against
Am Yisrael. When he heard that such a thing was possible, Yisro realized
that if he did not convert, he himself ran the risk of becoming the thing
he most loathed. Hearing that does not lead to action _ intellectual
mind-games, not rooted in a practical expression of faith, can lead to
unspeakable atrocities....
(Adapted from Lev Eliyahu in Chochmas HaMatzpun)
"Remember the day of Shabbos to sanctify it... Because six days Hashem made
the heaven and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and He rested on
the seventh day..." (20:8/11).
Once upon a time, a prince was captured by his father's enemies. After a
long time, the king managed to get a secret message to the prince
encouraging him no to give up, and to retain his princely manner, even
amidst the wolves of prey among whom the prince was forced to live, for he
would soon obtain his release, either through war or peaceful means. The
prince was overjoyed and wished to celebrate, but he could not, of course,
reveal the secret of his joy. Therefore, he invited his lowly companions
to the local inn, and ordered drinks for everyone. They celebrated because
of the wine and liquor, while the prince celebrated because of his father's
letter. Similarly on Shabbos, our bodies feast with the good food and
drink, but our souls celebrate the opportunity to be close to our Creator.
(Toldos Ya'akov Yosef)
"Remember the day of Shabbos to sanctify it" (20:8).
"What a terrible day -- Shabbos! You can't drive! You can't write! You
can't even turn on a light! You can't do this! You can't do that! What a
terrible day!" This is the familiar litany of those as yet uninitiated to
the joys and radiance of Shabbos. What would we say to someone who
complained about the game of Basketball _ "What a terrible game --
Basketball! You can't stand in one place for more that thirty seconds.
You can't run with the ball. You can't be a moving block. You can't do
this! You can't do that! _ What a terrible game!"... It's precisely the
rules of Basketball that make Basketball, Basketball. If there were no
rules, someone would grab the ball, hold onto it until everyone else got
bored and went off for tea. Then he'd grab a ladder, run up it and pop the
ball in the net. Great! But that's not Basketball! Just as the rules of
Basketball define Basketball, so the rules of Shabbos define Shabbos.
(Heard from Rabbi Yehoshua Hartman)
===========================================================================
Haftorah: Isaiah 6:1-7:6, 9:5-6
"Surely you hear, but you fail to comprehend; and surely you see but you
fail to know" (6:9).
First of all -"Hear!" even if you fail to comprehend, and "See!", even if
you fail to know, for if someone really hears and sees, there's room to
hope that eventually he will come to comprehension and gain knowledge until
"his heart understands and he will repent and be healed".
(Malbim)
===========================================================================
Ani Ma'amin
The Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith
Principle #13:
"I believe with complete faith that there will be a resuscitation of
the dead whenever the wish emanates from The Creator, blessed be His
Name and exalted is His mention, forever and for all eternity."
The Roman Emperor challenged Rabban Gamliel: "You say that the dead shall
live. But they have turned to dust. Since when can dust come to life?"
The emperor's daughter asked Rabban Gamliel permission to respond in his
place and thus addressed her father: "There are two craftsmen in our city.
One makes vessels from water and the other from clay. Which of them is
superior?" "The one who makes them from water," replied the emperor. "If
Hashem can form man from water (the seminal drop of human reproduction --
Rashi)," concluded the daughter, "He can certainly form man from the dust."
In the yeshiva of Rabbi Yishmael they had a different version of the
daughter's argument: "If glass vessels, formed from air blown by a human,
can be melted and recreated after they are broken, how much more so can we
expect that a flesh and blood creation of Hashem can be brought back to
life."
Sanhedrin 91a
===========================================================================
Where do YOU find TW* ?
o Wolf K. gets it sent to his fax machine in Hertzaliya.
o Jonathan A. logs on to America-On-Line then accesses the Jerusalem1
Gopher.
o David L. gets it sent to his account at Columbia University.
o Jonathan S. reads it at a shul on 77th street.
TW finds its way all around the globe. E-Mail, fax, snail-mail, fedex and
let us know where you found your copy. We'll share your responses with the
other TW readers!
*(Torah Weekly)
===========================================================================
MATAN TORAH got you mixed up?
Rabbi Gavriel Reuven and Ohr Somayach present
Rashi's explanation of the Chronology of the Giving of the Torah
The chain of events surrounding the giving of the Torah is very difficult
to follow, because, according to Rashi's understanding, the verses are not
arranged chronologically. This file lists the events in correct
chronological order so that you can easily understand how the Torah was
given to the Jewish People.
This file is available from the following sources:
o The Jerusalem1 Gopher under the heading "Religious Institutions"
and the sub-heading "Ohr Somayach"
o CompuServe Religion Forum, Judaism Library (3), filename TORAH.TXT
o Sent via E-Mail for those without access to one of the above.
Send your request to newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il. To speed
processing, set your subject to "SEND ME TORAH" and do not include
any other topics in your message.
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for Torah Weekly
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Yaakov Asher Sinclair
Production Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
Production Design: Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
(C) 1995 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 989.375 | Parsha Q&A - Yisro | TAV02::JEREMY | | Mon Jan 16 1995 13:35 | 144 |
|
* PARSHA Q&A *
In-Depth Questions on the Parsha and Rashi's commentary.
Parshas Yisro
For the week ending 20 Shevat 5755
20 & 21 January 1995
===========================================================================
Parsha Questions
1. What did Yisro hear that convinced him to join the Jewish People?
2. What name of Yisro indicates his love for Torah?
3. Why did Moshe tell Yisro all that Hashem had done for the Jewish People?
4. According to the Midrash quoted by Rashi, how did Yisro respond when he
was told about the destruction of Egypt?
5. Who is considered as if he enjoys the splendor of the Shechina?
6. What day did Moshe sit to judge the Jewish People?
7. Who is considered a co-partner in creation?
8. Why did Yisro return to his own land?
9. What day did the Jewish People arrive at Sinai?
10. How did the encampment at Mt. Sinai differ from other encampments in the
desert?
11. To whom does the Torah refer when it uses the term "Beis Yaakov" (the
house of Yaakov)?
12. In verse 19:6, Hashem promises that the Jewish People will be a kingdom
of Kohanim. What does Kohanim mean in this context?
13. What was Hashem's original plan for Matan Torah? What was the response
of the Jewish People?
14. What does a long drawn out note on the shofar signify?
15. How many times greater is the measure of reward than the measure of
punishment?
16. In verse 20:13, the Torah commands, "you shall not steal." To which
type of theft is the Torah referring?
17. How did the Jewish People respond to what they saw on Mt. Sinai?
18. Upon what must the copper mizbe'ach (altar) rest?
19. Why does the use of iron tools profane the altar?
20. Verse 20:23 states that the altar should be built with ramps (not steps)
so that the Kohanim can conduct themselves in a respectful manner. What
lesson does this teach?
Bonus QUESTION:
In verse 18:13, Rashi states that any judge who gives a just decision is
considered "as if he is a partner with Hashem in the creation of the
world." Why?
I Did Not Know That!
The Sinai desert has five names: Midbar Tzin, Midbar Kadesh, Midbar
K'demos, Midbar Paran, Midbar Sinai.
Succah 5a
===========================================================================
Answers to this Week's Questions
All references are to the verses and Rashi's commentary, unless otherwise
stated
1. 18:1 - He heard about the Krias Yam Suf and the war with Amalek.
2. 18:1 - Chovav.
3. 18:8 - In order to entice Yisro to attach himself to the Torah.
4. 18:9 - He grieved.
5. 18:12 - One who dines with Torah scholars.
6. 18:13 - The day after Yom Kippur.
7. 18:13 - A judge who gives a correct decision.
8. 18:27 - To convert the members of his family to Judaism.
9. 19:1 - Rosh Chodesh Sivan.
10. 19:2 - The Jewish People were united. All other encampments were made
in dissension.
11. 19:3 - The Jewish women.
12. 19:6 - Princes.
13. 19:9 - Hashem offered to appear to Moshe and to give the Torah through
him. The Jewish People responded that they wished to learn the Torah
from Hashem directly.
14. 19:13 - The departure of the Shechinav.
15. 20:5 - Five hundred times.
16. 20:13 - Kidnapping.
17. 20:15 - They backed away from the mountain twelve miles.
18. 20:21 - The ground.
19. 20:22 - Because the altar was created to extend life and iron tools are
sometimes used as weapons to shorten life.
20. 20:23 - The altar is merely stone which is insensitive to disgrace.
Since it serves a useful purpose, it must be treated in a respectful
manner. People, who are created in the image of Hashem and who are
sensitive to disgrace, all the more so must be treated in a respectful
manner.
Bonus ANSWER:
Those who proliferate evil bring destruction upon the world. A judge who
executes judgment on evildoers restores order to the world so that the
world is no longer deserving of destruction.
Gur Aryeh
===========================================================================
What do YOU do with Parsha Q&A?
Bob Dale in Nepean, Ontario (ax965@freenet.carleton.ca) wrote:
"We discuss these questions after Shabbat dinner, as a prelude to
reviewing some of the issues in the Parsha in depth. Thanks for
providing them to us."
What do YOU do with Parsha Q&A?
Fax, E-mail or send via Post your responses --
we'll share them with all the Q&A readers!
===========================================================================
MATAN TORAH got you mixed up?
Rabbi Gavriel Reuven and Ohr Somayach present
Rashi's explanation of the Chronology of the Giving of the Torah
The chain of events surrounding the giving of the Torah is very difficult
to follow, because, according to Rashi's understanding, the verses are not
arranged chronologically. This file lists the events in correct
chronological order so that you can easily understand how the Torah was
given to the Jewish People.
This file is available from the following sources:
o The Jerusalem1 Gopher under the heading "Religious Institutions"
and the sub-heading "Ohr Somayach"
o CompuServe Religion Forum, Judaism Library (3), filename TORAH.TXT
o Sent via E-Mail for those without access to one of the above.
Send your request to newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il. To speed
processing, set your subject to "SEND ME TORAH" and do not include
any other topics in your message.
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for Parsha Q&A
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Eliyahu Kane
Production Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
Production Design: Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
(C) 1995 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 989.376 | Torah question... | BUBBLS::GROSS | The bug stops here | Tue Jan 17 1995 23:19 | 10 |
| The commentary in .-1 and .-2 claims that Jethro (Yisro/Yitro) converted
to Judaism. How do we draw this conclusion? I reread the relevant chapter
last night and I find no hint of this.
This portion contains an amusing contrast between modern and ancient
customs. Jethro (Moses' father-in-law) comes to meet Moses and B'nai
Yisrael, bringing Moses' wife and two children. Guess who Moses kisses
first (right - it's Jethro).
Dave
|
| 989.377 | | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Jan 18 1995 19:53 | 20 |
| re: .376
>The commentary in .-1 and .-2 claims that Jethro (Yisro/Yitro) converted
>to Judaism. How do we draw this conclusion? I reread the relevant chapter
>last night and I find no hint of this.
Ex. 18:10-12:
And Jethro said, blessed be the Lord...Now I know that the Lord is
greater than all gods...And Jethro...took a burnt offering and
sacrifices for G-d.
>This portion contains an amusing contrast between modern and ancient
>customs. Jethro (Moses' father-in-law) comes to meet Moses and B'nai
>Yisrael, bringing Moses' wife and two children. Guess who Moses kisses
>first (right - it's Jethro).
Yes, but notice that no mention is made of his mother-in-law.
Yehoshua
|
| 989.378 | Parasha-Page: Parshat Yitro 5755 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Thu Jan 19 1995 17:07 | 156 |
| P * A * R * A * S * H * A - P * A * G * E
--- ---
Produced by R. Mordecai Kornfeld
Edited by R. Yakov Blinder
==================================================
This week's Parasha-Page has been dedicated in memory of Malvina
Marmorstein, Malka Gittel bas Yakov. Although not blessed with her own
children, she raised many proud Jewish families.
If you would like to dedicate a future issue of Parasha-Page, and support
its world-wide (literally!) dissemination of Torah, please contact me at:
yoy@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
==================================================
Parshat Yitro 5755
And all the people answered together and said, "All that Hashem
has spoken we will do [Na'aseh]!"
(Sh'mot 19:8)
Moshe came and told the people all the words of Hashem and all
the laws, and all the people answered with one voice and said,
"All the things that Hashem spoke we will do [Na'aseh]!"
(ibid. 24:3)
[Moshe] took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the ears of
the people, and they said, "All that Hashem has spoken we will
do and we will hear [Na'aseh V'nishma]!"
(ibid. 24:7)
The three P'sukim cited above describe the Bnai Yisroel's
acceptance of the Torah at various stages in the drama of Kabbalat
HaTorah at Sinai. If we examine the wording closely, however, we will
see that there are some interesting differences between these different
stages. For one thing, in the first two verses the "togetherness" with
which the people expressed their readiness to accept Hashem's words is
stressed, a fact which is not mentioned in the account of the third
stage. Also, the first two times the Bnai Yisroel only mention their
eagerness to *do*, i.e. to act upon, Hashem's commandments, while in
the third verse they say that they will do *and_hear* His commandments.
What is the reason for these variations in the phrases the people used
to demonstrate their willingness to accept the Torah?
II
A very interesting and insightful interpretation of these verses
is offered by my father-in-law, HaGaon Rav Gedaliah Aharon Rabinowitz,
the Monastrishtcher Rebbe, who explains the discrepancies in the
expressions used in the three verses, in his work "Neveh Tzaddikim" on
the Haggadah shel Pesach.
There are two parts to the acceptance of the Torah, my
father-in-law explains: (1) the acceptance to perform and obey the 613
Mitzvot of the Torah in their entirety, and (2) the acceptance to study
these Mitzvot in order to better understand what exactly Hashem wants
us to gain through their fulfillment. The first facet of Torah
acceptance is what the Bnai Yisroel refer to as "doing" the Torah, or
"Na'aseh". The second is what they called "Nishma", or hearing the
Torah -- with the connotation of *understanding* what is being heard.
(The verb "Sh'ma", which is usually translated as "listen" or "hear"
can also mean "understand," as in the verse "They did not realize that
Yosef *understood_them* [Shome'a]" -- B'reishit 42:23.)
Regarding the first aspect of fulfilling the Torah's
commandments, there is no difference in implementation between one
individual and another. Every member of the community of Israel is
obligated to perform the Mitzvot that apply to them in the same
fashion. (There may be varying opinions as to a *specific* detail in a
particular Mitzvah,but all agree to the *general* obligations entailed
in keeping each of the Mitzvot.
When it comes to the second aspect, however, this unity is not
evident. Since Hashem created no two people with the same mind, there
will always be differences between one individual and another regarding
the understanding and meaning of the Mitzvot. This, obviously, was all
part of His will in the Giving of the Torah. These differences in
understanding are expressed in the different attitudes that Torah
scholars have in the performance of the Mitzvot. While some will
demonstrate a boundless love for their Creator when performing the
Mitzvot, others show more of their awe of Hashem. Some approach Judaism
with a more intellectual bent, while others may have a more emotional
leaning. Some will choose to "specialize" in one particular Mitzvah,
giving it more emphasis than others in their daily lives, because they
feel that this Mitzvah in particular carries a special message for
them, and can offer them guidance in life, ultimately bringing them
closer to Hashem. No two people are exactly the same as far as the
"Nishma" of the Torah is concerned.
This, explains the Monastrishtcher Rebbe, is the difference
between the expressions used in the above verses. When Moshe Rabbeinu
came to the Bnai Yisroel before the Giving of the Torah, he told them
"the words of Hashem and all the laws" (Sh'mot 24:3), which, as Rashi
explains, is a reference to the Seven Laws of Noach and the Mitzvot
given at Marah (Sh'mot 15:25). At that point the people answered "with
one voice" that they would *do* these laws. As far as the performance
of the Mitzvot are concerned, the Bnai Yisroel accepted the Torah "with
one voice" -- in one unified fashion. Similarly, in Sh'mot 19:8, it
was only in reference to the *observance* of the Mitzvot that the
people responded *together*.
But when Moshe "took the Book of the Covenant (Rashi: the entire
Torah from B'reishit until the events of Mattan Torah) and read it in
the ears of the people," the people saw that the Torah was more than
just a list of commandments and obligations, but an entire Sefer Torah,
which had to be studied, analyzed and understood. To this, they
exclaimed, "Na'aseh V'nishma -- we will do and we will understand!" Now
the people did not respond "together" or "with one voice". Nishma was
to be a personal experience which would, of necessity, vary from one
individual to the next. Every person would have his own unique approach
in serving Hashem and understanding what the meaning of the Mitzvot is
to him. Therefore, when they accepted not only the "doing" but also the
"understanding" of the Torah, they answered as individuals: "We will do
and we will understand!"
[Haggadah shel Pesach "Neveh Tzaddikim",
towards the end, on the verse L'gozer Yam
Suf Ligzarim]
III
A similar idea is expressed by HaGaon Rebbi Akiva Eiger (c. 1800
C.E.). The Gemara says at the end of Massechet Ta'anit that in the
future Hashem will have all the Tzaddikim dance in a circle, with
Himself sitting in the center of the circle in Gan Eden. Each one of
the Tzaddikim will then point to Hashem and say, `This is our G-d; this
is Hashem, Whom we have so longed to behold!'
What is the symbolism behind a dance that is specifically in a
*circle* around Hashem? Rav Akiva Eiger explains the lesson of this
dance of the Tzaddikim as follows:
In this world every Tzaddik has a unique, individual approach to
serving Hashem. On the surface, every one of them appears to be heading
in a completely different direction. The truth is, however, that this
is not the case. All of the different Tzaddikim are united by a common
goal -- to draw closer to Hashem and fulfill His will in the best
possible manner. In the World to Come this will become apparent to all.
The Tzaddikim will dance around Hashem "arranged in a circle". In a
circle, every individual is facing a different direction -- yet they
all revolve around the same central point. The Tzaddikim, although each
has a unique approach, are all trying to accomplish the same goal.
Their lives revolve around the same central point, the point where
"Hashem is sitting". In the World to Come, each of them will point to
Him and announce to all that this is their G-d, Whom they had strived
to come close to and serve throughout their lives!
[Rebbi Akiva Eiger, quoted in Chut
Ha'Mshulash and Torat Emet]
__________________________________________________________________________
To receive the weekly Parasha-Page, write to:
listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
and put in as your message body the following line *only*:
sub parasha-page [Your full name]
To cancel your subscription, send a message to the same address,
and write as your message body the following line only:
signoff parasha-page
(NOTE: Don't add words to the message, and check your spelling. Please
address any comments to my personal account: yoy@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il)
========================================
|
| 989.379 | Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Yitro | TAV02::JEREMY | | Thu Jan 19 1995 18:16 | 43 |
| Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Yitro
No 527: 20 Shevat 5755 (21 January 1995)
EXPLAIN A MIDRASH: The Silent Tumult
by Rabbi Yehudah Shaviv
"Rabbi Abahu said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: When G-d gave the Torah,
the birds did not make a sound, they did not fly, no cows mooed, the angels
did not fly, the serafim did not sing praise, the sea did not tremble, no
creature spoke; the world was silent, and out of this came the voice: 'I am
the Lord your G-d.'" [Shemot Rabbah, end of Yitro].
This picture drawn by Rabbi Abahu is exactly the opposite of the way the
events are described in the Torah. In the Torah, the world is stormy and
agitated, trembling in fear. The prophets put it even more clearly: "The
land trembled ... mountains melted before G-d; that was Sinai" [Shoftim
5:4-5]. This is not a description of silence but of thunder and lightning.
It may be that the sages had in mind G-d's revelation to Eliyahu at Horev,
which he described in stages: "There was a strong and great wind that
destroyed mountains and shattered stones ... and after the wind, a quake,
and after the quake, a fire." However, "G-d was not in the wind," nor in
the quake and the fire, but "after the fire, there was a still, thin voice"
[I Melachim 19:11-12]. It would seem that in the same way as the later
revelation was preceded by wind, an earthquake, and fire, so was the first
one at the time of receiving the Torah; in both cases the first step was
then followed by silence. The passage in the Torah describes what preceded
G-d's revelation, and the sages describe the moment of revelation itself.
This interpretation corresponds to the following quote from Sifri, at the
end of the Torah portion of Nasso: "One verse says, 'There was thunder and
lightning' [Shemot 19:16], and another says, 'A still, thin voice' [I
Melachim 19:12]. How can the two be reconciled? When the Almighty talks,
all else is silent."
But there is a difference between the midrash of Shemot and the Sifri. In
Shemot, the midrash implies that there must be quiet before G-d starts
talking: "the world was silent, and out of this came the voice." On the
other hand, the Sifri implies that G-d's voice overpowers and silences the
other sounds: "When the Almighty talks, all else is silent." We will try to
explain this further in our column next week.
|
| 989.380 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Yitro | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jan 19 1995 19:40 | 161 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Yitro
Vol. IX, No. 17 (401), 20 Shevat 5755, January 21, 1995
We read in the gemara (Eruvin 13b) that the yeshiva of Hillel and
the yeshiva of Shammai debated the following question for three
years: Is it better that man was created or that he would never have
been created? Eventually they agreed, "It would have been better
had man never been created, but now that he has been created, let
him examine his deeds and make the best of it."
Rav Yisrael Salanter explained this discussion as follows: The
Torah contains hundreds of commandments and thousands of laws. Can
man succeed in keeping them all? Yes, says Bet Hillel, it can be
done.
Bet Shammai, however, argues that man has an excuse for failure.
Man might think that the risk in trying to serve Hashem is too great
because corresponding to each potential mitzvah is potential failure.
Man would have been better off had he never been given such a
challenge, for the size of the task is too demoralizing.
What is the solution? Let's assume that the task is overwhelming-
-how can man grapple with it? The answer is to recognize that man
was created against his will, in order to serve Hashem, and thus he
has no choice but to make the best of the situation. (Ohr Yisrael
# 23, as elaborated on in Michtav M'eliyahu II, p.118)
************************************
"Now I know that Hashem is greater than any god."
This was Yitro's response when Moshe told him of the miracles
which Hashem had performed for the Jewish people. Rashi elaborates,
"I knew Him before, but now I know Him more."
How did Rashi know that this is what Yitro meant? Rav Elya Meir
Bloch zatz'l explains that if Yitro had not known Hashem before, he
would not have come to Moshe in the first place. Therefore, he must
have meant that now he knew Hashem even more.
Why then did Yitro say, "Now I know that Hashem is greater than
any god," as if he did not know before? Rav Bloch offers two
explanations: First, when a person gains new knowledge, he should
realize that his old knowledge was, so-to-speak, worthless. New
information should not merely be appended to the old; rather, the
old should be completely reevaluated based upon the new.
Secondly, when a person is learning something new, he should cast
aside his old knowledge and preconceived notions. Not only do these
not help him learn, they often hinder learning.
(Peninei Da'at)
************************************
"They camped (plural) in the desert, and Yisrael camped (singular)
there..." (19:2)
Rav Yehoshua Heschel Rabinowitz (the "Manestricher Rav") zatz'l
writes that this phrase describes the two preconditions to receiving
the Torah: humility and unity. The former is alluded to by the
desert, for a person who wishes to receive the Torah must be as a
desert, devoid of haughtiness. The latter is alluded to by the
second word "camped" which is singular in number. It teaches, as
Rashi notes, that Bnei Yisrael arrived at Sinai "as one man with one
heart."
(Divrei Yehoshua)
************************************
"I am Hashem your G-d who took you out of Egypt from the house
of slavery." (20:2)
The Torah is eternal, Rav Aharon Roth ("Reb Areleh") zatz'l
reminds us. "I am Hashem your G-d" is relevant to us because it is
one of 613 commandments, i.e., to believe in G-d. "[W]ho took you
out of Egypt" also is relevant to us because Hashem constantly saves
us from troubling situations (a play on the Hebrew words "Mitzrayim"
and "Tzarah").
But what is the relevance to us of "from the house of slavery"?
Are we not downtrodden and enslaved today (in many parts of the
world) as much as our ancestors were?
The answer is that the Exodus from the slavery of Egypt is
significant for us because it was the beginning of, and the prototype
for, all future redemptions. When Hashem told Avraham that his
children would be enslaved and persecuted, He never mentioned Egypt
by name. All persecutions are part of the fulfillment of that
prophecy, and all redemptions, even the Final Redemption, follow from
Hashem's promise to Avraham.
The relationship between the original Exodus and the Final
Redemption is alluded to in the above verse. The gematria of the
initials of (the last four words of the above verse) is 190, equal
to the gematria of "the End."
Also, the gematria of the last letters of those same words is 570,
equal to "blow." The gematria of the words "from the house of
slavery"--with the addition of nine (for the nine letters) and one
(known as the "kollel") is 588, which equals "b'shofar." Thus, these
two phrases represent the shofar which mashiach will blow.
(Shomer Emunim)
************************************
"Remember the Shabbat day to sanctify it." (20:5)
Remember the Shabbat day on each of the six work days. If you
do this, then you will be able to arrange your affairs in such a way
that you can set them aside and sanctify the Shabbat.
(Sforno)
************************************
Rav Yisrael Salanter
born 6 Cheshvan 5570 (1809) - died 25 Shevat 5643 (1883)
Rav Yisrael (Lipkin) Salanter is known as the founder of the
mussar movement. Rav Yisrael did not invent mussar; the popular
mussar work Chovot Ha'levavot is now close to 1,000 years old, and
other works such as Sha'arei Teshuvah and Reishit Chochmah were
likewise written centuries ago. What Rav Yisrael did was promote
the study and practice of mussar (ethical improvement) as an integral
part of any program of spiritual improvement.
In essence, Rav Yisrael argued that Torah study alone no longer
was enough to guarantee one's spiritual future. He therefore
established batei mussar--study halls where one could discuss and
meditate upon mussar works much the same way that one enters a bet
midrash in order to study gemara. Rav Yisrael also instituted the
study of mussar works with a special heart-breaking tune.
Rav Yisrael first became interested in mussar by (secretly)
watching Rav Yosef Zundel of Salant, a student of Rav Chaim
ofVolozhin (and father-in-law of Rav Shmuel of Salant of
Yerushalayim). It was Rav Zundel's custom to go out into the woods
and hide there while engaging in periods of introspection. Having
fixed times for introspection, together with actually reading mussar
texts, is a key part of mussar.
The mussar movement was not without its opponents. Even today,
there are those who maintain that Torah study alone is all that a
person needs to maintain an excellent character. However, most
Ashkenzic yeshivot do promote mussar study to some extent.
Less well known than Rav Yisrael's excellent character was his
scholarship; though he served as a rosh yeshiva for some time, he
successfully hid his greatness from most of his contemporaries. Rav
Yisrael also was involved in many projects to increase Torah study,
including a failed attempt to translate the gemara into several
European languages.
Rav Yisrael had three leading students: Rav Naftali Amsterdam and
Rav Yitzchak Blazer, both of whom were rabbis in St. Petersburg and
later Yerushalayim, and Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv, known as the "Alter
of Kelm."
A dvar Torah from Rav Yisrael appears on the front page.
|
| 989.381 | TORAH WEEKLY: Parshas Mishpatim | TAV02::JEREMY | | Mon Jan 23 1995 12:41 | 187 |
|
* TORAH WEEKLY *
Highlights of the Weekly Torah Portion and Haftorah.
Plus Ani Ma'amin - The Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith.
Parshas Mishpatim
For the week ending 27 Shevat 5755
27 & 28 January 1995
===========================================================================
This issue is sponsored in loving memory of Harry M. Iskowitz O.B.M.
by his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
===========================================================================
Summary
The Jewish People receive a series of laws concerning social justice.
Topics include: Proper treatment of Jewish servants; a husband's
obligations toward his wife; penalties for hitting people and cursing
parents, judges, and leaders; financial responsibilities for physically
damaging someone or his property, either by oneself or by one's animate or
inanimate property, or by pitfalls that one created; payments for theft or
for not returning an object that one accepted responsibility to guard; the
right to self-defense for a person being robbed. Other topics include:
Prohibitions against seduction, practicing witchcraft, bestiality and
sacrifice to idols. The Torah warns us to treat the convert, widow and
orphan with dignity, and to avoid lying. Usury is forbidden, and the
rights over collateral are limited. Payment of obligations to the Beis
HaMikdash should not be delayed, and the Jewish People must be Holy, even
with regard to food. The Torah teaches the proper conduct for judges in
court proceedings. The commandments of Shabbos and the Sabbatical year are
outlined. Three times a year -- Pesach, Shavuos and Succos -- we are told
to come to the Temple. The Torah concludes this listing of Laws with a
commandment of kashrus -- not to mix milk and meat. Hashem promises that
He will lead the Jewish People to Israel, helping them conquer the nations
that live there, and tells them that if they fulfill His commandments they
will bring blessings to their nation. The people promise to do and listen
to everything that Hashem says. Moshe writes the Book of the Covenant, and
reads it to the people. Moshe ascends the mountain for 40 days in order to
receive the two Tablets of the Covenant.
===========================================================================
Commentaries
"And these are the statutes..." (23:9).
Rashi explains that the reason our Parsha begins "And these...", rather than
just "These...", is to connect this week's Parsha to last week's _ that just
as the laws of man's relationship with Hashem come from Sinai, so too the
laws of social justice also come from Sinai. The rest of the civilized
world also legislates social justice. The difference between their
enactments and Judaism, however, is the one small word at the beginning of
our Parsha..."And". In the rest of the world, laws are based on civility
and pragmatism -- no society can exist without some code of acceptable
behavior. Man-made laws, however, cannot withstand the onslaught of the
desires of a person's natural inclinations. In times of trial and test,
these laws go "out the window," and left in their place are a myriad of
excuses. Rivers of blood have been spilled in murders and wars in every
era, including our own, in spite of the fact that "You shall not murder" is
a universally accepted creed. However, for the Jew, the essential
imperative in laws of social conduct is not moral, pragmatic or cultural --
rather it is the Will of Hashem, no less than tefillin or kashrus. This is
what gives the Torah's code of social justice its power and durability for
millennia after its institution.
(Adapted from Rav Shlomo Yosef Zevin)
"...and all the people said `All that Hashem has spoken we will do and we
will hear'" (24:7).
"At the moment that the Jewish People answered "we will do and we
will hear," 600,000 angels descended and crowned each Jew with
two crowns, one for `we will do' and one for `we will hear'"
(Shabbos 88a).
By accepting the Torah "sight-unseen," one can certainly understand why the
Jewish People merited a precious crown for their unconditional commitment
to submit totally to Hashem's will with perfect faith. What, however was
the significance of the crown for "we will hear"? Was this not merely an
inevitable sequel to the commitment to do? Obviously in order to do, they
had to know what was demanded. What is the true significance of this
second crown, and what does it teach us? Man, by his very nature, must
constantly strive to perfect himself. When he is not ascending, he is, of
necessity, descending. One is either growing or stagnating, there is no
in-between. Life is like the down escalator. If you stand still, you go
down. If you walk, you stay where you. Only if you make the additional
effort to run, will you ascend. This is the significance of the second
crown -- the Jewish People accepted on themselves for all time, to be
constantly open to learn more -- to "hear" more -- in order to elevate
themselves, rung after rung, towards the fulfillment of the ultimate Torah
potential each of us possesses.
(Adapted from Rabbi Zev Leff -- "Outlooks and Insights")
===========================================================================
Haftorah: Jeremiah 33-34
"Were it not for My covenant day and night, had I not established the laws
of heaven and earth..." (33:25).
The laws of nature are universally accepted as being incontrovertible
facts, but how nature operates is a cause for investigation and
speculation. Science labors constantly to offer more and more
sophisticated explanations of phenomena, and to reveal the secrets of
nature, but no one would sensibly contradict the realities of nature based
on science's lack of precise understanding of these realities. Like
nature, the Torah is an unchanging, incontrovertible reality. We must
constantly labor to understand its mysteries. The Torah is "My covenant
day and night" which needs to be like "the laws of heaven and earth" _
facts, which are not constrained by the intellect of Man, but are
considered to be eternal fundamental concepts, which the intellect needs
only to strive to grasp and understand.
(Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch)
===========================================================================
Ani Ma'amin
The Rambam's 13 principles of faith
Principle #12:
"I believe with complete faith in the coming of the Mashiach, and even
though he may delay, nevertheless I anticipate every day that he will
come."
Rabbi Yochanan stated: "The son of David -- Mashiach -- will come only in
a generation which is entirely deserving or entirely undeserving."
Sanhedrin 98a
There are two situations which can bring about our redemption by
eliminating any benefit from Hashem's prolonged concealment of His glory.
One is when all of Israel is deserving of redemption because of their
service of Hashem. Then there is no longer any need to stimulate them to
teshuva through exile and this dishonor to the glory of Hashem must come to
an end. The other is when all of Israel is undeserving and so far removed
from any state of holiness that there is no hope of stimulating them to
teshuva. The dishonor to Hashem created by His concealment will no longer
be productive and redemption will be initiated from Above.
Michtav MiEliyahu, vol. 4, p. 138
===========================================================================
Where do YOU find TW* ?
Judy Tashbook "gets it as E-mail from the Jerusalem1 ListServ which she
access on Delphi through her office at HarperCollinsPublishers in NYC. She
then forwards it as E-mail to her brother Charles Tashbook in Arlington,
Texas because this way he gets a weekly Parsha Shiur from Ohr Somayach."
TW finds its way all around the globe. E-Mail, fax, snail-mail, fedex and
let us know where you found your copy. We'll share your responses with the
other TW readers!
*(Torah Weekly)
===========================================================================
MATAN TORAH got you mixed up?
Rabbi Gavriel Reuven and Ohr Somayach present
Rashi's explanation of the Chronology of the Giving of the Torah
The chain of events surrounding the giving of the Torah is very difficult
to follow, because, according to Rashi's understanding, the verses are not
arranged chronologically. This file lists the events in correct
chronological order so that you can easily understand how the Torah was
given to the Jewish People.
This file is available from the following sources:
o The Jerusalem1 Gopher under the heading "Religious Institutions"
and the sub-heading "Ohr Somayach"
o CompuServe Religion Forum, Judaism Library (3), filename TORAH.TXT
o Sent via E-Mail for those without access to one of the above.
Send your request to newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il. To speed
processing, set your subject to "SEND ME TORAH" and do not include
any other topics in your message.
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for Torah Weekly
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Yaakov Asher Sinclair
Production Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
Production Design: Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
(C) 1995 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 989.382 | PARSHA Q&A: Parshas Mishpatim | TAV02::JEREMY | | Mon Jan 23 1995 12:41 | 159 |
|
* PARSHA Q&A *
In-Depth Questions on the Parsha and Rashi's commentary.
Parshas Mishpatim
For the week ending 27 Shevat 5755
27 & 28 January 1995
===========================================================================
This issue is sponsored in loving memory of Harry M. Iskowitz O.B.M.
by his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
===========================================================================
Parsha Questions
1. Where did the Sanhedrin hold court?
2. Who supports the family of an Eved Ivri (Hebrew servant)?
3. If an Eved Ivri wished to remain with his master after the six years of
servitude are completed, what must be done to the servant?
4. What special mitzvah does the Torah give to the master of an Amah Ivria
(Hebrew maidservant)?
5. What three obligations does a man have toward his wife?
6. What is the penalty for: a) kidnapping; b) cursing one's parents; c)
murder?
7. What is the penalty for someone who wants to murder a particular person,
but accidentally kills another person instead?
8. An ordinary ox gores a more valuable ox. What is the maximum amount that
the owner of the damaging animal is obligated to pay if his animal had
previously gored less than three times?
9. Where in the Parsha does the Torah demonstrate its concern for the honor
of the wicked?
10. What degree of force may one use to resist a thief who is breaking-and-
entering?
11. What fine does the Torah impose upon one who steals and is caught?
12. A person borrows an object from his employee, and it is destroyed
accidentally. What financial obligation does the borrower have to the
lender?
13. What constraints are placed upon a lender?
14. Where in the Parsha does the dog receive its reward, and why?
15. Which verse forbids listening to slander?
16. What constitutes a majority ruling in a capital case?
17. What happens to a person who the courts mistakenly exonerate?
18. How many prohibitions are transgressed when cooking meat and milk
together?
19. How many of the seven Canaanite nations lived east of the Jordan River?
20. How did Moshe manage to "sprinkle the blood" on all of the Jewish People
(24:8)?
Bonus QUESTION:
The Torah commands that the damager pay "an eye for an eye." How do we
know that the Torah refers to a monetary payment and does not command to
remove the damager's eye?
I Did Not Know That!
"If the thief isn't found, the homeowner shall approach ha'elohim (the
judges)..." (22:7). Since the right for the court to judge emanates from
Hashem, judges are called by the name of Hashem that represents His role as
Judge.
Torah Temima
===========================================================================
Answers to this Week's Questions
All references are to the verses and Rashi's commentary, unless otherwise
stated
1. 21:1 - Adjacent to the Mizbe'ach (Altar).
2. 21:3 - The master of the servant.
3. 21:6 - His master must bore his right ear with an awl.
4. 21:8,9 - The Torah mandates a special mitzvah to marry her.
5. 21:10 - Food, clothing, marital relations.
6. Execution by: a) 21:16 - strangulation; b) 21:17 - stoning; c) 21:20 -
sword.
7. 21:23 - One opinion: The murderer deserves the death penalty. Another
opinion: The murderer is exempt from capital punishment, but must
compensate the heirs of his victim.
8. 21:35 - The full value of his own animal.
9. 21:37 - When a thief steals a lamb, he degrades himself by carrying it
on his shoulders. The Torah counts this degradation as part of the
thief's punishment, and reduces the fine he pays when he is caught.
10. 22:1 - Whatever necessary, even at the expense of the thief's life.
11. 22:3 - He pays double the value of the object stolen.
12. 22:14 - None, he is exempt from payment.
13. 22:24 - The lender may neither demand the debt forcibly nor charge
interest.
14. 22:30 - Non-kosher meat is preferentially fed to dogs as a reward for
their being silent on the night of Makkas Bechoros (Shemos 11:7).
15. 23:1 - Targum Onkolos translates "don't bear a false report" as "don't
receive a false report".
16. 23:2 - A simple majority is needed for an acquittal. A majority of two
is needed for a ruling of guilty.
17. 23:7 - Hashem exacts punishment.
18. 23:19 - One. There are three prohibitions involving the combining of
milk and meat. Only one is violated by cooking.
19. 23:28 - Two, the Hitties and the Canaanites.
20. 24:8 - Targum Onkolos translates "He poured the blood on the Altar as an
atonement for the people."
Bonus ANSWER:
If the court were to obligate removing the damager's eye, it's possible
that he might die in the process. The Torah commands that the damager pay
"an eye for an eye," but not "a life for an eye." Therefore, the Torah
isn't referring to blinding the damager. The only other way the damager
can pay "an eye for an eye" is by making finical reimbursement.
Torah Temima
===========================================================================
What do YOU do with Parsha Q&A?
Dr. Stanley Ress or the Constantia Hebrew Congregation in Cape Town, South
Africa writes:
"We have a parsha quiz every week after davening and kiddush, an informal
quiz where whoever is around joins in. Our scores vary from 60-80%,
depending on how easy the questions are, and the level of expertise at the
time! Thanks for the Q&A, we find them very worthwhile and informative."
What do you do with Parsha Q&A?
Fax, E-mail, post, even Fedex your responses --
we'll share them with all the Q&A readers!
===========================================================================
MATAN TORAH got you mixed up?
Rabbi Gavriel Reuven and Ohr Somayach present
Rashi's explanation of the Chronology of the Giving of the Torah
The chain of events surrounding the giving of the Torah is very difficult
to follow, because, according to Rashi's understanding, the verses are not
arranged chronologically. This file lists the events in correct
chronological order so that you can easily understand how the Torah was
given to the Jewish People.
This file is available from the following sources:
o The Jerusalem1 Gopher under the heading "Religious Institutions"
and the sub-heading "Ohr Somayach"
o CompuServe Religion Forum, Judaism Library (3), filename TORAH.TXT
o Sent via E-Mail for those without access to one of the above.
Send your request to newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il. To speed
processing, set your subject to "SEND ME TORAH" and do not include
any other topics in your message.
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for Parsha Q&A
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Eliyahu Kane
Production Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
Production Design: Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
(C) 1995 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 989.383 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Mishpatim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jan 26 1995 01:24 | 150 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
Mishpatim
Vol. IX, No. 18 (402), 27 Shevat 5755, January 28, 1995
Chazal say, "One who wishes to become wise should occupy himself
with dinei mamonot"-- civil law, the subject of much of this
parashah--"for that law is an overflowing spring." Rav Yechezkel
Abramsky zatz'l explains this metaphor as follows: Life is a
constant flow of new inventions, each of which requires the Torah
to reveal itself in a new way. (Indeed, it could be said that Hashem
brings about new inventions so that new aspects of the Torah will
be revealed.) Civilization has changed a great deal since the Jews
stood at Har Sinai. Trains, steamships, electricity, telegraphs,
telephones, corporations whose stock is traded without the founders'
awareness, and paper money all have transformed the way business is
transacted. [Ed. This is Rav Abramsky's list.]
The civil law of the Torah has answers to the issues raised by
each of these changes. One who has focused solely on "comparative
law"--examining the relationship of halachah to Roman law or some
other ancient code--will not see this. However, just as there is
nothing new in nature, rather, everything "new" is just the flowering
of G-d's original creation, so there is nothing new in halachah.
Just as a house is built from plans, so the Torah was Hashem's
blueprint for creation and every eventuality already is accounted
for. And just as each invention leads to new inventions, every word
of the Torah is a door into many rooms containing the Torah's
response to the developing creation. (Chazon Yechezkel, intro. to
Bava Kamma.)
************************************
"And these are the laws which you shall place before them."
(21:1)
Rashi comments: The "vav" (meaning "and") at the beginning of this
parashah teaches that just as the laws in last week's parashah were
given at Sinai, so were those in this week's parashah.
Would we think otherwise? ask some commentators. Rav Aharon
Eliezer Paskez ~"~~ (died this week in 1884) answers as follows:
There are two types of laws--"chukim" (laws whose reasons are not
known to us) and "mishpatim" (common sense laws). One who keeps the
former clearly does so only because they are G-d's commands; however,
there is a strong temptation to observe the latter because they seem
right to us, rather than because G-d has commanded them.
Chazal say that one who judges truthfully becomes a partner with
G-d in creation. How so? Because G-d created us imperfect in order
that we might complete creation by controlling and perfecting
ourselves. A judge who remembers that he is enforcing G-d's law,
not his own common sense, is one who is in control of his will.
The last law in the previous parashah is a chok. It is not clear
why the altar must have a ramp and not stairs. Rashi is reminding
us that just as that chok is from Sinai, so the common sense civil
laws of this week's parashah also should be kept only because they
are from G-d.
(Mishmeret Eliezer)
************************************
Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zatz'l said: Those prohibitions of the Torah
which are common sense may be compared to decaying meat. Although
one would avoid such meat just because it smells bad, he must also
remember that the meat is poisonous. So, too, though one would avoid
actions such as theft and murder out of common sense, he should
remember that G-d prohibits them as well.
(quoted in Ta'am Vada'at, Parashat Vayetze)
************************************
We read in this parashah that the Torah punishes a burglar more
than it does a robber. Why? Because a burglar fears man more than
he fears G-d, therefore he works at night. (A robber does not fear
G-d, but at least he does not fear man either.)
Rav Velvel "Brisker" Soloveitchik zatz'l elaborates: A robber
cannot control his impulses. He sees something that he wants, so
he takes it. By contrast, a burglar plans his crime. That is his
wrongdoing; once he is thinking, he should be thinking about the
severity of his crime, rather than how to perpetrate it. Because
he does not, he is worthy of additional punishment.
In the same way, says Rav Velvel, a person who selectively keeps
mitzvot is worse than one who observes none of the Torah. The misuse
of one's mind for "choosing" mitzvot is itself a crime.
(quoted in Ta'am Vada'at)
************************************
". . .yield to the majority." (23:2)
From this verse Chazal derive that in disputes among the sages,
the law follows the majority. Why? asks Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook
zatz'l. Is it because the majority is presumed to know best or is
this an arbitrary way of keeping order in society?
It is generally understood that as between Bet Hillel and Bet
Shammai the former yeshiva was more numerous while the latter had
sharper students. Rav Kook suggests that the two schools themselves
argued about the above question. Bet Shammai held that the reason
the halachah follows the majority is that the majority is presumed
to know best. However, when the minority is known to be smarter,
this rule should not apply. Bet Hillel, however, held that the
halachah follows the majority as a way of keeping order in society,
regardless of who knows best.
This dispute has practical consequences. For example, what if
the majority never heard the views of the minority. In Bet Hillel's
view, this would not matter; the majority prevails in any case.
However, according to Bet Shammai, the majority cannot be presumed
to know best if we know that it has never considered the views of
the minority.
(Ein Ayah, Berachot 37a)
************************************
Yahrzeits This Week
Rav Yosef David Zunzheim: born 5505 (1745); was President of the
"Sanhedrin" convened by Napoleon; authored Yad David on mishnah and
a commentary on Shulchan Aruch; died 28 Shevat 5572 (1812).
Rav Eliyahu Habachur Halevi "Ba'al Hatishbi": famous Hebrew
grammarian; died 29 Shevat 5309 (1549).
Rav Avraham ibn Ezra: Torah commentator and poet; born in Spain
but traveled extensively in Europe, including London and Rome; also
wrote works on Talmud, grammar, and science; died 1 Adar I 4954
(1194).
Rav Azaryah Figo: born in Venice 5339 (1579); author of Binah
La'itim and Gidulei Terumah; rabbi in Pisa and Venice; died 1 Adar
5407 (1647).
Rav Shabtai Hakohen: born in Vilna 5383 (1623); author of Siftei
Kohen one of the most important commentaries on Shulchan Aruch--the
two usually are printed together; died 1 Adar I 5423 (1663); his
great-granddaughter was the wife of the Ba'al Shem Tov.
Rav Emanuel Chai Riki: kabbalist; author of Mishnat Chassidim;
died 1 Adar 5503 (1743).
Rav Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim (the "Aderet"): born 6 Sivan
5603 (1843); rabbi of Ponovezh, Mir, and Yerushalayim; father-in-law
of Rav Kook; died 3 Adar I 5665 (1905); left behind more than 100
manuscripts.
|
| 989.384 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Terumah | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Feb 01 1995 19:05 | 157 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
edited by Shlomo Katz
Terumah
Vol. IX, No. 19 (403), 4 Adar I 5755, February 4, 1995
This week's parashah begins to tell of the mishkan-tabernacle.
The midrash says that each commodity which was donated to the mishkan
parallels one of the nations which oppressed the Jews: gold--Bavel;
silver--Persia and Media; copper--Greece; and leather--Rome. Of
those, notes Rav Menachem Mendel Stern zatz'l, silver was the only
one regarding which there was a commandment that the rich and poor
give equally. This was the mitzvah of machatzit hashekel-giving half
a shekel.
Chazal say that Hashem foresaw that Haman would give Achashveirosh
10,000 shekalim so He gave us this mitzvah in order to protect us.
Unlike during ordinary oppression, Rav Stern explains, Haman's decree
treated the rich and poor equally and, to counteract it, a mitzvah
was needed which the rich and poor performed equally.
Throughout our exiles, continues Rav Stern, the rich often have
been able to buy some easing of the oppression. Therefore, the rich
are less likely to pray for the redemption than are the poor. This
is why Chazal say that before the final redemption Hashem will send
another king like Haman. Similarly, Chazal say, "Mashiach will not
come until the last penny has left the pocket." This is an allusion
to the above idea--Mashiach cannot come until all Jews want him.
(Derech Emunah)
************************************
The midrash (Tanna D'vei Eliyahu ch.17) states: When the Jews said
"We will fulfill and we will hear [the Torah]"-Hashem commanded that
they build a mishkan. Rav Yosef Shaul Nathanson zatz'l explains this
in light of the debate over whether man or angels are greater. In
an absolute sense, angels are on a loftier spiritual plane. However,
man is greater in that he has to fight for his standing, whereas
angels do not face a yetzer hara.
Chazal say that when Bnei Yisrael accepted the Torah they imitated
the angels. By saying, "We will fulfill [first] and we will hear,"
they indicated their willingness to serve Hashem without having to
be persuaded, just like the angels.
When Hashem wanted the Jews to build Him a "home" (the mishkan),
the angels complained, "How can You reside among mortals?"
Hashem's answer was that the Jews had said "We will fulfill and
we will hear," and thus were like angels.
(Divrei Shaul, Mahadura Kamma)
************************************
"And they shall make an Ark of acacia wood." (25:10)
Why regarding all of the vessels of the mishkan does it say "you
shall make," except for the Ark where it says "they shall make"?
Below we offer two answers:
Chazal explain that the Ark represents those who study Torah.
This verse teaches us, says Rav Eliezer David Gruenwald ~"~~, that
when a person is dedicated to Torah study others are obligated to
provide for him.
(Chasdei David)
************************************
Rav Azaryah Figo zatz'l explains: The Ark alludes to the Torah,
and the use of the plural teaches that the Torah is available for
anyone who wants to partake. For this reason, the Ark's depth
(height) was less than its length--to teach that the Torah is not
so deep as to be inaccessible.
(Binah La'ittim)
************************************
The midrash comments on Breishit 1:4: "'And evening came'--this
refers to the mishkan; 'and morning came'--this refers to the first
[Shlomo's] Bet Hamikdash; 'one day'--this refers to the second Bet
Hamikdash." What does this mean?
Rav Yehonatan Eyebschutz zatz'l explains as follows: We read in
Tehilim (90:4), "For one thousand years are in Your eyes like
yesterday and a part of the night." One thousand of our years are
equivalent to a little more than a day in Hashem's eyes. To be more
precise, one of His days equals 960 of our years.
Our haftarah says that the Bet Hamikdash was built 480 years after
the Exodus, and therefore, almost the same number of years after the
Mishkan was built. Four hundred eighty years is half of Hashem's
day. Since the Jewish day begins at sunset, the midrash says that
the mishkan was built in the evening and the Bet Hamikdash was built
in the morning.
The second Bet Hamikdash was built 480 years after the first (i.e.
after the 410 years that the first Temple stood plus 70 years of
exile). Thus, when the second Bet Hamikdash was built--960 years
after the mishkan was constructed--the "day" was over.
Regarding the third Bet Hamikdash, the midrash cites Zechariah
14:7: "On that day, there will be neither day nor night." This is
because the third Temple will stand forever.
(Ahavat Yehonatan)
************************************
This parashah, which deals with making donations to the mishkan,
follows Parashat Mishpatim, which includes (among other things) the
laws of personal property and theft. This teaches us, says Rav Yosef
Dov Halevi Soloveitchik zatz'l, that before one gives his money to
charity, he must be sure that it is his money.
(Bet Halevi)
************************************
Rav Menachem Mendel Stern
born 5519 (1759) - died 9 Adar 5594 (1834)
Rav Stern was the rabbi of Sighet, Hungary, following Rav Yehuda
Hakohen Heller (author of Kuntres Hasefeikot and brother of the
Ketzot Hachoshen). Rav Stern's own teacher was Rav Yaakov Lorberbaum
of Lissa, the contemporary and well known disputant of the Ketzot.
Among Rav Yaakov's well-known works are Netivot Hamishpat, Chavat
Da'at, and Derech Chaim.
Rav Stern was the first native-born Hungarian to serve as rabbi
of the important Hungarian city of Sighet. In his days the spiritual
character of the region changed significantly, due largely to his
efforts. He traveled extensively among the surrounding villages,
offering the hard-working but poverty-stricken Jews encouragement
in both their material and spiritual struggles. Rav Stern's
contemporary, the Chatam Sofer, is reported to have called him, "The
unique one of his generation." Rav Stern was a chassid of Rav Moshe
Leib of Sassov and Rav Mendel of Kossov (ancestor of the Vizhnitzer
dynasty); Rav Mendel of Kossov for his part said that chassidim from
Sighet should not come to him when they already have Rav Stern in
their town.
Rav Stern was the author of several works, including Derech
Emunah. A dvar Torah from that work appears on the front page of
this issue.
************************************
Other Yahrzeits This Week
Rav Achai bar Rav Huna: the first of the Rabbanan Savorai, the
generation after the Talmud was "sealed"; helped finalize the
Talmud's form and is, in fact, mentioned in it; died 4 Adar 4266
(505).
Rav Shmuel Abba Shapiro: with his brother, printer of the famous
"Slavita Talmud"; grandson of Rav Pinchas of Koretz; died 5 Adar I
5624 (1864).
Rav Daniel Prostitz: born 1759; rabbi of Pressburg and colleague
of the Chatam Sofer; died 6 Adar 5606 (1846).
|
| 989.385 | Shabbat-B'Shabbato: Terumah 5755 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Wed Feb 01 1995 21:58 | 42 |
| EXPLAIN A MIDRASH: "And they shall make a temple for me" [Shemot 25:8]
by Rabbi Yehudah Shaviv
When was this commandment given? There are different answers, and we will
discuss one this week and another one in next week's column.
"When was this portion about the Tabernacle given to Moshe? On Yom Kippur.
This is true even though the command of the Tabernacle is written before
the incident of the Golden Calf. Rabbi Yehudah Ben Rabbi Shalom says: the
Torah is not written in chronological order ... Moshe ascended to Sinai on
the sixth of Sivan, and then stayed there for 40 days and nights, and this
was followed by a second and a third period of 40 days, for a total of 120
days. Thus, it is on Yom Kippur that Bnei Yisrael were forgiven, and on
that day G-d commanded, 'And they shall make a temple for me,' to let all
the nations know that the sin was forgiven ... The Almighty said: let the
gold of the Tabernacle be a penance for the calf, which was made from gold
contributed by the people. G-d said [Yirmiyahu 30:17]: 'For I will bring
you a cure, I will cure your hardships'" [Tanchuma, Terumah, 8].
Thus, according to the Midrash, the events are described in the Torah out
of sequence. The mitzvah of making a Tabernacle was given after the
incident of the calf, but the commandment is written beforehand. This
follows the principle that no chronology can be learned from the order of
the passages in the Torah. However, it is still legitimate to try to
understand the reason for reversing the order.
It may be that the Torah is trying to describe the cure before the
affliction. Before telling us about what appears to be a fatal blow, the
sin of the Golden Calf, the Torah tells what the cure will eventually be.
Indeed, the cure is based on the same material as the sin itself; both are
intimately connected with gold. This could be implied by the passage
quoted, "I will cure you from your hardships;" the cure is based on the
very material used for the defect, from within the hardship itself. Just as
the sin was rooted in an earthly initiative, so was the Tabernacle based on
worldly contributions: "Take my contribution from every man who VOLUNTEERS
TO GIVE" [Shemot 25:2].
In addition, the Midrash may be implying that the Tabernacle and the
associated rituals might not have been so important if the nation had not
shown its continuing tendency towards idol worship. This is indeed what the
Rambam writes in the "Moreh Nevuchim" [volume 3, 32].
|
| 989.386 | * PARSHA Q&A * Parshas Terumah | TAV02::JEREMY | | Thu Feb 02 1995 15:39 | 110 |
| * PARSHA Q&A *
In-Depth Questions on the Parsha and Rashi's commentary.
Parshas Terumah
For the week ending 4 Adar Rishon 5755
3 & 4 February 1995
===========================================================================
This issue is dedicated in the memory of
Rochel bas R' Avrohom Boruch HaLevi by her son, Jeremy Rose, of London
===========================================================================
Parsha Questions
1. Why in the first verse of the Parsha does the word Terumah appear 3
times?
2. The skin of which now-extinct animal was used in making the Mishkan?
3. From where did the Jewish People obtain the wood to build the Mishkan?
4. Describe two uses of: a) oil; b) spices; c) jewels.
5. Betzalel made the Aron out of three boxes, one inside of the other. Of
what material were these boxes made?
6. What is the significance of the crown on top of the Aron?
7. The Torah is referred to as testimony (25:16). To what does the Torah
testify?
8. What did the faces of the Cherubim on top of the Aron resemble?
9. How did Betzalel make the Cherubim?
10. What is the significance of the crown on top of the Shulchan (table)?
11. How did Betzalel make the Menorah?
12. In which direction did the flames of the Menorah cast their light?
13. How did Moshe know the shape of the Menorah?
14. How many materials made up the threads used to weave the tapestries of
the Mishkan?
15. What was the height of the Mishkan?
16. Where in the Mishkan was the Shulchan located?
17. Where was the Menorah located?
18. What were the dimensions of the Mizbe'ach (Altar)?
19. What were the dimensions of the Courtyard of the Mishkan?
20. How were the yeseidos (copper pegs) used?
Bonus QUESTION:
In the beginning of the Parsha, Hashem commands the Jewish People "V'yikchu
Li (and take for Me ) Terumah" (25:2). Why did Hashem command "take" for
Me Terumah rather than "give" to Me Terumah?
I Did Not Know That!
"And their faces (of the Cherubim) faced toward each other" (25:20). "And
their faces (of the Cherubim) faced inward (away from each other)" (Divrei
Hayamim II 3:13). These two verses don't contradict one another.
Whenever the Jewish People obey the Torah the Cherubim face toward each
other. Whenever the Jewish People transgress the Torah the Cherubim face
away from each other.
Bava Basra 99a
===========================================================================
Answers to this Week's Questions
All references are to the verses and Rashi's commentary, unless otherwise
stated
1. 25:2 - To allude to the three different types of Terumah offered.
2. 25:5 - The Tachash.
3. 25:5 - Yaakov foresaw through Ruach Hakodesh that the Jewish People
would be commanded to build the Mishkan. He planted cedars in Egypt and
commanded his children to cut them down and to take the wood with them
when they left Egypt.
4. 25:6-7 - a) The oil was burned in the Menorah and used for anointing.
b) The spices were a component of the anointing oil and of the incense.
c) The jewels were used in the Ephod and the Choshen.
5. 25:11 - The outer and inner boxes were made of gold and the middle box
was made of wood.
6. 25:11 - It symbolized the crown of Torah.
7. 25:16 - It testifies that Hashem commanded us to keep His mitzvos.
8. 25:18 - The faces of children.
9. 25:18 - They were hammered out of a solid block of gold as part of the
cover of the Aron.
10. 25:24 - It symbolized the crown of royalty.
11. 25:31 - It was hammered out of one large block of gold.
12. 25:37 - Towards the middle flame.
13. 25:40 - Hashem showed Moshe a Menorah made out of fire.
14. 26:1 - Each thread consisted of 4 components, 1 of linen and 3 of wool.
15. 26:16 - Ten Amos (cubits).
16. 26:35 - Two and a half Amos from the northern wall.
17. 26:35 - Two and a half Amos from the southern wall.
18. There are two opinions as to its height. R. Yehuda said it was three
amos high. R. Yosi said it was 10 amos high.
19. 27:18 - One hundred Amos long by fifty Amos wide.
20. 27:19 - They were used to secure the curtains against the wind.
Bonus ANSWER:
It is not possible to give Hashem anything, since all that we have belongs
to Hashem. Hashem was commanding the Jewish People to take what He had
given them and use it to build the Mishkan.
Levush HaOrah
===========================================================================
What do you do with Parsha Q&A?
Larry Altose of Seattle, Washington (Congregation Bikur Cholim-Machzikay
Hadath) writes:
"The Parasha Q&A's are my 11 year old son's special questions, where he
shows his erudition in his parasha and Rashi studies during the week.
Our shul has a youth minyan which includes a question and answer
session, so I lend the Ohr Somayach questions (and answers) to the
leader of that group.
Seattle is ten time zones away from Jerusalem, almost as far as you
can get, but Jerusalem One helps unite our people in Torah."
What do you do with Parsha Q&A? Fax, E-mail, post, even Fedex your
responses -- we'll share them with all the Q&A readers!
===========================================================================
|
| 989.387 | P * A * R * A * S * H * A - P * A * G * E Parshat Terumah 5755 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Feb 05 1995 14:00 | 183 |
|
P * A * R * A * S * H * A - P * A * G * E
--- ---
Produced by Mordecai Kornfeld
Edited by Yakov Blinder
==================================================
This week's issue of Parasha-Page is dedicated to the memory of my
grandfather, Israel Turkel -- Yisroel Shimon ben Shlomo. He left a deep
impression on those who knew him closely. May his devotion to his Creator
and to the support of Torah-study continue to inspire us all.
*** If you would like to dedicate a future issue of Parasha-Page, and
support its world-wide (literally!) dissemination of Torah, please
contact me at: yoy@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il ***
==================================================
Parshat Terumah 5755
}
} I
Make a Parochet (= a hanging curtain, intended to separate the
Kodesh Hakodoshim section from the rest of the Mishkan) of
turquoise wool, purple wool, scarlet wool, and spun linen.
} (Sh'mot 26:31)
}
} There is a Mishnah that says: "The pile of ash [from the burnt
Korbanot, or offerings] in the middle of the altar sometimes had
as much as three hundred Kors (=9000 Se'ahs, or over 75,000
liters) of ashes in it." Rava explained, "This number is an
exaggeration."
} (Gemara Chullin 90b)
}
} There are three places where the Sages spoke with exaggeration:
Concerning the pile of ash on the altar, [concerning one other
case,] and concerning the Parochet. The Mishna (Shekalim 8:5)
tells us of the Parochet: " The Parochet [of the Beit Hamikdash]
was the thickness of a handbreadth... and was forty by twenty
Amos... and three hundred Kohanim would immerse it in a Mikvehh
(to make it ritually pure for use in the Beit Hamikdash)."
Rashi: The exaggeration was the claim that 300 Kohanim immersed
it.
} (Ibid.)
}
} II
} The Vilna Gaon, in his Kol Eliyahu (Parshat Teruma), offers an
ingenious explanation to account for the claim that three hundred Kohanim
immersed the Parochet. As the Mishna quoted, the Parochet's dimensions were
forty by twenty Amot. The Amot used in the Temple measurements consisted
of five handbreadths each (Mishna Kelim 17:10). Thus, the perimeter of the
Parochet was 2 x (40+20) = 120 Amot, or 600 handbreadths. Thus, if the
maximum number of Kohanim would want to participate in the Mitzvah of
immersing the Parochet, there would be room for exactly 300 people to grasp
it, each one of them taking up two handbreadths of the perimeter with their
two hands!
} This explanation is so clever, however, that now we must wonder why
the Gemara said that this number was an exaggeration. It is in fact an
exact number!
} It is possible to contend that the *other* sizes and figures
concerning the Parochet (which are mentioned in the same Mishna in
Shekalim) were the exaggeration -- not the fact that 300 Kohanim immersed
it (see Perush HaMishna of the Rambam ad loc.). However, as the Sho'el
U'Meshiv (vol. III 3:52) points out, that isn't likely. The other two
exaggerations mentioned in the Gemara we quoted both involve the number
300. It is only logical to conclude as Rashi does, that the number 300
mentioned in the Mishna in Shekalim in reference to the immersion, was part
of the exaggeration.
} It would seem more appropriate to explain the Gemara in the
following manner: Although it was *theoretically* possible for three
hundred Kohanim to hold the Parochet, it was never *actually* handled by
this maximum number of people. It would be too unlikely for the Kohanim's
hands to be so closely spaced as to allow them to cover every inch of the
perimeter. Nevertheless, the Mishnah did not choose the number 300 as its
"exaggerated" figure randomly. Rather, this number was chosen because it
represents the theoretical maximum number of Kohanim who could participate
in this Mitzvah. In this manner, Chazal emphasized the large number of
Kohanim that were involved. The exaggeration of the Mishna is demonstrating
that even the entire maximum of 300 Kohanim would have taken part in the
immersion, had the circumstances to do so arisen (see Kol Eliyahu that we
referred to).
}
} III
} The Yefe Enayim (beginning of Massechet Tamid), however, raises a
serious objection to this calculation of the Gaon. According to the
Mishnah (Kelim 17:10) and the Gemara (Menachot 97b), the special
five-handbreadth Amah that was used in the Temple was only used in the
building of the movable articles of the Temple, such as the ark, the Table,
the golden altar, etc. When it came to the construction of the *buildings*
of the Temple, however, the regular, six-handbreadth Amah was employed.
(This is the more liberal opinion of Rebbi Yehuda. Rebbi Meir maintained
that the six handbreadth Amah was used in an even more limited fashion.)
The Parochet, whose twenty by forty-Amah dimensions were for the purpose of
filling the entire breadth of the Heichal (Sanctuary building), and
curtaining off the Kodesh HaKodoshim, would then have to be measured with
the same Amah that was used for measuring the sanctuary itself, or a 6
handbreadth Amah! The perimeter of the Parochet would then measure 720 --
not 600 -- handbreadths!
} In defense of the Gaon, it could be said that when grasping the
Parochet for the purpose of immersing it, the Kohanim would not hold it on
all four sides. One side had to be left open, from which to lower the
Parochet into the Mikveh. If the Kohanim held it from the three sides that
measured 40, 40 and 20 Amot, and left the other 20-Amot side unheld, they
would have covered 100 Amot, or 600 handbreadths, of the perimeter. This
is probably what the Gaon said, and not as recorded in the Kol Eliyahu.
}
} IV
} This brilliant explanation of the Gaon's explains the reason that
the Mishnah used the figure of 300 Kohanim in its exaggerated statement.
The Gemara, however, gives two other examples of exaggerated numbers
mentioned in the Mishnah. Can a similar line of reasoning be used to
account for the choice of the exaggerated numbers used in these Mishnayot
as well?
} I once heard an ingenious explanation for the exaggeration of the
300 Kor of ash on the altar along these same lines, from Reb Yisroel Dovid
Slutzkin, a retired banker who presently lives in Rehavia, Jerusalem.
} The Kor is a measure of volume corresponding to 30 Se'ah-measures.
Mr. Slutzkin pointed out that according to the Gemara (Pesachim 109b), the
minimum size of a Mikveh -- 40 Se'ah-measures of water -- corresponds to
three cubic Amot of water. Accordingly, each cubic Amah contains in it the
volume of 40/3, or 13.33, Se'ahs. Since a Kor is equal to thirty Se'ahs,
the 300 Kors mentioned by the Mishnah in connection with the ash on the
altar would correspond to 9000 Se'ahs of ash. This is equal to 9000 X
13.33, or 675, cubic Amot of ash.
} In Mishnayot Middot 3:6 we learn that the base of the altar was 32
by 32 Amot. We are told, however, that there were two places along the
height of the altar where there were indentations that reduced the width
and length of the altar. Since each indentation was one Amah thick, there
was a reduction of two Amot in the dimensions of the altar on each of its
sides -- south, east, north and west. Thus, the top surface of the altar
measured only 28 by 28 Amot. On the four corners of the roof of the altar,
there were four protrusions referred to as Keranot [~horns]. Each Keren was
one Amah by one Amah by one Amah, a perfect cube.Because the Keranot were
an Amah wide, the entire outer one Amah ring of the altar (even the part
between the Keranot) was referred to as the Keranot area (Middot, Ibid.),
and was never used for burning Korbanot.Therefore, the area on top of the
altar that remained available for burning Korbanot was 26 Amot x 26 Amot --
an area of 676 square Amot.
} How high was the accumulation of ashes on the top of the altar
allowed to reach? In Tehillim 118:27 it says, "Tie up the offerings, up to
the Keranot of the altar." The Keranot of the altar, as we have already
seen, jutted up one Amah above the surface of the altar. The verse in
Tehillim seems to imply that the sacrifices burned on the altar were never
piled higher than the height of the Keranot -- a hight of one Amah. (Such
a concept may be alluded to in Sukkah 45b, where we are told that the giant
eleven-Amah-tall willow branches that were propped up against the altar on
Sukkot were bent over at their tops. Perhaps they had to be bent over, in
order that they not be higher than the altar's Keranot.)
} Now that we have determined that the surface of the altar measured
676 square Amot and that the ashes were never piled higher than one Amah,
we can see that the maximum volume of ash on the altar was 676 cubic Amot.
However, we know that there is a requirement to have a fire burning on the
roof of the altar at all times (see Vayikra 6:6). If we allow for a space
of one square Amah to be left free of ash, to allow the fire to continue
burning on the roof of the altar, we will have a maximum volume of 675
cubic Amot of ash, which corresponds exactly to 300 Kors, as shown above!
Once again the Mishnah did not choose a random number in its exaggerated
account of the ashes on the altar, but the exact number of Se'ahs that
could have accumulated in the theoretical maximum accumulation scenario!
} Mr. Slutzkin added that the word Chazal use to describe an
exaggeration, "Guzmah", might be understood as an abbreviation for the
words "Gam Zo Mah" -- "This is also something." Even when the Sages
exaggerated, they did so with an exact calculation in mind!
} What about the third exaggeration? I'm afraid that will have to
wait for a future Parasha-Page...
}
__________________________________________________________________________
To receive the weekly Parasha-Page, write to:
listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
and put in as your message body the following line *only*:
sub parasha-page [Your full name]
To cancel your subscription, send a message to the same address,
and write as your message body the following line only:
signoff parasha-page
(NOTE: Don't add words to the message, and check your spelling. Please
address any comments to my personal account: yoy@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il)
========================================
Mordecai Kornfeld | Yeshivat Ohr Yerushalayim| Tel: 02-522633
6/12 Katzenelenbogen St. | D.N. Harei Yehuda | Fax: 02-341589
Har Nof, Jerusalem, 93871 | Moshav Beit Meir, Israel | US:718 5208526
|
| 989.388 | * PARSHA Q&A * Parshas Tetzaveh
| TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Feb 05 1995 14:01 | 180 |
|
* PARSHA Q&A *
In-Depth Questions on the Parsha and Rashi's commentary.
Parshas Tetzaveh
For the week ending 11 Adar Rishon 5755
10 & 11 February 1995
===========================================================================
Parsha Questions
1. Which two precautions were taken to assure purity of oil for the
Menorah?
2. How was Aaron commanded to kindle the Menorah?
3. Name three places in the Parsha where the word tamid is used, and
explain the meaning in each case.
4. Name the eight garments worn by the Kohen Gadol.
5. What types of materials were used in making the Ephod?
6. How many letters were there on each of the stones of the Ephod?
7. The stones of the Ephod bore the inscription of the names of the sons of
Yaakov. Why?
8. For what sins did the Choshen Mishpat ( breast plate) atone?
9. What are three meanings of the word Mishpat, and which is suitable for
the Choshen (Choshen Mishpat)?
10. What was lacking in the Bigdei Kehuna (Kohen's garments) in the second
Beis Hamikdash?
11. Which component of the Choshen Mishpat allowed the Kohen to make correct
judgments?
12. What was the punishment for a Kohen who entered the Mishkan without
wearing one of his garments?
13. Which garments were worn by a Kohen Hediot (ordinary Kohen)?
14. During the inauguration of the Kohanim, a bullock was brought as a sin
offering. For what sin did this offering atone?
15. Name two things that require anointing.
16. Moshe was commanded to wash Aaron and his sons to prepare them to serve
as Kohanim (29:4). How were they washed?
17. What was unique about the bull sin-offering brought during the
inauguration of the Kohanim?
18. Where does the Kohen place his hands for the heaving and waving (29:24)?
19. How did the oil used for the meal-offering differ from the oil used for
the Menorah?
20. What did the crown on the Mizbe'ach of incense symbolize?
Bonus QUESTION:
Verse 28:4 lists six of the garments the Kohen Gadol wore. They are: The
Choshen (breast plate), the Ephod, the Me'il (robe), the Kesones (tunic),
the Mitznefes, and the Avnet (belt). For which special sins did each of
these garments atone?
I Did Not Know That!
Command the Children of Israel... l'haalos (set up) a constant lamp
(27:20). The word l'haalos is written missing the letter vav (whose
numerical value is six) to hint that the command to ignite the Menorah
daily only applied to six of the seven candles. The westernmost candle
burned constantly.
Baal Ha'Turim
===========================================================================
Answers to this Week's Questions
All references are to the verses and Rashi's commentary, unless otherwise
stated
1. 27:20 - The olives were pressed and not ground; and only the first drop
was used.
2. 27:20 - He was commanded to kindle it until the flame ascended by
itself.
3. 27:20 - Ner -- every night; 29:42 - Olah -- every day; 30:8 - Ketores --
every day.
4. 28:4,36,42 - Choshen, Ephod, Me'il, Kesones, Mitznefes, Avnet, Tzitz,
and Michnasayim.
5. 28:6 - Five types: Gold, blue, purple, and scarlet wool; linen.
6. 28:10 - Twenty-five.
7. 28:12 - So that Hashem would see their names and recall their
righteousness.
8. 28:15 - For judicial errors.
9. 10. 28:15 - 1) The claims of the litigants; 2) The court's ruling; 3)
The court's punishment. Here it means a clear-cut ruling.
10. 28:30 - The Urim V'Tumim -- the `Shem Ha'mefurash' that was placed in
the folds of the Choshen.
11. 28:30 - The Urim V'Tumim -- which illuminated its ruling and made it
unequivocal.
12. 28:35 - Misa biydei Shamayim (Death by the hand of Heaven).
13. 28:40,42 - Kesones, Avnet, Migba'as, and Michnasayim.
14. 29:1 - The sin of the golden-calf.
15. 29:2,7 - Matzah Wafers; Kohanim.
16. 29:4 - They were immersed in a Mikvah.
17. 29:14 - It is the only external sin-offering that was completely burned.
18. 29:24 - Beneath the hands of the owners of the Korban (sacrifice).
19. 29:40 - Oil for the Menorah comes only from beaten olives. Oil for
meal-offerings may come from either beaten olives or from ground-up
olives.
20. 30:3 - The crown of Kehuna (priesthood).
Bonus ANSWER:
The Choshen atoned for mistakes made by the court. The Ephod atoned for
idolatry. The Me'il atoned for lashon hara. The Kesones atoned for
murders not punishable by the court. The Mitznefes atoned for arrogance.
The Avnet atoned for inappropriate thoughts.
Rabbeinu Bachai
===========================================================================
What do you do with Parsha Q&A?
Rabbi Avram Rothman (avram.rothman@canrem.com) writes:
"We copy it onto our fax and broadcast it to over 150 people in
Toronto, Montreal & Detroit who have requested it. If you are late
sending it out, we are late sending it out and we hear about it!!!"
What do you do with Parsha Q&A? Fax, E-mail, post, even Fedex your
responses -- we'll share them with all the Q&A readers!
===========================================================================
Do you have a question about Judaism,
and don't know where to find the answer?
Just "Ask The Rabbi" and you'll get an answer.
Ohr Somayach has a staff of Rabbis
dedicated to answering YOUR questions.
Our Rabbis have researched questions on what Judaism says about Magic,
Virtual Reality Minyons, Why Honey and Locusts are Kosher, and Why People
Point Pinkies at the Torah. For each question that we answer in the weekly
column, DOZENS of answers are sent to individuals around the world who also
asked questions during that time.
Please feel free to avail yourself of this service. Just submit your
question to "Ask The Rabbi" and we'll begin researching your answer. If
you feel your question is personal, just tell us, and we'll be certain to
send the answer only to YOU!
To submit a question, address it to: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
To insure correct handling, set the subject to "ASK THE RABBI"
To subscribe to ASK THE RABBI, send the message:
sub ask {your full name}
to: listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
** Spend This Coming Summer Break In Israel For As Little As $599 **
** (including airfare from New York) **
===========================================================================
JLE Israel Summer Seminar '95
7 weeks of study and touring, optional Ulpan,
and structured encounters with Israeli Dignitaries
Departure June 14th - Optional free week August 8th - 14th
For Jewish men between the ages of 19 & 30
with demonstrated academic achievement
and a sincere motivation to explore their roots
Minimum scholarship price: $599
Covers round trip ticket, room, board, tuition and tours
For information:
o send E-Mail to Rabbi Zalman Corlin: RZCorlin@aol.com
o In the U.S. call toll-free 800-431-2272 / 212-213-3100
o Outside of N. America, send E-Mail to: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for Parsha Q&A
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Eliyahu Kane
Production Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
Production Design: Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
(C) 1995 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 989.389 | * TORAH WEEKLY * Parshas Tetzaveh | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Feb 05 1995 14:02 | 210 |
|
* TORAH WEEKLY *
Highlights of the Weekly Torah Portion and Haftorah.
Plus Ani Ma'amin - The Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith.
Parshas Tetzaveh
For the week ending 11 Adar Rishon 5755
10 & 11 February 1995
===========================================================================
This issue is dedicated in loving memory of Rav Azriel Levin z"l
by his family in Yerushalayim
===========================================================================
Summary
Hashem tells Moshe to command the Jewish People to supply pure olive oil
for the Menorah in the Mishkan (Tent of Meeting). He also tells Moshe to
organize the making of the Bigdei Kehuna (priestly garments): A
breastplate, an ephod, a robe, a checkered tunic, a turban, a sash, a
forehead-plate, and linen trousers. Upon their completion, Moshe is to
perform a ceremony for seven days to consecrate Aaron and his sons. This
includes offering sacrifices, dressing Aaron and his sons in their
respective garments, and anointing Aaron with oil. Hashem commands that
every morning and afternoon a sheep be offered on the Altar in the Mishkan.
This offering should be accompanied by a meal-offering, and libations of
wine and oil. Hashem commands that an Altar for incense should be built
from acacia wood, and covered with gold. Aaron and his descendants should
burn incense on this Altar every day.
===========================================================================
Commentaries
"And you shall take pure pressed olive oil for illumination" (27:20).
The Jewish People are like the olive: Just as the olive only yields its oil
after it has been crushed and squeezed, so Yisrael reveals its true stature
only after suffering oppression. The Jewish People are like oil: Just as
oil cannot mix with any other liquid, but rather floats above it, so too
Yisrael rises above the nations and does not become assimilated in them.
And most remarkably, despite being persecuted and subjected to the most
severe ordeals, the Jewish People always rise above their oppressors and
remain distinct from them.
(Tzror Hamor)
"...to kindle the lamp eternally" (27:20).
When describing the mitzvah to kindle the Menorah in the Beis Hamikdash
every day, the Torah uses an unusual expression: Instead of the word to
light _ l'hadlik, The Torah says _ l'haalos, which means literally "to
cause to rise up". Rashi explains that this is to teach us that the Kohen
had to hold the taper to the wick of the Menorah's lamps until the flame of
the lamp was burning by itself. The Torah is likened to light _ "A
mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah -- light." Just as with the Menorah,
where the taper had to be held in place until the wicks were burning by
themselves, so similarly, when teaching Torah to our talmidim, we must
expend the time and attention to kindle in them a fiery enthusiasm until
they themselves are `ablaze'.
"This is what you shall offer upon the Altar: two sheep within their first
year every day (lit. `to the day'), continually" (29:38).
There are times in one's life when everything seems to be bathed in the
rosy glow of the morning sun _ life is full of promise and optimism.
There are times, too, when the future seems cloudy and obscure, when
darkness and the uncertainty of night loom ominously. In the above verse,
which describes the mitzvah of the daily offering, The Torah employs an
unusual grammatical construction. Instead of saying B'Yom _ in the day,
it chooses to say L'Yom _ to the day. From this anomaly, we learn that
the shechita of the daily offering was to be done in direct sunlight _ the
morning offering in the western part of the courtyard, so that the eastern
wall should not block the rays of the rising sun; the afternoon offering in
the eastern part of the courtyard, so that the western wall should not
obstruct the rays of the setting sun. In our era, we no longer have the
closeness to Hashem that results from the service of the Beis Hamikdash.
However, in its place, we have the service of the heart _ prayer.
Whichever light is shining into our lives, whether the optimistic rays of
the rising sun, or the faltering evening twilight, we must take that light
and illuminate our hearts to serve Hashem.
(Heard from Rabbi Mordechai Perlman)
Haftorah: Yechezkel 43:10-27
"Tell the House of Yisrael of the Beis Hamikdash and they will be ashamed
of their sins" (43:10).
Yechezkel's vision of the Third Beis Hamikdash, the ultimate incarnation of
the Mishkan, is the subject of this week's Haftorah. Hashem says to
Yechezkel: "Tell the House of Yisrael of the Beis Hamikdash" _ that you
have already seen the Third Beis Hamikdash which will exist in the future,
ready and finished down to its finest detail. Tell them that it is only
their sins that are preventing the revelation of Hashem's House. Tell
Yisrael what you have seen "and they will be ashamed of their sins" and
return to Me.
(Malbim)
===========================================================================
Ani Ma'amin
The Rambam's 13 principles of faith
Principle #12:
"I believe with complete faith in the coming of the Mashiach, and even
though he may delay, nevertheless I anticipate every day that he will
come."
o Who could expect an elderly couple like Avraham and Sarah to have a son?
o Who could expect that Yaakov, who crossed the Jordan with no more than
his staff in his possession, would become a wealthy man?
o Who could expect that Yosef, who experienced so many troubles, would
become a ruler?
o Who could expect that Moshe, who was abandoned in the river, would
develop into what he was?
o Who could expect that Ruth, who was a convert, would be the mother of
royalty in Israel?
o Who could expect that David (the victim of so much persecution) would be
king until the end of all generations?
o Who could expect that Hashem would save Jewry in the days of Haman?
o Who could expect that Yehoyachin would go free from prison?
o Who could expect that Chananya, Mishael and Azarya would come out of the
fiery furnace?
o Who could expect that Hashem would restore the "fallen Succah of David"
-- the Beis Hamikdash?
Midrash Parshas Vayigash
The history of our people is filled with so many wondrous events that we
have no cause to wonder how we, in our present situation, can expect that
in the days of Mashiach Hashem will gather in the exiles, rebuild the Beis
Hamikdash and bless Israel with such extraordinary wealth that the
boundaries of Jerusalem will be marked not with rocks but with gems and
pearls.
Chafetz Chaim, Machane Yisrael, Sha'ar Acharon, Perek 2
===========================================================================
Where do YOU find TW* ?
Rick Turkel (rturkel@freenet.columbus.oh.us) writes:
"I just thought I'd write and let you know how much your TW is
appreciated. I get a copy via Internet subscription, and then give a
copy of it to my rabbi, and also to two other friends who have not
yet made it online. I've got them trained to the point where, if
they haven't gotten their weekly fix by Wednesday, I get inquiries
after my health.
Keep up the good work!"
TW finds its way all around the globe. E-Mail, fax, snail-mail, even Fedex
and let us know where you found your copy. We'll share your responses with
the other TW readers!
*(Torah Weekly)
===========================================================================
Do you have a question about Judaism,
and don't know where to find the answer?
Just "Ask The Rabbi" and you'll get an answer.
Ohr Somayach has a staff of Rabbis
dedicated to answering YOUR questions.
Our Rabbis have researched questions on what Judaism says about Magic,
Virtual Reality Minyons, Why Honey and Locusts are Kosher, and Why People
Point Pinkies at the Torah. For each question that we answer in the weekly
column, DOZENS of answers are sent to individuals around the world who also
asked questions during that time.
Please feel free to avail yourself of this service. Just submit your
question to "Ask The Rabbi" and we'll begin researching your answer. If
you feel your question is personal, just tell us, and we'll be certain to
send the answer only to YOU!
To submit a question, address it to: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
To insure correct handling, set the subject to "ASK THE RABBI"
To subscribe to ASK THE RABBI, send the message:
sub ask {your full name}
to: listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
** Spend This Coming Summer Break In Israel For As Little As $599 **
** (including airfare from New York) **
===========================================================================
JLE Israel Summer Seminar '95
7 weeks of study and touring, optional Ulpan,
and structured encounters with Israeli Dignitaries
Departure June 14th - Optional free week August 8th - 14th
For Jewish men between the ages of 19 & 30
with demonstrated academic achievement
and a sincere motivation to explore their roots
Minimum scholarship price: $599
Covers round trip ticket, room, board, tuition and tours
For information:
o send E-Mail to Rabbi Zalman Corlin: RZCorlin@aol.com
o In the U.S. call toll-free 800-431-2272 / 212-213-3100
o Outside of N. America, send E-Mail to: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for Torah Weekly
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Yaakov Asher Sinclair
Production Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
Production Design: Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
(C) 1995 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 989.390 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Tetzaveh | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Feb 09 1995 19:19 | 157 |
| Tetzaveh
Vol. IX, No. 20 (404), 11 Adar I 5755, February 11, 1995
This parashah describes the special garments which the kohanim
and the High Priest wore. Chazal say that the "robe"-of the Kohen
Gadol atoned for lashon hara. Specifically, the garment which made
noise (because it had bells hanging from it) atoned for man's
"noise." When was this atonement forthcoming? Only if the lashon
hara had not yet lead to action (such as a fight) which hurt someone.
However, if someone was damaged, then the speaker would be struck
by tzara'at.
The Chafetz Chaim zatz'l describes some of the vast symbolism in
the design of the High Priest's robe. The robe was blue, just like
the blue of tzitzit. Chazal say that the blue of tzitzit reminds
one of the sea, which is reminiscent of the sky, which in turn
reminds one of Hashem's throne. Hopefully, this reminds one of
Hashem's judgment and discourages sin. It is noteworthy that, in
Chazal's words, lashon hara rises to Hashem's throne.
The Kohen Gadol's robe had a hem sewn on its "lip." This should
remind a person to keep his lips "sewn-up" as well. Attached to the
hem were alternating bells and silver pomegranates. This indicates
that there is a time for emitting sounds (e.g. during Torah study)
and a time for quiet. (Shmirat Halashon)
************************************
"And as for you, draw your brother Aharon near." (28:1)
The midrash relates that Moshe feared that Aharon would not be
worthy of the high priesthood because of his role in making the
golden calf. Therefore Hashem told Moshe, "Have no fear. I know
that his motives were pure. Because he saved the Jews from total
depravity, he alone will rule over My house."
Rav Elya Meir Bloch zatz'l asks: Don't we learn in other midrashim
that Aharon was punished for his role? Yes, says Rav Bloch. From
here we learn an important lesson: A person can be both rewarded and
punished for the very same action. On the one hand, Aharon must be
rewarded for saving the Jewish people from greater sin. On the other
hand, had he tried even harder, he would have succeeded in entirely
preventing the golden calf from being constructed.
(Peninei Da'at)
************************************
". . . engrave the two stones on the names of Bnei Yisrael."
(28:11)
The verse does not say (as one might expect), "Engrave the names
of Bnei Yisrael on the stones," but rather the other way around.
What does this mean?
Rav Mendel Kaplan zatz'l explained, "From here we see that the
Jewish people has a reality and permanence greater than that of
stone. The Torah phrases it in this way because the Torah defines
reality.
"For example, you can talk to a masechta (Talmudic tractate) the
way you talk to a person," says Rav Mendel. "Thus we find that Rabbi
Yossi said, 'How fortunate you are, Masechta Keilim, because you
started with the laws of impurity and you finished with the laws of
purity.' During the time of the gemara, a masechta once came to a
person's funeral in the form of a person. Of course, not everyone
was on the level to see this."
(from the biography Reb Mendel and His Wisdom)
************************************
"Aharon shall carry the names of Bnei Yisrael on the Breastplate
of Judgment, on his heart, when he enters the sanctuary, as a
constant remembrance before Hashem. Into the Breastplate of Judgment
you shall place the Urim V'tumim, and they shall be on Aharon's heart
when he comes before Hashem; and Aharon shall bear the judgment of
Bnei Yisrael on his heart constantly before Hashem." (28:29-30)
These verses stress the importance of one's heart in serving
Hashem, says Rav Meir Rubman zatz'l. Just as one can be ill, but
the illness is not serious if it does not touch his vital organs,
so there are spiritual illnesses which are more serious than others.
For example, as evil as laziness is, it is not a cause for excessive
concern; however, if one's heart is distant from Hashem, that is a
sign of real trouble.
Mishlei (4:23) says, "From everything, guard your heart." This
teaches that whatever a person's problems are, the feelings in his
heart require the most watching over.
(Zichron Meir)
************************************
"And a tenth-ephah of fine flour mixed with a quarter-hin beaten
oil." (29:40)
Rashi comments: 'beaten' oil-is not mentioned as a requirement,
but as an option, lest we think that it is prohibited."
Why would we think that such oil is prohibited on a flour
offering? asks Rav Shmuel of Sochatchov zatz'l. He explains as
follows:
The Avnei Nezer (his father; see his biography on page 4) taught
that the menorah requires pure, beaten oil because it symbolizes the
purity of mind which is requires for Torah study. Contrast this,
says Rav Shmuel, with the level of one who brings sacrifices. The
midrash says that Hashem does not desire animal sacrifices from
angels. Such sacrifices, Rav Shmuel explains, are a form of
subjugating one's material nature; thus they are necessary when one
worships Hashem as a servant. (Note the similarty between the words
"eved"-"servant"-and "avodah"-"sacrificial service.") However, if
one is pure and worships Hashem as a son (or if one is as pure as
an angel), there is no need for animal sacrifices.
Based on the above, one might think that serving Hashem through
Torah study and serving Him through sacrifices are mutually
exclusive. Thus, one would assume that the pure oil which is
symbolic of Torah study has no place on sacrifices. Therefore, our
verse teaches that every Jew has a need for both types of service.
(Shem Mishmuel)
************************************
Rav Avraham Bornstein
born 5599 (1839) - died 11 Adar I 5670 (1910)
Rav Avraham Bornstein was a chassidic rebbe who was one of the
leading halachic authorities of the 19th century. His works
She'eilot U'teshuvot Avnei Nezer (responsa) and Eglei Tal (laws of
Shabbat--the gematria of "Tal"--39-- is the number of labors
prohibited on Shabbat) are popular classics.
Rav Avraham was the son-in-law of Rav Mendel, the "Kotzker Rebbe,"
and he followed in his father-in-law's ways. This included allowing
only a small number of chassidim to become close to him and
constantly pushing his chassidim to greater levels of commitment to
Torah study. Chassidim who called upon him were expected to share
their Torah thoughts with him, and he insisted on personally heading
a yeshiva despite the objections of his followers (who presumably
wanted him to devote his full time to them).
Rav Avraham's style in learning--directed towards ascertaining
the practical halachic conclusions of the subject--was also learned
from his father-in-law. His lectures in his yeshiva lasted six to
eight hours, often starting at midnight and continuing until morning,
except for a 15-minute break when he napped.
One of Rav Avraham's best known teachings is found in his
introduction Eglei Tal. There he asserts that not only is learning
Torah a mitzvah, but also enjoying that learning is a mitzvah. (Some
say that if one enjoys learning, his motivation is improper.)
Some of Rav Avraham's teachings on Chumash and chassidic thought
have been published in a work entitled Neot Desheh. Also, he is
frequently quoted in his son's work Shem Mishmuel, one of the most
popular chassidic works of this century. (See inside.) His son,
Rav Shmuel of Sochatchov, also edited Rav Avraham's seven volumes
of responsa, Avnei Nezer.
|
| 989.391 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Ki Tisah | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Feb 15 1995 19:04 | 155 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Ki Tisah
Vol. IX, No. 21 (405), 18 Adar I 5755, February 18, 1995
In this week's parashah we continue to read about the construction
of the mishkan and its utensils. In addition, we read about the sin
of the Golden Calf. (It is interesting to note that the story of
the Golden Calf is in the aliyah which is reserved for a levi. The
levi'im were the only group which did not participate in the sin.)
The construction of the mishkan "continues" in next week's
parashah. Why is the Golden Calf sandwiched between two sections
dealing with the mishkan instead of before or after? asks Rav Mendel
Kaplan zatz'l. He explains as follows:
People commonly wonder why Rosh Hashanah --the day of judgment--
precedes Yom Kippur--the day for reflection and repentance.
Shouldn't repentance precede judgment? Rav Kaplan answers that we
cannot reflect on our sins unless the fear of judgment has been
instilled in us. Without this fear we might only remember how much
we enjoyed our sins. Clearly there would be no repentance in such
a case.
Similarly, when we read of the Golden Calf, we are apt to wonder
what the attraction to idolatry was, and we may be harmed by these
thoughts. By sandwiching the story between two parts of the
mishkan's construction, the Torah first lays a foundation of lofty
thoughts before the story and then "distracts" us and elevates our
thoughts after the story. (from the biography Reb Mendel and His
Wisdom)
************************************
"When you take a census [literally: 'lift the heads'] of Bnei
Yisrael according to their numbers each man shall give Hashem an
atonement for his soul. . ." (30:12)
There are two paths to repentance, says Rav Baruch Hager zatz'l
of Seret-Vizhnitz. One is that man is persecuted by an evil ruler
like Haman who drives him back to Hashem. The other is that Hashem
showers man with kindness and draws him closer by causing him to feel
that he is unworthy of all that has been done for him.
Clearly the latter is preferable to the former. This is the
meaning of the verse, "When you lift the heads of Bnei Yisrael
according to their numbers"--i.e., when Hashem gives each man all
that he lacks--"each man shall give Hashem an atonement for his
soul."
(quoted in Kedosh Yisrael)
************************************
While Moshe was still on Har Sinai, Hashem told him that Bnei
Yisrael had constructed an idol. Nevertheless, Moshe took the luchot
(tablets) with him and descended from the mountain. Only when Moshe
saw the people dancing around the Golden Calf did he break the
luchot. Why?
Rav Zalman Sorotzkin zatz'l explains that Moshe carried the luchot
down from Har Sinai because he assumed that it was not too late to
rehabilitate the people. However, when Moshe arrived at the camp
he saw that thousands of people were dancing around the idol. They
could not be saved. Moreover, the vast majority of the Jewish people
were standing passively on the sidelines, not sinning actively, but
acting as if compromise with the sinners was possible. It was for
them that Moshe broke the luchot. It was to shake them out of their
complacency and to drive home that there is no compromising between
the Torah and a golden calf.
(quoted in Seasons of the Soul)
************************************
"He said, 'I shall make all My goodness pass before you, and I
shall call out with the Name Hashem before you. . ." (33:19)
Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik zatz'l explains, based on Rambam, that
"all My goodness" refers to showing Moshe all of creation. Hashem
told Moshe, "I will show you everything that man can possibly
fathom." Rav Soloveitchik calls this the wisdom of the mind.
"Nevertheless," Hashem told Moshe, "knowing creation is not the
end in itself. Rather, man must know to "call out with the Name
Hashem." Rav Soloveitchik calls this the wisdom of the heart.
The failure of modern society, says Rav Soloveitchik, is the gap
between these two wisdoms. The wisdom of the mind is utilitarian.
Thus, for example, it has no use for aged parents and does not care
for them. The wisdom of the mind also cannot make distinctions which
are not tangible--it cannot recognize the difference between Shabbat
and the other six days of the week nor between Eretz Yisrael and any
other plot of land.
The wisdom of the heart is able to accept distinctions which it
cannot see. This characteristic is found primarily in children, says
Rav Soloveitchik, and it goes hand-in-hand with innocence
("temimut"). Adults should try to maintain this childlike quality.
Also, a child appreciates his parents because they give him
stability. Unlike many adults in our mobile society, a child
instinctively understands the need to maintain a link to his roots.
The above ideas are reflected in halachah, says Rav Soloveitchik.
The law is that a plant which is still rooted in the ground is not
defiled by contact with tum'ah. It is only when one's roots are
severed that he is at risk of becoming defiled.
(Yemei Zikaron p.115)
************************************
Rav Shmuel Engel zatz'l
born Rosh Chodesh Iyar 5618 (1858) - died 19 Adar I 5695 (1935)
Rav Shmuel Engel was a leading Galician posek of the period
between the World Wars. In particular, he addressed numerous
questions relating to agunot, and his rulings generally were upheld
by his contemporaries. Rav Shmuel's responsa were published in eight
volumes between 1905 and 1958.
Rav Shmuel's father passed away when young Shmuel was six years
old. Shmuel's mother, Esther, took the young boy to Rav Chaim of
Sanz, who told him, "I will give you three pieces of advice: Do not
study the vernacular [Polish], always pray from a siddur [rather than
by heart], and always listen to your mother. King Shlomo was deemed
worthy of kingship because he listened to his mother."
Rav Shmuel was given the same description as the tanna, Rabbi
Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, i.e., "a cemented cistern which does not lose
one drop [of what he has learned]." At 20, he was chosen as rabbi
of Bilgoraj. He later served as rabbi of Dukla and Radomsyl, after
which he is known.
In Siftei Maharash, Rav Shmuel comments on the following verse
in this week's parashah (31:13): "However, you must observe My
Sabbaths, for it is a sign between Me and you for your generations."
He explains that from this verse we can understand why saving a life
takes precedence over keeping Shabbat. [In Chazal's words. "It is
better to skip one Shabbat than to miss all future ones."] The
explanation is as follows:
The midrash says that every day has a match (e.g., Sunday-
Wednesday; Monday-Thursday; etc.), but Shabbat's match is the Jewish
people. Rav Engel explains that just as Man and Woman each has the
inherent ability to produce offspring but there will be no offspring
without a union of the two, so Shabbat and Bnei Yisrael each cannot
display its intrinsic holiness without the other.
In the Torah, the expression "However" always expresses
limitation. The phrase, "However, you must observe My Sabbaths,"
means that there is a limit; some Sabbaths are not observed, i.e.,
when a Jew's life is endangered. Why? Because, "it is a sign
between Me and you for your generations," i.e., Shabbat is only an
effective sign of creation when the Jews observe it. Clearly then,
one's connection to all future Shabbatot is too important to risk
for the sake of keeping one Shabbat.
|
| 989.392 | Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Tetzaveh | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Feb 19 1995 13:22 | 46 |
| "And they shall make a temple for me" [Shemot 25:8]
by Rabbi Yehudah Shaviv
As opposed to the explanation of the Midrash that we quoted last week, that
the mitzvah of building the Tabernacle was a response to the sin of the
Golden Calf, there are other sources with a completely different approach.
For example, the Midrash writes: "Rabbi Shmuel Bar Nachman says, before the
Temple was built, the world stood on a chair with only two legs. Once it
was built, the world stood on a solid foundation ... What was the source of
the wood for the beams? Yaacov planted trees when he arrived in Egypt. He
told his sons: My children, you will be redeemed from here, and the
Almighty will ask you to build him a Tabernacle" [Tanchuma, Terumah 9].
The idea is even more explicit in the following: "'It came to pass, on the
day that Moshe finished' [Bamidbar 7:1] -- Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi says,
the Almighty made a condition with Bnei Yisrael in Egypt, that he would not
redeem them unless they built a Tabernacle, so that the Shechinah could
rest among them" [Tanchuma, Nasso 22].
In other words, the Tabernacle is not a cure for the ills of the Golden
Calf, but something that was planned in advance. According to this
reasoning, the passages appear in the Torah in the correct sequence,
following the original plan of redemption: leaving Egypt; splitting of the
Reed Sea; giving of the Torah; and finally, building the Tabernacle. The
incident of the calf interfered with the plans by causing a delay in
building the Tabernacle, until after penitence and forgiveness.
The later commentators continued this disagreement from the Midrash. Rashi
feels that "the incident of the calf took place well before the command to
build the Tabernacle" [Shemot 31:18]. On the other hand, the Ramban writes
at the beginning of Vayakhel that Moshe was commanded about the Tabernacle
before he shattered the tablets.
The concept of a temple is in fact already mentioned in the epic poem at
the Reed Sea [Shirat Hayam]. Onkeles translates "This is my G-d, and I will
beautify Him" [Shemot 15:2] with the phrase "I will build Him a temple." It
is also mentioned explicitly in a later passage, "the Temple -- G-d, your
hands have built it" [Shemot 15:17]. It may be that if Bnei Yisrael had not
sinned, the Tabernacle would have been built voluntarily, as hinted in
Shirat Hayam. After they committed the sin, it was transformed into a
mitzvah. When they showed that they were willing to contribute to building
a calf, leading to the terrible sin of idol worship, it was necessary to
establish positive objectives for their volunteer spirit. Once Bnei Yisrael
showed an attraction to holiness, it was absolutely necessary to provide
them with a positive outlet.
|
| 989.393 | P * A * R * A * S * H * A - P * A * G * E Parshat Tetzaveh 5755 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Feb 19 1995 13:24 | 192 |
| Produced by Mordecai Kornfeld
Edited by Yakov Blinder
Parshat Tetzaveh 5755
I will sanctify the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and I will
sanctify Aharon and his sons to serve Me. I will dwell in the
midst of the Bnai Yisroel, and I will be their G-d....
Make an altar for burning incense....
(Sh'mot 29:43-44; 30:1)
When Hashem commanded Moshe to build the Mishkan (=Tabernacle) and all
its furnishings (Sh'mot 25-27), a very specific and logical order is
followed. The commands begin with the innermost article of the Tabernacle,
the Ark, which was situated in the Holy of Holies, and proceed to the
Menorah (the Golden Candelabra) and bread-table, situated in the anteroom
of the Mishkan building. The Torah continues with a description of the
outer altar, which was to be found in the courtyard of the Mishkan, and
after this the construction of the Mishkan itself is detailed, followed by
the instructions for enclosing the outer courtyard. Next, the priestly
clothes are described, and then the sacrifices of the inauguration ritual
are stipulated.
There is one glaring exception to this otherwise perfect pattern --
the command to make the incense altar. The incense altar is first
mentioned only after we are given the description of the entire Mishkan
edifice, all its furnishings and the details of the Kohanim's vestments.
Even the inauguration ritual is described before any mention of the incense
altar. We would have expected this altar, which was situated in the
anteroom along with the Menorah and bread-table, to have been described
along with these articles. What is the significance of the Torah's peculiar
positioning of the description of this altar? Why is it presented as though
in an afterthought?
This question is addressed by the early commentators, such as Ibn Ezra
(Shmot 25:22) and Ramban (Shmot 30:1). Based on their words, Rav Ovadiah
Sforno (c. 1300 C.E.) in his commentary to Shmot 25:23 and 30:1 presents
the following answer to our question (I present his answer here in my own
words):
II
In truth, the entire concept of building a Mishkan to "house" Hashem,
as it were, needs to be examined. As Shlomo noted in his inaugural prayer
upon the occasion of the dedication of his Temple, "Behold, the heavens and
the highest heavens cannot contain You, and certainly not this house!"
What, then, is the idea of building a "house" for Hashem (for that is what
the Temple is called throughout Tanach -- "Hashem's House")?
The concept can be understood in the following manner. We, as human
beings living in a physical world, find it difficult to internalize
concepts that are completely ethereal and abstract. We are able to relate
to them much more seriously if we see some physical representation of them.
Through such a tangible representation, we can visualize the concept as
something more concrete, and better relate to it emotionally and
intellectually. Seeing a skull and crossbones, for instance, has a much
stronger effect on a person than seeing the word "Poison". Reading of a
bomb-blast in the newspaper cannot be compared to actually hearing one, or
seeing its debris.
The building of a splendid Temple, which resembles in its external
details a house which might be prepared for a great earthly king, is
intended to impart to us the idea that Hashem's presence resides here on
earth among men. This idea would otherwise be quite difficult for us to
fully appreciate emotionally and perceptually. The Mishkan "concretizes"
our perception of the presence of Hashem. This stronger realization of the
presence of our Creator, which comes from seeing the glory of the Holy
Temple, is what is referred to as "Veshachanti Betocham" (Shmot 29:44), or
"Hashra'at HaShechina", the dwelling of the Divine Presence among us. (See
also Chinuch, Mitzvah #95.)
The Sforno uses this idea to explain the particular furnishings that
were placed in the Mishkan, and later in the Temple. We read in II
Melachim (4:9) that the woman who often hosted the prophet Elisha said to
her husband, "Behold ... the holy prophet passes by us regularly. Let us
make him a ... room ... and place there a bed, a table, a chair and a
candelabra." When preparing a room for an important, holy person, then, we
see that the furnishings that are expected are a bed, table, chair and
lamp. When the B'nei Yisrael built the Mishkan, which, as explained
earlier, was intended to be patterned after a palace built for royalty,
they were to include the same basic items. The Ark, the Sforno says,
resembled a chair, and to this were added a table and a candelabra, to
prepare a room for a royal guest! (Making a bed would be totally
inappropriate, however, because a bed is not prepared *in honor* of a royal
guest, but for his *use* -- for sleeping on. There is no place for such an
article in Hashem's "house," even on a totally symbolic level, because "the
Guardian of Israel neither sleeps nor slumbers." -MK)
The inclusion of these articles in the Mishkan was thus intended to
produce a realization of Hashem's presence, by preparing a "room" for the
most exalted King. The incense altar, however, is not one of the objects
normally used when setting up a room for a king, and is thus not a part of
the preparations made to bring about a "dwelling of the Shechinah." What
then was the purpose of the altar? Once the king comes to visit, it is
important for his host to have the proper frame of mind which is suitable
for the presence of such an exalted guest. He dare not act or think in his
ordinary, day-to-day manner, but must feel the importance and magnitude of
the special situation he is dealing with. The incense, which was an
extremely sweet-smelling fragrance, was designed to bring out a special
feeling of love and dedication for the Divine "Guest." In short, the other
articles of the Mishkan were intended to *bring about* the dwelling of the
Divine Presence on earth, while the intent of the altar was to *act upon*
this Divine Presence once it was already there, to ensure that we are
actually affected and moved by this Presence.
Thus, it is only after the construction of the Mishkan was described
and the sacrifices of the inauguration were outlined, after we are told
that Hashem will dwell in our midst, that the command comes for the
building of the incense altar. Thus, explains the Sforno, it is only after
the Shechinah is brought to dwell in its "house" that it is appropriate to
proceed to the next step -- how to react to that Presence!
It may be added that support for Sforno's comparison between the
furnishings of the Mishkan and the furnishings used in the preparation of
Elisha's room may be found in the Gemara. In Berachot 10b the Gemara
describes the thrust of the prayers of the deathly ill King Chizkiyahu (II
Melachim 20:2). "You revived the son of the woman of Shunem because his
mother prepared a furnished room for Elisha," said Chizkiyahu. "How much
more so should You heal me, because my ancestor Shlomo built an entire
Temple with furnishings for You!"
III
Another answer altogether to our original question -- why the Torah
seemingly "misplaces" the description of the altar -- is suggested by the
Chidah in his Nachal Kedumim, in the name of Rav Moshe Galanti.
In Zevachim 59a we learn that the daily incense service of the Temple
may be performed even in the absence of the incense altar. The incense
would simply be burned on the floor of the Temple Sanctuary, on the spot
where the altar was supposed to be located. This is not true of the large
external altar situated in the courtyard of the Temple, however. In that
case, even if there was a small chip in the altar's body no sacrifices were
allowed to be offered on it. Similarly, if there is no bread-table it is
not permissible to bring the breads that were normally placed on the table
and lay them on the floor in the place where the table should stand. The
candles, too, may not be lit on the floor in the absence of a Menorah, and
it is absurd to think that the Tablets of the Ten Commandments could be
left on the floor if the Ark would not be present. Every article of the
Mishkan had a function, and this function could not be carried out at all
in the absence of that article. The only exception to this is the incense
altar, which, as noted above, was not absolutely necessary for the burning
of the incense.
This, proposes R. Moshe Galanti, is why the description of the incense
altar is presented almost as an afterthought. The incense altar was only an
"extra," in the sense that its functional purpose was not imperative. It
does not belong together with the other articles of the Mishkan, which were
necessary for the functioning of the Mishkan!(See also Aderet Eliahu,
Meshech Chochmah, Maharil Diskin and others, who pursue a similar line of
reasoning in answer to our question.)
IV
I once heard another intriguing answer to this question from HaGaon
Rav Leib Heiman, rabbi of the Bayit Vegan section of Jerusalem.
It is a well-known bit of trivia that the Parasha of Tetzaveh is the
only one in the Torah (after the birth of Moshe) that does not mention
Moshe's name at least once. (See Baal HaTurim at the beginning of the
Parasha, and Pa'aneach Raza.) Rashi (Sh'mot 6:26) tells us that Moshe and
Aharon were both considered to be on an equal level. It may be suggested
that it was the merits of both brothers that were responsible for bringing
the Shechinah to dwell in the Mishkan. Perhaps, in order to illustrate this
joint merit of theirs, we split up the description of the Mishkan and its
functions into two reading-portions. The first is Terumah, which discusses
the Mishkan building and its associated furnishings. This was Moshe's share
in the Mishkan, for Moshe too administered the sacrifices and served in the
Mishkan until Aharon's initiation ceremony was complete (Rashi Vayikra
8:28). The second portion is Tetzaveh, which is devoted to a description
of the priestly vestments. These were never worn by anyone but Aharon and
his descendants ( --Moshe wore a simple white linen robe when he performed
the sacrifices mentioned above, Rashi ibid.). Thus, in order to stress the
contribution of Aharon to the bringing of the Divine Presence to the
Mishkan, the Parasha of Tetzaveh is dedicated exclusively to him, and there
is no mention whatsoever of his more renowned brother!
In Avot 4:13 we learn that there are three "crowns" (i.e. three
sources of honor and praise) in the world -- the crown of Torah, the crown
of Kingship and the crown of Priesthood (Kehunnah). Rashi (in Sh'mot
25:21,24 and 30:3) points out that these three crowns are represented in
the Mishkan by the three articles which had a raised golden
border-decoration on them. The raised border around the top of the Holy
Ark represents the crown of Torah, that on the bread-table represents the
crown of Kingship, and that on the incense altar represents the crown of
Priesthood.
Moshe was considered to be a "king" over the Bnai Yisroel (Zevachim
102a; see also Devarim 33:5 -- "There was a king in Yeshurun" and Ibn Ezra
ad loc., and B'reishit 36:31 and Rashbam ad loc.). The crown of Kingship
was his, as was, obviously, the crown of Torah. The two objects that
symbolize these crowns -- the table and the Ark -- are thus mentioned in
"Moshe's Parasha" -- Parashat Terumah. The crown of Priesthood, however,
belonged to Aharon alone (it too was originally supposed to be taken by
Moshe, but he lost the right to it -- see Parasha-Page, Sh'mot 5755).
Therefore, the incense altar ,which represents the crown of Priesthood, was
not discussed until "his Parasha" -- namely, Tetzaveh! This, then, may be
why the Torah did not describe the incense altar in Parashat Teruma, which
would seem to be its proper place.
__________________________________________________________________________
To receive the weekly Parasha-Page, write to:
listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
and put in as your message body the following line *only*:
sub parasha-page [Your full name]
Mordecai Kornfeld | Yeshivat Ohr Yerushalayim| Tel: 02-522633
6/12 Katzenelenbogen St. | D.N. Harei Yehuda | Fax: 02-341589
Har Nof, Jerusalem, 93871 | Moshav Beit Meir, Israel | US:718 5208526
|
| 989.394 | Parsha Q&A - Ki Sisa | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Feb 19 1995 13:26 | 162 |
| * PARSHA Q&A *
In-Depth Questions on the Parsha and Rashi's commentary.
Parshas Ki Sisa
For the week ending 18 Adar Rishon 5755
17 & 18 February 1995
==========================================================================
Parsha Questions
1. How was the census taken?
2. What were the three different types of terumah donated?
3. List two times when the Jewish People were counted.
4. Kings were annointed with oil that was poured on their heads in the
shape of what object?
5. How many ingredients comprise the incense of the Mishkan?
6. What is the difference between chochma (wisdom), bina (understanding),
and da'as (knowledge)?
7. Shabbos is "a sign" (31:13). What does it signify?
8. What is the penalty for violating Shabbos if the witnesses do not warn
the violator?
9. Why did Aaron build the altar for the golden calf by himself?
10. Who were the "mixed multitude"?
11. Why did Hashem tell Moshe, "Let Me alone...and I will consume them"
(32:10)?
12. Why did Moshe break the Tablets?
13. How can two brothers belong to two different tribes?
14. Rather than wipe out the Jewish People for the sin of the golden calf,
Hashem agreed to punish them gradually. How did this affect the Jewish
People throughout history?
15. What is a textual source for referring to "travel to Israel" as
"Aliyah"?
16. In verse 33:2, Hashem says that the inhabitants of Eretz Canaan would be
driven out of the Land. In that verse, only six of the seven Canaanite
nations are mentioned. What happened to the seventh?
17. Which events took place on these dates: a) 17 Tamuz; b) 18 Tamuz;
c) 19 Tamuz; d) 1 Elul; e) 10 Tishrei; f) 1 Nisan?
18. How did Hashem show that He forgave the Jewish People?
19. Why is Hashem "slow to anger"?
20. How many times is the ban on meat and milk mentioned, and why?
Bonus QUESTION:
Even though the Torah generally calls a person by his name and the name of
his father, the Torah calls Betzalel after his father's and grandfather's
names (31:2). Why?
I Did Not Know That!
"My Shabbos you shall keep...And you shall keep my Shabbos..." (31:13-14)
The double commandment "keep my Shabbos" teaches that we should add to the
Shabbos day a little in the beginning and a little at the end.
Rabbenu Bachai
=========================================================================
Answers to this Week's Questions
All references are to the verses and Rashi's commentary, unless otherwise
stated
1. 30:12 - Through the donation of a half-shekel per person.
2. 30:15 - For the Adanim (sockets), for the purchase of communal
sacrifices, and for the building of the Mishkan.
3. 30:16 - After Yom Kippur of the first year, and in Iyar of the second
year.
4. 30:26 - In the shape of a crown.
5. 30:34 - Eleven ingredients were used making the incense.
6. 31:3 - Chochma is knowledge acquired from others. Bina is the deduction
of new knowledge from what one has already learned. Da'as is holy
inspiration.
7. 31:13 - It is a sign between Hashem and the Jewish People that He has
chosen them and a sign to the nations of the world that He has
sanctified the Jewish People.
8. 31:14 - Kares (excision).
9. 32:5 - He hoped that by building it by himself it would take longer and
in the interim Moshe would return.
10. 32:7 - The non-Jews who came out of Egypt, who Moshe accepted and
converted.
11. 32:10 - To hint to Moshe that if he would intercede on behalf of the
Jewish People, Hashem would not consume them.
12. 32:19 - Moshe reasoned: If the Torah did not permit those who have
estranged themselves from the Torah to partake in even a single
commandment (Pesach sacrifice), surely the entire Torah cannot be given
to a whole nation who has estranged itself from Hashem!
13. 32:27 - Half-brothers, sharing the same mother.
14. 32:34 - Whenever Hashem punished the Jewish People, part of that
punishment comes as payment for the sin of the golden calf.
15. 33:1 - The words "lech aleh" (depart and go up).
16. 33:2 - The seventh nation, the Girgashites, voluntarily emigrated.
17. 33:11 - a) Moshe came down from Har Sinai and broke the Tablets.
b) Moshe burned the golden calf and punished the offenders.
c) Moshe went up a second time to Har Sinai.
d) Moshe went up a third time to Har Sinai.
e) Hashem forgave the Jewish people and gave Moshe the Second Tablets.
f) The Mishkan was completed.
18. 33:14 - He agreed to let His Shechina dwell among them.
19. 34:6 - To give the sinner a chance to repent.
20. 34:26 - Three times -- to prohibit eating, deriving benefit and cooking.
Bonus ANSWER:
Betzalel's grandfather was Chur, the son of Miriam and Kalev. Chur was
killed when he protested the making of the golden calf. Since the Mishkan
comes to atone for the sin of the golden calf, Chur, who gave his life
trying to prevent that sin, is mentioned in connection with the Mishkan.
Da'as Zekainim
===========================================================================
What do you do with Parsha Q&A?
Barbara S. Schur, of Sarasota, Florida writes:
"Thank you for making these various writings available to us.
your Torah Weekly and Parasha Q&A help my husband and me
better understand the weekly portion. We study the Parasha and quiz
each other with the Q&A.
Many thanks."
What do you do with Parsha Q&A? Fax, E-mail, post, even Fedex your
responses -- we'll share them with all the Q&A readers!
============================================================================
Are you subscribed to the OS-SPECIAL list?
If you were, then you would have just received this month's publication:
-> REB SIMCHA SPEAKS <-
-> An Authorized Biography of Rabbi Simcha Wasserman, zt''l <-
-> Chapter 3 - Child-Raising And Education <-
-> By Yaakov Branfman and Akiva Tatz <-
About once a month, subscribers to the OS-SPECIAL list are sent interesting
-- sometimes provocative -- publications, like the above. In just a few
weeks, another OS-SPECIAL publication will be sent for PURIM -- if you are
a subscriber, you'll be able to get it without delay, and without having to
search the InterNet for it!
To subscribe, just send the message "sub os-special {your full name}"
to "listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il"
For those of you that didn't get Reb Simcha Speaks, there is still another
way to see it. You'll find it on the Jerusalem1 Gopher, and on Compuserve
in the Religion Forum in the Judaism Library (#3).
============================================================================
** Spend This Coming Summer Break In Israel For As Little As $599 **
** (including airfare from New York) **
** JLE Israel Summer Seminar '95 - June 14th through August 8th **
** **
** For information: send E-Mail to Rabbi Zalman Corlin: RZCorlin@aol.com **
** or call 800-431-2272 / 212-213-3100 **
============================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for Parsha Q&A
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Eliyahu Kane
Production Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
Production Design: Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
(C) 1995 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 989.395 | Shabbat-B'Shabbato -- Parshat Ki Tissa | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Feb 19 1995 13:28 | 54 |
| THE GOLDEN CALF AND ERETZ YISRAEL
by Rabbi Ratzon Arussi
Eretz Yisrael, the land of Israel, is central to three aspects of the sin
of the Golden Calf: it is connected to the cause, it is part of Moshe's
prayers, and it is linked to the eventual forgiveness. This is explained in
more detail below.
(1) Moshe's prayers -- Moshe did not accept G-d's proposal to destroy the
nation and create a new one descended from him, he did not stop his efforts
until G-d forgave the people. Moshe made two claims in his prayers, both
connected to the land. First, destroying the nation would be a failure to
achieve the objective of redemption, which was to bring them to Eretz
Yisrael. This in turn would be breaking the promise to the forefathers,
that their offspring would multiply and inherit the land, as is written:
"The fourth generation will return here" [Breishit 16:17]. But if the
people were destroyed the covenant would be fulfilled with Moshe's
offspring and not with the entire nation [Sforno, Shemot 32:63].
Second, destroying the nation in the desert would cause a desecration of
the Holy Name: "Why should Egypt be able to say that You redeemed them with
evil intent, to kill them in the mountains and annihilate them" [Shemot
32:12]. The Egyptians would impart evil intentions to G-d, thinking that He
had planned their destruction from the beginning. Worse yet, they would
say, "Because He was not able to bring them to the land He promised, and
because of His hate for them, he redeemed them to kill them in the desert"
[Devarim 9:28].
(2) In the act of forgiveness -- When He yielded to Moshe, the Almighty
said, "Now go and lead the nation to the place about which I spoke to you"
[Shemot 32:34]; according to the Rashbam, this refers to Eretz Yisrael.
However, "My messenger will go before you" [32:34]. But the nation mourned
when they heard this, and Moshe returned to G-d, to pray: "If I have found
favor in Your eyes, let G-d go within us" [34:9], to Eretz Yisrael.
(3) Finally, the cause of the sin -- It would seem clear that if the land
was central to the prayers and the forgiveness, it must have been one of
the causes of the evil. When Moshe was late in returning from Sinai, the
people said: "This man Moshe, the one who took us out of Egypt: we do not
know what has happened to him" [32:1]. The Midrash quotes Rabbi Zachai:
"They saw Moshe hanging in the air, and said, even if he descends, we can
not depend on him any more."
It would seem that the sinners disagreed with Moshe's Torah approach; Moshe
took them out of Egypt in order to bring them into Eretz Yisrael, but how
could they depend on one who was so far away from worldly matters? They
were therefore willing to replace their honor by "a grass-eating bull"
[Tehillim 106:20], that is, they considered material needs as central to
existence, and raised the ethic of work to a level of holiness. According
to the Midrash, the Golden Calf had the head of a bull and the tail of a
donkey [Yalkut Reuveni, Ki Teitzei]. Such a calf must be destroyed, to
return our life in Eretz Yisrael to its true values of Torah, labor, the
Almighty, and His land.
|
| 989.396 | P * A * R * A * S * H * A - P * A * G * E: Parshat Ki-Tissa 5755 | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Feb 19 1995 13:30 | 253 |
| The Weekly Internet
P * A * R * A * S * H * A - P * A * G * E
--- ---
Produced by Mordecai Kornfeld
Edited by Yakov Blinder
==================================================
This week's issue is dedicated to the memory of the previous
Manostrishtcher Rebbe, Hagaon Rav Yitzchak Yoel Rabinowitz. His softspoken
manner and wise advice served as a lesson in tolerance and love.
*** If you would like to dedicate a future issue of Parasha-Page, and
support its world-wide (literally!) dissemination of Torah, please
contact me at: yoy@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il ***
==================================================
Parshat Ki Tissa 5755
The two Tablets of Testimony were in Moshe's hands when he came
down from the mountain, and although Moshe did not realize it,
the skin of his face shone after Hashem had spoken to him.
Aharon and all Bnai Yisroel looked at Moshe and saw that the
skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to approach him...
and [Moshe] put a mask on his face.
(Sh'mot 34:29-30,33)
After Moshe finished writing the Torah, there was a small amount
of ink left over in the pen. Hashem dabbed the ink onto Moshe's
head, and it was from this ink that Moshe's radiance stemmed.
(Yalkut Shimoni #407)
The Midrash in the Yalkut associates a drop of ink leftover from
the writing of the Torah, with Moshe Rabbeinu's radiance. The Midrash
obviously requires some added explanation. What is the meaning of
identifying this ink as being the cause of Moshe's radiance? Also, why
was there any extra ink -- couldn't Hashem have apportioned the exact
amount of ink necessary?
The Beit Halevi (Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik the first, c. 1900,
in Drush #18, printed after section 2 of his responsa) offers a
striking, compelling explanation for what the deeper meaning of the
Midrash is.
II
There is another Midrash that the Beit Halevi quotes to
introduce his explanation.
When Hashem gave the Torah, He revealed to Moshe the Biblical
text (i.e., the Written Law), the Mishnah (the Oral Law), the
Aggadah and the Talmud (explanations for the laws given in the
Mishnah) -- as it says (Sh'mot 20:1), "G-d spoke *all* these
words, saying...." This includes even questions that would one
day be brought up for discussion by students before their
teachers. Hashem then told Moshe, "Now, go and teach it to Bnai
Yisroel!" Moshe said to Him, "Why don't You write it down for
them?" He answered, I would have liked to have the Oral Law
committed to writing as well, but I know that the Bnai Yisroel
will eventually be subjugated by the nations of the world and
that their enemies will take away the Written Torah from them
and appropriate it for themselves (as in the times of Ptolemy --
see Megilla 9a). If everything were to be written down, the
nations of the world would take the entire Torah from the Bnai
Yisroel, and then My children would be just like the other
nations. Therefore, the text of the Torah will be committed to
writing, but the rest of the Law will be transmitted orally, so
that the Bnai Yisroel will always be unique from the other
nations.
(Yalkut Shimoni #405 -- see also
Tosafot, Gittin 60b)
The Midrash tells us that the only reason the Oral Law was not
written down is to ensure the enduring uniqueness of the Bnai Yisroel.
The Beit Halevi poses a question against this assertion from a
statement in the Gemara (Eruvin 54a). The Gemara says that if the
first Tablets had never been broken (i.e, if the sin of the Golden Calf
had never taken place) no nation would have been able to exercise any
dominion over the Bnai Yisroel -- they would have been invincible. The
Gemara proves this point from the Pasuk in Sh'mot (32: 16), which
relates that "[the writing] on the Tablets was engraved ('Harut')". An
exegetic alteration of the Masoretic punctuation of the verse renders
it, "[the writing] on the Tablets was able to bring freedom ('Herut')."
At the time the Torah was originally given the Tablets had obviously
not been broken yet, and it was hence not yet in Israel's destiny to
become subjugated by the nations of the world. What, then was the
reason that Hashem did not write down the Oral Law? The reason given
in the Yalkut -- namely, that when the Bnai Yisroel would become
subjugated they would lose their uniqueness if everything were in
writing -- should not have applied!
It must be, concludes the Beit Halevi, that the first Tablets
did indeed contain the entire body of Torah Law, and not only the
Written Law! It is only in reference to the *second* set of Tablets --
the ones which were not broken -- that the Yalkut asserts that the Oral
Law was not written down. At the time of the writing of the second
Tablets it had already been decreed that Israel would be undergoing
subjugation by the nations!
It might be asked, how it is possible to imagine that the entire
body of Jewish Law -- Oral and Written -- was written on just two
Tablets. This is really not a difficulty, however, when we remember
that the Tablets were "the work of G-d" and the writing on them was
"the writing of G-d" [Sh'mot 16]. The entire matter of the the words
inscribed on the Tablets was miraculous, as the Gemara [Shabbat 104a]
points out (albeit in a different context.)
III
The Beit Halevi brings some convincing textual proofs for his
thesis that the first Tablets, unlike the second ones, contained much
more than just the "Ten Commandments."
In Devarim 9:10 we read (concerning the first Tablets), "Hashem
then gave to me the two stone Tablets that were Written by the finger
of G-d, and *upon them* were *all* of the words that Hashem had spoken
with you on the Mountain." It should be recalled that it is the use of
the word *all* that prompted the Yalkut to say that the entire body of
Torah -- Written and Oral -- was related to Moshe on Mount Sinai. If
so, we may similarly derive from the Pasuk in Devarim that the entire
Torah was *written* on the Tablets! The Gemara (Megillah 19b) does, in
fact, explain the word *all* in this verse as referring to *all*
sections of Jewish Law, right down to the later institution of the
reading of the Megillat Esther on Purim. Although the Gemara does not
specifically say that all of this was written down on the Tablets, such
a conclusion would seem inevitable, when the Gemara's words are seen in
the context of the Pasuk. The Pasuk is, after all, describing what
*appeared* on the Tablets. (A similar D'rush on this verse can be found
in the Yerushalmi Pe'ah 2:1.)
In reference to the second Tablets, however, the Torah repeats
several times that what was written on the Tablets was simply "the ten
utterances," -- see Shmot 34:28, Devarim 10:4. This description is
never given for the first Tablets. The first Tablets indeed had more on
them than the ten commandments, but the second ones were very different
in this respect. The later Tablets had nothing on them but the Ten
Commandments that were given to us on Mount Sinai.
Actually, the Beit Halevi was preceded in the above two
observations by the great Torah commentator HaK'tav VeHaKabbalah -
c. 1850 - to Devarim 10:4. We may further suggest that several more
indications may be shown to support the Beit Halevi's thesis.
In Sh'mot 24:12 we are told, in reference to the first Tablets,
"Hashem said to Moshe, `... I will give to you the ... Torah and the
commandments that I have written to direct them.' " The Gemara
(B'rachot 5a) says that this Pasuk implies that the entire body of
Jewish Law -- Torah text, Mishnah, Talmud, etc. was given to Moshe. Yet
the verse says, concerning the above words, "...that I have written,"
implying that this entire body was indeed committed to writing in the
first Tablets.
Also, in the Yalkut Shimoni (#405) we are taught that although
the first Tablets were written by the finger of Hashem (Shmot 31:18),
when Hashem gave the second Tablets, He told Moshe, "You write!" (Shmot
34:27). (NOTE: Although the Torah seems to state explicitly that
*Hashem* Himself recorded the ten commandments on the second Tablets,
and not Moshe -- see Shmot 34:1, Devarim 10:2 -- nevertheless, Moshe
apparently committed to writing the *remainder* of the written Torah on
parchment -- see Ramban to 34:28. The Yalkut here is apparently
referring to the this document. -MK.).
The Yalkut Shimoni, #392, points out another contrast between
the two sets of Tablets. The first Tablets were readable from both
sides and were "the work of G-d" (Shmot 32:15-16) -- the Tablets
themselves were of a miraculous nature. The second Tablets, on the
other hand, were hewn by Moshe himself from ordinary rock (Shmot 34:1).
Based on the Beit Halevi's thesis, the need for these
differences can be easily explained. The first Tablets, which containe
d
a vast amount of information, had to be made of a supernatural
substance, and had to be written in a miraculous handwriting. The
second Tablets, which contained only ten statements, could be written
on ordinary hewn stone, and Moshe himself could easily inscribe the
Written Law alone in his own hand. It was therefore unnecessary for
there to be miracles involved in the material and inscription of the
second Tablets!
IV
The Beit Halevi uses his thesis to explain the meaning of
another Midrash.
When Moshe saw the Bnai Yisroel sinning with the Golden Calf, he
looked at the Tablets and saw the words begin to fly off from
them. At that point the Tablets became heavy in his hands and
they fell down to the ground, shattering.
(Yalkut Shimoni #393)
Once the Bnai Yisroel sinned, their entire destiny changed. That
was the point in time at which it was decreed that they would one day
become subjugated to the nations of the world, as explained earlier. At
this time, then, it became impossible to have both components of the
Torah -- the Oral Law and the Written Law -- in writing. Thus Moshe saw
the words of the Oral Law "flying off" from the Tablets at this time.
Hashem had decided not to commit the Oral Torah to writing, and he
removed that part of the miraculous engraving from the miraculous
Tablets. These were the "words flying off" of the Tablets!
Moshe knew that it would be impossible for anyone to be able to
interpret the Written Torah properly without the guidance of the Oral
Law (and the idea of teaching the Oral Law Orally was not yet
introduced by Hashem). The Tablets "became heavy in his hands" -- that
is, he realized that it was no longer possible for them to be given as
an independent entity. Without the Oral Law to go with them, they would
be "too heavy to bear." This is what the Midrash means to say when it
relates that the Tablets became heavy in Moshe's hands, and fell to
the ground!
According to this Midrash, the Beit Halevi continues, we can
understand the expresion of the Torah in Sh'mot 34:1 and Devarim 10:2.
The Torah there says that what was written on the second Tablets was
that which was "written on the first Tablets *which you [Moshe]
broke*." Most of the material that had originally been engraved on the
first Tablets had already "flown off" as soon as the sin of the Golden
Calf took place. By the time Moshe broke these Tablets, there was
nothing left on them except for the "Ten Commandments." Only these ten
statements that were on the Tablets "when you broke them" were
reproduced on the second set of Tablets!
V
All this will now serve to enable us to understand the meaning
of the Midrash discussing the leftover ink that we started with (in
Part I). When it came time for Moshe to write the second set of
Tablets, he wanted to make a complete replica of the first Tablets --
that is, he wanted to put down in writing *all* aspects of the Torah --
Written and Oral. But Hashem explained to him that this was no longer
possible, as the Bnai Yisroel were now destined to be exiled among the
other nations, as the other Midrash (#405) mentions. This, explains the
Beit Halevi, is what is meant by there being "extra ink" which was left
over after Moshe finished writing the Torah. There was another section
of Torah which was left to be written, but yet could not be written!
The "extra ink" from this unwritten part of the Torah -- the
Oral Law -- was then dabbed onto Moshe's head. The Midrash (Shmot Rabba
41:6) tells us that Moshe struggled to learn the Torah for the entire
forty days that he was in heaven, but he could not succeed in mastering
it completely until Hashem gave it to him "as a gift." Hashem implanted
the ideas of the Torah into Moshe's mind so that they would be firmly
and clearly entrenched there, as symbolized by the smearing of the ink
of the Oral Torah on his head.
This "ink" -- the inculcation of the Oral Torah into Moshe's
mind -- was what caused Moshe's radiance. There was now no one in the
world who had access to the entire body of Torah Law except for Moshe,
for only he knew the secrets of the Oral Torah. It was this unique
position as personal bearer of the Oral Torah that gave Moshe his
unique status among mankind, and that caused his face to shine. "For a
Mitzvah is a candle and the Torah is light" (Mishlei 6:23 -- see also
Parasha-Page of Channuka 5755, where we quoted a Midrash Tanchuma to
show that specifically the *Oral* Torah is represented by light)!
__________________________________________________________________________
To receive the weekly Parasha-Page, write to:
listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
and put in as your message body the following line *only*:
sub parasha-page [Your full name]
To cancel your subscription, send a message to the same address,
and write as your message body the following line only:
signoff parasha-page
(NOTE: Don't add words to the message, and check your spelling. Please
address any comments to my personal account: yoy@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il)
========================================
Mordecai Kornfeld | Yeshivat Ohr Yerushalayim| Tel: 02-522633
6/12 Katzenelenbogen St. | D.N. Harei Yehuda | Fax: 02-341589
Har Nof, Jerusalem, 93871 | Moshav Beit Meir, Israel | US:718 5208526
|
| 989.397 | Torah Weekly - Vayakhel | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Feb 19 1995 13:30 | 213 |
|
* TORAH WEEKLY *
Highlights of the Weekly Torah Portion and Haftorah.
Plus Ani Ma'amin - The Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith.
Parshas Vayakhel
For the week ending 25 Adar Rishon 5755
24 & 25 February 1995
===========================================================================
This issue is sponsored in loving memory of Joseph Intract Z"l
by his son Joel Walter & family
===========================================================================
Summary
Moshe Rabbeinu exhorts the Bnei Yisrael to keep Shabbos, and requests
donations for the materials for the construction of the Mishkan. He
collects gold, silver, precious stones, animal skins and yarn, as well as
incense and olive oil for the Menorah and for anointing. The Princes of
each of the twelve tribes bring the precious stones for the Kohen Gadol's
breastplate and Ephod. Hashem appoints Betzalel and Oholiav as the master
craftsmen for the building of the Mishkan and its vessels. The Bnei
Yisrael contribute so much that Moshe begins to refuse donations. Special
curtains with two different covers were designed to serve as the material
for the Mishkan's roof and door. Gold-covered boards set in silver bases
were connected, and formed the walls of the Mishkan. Betzalel made the
Aron HaKodesh (Ark), which contained the Tablets, from wood that was
covered with gold on the inside and outside. On the cover of the Ark were
two small figures facing each other with wings arching over the Ark. The
Menorah and the Shulchan, the table with the showbreads were also made of
gold. Two Altars were made: A small one for burning incense, made of wood
overlaid with gold, and a larger Altar for the purpose of sacrifices that
was made of wood that was covered with copper.
===========================================================================
Commentaries
"You shall not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day"
(35:3).
One of the greatest rabbis of the previous generation was Yerushalyim's Rav
Yosef Chaim Sonnefeld zt"l. One Shabbos, someone came running into his
home, to tell him that people had lit a fire and were cooking on Shabbos.
The Rav jumped up and ran as fast as he could to the house. He burst in
and began to remonstrate with its occupants for desecrating Shabbos. The
woman of the house sprang up and demanded from him "And is this the way a
Talmid Chacham behaves, to barge his way into someone's home without
permission?!" Rav Yosef Chaim replied with astonishment "You can't stand
on ceremony when there's a fire burning in your neighbor's home!"
(Leket L'Shabbos)
"He should make the copper laver...from the mirrors of the legions..."
(38:8).
The laver was a very large copper basin in the courtyard of the Tabernacle
from which the Kohanim washed their hands and feet before performing the
service of the Mishkan. It was made exclusively from brightly polished
sheets of copper that had been used by the Jewish women as mirrors to adorn
themselves. At first, Moshe was loath to accept the mirrors, as they were
used for physical attraction, and he considered them unsuitable for such an
elevated purpose. But Hashem told him to accept them, for they were more
beloved to Him than all the other gifts to the Mishkan. For through these
mirrors, the women of Yisrael had established multitudes _ legions of
Jewish souls in Egypt. When their husbands were exhausted from the back-
breaking slave-labor, they would go to them and bring them food and drink,
and feed them. The wives would take out their mirrors and each one would
look at herself, together with her husband, in the mirror. She would
allure him with words, saying "Am I not more beautiful than you?" Thus she
would entice her husband; and there she would conceive and give birth.
This is what the Torah is alluding to when it speaks of the "mirrors of the
legions".
(Adapted from Rashi)
"He should make the copper laver...from the mirrors of the legions..."
(38:8).
A person should see his neighbor as a mirror. Just as a mirror reveals to
us our ugly features, so when we see character flaws in others, we should
check for those same traits in ourselves in order to eradicate them.
That's what the saying means _ "Who is wise? He who learns from every
man" (Avos). When the Kohanim washed their hands and feet, in preparation
for the service of Hashem, they needed to wash themselves clean of any
spiritual blemish, from any defect, bias or partiality. The construction
of the laver, which was solely of mirrors, served as a reminder to the
Kohanim, that in order to distinguish their own imperfections, they should
use their neighbor as their "mirror", because if they were only to look at
themselves, they would find it very hard to identify their own faults.
(Toldos Yaakov Yosef)
===========================================================================
Haftorah: Kings I 7:40-50
"He set up the pillars for the Hall of the Sanctuary; he set up the right
pillar and called its name `Yachin', and he set up the left pillar and he
called its name `Boaz'" (7:21).
A person's baser inclination (Yetzer Hara) renews itself every day, and
were it not that the Holy One, Blessed be He, helps a person, no-one would
be able to withstand the onslaught of his lower desires. But when is it
that a person gets help from `upstairs'? Only when he himself prepares
himself to shake off the clutches of the Yetzer Hara, for only "He who
attempts to purify himself, receives assistance". But if he himself does
not make any effort, he will not deserve any outside help. That's what
this verse is hinting to: If he will prepare _Yachin_ himself through his
own enthusiastic striving to improve himself, then _Bo_ there will come to
him _Az_ strength from Heaven to win the war against his Yetzer Hara.
(HaRechida)
===========================================================================
Ani Ma'amin
The Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith
Principle #13:
"I believe with complete faith that there will be a resuscitation of
the dead whenever the wish emanates from the Creator, blessed be His
Name and exalted is His mention, forever and for all eternity."
A wealthy man once hired someone to work for him for a salary of 100
rubles. After twenty years of faithful service, he passed away and was
replaced by his son, who served his employer for the same length of time at
the same salary. He, in turn, was succeeded by the grandson, who was not
very intelligent. After working for a few weeks, he approached his
employer and demanded pay for the tens of years his father and grandfather
had worked -- a total of close to 50,000 rubles. When the employer heard
his demand, he laughed and said: "Do you imagine that your father and
grandfather worked for me for 40 years without pay?" He then showed him
all his records which contained the receipts signed by the father and
grandfather that they had received compensation. "All you can claim," the
wealthy man concluded, "are the wages for the few weeks you have worked."
Foolish people like to complain about the length of our galus (exile) and
ask why we have had to suffer exile for more than 1800 years, claiming from
Hashem on the basis of the suffering of our ancestors throughout the
centuries. In truth, however, each of our forefathers is enjoying the
great reward in Gan Eden reserved for the righteous as compensation for
every day he suffered for Hashem in this world. Our own claim is therefore
limited only to the suffering endured in our comparatively brief existence.
Chafetz Chaim, Shem Olam, Part II, Perek
===========================================================================
Where do YOU find TW* ?
Seth Lewis @fair1.fairfield.edu writes:
"I noticed that you are asking how we come to get TW. I get my internet
connection through my affiliation with Fairfield University (a Jesuit
University) as an information systems adjunct. For teaching as an
adjunct I get:
o Use of the swimming pool (a barecha)
o Students (an avoda) and
o Torah Weekly (a beracha)
Thank you for your avoda in creating this TW for students like us all
around the four corners of the world."
TW finds its way all around the globe. E-Mail, fax, snail-mail, even Fedex
and let us know where you found your copy. We'll share your responses with
the other TW readers!
*(Torah Weekly)
===========================================================================
Ohr Somayach International - Internet Department - wishes MAZEL TOV to
Moshe Yaakov and Chaya Schwartz, who are to be married on February 19th.
We wish our "Internet Techie" and his wife much success!
===========================================================================
** Spend This Coming Summer Break In Israel For As Little As $599 **
** (including airfare from New York) **
===========================================================================
JLE Israel Summer Seminar '95
7 weeks of study and touring, optional Ulpan,
and structured encounters with Israeli Dignitaries
Departure June 14th
Optional free week August 8th through August 14th
For Jewish men between the ages of 19 & 30
with demonstrated academic achievement and
a sincere motivation to explore their roots
Minimum scholarship price: $599
Covers round trip ticket, room, board, tuition and tours
Undergraduates attending college anywhere in North America who PERMANENTLY
reside in New York City (the 5 boroughs), Long Island (Nassau & Suffolk
counties) or Westchester County -- as well as undergraduates attending
college in any of these areas although permanently residing elsewhere --
may qualify for additional scholarship monies.
For information:
o send E-Mail to Rabbi Zalman Corlin: RZCorlin@aol.com
o In the U.S. call toll-free 800-431-2272 / 212-213-3100
o Outside of N. America, send E-Mail to: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Coming next week...
INSIGHTS into MEGILLAS ESTHER by Rav Mendel Weinbach
Available to subscribers to the OS-SPECIAL list. To subscribe, send the
message: "sub os-special {your name}" to listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for Torah Weekly
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Yaakov Asher Sinclair
General Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
Production Design: Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
(C) 1995 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 989.398 | Parsha Q&A - Vayakhel | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Feb 19 1995 13:31 | 183 |
| * PARSHA Q&A *
In-Depth Questions on the Parsha and Rashi's commentary.
Parshas Vayakhel
For the week ending 25 Adar Rishon 5755
24 & 25 February 1995
===========================================================================
This issue is sponsored in loving memory of Joseph Intract Z"l
by his son Joel Walter & family
===========================================================================
Parsha Questions
1. On which day did Moshe assemble the Jewish People?
2. Why is the prohibition against doing work on Shabbos written prior
to the instruction for building the Mishkan?
3. Why does the Torah specify the particular prohibition of lighting
a fire on Shabbos right after it had already noted the general
prohibition of doing work on Shabbos?
4. What function in the Mishkan did the "yisdos haMishkan" (pins)
serve?
5. What function did the "bigdei hasrad" (knitted garments) serve?
6. What was unusual about the way the women spun the goat's hair?
7. Why were the Nesi'im (Princes) the last ones to contribute to the
building of the Mishkan? How does the Torah show dissatisfaction
with their actions?
8. Who does the Torah identify as the primary builders of the
Mishkan? From which tribes were they?
9. What time of day did the people bring their daily contributions
for the construction of the Mishkan?
10. For what was the woven goat's hair used?
11. What image was woven into the "Paroches"?
12. Why does the Torah attribute the building of the Aron to
Betzalel?
13. Where were the sculptured Cheruvim located?
14. How many lamps did the Menorah have?
15. Of what materials was the Mizbe'ach haKetores (Incense Altar)
composed?
16. Of what material was the Mizbe'ach haOlah (Burnt-Offering Altar)
composed?
17. The Kiyor was made from copper mirrors. What function did these
mirrors serve in Egypt?
18. How did the Kiyor (laver) promote peace?
19. The Kiyor was made from the mirrors of the women who were
crowding at the entrance to the Ohel Mo'ed (tent of meeting). Why
were the women crowding there?
20. Of what material were the "yisdos haMishkan" (pins) made?
Bonus QUESTION:
In verse 35:3 the Torah commands: "Six days you may do a "melacha",
but on the seventh day there shall be... a Shabbos of strict rest."
What is a "melacha"?
I Did Not Know That!
"Six days you may work..." (35:2).
This is not an obligation to work. Rather the Torah gives permission
to those who wish to do so to work, as long as they restrict it to
weekdays.
Rabbenu Meyuchas
==========================================================================
Answers to this Week's Questions
All references are to the verses and Rashi's commentary, unless
otherwise stated
1. 35:1 - The day after Yom Kippur.
2. 35:2 - To emphasize that the building of the Mishkan doesn't
supersede the laws of Shabbos.
3. 35:3 - There are two opinions: One opinion is to teach that
igniting a fire on Shabbos is punishable by lashes as opposed to
other "melachos" which are punishable by death. The other opinion is
to teach that violation of numerous "melachos" at one time requires a
separate atonement for each violation.
4. 35:18 - The edges of the curtains were fastened to the pins.
These were inserted in the ground so the curtains would not move in
the wind.
5. 35:19 - They covered the Aron, the Shulchan, the Menorah, and the
Mizbachos (Altars) when they were packed for transport.
6. 35:26 - It was spun directly from off of the backs of the goats.
7. 35:27 - The Nesi'im reasoned that they would first let the people
contribute materials needed for the Mishkan and then they would
contribute what was lacking. The Torah shows its dissatisfaction by
deleting a letter from their title.
8. 35:30, 35:34 - Betzalel ben Uri from the tribe of Yehuda; Oholiav
ben Achisamach from the tribe of Dan.
9. 36:3 - Morning.
10. 36:14 - It was made into curtains to be draped over the Mishkan.
11. 36:35 - Cherubim. (See Rashi 26:31).
12. 37:1 - Because he dedicated himself to its building more than
anyone else.
13. 37:7 - On the 2 extremities of the Kapores (cover of the Aron).
14. 37:23 - Seven.
15. 37:25,26 - Wood overlaid with gold.
16. 38:1-2 - Wood overlaid with copper.
17. 38:8 - These mirrors aided in the proliferation of the Jewish
People. The Jewish women in Egypt would look in the mirrors so as to
awaken the affections of their husbands who were exhausted by their
slave labor.
18. 38:8 - Its waters helped a woman accused of adultery to prove her
innocence.
19. 38:8 - To donate to the Mishkan.
20. 38:20 - Copper.
Bonus ANSWER:
"Melacha" is a creative activity that changes the nature of the
object acted upon. The Torah teaches us that we are not absolute
masters over the world, by restricting our interference with the
natural world for one day a week -- Shabbos.
Rabbi S,R, Hirsch
=======================================================================
What do you do with Parsha Q&A?
Sander Wasser @wpo.cc.mcgill.ca writes:
"You might be interested to know that your weekly information, Torah
insights and learnings are enjoyed and looked forward to by about a
dozen of my friends. I distribute copies in Shul on Shabbos to the
"Boys (or old men by now) in the Back of TBDJ." There was even a week
where my 5 year old daughter's school was not in session and she did
not have "her" Parsha questions so she asked me to ask her "mine" -
your Q&A. Much fun and learning was done by all.
Thank you again."
What do you do with Parsha Q&A? Fax, E-mail, post, even Fedex your
responses -- we'll share them with all the Q&A readers!
===========================================================================
Ohr Somayach International - Internet Department - wishes MAZEL TOV to
Moshe Yaakov and Chaya Schwartz, who are to be married on February 19th.
We wish our "Internet Techie" and his wife much success!
===========================================================================
** Spend This Coming Summer Break In Israel For As Little As $599 **
** (including airfare from New York) **
===========================================================================
JLE Israel Summer Seminar '95
7 weeks of study and touring, optional Ulpan,
and structured encounters with Israeli Dignitaries
Departure June 14th
Optional free week August 8th through August 14th
For Jewish men between the ages of 19 & 30
with demonstrated academic achievement and
a sincere motivation to explore their roots
Minimum scholarship price: $599
Covers round trip ticket, room, board, tuition and tours
Undergraduates attending college anywhere in North America who PERMANENTLY
reside in New York City (the 5 boroughs), Long Island (Nassau & Suffolk
counties) or Westchester County - as well as undergraduates attending
college in any of these areas although permanently residing elsewhere - may
qualify for additional scholarship monies.
For information:
o send E-Mail to Rabbi Zalman Corlin: RZCorlin@aol.com
o In the U.S. call toll-free 800-431-2272 / 212-213-3100
o Outside of N. America, send E-Mail to: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Coming next week...
INSIGHTS into MEGILLAS ESTHER by Rav Mendel Weinbach
Available to subscribers to the OS-SPECIAL list. To subscribe, send the
message: "sub os-special {your name}" to listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for Parsha Q&A
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Eliyahu Kane
General Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
Production Design: Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
(C) 1995 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 989.399 | Torah Weekly - Ki Sisa | TAV02::JEREMY | | Sun Feb 19 1995 15:30 | 198 |
| ===========================================================================
Dedicated to the memory of Mr. Jack Annis whose life was the embodiment of
devotion, concern and love for others.
May his good deeds be an inspiration to all his family.
===========================================================================
Summary
Moshe conducts a census by counting each silver half-shekel donated by all
men, age twenty and over. Moshe is commanded to make a copper laver for
the Mishkan -- the women donate the necessary metal. The formula of the
anointing oil is specified, and Hashem instructs Moshe to use this oil only
for dedicating the Mishkan, its vessels, and Aaron and his sons. Hashem
selects Betzalel and Oholiav to be the master craftsmen for the Mishkan and
its vessels. The Jewish People are commanded to keep the Sabbath as an
eternal sign that Hashem made the world. Moshe receives the two Tablets of
Testimony on which are written the Ten Commandments. The mixed multitude
that left Egypt with the Jewish People panic when Moshe's descent seems
delayed, and force Aaron to make a golden calf for them to worship. Aaron
stalls and tries to delay them. Hashem tells Moshe to return to the people
immediately, threatening to destroy everyone and build a new nation from
Moshe. When Moshe sees the orgy of idol-worship he smashes the Tablets,
and destroys the golden calf. The Sons of Levi volunteer to punish the
transgressors, executing 3,000 men. Moshe ascends the mountain to pray for
forgiveness for the people, and Hashem accepts his prayer. Moshe sets up
the Mishkan, and Hashem's cloud of glory returns. Moshe asks Hashem to
show him the rules by which He conducts the world, but is granted only a
small portion of this request. Hashem tells Moshe to hew new Tablets, and
reveals to him the text of the prayer that will invoke His mercy. Idol
worship, intermarriage, and the combination of milk and meat are
prohibited. The laws of Pesach, the First-born, the First-fruits, Shabbos,
Shavuos and Succos are taught. When Moshe descends with the second set of
Tablets, his face is luminous as a result of contact with the Divine.
===========================================================================
Commentaries
"The Children of Yisrael shall keep the Shabbos throughout their
generations" (31:16).
After a person leaves this world, his soul experiences a state of
confusion. If, in his lifetime, he enmeshed himself in the physical world,
so even after death, his soul still looks for those same physical
pleasures. However, lacking a body to experience the material dimension,
his soul frantically rushes from one side of the world to the other in a
vain search for the physical. However, if a person spends his life in a
quest for the spiritual, and only uses the physical world to elevate his
neshama, then, after he passes from the physical world, his soul recognizes
the next world, which is entirely spiritual, and rushes to embrace it. The
phrase "throughout their generations" in this verse can also be translated
"as their dwelling place." When a person keeps Shabbos, he "spiritualizes"
himself and, at the same time, creates a dwelling place for himself in the
next world -- `the world which is entirely Shabbos.' When he goes to the
next world, he will find a familiar dwelling -- Shabbos will be home for
his soul.
(Adapted from the Ohr HaChaim Hakadosh)
"It (Shabbos) is an everlasting sign between me and the Children of
Yisrael" (31:17).
A shoemaker's shop -- the door is barred, all the windows are shuttered;
not a crack of light can be seen from within. In fact, one would think
that the shoemaker has moved out of town. Only the sign above the door --
"Shoemaker" -- gives any clue that the shoemaker is still in business.
Similarly with the Jew -- however far he wanders from the faith of his
fathers, and even if all the mitzvos that should lighten his home are like
darkened windows, but if he still keeps Shabbos, then there is yet a sign
that Jewish life is smoldering within; that the light of Yiddishkeit has
not gone out completely. But when that sign -- "Shabbos" -- comes down, it
is as though the Shoemaker has left town for good.
(The Chafetz Chaim)
"Aaron said to them `Remove the golden earrings that are in the ears of
your wives, sons, and daughters, and bring them to me'" (32:2).
Aaron's part in the incident of the golden calf is difficult to understand.
It cannot be that he deliberately incited the people to make an idol to
worship. Rather, his intention was the reverse: A person's will is
represented by the heart. And the heart is expressed through the `pocket.'
By gathering gold from all Yisrael, and making it into a single unit, Aaron
was trying to create a tangible symbol of the unity of the will of Jewish
People: The gold would be cast into the fire, and the fire would remove
the impurities of the latent tendency to idol worship (which is known in
the mystical writings as the poison of the primeval snake). What would be
left would be pure and united, a symbol of the Unity of Yisrael and Hashem.
However, the mixed multitude who came up from Egypt with the Jewish People,
and whose intentions were truly idolatrous, introduced the powers of
spiritual impurity into the gold. Yisrael was then drawn after this, and
what resulted was the golden calf.
(Admo"r Rabbi Shmuel m'Sokhachov)
===========================================================================
Haftorah: 1 Melachim 18:1-39
"How long will you dance between two opinions? If Hashem is the G-d,
follow Him! And if the Baal, follow it" (18:21).
When Moshe Rabbeinu descended from Mount Sinai with the Tablets, and the
Children of Yisrael were busy making the golden calf, Yehoshua tried to
comfort him by saying "The sound of battle is in the camp," meaning, not
all of Yisrael has been infected by idol-worship, there is still a "sound"
of battle between the worshippers of the golden calf, and those faithful to
Hashem. Moshe replied that a "sound of battle" is not enough. Even those
who were not worshipping the calf were taking a stance of tolerance, of
neutrality. They were open to both opinions -- a voice of appeasement,
devoid of decisive action. In the fight against idol-worship, whether the
more obvious worship of foreign gods, or the more subtle forms of forbidden
worship, it is impossible to "dance between two opinions."
===========================================================================
Ani Ma'amin
The Rambam's 13 principles of faith
Principle #12:
"I believe with complete faith in the coming of the Mashiach, and even
though he may delay, nevertheless I anticipate every day that he will
come."
Should someone ask what we are supposed to do to prepare for the arrival of
Mashiach, the answer is that Hashem does not expect of us colossal things
which we are incapable of doing. Each one of us is expected to do whatever
we are capable of. If one is capable of only learning Mishnayos, he should
set aside a time each day when he sets aside everything else in order to
learn his Mishnayos shiur. And so it is, regarding all Torah study.
Certainly, if one is capable of learning gemara and halacha, he must make
sure to learn them at a set time each day. The underlying principle is
that Hashem does not expect the impossible from us, only what each of us is
capable of doing to prepare himself for Mashiach. So it was when Hashem
told Moshe to build Him a Sanctuary. Moshe trembled at the thought of a
mortal, building a house for Hashem. But he was reassured that the Jews
were only expected to contribute and to build what they were capable of --
by human standards and not divine ones. We must, therefore, do whatever
each of us is capable of doing in returning to Hashem, so that we shall be
worthy of His revelation soon, in our days.
Chafetz Chaim, Zechor LeMiriam, Perek 18
===========================================================================
Where do YOU find TW* ?
Sam Kushner @ kpmg.com gets TW via E-Mail:
"I read TW on the subway to and from work. It makes constructive
use of my otherwise non-constructive commuting time. I want to
thank you for Torah Weekly and the many other E-mail publications
of Ohr Somayach."
TW finds its way all around the globe. E-Mail, fax, snail-mail, even Fedex
and let us know where you found your copy. We'll share your responses with
the other TW readers!
*(Torah Weekly)
=============================================================================
Are you subscribed to the OS-SPECIAL list?
If you were, then you would have just received this month's publication:
-> REB SIMCHA SPEAKS <-
-> An Authorized Biography of Rabbi Simcha Wasserman, zt''l <-
-> Chapter 3 - Child-Raising And Education <-
-> By Yaakov Branfman and Akiva Tatz <-
About once a month, subscribers to the OS-SPECIAL list are sent interesting
-- sometimes provocative -- publications, like the above. In just a few
weeks, another OS-SPECIAL publication will be sent for PURIM -- if you are
a subscriber, you'll be able to get it without delay, and without having to
search the InterNet for it!
To subscribe, just send the message "sub os-special {your full name}"
to "listserv@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il"
For those of you that didn't get Reb Simcha Speaks, there is still another
way to see it. You'll find it on the Jerusalem1 Gopher, and on Compuserve
in the Religion Forum in the Judaism Library (#3).
============================================================================
** Spend This Coming Summer Break In Israel For As Little As $599 **
** (including airfare from New York) **
** JLE Israel Summer Seminar '95 - June 14th through August 8th **
** **
** For information: send E-Mail to Rabbi Zalman Corlin: RZCorlin@aol.com **
** or call 800-431-2272 / 212-213-3100 **
============================================================================
Dedication opportunities are available for Torah Weekly
Please contact us for details.
===========================================================================
Jewish L EEEEEEEE Prepared by Ohr Somayach Institutions
J L E 22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
J L Exchange Jerusalem 91180, Israel
J J L E Tel: 02-810315 Fax: 02-812890
JJJJ Learning EEEEEEEE Internet: newman@jerusalem1.datasrv.co.il
===========================================================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Yaakov Asher Sinclair
Production Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
Production Design: Lev Seltzer
===========================================================================
(C) 1995 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another person intact without prior
permission. We also encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters. However, we ask that you
contact us beforehand for permission, and then send us a sample of an
issue.
|
| 989.400 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayakhel | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Feb 23 1995 01:01 | 169 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Vayakhel
Vol. IX, No. 22 (406), 25 Adar I 5755, February 25, 1995
This parashah and the next repeat the detailed description of
the mishkan's construction which we read in past weeks. In all, the
mishkan takes up the four whole parashot and part of a fifth. In
contrast, notes Rav Yaakov Yitzchak Ruderman zatz'l, some halachot
are learned from just one letter in the Torah. Why then is the
mishkan described in such painstaking detail?
The answer, says Rav Ruderman, is that this is one of the ways
that the Torah chose to teach us the importance of paying attention
to detail. Similarly, Chazal say that Hashem rewarded Avraham for
each action which he did on behalf of the three angels that visited
him. But Hashem did not simply look at the fact that one mitzvah
(hospitality) was done and reward Avraham for that one mitzvah. That
which Avraham did personally, Hashem rewarded "personally," while
that which Avraham did through a messenger, Hashem rewarded through
a messenger. Thus, each detail of Avraham's hospitality was rewarded
in a precise manner.
When a person performs a mitzvah, every detail should be done for
the sake of heaven. For example, says Rav Ruderman, when one wakes
up in the morning and prepares to leave for shul, he should think
of each step (washing, dressing, etc.) as part of the mitzvah.
(Sichot Levi)
************************************
Chazal say that the mitzvah of Shabbat is juxtaposed to the
mishkan (in our parasha and in other places) to teach that the
mishkan may not be built on Shabbat. In addition, notes Rav Yaakov
David Willowsky ("Ridvaz") zatz'l, the creation of the world--which
Shabbat commemorates--parallels the mishkan. For example, on the
first day, Hashem created the world as a place to interact with man.
Similarly, in the mishkan, Hashem "resides" among men.
On the second day, Hashem separated water from water, i.e., the
waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth. Similarly, the
curtain in the mishkan separated the area known as the Holy from the
Holy of Holies.
On the third day, Hashem created plants, which are used to bake
bread to be sacrificed in the mishkan.
On the fourth day Hashem created the sun to light the earth.
Similarly, the mishkan had a menorah to light it.
On the fifth day, Hashem created birds. So, too, the kruvim
(cherubs) spread out their wings in the mishkan.
On the sixth day, man was created. Aharon, a perfect prototype
of man, served Hashem in the mishkan.
(Nimukei Ridvaz)
***********************************
Chazal say that when Hashem created the world it continued to
spread out until He commanded it to stop. Similarly, Bnei Yisrael
had to be commanded to stop bringing donations to the mishkan.
However, the purposes of these two commands were exactly opposite
of each other, writes Rav Gedaliah Schorr zatz'l. In the case of
creation, if the world had been "over-developed," Hashem's glory
would have been too hidden for us to perceive. If, on the other
hand, the mishkan had been "over-developed," too much of Hashem's
glory would have been revealed and we would be overwhelmed.
(Ohr Gedalyahu)
************************************
The verse states: "The nation was held back from bringing
[donations]" (36:6). True, Moshe commanded them not to bring more
donations, says Rav Aharon Lewin zatz'l, but what "held them back"?
The sage Hillel said, "My legs take me where I want to go"--as
if on their own. Similarly, when a person is in control of his
inclinations, that which he is commanded not to do becomes impossible
to do. Moshe's command held Bnei Yisrael back.
(Had'rash Veha'iyun)
************************************
"And Moshe gathered together the congregation of Bnei Yisrael."
(35:1)
Rashi comments: "On the day after Yom Kippur."
What is the significance of the fact that it was the day after
Yom Kippur? Only after Yom Kippur, says Rav Mendele of Viso zatz'l,
after each person had closely examined his affairs and determined
whether any of his money was ill-gotten, would Moshe take Bnei
Yisrael's donations for the mishkan.
(She'airit Menachem)
************************************
Or: On Yom Kippur it is easy to gather together all of Bnei
Yisrael, for the holiness of the day inspires every Jew to love his
brethren. However, Moshe was hinting to the people that even on the
day after Yom Kippur they should have an attitude which makes such
a gathering possible.
(Rav Moshe of Kobrin zatz'l)
************************************
"The seventh day [Shabbat] shall be holy for you." (35:2)
Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulai zatz'l writes: Even that part of the
day which is "for you," i.e. your eating, drinking, and other
pleasures, shall be done in holiness.
(Nachal Kedumim; quoted in Torat HaChidah)
************************************
"And they [the craftsmen] told Moshe, 'The people are bringing
too much. . .'" (36:5)
Why does the Torah tell us of Bnei Yisrael's generosity? Who
would not give all of his wealth to help build the mishkan?!
What was remarkable here was not the size of the donations which
Bnei Yisrael gave, but the enthusiasm with which they gave. The true
test of a charitable person is not whether he gives--for everyone
does--but how he gives. Is his enthusiasm the 100th time he gives
charity as great as it was the first time?
(Mei Hashiloach)
************************************
Rav Yosef Shaul Nathanson zatz'l
born 5568 (1808) - died 27 Adar I 5635 (1875)
Rav Yosef Shaul was the author of dozens of works on Talmud,
halachah, and chumash. Some of these he wrote alone and others he
co-authored with his brother-in-law, Rav Mordechai Ze'ev Ettinger.
Their first work was a commentary on Bava Kamma which included
exchanges with Rabbi Akiva Eiger and the Chatam Sofer among others.
Rav Yosef Shaul's best known work is the 14-volume collection of
responsa entitled Sho'el U'meishiv.
In 1857, Rav Yosef Shaul was appointed rabbi of Lvov (Lemberg)
in Galicia, succeeding his uncle, Rav Yaakov Orenstein (author of
Yeshuot Yaakov). Rav Yosef Shaul was independently wealthy and did
not receive a salary for his work in Lvov.
Although Rav Yosef Shaul was not a chassid, he enjoyed warm
relations with many chassidic rebbes and their followers. His
haskamot (approbations) can be found in many works, including those
of the chassidic movement.
In Divrei Shaul, his multi-volumed work on chumash, Rav Yosef
Shaul asks why Moshe commanded Bnei Yisrael to stop bringing
donations for the mishkan? Surely he could have found a use for all
of the extra money!
The midrash says that Bnei Yisrael are an enigma, for they gave
generously for both the golden calf and the mishkan. Rav Yosef
Shaul explains: Some people give charity because they recognize the
worth of the cause. However, other people naturally are
spendthrifts, and they will give to any cause, whether it is worthy
or not.
Bnei Yisrael appeared to Moshe to fit into the latter category.
Thus, he devised a test. He commanded Bnei Yisrael to stop donating
to the mishkan. If they were compulsive givers, they would object
to this command, but if (as it turned out) their intentions were
proper, they would obey.
|
| 989.401 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Pekudei | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 01 1995 19:24 | 136 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Pekudei
Vol. IX, No. 23 (407), 2 Adar II 5755, March 4, 1995
The midrash says that when it came time to join together all of
the mishkan's components, no one but Moshe could do so. The midrash
explains that previously the wags amongst the Jews were saying, "How
will the shechinah speak to Moshe in the mishkan which he did not
build?" However, when only he could construct the mishkan, he had
the last laugh (see Mishlei 31:25, which is interpreted by the
midrash as referring to Moshe). The midrash concludes that Mishlei
31:29 also is speaking of Moshe when it says, "Many daughters did
great things, but you were greater than all of them."
[The Hebrew word for daughters is "banot" which is related to the
word "livnot" ("to build"). Perhaps the midrash is reading the verse
"Many builders did great things, but you were greater than all of
them."]
Rav Elya Meir Bloch zatz'l explains that the midrash is teaching
us the importance of being accomplished in many different areas.
Each of the artisans who worked on the mishkan was an expert in his
field, whether he was a goldsmith, a weaver, a carpenter, etc.
However, none of these people was able to see the big picture, i.e.,
to see how the many parts of the mishkan fit together. That only
Moshe could do. (Peninei Da'at)
************************************
The commentators note that there are many differences between G-
d's commands regarding the construction of the mishkan (as described
in Parashat Terumah) and the way the construction was actually
carried out (as described in this week's and last week's parashot).
Most notable among these differences is the fact that despite
Hashem's original command that the utensils of the mishkan--such
as the aron (Ark), shulchan (Table), and menorah--be built before
the mishkan itself, Bnei Yisrael in fact did the opposite.
Commentators also note that despite the implication found in Parashat
Terumah that Moshe himself was to build the mishkan, in Parashat Ki
Tisah we read, "Behold, I [G-d] have called upon Betzalel [to build
the mishkan]." Why did all of these changes occur?
Rav Yehoshua Heller (Rabbi of Telz and Vilna in the mid-19th
century) writes that the changes that occurred in the construction
of the mishkan reflect a change that occurred in Bnei Yisrael
themselves between the time that the building of the mishkan was
commanded and the time that the construction took place. This change
was the making of the Golden Calf and the resulting decline in Bnei
Yisrael's spiritual level. Rav Heller explains as follows:
There are two different levels in the service of Hashem, one of
which is analogous to the period of a couple's engagement, and the
other, to their marriage. The period of engagement is a time when
love between the couple is first developing. During this period,
the future bride and groom perform actions whose purpose is to
further the growth of their love for each other. The period of
marriage is different, for while the couple's love continues to grow,
the husband and wife are already united by their earlier love for
each other, and they now serve each other because of that love. So
it is in the service of Hashem. On a "beginner's" level, a person
does mitzvot in order to increase his love for G-d, while at a more
advanced level, a person serves Hashem because he already loves Him.
When Bnei Yisrael stood at Har Sinai, they achieved the highest
level of service of Hashem, corresponding to the higher of the two
levels described above. This is known as "The level of Adam before
his sin," and is the level we will again attain in the days of
mashiach. Had Bnei Yisrael not sinned, but remained on this level,
Moshe would have entered Eretz Yisrael with them and he would have
built the first--and only--bet hamikdash, one which would never have
been destroyed.
Unfortunately, Bnei Yisrael did sin, and they immediately fell
to a lower level of service of G-d. They now had to work their way
back up the ladder of service, always hoping to reach, but never
quite reaching the level of Adam before his sin. They had to
experience again the engagement period, to be "married" again only
with the future arrival of mashiach. We continue this service, and
its tools are the performance of mitzvot, the gifts that we--the
bride--send to Hashem--the groom--during our engagement period.
The mitzvah to build the mishkan originally was commanded before
the sin of the Golden Calf, and Moshe was to build it, for he could
invest it with the "spiritual power" to stand forever, just as Bnei
Yisrael were to remain forever on the lofty level that they had
achieved. When Bnei Yisrael sinned, however, the fate of the mishkan
(and later the bet hamikdash) was sealed for eventual destruction.
Now Moshe could not build it, and he was commanded to appoint
Betzalel as overseer of the mishkan's construction.
The order of the mishkan's construction changed as well. The
utensils inside the mishkan--the aron, the menorah, and all the
others--represent man's innermost desire to serve Hashem, whereas
the outer covering (the "ohel"-"tent") represents the outer
distractions which prevent man's innermost feelings from showing.
Before the sin of the Golden Calf, Hashem commanded that the
mishkan's internal utensils be built first, for on Bnei Yisrael's
lofty level, their innermost feelings of love for G-d shone through
brightly. After Bnei Yisrael sinned, however, G-d altered the plans,
for just as Bnei Yisrael now had to toil to peel away the
distractions which separated them from their loved one--Hashem--so
Bnei Yisrael had to be separated from the internal utensils of the
mishkan by the walls and roof of the ohel mo'ed.
(Ohel Yehoshua: D'rush Aleph)
************************************
Rav Mordechai Yaffe zatz'l
("Ba'al Halevushim")
born 5290 (1530) - died 3 Adar II 5372 (1612)
Rav Mordechai is one of the most important poskim (halachic
authorities) among Ashkenazic Jews. He is known as the "Ba'al
Halevushim" or simply "The Levush," after his ten works. The names
of each of those books are a taken from the description in Megillat
Esther of the clothes (in Hebrew "levush") that Mordechai wore.
Rav Mordechai's teachers were Rav Moshe Isserles ("Rema") and Rav
Shlomo Luria ("Maharshal"). Rav Mordechai also was an accomplished
kabbalist--some of the ten Levushim are kabbalistic works. His
teacher in that subject was Rav Mattityahu Delacrot, who had studied
under the great kabbalists of Italy.
It has been said that Rav Mordechai best exemplified the teachings
of his teacher Rema. Not only were they both important poskim, but
they both wrote works on kabbalah and philosophy and attempted to
synthesize the two fields.
Rav Mordechai began writing his major halachic works at a young
age, because he perceived the need for a concise halachic code.
However, he desisted when he heard that Rav Yosef Karo (1488-1575)
was writing the Shulchan Aruch for the same purpose. Only when that
work was printed and Rav Mordechai saw that it omitted the Ashkenazic
rulings on many subjects and also did not state the reasons for its
rulings did Rav Mordechai resume his work.
|
| 989.402 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vaikra | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Mar 10 1995 23:09 | 163 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Vayikra
Vol. IX, No. 24 (408), 9 Adar II 5755, March 11, 1995
The midrash praises Moshe for not entering the mishkan until
Hashem called to him, as is implied in the opening verse of this
parashah: He called to Moshe, and Hashem spoke to himfrom the Tent
of Gathering. . ." Hashem had to call to Moshe before Moshe would
enter.
Why is this praiseworthy? Rav Simcha Bunim Alter (the "Gerrer
Rebbe") zatz'l explains in the name of his brother that Moshe is
praised because he was unable to enter the mishkan without Hashem's
command. Moshe had trained himself to do nothing that was not a
mitzvah, and entering the mishkan without being commanded was not
a mitzvah.
At the end of last week's parashah we read, "Moshe was unable to
enter the Tent of Gathering because the Cloud rested 'alav' usually
translated "on it," i.e., the mishkan. However, says Rav Simcha
Bunim, "alav" also means "on him," i.e., Moshe. Moshe was unable
to enter the mishkan until he was called, because the Shechinah
rested on him and he was totally subservient to it. (Lev Simcha
5741)
************************************
In past weeks we have read about the construction of the mishkan.
Now that the mishkan is finished, we begin to learn of the sacrifices
which were brought in it.
In past years, we have presented different views on the purpose
of animal sacrifices, including the well-known views of Rambam and
Ramban. This year we continue in that vein:
Rav Yitzchak of Akko zatz'l (a student of Ramban) quotes the
midrash Sefer Habahir which states: "What is a korban (animal
sacrifice)? It is something which brings together ("mekarev")
different forces."
Rav Yitzchak explains that this alludes to the fact that an animal
is made up of many different organs, but that despite their
differences, each of these organs nourishes the one who eats it.
When one brings a korban he learns from this to unite all of his
organs and powers for one purpose: attaining ruach hakodesh--divine
inspiration.
(Me'irat Enayim)
************************************
Rav Yaakov Leiner of Izbica zatz'l explains that sacrifices
symbolize that it is not our true desire to sin. Only because we
too have "animal souls," i.e., a physical aspect, do we sin. When
the repentant person performs smichah--resting his hands on the
animal before it is slaughtered~-he symbolically places all of the
blame for his sins on his own "animal soul."
(Bet Yaakov)
Rav Moshe Teitlebaum zatz'l writes: "If a man sinned, did the
animal sin?" Why then should an animal be slaughtered as an
atonement for a person? He explains that bringing animal sacrifices
is intended to make a person ask that very question. More
specifically, he should ask himself: "If animals, which were created
solely to serve man, but were not created by man, make such a
sacrifice for me, then how much more so should I, who was created
solely to serve Hashem, and was created by Hashem, sacrifice myself
for Him!"
Alternatively, Rav Moshe offers the following explanation: As
was just noted, animals were created solely to serve man. Imagine
that a high-ranking minister who had a seat in the king's throne room
sinned and was sentenced to death. Surely the king would take that
minister's chair and remove it from the throne room! Similarly,
every person "owns" a share of the world and its creatures, i.e.,
it was created to serve him. When a person sins, his share is
destroyed.
(Yismach Moshe)
************************************
PURIM
Divrei Torah as Mishloach Manot
Can one fulfill his obligation to give mishloach manot (Purim
gifts) by sending a compendium of Torah thoughts to his friend?
Among many others, Rav Yonah Metzger shlita discusses this question:
At first glance, it would seem obvious that the answer is in the
negative, for the Shulchan Aruch states explicitly that mishloach
manot should consist of two, ready-to-eat food items. However, this
is not the end of the matter, for tradition records that several
scholars (among them Rav Moshe Isserles--"Rema"-- and Rav Shlomo
Alkabetz) sent commentaries on Megilat Esther to their parents or
in-laws as mishloach manot. On what did they rely?
Rema writes that if one sent mishloach manot but the intended
recipient declined to accept them, the sender has nevertheless
fulfilled his obligation. Why? Chatam Sofer explains as follows:
There are two opinions regarding the reason for the mitzvah of
mishloach manot. Terumat Hadeshen maintains that it is to ensure
that people have enough to eat at their Purim meal. However, Rav
Shlomo Alkabetz (in Manot Halevi, the very work which he sent to his
in-laws as mishloach manot) maintains that the purpose of this
mitzvah is to promote friendship among Jews. This is important
because of Haman's accusation (Esther 3:8) that the Jews are a
divided people.
Those who maintain that mishloach manot must be food apparently
accept the view of Terumat Hadeshen. However, Rema apparently agreed
with the view of Rav Shlomo Alkabetz. Thus he could send divrei
Torah as mishloach manot, since that too promotes friendship. For
the same reason, Rema holds that one has fulfilled his obligation
even if the mishloach manot are not accepted. ("It's the thought
that counts.") [Until here from the Chatam Sofer.]
However, writes Rav Metzger, one can argue that even if the
purpose of mishloach manot is only to enhance the recipient's meal,
one can still fulfill his obligation by sending divrei Torah. Why?
Because the mishnah (Avot 3:3) states that if three people eat
together, and do not share divrei Torah, it is as if they have eaten
sacrifices brought before idols. Thus, by sending divrei Torah one
is, in fact, enhancing his friend's meal, because he is ensuring that
his friend has divrei Torah readily available to say at the table.
(Sheilot U'teshuvot Miyam Hahalacha, O.C. section 113)
[Please share this with those at your Purim meal, but do not rely
on it in practice.]
************************************
Rav Shimon Sofer zatz'l
born 1821 (5581) - died 16 Adar II 5643 (1883)
Rav Shimon was a son of the Chatam Sofer and was a student of his
father. He also studied kabbalah under Rav Nata Wolf of Pressburg.
Rav Shimon's first rabbinic position was in Mattersdorf, Hungary,
where he was active in the battle against reform. Later he was
chosen as rabbi of Cracow.
Like most rabbis of Hungarian origin, Rav Shimon enjoyed warm
relations with both the chassidim and mitnagdim (opponents of the
chassidic movement). In 1878, the rabbis of Austrian Poland chose
Rav Shimon as their spokesman on all matters. Then, in 1879, he was
appointed to serve as an adviser to the Austrian emperor, Franz
Josef II.
Rav Shimon's father, the Chatam Sofer, comments on Rashi's
statement at the beginning of this parashah: Hashem told Moshe, "Go
and rebuke Bnei Yisrael, saying, 'Hashem speaks to me only in your
merit'." Is that rebuke? asks the Chatam Sofer.
He explains that by examining the heights to which a ba'al
teshuvah rises after his repentance, one can see how low he started.
In the same vein, from our parashah we can see how low Bnei Yisrael
had stooped by the sin of the golden calf. That Bnei Yisrael have
become so great that Hashem speaks to Moshe only in their merit is
an indication to them of how terrible the sin of the golden calf was.
That is the rebuke.
|
| 989.403 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Tzav | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 22 1995 23:24 | 186 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Tzav
Vol. IX, No. 25 (409), 16 Adar II 5755, March 18, 1995
This week's parashah begins with the mitzvah of terumat hadeshen--
taking a handful of ashes off of the altar each morning. The verse
says: "The kohen shall don his fitted linen [garment], and he shall
don linen pants on his flesh [Rashi: with nothing between the pants
and his flesh], and he shall remove the ash"
Rav Yaakov Yosef Hakohen zatz'l (a leading student of the Ba'al
Shem Tov, author of the first chassidic work, and ancestor of Rav
Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zatz'l--see back page) offers the following
homiletic interpretation:
The "kohen" is the Torah scholar. The "garment" is the community
of simple Jews who he is "assigned" by Heaven to elevate. The
garment must be "fitted," i.e., he must not be so haughty that he
cannot relate to them and they to him. There shall be nothing, such
as jealousy or hatred, separating him from them.
If these conditions are met, the kohen can remove the ash. "The
ash"-"hadeshen"-has the same gematria as "hashanah"-"the year." (A
difference of one is disregarded.) "Hadeshen" also has the same
gematria as "Satan." This means that this Torah scholar will be able
to use all of his allotted years productively, uprooting the satan
from his constituency. (Toldot Yaakov Yosef)
************************************
Rav Shimon Schwab zatz'l
Rav Schwab was born in Frankfurt, Germany, in 1908. His father,
Rav Yehuda Schwab, was among the first in Germany to send his sons
to study in the yeshivot of Eastern Europe, and he was richly
rewarded. (In addition to Rav Shimon, the Schwab boys included Rav
Moshe of Gateshead, England, and Rav Mordechai, of Monsey.) Young
Shimon studied in Mir, and also visited Radin, where he was a guest
of the Chafetz Chaim himself for one Shabbat. This latter
experience left a profound impression on him.
Rav Schwab came to America in 1936, serving first as a rabbi in
Baltimore. In 1957 he was called to Washington Heights in New York
to serve as the assistant to the aging Rabbi Dr. Yosef Breuer. (The
Washington Heights community, "Khal Adath Jeshurun," centers around
expatriates from Frankfurt, and is devoted to the legacy of
Frankfurt's great rabbi, Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch.) When Rav Breuer
passed away in 1980 (at age 98), Rav Schwab succeeded him.
Rav Schwab's books included Selected Essays, Selected Speeches,
and Selected Writings (all in English). Recently he published a
Torah commentary, Me'ayen Bet Hasho'eivah (in Hebrew).
Rav Schwab was an active leader in Agudath Israel of America.
************************************
Rashi makes the following comment at the beginning of this
parashah: "The word 'command' is used to encourage the present
generation and future generations. Such encouragement is especially
necessary when financial loss is involved."
What is different about the "future generations" that they are
singled out in connection with the mitzvot of this parashah? Rav
Schwab ~~~~ explains that, historically, the attitude of the Jews
towards the sacrificial service changed from the first Temple period
to the second. We see throughout Tanach that during the era of the
first bet hamikdash, the Jews brought sacrifices, but without an
understanding that action must be accompanied by proper thoughts.
In contrast, as we see in Malachi 1:7-8, the Jews of the second bet
hamikdash brought only low quality sacrifices. They felt that if
man's thoughts were primary, why "waste" money on sacrifices?! Thus
we see that the future generations needed particular encouragement
regarding the sacrifices when "financial loss" was involved.
Both of these attitudes exist today, concludes Rav Schwab, and
they are both wrong. (Me'ayen Bet Hasho'eivah)
************************************
Rav Chaim Yaakov Goldvicht zatz'l
As the founder of the first "overseas student program" to bring
American and European students to an Israeli yeshiva for one year,
Rav Goldvicht changed the way two generations of Orthodox students
have been educated. Rav Goldvicht similarly revolutionized the post-
high school education of Israeli yeshiva students by introducing the
hesder concept, with students alternating years in the yeshiva with
years of service in the Israeli Defense Forces. Today there are
approximately 14 such yeshivot.
Rav Goldvicht was a native of Yerushalayim. He studied in
Yerushalayim's Etz Chaim Yeshiva under Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer ,
and also was close to Rav Velvel Brisker. Later, Rav Goldvicht
studied in Bnei Brak under the Chazon Ish. In 1954, Rav Goldvicht
established Yeshivat Kerem B'Yavneh, which he headed for 40 years.
Rav Goldvicht left behind a number of works and collections of
his lectures.
************************************
Chazal teach: "Just as when the month of Av enters we decrease
our joy, so when Adar enters we increase our joy." In what way is
our increased joy in Adar tied to our decreased joy in Av? Rav
Goldvicht asks.
The bet hamikdash was destroyed on the ninth of Av because on that
date the spies returned from Eretz Yisrael with their bad report.
Why didn't the spies want to settle in the Land of Israel? Chazal
say that they preferred staying in the desert, where serving Hashem
came naturally, to leading mundane lives in Eretz Yisrael, where they
would face many spiritual challenges.
The Jews of the Purim story did the opposite. Chazal teach that
until the time of Mordechai and Esther, Torah observance was not
completely binding. However, the Jews of that period not only
accepted the Torah as a binding obligation, they added the new
mitzvot of Purim. Thus, they mitigated somewhat the sorrow of Av.
Rashi writes that Adar is joyous because it ushers in Purim and
Pesach. But Pesach existed long before Purim, notes Rav Goldvicht.
Why should it be mentioned here? The answer is that before the Purim
miracle, Pesach itself was less joyous, indeed it was slightly
embarrassing. The Jews did not deserve to be taken out of Egypt;
Hashem took them out only because they were destined to accept the
Torah. Thus, only after the Purim miracle, when the Jews had fully
accepted the Torah could they truly rejoice on Pesach. (Arba'ah
Ma'amarim B'aggadah)
As this issue was being prepared (about four weeks ago), the Torah
world was saddened by the passing of three of its leading teachers.
Two of them were almost household names, and the third had a profound
impact on Torah education both in the United States and in Israel.
This week we remember all three of them briefly, one on this page,
and two inside this issue.
************************************
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zatz'l
Rav Shlomo Zalman was among the foremost halachic authorities in
Israel and the world in the last several decades. To many he is
associated with expertise in the laws of Shabbat, although there were
few major issues on which his opinion was not sought. In recent
years he issued a number of rulings on the treatment of the
terminally ill, the time of death, and related subjects. (To date,
however, only a handful of his responsa have been published.)
Rav Shlomo Zalman was born in Yerushalayim and studied under Rav
Isser Zalman Meltzer . Rav Shlomo Zalman's father, Rav Chaim Yehuda
Leib Auerbach, was the founder and head of Yeshivat Sha'ar
Hashamayim, an advanced academy which emphasizes the study of
kabbalah alongside a traditional Talmudic curriculum. A sister of
Rav Shlomo Zalman married Rav Shalom Mordechai Schwadron ~~~~~~ (the
"Maggid" of the Artscroll Maggid series).
Rav Shlomo Zalman published a number of works over a sixty year
period, including a commentary on the classic work Shev Shemateta
(published in the early 1930's), Meorei Esh on the halachic status
of electricity ( 1935), Ma'adanei Eretz on agricultural laws, and
Minchat Shlomo, a collection of responsa and articles (1986). He
is quoted hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of times in the popular
work Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah, and in 1993 an additional volume
of his comments on that work was published.
Rav Shlomo Zalman was rosh yeshiva of Yeshivat Kol Torah and was
president of Sha'ar Hashamayim (where his brother was rosh yeshiva
until passing away a few years ago). Rav Shlomo Zalman was among the
few Israeli gedolim who was not actively involved in politics, and
he was universally respected. His funeral was attended by an
estimated 300,000 to 500,000 people.
************************************
Chazal say that Purim will always be celebrated, even after
mashiach comes. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman zatz'l said, the mitzvah
of drinking will be abolished. Only in this world is it necessary
for man to drown out his sorrows in order to experience the joy of
Purim. In the future, Hashem's light will shine so brightly that
the darkness of sorrow will be washed away, and joy will come
naturally. (Quoted by Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl shlita in Sichot L'sefer
Shmot)
May we merit to see that day in the near future.
|
| 989.404 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Shemini | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 22 1995 23:26 | 152 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Shemini
Vol. IX, No. 26 (410), 23 Adar II 5755, March 25, 1995
In this parashah, we read how two of Aharon's sons died during
the dedication of the mishkan. Aharon concluded that his family
members' status as onenim (the first stage of mourning) precluded
them from eating one of the sacrifices of the day. Aharon finished
his argument with the rhetorical question: "Would it be right in G-
d's eyes?" (10:19)
Rav Shalom Noach Brazovsky (the Slonimer Rebbe) shlita notes that
Aharon did not say, "Would it be right in the eyes of the Torah?"
or "Would it be right in the eyes of halachah?" Even when something
is not explicitly prohibited by the Torah, a person must still ask
himself: Would it be right?
And what is "right"? It is that which brings man closer to
Hashem. There is a well known story of the convert who wanted to
learn the entire Torah while standing on one foot. Hillel told him,
"That which is hateful to you do not do to your friend." Is this
the "whole" Torah? many ask. It is, says Rav Brazovsky. "Your
friend" means Hashem, and the purpose of the whole Torah is to bring
man closer to Him. That which is not "hateful," i.e., destructive,
to your relationship with Hashem is "right." (Netivot Shalom:
Introduction to Breishit)
************************************
"[Moshe said:] 'This is what Hashem commanded--you shall do, and
G-d's glory will appear to you'." (9:6)
Moshe said the above at the dedication of the mishkan. The
midrashim add that Moshe told Bnei Yisrael, "Remove that yetzer hara
from yourselves," and he also told them, "May it be G-d's Will that
the shechinah will rest on your handiwork." To this Bnei Yisrael
responded with the verse in Tehilim (90:17), "May He establish our
handiwork for us; our handiwork may He establish."
Rav Shlomo Halberstam (the Bobover Rebbe) shlita asks: What does
the above verse mean--after all, the work of the mishkan was done
already! Also, to what specific "yetzer hara" was Moshe referring?
Finally, why did Moshe need to pray that the shechinah would rest
on Bnei Yisrael's handiwork--after all, that was an obvious request
because that was the purpose of the mishkan--and what did Bnei
Yisrael's response mean?
A Jew should live a life in which he enjoys this world, but only
because it enables him to serve Hashem better. Thus, Moshe said,
"If you want G-d's glory to appear to you, every one of your actions
should be because 'This is what Hashem commanded you [to] do'." The
yetzer hara which the Jews were instructed to rid themselves of was
the inclination to enjoy life for the sake of the enjoyment itself.
When Moshe prayed, "May it be G-d's Will that the shechinah will
rest on your handiwork," he was not referring to the just-completed
mishkan, the Bobover Rebbe explains. Rather, Moshe expressed the
hope that in every activity that a Jew would undertake, he would take
steps to make the shechinah rest on his handiwork. And when the Jews
responded, "May He establish our handiwork for us; our handiwork may
He establish," they meant, just as we trust that the shechinah will
reside in the mishkan which we have built, so may It rest on all our
activities.
(Quoted in Shabbat Bet Ropshitz p.136)
************************************
Pesach
Rav Baruch Ber Lebowitz zatz'l taught that the Jews' belief in
G-d is rooted in the Exodus. A person who professes belief in Hashem
but not in the Exodus is like someone who hopes to uproot a tree but
keep it alive.
If a person could ascend to the Heavens and know for sure that
G-d exists, he would not be fulfilling his responsibility as a Jew.
The task of a believing Jew is to look at every event in light of
what the Exodus taught us about miracles, reward and punishment.
(Quoted in Orach Yesharim)
************************************
We say in the haggadah: "Even if we all were sages, even if we
all were understanding . . . it still would be incumbent upon us to
retell the story of the Exodus."
Rav Azaryah Berzon shlita explains this in light of the gemara
(Menachot 99b) which relates that a man named Ben Damah asked his
uncle Rabbi Yishmael, "Since I have learned the entire Torah, may
I study Greek wisdom?"
Rabbi Yishmael responded, "One is commanded to speak Torah day
and night (Yehoshua 1:8). Find a time which is neither day nor night
and study Greek wisdom." What was the logic behind the question and
what was the answer?
Ben Damah thought that the purpose of Torah study is to know the
Torah. Rabbi Yishmael responded that that is only one aspect. There
is another mitzvah, which is to occupy oneself with Torah.
Similarly, the haggadah is teaching us that the purpose of
retelling the story of the Exodus is not (only) to know the story.
Rather, telling the story is an end and a mitzvah in and of itself.
(Printed in Hadarom, No. 53, Nissan 5754)
************************************
During the plague of locust, Pharaoh hurried to call Moshe and
Aharon, and to repent. Then Pharaoh changed his mind. What
happened?
Rav Yehoshua Leib Diskin zatz'l explains that each of the previous
plagues had lasted seven days. Therefore, Pharaoh thought that if
he "repented" quickly, he could save his crops. However, after the
locust departed, Pharaoh learned how much damage actually had been
done, and he decided that there was nothing to gain from repentance.
************************************
Rav Binyamin Diskin zatz'l
born 5558 (1798) - died 25 Adar 5604 (1844)
Rav Binyamin's father was Reb Leib Chassid, a student of the Vilna
Gaon. Reb Leib's parents settled in Tzefat in Eretz Yisrael when
their son was only 13, but he did not accompany them. Eventually,
Rav Binyamin became a prominent teacher and posek (halachic
authority). His students included Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector,
the leading Lithuanian posek of the late 19th century, and Rav
Binyamin's four sons. The best known of these was Rav Yehoshua Leib
Diskin of Brisk and Yerushalayim. (A dvar Torah from Rav Yehoshua
Leib appears inside this issue.)
Rav Binyamin was rabbi of Horodna, and many stories are told of
his tenure there. One Shabbat, a congregant began telling Rav
Binyamin of the business trip which he had planned for the next day.
However, ever time the man said the word "riding," Rav Binyamin
interjected "walking."
The next day, the man discovered that he had missed his coach.
He began running after it, but at each stop, he missed the coach by
a few minutes. Eventually he realized that he may as well walk the
whole way, and then he remembered his rabbi's words.
Upon returning home, the man told Rav Binyamin how his prediction
had come true. "That was no prediction," Rav Binyamin said. "It
simply is forbidden to talk on Shabbat of that which may not be done
on that day." (Pillar of Fire p.23)
Shortly before his death, Rav Binyamin became rabbi of Lomza.
|
| 989.405 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Tazria | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Mar 30 1995 19:56 | 184 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Tazria
Vol. IX, No. 27 (411), 1 Nisan 5755, April 1, 1995
Rashi introduces this parashah with the statement that just as
man was created after all of the animals, so the laws pertaining to
man are discussed (in this and future parashot) after the laws of
the animals (which were discussed in last week's parashah and those
preceding it.)
Rav Shlomo Yosef Zevin zatz'l notes that there are two possible
reasons for why the last element in a list might hold that place.
The last thing may be the "end" and everything preceding--it the
means to that end. Alternatively, a thing may be the last on a list
because it is incomplete without what came before.
Chazal give two reasons for why man was created last in the order
of creation. If he is meritorious we say to him, "The entire world
was created before you so that everything would be ready for you when
you arrived on the scene." In this case, man is the "end" and all
other creation are the means which serve man's goal.
On the other hand, if a person is not worthy, we say to him, "Even
the puny gnat was created before you." In such a case we may say
that man is incomplete; only if he takes a lesson from the gnat that
came before him does he redeem and "complete" himself. (Latorah
U'lemoadim)
************************************
"When a woman conceives and gives birth to a son. . . ." (12:2)
Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulai ("Chida") zatz'l observes that the
first letters of the phrase "conceives and gives birth to a son" (the
letters underlined above) spell out merit. This is because a child's
righteousness and merit depend primarily on his mother.
(Chomat Anach)
************************************
"On the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be
circumcised." (12:3)
The gemara (Nedarim 32) says, "If not for the mitzvah of
circumcision, Hashem would not have created the heavens and the
earth." The gemara also says, "If not for the mitzvah of Torah
study, Hashem would not have created the heavens and the earth."
Both of these are learned from the verse (Yirmiyahu 33:25), "If not
for My berit (covenant) day and night, the laws of the heavens and
the earth I would not have put into place."
Rabbi Akiva Eiger zatz'l asks: How can this verse refer to
circumcision, when that mitzvah may not be performed at night? Also,
it appears that the gemara is equating circumcision and Torah study.
What is their relationship to each other?
The answer is that circumcision is a prerequisite to obtaining
a proper grasp of one's Torah studies. The mitzvah of milah is the
"outer" circumcision, while Torah "circumcises" the heart, i.e., it
removes the blockages which prevent knowledge of G-d from entering.
Thus, because successful Torah study day and night is possible only
if one is circumcised, circumcision may be called "My covenant day
and night."
(Teshuvot Rabbi Akiva Eiger No. 42)
************************************
In every place in the Torah where a sacrifice brought from doves
is mentioned, the older dove (called a "tor") is mentioned before
the younger ("ben yonah"). The exception to this is in our parashah,
in verse 12:6.
The Ba'al Haturim explains that because verse 12:6 refers to a
sacrifice of one bird, it is preferable to take the younger bird,
which is less likely to have a mate that will pine away. In every
other instance, two birds are brought as the sacrifice, and it is
preferable to bring larger birds.
This teaches us how in every action, we must think out every
consequence.
(Shai Latorah)
************************************
Pesach
Rav Simcha Wasserman zatz'l taught: During the period of the
infancy of the Jewish people, they went through several distinct
periods.
The first one was when they became a nation. This occurred when
they were in exile in Egypt, where they underwent terrible tortures.
It could be said that they were in a very unhappy and tragic ghetto.
But that is where they became a nation. They came into that ghetto
as a family, and they came out a people.
The next period was a time of training in beliefs. It lasted for
one year, the year prior to their leaving Egypt. The entire year
was dedicated by Providence to implanting in their minds three basic
beliefs: 1) the existence of Hashem; 2) that Hashem is concerned with
human behavior; 3) that there is such a thing as Divine communication
with a living human being, i.e., prophecy.
This is of the utmost importance, because these three basic
beliefs, culminating with the demonstration of prophecy, were the
necessary preparation for the giving of the Torah. If a person does
not accept that there is a possibility of Divine communication with
a human being, he would consider that whatever Moshe gave us is man
made. Then the Torah loses all of its value.
(Reb Simcha Speaks)
************************************
"If He had brought us before Mount Sinai and not given the Torah
to us, that would have been sufficient."
What does this mean? What would have been the purpose of coming
to Har Sinai if we were not to receive the Torah?
Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein (author of Aruch Hashulchan) zatz'l
explains as follows: There is a principle of halachic decision-making
which says "The Torah is not in the Heavens." This means that
halachic disputes must be resolved by men, applying Torah logic and
majority vote, not by heavenly signs. If a sage were to say, as we
read in the Talmud, "If I am correct, let the wall of the bet midrash
lean to the side," we would not listen.
This exclusive right to decide halachic matters is a gift separate
from the gift of the Torah itself. Hashem might have decided to give
us the laws but not to place the Torah in our exclusive dominion.
Thus we say, "If He had brought us before Mount Sinai and not given
the Torah to us," that itself would have been a reason to be grateful
to Hashem.
(quoted and elaborated upon in Gift of Torah
by Rav Yitzchak Sender)
************************************
Rav Yechiel Michel of Zlotchov zatz'l
died 3 Nisan 5542 (1782)
Rav Yechiel Michel, known as the "Maggid (Preacher) of Zlotchov"
was the son of Rav Yitzchak of Drogobych. In Brody, where Rav
Yechiel Michel lived after his marriage, he taught cheder (elementary
school) children, but he was still recognized as one of the leading
scholars in the city.
When the Ba'al Shem Tov began propagating his chassidic movement,
Rav Yechiel Michel was called with all the other scholars of Brody
to place the new movement in cherem (i.e., to place a ban on it).
Rav Yechiel Michel objected: "The gemara says that one may do a favor
for another without the beneficiary's presence, but one may not
obligate another in his absence. How then can we condemn this man
without hearing his defense?"
Although the community's plan was foiled for the time being, Rav
Yechiel Michel decided to leave Brody and visit the Ba'al Shem Tov.
He eventually became a chassid himself, and, in time, a rebbe to many
chassidim.
Chassidim relate that Rav Yitzchak of Drogobych and Rashi met in
Heaven and Rashi asked, "Why is heaven in an uproar over your son's
deeds?"
Rav Yitzchak spoke of his son's Torah study, but Rashi was not
impressed. Rashi likewise was not impressed when Rav Yitzchak
mentioned Rav Yechiel Michel's acts of charity and asceticism. Only
when Rav Yitzchak described his son's outreach work did Rashi
acknowledge his greatness. (Imrot Tzaddkim)
Rav Yechiel Michel passed away during the seudah shlishit (the
third Shabbat meal). Chassidim say that this happened because of
the level of attachment to Hashem that he attained at that moment.
Rav Yechiel Michel was extremely poor. Arriving home from shul
on Pesach night he saw the poverty in his home and he prayed, "Master
of the Universe: You usually give every person, even the poorest,
something new to wear for yom tov. At least dress us in new levels
of intellect." (B'yishishim Chochmah)
Rav Yechiel Michel had five sons. One of them, Rav Binyamin
Ze'ev, died on this day in 5582 (1822).
|
| 989.406 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Metzorah | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Apr 05 1995 19:59 | 170 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Metzora
Vol. IX, No. 28 (412), 8 Nisan 5755, April 8, 1995
In this week's parashah (and last week's), we read that a metzora
must leave the camp or city for seven (or more) days and sit alone.
Chazal say that this is a punishment for the antisocial behavior of
speaking lashon hara.
Rav Yaakov Emden zatz'l points out the many benefits which man
can attain only when he is part of society. Indeed, Chazal say,
"Give me a friend or give me death," and the Torah says, "It is not
good for man to be alone."
All alone, man could not obtain all of his physical needs,
including proper food, drink, clothing, and shelter. A person also
could not fulfill the Torah if he were alone. For example, he could
not carry out the laws of property, the laws of marriage, and the
laws of child-rearing.
A person who is all alone can never pray with a minyan or have
his Torah questions resolved by scholars, and thus he can not
properly practice a single one of the six pillars (listed in Pirkei
Avot) on which the world stands: justice, truth, peace, Torah,
prayer, and acts of kindness. Also, how can man emulate Hashem if
he is all alone? For example, just as Hashem is merciful, man must
be merciful to his fellow men.
Of course, there are times for being alone, but even in those
times, man should not roam too far from home. Man is even capable
of achieving the concentration that comes from solitude while he is
surrounded by people. (Migdal Oz: Perek Aliyat Habedidut)
************************************
The mishnah (Nega'im 2:5) states: "A person sees all nega'im--
tzara'at wounds--except his own." Literally, this means that a
person, even a kohen, may not be the judge of whether he himself has
tzara'at. Rather, he must go to another kohen.
Figuratively, however, this statement is frequently interpreted
as referring to the fact that people are rarely objective about their
own faults. A person sees everyone else's faults, but not his own.
If so, asks Rav Eliezer David Gruenwald zatz'l, how can a person
assess where he stands? The answer is found in another mishnah: "One
does not search [for chametz] by the light of the sun and by the
light of the moon, but only by the light of a candle." The strong
"light of the sun" represents wealth, and the weak "light of the
moon" represents lack of success. Neither of these is an accurate
indicator of whether Hashem is happy with a person. Only the "light
of a candle," an allusion to the verse, "A mitzvah is a candle" is
an accurate indicator.
What does this mean? If a person wants to know where he stands
in his service of Hashem, he should look at his attitude towards
mitzvot. If a person considers mitzvot to be a burden, then he has
a long way to go. However, if he enjoys performing mitzvot, then
he is on the right track.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Chasdei David, p. 11b)
************************************
One of the "pieces" of the metzora's sacrifice was an ezov, a type
of grass. Chazal say that it must be a plain ezov, not an "ezov
romi," nor an "ezov kuchli," and not any other type of ezov that has
an adjective modifying its name.
Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlita explains that the lowly grass
represents humility. True humility is "plain," with no conditions
(i.e., the adjectives). It is not "romi" ("high"), i.e., a false
humility. It is not "kuchli" ("makeup"--from "kechol," a type of
eye shadow), i.e., something that one "puts on" for others to see.
(Ta'am Vada'at)
************************************
Hamaayan will not appear during Pesach.
The next issue will be
Parashat Acharei Mot (April 29)
************************************
Pesach
We have a number of holidays that commemorate victories over our
enemies. How do they differ from each other?
The Jewish people has two kinds of enemies. There are those who
oppose the existence of the Jewish nation, and there are those who
oppose that nation's service of Hashem.
Rav Yitzchak Hutner zatz'l teaches that Pesach represents the
defeat of the first kind of enemy, while Purim represents the defeat
of the other. In each case, the enemy that was defeated was the
purveyor par excellence of the type of enmity which it represented.
Chazal refer to the "Seven Nations" and the "Four Kingdoms" which
have opposed the Jews. The reference to one set of enemies as
"Nations" and the other as "Kingdoms" is significant.
To be a servant, Rav Hutner explains, one must meet a two-part
definition: (1) he must be acquired by a master, and (2) he must be
informed what the master's will is and be given the means to carry
out that will. The Four Kingdoms opposed Bnei Yisrael on the first
level; the Seven Nations opposed them on the second.
The Four Kingdoms that have oppressed the Jewish people attempt
to subjugate and enslave them so that they will be servants of these
Kingdoms, and not Hashem's servants. This is an action taken by
kingdoms, in opposition to Hashem's kingdom. The first nation that
did this was Egypt.
The Seven Nations, on the other hand, did not oppose the
"nationhood" of the Jewish people. Rather, they attempted to prevent
Bnei Yisrael from conquering Eretz Yisrael. In so doing, they sought
to withhold from the Jewish people the means to carry out the will
of its Master. Since no subjugation of the Jewish people is
involved, no kings are necessary. Even the common man, i.e., the
nation, can be the enemy. The first nation that did this was Amalek,
the ancestor of Haman.
At the time of the Exodus, the Jews were acquired by Hashem as
His servants, and they ceased to be the servants of Pharaoh (see
Megillah 14a). This is Pesach. Then, before Bnei Yisrael could
receive the Torah and be informed of what the master's will is,
Amalek (the ancestor of Haman) attacked them. When he was defeated,
the Torah could be given. (Similarly, after Haman was defeated, the
Jewish people accepted the Torah anew (Shabbat 88a).)
(Pachad Yitzchak)
************************************
Miriam A"H
born 2361 - died 10 Nisan 2487
Miriam the Prophetess was the daughter of Amram and Yocheved and
the sister of Moshe and Aharon. The name Miriam--from the root "~~"-
"bitter"--represents the fact that with her birth the bitterest part
of the Egyptian exile started. Specifically, Chazal say that only
after her birth did the Egyptians begin to subject Bnei Yisrael to
hard labor. This continued until the Exodus, when Miriam was 87
years old.
Before she was six years old, Miriam prophesied that her mother
would give birth to the redeemer (Moshe). Indeed, the name Miriam
can be seen as the acronym of "Our teacher, Moshe, the redeemer, will
be born" (Rav Avraham Stern zatz'l: Melitzei Esh). She also used to
try to save Jewish children from being drowned in the waters of the
Nile. Therefore, it was in her merit that the well of water traveled
with Bnei Yisrael in the desert. (When she died, it ceased, thus
leading to Moshe's hitting the rock.)
Miriam married Kalev ben Yefuneh of the tribe of Yehuda. (From
among the twelve spies, he was one of the two spies who brought back
a good report about Eretz Yisrael.) Miriam's son was Chur, and her
great-grandson was Bezalel, the architect of the mishkan.
************************************
"Shabbat Hagadol"--as the Shabbat before Pesach is known--
commemorates the setting aside of animals for the first Korban Pesach
(pascal sacrifice). Many commentaries ask why this event is
commemorated by the day of the week on which it occurred, and not
by its date. One answer is that the date, the 10th of Nisan
commemorates Miriam's yahrzeit. It would not be appropriate for this
date to be a day of thanksgiving, as Shabbat Hagadol is.
|
| 989.407 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Special Pesach Issue | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Apr 05 1995 20:01 | 440 |
| HAMAAYAN/THE TORAH SPRING
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Special Pesach Issue
April 14, 1995 / 14 Nisan 5755
This special issue of Hamaayan contains Pesach-related material
from 3 previous years...
-----------------------------
In most Pesach Haggadot, the text of the Haggadah itself is
prefaced by a 16-word poem that begins with the words "Kadesh
u'rechatz," and lists by name the 15 portions into which the seder
may be divided. In Haggadah Shel Pesach Be'er Miriam (by R' Reuven
Margaliot), this poem is attributed to Rabbenu Shmuel of Falaise,
one of the French Ba'alei Tosfot. Others attribute it to Rashi.
Because the word "seder" means "order," it is only fitting that
the seder follow such a fixed order as is described by this poem.
For this reason, many households have the custom of reading (or
singing) "Kadesh u'rechatz" before reciting kiddush, and of
announcing the name of each portion of the seder before that portion
is begun.
In the pages that follow, Hamaayan presents one d'var Torah for
each of the 15 sections of the seder. They are drawn from 15
different Haggadot, and represent a broad spectrum of commentaries,
from the chassidic and philosophical to the halachic. As always,
please remember that nothing in Hamaayan should be relied upon in
actual practice. All halachic questions should be referred to a
competent Rabbi.
************************************
Kadesh-Reciting Kiddush
R' S.R. Hirsch writes that although we already fulfilled the Torah
obligation of kiddush through our prayers in shul, we repeat kiddush
at home because the sanctity ("kedushah") of the day must first and
foremost find its expression in our homes. Kiddush must be recited
at the place where our meal will be eaten, as the festive meal is
the most obvious manifestation of the joy we feel on the festival,
and that joy must be preceded by sanctity.
(The Hirsch Haggadah)
Rechatz-The first washing
In Temple times, one would wash before consuming a damp fruit or
vegetable in order to eat it in ritual purity. Although we cannot
achieve such purity today, we observe this law of netilat yadaim
(washing) at the seder in order to express our hope that we will soon
be obligated to observe it, due to the arrival of Mashiach and the
rebuilding of the bet hamikdash. This is an expression of the
freedom that we feel on Pesach.
(The Artscroll Haggadah)
Karpas-Eating a vegetable
Of what does the salt-water in which we dip the karpas remind us?
R' Menachem Mendel Hager of Vishuva notes that, throughout the
Talmud, salt is used as a metaphor for suffering. Chazal teach that
suffering is actually good for a person for it expiates his sins,
but, being only human, we quickly reach a point where we can stand
no more. Salt reminds us of this, for a little bit of salt improves
the taste of food, but if that same food is too salty, it is not
edible. As we begin to recall the suffering of the slaves in Egypt,
this thought should be on our minds.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Vishuva-Vizhnitz Shearit Menachem)
Yachatz-Breaking the middle matzah
Why is the middle matzah broken rather than the top or bottom one?
There are two berachot that are recited before eating matzah at the
seder: "Hamotzi" the blessing for "bread" and "Al achilat
matzah" the special blessing over the mitzvah of eating matzah on
the first night of Pesach. The halachah is that whenever we recite
Hamotzi it is preferable to have a whole loaf of bread or matzah
before us, whereas the berachah on the mitzvah of eating matzah is
preferably recited over a broken matzah, symbolizing that it is
"Lechem oni" "The bread of poverty (or affliction)."
There is a halachic principle which states, "One may not pass over
a mitzvah (or a Mitzvah-object)." Generally speaking, all mitzvot
should be done in the order in which they present themselves to us
(and all mitzvah-objects should be used in the order in which they
are brought before us). This rule obligates us to recite "Hamotzi"
over the first matzah that we see when we are ready to eat, i.e. the
top one in the pile of three, and because of the halachah cited above
this matzah must be whole, not broken. The blessing of "Al achilat
matzah" must be recited on the second matzah we see, i.e. the middle
one, and this one should be broken. If we had broken the bottom
matzah instead of the middle one, we would have to pass over the
middle (whole) matzah to reach the broken one, and this should not
be done.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach miBa'al Shlah haKadosh)
Maggid-Telling the story of the Exodus
We begin our story with the statement "Avadim hayinu...."~"We were
slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt." Rav Kook writes that this sentence
describes three levels of degradation: (1) We were slaves, (2) to
a foreign king, (3) in a foreign land. The Haggadah then goes on
to recount that G-d saved us from all three of these troubles: (1)
We were taken out of slavery, (2) by Hashem, our own King, and (3) we
were taken from Egypt and brought to Eretz Yisrael.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Olat Re'iyah)
Rachtzah-Washing a second time
Although the "Kadesh u'rechatz" poem is, in its most simple
meaning, the order of service that we follow at the seder, numerous
commentaries see it also as a complete plan for a Torah way of life.
One of its messages is: "First 'Kadesh u'rechatz'-'Sanctify and wash
(purify) yourself'-and only later, 'maggid rachtzah'-'Tell others
to wash themselves'."
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Zichron Niflaot and others)
Motzi-The blessing over the matzah
R' Moshe Sternbuch shlita writes: Feeling joy when performing
mitzvot is one of the highest forms of service of G-d. We should
feel especially joyous when eating matzah, for Chazal teach that this
mitzvah, properly fulfilled, can save one from judgement on Rosh
Hashana.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Moadim u'Zmanim)
Matzah-The blessing over the mitzvah of matzah
Chazal teach that chametz represents the evil influence of the
yetzer hara and that our task on Pesach is to eradicate this
"chametz". The word "matzah" can be translated "battle" and matzah
is therefore an appropriate food to eat when we battle the yetzer
hara. Eating matzah is mandatory on the first night of Pesach only,
for after that the "battle" is (hopefully) over, However, we remain
forbidden to eat chametz for several more days (i.e. the rest of
Pesach), for we must keep the yetzer hara from returning.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Shem miShmuel)
Maror - Eating the bitter herb
R' Yitzchak Meir of Ger said: The bitterness of the exile
actually contributed to our redemption, for it made our situation
unbearable and inspired us to pray.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Kohelet Moshe)
Korech-Making the matzah/maror sandwich
There is a view in the Talmud that two mitzvot may not be done
at the same time because the concentration required for one may
disturb the concentration required for the other. R' Yosef Shaul
Nathanson notes that the sage, Hillel, was nevertheless able to eat
matzah and maror at the same time because he was always concentrating
on fulfilling G-d's will, and nothing could distract him from this.
As an example of Hillel's constant devotion, the Talmud tells us that
he considered the weekday meals to be mitzvot equal to the Shabbat
meals; all of them fulfilled the purpose of strengthening him to
serve G-d.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Migdal Eder haChadash)
Shulchan Orech-Setting the table for dinner
This expression literally means "He is setting the table" (in the
present tense), and it alludes to G-d. The story is told of a beggar
who "worked" the homes of his neighborhood for only two hours a day,
yet collected more than any of the beggars who struggled from door
to door all afternoon long. When he was asked the secret of his
success, the beggar said, "I knock on doors only at mealtimes. Since
the table is already set, no one minds feeding me as well. You,
however, arrive at the houses when people are busy with other things,
and they cannot be bothered to open the kitchen just for you."
Hashem, says R' Yosef Chaim of Baghdad, is not like a human. He
(G-d) is always "setting the table" for us and thus we find
sustenance at all times.
Sefer Orach Chaim: Peirush Al Haggadah Shel Pesach)
Tzafun-Eating the afikomen
R' Eliyahu Ki Tov writes that in Aramaic, "afikomen" means "Bring
out ('afiku') dessert ('man')." It, therefore, symbolizes our
freedom, for the poor and oppressed cannot afford the luxury of a
leisurely conclusion to their meal.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Yalkut Tov)
Barech-bentching
The Gemara says that after a person eats, he has only one heart.
What does this mean? Before a person eats, he has a yetzer tov
("good inclination") and yetzer hara ("evil inclination"). After
he eats, however, he has only one. If he has eaten "For the sake
of Heaven," the yetzer tov subjugates the bad, but if he ate merely
to fulfill his own desires, then it is the yetzer tov that is
subjugated.
Reciting birkat hamazon enables the yetzer tov to prevail, for
in it we acknowledge that all food is G-d's.
(Haggadat R' Tzadok haKohen)
Hallel-Singing G-d's praises
The paragraphs of Hallel are divided at the seder into two groups,
one of which is recited before the meal and the other after. (To
see this division, compare Hallel as found in the Haggadah with
Hallel as found in the siddur.) Malbim explains that the section
recited before the meal contains two paragraphs: one describes G-d's
greatness in general terms, and the other deals specifically with
the Exodus. These paragraphs are closely related to the story we
tell tonight, and are therefore recited immediately upon concluding
the mitzvah of maggid and just before eating the matzah.
In contrast to these, the paragraphs of Hallel which are recited
after the meal are interpreted by Chazal as referring to the future,
not the past, redemption. As such, they are more appropriately
placed after our performance of the major Pesach mitzvot (matzah,
maror, etc.), for then we can look ahead to the future. (See next
paragraph.)
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Im Be'ur Midrash Haggadah)
Nirtzah-Our observance has been accepted
In the poems and songs of this section of the Haggadah we pray
that all of the tefilot which we have recited at the seder be
accepted by Hashem. If one has performed all of the seder according
to halachah, he may feel confident that his service has indeed been
accepted by G-d. We should pray that we may see the fulfillment of
the verse: "As in the days of your Exodus from Egypt, I [G-d] will
[again] show you wonders." Then we can confidently proclaim: "Next
year in Yerushalayim."
(Haggadah Shel Pesach miBet haLevi-Brisk)
************************************
Sefat Emet notes that the word "Negah" - the Tzara'at sore -
shares the same letters as "Oneg" - the joy one experiences on
Shabbat. Our day of rest also plays a role in spreading Kedushah
in the world, for it refreshes us (spiritually, as well as
physically) and gives us the strength we need to fulfill our divine
missions for another week. This is particularly true of "Shabbat
Hagadol" - the Shabbat before Pesach. One reason that it is called
"Shabbat Hagadol" (the "Great Shabbat") is that it was the first
Shabbat when there was a "Klal Yisrael" (for on that day they set
aside animals for the Korban Pesach, in preparation for leaving
Egypt), and it was thus the first Shabbat which performed the
function of Shabbat described above (Ohr Gedalyahu). Also, notes
R' Chaim Yishayahu Hardari, Shlita, on that Shabbat the Jews were
given their first Mitzvot, and thus their power to spread Hashem's
name in the world became greater.
************************************
Laws of the "Korban Pesach"
The Korban is brought on the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan,
after the second "Korban Tamid" (daily sacrifice). When Erev
Pesach falls on Friday, the Tamid is brought an hour early to allow
more time to slaughter and roast the Korban Pesach before Shabbat.
Before bringing the Korban, one must be sure that he has no
Chametz in his possession. Also, one's guest list for the Seder
must be finalized before the Korban is slaughtered, for it may not
be changed afterwards.
The Korban may be a sheep or a goat. In either case it must be
an unblemished, one year-old male. Those bringing the Korban are
divided into three shifts, and the first shift enters the Bet
Hamikdash. (A shift may not have fewer than thirty people, but the
Gemara says that it often numbered hundreds of thousands.) While
the animals are slaughtered, and their blood and fats sacrificed on
the "Mizbeach" (altar), the Levi'im recite Hallel. If the group is
large, Hallel is repeated as many times as necessary.
When one shift is finished, the next one enters. Each person
takes his Korban home and roasts it on a pomegranate-wood spit, in
an oven. After dark, [the Seder is held and] the Korban is eaten
together with Matzah and Maror, and while it is eaten, the
assembled recite Hallel. The meal must be finished by midnight.
(Based on R' Aharon Cohen: Avodat Hakorbanot)
************************************
R' Moshe Isserles ("Rema") writes (O.C. section 430) of a custom
to read part of the Haggadah on the Shabbat before Pesach. Why?
The Vilna Gaon answers that it was on that day that our ancestors
set aside animals for the "Korban Pesach"; thus, it can be
considered the beginning of their redemption. However, the Vilna
Gaon then rejects this answer based on the following Midrash (which
is quoted in the Pesach Haggadah). "I might think that one can
fulfill his obligation to read the Haggadah on the first day of
Nissan...but the Torah teaches me that the Mitzvah of Haggadah
applies at the same hour as the Mitzvah of Matzah and Maror." If
the Shabbat before Pesach has a claim to being the beginning of the
redemption, asks the Vilna Gaon, why does the Midrash, which
considers several possibilities for when the Seder should be held,
not entertain a suggestion that it should be on Shabbat Hagadol?!
R' David Cohen, Shlita, answers this question as follows: The
Halacha states that the Haggadah should begin with the low point of
Jewish history and build up to the redemption. What is that low
point? Rav (a Talmudic sage) says, "In the beginning, our
ancestors were idol worshippers." Shmuel (another sage) says, "We
were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt." What is the basis of their
dispute? R' Cohen suggests that they disagree whether the primary
redemption was spiritual (Rav) or physical (Shmuel). Such a
disagreement would be consistent with other disputes between them,
such as whether the Mashiach will come as a result of our
repentance (Rav) or suffering (Shmuel).
Ramban, in his Torah commentary, appears to accept Rav's view,
for he writes as follows (in explaining why the building of the
Mishkan is described in the book of Exodus): "Even though our
ancestors had left Egypt, they were not yet free until they had
built a Mishkan and Hashem's Presence rested among them." When did
the redemption start? Perhaps Rav would say that it started on the
day when the Korban Pesach was set aside (i.e. Shabbat Hagadol),
since the purpose of the Korban Pesach was to free Bnei Yisrael
from their spiritual bondage. When Rema writes of the custom to
read the Haggadah on Shabbat Hagadol, he is accepting the view of
Rav, as Ramban did before him. As for the Midrash which troubled
the Vilna Gaon, perhaps that is the opinion of Shmuel and others
who disagree with Rav.
(Mas'at Kapi II, p.60)
************************************
A Pesach Story
The preparations of R' Yisrael of Vizhnitz (known as "Ahavas
Yisrael") for "Bedikat Chametz" were lengthy, and he approached the
Mitzvah with great feeling. He said the "Berachah" with great
fervor. Then, while searching all of the cracks by candlelight, he
beat his chest like one reciting "Vidui", and called out "Oy, oy,
oy!" All who heard him trembled, and their hearts broke at the
sound of his groans.
When he had completed the search, he turned to his faithful
Chassid, R' Mordechai Chaneh, and standing before him, tore open
his shirt and said, "Now, search out the Chametz in my heart,"
[The Gemara and other works refer to the "Yetzer Hara" - evil
inclination- as "Chametz."]
R' Mordechai did not lose his presence of mind, and replied,
"Rebbe, the Halacha instructs us that we need not search a place
where Chametz has not entered."
(R' Natan Elya Roth: Kedosh Yisrael)
************************************
The Gemara states that Chametz which is found during the search
must be set aside in a place where rodents cannot find it and
spread it about. On this R' Chaim M. Hager (son of the "Ahavas
Yisrael") commented:
"Chametz" signifies pride. It rises and we must get rid of it.
But, as with Chametz [some of which is left over for the Mitzvah of
"Biur" - burning], we must leave something. Pride is sometimes
needed in our service of Hashem. (See Divrei Hayamim II 17:6)
Yet man must take care that the small measure of pride which he
leaves over be kept in a hidden place. He should take care lest a
"rat" comes and spreads it about - lest the Yetzer Hara persuade
him to make his pride public.
************************************
We read in the Haggadah, "I might think that I should start
telling the story of the Exodus from Rosh Chodesh Nisan; therefore
the Torah (Sh'mot 13:8) says, 'Because of this.' This verse
teaches us that the Mitzvah of the Haggadah applies at the time
when 'this' (the Korban Pesach, the Matzah, and the Maror) are
before us."
The Haggadah does not tell us, however, says R' Mordechai
Gifter, shlita (Rosh Yeshiva of Telz), whether the Mitzvah of the
Haggadah applies only when those three items are actually before
us, or merely at the hour when those three Mitzvot apply. What if
one does not have Matzah and Maror? The answer may be found in the
Gemara (Pesachim 116b), however. There we learn that according to
the view that the Mitzvah of Matzah is only a Rabbinic obligation
now that the Bet haMikdash is not standing, so the Haggadah is also
a Rabbinic commandment. Why does this view consider Matzah to be
only a Rabbinic obligation? Because we don't have a Korban Pesach
on the table. We see, therefore, that the Mitzvah of the Haggadah
applies on a Torah level only when the other three Mitzvah-objects
are actually before us, not only at the time when they apply.
The question arises, since it is clear that the Mitzvah of
Haggadah applies "miDeoraita" only at the hour when the Mitzvah of
Korban Pesach applies as well, why did R' Elazar ben Azaryah remain
at the Seder with his colleagues past midnight (as told in the
Haggadah)? R' Elazar ben Azaryah maintained, after all, that the
Mitzvah of Korban Pesach could be performed only until midnight!
The answer is that even if the time for the Mitzvah of the
Haggadah has ended, the Haggadah and the story of the Exodus are
nevertheless Torah study. By remaining at the Seder he was thus
able to perform that Mitzvah.
(Pirkei Mo'ed p.23)
************************************
In 1939, R' Yaakov Galinsky, shlita (now a well-known orator in
Israel), was studying in the Novardok Yeshiva in Bialystok. The
Rosh Yeshiva at that time was R' Avraham Yoffen, zatzal (1887-
1970).
Shabbat comes early in the Bialystok winter, so that by 5
o'clock the students had already finished dinner and returned to
their studies. At 10 p.m., the students would go to R' Yoffen's
home to hear an ethical discourse related to the weekly Parasha.
One Friday night the talk continued past eleven, and the
students were hungry. Fortunately, the resourceful Yaakov Galinsky
soon found a large supply of Challah and a jar of honey, enough for
all of the assembled students.
A few days later, Yaakov discovered that Rebbetzin Yoffen (1885-
1985; daughter of R' Yoizel of Novardok) had been saving the honey
for Pesach. His shame, however, prevented him from apologizing and
asking forgiveness for what he had done.
Years passed. In 1964, R' Yoffen and his wife settled in Israel
and, soon after, held a reunion of former Novardok students living
in Israel. After the Rosh Yeshiva had spoken, R' Galinsky asked
permission to say a few words. "My sins I recall today" (B'reishit
41:9), he said, and related what he had done 26 years earlier. "I
would therefore like to publicly ask the Rosh Yeshiva and the
Rebbetzin for forgiveness," he concluded.
"It is we who should ask you for forgiveness," spoke up
Rebbetzin Yoffen, "for letting you be hungry. Everything in the
Rosh Yeshiva's house belongs to the students, and we should have
felt your pain."
(In the Footsteps of the Maggid p.235)
|
| 989.408 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Acharei | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Apr 27 1995 20:11 | 162 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Acharei
Vol. IX, No. 29 (413), 29 Nisan 5755, April 29 1995
One of the commandments in this week's parashah is "kisui ha'dam"-
covering the blood of an animal or a bird which is slaughtered. Many
commentaries struggle with understanding one of the details of this
mitzvah, specifically: why are the creatures which we call "beheimot"
(i.e., cows, sheep, and goats) exempted from this law?
The answer of Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook zatz'l may be summarized
as follows: Man is permitted to eat meat, but such is not his ideal
state. Indeed, before the Flood, eating meat was prohibited. The
mitzvah of kisui ha'dam should ingrain in man that he should hesitate
to spill the blood of a living being for his own use; only man's
lowly state makes this permitted.
Man does not feel the same way about slaughtering cows, sheep,
and goats as he does about slaughtering wild animals and birds.
After all, the same man who sends the former to the shochet has
raised them from their infancy. He thus feels--to some extent
correctly--that he is entitled to use them as he sees fit. The best
tool for reminding man of the darker side of eating meat is an animal
over which he does not feel such lordship, explains Rav Kook.
Does this mean that man should stop eating meat? No, says Rav
Kook. No one ever attained the status of "chassid" (pious one)
through undertaking stringencies for which he was not ready. First
man must fulfill what the Torah requires. (Ein Ayah, Shabbat II:15)
************************************
"And Aharon shall rest his hands on the head of the living
goat..." (16:21)
As described in this parashah, one of the sacrifices offered on
Yom Kippur was a goat which was not slaughtered in the Temple, but
was taken out to the desert and thrown off a cliff. Rav Yosef Dov
(Joseph B.) Soloveitchik zatz'l offers the following interpretation
of the service involving this goat.
The Kohen Gadol recited the vidui (confession) with his hands
resting on the goat's head because many of man's sins originate from
his head, i.e., from his overly calculating and rationalizing mind.
Just as this goat was sent to the desert, man should give some
thought to where his cunning will lead him.
The mishnah says that there were ten huts between Yerushalayim
and the desert. Even though it was Yom Kippur, the man who was
leading the goat was offered food and drink at each of these huts.
Rav Soloveitchik says that these ten huts represent the ten exiles
of the Jew [see below]. Unfortunately, in each of them, his
preoccupation has been with gathering food and drink. The "goat"
is climbing the mountain, but little does he realize that soon he
will fall off the cliff on the other side.
(Yemei Zikaron p.120)
************************************
Regarding the ten exiles, it is related that Rav Chaim of Volozhin
zatz'l (1749-1821) told his students that this was the number of
times that the Torah had to wander from its home. The first nine
destinations were Babylon, North Africa, Egypt, Italy, Spain, France,
Germany, Poland, and Lithuania. The tenth and last, Rav Chaim said
prophetically, would be America.
************************************
"For on this day . . . before Hashem shall you be cleansed."
(16:30)
Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah learned from here: "Before G-d shall you
be cleansed"--this teaches that only sins against G-d are forgiven
on Yom Kippur, but sins against man are not forgiven until the
injured man is appeased.
(Chizkuni)
************************************
Pirkei Avot
"Moshe received the Torah from Sinai. . ."
Moshe Rabbenu learned the entire Torah, and all of our wisdom
comes to us through him. This is made very clear in numerous
midrashim and statements of the gemara. However, there are other
midrashim and statements of the gemara which appear to differ (see
below). Can these be reconciled with each other?
Rav Shlomo Elyashiv zatz'l states that they can, and he discusses
some of them. For example, in Shemot Rabbah (41:6) we find Rabbi
Abahu's statement that Moshe's Torah study consisted of the general
principles. Based on what we know of Rabbi Abahu's life, Rav
Elyashiv explains that Rabbi Abahu made this statement in a debate
with heretics. They could not accept the possibility of a mortal
learning the entire Torah in 40 days. Chazal sometimes try to make
the Torah easier for heretics to understand [if there will be no
halachic consequences, perhaps as a first step towards further
study]. (See Megillah 9a)
Can a human really learn the entire Torah in 40 days? Of course
he can, considering that his teacher was none other than G-d Himself!
The midrash says that Rabbi Akiva saw things that Moshe did not
see. How can we understand this? Rav Elyashiv explains this based
on a kabbalistic concept that the higher a person's soul rises, the
more esoteric are the concepts which it can grasp. Thus, Moshe and
Rabbi Akiva saw the same concepts, but Rabbi Akiva, whose soul was
lower than Moshe's, saw them "dressed" more elaborately, i.e.,
somehow more tangible, than Moshe needed them to be.
There is a halachic concept called a "halachah l'Moshe miSinai"--
"a law [given] to Moshe from Sinai." Of course all Torah laws were
given to Moshe at Sinai, some of which are stated explicitly in the
Torah and some of which are only hinted at. However, the category
of laws called "halachah l'Moshe miSinai" includes those which are
not even alluded to in the Torah; they are simply oral traditions.
[An example is the requirement that tefilin straps be black.] Rav
Elyashiv explains that a "halachah l'Moshe miSinai" is a law that
was given only in its most esoteric form and it never became
"tangible" enough to be written down in the Torah.
(quoted in Sha'arei Leshem Shevoh V'achlamah p.438)
************************************
Rav Yosef Halevi ibn Migash zatz'l
born 4837 (1077) - died 30 Nisan 4901 (1141)
Rav Yosef, known as the "Ri Migash," was one of the earliest
Rishonim, medieval Torah scholars. He is sometimes referred to as
the teacher of Rambam, an appellation which should be taken
figuratively, not literally. Rav Yosef was the teacher of Rambam's
father, Rav Maimon, who was himself a great scholar (see below).
It is known that shortly before Rav Yosef's passing he did meet the
six year old Maimonides, and gave the boy his blessing.
Rav Yosef studied under the "Rif" (Rav Yitzchak Alfasi) for
fourteen years, starting before his bar mitzvah. (One of Rav Yosef's
"classmates" was Rav Yehuda Halevi, author of Kuzari.) This academy
was in Lucena, and Rif chose Rav Yosef over Rif 's own son, Rav
Yaakov, to succeed him as the head of that yeshiva.
Rav Yosef's commentaries on the tractates Bava Batra and Shevuot
have been published, but Rambam writes that Rav Yosef had written
commentaries on the entire Talmud. Some say that whenever Rambam
uses the phrase, "Our teacher," he means Ri Migash.
************************************
[In this week's parashah, we read of the threat of exile for our
sins. Pirkei Avot (whose first chapter is read this week after
minchah) starts with an outline of the Torah's transmission from G-d
to Moshe and onwards.]
In his Iggeret Ha'nechamah--letter of consolation to his oppressed
brethren--Rav Maimon (the father of Rambam) writes that remembering
the giving of the Torah and the greatness of the prophets who
transmitted it to us is a way to overcome the adversity of exile.
Surely G-d would not have "troubled" Himself to establish so great
a heritage only to abandon His nation!
|
| 989.409 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Kedoshim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed May 03 1995 20:04 | 164 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Kedoshim
Vol. IX, No. 30 (414), 6 Iyar 5755, May 6, 1995
In this parashah, as in many others in the Torah, we find mitzvot
which are said to be "a remembrance of the Exodus." Why are there
so many mitzvot which remind us of the Exodus? asks Rabbi Dr. Abraham
Twerski. It is perfectly reasonable to have an independence day
rite, such as the just-ended holiday of Pesach, but do we need so
many reminders the year round?
The liberation from Egypt was not merely a nationalistic event,
explains Rabbi Twerski, but was the creation of nation with a
mission. The entire nation was to be priestly (see Shmot 19:6), and
each individual a holy person.
Every incident in the saga of the Exodus can serve as a prototype
for the development of spirituality, says Rabbi Twerski. The
teachings that can be derived from each event have their application
in our strivings toward spirituality thousands of years later.
The mission of the Jew today is no different than that of his
ancestors who left Egypt: to become priestly and sacred, or in other
words, spiritual. Inasmuch as the forces that deter one from
spirituality are powerful, ubiquitous, and constant, so must our
efforts to vanquish these forces be constantly renewed and
reinforced. It is for this reason that we continually refer back
to the Exodus as the source for our "arms" in the struggle to achieve
spirituality. (From Bondage to Freedom: The Passover Haggadah--p.12)
************************************
"You shall be holy..." (19:2)
Ramban and others write that the mitzvah recorded in this verse
is: "Sanctify yourself through that which is permitted to you." This
means that even that which is permitted, e.g., eating, drinking, and
marital relations, should be done with sanctity and not to excess.
Rav Avraham of Slonim zatz'l adds the following interpretation:
"Sanctify yourself through that which is permitted to you"--it is
only to you that it appears that certain actions are "permitted,"
i.e., neither mitzvot nor sins. In fact, however, there is nothing
in the world which is optional; everything is either a mitzvah or
a sin, depending on how it is done.
(quoted in Netivot Shalom)
************************************
"You shall rebuke your fellow..." (19:17)
Knowing when to deliver rebuke is always a difficult task. The
following story relates to this dilemma.
Rav Moshe Yosef Teitlebaum zatz'l was Rabbi of Zabarov. Once,
during his derashah (sermon), he said, "You might wonder, 'Who is
this rabbi that he should rebuke us?' Let me explain with a parable:
"There was a town which had a fire chief, whose job it was to
sound the alarm whenever a fire broke out. Once, a visitor to the
town saw a fire breaking out, and instead of notifying the fire
chief, he sounded the alarm.
"The fire chief was very upset that his job had been usurped, but
any right-minded person would laugh at this fire chief. When the
fire is raging, every able-bodied person must rush to fight the
blaze.
"So it is with me," concluded Rav Teitlebaum. "When I see that
the city is on fire ,so-to-speak, I must do what I can to quell the
flames."
(quoted in Tamar Yifrach)
************************************
"I have set you apart from the nations." (20:26)
This means that the Jew is set apart from the nations whether he
likes it or not, says Rav Elazar Shach shlita. The Jew may think
that he has successfully assimilated, but the Holocaust has shown
us that even those who never think of themselves as Jews--and perhaps
do not even know they are Jews-- nevertheless are seen as Jews by
the nations of the world.
(Michtavim U'ma'amarim)
************************************
Pirkei Avot
Rabbi Chalafta of Bartora said: If ten people study Torah
together, Hashem rests His glory on them. How do we know that even
when one person studies alone, the same is true? For it says (Shmot
20:21), "In every place that I will mention My name, I will come to
you and bless you."
Should it not have said, "That you will mention My name"? Rav
Chaim of Volozhin zatz'l explains that, in truth, it is Hashem who
gives a person the strength to study Torah and to do mitzvot, as we
acknowledge (in the Nishmat prayer), "The limbs which You have given
me and the soul which You have blown into me, they will praise You."
Thus, Hashem says, even though it is I who gives you the strength
to mention My name, I will nevertheless bless you as if you had done
this on your own.
(Ruach Chaim)
Another explanation is offered by both Rav Chaim of Volozhin and
Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch zatz'l. A person might study for two
reasons: one is for the sake of giving honor to the Torah and to
Hashem; the second is for the sake of personal honor and grandeur.
When one learns for the former reason, he is doing something in
which Hashem takes pride. Hashem considers this as if He had taken
part in its accomplishment. If, however, a person studies Torah
purely for his own honor, Hashem wants no part of it. Thus this
latter form of study might be referred to as, "You mention My name,"
while the former is as if "I will mention My name." And when a
person studies for the honor of Hashem and his Torah, he merits the
fulfillment of the second half of the verse: "I will come to you and
bless you."
************************************
The Jewish Communities of
Speyer, Worms, Mainz, Cologne, and L'vov
Beginning in this month in the year 1096, many Jewish communities
of the Rhineland fell victim to the Catholic soldiers of the First
Crusade, who were on their way to conquer Yerushalayim from the
Moslems. It is told that these massacres were foreseen by some Torah
scholars in another town, Metz who, earlier in the year, had seen
three elderly strangers walking through the town as they recited
kaddish. These "men" were identified by Rav Shimon Hagadol, a
leading sage of the generation, as the souls of the Patriarchs
Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov.
The community of Speyer (in Yiddish, "Ashpira"--the origin of the
name "Shapiro") fell on the 8th of the month of Iyar. Ten Jews were
killed there before the local Duke intervened.
In Worms ("Vermisa"), 800 men, women, and children were massacred
on the 23rd of this month. Some sources record that the Jewish
community of Worms had dated to the destruction of the first Temple,
more than 1500 years earlier.
On the 3rd of Sivan, 1,360 Jews were killed in Mainz ("Magenza").
Finally, the community of Cologne was destroyed on the holiday of
Shavuot.
Many other communities were attacked as well. In many cities,
sifrei Torah were also destroyed. These tragedies are recorded in
our Tishah B'av kinot (lamentations), as that day has always been
the day for mourning all the troubles of Jewish history.
Also on the 8th of Iyar, in 5424 (1664), twenty-three Rabbis and
Torah scholars and 17 leading members of the community were killed
in L'vov, some of them by being burnt at the stake. Among those
killed were two sons of Rav David Halevi, known as the "Taz."
[The fact that pogroms began in the month of Iyar in different
generations is one reason why the prayer Av Harachamim is recited
on Shabbat Mevorchim during the month of Iyar.]
|
| 989.410 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Emor | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed May 03 1995 20:06 | 176 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Emor
Vol. IX, No. 31 (415), 13 Iyar 5755, May 13, 1995
At the end of this week's parashah we read of the man who cursed
G-d's Name. The midrash (Torat Kohanim) explains: What made him do
this? He heard the law in this week's parashah that twelve loaves
of bread should be placed on the shulchan (table) in the mishkan
(tabernacle) and left there for a week. He questioned this halachah,
asking, "Is the King of Kings to be fed with week-old bread?" Then
he cursed G-d's Name.
How can we understand this progression? Rav Zalman Sorotzkin
zatz'l explains as follows: This man questioned Divine Providence.
He thought that it was insulting to "serve" stale bread to G-d, but
had he waited one week, he would have seen that the bread
miraculously stayed warm and fresh. This man believed, "If I don't
understand G-d's ways now, then they make no sense!"
This is a common mistake. Frequently, we see that Hashem does
things which we do not understand. However, we must trust G-d and
learn to wait, whether it be for an hour, a week, or until the end
of days. (Heard from Rav Yissochor Frand shlita.)
************************************
"Hashem said to Moshe, 'Say to the kohanim, the sons of Aharon,
and tell them. . . '." (21:1)
Rashi comments that the redundancy, "Say . . . tell them," teaches
that the elders should be warned to teach the children. How is this
lesson implied in these words?
Rav Moshe Feinstein zatz'l explains that teaching one's children
has two parts. It is not enough to teach the commandments and the
laws; one must tell and demonstrate(!) to his children how dear those
laws are. [Rav Moshe was wont to say that the most destructive
expression that parents could use was, "It's difficult to be a Jew."]
One must "say" the laws, and then one must "tell them" how beloved
the laws of the Torah are.
(Darash Moshe)
************************************
"And you shall count for yourselves, from the morrow of the rest
day ('Shabbat'). . . ." (23:15)
The Oral Tradition notes that the "Shabbat" referred to here is
not the seventh day of the week but is the first day of Pesach. Why
does the Torah call it Shabbat?
Rav Eliezer David Gruenwald zatz'l explains as follows: On
Shabbat, we conclude the kiddush with the phrase, "He who sanctifies
the Shabbat." On yom tov, we conclude that blessing, "He who
sanctifies Israel and the times [i.e., holidays]." Why do we not
mention the sanctification of Israel on Shabbat? The reason is that
the holiness of Shabbat does not depend on the Jews, while the
sanctification of yom tov does. Shabbat invariably comes along on
every seventh day; this would happen if there were no Jews. Yom tov,
however, depends on the calendar, and the arrangement of the calendar
is given over to the sanhedrin, the leaders of the Jews. Before the
holidays can be sanctified, Israel must be sanctified; not so
Shabbat.
There is one holiday which is similar to Shabbat in this respect.
That is Pesach, particularly the first day. Chazal teach that Bnei
Yisrael were not really deserving of the Exodus, and it took place
only so that the Jews could become deserving, retroactively, by
receiving the Torah. (The Omer, which the above verse instructs us
to count, marks the days until that event.) Pesach, therefore, like
Shabbat, took place independently of the sanctification of Israel,
and it is appropriately called "Shabbat."
(Chasdei David p.6)
************************************
Pirkei Avot
"One whose deeds ("ma'asav") are greater than his wisdom . . .
all the winds in the world may blow, but they will not move him, as
it is written [Yirmiyah 17:8], 'He will be like a tree planted by
the waters, that sends forth its roots to the veins of water and will
not perceive that the heat is coming, whose leaves will be always
be fresh, and he will not worry in a drought year, and he will never
cease to yield fruit'." (Chapter 3)
Rav Yaakov Chaim of Baghdad zatz'l (1854-1921; son of the more
famous Rav Yosef Chaim of Baghdad) suggests that the word "ma'asav"
used here means "creations." Specifically, the mishnah refers to
a person's students. Chazal say that one's students are his
creations.
We are also taught in Pirkei Avot that if one's deeds (or,
according to Rav Yaakov, his creations or students) are numerous,
his wisdom will last. This may be understood, says Rav Yaakov, in
light of the proverb, "I learned most of all from my students."
(Z'chut Avot)
Why is it that a person learns so much from his students? Rav
Shimon Shkop zatz'l (died 1940) explains that Torah, like money, is
entrusted to a person by Hashem. If a person proves himself a
reliable caretaker, he is entrusted with even more wealth. Thus,
one who gives charity is rewarded with greater monetary wealth, while
one who teaches Torah is rewarded with greater knowledge.
************************************
The verse from Yirmiyah quoted above refers to one who places his
faith in Hashem. (The previous verse is, "Blessed is the man who
will trust in G-d. . . .") Rav Joseph Breuer zatz'l (1882-1980)
comments on these two verses:
"Blessings will accompany those who, whatever the obstacles[,]
will keep their lives firmly and enduringly rooted in G-d and who
are upheld by the profound awareness that not even the most potent
resources on earth can replace the one true Source of power and might
[represented by the river], near which alone the tree [i.e., man],
as it were, must place itself. The tree must eagerly send forth its
roots to the veins of water flowing from that source if it wishes
to survive the withering hot desert in ever-verdant freshness. If
it chooses this course, the tree will never have cause to fear the
scorching breath of the desert winds, which it will never have to
experience." [Note that the last sentence is a play on the
similarity between the Hebrew words for fear and seeing.]
(Sefer Yirmiyah: Translation and Commentary)
************************************
Rav Meir of Lublin zatz'l
born 5318 (1558) - died 16 Iyar 5376 (1616)
Rav Meir, known as "Maharam," was one of the leading poskim
(halachic authorities) of the 16th and 17th centuries. He was born
in Lublin and was educated in Krakow.
In 1582, Maharam established a yeshiva in Lublin, which he
conducted until 1587, when he was appointed rabbi of Lublin to
succeed his father-in-law. From 1595 until 1613, Maharam was rabbi
of L'vov (Lemberg), and he then returned to Lublin where he reopened
his yeshiva and also served as rabbi. His students included many
of the luminaries of the next generation, including the "Shelah
Hakadosh."
Maharam was one of the leading disputants in a halachic debate
involving the validity of a certain "death-bed" divorce known as the
"Vienna get." The story behind this get was as follows:
If a man dies childless and leaves a brother, the widow must
obtain a chalitzah before she may remarry. If the deceased's
brother-in-law lives in a different country, or if the family is too
poor to travel, this can be difficult. It was therefore customary
that a man would give a get on his death-bed, with the get being
conditional upon his dying. This get (or a separate contract) would
also say that if the husband or wife refused to return to the other
(in the event the man did not die), then the recalcitrant spouse
would pay the other 2,000 gold coins.
In the case of the "Vienna get," the documents were not completed
in the customary way. When the husband did not die, he insisted that
the get was void, and he demanded the 2,000 gold coins. Instead,
however, the wife's family managed to extort 4,600 gold coins from
the young husband. The halachic issues raised by these events were
passed on by nearly all of the sages of Eastern Europe.
Maharam was in the minority that invalidated the get. He was,
however, recognized by his contemporaries as one of the foremost
scholars in Europe. Indeed, numerous halachic queries were addressed
to him, including questions of agunot. Maharam lived in the
generation after the Shulchan Aruch was completed, and he was opposed
to this "easy" way of learning halachah.
Maharam left numerous unpublished works, in addition to his
published responsa and the Talmud commentary which can be found in
the standard Vilna edition of the Talmud.
|
| 989.411 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Behar | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed May 17 1995 21:17 | 172 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Behar
Vol. IX, No. 32 (416), 20 Iyar 5755, May 20, 1995
In this week's parashah we read that if an impoverished person
sells himself as a slave, his family has the right--indeed, the
obligation--to buy his freedom. Rav Yitzchak Blazer ("Reb Itzele
Peterburger") zatz'l writes that if one is obligated to redeem
another from physical slavery, how much more so must one help one
who is the slave of his yetzer hara, the "evil inclination."
Of course, Reb Itzele notes, there is a difference between these
two mitzvot. If you buy a slave's freedom, he is free. Not so is
freeing someone from his yetzer hara; there, only the "slave" himself
can take that final step.
Regarding that step, Rabbenu Yonah writes in Sha'arei Teshuvah
that failure to repent is an immense sin. The midrash likens this
to a prisoner who is placed in a cell which has a tunnel dug to the
outside world. The stupidity of the prisoner who does not flee is
beyond description. (Kochvei Ohr)
************************************
"And I shall direct My blessing to you in the sixth year. . ."
(25:21)
The Torah promises an extra abundance in the produce of the sixth
year in order to aid in observing shemittah (the sabbatical year).
Yet Chazal tell us that the mitzvah of shemittah was neglected
during most of the first Temple era. How, Rav Yaakov Yitzchak
Ruderman zatz'l asks, could people have failed to see the sign which
G-d sent every year before the shemittah?
The very last pasuk in the Torah refers to the miracles "which
Moshe did before the eyes of Yisrael." Ramban states that not all
of Moshe's miracles were done in the presence of the Jewish people.
However, because Moshe had prepared the people and taught them how
to recognize a miracle, everything he did subsequently was "before
the eyes of Yisrael."
Rav Ruderman explains based on this Ramban that if you do not look
for the miracle or the sign, you will not see it. This is why the
miracle of the "sixth year" did not move the Jews to observe the
shemittah. We see, similarly, that Yehoshua cursed the man who would
rebuild the city of Yericho that he would "pay" for the foundation
with the life of his oldest son and he would complete the
construction with the death of his youngest son, and although this
curse was fulfilled to the last detail, one man persisted in building
and never realized that Yehoshua's curse was being fulfilled before
his eyes. He just was not looking.
(Sichot Levi)
************************************
Thirty three hundred six years ago today, our ancestors left Har
Sinai, where they had camped for almost 12 months, and where they
had received the Torah. Strangely, the Midrash Yelamdenu criticizes
Bnei Yisrael, saying that they left Har Sinai like children running
from school. Can this be? Doesn't the Torah tell us (Bemidbar
10:11) that G-d commanded Bnei Yisrael to travel?
Rav Noson Zvi Finkel (the "Alter" of Slobodka) zatz'l suggests
that Chazal's criticism of Bnei Yisrael was not for the act of
traveling but for the feelings with which they traveled. Although
they left Har Sinai for the noblest of reasons, they should have felt
some regret over leaving Har Sinai. However, they did not; in some
measure, however small, they were glad to leave the place where they
had learned so much Torah.
Bnei Yisrael's experience is relevant to each of us: Few people
are able to study Torah all day; livelihoods must be earned and
families raised. However, when one must close his sefarim (books)
and devote time to other endeavors, it should be done with regret,
not like a child fleeing from school.
(Ohr Haztafun; Lekav Tov, p.93)
************************************
Pirkei Avot
The following thoughts on Pirkei Avot are from the recently
published Katit La'maor, by Rav Avraham Pinso (see page 4):
"Rabbi Meir said: 'Minimize your involvement in commerce ("esek")
and study Torah'." (4:6)
This can be understood in light of the gemara (Avodah Zarah 19b)
which promises that if one studies Torah with the proper intentions,
his investments will prosper on their own. It does appear
superficially that this is not the case, but we cannot gage a
person's inner motivations, and we therefore do not know whether he
really deserves this blessing. Also, a person may study Torah with
the purest of intentions, but forfeit this promise because of his
sins. This is the likely explanation any time we see that a promise
of the Torah is not fulfilled.
"Do not focus on the pitcher but on its contents." (4:20)
This is an allusion to the yetzer hara, the evil inclination.
It looks like an earthenware jar, something of little value. In
fact, however, it is filled with the sweetest wine.
How so?
We think of the yetzer hara as a pest. We are constantly fighting
with the yetzer hara, trying to do good and to please Hashem. For
doing so, we earn our places in the World-to-Come. But without the
challenge which the yetzer hara presents, we would never earn that
reward.
************************************
"Rabbi Shimon says, 'There are three crowns--the crown of Torah,
the crown of royalty, and the crown of the priesthood--and the crown
of a good name is above all of them'." (4:13)
Then aren't there four crowns? asks Rav Nachum Mordechai Friedman
(the "Tchortkover Rebbe") zatz'l. He explains that the "crown of
a good name" is not a separate distinction, but is the "crown jewel"
of the other crowns. All of the Torah, royalty, and priestliness
in the world are worthless if their master does not earn a good name
as well.
(Doreish Tov p. 197)
************************************
Gedolim of Bosnia
The 22nd of Iyar this week marks the 154th yahrzeit of Rav Chaim
Daniel Shlomo (known by the acronym "Chadash"). He was one of several
distinguished rabbis to came out of Bosnia in the 18th and 19th
centuries. Rav Chadash was the author of Shem Chadash, a commentary
on the Sefer Yereim of Rav Eliezer of Metz. Rav Chadash settled in
Yerushalayim in 1801, and was one of the leading rabbis and
kabbalists of the city for four decades.
The father of Rav Chadash was Rav Avraham Pinso, Chief Rabbi of
Sarajevo at the end of the 18th century. He was the author of
several works on halachah, derashot (sermons), and aggadah. Rav
Avraham also conducted a yeshiva in Sarajevo, until he too settled
in Yerushalayim in 1801.
During a trip to Livorno, Italy, Rav Avraham became acquainted
with the Chida (Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulai), and he quotes Chida
extensively in his work Katit La'maor, which was published for the
first time this year.
During Rav Avraham's tenure as rabbi--as so often in Bosnia's
history--that land was ravaged by war. This was part of a long-
standing rivalry between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman
Empire for control of the Balkan peninsula. As is so often the case,
the Jews were among the primary victims of the frustration of the
retreating armies. Not until 1790, when the Austrian Emperor died
(and thus, the war ended), did the Jews find some peace.
Rav Avraham's teacher was the famous Rav David Pardo, author of
numerous works, of which the best known probably is Maskil L'david.
Rav David also ended his days in Yerushalayim.
An earlier rabbi of Sarajevo was Rav Zvi Ashkenazi (died 5 Iyar
1718), whose biography has appeared previously in Hamaayan. He is
known as the Chacham Zvi, and was the father of Rav Yaakov Emden.
Rav Zvi was a native of Budapest, and he found himself in Sarajevo
as a refugee from an earlier Austrian-Turkish war. In his responsa
(ch. 168), he addresses a question which came before him when he
visited Belgrade (the capital of neighboring Serbia) in 1679. (The
question was whether a nazirite may lead birkat hamazon, since he
should not hold the cup of wine.)
|
| 989.412 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Bechukotai | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed May 24 1995 21:39 | 178 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Bechukotai
Vol. IX, No. 33 (417), 27 Iyar 5755, May 27, 1995
This parashah describes the blessings and curses which await the
Jewish people. "If you will follow in the way of My laws...," the
Torah says, and Rashi comments: "You should toil in Torah."
"And if you will keep My commandments...," the Torah continues,
and Rashi writes: "Toil in Torah in order to observe it."
"And if you will not listen...," we read later, and again Rashi
explains: "If you will not toil in Torah."
How is it, asks Rav Eliyahu Dessler zatz'l, that all blessings
and punishments depend on toiling in Torah? He explains: The
pleasures of this world differ from the pleasures of the World-to-
Come. In this world, the relief which is felt after a period of
suffering is proportional to how far removed from the suffering one
is now. Not so the rewards of the World-to-Come. The reward there
is the very realization that all of man's toil in Torah and mitzvot
was for a purpose; the greater the toil, the greater the satisfaction
and, hence, the reward. Indeed, man's toil for spiritual matters
is an end in itself.
In truth, this is an emotion which can be felt in this world as
well. On the verse (Tehilim 128:2), "You will be fortunate, and it
will go well with you," Chazal comment: "Fortunate in this world,
and well with you in the World-to-Come." Even in this world one can
appreciate that his toil for mitzvot is worthwhile. (Michtav
M'eliyahu III, p. 286).
************************************
"And you will plant your seeds for naught, for your enemies will
eat them." (26:16)
G-d told the prophet Yechezkel: "I passed by you, and I saw you
wallowing in your blood, and I said to you, 'With your blood you
shall live.' I said to you, 'With your blood you shall live'." Says
Rav Yissachar Shlomo Teichtel, H"YD: Yechezkel, in this prophecy,
foresaw our condition in exile--especially in Europe--where we toiled
with our blood and sweat in all walks of life for the betterment of
the societies in which we lived. In the end, we saw fulfilled the
words of the verse: "And you will plant your seeds for naught, for
your enemies will eat them."
The prophet calls to us in G-d's name: "I said to you, 'With your
blood you shall live.' I said to you, 'With your blood you shall
live'." [Why the repetition?] All of the energies that you have
previously devoted to building other societies, you should devote
to building your own land and people.
(Eim Habanim Smeichah, p.219)
************************************
"I will make the land desolate . . . And you--I will scatter
among the nations . . . During all the days of her desolation, the
land will rest; those sabbaticals that it did not observe while you
were on the land, it will observe now." (paraphrased from 26:32-35)
Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook zatz'l wrote: Upon being exiled, the
Jewish people were freed of any national concerns; they rather turned
their eyes and hearts heavenward. Jews were no longer preoccupied
with the same concerns that draw the attention of the other nations,
and at the same time, Jews ceased to chase after the idols [literal
and figurative] of the nations. The spirit of Hashem prompted the
Jew to recognize the value of every soul, and particularly, the
spiritual worth of the Jewish nation. The Torah was appreciated more
than fine gold and silver, just as in the nation's youth. Because
of their holy faith, the Jews in exile went to martyrdom with love
and happiness.
The Jew in exile always turned towards his land [Israel], but not
as one who yearns for his home because it satisfies his hunger and
his other physical needs. The Jew looked towards his land with a
gaze filled with holiness; he looked towards its inner nature as the
land that complements his yearning for G-d.
The time of the redemption is hidden. Who is privy to G-d's
secret, knowing when the land and the nation will have been
completely purified, that beloved time when the land and the nation
will be reunited? Our sages have said that there is no greater sign
of the onset of the redemption than the fulfillment of the verses:
"And you, mountains of Israel, give forth your branches, present your
fruits to My nation, Yisrael, for they are near to arrive." "And
the cities will be settled and ruins will be rebuilt, and I will
increase men and animals on the land and they will multiply..."
(Introduction to Shabbat Ha'aretz)
************************************
Pirkei Avot
"There are four characteristics among those who sit before Torah
scholars: . . . (3) a strainer ('mishameret') which lets the wine
pass through but keeps out the dregs . . ." (Ch. 5)
In 1946, Rav Yoel Teitlebaum (the "Satmar Rav") zatz'l was invited
to speak at Yeshivat Bet Avraham - Slonim in Yerushalayim. He
introduced his lecture with the following explanation of the above
mishnah: The gemara mentions that certain pious individuals used
to spend nine hours a day in preparation for, and in, prayer. The
gemara asks, "How then is their Torah accomplished?" The gemara
answers, "Because they are pious, their Torah is 'mishtameret'
(presumably, 'guarded')."
This answer, says the Satmar Rav, is difficult to understand.
If "mishtameret" means being "guarded," it can only refer to the
Torah which these pious individuals have already learned. How,
however, will they learn more if they are so occupied in prayer?
Rather, the gemara means "mishtameret" in the sense of the
"mishameret"--strainer--of our mishnah. For the ordinary person,
accomplishment in Torah requires extraordinary effort; for the pious,
who spend the bulk of their time in prayer, Torah is easily
"strained". True insights are acquired with less effort, while the
"dregs"--false leads and misunderstandings--fall by the side.
(Mimayanot Hanetzach, p.274)
************************************
Rav Shlomo Kluger zatz'l writes that "those who sit before Torah
scholars" are the supporters of the Torah. This is based upon the
verse (Devarim 33:18), "Rejoice, Zevulun, in your excursions, and
Yissachar, in your tents"--a reference to the fact that Yissachar
and Zevulun shared the profits of Zevulun's business and the rewards
of Yissachar's Torah study. Note that Zevulun is mentioned before
Yissachar in the verse.
There are four types of Torah supporters, the mishnah says: a
sponge, a funnel, a strainer, and a sieve. The first is someone who
"absorbs" all requests for charity, whether the recipient is
deserving or not. The second steals in order to give charity; the
money just passes through his hands, as through a funnel. The third-
-the "strainer"--accepts requests only from those who are not worthy,
just as a strainer passes the wine, and retains the dregs. Finally,
the fourth is like a type of sieve which holds the finest flour and
passes through the bran--he accepts requests only from the worthy.
[Ed. note: The mishnah appears not to pass judgment on these four
types of givers. It is important for a person just to recognize
himself.]
(Magen Avot)
************************************
"And you will eat your bread to satiety. . ." (26:5)
There are two ways to become satiated--to eat a lot or to be
satisfied with what one has. The following stories, from the new
biography of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zatz'l, Hamaor Hagadol,
highlight some examples of the latter type of satisfaction:
The poverty in the home of Rav Chaim Leib zatz'l and Tziviah A"H
Auerbach was unimaginable. Their son, Rav Shlomo Zalman, quipped
to his younger brother, Rav Avraham Dov shlita, "You were born in
the good days, that is when there was occasionally one egg in the
house that the four children could share." Even so, young Shlomo
Zalman would often run off to school without eating, so that his
younger siblings could share his portion.
Rav Chaim Leib was the dean of Yeshivat Sha'ar Hashamayim, and
he personally guaranteed the academy's many loans. Eventually the
yeshiva's creditors came for the family's furniture. Next went the
dishes and pots. But what was really unbearable, not just for Rav
Chaim Leib, but for his wife and children as well, was the day that
the creditors came for the sefarim (Torah books).
It was customary in Yerushalayim of old that each time a young
bride-to-be visited the parents of her betrothed, they gave her a
small gift. Rav Shlomo Zalman's parents could not afford this, so
they promised to give young Chaya Rivka (A"H) a larger present
someday.
"Am I a doctor," the young bride asked, "that you must pay me for
every house-call?"
|
| 989.413 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Bemidbar | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jun 02 1995 03:23 | 163 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Bemidbar
Vol. IX, No. 34 (418), 5 Sivan 5755, June 3, 1995
Outside of Israel, Parashat Bemidbar is read on the Shabbat
immediately preceding Shavuot in all but (approximately) 26 out of
every 247 years. (See Be'ur Halachah 428:4; Tur Orach Chaim section
428 and Pri Chadash there.) This association is not mere
coincidence; commentators note many similarities between the primary
theme of this parashah--the layout of the camp of Bnei Yisrael-- and
the giving of the Torah. In fact, the midrash records that when the
Torah was given, Bnei Yisrael saw that the angels who "accompanied"
G-d to the revelation at Har Sinai also stood within a fixed
arrangement, and thus Bnei Yisrael were inspired to request a fixed
arrangement within their own camp. In the same way, also, when Moshe
ascended to Har Sinai, he allowed Bnei Yisrael to accompany him only
so far, the elders a little farther, the kohanim even more, and
Aharon the farthest, until at last they reached a point beyond which
only Moshe could ascend. All three of these arrangements, explain
the commentators, represent the idea that in receiving the Torah and
serving Hashem, each person--man, woman, kohen, levi, yisrael, rabbi
or layman--must recognize his place and his role, and not trespass
on that of another Jew.
************************************
"Hashem spoke to Moshe in the Sinai Desert." (1:1)
Rabbenu Bachya comments, "'In the Sinai Desert'--where Mount Sinai
is." He continues:
The Torah was given through three creations: fire, water, and
desert. Fire--as is written (Sh'mot 19:18): "And Har Sinai was
covered with smoke because Hashem came down upon it in fire."
Water--as is written (Shoftim 5:4): "Hashem, when You left Se'ir,
when You strode from the Field of Edom, the land quaked, also the
skies dripped, also the clouds dripped water." [This is a reference
to when Hashem offered the Torah to the sons of Esav.]
Desert--as is written: "Hashem spoke to Moshe in the Sinai
Desert."
Why was the Torah given through these three? To teach us that
just as these three are available for "free," i.e., they exist in
the world in unlimited quantities, so too the Torah is available for
free to anyone who wants it. Also, the Torah was given in the desert
to teach us that the Torah only stays with those who humble
themselves like the desert.
************************************
Ramban writes: After the Book of Vayikra has taught us what to
do in the mishkan (i.e. the laws of the sacrifices), Bemidbar begins
with the organization of the camps around the mishkan.
The parallelism between this parashah and Shavuot was noted on
the first page of this issue. It is also interesting to note that
Parashat Bemidbar is one of few parashot (outside of Sefer B'reishit)
which teaches no new mitzvot. Furthermore, observes Ramban, the vast
majority of the commandments in Sefer Bemidbar are of a temporary
nature, applying only to the sojourn in the desert or to the first
generation thereafter. Similarly, in the absence of the Bet
Hamikdash, there are no unique mitzvot for Shavuot. In fact, the
mishnah (Mo'ed Katan 19a) entertains a view that in certain respects,
Shavuot no longer has the status of the other Torah-ordained
holidays, though the halachah does not follow this view.
************************************
The Torah reading outside of Israel is one week behind that of
Israel because the seventh day of Pesach fell on Friday. Outside
of Israel, the following day was still a holiday, while in Israel
it was an ordinary Shabbat. Communities outside of Israel will not
"catch-up" until late in the summer.
Why not sooner? The reason may well be the ancient custom to read
Parashat Bemidbar on the Shabbat immediately preceding Shavuot. We
in chutz l'aretz are observing this custom, while shuls in Israel
are not.
************************************
Pirkei Avot
"Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: 'Every day a bat kol (heavenly
voice) proclaims from Har Chorev (Mount Sinai), "Woe is to them, to
My creations, for the disgrace which they cause to the Torah".'"
(Ch. 6)
Rav Shlomo Kluger zatz'l presents several questions on this
mishnah. First, why the repetitive language, "Woe is to them, to
My creations."? Second, why does this bat kol originate from Har
Chorev of all places? Rav Kluger offers several explanations, among
them the following:
The disgrace to the Torah of which the mishnah speaks is the
insult which is caused when one abuses or speaks evil of a talmid
chacham (Torah scholar). Rabbis often appear to be "weaklings" and
their congregants think nothing of abusing them. This is
particularly true when the talmid chacham in question has a humble
and unassuming nature. Do not make this mistake--the honor of those
who study Torah is the honor of the Torah itself.
Chazal teach that when Hashem prepared to give the Torah, many
mountains vied for the privilege of having the Torah given on their
peaks. Some of these were tall, some were beautiful, some were
covered with trees or other greenery. But Hashem chose Har Sinai
(also known as Har Chorev) precisely because it was a plain,
unassuming mountain. Why? In order to warn us that the honor of
the humble Torah scholar, like the humble mountain, is the honor of
the Torah itself.
Yet this mishnah contains a warning for the talmid chacham as
well: Do not think that because your honor is the honor of the Torah
that you may never forgive one who insults you. The double language
of the mishnah is meant to inform the talmid chacham that any
punishment befitting one who insults him will come on its own. "Woe
is to them, to My creations" from their self-inflicted wounds.
(Magen Avot)
************************************
Shavuot
Shavuot is the most "soft-spoken" and "subtle" of all of our
holidays, writes Rav Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan zatz'l (1890-1924; dean
of Berlin's Hildesheimer Seminary from 1920). Pesach and Sukkot both
have names that vividly portray the nature of the holiday:
"Chag HaPesach" - "The holiday when G-d skipped over the homes
of the Jews."
"Chag HaMatzot" - "The holiday when the Jews left Egypt so
quickly that they had no time to bake bread."
"Chag HaSukkot" - "The holiday commemorating the 'Clouds of
Glory' which protected Bnei Yisrael in the desert."
Not so Shavuot! Its name - "The Feast of Weeks" - tells us only
that it follows a period during which we eagerly counted-off the days
until this occasion.
Another example of Shavuot's low key nature: Pesach coincides
with the beginning of the harvest, when the Jewish farmer joyfully
goes out to the field, full of thanks to the Creator of all. Sukkot
falls at the end of the harvest, when the same Jew celebrates the
success of his harvest season. Shavuot? It falls early in the
summer when the harvest is in full swing and the farmer is about to
turn his attention towards cutting his wheat - the most basic and
"unromantic" of all crops.
Shavuot is a holiday with no mitzvot of its own; it does not need
any. Shavuot celebrates the most basic of all of man's needs:
Torah, for the soul; bread, for the body. Shavuot does not advertise
itself through great miracles (as does Pesach) or a plethora of
mitzvot (as do all of the other holidays). Shavuot expects us to
understand on our own, and those who are close to the ideals that
Shavuot represents do.
(B'ikvot Hayir'ah, p.234)
|
| 989.414 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Naso | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jun 02 1995 03:24 | 198 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Naso
Vol. IX, No. 35 (419), 12 Sivan 5755, June 10, 1995
One section of this week's parashah deals with the sotah, a woman
whose husband has warned her to avoid the company of a certain man,
and she is seen with him nevertheless. The Torah describes the
miraculous way in which she (and at the same time, her husband and
the other man) is tested for sin, and the reward which she will
receive if she was wrongly suspected.
The following section of the parashah presents the laws of the
nazir, one who takes a vow of abstention. Why are these sections
juxtaposed? Chazal answer: One who witnesses the downfall of a sotah
should abstain from wine as a precaution for himself.
Rav Yerucham Levovitz zatz'l explains that most people would say,
"What does her downfall have to do with me? I may not be perfect,
but I am far from being an adulterer!"
"No," the Torah is teaching. "Do you think that the sotah became
an adulteress overnight? When a person falls from the highest peak
to the lowest pit, there are steps along the way. The sotah's first
step--as well as the first step in many great downfalls--probably
was overindulgence in material pleasures, something to which every
person is susceptible." (Da'at Torah)
************************************
"A man or a woman or a woman who shall dissociate ('yafli')
himself by taking a vow of abstinence. . ." (6:2)
The word "yafli" ("dissociate") also means "will do something
wondrous." It really is wondrous when someone takes such a vow
because most people would rather indulge their desires.
(Ibn Ezra)
************************************
"He shall not come near a dead person." (6:6)
Ba'al Haturim explains the reason: So that if the nazir
experiences Divine revelation as a result of his abstinence, he will
not be suspected of black magic (which uses human bones in a ritual
which mimics prophecy).
Rav Yehuda Ze'ev Segal zatz'l elaborates: The Ba'al Haturim is
teaching us that one who controls his appetites can in fact reach
the level of Divine revelation.
The gemara (Nedarim 9b) states that Shimon Hatzaddik (the kohen
gadol) never ate from the sacrifices of a nazir until a met a certain
young man. Shimon met a nazir who had the most beautiful locks of
hair, and Shimon asked him: "What brought you to shave this beautiful
hair?" [A nazir who completes his term must shave his hair.]
The nazir explained, "I saw my reflection in a pond and realized
my own beauty. Momentarily, I thought of sinning, but I said to my
yetzer hara, 'You evil one--why do you take pride in a world which
is not yours, and in which you will end up as dust. I swear I shall
shave your hair for the sake of heaven'."
This story teaches, says Rav Segal, that a person must speak to
his yetzer hara and tell him that he doesn't agree to go along with
him. One must literally shout at his yetzer hara.
(Yir'ah Vada'at)
************************************
"Speak to Aharon and his sons, saying, 'Thus you shall bless Bnei
Yisrael, say to them'." (6:23)
The verses which follow set out the text of "Birkat Kohanim"--the
priestly blessing.
Rav Moshe Isserles ("Rema") zatz'l notes that the custom in the
diaspora is that the kohanim perform this mitzvah only on yom tov.
In most communities in Israel, Birkat Kohanim is performed daily.
The reason for this distinction, says Rema, is that the Jews of the
diaspora find it too difficult to concentrate on the performance of
this mitzvah.
This explanation is astonishing, writes Rav Moshe Sternbuch
shlita. Since when can we excuse ourselves from performing a Torah
mitzvah by saying that we can't concentrate? Besides, don't we want
G-d's blessing?
Birkat Kohanim was one part of the daily service that the kohanim
performed in the Temple. Today, when the Bet Hamikdash does not
stand, our prayers take the place of the Temple service. This is
why Birkat Kohanim is recited as part of the chazzan's Shemoneh
Esrei.
However, not all prayers are equal. In fact, there are three
categories of prayer. The lowest is "tefilat yachid"-- the prayer
of an individual. The second is "tefilah betzibur"-- prayer with
a congregation. The third and highest level is "tefilat hatzibur"--
the prayer of the congregation. What is the difference between the
second and the third? The former is found when ten individuals pray
together as a minyan, each reciting his own prayer silently; the
latter occurs when one person prays and the others stand silently
and listen.
Only the last type of prayer truly parallels the Temple service,
says Rav Sternbuch, for not every person brought the "korban tamid"
(daily offering) in the Temple. Rather, the kohanim, as agents of
the nation, brought one sacrifice on behalf of all Jews. It follows,
therefore, that only in the context of "tefilat hatzibur" (the third
type of prayer) can Birkat Kohanim be recited, for only then does
the blessing parallel that which was recited in the Bet Hamikdash.
However, Rema is teaching, we in the diaspora, being unable to
concentrate on our prayers, never attain the level of "tefilat
hatzibur" on a weekday. While the chazzan is repeating the Shemoneh
Esrei, each member of the congregation is off in a world of his own.
One is reading from a sefer, another is talking to his friend, a
third is dozing, many are planning the work day ahead. Only on yom
tov, when the shul is full, are we sure to have at least a minyan
that is paying attention to the chazzan. Then, having achieved the
level of "tefilat hatzibur", we can perform Birkat Kohanim.
The situation in Israel is different for several reasons. Before
this century, the Jewish community in Israel consisted of two groups:
Sephardim whose ancestors were in Israel long before the practice
arose for every member of the congregation to pray silently (they
had only "tefilat hatzibur") and Ashkenazim whose ancestors had
arrived with one of the "yeshiva-based" immigrations (e.g. the
students of the Vilna Gaon) or with the early chassidic leaders, all
of whom abandoned all material concerns and established communities
in the Holy Land that adhered to the highest standards of observance.
Both of these groups had no difficulty maintaining a sufficient level
of concentration to allow for "tefilat hatzibur" and Birkat Kohanim.
(Mo'adim U'zmanim: "Yom Tov" section 31)
************************************
[This week we reprint from four years ago one of the editor's
favorite articles, which answers the question that has baffled many
a school child: Since we "cannot" learn gemara without Rashi's
commentary, how did Rashi and his teachers learn gemara?]
The experienced student of gemara immediately recognizes the
phrase "peireish hakuntreis"-"The notebook explained"-as the way that
the "Ba'alei Tosfot"-the Ashkenazic scholars of the 12th-14th
centuries-refer to the Talmud commentary of Rashi (1040-1105). In
fact, the "Kuntreis" and the "Tosfot" represent the two primary
contributions of medieval French and German scholars to the history
of Torah study.
According to an ancient tradition, there were Jews in Germany even
before Shaul became the first king of Israel (circa 876 B.C.E.).
(See note in Rashi, Shoftim 20:45.) However, it was to be 1600 years
before the first yeshiva opened in northern Europe. This occurred
in either 787 or 876 C.E., at the instigation of one of the
Carolingian kings (either Charlemagne or Charles the Bald). Two more
centuries passed before this yeshiva produced its greatest son--Rav
Gershom ben Yehuda (960-1040), popularly known as Rabbenu Gershom
"Me'or Hagolah"-"The Light of the Exile." (Rabbenu Gershom authored
Talmud commentaries which are still studied today and was also one
the most important teachers in the history of Ashkenazic Jewry.
However, he is best known to the layman as the author of the ban on
bigamy which is observed among Ashkenazic Jewry.)
In the yeshivot of the Rhineland (i.e. the border between France
and Germany), the common method of study was through "kuntreisim".
Because the Talmud reflects both a language and a lifestyle which
were unfamiliar to Ashkenazic Jews, it was the teacher's obligation
to explain not only the intricate give-and-take of the gemara's
discussion, but also the meaning of the words and the underlying
concepts. (Thus, for example, Rashi states repeatedly in his
commentaries to Eruvin and Sukkah, "The Babylonians have flat roofs,
unlike our sloped roofs.") For their part, the students valued every
lesson that they heard and sought to retain not only the lesson's
content, but the key terminology as well. For this reason, each
student recorded the lessons, in minute detail, in his notebook or
"kuntreis."
These notebooks were used in several ways. Firstly, each student
used his own notebook to review the lessons that he had heard.
Secondly, it was apparently common for students to exchange notebooks
and to insert therein comments regarding each "author's"
understanding of the lessons. Also, when a student studied a
tractate for a second time, he would return to his earlier notebook
and answer questions that he or his friends had noted there, clarify
the material, and otherwise improve his grasp of the Talmud.
Finally, these notebooks could be sent from one yeshiva to another
in order to compare the explanations of different teachers, and could
be used by students who transferred from other yeshivot in order to
"catch-up" to their new colleagues.
Many of these notebooks survived the deaths of their authors and
were studied by future generations. The best known of these are
"Kuntreis Magenza" from Rabbenu Gershom's yeshiva in Mainz, and the
notebooks of Rashi's teachers, Rav Yaakov ben Yakar and Rav Yitzchak
ben Yehuda. Rashi's notebook was not the only one, but became the
kuntreis par excellence.
|
| 989.415 | Can someone help explain a daggesh? | CAD::GROSS | The bug stops here | Tue Jun 13 1995 03:22 | 12 |
| Here's a technical question from last week's portion.
The last word of the first verse of the priestly blessing
has a daggesh in the final letter. [For the uninitiated:
a daggesh is a dot in the middle of a letter that (in this case)
indicates how to vocalize the consonant.] Thus, the pronounciation
of the word is "vayishmereka" (tr: and may he keep you). What
is the reason for this daggesh? Everywhere else, the suffix "ka"
(tr: you (singular)) is without the daggesh and therefore pronounced
"cha" (gutteral ch).
Dave
|
| 989.416 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Behaalotecha | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jun 16 1995 03:12 | 177 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Beha'alotecha
Vol. IX, No. 36 (420), 19 Sivan 5755, June 17, 1995
The midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Beshalach and Yalkut Shimoni, Tehilim
ch.78) states that enough mahn fell every day to feed Bnei Yisrael
for 2,000 years. (The two sources cited give two different
calculations as proof of this fact.) What was the purpose of this
abundance?
Rav Yechezkel Abramsky zatz'l explains: The Jewish people doubted
Hashem's ability to feed them and, at this crucial point at the
beginning of our history, He had to prove Himself. We cannot
appreciate what a trial life in the desert was for Bnei Yisrael.
However, we can gain a glimpse of their trials from the verse
(Yirmiyah 2:2) "I remember for your sake the kindness of your youth
. . . your following Me through the desert in a land which was not
planted." So difficult was it that Hashem actually credits the Jews
for following Him through the desert--as if they had done Him a
favor.
Why were the ten plagues not sufficient proof for the Jews? Rav
Abramsky explains: Because the plagues took place before the Torah
was given. Without the Torah, Bnei Yisrael were not yet capable of
the clear vision and recognition necessary to see G-d's hand.
(Chazon Yechezkel: Kovetz Ma'amarim)
************************************
"Not for one day shall you eat, nor two days, nor five days, nor
ten days, nor twenty days. Until an entire month of days, until it
comes out of your nose and becomes nauseating to you. . ." (11:19-
20)
Why did Hashem "insist" on providing Bnei Yisrael with meat for
an entire month? Says Rav Meir Rubman zatz'l: This is the
punishment for inappropriate desires--G-d fulfills these desires
until one wishes that he had never seen or heard of that which he
previously pined for.
(Zichron Meir)
A related thought is found in the interpretation by Rav Zvi Pesach
Frank zatz'l of the verse in Tehilim (145: 19), "He fulfills the will
of those who fear Him and He will hear their cries and He will save
them." G-d sometimes fulfills man's wishes so that man can see that
this is not what is best for him. Then, G-d hears his cries and
saves him from what he had wished for.
(She'eilot Uteshuvot Har Zvi)
************************************
"Do not leave us, for you have known our encampment in the desert,
and you will be our eyes." (10:31)
This was Moshe's entreaty to Yitro to remain with the Jewish
people and not to return to Midian. Rav Yehuda Assad zatz'l
explains: A person can become so accustomed to miracles that he
fails to notice them. Bnei Yisrael were a "high risk" for this type
of result. Therefore Moshe said to Yitro, "You have known our
encampment in the desert," but you did not see the miracles of the
ten plagues, the splitting of the sea and the giving of the Torah.
"You can be our eyes," because you are less likely to take G-d's
miracles for granted.
(Divrei Maharia)
************************************
"And the man Moshe was very humble. . ." (12:3)
Rav Moshe Feinstein zatz'l once was walking along a street in his
neighborhood when he heard a voice calling, "Moshe, Moshe!" Looking
up, he saw that the voice was that of an acquaintance, who was behind
the wheel of his car. Without blinking an eye, Rav Moshe walked over
to the car.
Upon realizing that Rav Moshe had assumed that he was being
called, the man turned crimson with embarrassment. He said, "I was
calling my son, who happened to be in the street as I drove by. I
would never dream of addressing the Rosh Yeshiva in such a
disrespectful manner. Besides, if I had something to discuss with
the Rosh Yeshiva I would have gotten out of my car and gone over to
him. I would not have dared to ask the Rosh Yeshiva to come to me."
Rav Moshe assured the man that there was nothing to be concerned
about. "It is already many years that these things mean nothing to
me."
(Reb Moshe p.229)
************************************
"And Yehoshua bin Nun--the servant of Moshe, one of the young men-
-answered saying, 'My master, Moshe, arrest them'." (11:28; see
Rashi)
Among the signs of respect that one owes to his rebbe (teacher
of Torah) is to not address or refer to him by his proper name.
Specifically, writes Rav Shabtai Kohen (the "Shach"), one may say,
"My teacher, Rabbi so-and-so," if one is speaking about his teacher.
When addressing one's teacher, however, one may not mention the
Rabbi's name at all, but should say simply, "Rabbi" or "Rebbe."
Many poskim (halachic decisors) disagree with Shach's ruling and
hold that even in the presence of one's teacher one may mention the
teacher's name so long as it is prefaced with a title of respect such
as "Rabbi" or "Master." These poskim derive their opinion from our
verse wherein Yehoshua addresses his teacher as "My master, Moshe."
One can say in Shach's defense that our verse represents a unique
case. Rav Baruch Halevi Epstein zatz'l suggests in his Torah
commentary Torah Temimah that the reason one must address his teacher
simply as "Rabbi" and not as "Rabbi So-and-so" is that the latter
is disrespectful to the teacher in that it implies that the speaker
has another teacher as well. If he did not, why would he find it
necessary to clarify to which Rabbi he was speaking? Based on this
rationale, there would be nothing wrong with Yehoshua's saying, "My
master, Moshe." Everybody knew that Yehoshua had no teacher but
Moshe, for not only was Moshe the teacher of the entire generation,
the Torah itself testifies that Yehoshua maintained constant contact
with Moshe. Even when Moshe ascended Har Sinai, Yehoshua sat at the
base of the mountain for forty days so that when Moshe came down,
Yehoshua might immediately resume his studies. (Perhaps it is for
this very reason that our verse reminds us of Yehoshua's subservience
to Moshe--i.e., "the servant of Moshe, one of the young men"--even
though we have already learned of it from other verses, as if to say,
"Do not mistakenly think that Yehoshua implied any disrespect for
his teacher.")
Rav Moshe Feinstein zatz'l offers another defense of Shach. He
writes that Yehoshua had to mention Moshe's name in order to
emphasize that "Even you, Moshe, the humblest of all men, must now
defend your honor and punish Eldad and Medad." (Igrot Moshe, Y.D.
I, ch. 133)
************************************
Rav Yehuda Assad zatz'l
died 23 Sivan 5626 (1866)
Rav Yehuda Assad (known as "Mahari Assad" for "Moreinu Harav
Yehuda"--"Our teacher, Rabbi Yehuda") was the rabbi of a number of
Hungarian cities during the first half of the 19th century. He was
one of the major poskim (halachic authorities) of his day and his
responsa are gathered in She'eilot Uteshuvot Yehuda Yaaleh. He also
authored Divrei Maharia, a Torah commentary (see inside).
It is told that Mahari once was present at a wedding where his
contemporary, the Ketav Sofer, was showing off a real half-shekel
coin dating to the time of the mishnah and the Temple. The coin
passed from hand to hand until, suddenly, its owner realized that
it was missing. Immediately, the Ketav Sofer--one of the two giants
of the generation--ordered the doors locked and demanded that
everyone present turn out his pockets. Just as quickly, Mahari
Assad--recognized as Ketav Sofer's equal--requested that everyone
wait fifteen minutes before complying.
Reluctantly, the Ketav Sofer agreed. Fifteen minutes passed and
he repeated his demand, but Mahari immediately requested a second
reprieve. Fifteen minutes later, the same exchange took place once
again.
When forty-five minutes had passed from Ketav Sofer's discovery
of his loss, he demanded that, finally, everyone assembled comply
with his orders. Just then, the door from the kitchen opened and
a busboy entered carrying a half-shekel coin. The Ketav Sofer was
elated to learn that his coin had not been stolen, but only
accidentally cleared off of the table. "How did you know?" he asked
Mahari Assad.
"I didn't," Mahari said. He reached into his own pocket and
removed an identical half-shekel coin. "I too brought this rare coin
to show off, but when I saw the pleasure which you were having I
could not bring myself to show off my own coin. But what if I had
emptied my pockets? Who would have believed that two such rare coins
could be present in the same room at one time?! I therefore begged
your indulgence and prayed feverishly that your loss should be
restored to you."
|
| 989.417 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Shelach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jun 22 1995 20:36 | 181 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Shelach
Vol. IX, No. 37 (421), 26 Sivan 5755, June 24, 1995
We read in this week's parashah of Hashem's "complaint" to Moshe
(14:22), "They (Bnei Yisrael) have not listened to My voice." Chazal
say that Bnei Yisrael tried Hashem's patience ten times in the
desert. It is important, however, to put these ten episodes in the
proper perspective, says Rav Avigdor Miller shlita. Bnei Yisrael
in the desert numbered millions of people living in a small space
with no visible sources of food or water. They were also surrounded,
and occasionally attacked, by enemies. It is no surprise, therefore,
that they complained about having to enter the Red Sea, not knowing
that it would split, or that they worried about the futures of their
wives and children.
Why then does Hashem criticize them? Because after what they had
witnessed they could rightfully be expected to be superhuman! For
example, in any other generation it would be permitted, indeed
required, to send spies to prepare the way for an invasion, but this
generation should have trusted completely in Hashem's supernatural
abilities.
Without the Torah's verdict, we would never know how to place the
blame for the subtle sins of our ancestors. Hashem, however,
measured them (as he measures all tzaddikim) by a standard which is
beyond our comprehension. (Rejoice O Youth! p.167)
************************************
"But the men who had ascended with him said, 'We cannot ascend
to that people for it is too strong for us'." (13:31)
This verse opens the second part of the spies' report, says Rav
Reuven Halevi Horowitz zatz'l. He explains that Moshe and Bnei
Yisrael had different intentions in sending the spies. To the
masses, the spies' mission was to study whether it was possible to
conquer Eretz Yisrael naturally. To Moshe and Aharon, the purpose
was the opposite, i.e., to strengthen the Jewish people's faith in
G-d.
The Torah says (13:26), "They went and came to Moshe and to Aharon
and to the entire assembly of Bnei Yisrael . . . and brought back
to them the report and to the entire assembly. . ." Rav Horowitz
explains that the spies "went and came" simultaneously, an allusion
to the fact that they appeared to unite the Jewish people while
actually dividing them. This is because when the spies returned,
they "played" to both audiences. They "brought back to them [i.e.,
Moshe and Aharon] the report and to the entire assembly," the unusual
syntax being an allusion to fact that they had two reports.
The spies said, "The people that dwells in the Land is powerful."
To Moshe and Aharon this meant, "The people that dwells in the Land
is powerful so let us strengthen our faith." To Bnei Yisrael this
meant, "The people that dwells in the Land is powerful so let us give
up now." Only Kalev (who had been with them) understood their
intention, and he tried to reassure Bnei Yisrael and to turn them
towards Moshe's view (13:30). Only then, their ruse discovered, did
the spies say explicitly, "We cannot ascend to that people for it
is too strong for us."
(Dudaim Basadeh)
************************************
Rav Moshe Zvi Neriyah shlita writes: Many years ago, I
accompanied Rav Aryeh Levin zatz'l to a shivah house--of a family,
incidentally, that Rav Aryeh did not know--and I asked him, "We read
in Tehilim (95:10), 'For forty years I was angry with a generation;
then I said, "An errant-hearted people are they--they do not know
My ways".' Were the Jews in the desert considered willful sinners
or unintentional sinners?" I asked.
Rav Aryeh replied, "Definitely unintentional sinners! True, forty
years is a long time to continue in this way, and the Jews did see
wonders in Egypt which no one else has ever seen. However, the
education of an entire nation is not easy, and it continues to this
day. Even today, most Jews 'do not [yet] know My ways'."
(B'sdeh Hare'iyah p.411)
************************************
"Moshe sent them from the Paran Desert by the word of Hashem. . ."
(13:3)
Rashi explains: "By the word of Hashem" means that G-d did not
object.
Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky zatz'l asks: Can we really equate Hashem's
not objecting with sending the spies "by word of Hashem"? Also, Rav
Kamenetzky asks, why does the Torah tell us that the spy from the
tribe of Ephraim was Hoshea bin Nun and only later tell us that Moshe
renamed him Yehoshua? Why not roll all of this information into one
verse?
This may be explained as follows: In Devarim (1:23) we read, "The
matter [i.e., sending spies] was good in my [i.e. Moshe's] eyes and
I took twelve men from among you." Why did Moshe approve of sending
spies, rather than demanding that Bnei Yisrael place their trust in
Hashem? Because trust in Hashem will only carry a person as far as
he truly believes it will; once Bnei Yisrael demanded that spies be
sent, it was too late to demand that they trust Hashem. Sending
spies became required!
Even so, Bnei Yisrael still had to ask Hashem who they should send
as spies. This they did, and the Urim V'tumim (the oracle on the
Kohen Gadol's breastplate) responded with twelve names, among them
"Hoshea bin Nun." It was only Moshe who called him Yehoshua. This
is what our verse means when it says that Moshe sent the spies "by
the word of Hashem," i.e., the spies themselves were appointed by
the word of Hashem.
Why didn't the Urim V'tumim advise that trust could have taken
the place of the spies? Because the Urim V'tumim answers only the
precise question which it is asked. Thus we see in the Book of
Shoftim (ch. 20) that the Urim V'tumim was asked, "Who should lead
us into battle?" and it responded, "Yehuda." The Urim V'tumim did
not however warn Bnei Yisrael that they would lose the battle. Bnei
Yisrael had already decided to go into battle, and had not asked for
advice on that point, so Hashem did not "interfere."
(Emet L'Yaakov)
************************************
Rav Shlomo Kluger zatz'l
5543 (1783) - 30 Sivan 6629 (1869)
Rav Shlomo Kluger was the foremost posek (halachic decisor) in
Poland in the middle part of the 19th century. His published
responsa number about 8,000 letters; they are collected in two works
entitled Tuv Ta'am Vada'at and Shnot Chaim. A significant portion
of his responsa deals with questions of agunot (women unable to
obtain divorces), usually a sign of the great esteem with which a
posek is held in his generation.
Rav Kluger held a number of rabbinic posts, including in Brody,
where he headed a yeshiva for 50 years. Rav Kluger was a true
genius; he was said to be able to dictate four unrelated letters to
four secretaries at a time. He wrote in 1854 that he had (up to that
time) composed 136 books on various Torah topics, with an average
page count of 200. His published works include Chochmat Shlomo and
Sefer Hachaim on halachah, a Torah commentary called Imrei Shefer,
and commentaries on some Talmud tractates.
Rav Kluger's son, Rav Shmuel Binyamin Kluger zatz'l, also was a
noted scholar. (Note: Some say that Rav Shlomo Kluger died on the
4th of Tamuz.)
In a derashah delivered in 1834, Rav Kluger asked: Why did Moshe
tell the spies (in this week's parashah), "Ascend here in the south
and climb the mountain"? Was Moshe a tour guide? Rav Kluger asked.
He explained as follows:
In the third chapter of Pirkei Avot (the chapter traditionally
studied this week), Akavyah ben Mahalalel says, "Look at three things
and you will not sin: (1) from whence you came--a putrid drop; (2)
where you are going--to dust and decay; and (3) before Whom you will
give a report and accounting--before G-d." In the second chapter,
"Rabbi" also gives a three part formula for avoiding sin. Rav Kluger
explains that Rabbi is explaining how to avoid bad deeds, while
Akavyah is explaining how do avoid doing mitzvot with only selfish
motives.
Chazal say that the spies erred because they were selfish; they
did not want to lose their positions of esteem. Fearing this, Moshe
warned them--according to Akavyah's formula-- not to have selfish
motives: "Ascend here in the south"--a euphemism for the 'lower
places' from which the baby is conceived.
"And climb the mountain"--an allusion to the eyes (which are in
the upper part of the body) which must keep man's end squarely in
focus.
Moshe concluded, "See the land--how is it? and the people that
dwells in it--is it strong or weak?" This is an allusion to the
report and accounting which man will have to give--a "report" of his
deeds (an objective question: "the land--how is it?), and an
"accounting" of why he was not influenced by the righteous members
of his generation (a subjective question: "the people that dwells
in it--is it strong or weak?"). (Magen Avot: Introduction)
|
| 989.418 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Korach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Jun 28 1995 01:27 | 178 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Korach
Vol. IX, No. 38 (422), 3 Tamuz 5755, July 1, 1995
The midrash says: "Korach rebelled against the Torah, which is called
'strength' (~~). He did not know that his opponent was as hard
as the bar on a door." Why does the midrash say that Korach rebelled
against the Torah--wasn't his quarrel only with Moshe? Also, what
does it mean that "his opponent was as hard as the bar on a door"?
Rav Aharon Lewin zatz'l explains: The Sefer Ha'ikkarim says that the
pillar on which our acceptance of Torah depends is the belief that
Moshe was the greatest prophet who ever did, or ever will, live. Since we
know that no one can replace Moshe, we know that no one can
replace even part of the Torah. But Korach, says Rav Lewin, did try to
replace Moshe. It follows, therefore, that Korach in effect rebelled
against the very Torah itself.
Moshe was like the bar on the door of a fortress, specifically the
fortress of Torah, because it is Moshe's legacy which holds the Torah
together. The midrash says that Korach remains in Gehinom reciting, "Moshe
is true and his Torah is true." Korach did not realize that his
attack on Moshe could have destroyed the entire Torah, but now he
understands. Because Korach now accepts Moshe, he also acknowledges
that the Torah is true. Unlike a lie which appears true at times but is
revealed as untrue at other times, the truth is always true. The Torah
also, Korach says, is always true because Moshe is "the bar on the door."
(Hadrash Veha'iyun)
************************************
The midrash says, "What led Korach to rebel? The laws of parah adumah
led him to rebel." What does this mean?
Rav Chaim Yehuda Meir Hager, (the "Vishuver Rebbe") zatz'l explains that
Korach was specifically misled by the law that the ashes of
the parah adumah purify one who is impure, but temporarily defile the pure
person who prepares them. Korach reasoned: "I know that machloket-
-dispute--can defile a person, but isn't it worth becoming temporarily
defiled in order to bring about the pure results which I seek?"
Why was Korach wrong? Because one can never guarantee that the impurity
of machloket will be only temporary. As the gemara (Sanhedrin
7a) states: Machloket is like an overflowing canal--once the dike is
breached, the opening gets wider and wider.
(Zecher Chaim)
************************************
"Much is yours, sons of Levi." (16:7)
"You should know," Rav Yechezkel Abramsky zatz'l, once said to his
students during the week in which Parashat Korach was read, "that
you who study Torah without distraction are the greatest mezakei
harabim--those who bring merit to the community at large. The whole world
depends on you. This is what Moshe said to the Levi'im (who were the Torah
scholars of the nation), "Much is yours, sons of Levi"--a great
deal of merit awaits you. "Is it little in your eyes that Hashem set you
aside from the congregation?" (16:9). Don't you appreciate your
own greatness?
(quoted in Peninei Rav Yechezkel I p.13)
************************************
"And the sons of Korach did not die." (26:11 in Parashat Pinchas)
Chazal say that as Korach's sons were falling into Gehinom with their
father, they repented. Hashem therefore created a ledge above Gehinom
where Korach's sons were saved. Imagine that! says Rav Yechezkel
Levenstein zatz'l. This whole process could not have lasted more than
seconds. We see, therefore, that even a single, but sincere, thought of
repentance can save a person.
(quoted in Nedivut Lev p.241)
************************************
Korach's rebellion was prompted by a lust for power, writes Rav Joseph
B. Soloveitchik ~"~~, but being an intelligent man, Korach knew
that his rebellion needed an ideology and a slogan. He therefore employed
two main arguments, both of which, says Rav Soloveitchik, give
us insight into contemporary rebellions against Torah authority.
First, Korach argued, "By what right may any Jew--even Moshe-- assume
leadership and power over a fellow Jew?" Every Jew, Korach
maintained, was equally chosen by G-d. What Korach failed to recognize,
however, is that there are two aspects to Hashem's "choice" of
the Jewish people.
On the one hand, there is choseness of the nation. Every individual
possesses holiness by virtue of being a member of the Jewish people.
This holiness is inherited, and it formed the basis of Korach's ideology.
There is, however, a second source of holiness: individual choseness.
Every Jew is the direct recipient of holiness according to his own unique
personal efforts and achievements. Korach did not understand that Moshe
possessed a larger measure than others of this second type of holiness.
Moshe told Korach, "'Boker' - in the morning - Hashem will make known
who is His" (16:5). "Boker" comes from the root "bkr" meaning,
"to discriminate" or "to distinguish." In other words, Moshe explained to
Korach that there are differences between people.
Korach's second argument was that every person has the right to
interpret halachah for himself. What Korach failed to understand, however,
is that halachah is not governed by common sense, but by a unique
methodology and manner of analysis. Common sense no more governs halachah
than it does physics--for example, it was once believed that objects fell
because of their weight; that is what common sense dictated, but we now
know that is not true.
Korach argued that each person should interpret the mitzvot in the way
that will mean the most to him. Common sense supports that view,
but Korach erred because it is the act of the mitzvot which is primary,
while the emotion is but a reflection of the mitzvah. The halachah cannot
control emotions; man is too volatile. When each person's emotions become
primary, organized religion ceases to exist and all goals are soon
lost sight of.
The two primary duties of the Kohen Gadol--the job that Korach
sought--were lighting the menorah and burning the incense. The pure olive
oil of the menorah symbolizes the clarity of mitzvah performance; the scent
of the incense represents the less tangible consequences of mitzvah
performance.
(Shiurei Harav pp.38-45)
************************************
Rav Aharon Lewin zatz'l
14 Cheshvan 5640 (1879) - 6 Tamuz 5701 (1941)
Rav Aharon Lewin, one of the leading figures of Polish Jewry before
World War II, was born in Przemsyl, where his maternal grandfather,
Rav Yitzchak Schmelkes zatz'l (the "Beis Yitzchak"), was the rabbi. The
work Sdei Chemed by Rav Chizkiyah Chaim Medini includes a letter
from the Beis Yitzchak in which he quotes his "grandson, the gaon
(genius)." That letter was written when Rav Aharon was 16.
Rav Lewin's first rabbinic position was in Sambor, beginning in 1904.
He was immensely popular, and his fame quickly spread. In 1913,
he was named a counselor to the Austrian Emperor. It was mostly an
honorary title, but one that no Orthodox rabbi had ever received. This
title aided him greatly in his work on behalf of refugees during World War
I.
In 1922, Rav Lewin was elected to the Sejm (the Polish parliament) as an
independent candidate. (He later joined the Agudas Yisrael
party.) In parliament, he served on the Culture Committee, which dealt
(among other things) with the issue of supporting yeshivot. In 1926
he published a Polish-language collection called "Speeches in the Sejm,"
including his (then) famous speech advocating abolition of the death
penalty. His position was based on the Talmud, at the end of the first
chapter of Sanhedrin.
The Sejm sat from Tuesday through Thursday, allowing Rav Lewin to be in
Sambor for Shabbat. As a member of parliament, he rode free
in the first class section of Poland's trains, and it was during the
twice-weekly 15-hour ride between Warsaw and Sambor that Rav Lewin
wrote his best-known work, Hadrash Veha'iyun, a Torah commentary (see front
page). His other works include She'eilot U'teshuvot Avnei Cheifetz,
Davar Be'ito, and Mateh Aharon.
In 1926, Rav Lewin succeeded his father as rabbi of Rzeszow. The Jews
called this city "Reisha," and Rav Lewin is known today as the
"Reisha Rav."
When the Germans entered Poland, Rav Lewin and his wife fled eastward.
Rav Lewin knew that his prominence made him a prime target
of the Nazis. Rav Lewin and his wife nearly succeeded in entering Romania
and, later, Lithuania. Rav Lewin was in L'vov when the Germans
captured the city on July 1, 1941, and he was murdered on the same day.
The Jews knew that he had been arrested, but they did not know his fate.
Even President Roosevelt attempted to intercede on his behalf,
and the Jewish community of Buenos Aires elected him its rabbi. (This
biography is based on an essay by Rav Lewin's son, printed in Hadrash
Veha'iyun, Bemidbar Vol. II.)
|
| 989.419 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Chukat | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Jul 05 1995 21:25 | 155 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Chukat
Vol. IX, No. 39 (423), 10 Tamuz 5755, July 8, 1995
This parashah relates that the King of Arad heard that Yisrael
was coming, and he fought Yisrael. Chazal ask, "What did he hear?"
and answer that he heard that Aharon had died.
Rav Chaim David Halevi shlita (Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv)
writes: How can Chazal ask what the King of Arad heard? Doesn't
the Torah state explicitly that he heard that Yisrael was coming?
The answer, says Rav Halevi, is that Chazal wondered where the King
of Arad found the courage to attack Bnei Yisrael. All the other
nations (we read in Shmot 15:14-16) were terrified of Bnei Yisrael!
What gave the King of Arad that courage? He heard that Aharon
had died. Aharon had devoted himself to making peace between Jews,
whether two friends or a husband and wife. As long as Aharon lived,
the Jewish people remained united; when Aharon died, the Jews became
divided. Then the King of Arad knew that he could fight the Jews.
(Aseh Lecha Rav IV p.31)
************************************
"This is the Torah--a man who will die in the tent. . ." (19:14)
Making a play on the words of this verse, Chazal say that the
Torah will remain only with one who "kills himself" studying it.
Rav Avraham Yishayahu Karelitz zatz'l (the "Chazon Ish") explains:
This "death" means looking below the surface of life at life's
innermost details. This means conquering one's character, because
a person's traits are the superficial covering of his life. Killing
one's impulses leads to life on the Torah path.
There are many degenerate traits, writes the Chazon Ish, but
breaking even one of them gives a person life and enables Torah to
remain with him. Prominent among those traits is laziness. Laziness
is so pervasive that it can affect both thoughts and deeds.
Sometimes, laziness can even encourage a person to act, as when, for
example, a person knows that what he plans to do is wrong, but he
is too lazy to control himself and to declare war on his impulses.
Laziness, the trait which brings a person to fall into trouble,
is the root cause for abandonment of the Torah.
(from Igrot Chazon Ish I, No.3)
************************************
"And the pure individual shall sprinkle [the ashes] on the defiled
individual. . ." (19:19)
The Talmud Yerushalmi (Demai ch.3) quotes Rav Yehoshua ben Kabsoi
who said: "I used to understand from this verse than any one pure
individual can purify only one other person. Then I learned from
the treasure-house of Yavneh that one individual can purify many
people."
Rav Elazar Shach shlita explains that the treasure-house of Yavneh
refers to the yeshiva which Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai was able to
save from the Roman sword. That Yeshiva guaranteed the future of
Torah Judaism. Who would have thought that one person (in that case,
Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai) could make such a difference?
The truth is, however, that one person can purify many people.
(Michtavim Uma'amarim p.32)
************************************
"Take the stick and assemble the congregation. . ." (20:8)
If Hashem did not intend for Moshe to hit the rock, why did He
tell Moshe to take his staff with him? The answer, says Rav David
Feinstein shlita is in the American expression, "Speak softly and
carry a big stick." A parent or teacher should always be ready with
a two-pronged approach: to teach, but to punish if necessary.
(Kol Dodi)
************************************
"Because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me before the eyes
of Bnei Yisrael. . ." (20:12)
Whether Moshe's and Aharon's sin was in striking the rock to bring
out water instead of speaking to it, or whether their sin was
something else that the commentaries attribute to them [Ed. note,
see Hamaayan Vol. I No.12], the sin was clearly minor, writes Rav
Avigdor Miller shlita. Why then does Hashem say, "Because you did
not believe in Me. . .," accusing Moshe and Aharon of one of the
gravest of sins!
The answer is that striking the rock unnecessarily did show a
minuscule amount of disbelief. Any unnecessary exertion, no matter
how small, means that the actor does not realize the power of Hashem.
What we also see, however, is how strictly the righteous are judged:
because of Moshe's minuscule exertion, the Torah recorded for
eternity that he did not believe in Hashem. This same standard
applies whenever the Torah or prophets speak of a righteous man's
sins.
(Rejoice O Youth! p.175)
************************************
Rav Meir Horowitz zatz'l
born 5579 (1819) - 8 Tamuz 5637 (1877)
Rav Meir Horowitz of Dzikov (Tarnobrzeg) was the son of Rav
Eliezer Horowitz, who was the son of Rav Naftali Zvi of Ropshitz.
Rav Meir's wife was Devorah, the daughter of Rav Kalman Pizales.
It is said that Rav Kalman (some say it was his wife) once bought
the only etrog in Krakow for Rav Naftali Zvi, and thus received a
blessing that they would become related by marriage.
Rav Meir's father withdrew from leading his chassidim several
years before his death, and Rav Meir thus became rabbi of Dzikov and
its rebbe during his father's lifetime. Under Rav Meir, Dzikov
chassidut grew dramatically. However, Rav Meir was strict with his
chassidim, and this drove some away. As an example of Rav Meir's
disdain for feigned righteousness (as well as an example of the wit
which he inherited from his grandfather), the following story is
told:
Rav Meir was in the mikveh when he heard one chassid ask another,
"Tov? Tov?"--"Good? Good?"--meaning, "Did I immerse in the ideal
fashion?"
Rav Meir responded, "Tov! Tov!" He then explained that the Hebrew
word "tov" is an acronym for "tovel ve'sheretz beyado"--"one who
immerses while still holding the impure object"--in this case, a
reference to the chassid's haughty air.
Rav Meir was very close to, and was related by marriage (four
times over) to, Rav Chaim Halberstam of Sanz. They were both among
the greatest sages of their generation and they exchanged many
letters on halachic subjects. When Rav Chaim passed away in 1876,
Rav Meir started to hint that his own death was imminent.
Rav Meir wrote a work of Torah commentary, gematria, and chassidic
thought entitled Imrei Noam. On the opening verse of this week's
parashah he comments: The Torah has four parts--peshat (simplest
meaning), drash (allegorical meaning), remez (allusion, for example
gematria), and sod (esoteric meaning). For the four parts of man's
Torah study to ascend to heaven, they must have two "wings"--ahavah
(love of G-d) and yir'ah (fear of G-d).
The gematria of the opening two words of the parashah ("This is
the law") equals 916, which is four times--for the four parts of
Torah--ahavah (13) and yir'ah (216), i.e., the two wings. Also, the
gematria of the word "chukat" equals the gematria of "Yitzchak ben
Avraham." Avraham, Chazal say, excelled in the love of G-d, while
Yitzchak excelled in the fear of G-d.
|
| 989.420 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Balak | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Jul 12 1995 22:47 | 164 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Balak
Vol. IX, No. 40 (424), 17 Tamuz 5755, July 15, 1995
The Torah writes that when Bilam was traveling to curse Bnei
Yisrael, an angel confronted him three times. The first time, the
Torah says, Bilam's donkey easily left the road. The second time,
the donkey pressed against the wall. The third time, the donkey
could not maneuver at all. Rashi writes, without explanation, that
this alludes to the Patriarchs.
How so?
Siftei Chachamim explains as follows: The angel was hinting to
Bilam, "If you wish to curse the descendants of Avraham, there is
room to maneuver. Avraham had a son before Yitzchak and had sons
after Yitzchak, and you may curse them. If you wish to curse the
descendants of Yitzchak, there is room on one side, i.e., Esav.
However, there is no possibility of cursing the descendants of
Yaakov."
Rav Yisrael Isserlin zatz'l (author of the responsa Terumat
Hadeshen) explains in his Torah commentary that the donkey's behavior
(as manipulated by the angel) alluded to the different names that
each of the Patriarchs gave to the future Temple (see Pesachim 88a).
Avraham called it a "mountain"--the first time that the donkey bolted
it left the high road. Yitzchak called the Temple a "field"--the
donkey pressed Bilam's leg against the walls of the fields. Finally,
Yaakov called the Temple a "house"--just as a house is confining,
the donkey became confined between two walls.
What does this signify? Rav Isserlin explains that each of the
Patriarchs saw G-d in a more focused manner. The merit of the
Patriarchs' accomplishments protected Bnei Yisrael from Bilam.
************************************
The gemara (Bava Batra 14b) states that Moshe wrote the Torah and
the parashah of Bilam. What does this mean? Isn't the "parashah
of Bilam" part of the Torah?
Rav Yaakov Lorberbaum of Lissa zatz'l explains in Nachalat Yaakov
that Bilam did not speak the Hebrew words which the Torah records.
Even if we assume that Bilam spoke Hebrew (which would not be
surprising), certainly Balak did not understand it, and certainly
not in the poetic form of Bilam's curses. The wonder of Moshe's
prophecy was that he could record Bilam's prophecy in a different
language, yet with all the nuances and double meanings (i.e., curses
hidden within blessings) which Bilam intended. This is what the
gemara means.
Based on this, writes Rav Eliezer Waldenberg shlita, we can
understand why a translation of Tanach (even a translation of the
Aramaic portions of the books of Daniel and Ezra into Hebrew) loses
some of its holiness. When G-d speaks to a prophet in one language
(whether in Hebrew or Aramaic), His words contain nuances and
allusions which are inevitably lost in translation. Only another
prophet could make the transition successfully.
(Tzitz Eliezer Vol. 14 No. 1)
************************************
"He raised his parable and said: . . ." (23:18, 24:3 and 24:15)
What does this mean? Why do we not find any other prophecy
described this way?
Rav Yitzchak Yehuda Trunk zatz'l quoted Rav Avraham Borenstein
of Sochatchov (his wife's grandfather) zatz'l as follows: Kabbalists
teach that each part of the human body alludes to an attribute of
G-d. This is the meaning of the verse, "He made man in G-d's image."
Thus, man's body is a parable or a metaphor for G-d.
Each and every prophet and prophetess had purified his body in
order to merit Divine revelation. But not so the wicked Bilam.
Thus, with each new prophecy he had to "raise his parable," i.e.,
his body, out of its normal state.
(from Shabbat Be'shabbato No. 30)
************************************
"Return to your land, for Hashem declines to allow me to go with
you." (22:13)
Rashi comments: Bilam told the Moabite emissaries, "Hashem will
not let me go with you, but if your king sends higher officials, I
can go with them."
How could Bilam say that? asks Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zatz'l.
Hashem clearly told him not to go at all!
This is one of many proofs in the Torah that a person hears only
what he wants to hear. A person's self-interest--in Bilam's case,
his desire to curse the Jews--can twist even the words that he hears.
(Sichot Mussar 5751 No. 27)
************************************
"Bilam said to his donkey, '[I hit you] because you embarrassed
me; had I a sword in my hand, I would even kill you now'." (23:29)
Look what happens to one who seeks honor, observed Rav Berel
Soloveitchik zatz'l. In the end, he demands honor even from his
donkey! He would even kill his donkey and walk, just so as not to
be embarrassed.
(quoted in Shai La'torah)
************************************
Bilam refers to himself as "shtum ha'ayin" (24:3). Rashi explains
that Bilam was missing one eye. Onkelos, on the other hand,
translates "shtum ha'ayin" as "Beautiful to see." How can these two
explanations be reconciled?
The story is told of a Nazi officer who offered to save the life
of a Jewish woman if she could tell him which of his eyes was glass.
No one had yet accomplished that feat.
The woman easily pointed out the glass eye. "It's the one which
doesn't look evil," she explained.
(Shai La'torah)
************************************
Harav Shaul Yisraeli zatz'l
We are saddened to report the passing on this past 20th of Sivan
(June 16, 1995) of Rav Shaul Yisraeli, one of the roshei yeshiva of
Yeshivat Merkaz Harav in Yerushalayim. He was 86 years old. Rav
Yisraeli was a member of the Supreme Rabbinical Court of
Yerushalayim, and was particularly known for his expertise in the
halachot which pertain to the agriculture of Eretz Yisrael. Rav
Yisraeli also was one of the spiritual leaders of the movement to
prevent an Israeli withdrawal from Yehuda and Shomron (the "West
Bank") and from the Golan Heights.
In his youth, Rav Yisraeli was a member of an elite group which
studied in the "Maskil L'etan" synagogue in Minsk. This group's
tenacity and dedication to their studies in the face of Soviet
oppression was renowned. In the winter of 1932-33, Rav Yisraeli and
two colleagues (Rav David Solomon--who later opened a network of
vocational yeshivot--and Rav Avraham Shadami) escaped from the Soviet
Union by running across a snow covered field while camouflaged in
white sheets. The trio was caught by Polish border police and nearly
returned to the U.S.S.R. but through the intercession of Rav Shlomo
Hertz (rabbi of the nearby town of Bortchov) and of Rav Avraham
Yitzchak Hakohen Kook (the Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Palestine), the
three obtained permits to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael. The letter
of thanks which the trio wrote to Rav Kook (through his son, Rav Zvi
Yehuda Kook) is dated 28 Adar 5693.
Not until nearly a year later did the three reach Yerushalayim,
where the were welcomed with great joy at Rav Kook's Purim seudah
(feast). Rav Yisraeli remained to study with Rav Kook for the last
year-and-a-half of the latter's life, and eventually ascended to the
leadership of the yeshiva where he had studied. (The story of Rav
Yisraeli's escape and his arrival in Yerushalayim is found in Likutei
Ha'reiyah, p. 311, and Moadei Ha'reiyah, p. 265)
Rav Yisraeli wrote Eretz Chemdah (a halachic work) and Perakim
Bemachshevet Yisrael (a philosophical work), and was the editor of
the Torah journal, Barkai.
|
| 989.421 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Pinchas | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jul 20 1995 23:21 | 174 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Pinchas
Vol. IX, No. 41 (425), 24 Tamuz 5755, July 22, 1995
With Parashat Pinchas, writes Rav Moshe Zvi Neriyah shlita, we
feel a refreshing breeze blowing. Not only are all of the joyous
holidays mentioned here, but we are introduced to the new generation,
which will enter Eretz Yisrael.
In the beginning of the parashah, writes Rav Neriyah, we meet
Pinchas. He is a zealot on the outside, but he is blessed with the
covenant of peace as well (see 25:12).
In this parashah, continues Rav Neriyah, Yehoshua is named to
succeed Moshe. Yehoshua never willingly left the tent where Moshe
taught Torah, but he was nevertheless someone that Hashem and Moshe
could trust to lead the Jews into war (see Sh'mot ch. 17). Chazal
say that the elders of the generation never let go of Moshe and
Aharon (see Bava Batra 75a), but the youth were inspired by Yehoshua
and Pinchas.
In this parashah we also meet the daughters of Tzelofchad, who
not only demanded a share of Eretz Yisrael (because they had no
brothers), they wanted their share to be on the holier west bank of
the Jordan, not on the eastern side where much of their tribe
(Menashe) settled.
How appropriate, concludes Rav Neriyah, that Parashat Pinchas
should come to encourage us during the Three Weeks. (Shabbat
Be'shabbato No. 187)
************************************
"And he and his descendants forever will possess the covenant of
priesthood because he was zealous for his G-d. . ." (25:13)
Rashi explains that Pinchas was not previously a kohen because
he was born before his father was anointed and he himself was not
anointed.
The Zohar (Pinchas 114a) offers a different interpretation of this
verse: Pinchas was originally a kohen. However, a kohen who kills
loses his status. (Rav Yehuda Ashlag zatz'l explains that the trait
of kohanim is chessed--kindness, and killing is inimical to that
trait.) Only because Pinchas killed while being "zealous for his
G-d," this verse teaches, was Pinchas "re-appointed" as a kohen for
a second time.
The halachah is that a kohen who has murdered may not "duchen"
(recite the birkat kohanim--priestly blessing). When Rav Moshe
Sternbuch shlita was rabbi of Johannesburg, he was asked whether a
South African policeman who is a kohen may recite birkat kohanim
after he has killed a black man in the line of duty.
Rav Sternbuch responded that he may not. While soldiers who have
killed may duchen because they were drafted and were merely
fulfilling their obligations, this policeman likely was being
overzealous in his duty when he killed. Once the policeman genuinely
repents and recognizes the value of every human life, says Rav
Sternbuch, then he may resume his duties as a kohen.
(Teshuvot Ve'hanhagot Vol. II No. 105)
************************************
"The daughters of Tzelofchad approached; [they were] from the
family of Menashe, the son of Yosef." (27:1)
Rashi says that Yosef is mentioned here to teach us that just
as Yosef loved Eretz Yisrael (and asked to be buried there), so his
descendants loved Eretz Yisrael. Their request for a share of the
land was not motivated by materialistic concerns.
How can Yosef be compared to his great-granddaughters? They
wished to enter Eretz Yisrael alive--to own the land and to work it.
He only asked to be buried there!
The Torah is teaching us, says Rav Chaim Yehuda Meir Hager zatz'l
(not to be confused with his uncle quoted on the next page), that
such a view is misguided. Our great love for Eretz Yisrael is
nothing more than an inheritance from our ancestors who requested
burial in the holy land. Although their love for the Land was only
realized after their deaths, it is their merit which enables us to
settle and strengthen the Land.
(Zecher Chaim)
************************************
"On the holiday of bikkurim, when you bring a new gift to G-d in
your weeks. . ." (28:26)
This is a reference to the holiday of Shavuot. What is the
meaning of "in your weeks"?
Rav Chaim ben Attar explains that the Torah intends to refute
those who believed that Shavuot must always fall on Sunday. The
Torah is not interested in having us count seven calendar weeks.
Rather, we should count "our own" weeks.
(Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh;
see also Rav Yechezkel Abramsky zatz'l,
Chazon Yechezkel, Menachot 65a)
************************************
"And on the day of Shabbat. . ." (28:9)
Rav Chaim Meir Hager (the previous "Vizhnitzer Rebbe") zatz'l
recalled that his father could be heard all week repeating, "Shabbos
kodesh, Shabbos kodesh." Said the Rebbe: My father's behavior is
alluded to in Yishayah (58:13), "If you call the Shabbat a
delight..."
Calling out "Shabbos" is a delight.
(quoted in Kedosh Yisrael p.129)
************************************
"Moshe spoke to Bnei Yisrael all that Hashem had commanded him."
(30:1)
Would we have thought otherwise?
Rav Yosef Shani shlita explains as follows: Until now, Moshe's
students were those who had left Egypt and witnessed the giving of
the Torah. They were prophets, and they understood Moshe clearly.
With this parashah, Moshe begins to interact with the younger
generation, whose members either were born in the desert or left
Egypt as children or teenagers. Their grasp of the Torah was not
as quick. Therefore, "Moshe spoke to Bnei Yisrael all that Hashem
had commanded him"--over and over, as many times as was necessary.
(from his weekly parashah sheet)
************************************
Rav Yisrael Yehoshua Trunk zatz'l
died 25 Tamuz 5653 (1893)
Rav Yisrael Yehoshua was orphaned from his father at the age of
11, but by that time the elder Rav Trunk had taught his son a
substantial part of the Talmud. Rav Yisrael Yehoshua was appointed
to his first rabbinical post (in Shrensk) in 1840, and he established
a yeshiva there. He held several other posts in the next decade,
and in 1853 he became rabbi of Kutna, where he remained for 40 years
and for which he is known today. By that time, he was recognized
as one of the leading rabbis of Poland, and many halachic questions
were directed to him. Ashkenazim and Sephardim alike recognized Rav
Yisrael Yehoshua as a distinguished posek (halachic decisor).
He was distinguished for his integrity as well. For example, when
his son married and took a job in another city, Rav Yisrael Yehoshua
suggested to the leaders of Kutna that he was no longer entitled to
as large a salary. He was frequently called upon to mediate disputes
in other communities.
Rav Yisrael Yehoshua's son-in-law was Rav Chaim Eliezer Wachs,
author of Nefesh Chayah. The two worked closely together to
encourage settlement in Eretz Yisrael and to promote the use of
etrogim from Eretz Yisrael. (In those days, most etrogim came from
the Greek island of Corfu.) To this end, Rav Chaim Eliezer bought
land near Teveryah (Tiberias) and planted etrog orchards. The two
rabbis visited Eretz Yisrael in 1886 and were instrumental in talking
the founders of Petach Tikvah out of abandoning their new village.
Rav Yisrael Yehoshua was a supporter of the hetter (halachic
permission) to sell the land of Eretz Yisrael for the duration of
the shemitah.
The only work which Rav Yisrael Yehoshua published in his lifetime
was Yeshuot Yisrael on the Choshen Mishpat section of the Shulchan
Aruch. His grandson published additional manuscripts by Rav Yisrael
Yehoshua, of which the best known may be Yeshuot Malcho.
|
| 989.422 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Matot / Masei | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jul 27 1995 19:41 | 164 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Matot-Masei
Vol. IX, No. 42 (426), 2 Av 5755, July 29, 1995
We read this parashah, "For you are coming to the land of
Canaan. . ." (34:2). The midrash asks: "Why did Canaan merit to have
the land named after him? Because when he heard that Bnei Yisrael
were coming, he left." Specifically, the tribe known as the
"Girgashi" resettled in other lands.
This seems backwards, notes Rav Yitzchak Goldwasser shlita. When
they left, it ceased to be their land! However, the explanation is
as follows:
The gemara (Berachot 35a) teaches that the world belongs to G-d,
but it is given to man after he recites a blessing acknowledging that
everything comes from G-d. (This is why we recite berachot before
eating.) As long as the Canaanites lived in the Land, it was not
clear whether they recognized G-d's ownership of it, and it therefore
was not given-over to them entirely. However, when the Canaanites
vacated the Land so that G-d could give it to Bnei Yisrael, they
demonstrated that they did recognize G-d's control. Therefore, the
Land became theirs, and was named after them retroactively. (quoted
in Yalkut Lekach Tov)
************************************
"This is the thing which Hashem has commanded. . ."
The Sifri says, "All of the prophets prophesied using the
expression "Thus G-d said'" but Moshe prophesied with the expression
"This is the thing which G-d has commanded."
Some commentaries explains that the expression "This is the thing"
connotes a more precise prophecy than "Thus G-d said." Because
Moshe's prophecy was clearer than any other prophet's, it was more
precise.
In fact, Moshe did sometimes used the expression "Thus G-d said."
Rav Reuven Margaliot zatz'l explains that on those occasions, Moshe
actually was not prophesying; rather, he was interpreting previous
prophecies using the rules by which the Torah may be interpreted,
for example, "kal va'chomer" (a fortiori). On one occasion (Shmot
11:4), Moshe actually changed what G-d told him, saying that G-d
would strike the firstborn "around midnight" rather than "at
midnight." Moshe did this to prevent a desecration of G-d's Name
in the event that the Egyptians could not tell time precisely, but
in order to signal that he had deviated from the prophecy, he used
the expression "Thus G-d said" instead of "This is the thing. . ."
(Margaliot Hayam 89a, No. 23)
************************************
"One thousand from each tribe, one thousand from each tribe, for
every tribe of Israel. . ." (31:4)
Rashi comments: Including from the tribe of Levi.
Why did the Levi'im go out to this war? asks Rav Eliezer Freidman
shlita. Ordinarily, Levi'im did not fight in the army.
The Levi'im were charged with the spiritual well-being of the
nation. They were the teachers of Torah to the people. However,
the war for which soldiers were being drafted in our verse was
necessary because the Levi'im had failed in their duties. If the
Jewish people had been spiritually healthy, they would not have
sinned with the daughters of Moav (see end of Parashat Balak), and
it would not be necessary now to go to war with that nation.
(Hadrat Yirmiyah)
************************************
Bnei Yisrael's journey from Egypt to Eretz Yisrael consisted of
42 segments. In Parashat Masei, we read the names of the places
where Bnei Yisrael camped along the way.
Rav Shlomo Aviner shlita notes that our parashah in effect
summarizes the story of Bnei Yisrael's formation, as each camp
represents an event. Bnei Yisrael's experiences in the desert
included both high points and low points. The prophets describe
angels as "standing"--they have no potential for growth. People and
nations, however, do not stand still; they move, sometimes in the
right direction and sometimes the wrong way. This is how they grow.
One of the holiest of Hashem's Names in His 42-letter Name. Rav
Aviner explains that the most important of the ways in which Hashem
reveals Himself in this world is through the history of the Jewish
people.
Thus that history began with 42 steps, paralleling that Name of
G-d.
(Tal Chermon p.291)
************************************
"And you shall not defile the land in which you live, in which
I reside, for I am G-d who resides among Bnei Yisrael." (35:34)
Rav Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin (The "Netziv") zatz'l explains that
murder--whether intentional or accidental--the subject of this verse,
has two consequences, both of which are alluded to in this verse:
(1) "And you shall not defile the land in which you live"--murder
causes exile.
(2) "And you shall not defile the land . . . in which I reside"--
murder causes the Shechinah (Divine presence) to depart from the Holy
Land.
We can understand why the Shechinah would depart a place where
the defilement of murder is found. But why does murder--even
accidental--cause exile? The answer is: "For I am G-d who resides
among Bnei Yisrael." The Shechinah cannot stay in a place which is
defiled, but the Shechinah will not reside without the Jewish people
either.
(Ha'emek Davar)
************************************
Rav Menachem Azaryah of Fano zatz'l
5307 (1547) - 4 Av 5380 (1620)
Rav Menachem Azaryah is known as the "Rama Mi'Fano" after his
initials and his hometown. He was also known as Rav Emanuel. (He
should not to be confused with "Rema"--Rav Moshe Isserles.)
Rama was a leading scholar and philanthropist in Italy. His
teachers included Rav Yishmael Chananiah of Vallmontone and Rav Ezra
of Fano. Rama used his great wealth to support the poor as well as
to publish sefarim (Torah works). Besides his own works, he was
responsible for the publication of classic works including Rav Yosef
Karo's Kessef Mishneh and some works of Rav Moshe Cordevero
("Remak").
Rama was accomplished in Talmud, halachah, and kabbalah. His best
known works are in the last of these fields. Originally he was a
disciple (from a distance) of Remak. However, when Rav Yisrael
Seruk, a disciple of Arizal, arrived in Italy in 5357 (1597), Rama
became Rav Yisrael's student. Rama is credited with playing a
decisive role in making Arizal's system of kabbalah study the
predominant one. Indeed, because Rav Yisrael Seruk was among the
earliest students of Arizal, Rama's writings transmit teachings which
are not found elsewhere.
Rama's work Asarah Ma'amarot addresses the moral and ideological
lessons of kabbalah, rather than its technical side. It also
explains many verses and Talmudic statements. In Ma'amar Chikur
Ha'din (II:28), Rama observes that there is a difference between the
term "nachalah" and "yerushah"--both of which mean "inheritance."
The former word is related to "nachal"--stream--and is used
repeatedly in this parashah when referring to inheritance which flows
directly from a father to a son (just as a river flows continuously
and directly). The latter term is used when referring to indirect
inheritance, whether a son inheriting from a mother, a brother from
a brother, or a daughter from a father.
The Torah says (Devarim 18:20), "Righteousness, righteousness
shall you pursue, so that you will live and possess ('ve'yarashta')
the Land that Hashem, your G-d, gives you." Rama writes that the
Torah uses a form of the word "yerushah" (the less direct
inheritance) here in order to teach that we should not feel certain
about holding-on to Eretz Yisrael. Similarly, the Torah is called
a "morashah" (Devarim 33:4) because a son cannot inherit it from his
father. Torah must be acquired by each person independently.
|
| 989.423 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Devarim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Aug 03 1995 02:53 | 168 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Devarim
Vol. IX, No. 43 (427), 9 Av 5755, August 5, 1995
Rabbenu Yonah introduces his commentary to Parashat Devarim with
the verse (Mishlei 24:23), "Also these are for the wise; showing
favoritism in judgement is not good." He explains that while much
of Sefer Devarim appears, at first glance, to be repetitive, there
is good reason for this repetition. Although Moshe had rebuked Bnei
Yisrael throughout the 40 years in which he lead them, they were
eager to hear more reproof in order to constantly improve themselves.
As King Shlomo wrote elsewhere (Mishlei 9:8), "Rebuke a wise man,
and he will love you."
"Showing favoritism in judgement is not good." Many people use
their last days to appease their opponents. Moshe, however, did not
do so; until the very end he fulfilled his obligation as a leader
to rebuke his people for their wrongdoings.
************************************
"You are passing through the boundary of your brothers, the
children of Esav, who dwell in Seir. . . You shall not provoke them
. . . for as an inheritance to the children of Esav I have given
Mount Seir." (2:4-5)
In the book of Yehoshua (24:4) we read, "I gave Mount Seir to Esav
to inherit it, and Yaakov and his sons descended to Egypt." Rav
Aharon Bakst zatz'l asks, "Are the two parts of the verse parallel?
Is this a trade that we can be happy about? After all, Esav children
became kings of Seir, while Yaakov's children became slaves in
Egypt."
Rav Bakst explains: When an animal is born, it can stand and run
and feed itself in a very short time. By the age of one year,
animals such as calves and lambs practically are adults. Not so
humans--a parent is not free of raising a child for two decades.
Why?
The answer, very simply, is that because man has a higher calling
in life, his training takes longer. Man must build himself and the
world, and he therefore must take the time necessary to gather all
of the tools which he will need.
A similar contrast exists between Yaakov and Esav. Esav went off
to inherit Mount Seir because G-d had no further mission for Esav.
But Yaakov and his sons? They descended to Egypt to begin the long
and difficult process of growing up.
(Lev Aharon)
************************************
"The Caphtorim who went out of Caphtor destroyed them and dwelt
in their place." (2:23)
Rashi comments: "Therefore you are allowed to conquer their land."
Although Bnei Yisrael were commanded not to attack Moav, this
territory was fair game because someone else had taken it from Moav
first. The same was true of the land of Sichon, which once had been
part of Moav.
Based upon this, Rav Yehuda Rosannes zatz'l explains several
verses in Tehilim (136:18-22):
"And He slew mighty kings,
for His kindness endures forever.
Sichon, king of the Emorites,
for His kindness endures forever.
And Og, king of Bashan,
for His kindness endures forever.
And He gave their land as a heritage,
for His kindness endures forever.
A heritage for Israel His servant,
for His kindness endures forever.
Couldn't these last two verses have been combined to say, "And He
gave their land as a heritage for Israel His servant, for His
kindness endures forever"?
No, says Rav Rosannes. What these verses mean is that Hashem
first gave their land, i.e., the land of the Moabites, as a heritage
to others, such as the Caphtorim and the Emorites. Only thereafter
could he give that land as "a heritage for Israel His servant."
(Parashat Derachim)
************************************
Tishah B'Av
Parashat Devarim is always read on the Shabbat preceding Tishah
B'Av (the fast day which commemorates the destruction of both the
first and second Temples) or on Tishah B'Av itself. The
juxtaposition of this Shabbat to the fast day is alluded to in the
parashah, where we read Moshe's words: "How ('eichah') can I carry
alone all of the burdens of leading you?"
The midrash says: Had you merited you would have read only this
verse [which alludes to the numerosity of Bnei Yisrael]. Now you
also must read the verse: "How ('eichah') did it come to be that
[Yerushalayim] sits alone . . . like a widow."
************************************
Among the laws of Tishah B'Av is a prohibition on wearing shoes.
Although this is done as a sign of mourning, it alludes as well to
the eventual redemption. Rav Zvi Elimelech of Dinov ~"~~ explains:
When Adam committed the first sin, Hashem punished him by cursing
the earth on which Adam worked for a living. Ever since that time,
man has attempted to distance himself from the earth, and has done
so by wearing shoes. Thus, we find several instances in Tanach where
a person is told, "Remove your shoes, for the land where you are
standing is consecrated." In other words, to wear shoes is to remind
oneself and Hashem of Adam's sin. When one stands in a place which
is inherently holy (such as Har Sinai or the Bet Hamikdash) such a
reminder is not proper.
On both Yom Kippur and Tishah B'Av we remove our shoes. On the
former holiday this is attributable to the fact that as Bnei Yisrael
stand in prayer like angels, the whole world is consecrated and
Adam's sin is temporarily disregarded. Thus, no separation is needed
between our feet and the earth.
On Tishah B'Av, the reason is as follows: Chazal teach that
Tishah B'Av is the birthday of mashiach, in whose time Adam's sin
will be corrected. Thus, we celebrate by removing our shoes.
(Igra D'pirka)
************************************
Rav Yaakov Yitzchak of Lublin zatz'l
5505 (1745) - 9 Av 5575 (1815)
Rav Yaakov Yitzchak Halevi Horowitz, known as the "Chozeh" or
"Seer" of Lublin because of his "Ruach Hakodesh," was among the
youngest, but also among the most prominent and influential, of the
third generation of chassidic leaders. He has been called the father
of Polish chassidut, and his spiritual descendants include such major
groups as Ger, Ropshitz, and Zanz.
In Zichron Zot, the Chozeh offers an interpretation of the midrash
on the opening verses of this week's parashah. The midrash comments:
Hashem told Moshe, "Since you have rebuked the Jewish people and they
have accepted your rebuke, bless them." This is why Moshe said
(1:11), "May Hashem, the G-d of your fathers, add to you one thousand
times." That verse concludes, "And may He bless you as He spoke
('dibair') to you."
The midrash continues: How do we know that whenever one offers
rebuke he should offer a blessing also? Because it is written
(Mishlei 24:25), "Those who give rebuke should make it pleasant, and
to them will come the blessing of good." In this world, the midrash
concludes, we are blessed by messengers, but in the world-to-come,
G-d Himself will bless us.
The Chozeh explains that the word "Devarim" and its root "davar"
connote harsh language. Nevertheless, in the midst of the harsh
language, Moshe says, "May Hashem, the G-d of your fathers, add to
you one thousand times." And what is meant by the conclusion, "And
may he bless you as he spoke ('dibair') to you"? This is a command:
whenever you must speak harshly, end with a blessing.
Although this is a true interpretation, says the Chozeh, it is
not the simplest meaning of the verse's conclusion. Simply speaking,
it appears to refer to G-d. This is why the midrash concludes that
in this world we are blessed by messengers, but in the world-to-come,
G-d Himself will bless us.
|
| 989.424 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vaetchanan | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Aug 03 1995 02:55 | 181 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Va'etchanan
Vol. IX, No. 44 (428), 16 Av 5755, August 12, 1995
On Friday of this week, we observed "Tu B'Av"--the 15th day of
the month of Av. In ancient times, the gemara says, this was one
of the two happiest days on the Jewish calendar. One of the reasons
for this is that the last donation of wood to the Temple was made
on this day each year.
Why is this important? Rabbenu Gershom explains that once the
wood harvest was over, there was more time for learning Torah. Adds
Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg shlita: Look how the sages valued Torah
study! Consider how little time and how few people were involved
in this wood chopping, yet for the small amount of additional Torah
which could be studied after this day, Chazal ordained a holiday.
Chazal say, "One who studies more Torah after the 15th of Av--and
especially at night--will have reward added. One who does not will
be buried." Why such a stringent punishment?
Rav Scheinberg explains (based upon the writings of the Vilna
Gaon) that man's mission on earth is not only to study Torah and to
do mitzvot, but to do so in a way which overcomes his natural urges
and tendencies. As the summer winds down and darkness comes earlier,
one would tend to go sleep earlier (especially before the advent of
electric lights). Thus, man's responsibility, his mission, is to
make an extra effort to stay awake at night and to study Torah.
(Derech Emunah U'bitachon)
************************************
"Please let me cross and see the good Land. . ." (3:25)
Why did Moshe and other tzaddikim throughout history desire Eretz
Yisrael? Was it for its milk and honey? Surely there are other
countries with a more luxurious standard of living!
Rav Shlomo Harkabi H"YD of Grodno explains: Chazal say that
Hashem gave three gifts to the Jews, and all of them come with
suffering. These are the Torah, Eretz Yisrael, and the World-to-
Come. Why is this suffering necessary?
Take, for example, the World-to-Come. This is not a "place" which
is a continuation of this life--only better. Rather, "life" in the
World-to-Come will be an existence which is completely different from
any experience which we know. Therefore, suffering is a prerequisite
to reaching the World-to-Come because if man is not weaned of his
attachment to this world, he will be incapable of appreciating the
World-to-Come.
Similarly, the Torah is not just another subject matter to study.
It is the very tool which man can use to attach himself to Hashem.
Again, suffering is the mechanism which enables man to strip away
anything which might separate him from G-d.
In the same way, suffering is a prerequisite to inheriting Eretz
Yisrael because it is not like any other land. Rather, it is the
Land where man can strip away this world and rise to incredible
spiritual levels. And that, alone, is why tzaddikim desire it.
(Me'imrei Shlomo)
************************************
Midrash Rabbah states that Hashem gave Moshe a choice: either he
enters the Land or Bnei Yisrael do. Hashem said, "When I wanted to
destroy the Jewish people, I nullified My desire and gave in to you.
Now it time for you to nullify your desire and give in to Me for the
benefit of the people."
Rav Eliezer Zvi Safran (the "Komarna Rebbe") zatz'l suggests that
this type of calculation is what is meant by the mishnah in Pirkei
Avot (chapter 2), "Nullify your wishes before His wishes so that He
will nullify the wishes of others before your wishes." This can be
read, "Give up the wishes which you have for yourself because they
are contrary to His wishes so that He will nullify the plans which
He has for others because they are contrary to your wishes." This
means that if you give up what you want for yourself because it is
contrary to Hashem's will, then in your merit Hashem will cancel
punishments of which your loved ones may be deserving.
(Zekan Beto)
************************************
The gemara makes a remarkable statement: Whoever recites
"Vayechulu" (i.e. kiddush) on Friday night is considered as if he
was a partner with Hashem in the creation of the world.
The Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh zatz'l asks: How can someone become a
partner in a job which is already finished? He explains as follows:
We read in the Aseret Hadibrot (not in the version found in this
parashah, but in Parashat Yitro) that G-d created the world in six
days. Interestingly, however, the literal translation of the verse
in question says, "For six days G-d created the world..." This
teaches us, writes the Ohr Hachaim, that when Hashem originally
created the world it had the capacity to endure for only six days.
What has made it last longer? The merit of Shabbat. Every person
who keeps Shabbat adds to the world's capacity to exist for another
week, and thus, the work of creation is never done. Rather, it must
be renewed each week, and those entrusted with this task are the
Shabbat-observers.
This thought allows us to explain another teaching of Chazal.
The gemara (Shabbat 118a) states: If one rejoices with the Shabbat,
all the desires of his heart will be fulfilled. Why so? Because
the person who keeps Shabbat is like one of the builders of the
world, it seems only right that each of the partners in this endeavor
should have something added onto the world for his own benefit.
There is another reason why a person who keeps Shabbat should have
all of his requests fulfilled. The gemara (Shabbat 88a) teaches that
when Bnei Yisrael accepted the Torah the angels descended from the
Heavens and crowned them with jewels. Later, however, after the sin
of the golden calf, the angels returned and confiscated these jewels.
What was the nature of the gift that Bnei Yisrael had held?
Rav Simcha Bunim of Przysucha zatz'l explained (in the name of
the Arizal) that Bnei Yisrael had been given the gift that their
prayers would be answered even before they were articulated.
However, because of the sin of the golden calf, this gift was taken
away from Bnei Yisrael.
But not completely! The Arizal taught that on Shabbat one's
prayers are indeed answered before they are said. (This is reflected
in the halachah that we do not make personal requests in the Shabbat
prayers. They are not necessary.) This then is the meaning of the
statement that if someone keeps Shabbat, all of his desires will be
fulfilled; no special request required.
(Ramatayim Tzofim)
************************************
Rav Chaim Soloveitchik zatz'l
5613 (1853) - 21 Av 5678 (1918)
Rav Chaim, also known as "Rav Chaim Brisker" and "Rav Chaim
Halevi," was born in Volozhin, where his father, Rav Yosef Dov
Halevi, was rosh yeshiva alongside his cousin-by marriage, Rav
Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin (the "Netziv"). Rav Chaim began his
illustrious teaching career in Volozhin as well, after marrying the
Netziv's granddaughter, Lipshe.
The closing of the Volozhin Yeshiva in 1892 coincided with the
passing of Rav Yosef Dov, then the rabbi of Brisk (Brest-Litovsk),
and Rav Chaim moved to Brisk to assume the rabbinate of that city.
Students continued to flock to hear his interpretations of the Talmud
and to learn his methods. Rav Chaim also was distinguished by his
acts of kindness, and, although it is not as well known, was active
in the creation of the organization which is today known as "Agudath
Israel" (in Israel, a political party, and in the rest of the world,
a service organization and lobbyist for Orthodox causes).
Rav Chaim's two illustrious sons were Rav Yitzchak Ze'ev (also
known as "Reb Velvel" or simply "The Brisker Rav") and Rav Moshe.
Their children were (and are) among the leading roshei yeshiva in
Israel and the U.S. respectively.
Rav Chaim's name is inexorably intertwined with the style of
learning which he popularized. While many yeshivot have unique
styles of learning, most of these cannot readily be described by even
the most seasoned Talmud scholar. "Brisk", however, is an exception.
Call someone a "Telzer" or a "Slobodker", and you have identified
where he learnt. However, call him a "Brisker", and you have
described how he learns. The Brisker "derech" (method) itself is
so widespread, he could have studied almost anywhere.
The centerpiece of Rav Chaim's method (as explained by Rav Shlomo
Yosef Zevin) is the phrase "shtei dinim"--"two laws." A halachah
can be analyzed two ways, each way producing different results. If
the way that we have been looking at a halachah causes difficulty
(e.g. contradicts another halachah), let us look at it differently.
For example, we might ask: "Is the mitzvah under discussion an
obligation of the person or of the person's object--for instance does
the Torah require a person to have tzitzit on a four-cornered garment
that he wears or does the Torah demand that all four cornered
garments owned by people have tzitzit on them? (A practical
difference between these two ways of analyzing the mitzvah of tzitzit
is whether a four-cornered garment that I own, but will not wear in
the near future, requires tzitzit.)
|
| 989.425 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Eikev | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Aug 16 1995 20:09 | 180 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Eikev
Vol. IX, No. 45 (429), 23 Av 5755, August 19, 1995
This parashah warns repeatedly of the dangers of luxuries. For
example, the Torah says (11:15-16), "And you will eat and be
satiated. Take care lest your hearts be seduced. . ." What should
a person do to protect himself? Chazal say (Avot ch.3) that if a
person eats and does not say a dvar Torah (words of Torah) at the
table, his meal borders on idolatry. Avudraham explains that this
is precisely because eating is potentially fatal to a person's
spirituality. A simple dvar Torah can put the meal back in
perspective, and can even sanctify it.
The same lesson was taught to Rav Yosef Karo by the "maggid"
(angel) in connection with the verse in our parashah (8:3), "Man does
not live by bread alone; rather by G-d's word man lives." If you
think of divrei Torah even as you chew, your food will have the
sanctity of a korban (sacrifice). A person cannot live if he eats
bread alone; he must at the same time ingest Hashem's word, i.e. the
Torah. (Maggid Mesharim)
************************************
"You will be unable to destroy them [the Canaanites] quickly lest
wild animals overtake you." (7:22)
Most simply, this means that if Bnei Yisrael had evicted the
Canaanites faster than the Land was resettled, wild animals would
have moved in. Therefore, Bnei Yisrael could advance through Canaan
only slowly. But, asks Rav Shaul Eliezer Yedidyah Taub zatz'l
("Modshitzer Rebbe") , what could stop Hashem from curtailing the
spread of the beasts if He chose?
Rather, he explains the verse as follows: "You will be unable
to destroy the Canaanites quickly lest the cruel traits of wild
animals overtake you." Even in battle, Jews must advance
deliberately to avoid unnecessary destruction and to maintain the
trait of kindness.
(quoted in Shabbat Be'shabbato)
************************************
"Man does not live by bread alone. . ." (8:3)
Pirkei Avot (chapter 6) teaches, "This is the way of Torah: eat
bread dipped in salt and drink a measured amount of water. . ." What
does this mean?
Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulai ("Chidah") zatz'l explains that one
should become so engrossed in Torah that he has no time to think of
eating. Not that man must torture himself in order to learn, but
rather that one should be too busy learning Torah to think about
luxuries.
To what may this be compared? To one who is lovesick, and who
thinks of nothing else but the one for whom he pines. Similarly,
a person should pine for Torah study.
(Petach Enayim)
************************************
"And you will eat, and you will be satiated, and you shall bless
Hashem, your G-d. . ." (8:10)
This verse teaches the mitzvah of birkat hamazon. However, the
fourth blessing of birkat hamazon is a rabbinic ordinance to
commemorate the miracles which followed the massacre at Betar in the
time of the Emperor Hadrian. Rav Natan Shapira of Horodno zatz'l
(grandfather of the kabbalist of the same name who authored the
famous work Megaleh Amukot) offers the following reason for placing
a reminder of Betar in birkat hamazon. Unfortunately, when people
eat big meals and are satiated, they tend to forget, or at least put
aside temporarily, their usual awareness of the transience of this
life and the importance of spiritual pursuits. To combat this, we
remember the martyrs of Betar, a "shock-treatment" of sorts to remind
a person of the tenuousness of the human condition.
(Seder Birkat Hamazon)
************************************
In his work on Torah-derived table manners, the 14th century sage
Rabbenu Bachya ben Asher writes:
When one finishes eating he should remain at the table for some
time, as Chazal said (Berachot 54b), "If one extends his meal, his
life will be extended." Why? Because the longer a person sits at
the table, the greater the likelihood that a poor person will chance
by and will be fed. In this vein, we find a verse (Yechezkel 41:22)
where the words "altar" and "table" are used interchangeably, and
Chazal explain that just as one's sins are atoned for upon the altar,
so they are forgiven when one feeds the poor at his table. (So great
is this mitzvah, writes Rabbenu Bachya, that some people have their
coffins built from the wood of their tables so that the boards can
"testify" on their behalf before the Heavenly court.)
One is obligated to say divrei Torah (words of Torah) while
sitting at the table. Chazal teach (Avot ch.3) that if one eats at
a table where divrei Torah are said it is as if he has eaten at G-d's
table, but if he eats at a table where no divrei Torah are said it
is as if he ate from sacrifices brought before idols. Why such harsh
words? To teach man that he was not created in order to eat and to
drink, but in order to study Torah.
(Shulchan Shel Arbah)
************************************
"What does Hashem ask of you other than to fear Him....?" (10:12)
Rav Yehuda Halevi warns us not to think that Judaism is a religion
of the heart or of the mind. Rather, it is a religion of deeds.
This is clear from the Torah, a significant part of which describes
mitzvot--some, in great detail--that require action. History shows
that the great philosophers of Greece or other societies did not come
closer to G-d than did the simple Jew who kept the mitzvot; if Hashem
merely wanted our hearts or our minds, those philosophers would have
fared better spiritually.
How then are we to understand the above verse? Just as Hashem
does not desire our hearts alone, He does not want deeds alone. In
fact, it is unlikely that a person would perform the mitzvot unless
he possessed some fear of Heaven. This pasuk may therefore be
speaking to the "beginner"--start with fear of Hashem, love Him,
emulate Him, and so on, until you come to keep all of the mitzvot.
(Kuzari I, 99; II, 48)
************************************
Rav Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin zatz'l
("Netziv")
born Rosh Chodesh Kislev 5577 (1816) - 28 Av 5657 (1897)
Netziv was the last rosh yeshiva of the original Volozhin Yeshiva,
known as the "Mother of the yeshivot" because before Volozhin's
founding in 1803 (by Rav Chaim of Volozhin, Netziv's grandfather-in-
law), Torah study was usually done in small groups at the feet of
leading town rabbis. During Netziv's 40 year reign, many of the
greatest Ashkenazic rabbis of the late 19th and early 20th centuries
were students in Volozhin. These included (in roughly chronological
order) Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzenski, Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook, Rav
Baruch Ber Lebowitz, Rav Reuven Bengis, Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer,
and others.
Little is known of Netziv's childhood. He was born in Mir. His
father was a successful businessman and Torah scholar, and Netziv's
sister was married to Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein (author of Aruch
Hashulchan). The fact that Netziv was married to the daughter of
Rav Itzele Volozhiner when he was only 13 years old suggests that
his great future was foreseen already then, although Netziv's nephew
(Rav Baruch Epstein, author of Torah Temimah) writes that even Rav
Itzele did not properly appreciate his son-in-law's scholarship until
he discovered one of Netziv's manuscripts.
Netziv wrote many works, including a Torah commentary (called
Ha'emek Davar), halachic responsa (Heishiv Davar), and Talmud
commentaries. However, he is most notable for his works on less
commonly studied portions of the Torah, especially Ha'emek Sh'eilah,
a commentary on the 9th century work She'iltot D'rav Achai. The
She'iltot is among the earliest post-Talmudic works and sheds light
on many halachic issues and textual questions. The introduction to
Ha'emek Sh'eilah discusses two different approaches to Torah study
which have existed from the time of Moshe Rabbenu's students to the
present and is a classic in its own right.
The Volozhin Yeshiva closed (or was closed) in 1892 after a
prolonged battle over the Russian government's insistence on the
introduction of secular studies. Thereafter, Netziv started out on
his way to Eretz Yisrael, having always been an active supporter of
the resettlement of the Land. However, he was too ill to finish the
trip.
Netziv's children from his first wife included Rav Chaim Berlin,
rabbi of Moscow and later Yerushalayim, and the wife of Rav Rephael
Shapiro, head of the Volozhin Yeshiva when it re-opened after several
decades. Among the children of the latter was Lipshe, the wife of
Rav Chaim Soloveitchik (whose biography appeared in last week's
Hamaayan). In his old age, Netziv married his niece (daughter of
Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein), and their son was Rav Meir Berlin (Bar-
Ilan), an Israeli religious and political leader.
|
| 989.426 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Re'eh | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Aug 24 1995 20:15 | 156 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Re'eh
Vol. IX, No. 46 (430), 30 Av 5755, August 26, 1995
In this week's parashah we read of the mitzvot of shechitah
(ritual slaughter) and kisui hadam (covering the blood). The Torah
says (12:21), "You may slaughter from your cattle and your flocks
that Hashem has given you, as I have commanded you."
What is meant by the phrase (in the past tense), "[A]s I have
commanded you"? Nowhere in the Torah is there such a commandment!
One answer is that this is clear proof from the Torah itself that
a companion Oral Torah exists. Moshe's previous commandment on the
subject of shechitah was in that Oral Torah. In addition, Rav
Avraham Yitzchak Kook zatz'l (whose yahrzeit falls during the coming
week) offers the following explanation:
The purpose of shechitah is to lessen the animal's suffering.
The Torah says, "When you are doing the shechitah reflect on the fact
that it is 'as I have commanded you.' Go ahead, slaughter the animal
if that is what you desire (see 12:20) but know that you are taking
a life and depriving a family of a member."
The Torah wants a person to be sensitive to animals, but not
necessarily to stop using them. The proof of this is in the mitzvah
of kisui hadam, which requires man to hide the slaughtered animal's
blood as if he is ashamed of what he has done. Significantly, the
mitzvah of kisui hadam does not apply to the blood of domesticated
animals. A person could feel that since he has raised this animal
he is entitled to do with it as he sees fit. Were the Torah to
require that its blood be covered--were the Torah to make a person
ashamed of using the animal which he has raised with his own hands--a
thinking person would be incapacitated from slaughtering the animal
at all. (From a 1923 article in Ha'peles reprinted in Otzrot
Ha'reiyah p. 748)
************************************
"Their trees of worship you shall burn in fire." (12:3)
Here the Jews are commanded to completely destroy any tree in
Eretz Yisrael which the Canaanites had made an object of idol
worship. Yet earlier, in Parashat Mishpatim (23:24), the Jews were
commanded simply to smash them or break them, a less complete
destruction. Why?
Rav Yechezkel Abramsky explains as follows: The trees in Eretz
Yisrael never belonged to the Canaanites; they were always Bnei
Yisrael's trees because Hashem had given the Land to the Patriarchs.
Accordingly, the Canaanites could not affect the halachic status of
the trees which they worshipped. Enjoyment of those trees did not
become prohibited, and the Torah said (in Parashat Mishpatim) to
break those trees only as a reminder not to worship idols.
However, after Parashat Mishpatim was taught, Bnei Yisrael
worshipped the Golden Calf. They thereby indicated that they did
not object to the idolatry of the Canaanites, and that had the
halachic effect of ratifying the Canaanites selection of certain
trees as objects of idol worship. Thereafter, it became prohibited
to enjoy those trees and they had to be burnt.
(quoted in Ta'am Vada'at)
************************************
"And you shall eat your tithes before G-d, in the place where G-d
will choose to rest His Name . . ., in order that you should learn
to fear G-d all the days." (14:23)
Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv (the "Alter of Kelm") explained the end of
this verse: This does not mean that one must fear G-d all of one's
days; that goes without saying. Rather it means that one must learn
all of one's days how to fear G-d.
Rav Chaim Friedlander adds: This explains why one must eat his
tithes before G-d, in the place where G-d will choose to rest his
Name, i.e., in Yerushalayim. Even though the Jews would pilgrimage
to Yerushalayim three times a year for the holidays, the Torah wanted
them to spend even more time in the holy and inspiring city.
(Siftei Chaim)
************************************
"You may not slaughter the Pesach in one of your gates [i.e.,
cities] which Hashem gives you." (16:5)
Chazal teach that the Jews in Egypt fell through the 49 gates of
impurity and Hashem had to lift them out. So too, at any time, a
person may fall through those gates, and Hashem may rescue him.
However, says Rav Eliezer David Gruenwald, a person should not be
satisfied with the "gates" that Hashem "gives" him, but should work
on his own to climb through further gates of holiness.
(Chasdei David)
************************************
"You shall make a holiday of Sukkot for yourself" (16:13)
Rav Shlomo Halberstam (the Bobover Rebbe) shlita notes that the
root of the word "Sukkah" is the name for one of the forms of Ruach
Hakodesh--Divine Inspiration, i.e., the ability to see that which
is hidden. Thus, this verse may be read as a lesson that every
person should set aside times ("make a holiday") devoted to
introspection, i.e., seeing himself.
(quoted in Sukkat Bet Ropshitz p.31)
************************************
"For seven days you shall celebrate to Hashem . . . and you shall
be only joyous." (16:15)
From this last phrase Chazal deduce that one must be joyous on
an eighth day as well, i.e., Shemini Atzeret. However, numerous
commentaries ask: Doesn't the word "only" suggest that something is
being excluded, rather than that something is being included?
The Vilna Gaon is quoted as explaining that something is indeed
being excluded. The Torah is teaching that after the seven days in
which we were joyous and performed numerous mitzvot (sukkah, lulav,
etc.), there comes a holiday when the only mitzvah is to be joyous.
(Kol Eliyahu)
************************************
Yahrzeits This Week
Rav Yechiel Schlesinger: born 5570 (1810); died 1 Elul 5651
(1891). Rav Yechiel was among the leading students of the Chatam
Sofer, and later was a rosh yeshiva and av bet din (chief rabbinical
judge) in Pressburg. Rav Yechiel's son was Rav Akiva Yosef
Schlesinger, an author of several sefarim and a fighter against
Reform. Rav Yechiel and his son both wrote commentaries on the
midrash Tanna D'vei Eliyahu--the former called Divrei Yechiel and
the latter called Tosfot ben Yechiel.
Rav Yissachar Ber ("Rav Berzi") of Nadvorna: died 3 Elul 5608
(1848), soon after "offering" to Hashem that he take the place of
10,000 cholera victims. Among Rav Berzi's sayings: "My soul has been
here three times--once as the prince Kemuel ben Shiftan [see Bemidbar
34:24], once as villager, and now. I accomplished the most for my
soul as that anonymous villager." He also said, "Man so desires
honor that if he could sit up and count how many people came to his
funeral, he would do so." (from Sha'ar Ha'otiot by his grandson,
Rav Eliezer Zev of Kretchnov)
Rav Moshe Provencal: born 5264 (1504); died 4 Elul 5336 (1576).
Rav Moshe and his two brothers were among the leading rabbis of Italy
in their time. Rav Moshe lived in Mantua and his word was law there.
His oldest brother was the first posek to permit the printing of the
Zohar, whereas a leading contemporary (Maharam of Padua) felt that
the Zohar should not be made accessible to the general public. Rav
Moshe was an opponent of the study of philosophy which was popular
in Italy in his time.
|
| 989.427 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Shoftim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Aug 29 1995 20:50 | 196 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Shoftim
Vol. IX, No. 47 (431), 7 Elul 5755, September 2, 1995
The first mitzvah in this week's parashah is to appoint judges
and police officers. Commentaries explain that the purpose of these
judges is two-fold, i.e., to teach the people and to enforce the
laws.
Regarding one of the criminal laws which the courts must enforce,
Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook zatz'l offered the following insight. It
was after the Arab riots of 1920, when the British imposed light
fines on the Arabs and announced a curb on Jewish immigration to
Palestine. When the British High Commissioner Herbert Samuel asked
for Rav Kook's thoughts on these developments, Rav Kook said:
The Torah states that a thief must pay back double what he stole,
and then he goes free. Why such a light punishment? Why is he not
whipped?
The answer is that thieves do not fear corporal punishment. A
thief knows that his victim might beat him, or even kill him, but
he takes that chance. What a thief understands is money, and he is
punished through his money. That is a deterrent.
"So, too," said Rav Kook, "I am not upset by the Arab's light
punishment, but by the fact that they have gained politically from
their acts. The only punishment that the Arabs would understand is
political [i.e., if their acts would cause the British to increase
immigration.]" (Malachim K'vnei Adam p.155)
************************************
"Righteousness, righteousness shall you pursue . . ." (16:20)
Rav Avraham (the Slonimer Rebbe) zatz'l writes: A person must
stand up to the yetzer hara, the evil inclination, and not fall for
his tricks. At a minimum, a person should not compound the sin.
For example, the midrash says that Adam was expelled from Gan
Eden not because he ate of the Tree of Knowledge; that was the yetzer
hara's doing. Rather, Adam was expelled because he compounded his
sin by showing ingratitude to G-d and saying, "The woman which You
gave me, she served [the fruit to] me and I ate."
The yetzer hara can only entice a person, but it cannot make him
act. This is why the verse says, "Righteousness, righteousness shall
you pursue"--the first form of "righteousness" is to stand up to the
yetzer hara entirely; the second is to minimize the damage done by
the yetzer hara and not to compound the sin.
(Be'er Avraham)
************************************
"You shall place a king over yourself." (17:15)
In the first Book of Shmuel (ch. 8) we read that the prophet was
angry when the Jewish people asked for a king. Why did he feel that
way--isn't this one of the Torah's commandments?
Rav Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch zatz'l (the Tzemach Tzedek; died
1866) explains that a Jewish king has two missions. The obvious one
is to judge the people and maintain order. Also, the king aids man
in recognizing his own insignificance before G-d. (In Hebrew this
is called, "Bitul ha'yesh"--literally, "Nullification of matter.")
How so? When the king's subjects humble themselves before the
king and he humbles himself before G-d, those subjects realize that
they too must humble themselves before G-d. (This is why the Jewish
kings, especially David, were called "G-d's chariot". Just as a
chariot has no reason to exist except to serve its rider, the
righteous kings knew that they had no reason to exist except to serve
Hashem.)
It's true, says the Tzemach Tzedek, that there is a mitzvah to
appoint a king. However, the time to perform that mitzvah is only
when the Jewish people need a king to carry out the two missions
described above. Ideally, however, a Jew can teach himself the above
lessons. Thus, the prophet Shmuel was not angry that they wanted
a king, he was angry that they needed a king.
(Derech Mitzvotecha: Ta'amei Hamitzvot)
************************************
"You shall do to him as he conspired to do to his fellow. . ."
(19:19)
This pasuk teaches the law of the eid zomem, a particular kind
of false witness. Specifically, a pair of witnesses becomes zomemim
(the plural form) if another pair of witnesses testifies that the
first pair could not possibly have seen the crime or the transaction
(loan, sale, etc.) about which they testified because they were
somewhere else at that time. In such a case, the first pair's
punishment is to suffer whatever monetary or physical consequences
would have befallen the defendant against whom they had testified.
Why is the second pair of witnesses believed automatically? One
possible reason is as follows: The Torah always believes two kosher
witnesses, whether they are testifying against one defendant or
against 100 defendants. The reason is that the defendants, no matter
how numerous, have a personal stake in the trial's outcome; the
witnesses, we assume, absent evidence to the contrary, have no stake.
But what happens when the witnesses are challenged by another pair
of objective witnesses? Now, it is the original witnesses themselves
who have a stake in the outcome, because they are on trial. Thus,
the second set of witnesses has more credibility.
(Sefer Hachinuch and others)
************************************
One of the seemingly illogical aspects of the halachah of eidim
zomemim is that they receive the designated punishment only if the
court has reached a judgment based upon their testimony but the
judgment has not been carried out. If the defendant has been
executed--some say also if he received lashes--the false witnesses
go free.
Why?
Rav Yosef Karo zatz'l suggests two answers. Firstly, he says,
if the witnesses wrongly caused the death of another, death at the
hands of the court is too good for them. The purpose of punishing
them would be that their deaths might be an atonement for their sin,
but these do not deserve atonement.
Alternatively, we assume that "G-d is standing in the congregation
of judges" (Tehilim 82:1). If the defendant was put to death based
upon false testimony, that was G-d's will. These sinners who
testified against him were merely the agents of G-d's will.
[Of course, this does not mean that Hashem will not punish them,
just as He punished Pharaoh despite the fact that G-d had told
Avraham that the Jews would be enslaved in an unspecified foreign
land. Note, too, that no one says this defendant is innocent; all
we know is that this pair of witnesses did not witness the crime.]
(Kesef Mishneh, Hil. Edut 20:2)
************************************
Rav Reuven Margaliot zatz'l
died 7 Elul 5731 (1971)
Among the most remarkable, yet barely known, sages of this century
is surely Rav Reuven Margaliot. His works cover all areas of Torah
study, and in a style which is truly unique. One biographer said:
"If any writer in this century gave the impression of knowing the
entire Torah, it was Rav Reuven Margaliot." His admirers included
gedolim (Torah sages) from perspectives as diverse as Rav Avraham
Yitzchak Kook and Rav Chaim Eliezer Shapira (the Munkatcher Rebbe).
Many of Rav Margaliot's works adopt the tools of "Bible criticism"
and so-called "Bible scholars" and use them in the service of true
Torah study. Some of his works discuss the behavior of Talmud sages,
including behavior which is seemingly unusual, and explain it in
light of those sages' halachic opinions. Rav Margaliot also wrote
biographies and history books. Other works are straight-forward
commentaries, unusual only in the breadth of the sources they rely
upon. It truly appears that there was no section of the Talmud, no
midrash, no rishon (medieval commentary), no acharon (post-medieval
commentary), and no aspect of kabbalah which was not at Rav
Margaliot's finger tips.
Among his works currently in print:
Mechkarim Bedarchei Hatalmud--"Studies in Talmudic Methodology";
Malachei Elyon--an encyclopedia on angels;
Yesod Hamishnah Va'arichatah--history of the mishnah;
Hamikra Ve'hamesorah--essays on Tanach;
Le'cheker Sheimot Vekinuyim Batalmud--"Studies on Names and
Nicknames in the Talmud";
Shem Olam--an attempt to identify the authors of anonymous
statements in the Talmud;
Margaliot Hayam--an immensely popular commentary on Tractate
Sanhedrin;
Nefesh Chayah--commentary on Shulchan Aruch;
Be'er Miriam and Kohelet Moshe--commentaries on the Pesach
Haggadah;
Ohr Habahir--on the kabbalistic midrash, Sefer Habahir;
Nitzotzei Zohar--commentary on the Zohar and Tikunei Zohar.
Sha'arei Zohar--commentary on the Talmud, with an emphasis on
comparing the Talmud to the Zohar; and
Olelot--miscellaneous essays on Tanach, Talmud, liturgy and
history.
Rav Margaliot also edited the work She'eilot U'teshuvot Min
Hashamayim, a 12th century compilation of halachic discussions
between the sage Rav Yaakov of Marves (France) and an angel. Rav
Margaliot's edition begins with a comprehensive analysis of the
relationship between prophecy and the halachic process. Another work
which he edited is Milchamot Hashem by Rav Avraham, the son of Rambam
(Maimonides). To this work, Rav Margaliot added a biography of the
author.
|
| 989.428 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Ki Tetze | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Oct 05 1995 20:35 | 155 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Ki Tetze
Vol. IX, No. 48 (432), 14 Elul 5755, September 9, 1995
Ki Tetze is always read during the month of Elul, when we are
occupied with thoughts of teshuvah (repentance) and self-improvement.
Perhaps for this reason, many commentators see the opening verse of
this parashah--"When you will go out to war against your enemy"--as
a reference to the war on the yetzer hara. A person's body also can
be his enemy, adds Rav Avraham Abu Chatzeira zatz'l (Rabbi of Yavne
and Ramle), because after a while it becomes used to a certain
lifestyle and leads him to sin as if it had a mind of its own. (See
also page 4 of this issue.)
As a general matter, asks Rav Abu Chatzeira, how is teshuvah
possible? Doesn't it contradict the halachic principle of "an animal
which was fit for a sacrifice and became unfit, can never become
fit"? How can a person who was fit to serve Hashem and became unfit
ever become fit again?
The answer is also in the first verse of our parashah: "Hashem,
your G-d, will deliver them 'beyadecha'-into your hand." The
halachah cited above has an exception, i.e., that if it is
"beyadecha"-"in your hand" (i.e., within your ability) at any time
to remove the animal's unfitness, then the animal can be sacrificed.
Similarly, it is within a person's ability to repent at any time,
and thus he can once again be fit to be part of Hashem's service.
(Toldot Avraham)
************************************
In the past, writes Rav Yechezkel Sarna zatz'l, one could see Elul
on people's faces. The fear of the impending judgment on Rosh
Hashanah and Yom Kippur was palpable. During Elul, a person ate
differently, he slept differently, and everything about him was
different.
Today that is not so; we apparently fear nothing. But the High
Holidays are called the "Days of Awe"--are they any less awesome just
because we do not hold them in awe?
Of course not! Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur still are the days
of judgment, and they call upon us to examine our deeds and to
improve them. But if we are not afraid, how then can we prepare for
these days?
There are two forms of teshuvah, explains Rav Sarna, teshuvah
me'ahavah (return out of love) and teshuvah me'yirah (return out of
fear). If the latter is lost to us, then we must rely on the former.
Chazal say that the name "Elul" is alluded to by the initial
letters of the phrase "I belong to my Beloved (i.e., G-d) and my
Beloved to me." This is Chazal's way of telling us to strengthen
our love for G-d during this month. Perhaps for the same reason,
during this month we recited the psalm "Le'David Hashem ori. . . ,"
which is full of expressions of our faith in G-d as our Protector.
During this month, a person should set aside time to reflect on
Hashem's kindness to him. One who loves and feels loved would do
nothing to disappoint his loved one.
(Daliot Yechezkel)
************************************
Rav Yosef Yaavetz zatz'l writes: The psalm of "Le'David Hashem
ori" revolves around the theme that the good which comes from Torah
is first and foremost spiritual. Material success is secondary.
Thus King David says, "There is only one thing I have asked of G-d,
that is what I seek, to reside in G-d's house all of my days, to see
G-d's pleasantness, and to visit in His sanctuary."
Of course, spiritual good is the only kind which endures.
Moreover, any physical act which is done for the sake of Heaven is
rewarded like a spiritual deed.
(Peirush Al Sefer Tehilim)
************************************
"Remember what Amalek did to you, on the way when you were leaving
Egypt, that he happened upon you on the way, and he struck those of
you who were hindmost. . ." (25:17-18)
One of the reasons why the Torah commands us always to remember
Amalek and eventually to destroy it is the identification of Amalek
(and its guardian angel) with the yetzer hara. The following
explanations are part of a derashah by Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulai
("Chida") zatz'l which was based on this idea:
"[O]n the way"--Man is on the road his whole life, i.e., on the
road from birth to death on which each person travels without stop.
The yetzer hara is with man throughout his travels.
"[T]hat he happened upon you on the way"--The yetzer hara would
like you to think that everything that occurs is happenstance. In
fact, man does not even stub his toe unless and until it is ordained
from heaven.
"[H]e struck those of you who were hindmost. . ."--Chazal teach
that when man performs mitzvot he creates angels who accompany him
and who, after 120 years, will testify on his behalf. However, when
man performs a mitzvah half-heartedly, he creates a lame or deformed
angel. These angels are "unfinished," and they are awaiting their
spiritual rectification. They are referred to as "hindmost" because
their disabilities prevent them from keeping up, and it is these
angels whom the yetzer hara can "kill" most easily.
"And it will be when Hashem will give you respite from all of your
enemies surrounding you. . ."--This refers to when man repents; it
says, "when Hashem will give you respite," because without Hashem's
aid, man never could stand up to the yetzer hara.
"[Y]ou shall erase Amalek's memory"--Even after you have
eradicated your yetzer hara, don't act as if you have nothing to
fear. It is easy to backslide, so it is important to act in a way
that will ensure that the yetzer hara remains forgotten.
(Kisei David; quoted in Torat Ha-Chida)
************************************
Rav Chaim Vital zatz'l writes in the name of the Arizal: Whereas
the yetzer hara is with man from birth (Sanhedrin 91b), the yetzer
hatov does not enter until one is bar or bat mitzvah. As a result,
by that time, one's organs are used to sin, and repenting becomes
a war. In light of this, the opening verses of our parashah may be
explained allegorically as follows:
"When you will go out to war against your enemies"--"enemies" is
plural, referring to the yetzer hara and the organs which are under
its influence.
"Hashem, your G-d, will deliver it into your hands"--"it" is
singular, referring to the yetzer hara.
"You will take its prisoners"--this refers to the organs of your
body, which you will recapture from the yetzer hara.
"And you will see among the captivity a beautiful woman"--this
refers to the neshamah, the soul.
"She shall shave her head"--this refers to the heretical ideas
which the soul has picked up until this time.
"And do her nails"--this refers to cutting away unnecessary
luxuries.
"And she shall remove the dress of her captivity"--this refers
to the aura around the soul which its sins created.
"And she shall weep for her father"--G-d, with whom she has lost
touch--"and her mother"--the Jewish people.
"For a full month"--the month of Elul.
(Sha'ar Ha'likutim)
|
| 989.429 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Ki Tavo | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Oct 05 1995 20:37 | 177 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Ki Tavo
Vol. IX, No. 49 (433), 21 Elul 5755, September 16, 1995
Most of this parashah tells of the terrible curses awaiting the
Jewish people if they fail to live up to G-d's expectations. Both
physical and mental torments are promised, including: "All these
curses will come upon you and pursue you . . . for you will not have
listened to the voice of Hashem, your G-d, to observe His
commandments and decrees that He commanded you. They will be a sign
and a wonder, in you and your offspring, forever." (28:45-46)
Asks Rav Yehoshua Leib Diskin, "Then is all hope lost--does not
the verse say, 'They will be a sign and a wonder, in you and your
offspring, forever"?
No, he explains. This verse is not modifying the preceding curse
("All these curses will come upon you and pursue you . . .").
Rather, it modifies the second half of the preceding verse, "His
commandments and decrees that He commanded you." Those commandments
and decrees should be a sign and a wonder, to us and to our
offspring, forever. (Maharil Diskin Al Hatorah)
************************************
"I did not give of it to the dead. . ." (26:14)
Twice every seven years, a Jew was required to recite vidui
ma'aser--a declaration that he had disposed of his tithes in
accordance with the law and had not misused them. Literally, the
above verse is a statement that one did not use his ma'aser (tithes)
to buy burial shrouds.
Rav Avraham Horowitz zatz'l (father of the Shelah Hakadosh) wrote
in his will that this verse has a homiletic meaning as well: "I did
not give of it to the dead"--I did not expend my energy for the
purpose of leaving my children a large inheritance.
Rav Horowitz explains: Many people work very hard so that they
can leave their children in a comfortable situation. Is there any
guarantee that the children's inheritance won't be wiped out within
days? Is there any guarantee that the children won't squander their
fortune within a short time?
There are proofs in the Talmud that there is no mitzvah to leave
an inheritance. In Tractate Gittin (47a) we read that when the sage
Resh Lakish lay on his deathbed, he realized that he was leaving
behind a small kav (about a quart) of spice (and nothing else).
Because of that small measure of property, he applied to himself the
verse, "They have left their strength to others." Throughout his
years, Resh Lakish had made sure to spend his entire daily wage on
the same day; the fact that he had something left when he died
indicated to him that he had worked harder than necessary.
(Yesh Nochalin)
************************************
". . . there you will work for the gods of others--of wood and
stone. You will be a source of astonishment, a parable, and a
conversation piece, among all the peoples where Hashem will lead
you." (28:36-37)
An apostate once complained to Rav Chaim of Volozhin zatz'l that
he suffered greatly from the ridicule of the gentiles. Long ago he
had tried to get in their good graces by eating with them, but this
did not work. He tried joining them on outings--even when it meant
transgressing the laws of Shabbat, but that did not help. Eventually
he apostatized, but he still was not welcomed by the gentiles.
Replied Rav Chaim, "This is foretold in the above verse."
(Be'urei Rabbenu Chaim Mi'Volozhin)
************************************
"On this day you have become a nation. . ." (27:9)
Say Chazal: A person is obligated to view every day as the day
on which he received the Torah at Har Sinai.
Rav Moshe Chaim Luzzato ("Ramchal") zatz'l elaborates: A good
part of the Torah was not given on Mount Sinai, but during the
subsequentforty years. The most important thing that happened at
Har Sinai was something else.
A Jew's soul inherently wants to serve G-d, and would do so even
if there were no Torah. However, the consequences of that service
would be different.
Chazal say that one who does a mitzvah after being commanded is
greater than one who does the same mitzvah without being obligated
to do so. [This is why, for example, Avraham did not circumcise
himself until he was 99 years old. Although he kept the entire Torah
without being told, he could circumcise himself only once.
Therefore, he preferred to wait for G-d's command.] Why is this
seemingly illogical fact true?
When we do mitzvot, we not only please G-d and earn reward, we
change the world. And where do we get the power to affect the cosmos
through our deeds? That is what G-d gave us at Har Sinai. A good
deed done without a commandment also pleases G-d, but it has no power
to affect the world.
At Har Sinai we became the powerful nation that we are, and "[o]n
this day [also] you have become a nation." A person is obligated
to remember every day what powers G-d has given him.
(Da'at Tevunot)
************************************
"Do not turn away from any of the words that I command you this
day, right or left, to follow gods of others, to worship them."
(28:14)
What is the meaning of "right or left, to follow gods of others?"
Rav Yehonatan Eyebschutz zatz'l explains:
When Avraham's servant Eliezer spoke to the family of Rivkah,he
said, "And now, if you intend to do kindness with my master, tell
me; and if not, tell me, and I will turn to the right or to the left"
(Breishit 24:49). Rashi says: "To the right--to the daughters of
Yishmael; Or to the left--to the daughters of Lot."
In other words, "to the right or to the left" means "to leave
Eretz Yisrael." This is equated in our verse with "to follow gods
of others." As Chazal say, "He who lives outside of Eretz Yisrael
is as if he is an idolator."
(Tiferet Yehonatan)
************************************
Rav Yaakov Segal Moellin zatz'l
("Maharil")
born 5125 (1365) - 21 Elul 5187 (1427)
Maharil (an acronym of Moreinu Harav Yaakov Levi) was the leading
Ashkenazic authority of his day, particularly with regard to
synagogue customs and rituals. (It is said that Maharil demanded
complete adherence to custom, even down to the High Holiday
melodies.) Many present day Ashkenazic customs are quoted by poskim
(halachic authorities) in Maharil's name.
Maharil was born in Mainz and led a yeshiva there, but he died
in Worms. His best known student was Rav Yaakov Weil. Another
student, Rav Zalman of St. Goar, was the author of the authoritative
Minhagei Maharil ("Customs of the Maharil"). Maharil also left
hundreds of halachic responsa.
Among the themes of the psalm "L'David Hashem ori" (which is
recited every day during Elul) is that we should fear no one but G-d.
Maharil discussed this idea in one of his responsa (She'eilot
U'teshuvot Maharil No. 1; addressed to "My master, teacher, and
mentor, my brother, my friend, the great tree, Rav Yekutiel Segal"):
The gemara says that one of the sages interpreted every occurrence
in the Torah of the word "ET" (spelled in hebrew as Aleph Taf)
(a word that has no translation or real meaning) as coming to include
something. For example, the word "ET" in Sh'mot 20:12 ("Honor (ET)
your father. . .") requires one to honor is older brother. However,
when this sage reached the verse, "You shall fear (ET) Hashem your
G-d," he stopped. What could one possibly be required to fear
alongside G-d. (Later, Rabbi Akiva taught that this occurrence of
the word "ET" creates an obligation to honor Torah scholars.)
Maharil notes that the sage did not have a similar problem with
an earlier verse which says, "You shall love (ET) Hashem your G-d."
It's easy to understand that one's love of G-d should require him
to love G-d's "leading" servants (i.e., Torah scholars) as well.
But how can we fear mortal man, especially Torah scholars? What will
prevent us from deifying them?
To this Rabbi Akiva explained that the word "ET" indicates
inclusion, but it also indicates subservience (as in Sukkah 6a).
Thus, the verse, "You shall fear (ET) Hashem your G-d," teaches us
at once to fear Torah scholars but not to deify them.
|
| 989.430 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Nitzavim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Oct 05 1995 20:38 | 182 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Nitzavim
Vol. IX, No. 50 (434), 28 Elul 5755, September 23, 1995
Rav Moshe Alshich (the "Alshich Hakadosh") zatz'l writes: Chazal
teach that whenever Moshe spoke to Bnei Yisrael, he honored the
nesi'im (leaders of the tribes) by addressing them first. This
week's parashah begins, however, "You are all standing today before
Hashem." No preference was shown to the nesi'im over anybody, even
the lowly water carriers and wood-choppers.
This difference results from the purpose of the assembly described
here: to enter into a new covenant with G-d. Everyone was "standing
before Hashem." While among ourselves we must respect our elders
and leaders, we do not really know who is great or small in Hashem's
eyes.
This lesson should not lead a person to feel haughty (thinking
that perhaps Hashem considers him to be the greatest member of the
congregation), but should rather be humbling. The story is told of
a person who used to honor everyone, regardless of age or station.
When his neighbors inquired of his reason for doing so, he explained,
"If one is older than I, he has done more Mitzvot; if he is younger,
he has committed fewer sins. If he is wiser than I, he should be
honored for his wisdom; if he is less intelligent, he should be
honored because he cannot be held as responsible for his sins as I
am for mine." (Torat Moshe)
************************************
"And it shall come to pass when he hears the words of this curse
and he will bless himself in his heart saying, 'Peace will be with
me, though I walk as my heart sees fit'--thereby having the satisfied
one support the thirsty." (29:18)
Rav Shimon Schwab zatz'l explains: Thirst is a lack of water, and
water is a metaphor for Torah. This verse refers to one who is
accomplished in, and can rightly be satisfied with, his fulfillment
of mitzvot. However, he is "thirsty" because he does not study
Torah. Rather, "the satisfied one support[s] the thirsty," i.e.,
he feels that his mitzvah observance fulfills his religious
obligations and he need not study Torah.
What does the next verse say? "Hashem will not want to forgive
him."
(Maayan Bet Hasho'eivah)
************************************
"This mitzvah which I am commanding you. . ." (30:12), i.e. the
possibility of teshuvah--repenting from one's sins,
". . . It is not in the Heavens, that you need wonder, 'Who will
go up to the Heavens and bring it down for us'?" (30:13), i.e. the
existence of sin and the possibility of repentance is not something
that is contrary to G-d's design for the world, but is part of it.
Teshuvah is not in the Heavens--out of reach.
In truth, one might wonder--since the whole world was created to
bring honor to G-d (see Yishayah 43:7), how can sin exist? The
answer is that sin exists so that teshuvah can exist, for there is
no greater honor to G-d than repentance from a life mired in
materialism (the basis of all sins), and acknowledgement of a higher
Being and purpose.
"....It is not across the sea that you need wonder, 'Who will
cross the sea and bring it to us'?" (30:13). The "sea" is a common
metaphor for life in this world, and each person is likened to a boat
(see for example the commentary of the Vilna Gaon to Sefer Yonah).
Although teshuvah requires placing material things in their proper
perspective, do not think that one must get out of the sea entirely.
Instead, one must forge a path of holiness through the sea of this
world. This is teshuvah.
(Sefat Emet: Likkutim)
************************************
Rav Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev zatz'l was late for selichot.
The chassidim waited and waited. Finally, he arrived, stood before
the aron hakodesh and said, "Master of the universe! I am a mortal,
born of a woman; I am an old man who is no longer able to rise before
dawn to say all of the selichot. But You are eternal, You are
mighty, You do not become old, You do not sleep. Furthermore, the
selichot that You recite are short. They consist of one word:
'Salachti'-'I have forgiven.' Please recite Your selichot and tell
us, 'I have forgiven'."
************************************
The mishnah (end of Yoma) teaches: "If one says, 'I will sin and
I will repent, I will sin and I will repent,' he will not be given
the opportunity to repent."
Why, asks the gemara, is the above statement repeated? The gemara
answers that once a person has committed the same sin twice, it
becomes permitted in his eyes. (In other words, a person who says,
"I will sin and I will repent," may actually repent. However, once
he says this twice, he will never repent.)
Rav Chaim Hager of Kosov zatz'l offers another explanation for
the double expression. Teshuvah is one of the 613 mitzvot, so it
could be argued that a person is obligated to sin in order to fulfill
this mitzvah. However, even if that were true, a person would only
be obligated to sin once in his lifetime. Thus, the first time that
a person says, "I will sin and I will repent," he may be doing so
for the sake of the mitzvah, but the second time, we can be sure that
he is, in fact, a sinner.
In light of this, says Rav Chaim, we can understand Yosef's
response to the wife of Potiphar: "How can I do this great evil and
I have sinned to G-d." Shouldn't he have said, "How can I do this
great evil and I will sin to G-d"?
Rav Chaim answers that Potiphar's wife tried to seduce Yosef with
the argument that it is a mitzvah to sin in order to repent. But
only once, Yosef answered. Therefore, "How can I do this great evil
and I have [already] sinned to G-d" and fulfilled the mitzvah of
teshuvah.
(Torat Chaim)
************************************
Must a person sin in order to do teshuvah? No, says Rav Avraham
Yitzchak Kook zatz'l (in his work Orot Hateshuvah and elsewhere).
Teshuvah is much more than "repentance"; it is "return." Even a
completely righteous person (if there were one) would stand far below
the level of Adam before the sin. Thus, there is always somewhere
to return to.
************************************
Rav Avraham Danzig zatz'l
born 5508 (1748) - 4 Tishrei 5581 (1821)
Rav Avraham Danzig was the author of the very popular halachic
works, Chayei Adam and Chochmat Adam. Both of these are
condensations of the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries--Chayei Adam
covers the laws of prayer, Shabbat and yom tov, and Chochmat Adam
covers the laws of kashrut, family purity, and other subjects.
Rav Avraham studied in Prague under Rav Yechezkel Landau (the Noda
B'Yehuda) and Rav Yosef Leiberman. After his marriage, he moved to
Vilna and engaged in business. He also served as a preacher (without
pay) and was among the lay leaders of the Vilna community. Rav
Avraham and the Vilna Gaon became related by marriage through their
children.
In his later years, Rav Avraham's business failed and he was
forced to earn his living as a rabbi.
In addition to Chayei Adam and Chochmat Adam, Rav Avraham wrote
Nishmat Adam (a commentary on his own Chayei Adam), a concise work
on the laws of Shabbat entitled Zichru Torat Moshe, and other works.
The introductory Yom Kippur prayer, "Tefilah Zakkah," was composed
by Rav Avraham and is found in Chapter 143 of Chayei Adam. Chapter
142 of that work contains a lengthy discussion of the High Holiday
vidui (confession), and readers who are able to are urged to study
it.
************************************
We read in this week's parashah, "Lo m'ever layam he"-"The Torah
is not found across the sea," meaning that one who constantly comes
and goes on business will never become a Torah scholar. Similarly,
in Iyov (Job) (28:14) we read, "The depths declare, 'It is not in
me,' the sea declares, 'It is not with me'."
Says Rav Avraham Danzig: If you ask a rich man for a loan but his
cash flow is insufficient, he says, "It is not with me." If you ask
a poor man for a loan, he says, "It is not in me." This is the
difference between one who travels the nearby seas in search of a
livelihood for his family, and one who travels the faraway deep
oceans looking for great wealth. The one who travels the depths must
declare of the Torah (like the pauper), "It is not in me." The one
who travels only the local seas and is satisfied with a modest profit
can declare of his Torah (like the rich man who is short right now
but still has hope for the future), "It is not with me." (quoted
in Melizei Esh)
|
| 989.431 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayelech | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Oct 05 1995 20:40 | 195 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Vayelech
Vol. IX, No. 51 (435), 6 Tishrei 5756, September 30, 1995
From the verse in Yishayah (the first pasuk of the haftarah for
Tzom Gedaliah), "Seek Hashem when He can be found, call out to Him
when He is close," Chazal learn that teshuvah is more effective
during the period from Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippur. What in this
verse alludes to this time of year? Rav Moshe Tirani ("Mabit") zatz'l
asks. Also, if this is the time when G-d judges man, how can it be
a time to repent? To the contrary, on the day of judgment,
repentance should be less acceptable!
Mabit explains: This is the time when Hashem can be found because
Rosh Hashanah is the anniversary of creation. Before creation, G-d
existed, but there were no visible or tangible indications of His
existence. Now that the world exists and man has been created (on
Rosh Hashanah), we testify that Hashem can be found in the universe.
This is the reason why G-d accepts repentance at this time of
year. He knows very well that He created man imperfect, and that
man must necessarily sin. Why bother creating the world if it will
be destroyed for man's sins? Thus G-d has, so-to-speak, forced
Himself to accept our teshuvah.
Nevertheless, teshuvah is not effective on the Day of Judgment
itself, i.e., on Rosh Hashanah. This is why Hashem gave us the extra
days of which we are now in the midst, the Days of Repentance, to
finish the work of teshuvah. (Bet Elokim II 15)
************************************
"Moshe went. . ." (31:1)
The Aramaic translation and commentary, Yonatan ben Uziel, says,
"Moshe went to the study hall." What does this mean?
Rav Simcha Bunim Alter (the "Gerrer Rebbe") zatz'l explains that
the "fountains" of knowledge closed before Moshe on the day of his
death (so say Chazal). Moshe therefore went to the study hall in
order to continue his life of Torah learning until the moment of his
death.
Alternatively, we may explain as follows: The gemara records that
Rabbi Yochanan expressed surprise when he was told that there are
Jews in Bavel (Babylon) who live to an old age. After all, the Torah
(Devarim 11:21) says, "In order to prolong your days and the days
of your children upon the Land." However, when Rabbi Yochanan was
told that these people attended the shul and the bet midrash (study
hall) regularly, he believed that they lived to old ages.
We see from this gemara, says the Gerrer Rebbe, that the bet
midrash in some way has the quality of Eretz Yisrael. Since Moshe
could not enter Eretz Yisrael, he at least wanted to spend his last
hours in a substitute--the study hall.
(Lev Simcha)
************************************
"This song shall speak up before it as a witness. . ." (31:21)
"This song" is the song of "Ha'azinu" in the next parashah. To
what does it testify?
Rav Chaim ben Betzalel (aka "Rav Chaim brother of Maharal") zatz'l
explains that there are many prophecies in the Torah and in the books
of the other prophets which do not have happy endings. Most notably,
the horrible curses which were read two weeks ago in Parashat Ki Tavo
end without any mention of a brighter future.
Not so the song of "Ha'azinu" which ends with the verse, "He will
bring retribution upon His foes, and He will appease His land and
His people." This is a promise of the long awaited redemption.
Thus, says our verse, write the song of "Ha'azinu" as a testimony
and reminder to yourselves that the redemption will come.
Why do so many prophecies end without consolation? Why do many
chapters of the Prophets leave us with unanswered questions about
our faith? Rav Chaim explains that this was done intentionally so
that we should not think that the prophets served G-d only because
they understood His ways. No, they too had unanswered questions,
but this did not diminish their love for Him or their service of
Him.
(Sefer Geulah Vi'shuah ch.6)
************************************
The midrash Yalkut Shimoni says, "If one has a sin in hand and
he is embarrassed to repent, let him exchange it (the sin) for good
deeds, and repent, and it will be accepted." To what may this be
likened? the midrash continues. "To one who has bad coins and he
goes to a money-changer and adds a commission and receives good
coins."
What is the message of this midrash, asks Rav Yosef Dov Halevi
Soloveitchik zatz'l, and what does the metaphor of the money-changer
add? He explains as follows:
The mussar works say that when a person has sinned, even his good
deeds are less acceptable to G-d until he repents. Rambam alludes
to this when he writes (Hil. Teshuvah 7:7), "How is great is
teshuvah--yesterday this person was separated from G-d, he called
out but was not answered, he performed mitzvot and they were thrown
back in his face . . ., and today he cleaves to G-d, he does mitzvot
and they are accepted."
One might think then that until a person succeeds in returning
to G-d with all his heart it is pointless to do mitzvot. However,
the lesson of the midrash is that this is not the case. Although
the mitzvot that he does are not accepted, they are, so-to-speak,
kept in escrow until he repents, and then they are received by G-d.
"If one has a sin in hand," says the midrash, "and he is embarrassed
(i.e., unable for whatever reason) to repent, let him exchange the
sin for good deeds, and repent, and it (i.e., the escrow account of
good deeds) will be accepted." This person's mitzvot are like bad
coins which are of little use; however, when one adds a little
commission, i.e, teshuvah, the "bad coins" can be exchanged for "good
coins."
(Bet Halevi: Introduction)
************************************
Some people think, said Rav Simcha Bunim of Przyscha zatz'l, that
they need only recite the vidui (confession) and then they can start
asking for their needs for the coming year. This is not so.
Rather, a person must put all of his energy into the vidui with
the knowledge that for daring to sin against his Creator he has made
himself worthless. Once man does that, Hashem will "pick up the
pieces" of his broken heart and breath new life into him.
This is what is meant by Chazal's statement that teshuvah was
created before the world. The proper way to repent is to reach a
feeling that I, having sinned, might as well not have been created.
When one successfully places himself (in his mind) back before
creation, then he has reached teshuvah and can be created anew.
(Torat Simcha No. 291)
************************************
Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook zatz'l told the following story to illustrate
the depth of soul-searching that is expected of one who will lead
the congregation in prayer:
One year, the congregation begged Rav Levi Yitzchak of Bereditchev
to lead the prayers on the High Holidays, and he eventually agreed.
However, when the time to daven arrived, he was nowhere to be seen.
Finally they found him, and they asked him what had happened.
"When I set out for shul," Rav Levi Yitzchak said, "the Satan
(prosecuting angel, aka the yetzer hara) came to me and asked, 'Who
do you think you are that you should lead the congregation?'
"'What do you mean, "Who am I?" I am a Torah scholar!'
"'How did you become a Torah scholar?' the Satan asked.
"'I studied for many years under Rav Shmelke of Nikolsburg,' I
responded.
"'Well, if you are a Torah scholar, then so am I,' said the Satan.
"'You? How did you become a Torah scholar?' I asked him.
"'I too studied under Rav Shmelke of Nikolsburg,' he responded.
"'And when was that?' I challenged.
"'Every minute that you were there, I was there with you,' said
the Satan.
"'Well,' I told him, 'I am not only a Torah scholar, I am a
tzaddik.'
"'How did you become a tzaddik?' the Satan asked.
"'I studied for many years under Rav Elimelech of Lishensk,' I
responded.
"'Well, if you are a tzaddik, then so am I,' said the Satan.
"'You? How did you become a tzaddik?' I asked him.
"'Same as you,' he responded, 'I too studied under Rav Elimelech
of Lishensk.'
"'And when was that?' I challenged again.
"'Every minute that you were there, I was there with you,' said
the Satan.
"'In that case,' I said, 'if you're a tzaddik and a Torah scholar,
you lead the congregation in the High Holiday prayers'."
|
| 989.432 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Yom Kippur | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Oct 05 1995 20:41 | 178 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Yom Kippur
Vol. IX, No. 52 (436), 10 Tishrei 5756, October 4, 1995
For many people, Yom Kippur is an unpleasant day, even a bother.
Yet the gemara (end of Tractate Ta'anit) teaches that Yom Kippur is
one of the two happiest days on the Jewish calendar.
Why? Simply because it is the day of forgiveness. Imagine the
joy that one who must stand judgment--whether for the smallest
traffic violation or for a capital crime--must feel when he is freed.
None of us is perfect; we have each committed at least a "traffic
offense" and probably serious offenses such as lashon hara and
inadvertent Shabbat violations (from lack of knowledge). Thus, the
chance for forgiveness makes Yom Kippur a joyous day.
Why must the process of obtaining forgiveness be so painful?
Maharal (Netivat Ha'anavah ch.2) explains that when we weaken
ourselves through fasting and standing in prayer, we lessen our
ability to sin. This also demonstrates our desire to improve.
Maharal adds that korbanot (animal sacrifices) provide atonement in
a similar manner. Because so many sins arise from man's lust for
money, taking a bit of that money and spending it on atonement is
itself an act of contrition.
************************************
Rav Avraham Danzig zatz'l writes: Out of Hashem's love for His
nation (for He desires to do kindness and does not wish that the
"dead" die but rather that he return from his way and live), and not
out of G-d's own need (for if you do right, what good is it to G-d?),
but only in order to reward man in the end, G-d waits and actually
looks for the return of the wicked. He has even given us an extended
period of time, not one or two days, but the whole period from the
beginning of the year, when the gates of teshuvah and forgiveness
open, until the gates close at the end of Yom Kippur.
The sin of one who does not repent and who does not increase his
Torah study and good deeds in this period is great. [Ed. note:
Rabbenu Yonah likens such a person to a prisoner who finds the cell
door open but does not escape, thus demonstrating that he has no fear
of his jailor. Surely the jailor will not take this insult lightly.]
Therefore, each person must take care to strengthen himself for the
task of teshuvah so that he will be pure and clean when the Holy Day
(Yom Kippur) arrives, as it is written, "Before G-d you shall purify
yourselves."
And let a person not say, "I lay tefilin every day, I wear
tzitzit, I daven and I say blessings, and certainly the scales will
tip in my favor." Only a fool would say this, for how many bundles
of sins does a person perform every day, especially through idle
chatter and lashon hara?!. Many people make this mistake, i.e.,
thinking that repentance is required only for serious sins such as
idolatry, adultery, murder, and transgressing the laws of Shabbat,
but this way of thinking is complete folly. Indeed, Chazal say that
lashon hara is more serious than idolatry, adultery, and murder, and
they say that no one escapes from committing this sin in some degree.
Other common sins are lying and taking false oaths, especially
among businessmen who casually use the expression, "I swear to G-d,
this is my best price." [Ed. note: This was written 200 years ago.]
In addition, who can say that his prayers were said with the proper
concentration?
Other common sins [from the many listed by Rav Danzig]:
humiliating others in public, speaking in a hurtful manner, taking
interest, engaging in excessive frivolity, becoming angry, and
discussing business on Shabbat. These are among the most common
sins, even among those who study Torah assiduously. And greater than
all of these is the failure to devote sufficient time to Torah study.
(Chayei Adam 142:1)
************************************
The gemara says (Yoma 86b, in the name of Rabbi Yose bar Yehuda):
"If a person sinned once, he is forgiven; a second time, he is
forgiven; a third time, he is forgiven; a fourth time, he is not
forgiven."
Why, asks Rav Azaryah Figo zatz'l, didn't the gemara say simply,
"The first three times he is forgiven, but not the fourth time"?
He explains as follows:
The gemara says: "Sins to which one confessed last year, he should
not confess again this year. However, if he repeated the sin again
this year, he should confess again." Would we think, asks Rav
Azaryah, that a person should not confess for this year's sins? What
is the gemara teaching us?
Rather, the gemara means that if during the past year one repeated
the sins of two years ago, this indicates that his repentance on the
previous Yom Kippur was lacking. Once a person acknowledges his sins
he must take extra care to guard against them so that he will not
repeat them. Thus, if one repeated an old sin this year, he should
confess again even for those old incidents for which he already
confessed, because that first confession and teshuvah apparently was
lacking.
Even so, G-d's kindness is so great that He will forgive this sin
again. Indeed, a second time man is forgiven (i.e., he is forgiven
again for the sins for which he was forgiven last year but against
which he did not guard himself), and even a third time he is forgiven
(i.e., for the sins for which he repented twice already and failed
during two years to guard himself).
(Binah La'ittim)
************************************
We read in Tehilim (ch. 130, which we say every day from Rosh
Hashanah to Yom Kippur), "For forgiveness is with You so that You
will be feared." Midrash Rabbah explains that Hashem could just as
well forgive us on Rosh Hashanah, but he makes us wait until Yom
Kippur so that we will feel fear of Him.
Rav Shlomo Harkavi HY"D zatz'l explains further: The gemara says
that the righteous and the wicked are judged on Rosh Hashanah while
the benonim (in-between people) "hang and stand" until Yom Kippur.
We commonly interpret this to mean that the benonim are in the same
condition between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur that they were in
before Rosh Hashanah, i.e., they have not yet been judged. No, says
Rav Harkavi, it is meant literally--"the benonim have their necks
in the noose and they are standing on the gallows waiting for the
lever to be pulled if they do not repent."
And don't say, "I've survived the years until now; I'll get by
again." When Lot fled from the city of S'dom he was able to survive
in the neighboring town of Tzoar because that city was spared.
Chazal say that that city was just as evil as S'dom, but was one year
younger. One year of sin alone stood between safety and destruction.
(Me'imrei Shlomo)
************************************
The gemara tells of a sage who used to bring an asham talui (the
offering brought in the Temple when one is in doubt as to whether
he sinned) every weekday, except on the day after Yom Kippur. On
that day, he knew that his sins had been forgiven, and he did not
need to bring the sacrifice.
Interestingly, in the first shemoneh esrei following Yom Kippur,
we do say the berachah, "Forgive us. . . because we have sinned.
. ." Why is this necessary?
Rav Yitzchak of Vorki explained with a parable of a king who
walked through a field. A peasant saw him and kicked him. The
king's guards wanted to kill the peasant, but the king said, "Let
him be. He does not know who I am, or he would not have done such
a thing. Instead, put him in school and teach him how to behave."
So it is with us. Now that Yom Kippur has passed and we have
reflected on G-d's greatness and we have come closer to Him, only
now can we appreciate the magnitude of our past insults to G-d. Thus
we say, "Forgive us . . . because we have sinned. . ."
Perhaps we also are asking G-d to forgive the way we have just
recited the first ma'ariv after Yom Kippur.
************************************
The Chafetz Chaim says: If you do not have the time to recite
the entire prayer known as Tefilah Zakkah, please be sure to recite
the following paragraph from that prayer:
Because I know that there is hardly a righteous person in the
world who never sins between man and his fellow, either
monetarily or physically, in deed or in speech, therefore my
heart aches within me because Yom Kippur does not atone for a
sin between man and his fellow until one appeases his fellow
... Behold, I extend complete forgiveness to everyone who has
sinned against me, whether physically or monetarily, or who has
gossiped about me or even slandered me [one may add: except
money that I wish to claim and can recover by halachah, and
except for someone who says, "I will sin and he will forgive
me"]. And just as I forgive everyone, so may You grant me favor
in every person's eyes so that he will grant me complete
forgiveness.
|
| 989.433 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Ha'azinu | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Oct 05 1995 20:42 | 179 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Ha'azinu
Vol. IX, No. 53 (437), 13 Tishrei 5756, October 7, 1995
Chazal say that this parashah contains allusions to the past, the
present, and the future (of this world), and the World-to-Come. Our
sages divided it into six parts (plus the concluding verse read by
the seventh person), represented by the initials 'HZY"V L"CH.'
Rav Yitzchak Karo zatz'l (uncle of Rav Yosef Karo) explains that
the reason the midrash divides up the aliyot of this parashah,
whereas it does not do so for any other parashah, is that this
parashah contains alternating curses and blessings. If the gabbai
or reader stopped in a place that the person receiving the aliyah
didn't approve of, a fight would ensue.
Alternatively, each one of the six sections is an allusion to a
different historical period. [Rav Karo's explanation would not fit
in this space.]
Also, Rav Karo explains, this parashah ordinarily (though not this
year) is read during the period of judgment. Thus, the midrash
attempts to brighten our week with the allusion, "The light is
yours." (Toldot Yitzchak)
************************************
"Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak; and may the earth hear
the words of my mouth." (32:1)
The midrash contrasts the above verse with the prophet Yishayah's
statement (Yishayah 1:2): "Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O
earth. . ." Moshe, who was closer to the heavens, said, "Give ear,
O heavens"--i.e., speaking like a friend who whispers in another's
ear. Yishayah, who was closer to the earth, said, "Give ear, O
earth."
What does it mean that Yishayah was closer to earth? Was he not
also a prophet of G-d who "visited" the heavenly realms? We offer
three answers:
Rav Dov Meir Rubman zatz'l explains that the midrash is not
contrasting the levels of Moshe and Yishayah, but the levels of their
generations. Moshe's generation, the generation which received the
Torah, was closer to the heavens. Yishayah's generation, approaching
the destruction of the Temple, was closer to the earth.
(Zichron Meir)
************************************
Rav Nachum Mordechai Friedman (the "Tchortkover Rebbe") zatz'l
explains that Moshe's statement and Yishayah's statement are
complementary. In truth the prophets are "closer to the heaven,"
where they hear the word of G-d. Moshe chose to emphasize this
aspect in his prophecy. Yishayah, however, chose to respond to
heretics who say that G-d is only in the heavens; therefore, he said
that the earth too can "give ear" to the word of G-d.
(Doresh Tov)
************************************
Rav Moshe Feinstein zatz'l explains the difference between Moshe's
words and Yishayah's as follows: "Heavens" refers to the nation's
leaders, while "earth" refers to the common man. In Moshe's time,
the leaders were righteous, and Moshe could speak to them and entrust
them to carry his message to the people. In this sense, Moshe was
close to the "heavens".
Yishayah lived in a generation when the leaders were evil. (One
example of this is Yishayah's own grandson, King Menashe, who killed
his grandfather rather than listen to his rebuke.) Yishayah could
not take his message to the leaders; he had to speak directly to the
nation. Yishayah was close to the people--the "earth"--and he said
to them, "Do not do all that your leaders do, for they do not follow
the Torah, and you should not follow their example."
(Darash Moshe)
************************************
"Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak; and may the earth hear
the words of my mouth." (32:1)
Rashi explains that with these words, Moshe called upon the
heavens and the earth to bear witness to Hashem's covenant with the
Jewish people.
At first glance, Rav Shmuel of Socatchov zatz'l writes, it is
difficult to see how the heavens and earth can be witnesses, when
they do not speak. Nevertheless, the heavens and earth can bear
witness, as we see in the following midrash:
"Rav Meir said, 'In the beginning when the Jewish people were
meritorious, they testified for themselves. Later, when Bnei Yisrael
degraded themselves, the tribes of Yehuda and Binyamin testified for
everyone. Even later, the prophets had to testify for everyone.
After that, the heavens and earth had to testify.'" The midrash
continues in this vein until it reaches the small ant, which now
"testifies" for everyone.
What does this mean? Kohelet (8:1) states, "A person's wisdom
lights up his countenance." When a person purifies himself, a
certain radiance appears on his face, not unlike the rays of light
which surrounded Moshe when he came down from Har Sinai. This is
the "testimony" that Bnei Yisrael provided for themselves. However,
when Bnei Yisrael sinned, only the worthier tribes of Yehuda and
Binyamin could still "testify" in this way. Later, only the prophets
merited this shining countenance. Even later, when prophecy ceased,
the heavens and earth took their place, in that the continued
existence of the heavens and earth testifies to the fact that the
Jews are keeping the Torah.
In light of the above idea, we can understand why the source for
the Mitzvah of birchot haTorah is found for the first time in this
parashah. The Avnei Nezer [a major 19th-century posek and the father
of Rav Shmuel of Socatchov] said that the purpose of birchot haTorah
is to introduce G-dliness into Torah study by distinguishing that
study from the pursuit of ordinary wisdoms. However, Rav Shmuel
notes, this only became necessary as Moshe was about to die; as long
as he was alive, Hashem's "voice" emanated from Moshe's throat (as
Chazal say), and the radiance of Moshe's countenance left no doubt
as to the G-dliness of the subject matter. We, however, must recite
the berachot in order to raise our Torah study to a truly meaningful
level.
(Shem Mishmuel, year 5672)
************************************
Rav Moshe ben Nachman ("Ramban") had a disciple named Reb Avner,
who left the path of Torah and became a disbeliever. After a period
of time, it became his fortune to be appointed to high office, and
he became both well-known and feared throughout the land.
One Yom Kippur he had Ramban brought before him. With his former
teacher standing before him, the renegade student butchered a pig
and cooked and ate it. After completing his meal, Avner asked
Ramban, "How many times does the Torah hold me liable for karet
(spiritual excision) for what I have just done?"
"Four," Ramban answered [i.e., lighting a fire, slaughtering an
animal on Yom Kippur, cooking on Yom Kippur, and eating on Yom
Kippur].
As if his brazenness was as yet insufficient, Avner attempted to
refute Ramban's reply, "No, I have committed five sins for which the
punishment is karet, not four."
At this, Ramban no longer could contain his feelings. He gazed
at Avner with such intense anger that the former disciple's reverence
for his master returned, and he was speechless. After a while,
Ramban asked Avner what had caused him to turn away from his faith.
"You once taught us that all of the mitzvot and all of the events
of history are alluded to in the Song of Ha'azinu," Avner answered.
"Knowing this to be impossible, I dismissed the idea along with
everything else you taught me."
"I still maintain that this is true," said Ramban. "Test me with
anything that you desire to know."
Avner stood astonished. "All right. Where is my fate alluded
to in the Song of Ha'azinu?"
After a brief prayer for Divine guidance, Ramban pointed to the
five-word verse (32:36), "I said I would scatter them; I would erase
their remembrance from mankind." Combining the third letter of each
word, he showed, spells out "Reb Avner."
Upon hearing this, Reb Avner paled. "Is there any cure for my
condition?"
"You understand the meaning of the verse," Ramban said, and he
left.
Soon after, Avner set out on a sea voyage with neither oarsman
nor oar. He was never heard from again. (Seder Hadorot)
|
| 989.434 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: v'Zot haBerachah/Simchat Torah | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Oct 13 1995 00:24 | 127 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
v'Zot haBerachah/Simchat Torah
Volume VI/Number 53 (287)
23 Tishrei 5753/October 20, 1992
Although it is one of the 13 Principles of our faith that Moshe
received the entire Torah from Hashem's "mouth" and wrote it down,
one opinion in the Gemara (Baba Batra 15a) says that this does not
apply to the last eight verses of this Parasha. (Those Psukim
describe Moshe's death and burial.) Rather, one sage maintains
that these verses were recorded from Hashem's mouth by Yehoshua.
The second opinion maintains that Moshe did indeed write the
last eight verses, as he had the rest of the Torah, but that he did
so "b'Dema." What does this mean? The simplest interpretation is
that it means "tearfully," but if so, what is the importance of
our knowing that fact? Furthermore, if Moshe wrote the last eight
verses as we know them, he wrote an untruth, for he was still alive
when he wrote of his death!
Some commentators state that this word means "scrambled," as in
the word "Dimu'a," which describes an accidental mixture of Terumah
and non-Terumah. Ramban writes in his introduction to the Torah
that when Chazal say that the whole Torah consists of Hashem's
names, they do not mean that "B'reishit" is a name of G-d, "Bara"
is a name of G-d, and so on. Rather, the names are scrambled.
Perhaps the first two letters are one Name, the next eight letters
are another Name, and so on.
Based on Ramban's interpretation, commentators say, we can
understand the significance of Moshe's writing the last eight
verses of the Torah in a scrambled fashion. He recorded the
letters as the names of G-d, while later Yehoshua was shown by
Hashem how to rewrite the letters to describe Moshe's death.
The Gemara says that these eight Psukim must be read by an
individual, a statement for which Tosfot offers two explanations.
R' Meshulam says that the Aliyah must be given to someone who knows
how to read the Torah, and the "Ba'al Korei" must remain silent.
Rabbenu Tam says that these eight Psukim must be kept together as
one Aliyah, and not divided between two people.
In truth, Tosfot notes, it was once customary for the Ba'al
Korei and the person saying the Berachah to be one and the same.
Our custom of having one person read and seven others called-upon
to recite the Berachot was introduced at a time when many people
were no longer qualified to read the Torah; to save them
embarrassment, a Ba'al Korei was appointed. [Interestingly, many
communities have the custom that on Simchat Torah, anyone who
chooses may read his own Aliyah, though some prohibit this for the
reason just mentioned.]
The same Tosfot also discusses the reason for having a "Gabbai"
-- Tosfot calls him a "Chazzan" -- who calls up those who will
read the Torah or recite the Berachot. Just as the Torah was given
through a middleman (Moshe), the Talmud Yerushalmi says, so we must
receive it through a middleman (i.e. the Gabbi)
************************************
In the Torah reading for Shmini Atzeret we are commanded, "You
shall experience only joy." (Devarim 16:15). On this the Talmud
comments, "This includes the last day of Sukkot," i.e. Shmini
Atzeret/Simchat Torah.
R' Shlomo Yosef Zevin writes that there are two types of joy in
this world. He calls them simply "direct" and "indirect."
"Direct joy" is that happiness which is achieved without any
suffering before-hand. "Indirect happiness" is that which comes
after prolonged preparation and agony.
Most of his world's joys, says R' Zevin, are of the latter type.
A classic example is the birth of a baby which follows from
difficult labor pains. Furthermore, there are times when one
experiences suffering, but the likelihood of a joyous outcome is by
no means obvious, and that may make the suffering even greater than
that of childbirth.
In reality, we take on faith that all that transpires will
ultimately work out for the best. For this reason, Chazal have
enjoined us that "One is obligated to bless Hashem for the 'bad' as
well as for the good."
We also take on faith that all of Hashem's deeds will become
clear to us at some future time, and we will then experience true
joy. When we have been purified from the state which nearly forces
us to see all events in a short-sighted perspective, we will see
clearly what Hashem holds in store for us, and we will understand
the meaning of true joy.
On Simchat Torah, we get a taste of that ultimate happiness.
The joy of Sukkot, culminating on the last day, is not the
outgrowth of agony and suffering; it is a result of the purifying
effects of Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. As the above Pasuk
promises us, on Simchat Torah we shall experience only joy.
(l'Torah u'l'Moadim)
************************************
In 1968, the Israeli government appointed a commission to
reconsider the draft exemption provided some Yeshiva students. R'
Yechezkel Abramsky, as president of the "Va'ad haYeshivot", was
invited to address the commission.
One of the government ministers asked R' Abramsky, "Doesn't your
honor agree that defending the nation is more important than
defending the Torah?"
"Hashem's words to Yehoshua [in the Haftara for Simchat Torah]
prove the supremacy of Torah," R' Yechezkel answered. "We read
that Hashem gave Yehoshua two commandments: to conquer the land
and to study and keep the Torah. Regarding the first, Hashem said,
'Be strong and courageous for you will lead the nation in taking-
over the land which I have promised to give to your Patriarchs.'
Regarding the latter, Hashem said, 'Be very strong and very
courageous in order to keep the whole Torah which My servant Moshe
taught you.' Note," concluded R' Yechezkel, "in which case Hashem
added the emphasis 'very'."
R' Yechezkel's heartfelt words made their mark on all those
present.
(Yalkut Lekach Tov, Devarim II, p.261)
|
| 989.435 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Breishit | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Oct 31 1995 02:27 | 171 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Bereishit
Vol. X, No. 1 (438), 27 Tishrei 5756, October 21, 1995
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 139. According
to Midrash Shocher Tov, Adam himself wrote this psalm.
Ibn Ezra writes: "This psalm is very distinguished, and there
is not one like it in the five books of Tehilim. Each person
according to his understanding can find within it the ways of Hashem
and of creation."
Among the verses which allude to our parashah are the following:
Pasuk 5: "Back and front You fashioned me, and laid Your hand upon
me." This refers to the fact that male and female were created
originally as one body, back-to-back (Shocher Tov). It also refers
to the fact that Adam's original stature was from one end of the
world to the other, i.e., from front to back. Because of Adam's sin,
Hashem laid His hand on Adam and compressed him (Chagigah 12a).
Pasuk 16: "Your eyes saw my unshaped form, and in Your book all
are recorded"--even when Adam was but an unshaped form, Hashem knew
what man's entire future held.
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the Chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"For there is no word on my tongue--You, Hashem, know it all."
(139:4)
King David acknowledges: All of the praises of You which I have
said, are not my own; my ability to speak comes from You. Moreover,
I do not even understand all of the deep meanings of my words, only
You, Hashem, know it all.
(Rav Yosef Chaim of Baghdad zatz'l:
Chaim Ve'hashalom)
"I will thank You for I am awesomely, wondrously [amazed];
wondrous are Your works, and my soul knows it well." (139:14)
Rav Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin ("Netziv") zatz'l explains: Is it
so noteworthy that a person would notice one of Hashem's obvious
miracles? Rather, King David is thanking Hashem for giving him the
ability to notice His hidden miracles, and to understand that they
all are for his (David's) benefit.
(Devar Ha'emek)
"Your eyes saw my unshaped form, and in Your book all are
recorded." (139:16)
Based on this pasuk, midrash Tanna D'vei Eliyahu (ch. 1) teaches
that in the future, G-d will sit in His great bet hamidrash (study
hall) with the tzaddikim of all generations sitting before Him, and
He will say, "Such-and-such generation did so much Torah and I did
so much charity with it. This-and-this person did so much Torah and
I did so much charity with him."
Rav Akiva Yosef Schlesinger zatz'l explains the connection to our
verse as follows: Just as man's unshaped form during his embryonic
days is only a preparatory stage for what is to come, so too all of
the past is merely preparation for the final Day of Judgment and
reward described in the midrash.
Incidentally, observes Rav Schlesinger, the midrash does not say,
"This-and-this person learned so much Torah," but rather ". . . did
so much Torah." This is because learning is not enough--deeds count
too. Also, those who are unable to learn can "do" Torah by
supporting Torah scholars.
(Tosfot Ben Yechiel)
************************************
"Let Us make man." (1:26)
Rashi explains that the plural is used even though no one helped
G-d make man, and even though the language could mislead heretics.
Why? To teach humility and respect, i.e., G-d asked the "advice"
of the angels to teach that a greater person should ask the advice
and agreement of a lesser person even though he doesn't need that
advice.
The midrash says similarly that Moshe was troubled by the
language, "Let us make man," but Hashem told him, "Let whoever wants
to err--err."
We must still understand, says Rav Chaim Friedlander zatz'l (died
1986), why it is preferable to teach good midot (ethical traits such
as humility and respect) at the risk of suggesting heresy, and it
is not better to forego the ethical lesson and be clear about Who
created man. The answer is that it is bad midot which cause heresy.
Man first decides to throw off the G-d's yoke, then he becomes a
heretic in order to justify his "free" lifestyle; indeed, this is
explicit in the words of the midrash, "Let whoever wants to err--
err." [Ed. note: We are not talking about those who hold heretical
ideas because they never learned better.]
In particular, the trait taught by our verse, i.e., humility, aids
one in accepting Hashem's rule. This is because humility makes one
more willing to accept the fact that an infinitely greater Being
holds control and dominion over man.
(Siftei Chaim)
************************************
"But if you do not improve yourself, sin crouches at the door."
(4:7)
[These words of Hashem to Kayin explain how man's spiritual level
gradually declines.]
Chazal teach: "Sin leads to sin." Rav Yaakov Moshe Charlap zatz'l
(1883-1951) explains that the Jewish people are inherently holy and
would never sin, if not for the fact that previous sins have weakened
their armor of holiness.
This raises an obvious question, however: How then does a person
sin for the first time?
The answer is that the first chink in the armor of holiness is
caused by laxity in positive commandments. If a person misses an
opportunity to fulfill a positive commandment, or if he does not
fulfill the mitzvah with the care or alacrity of which he is capable,
he has not sinned per se, but he has weakened his armor nevertheless.
And here we cannot ask the same question, how does one become lax
in a mitzvah for the first time, for performing mitzvot properly
requires special effort and does not come naturally.
(Mei Marom VII, 4)
************************************
Rav Yitzchak of Dampierre zatz'l
born circa 4880 (1120) - died 27 Tishrei circa 4961 (1200)
Rav Yitzchak, known as "Ri Hazaken," was a great-grandson of Rashi
and a grandson of one of Rashi's leading students, Rav Simcha of
Vitry (author of Machzor Vitry). Rav Yitzchak's uncle and teacher
was Rav Yaakov ben Meir, known as Rabbenu Tam. Among all of the
Ba'alei Tosfot (authors of the commentary which appears opposite
Rashi's commentary in most Talmud editions), only Rabbenu Tam appears
by name more frequently than does Ri Hazaken.
Ri succeeded Rabbenu Tam as head of the academy in Ramerupt,
France. It is related that Ri had sixty students, each of whom knew
one tractate by heart. Thus, between them, they had the entire
Talmud at their fingertips at any given time, and every halachah
which Rav Yitzchak taught was immediately tested against the
teachings of the entire Talmud.
Among Rav Yitzchak's students were Rav Shimshon of Sens (who
edited many of our Tosfot, wrote important works in his own right,
and led 300 families to settle in Eretz Yisrael in 1211), Rav
Yitzchak ben Avraham ("Ritzba"), and Rav Baruch, author of Sefer
Haterumot.
In spite of his own great stature, Ri generally did not deviate
from his uncle's halachic decisions. Ri also was a kabbalist who
lived an ascetic life and observed two days of Yom Kippur (presumably
for the same reason that Jews in the diaspora observe two days of
other holidays).
Ri had at least two sons, both of whom died in his lifetime:
Rabbenu Elchanan, who was martyred in 4944 (1184), and Rabbenu Shlomo
(died 4931/1171).
|
| 989.436 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Noach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Oct 31 1995 02:28 | 160 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Noach
Vol. X, No. 2 (439), 4 Cheshvan 5756, October 28, 1995
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 29. The obvious
connection to the parashah is in verse 10, "Hashem sat enthroned at
the flood. . ."
Rav Samson R. Hirsch zatz'l writes that the Hebrew phrase used
here to mean "to sit at" can mean "to sit in expectation." Rav
Hirsch explains: "Hashem sat unchanged and unshaken upon His throne
even in the face of the corruption of mankind. The degenerate have
perished, but G-d and the goals of His rule have endured. He allowed
one entire sinful generation to perish by the flood so that the goals
of His rule might be brought to fruition by the one man who had
remained true and loyal to Him (i.e., Noach)."
Rav Hirsch adds: "No nation on earth, in fact, not even all of
mankind has the power to alter the will of G-d. Men have only two
alternatives--either they submit to the will of G-d and freely and
joyously devote themselves to His service in moral purity and respect
for the right, or else they shall be irretrievably lost in the course
of His rule as it moves on inexorably to bring about the fulfillment
of G-d's will among men." (Commentary on Tehilim)
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the Chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
Why are there 18 blessings in our daily prayers? Because of the
18 times that G-d's name is mentioned in this chapter. Although
there actually are 19 blessings, the one which refers to heretics
was a later addition. Why are there seven blessings in our Shabbat
prayer? Because the word voice is mentioned here seven times.
(Tractate Berachot 28b-29a)
This teaches that Shabbat is a time to raise one's voice in praise
of Hashem.
(Maharsha)
Why does the first blessing of our daily shemoneh esrei prayer
refer to the Patriarchs? Because the first reference to G-d's name
in this chapter is the verse (29:1), "Give to Hashem, you sons of
the powerful (i.e., sons of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov)."
Why does the second blessing refer to G-d's might? Because the
second reference to G-d's name is the verse (29:2), "Give to Hashem
honor and might."
Why does the third blessing refer G-d's holiness? Because the
third reference is the verse (29:2), "Give to Hashem the honor due
His name, prostrate yourselves before Hashem in the splendor of His
holiness."
(Tractate Megillah 17b)
************************************
"The voice of Hashem convulses the wilderness, Hashem convulses
the wilderness of Kadesh." (29:8)
The word which is translated "convulses" can also be translated
"fears." The word which is translated "wilderness" can also be read
"speaks."
Thus, says Rav Baruch of Mezhibozh zatz'l, this verse can be read,
"The voice of Hashem is heard in those who fear speaking; he who
fears Hashem, his speech is holy."
(quoted in Asefat Amarim)
************************************
"Noach was a tzaddik, perfect in his generation; Noach walked with
Elokim." (6:9)
Chazal criticize Noach for not rebuking his contemporaries. Why
did he not do so?
Rav Yosef Gruenwald (the "Pupa Rebbe") zatz'l explains that the
ability to do teshuvah (which hopefully is the outcome of rebuke)
exists because of G-d's kindness. Noach, however, was not aware of
G-d's kindness, and therefore was not aware of teshuvah.
In truth, a person should notice G-d's kindness every time he
looks around and sees his surroundings, his sustenance, his family,
etc. However, "Noach walked with Elokim"--referring to G-d's
attribute of justice. This indicates that Noach thought that he
deserved everything that he had, and therefore he was not aware of
G-d's attribute of kindness.
Why did Noach think this? Chazal offer two different views of
Noach. Some say that he was truly a righteous man, while others say
that his righteousness was relative to his generation. Had he lived
in Avraham's time, this view says, Noach would have been a spiritual
"nobody." Why do Chazal take license to belittle Noach? What they
mean, says Rav Gruenwald, is that Noach himself knew that he was not
as great as he could be (e.g., as great as Avraham). However, Noach
felt that because he was a tzaddik in a depraved generation, he was
entitled to everything that Hashem gave him. He did not understand
that even he was a beneficiary of Hashem's kindness. As a result,
he did not recognize the existence of the attribute of kindness and,
therefore, teshuvah..
In contrast, when Avraham prayed for the preservation of S'dom,
he began (18:27), "I am dust and dirt." Why did he insert this in
his prayer? Because he wanted to acknowledge G-d's kindness and to
suggest that the same kindness be extended to the people of S'dom.
(Vayechi Yosef)
************************************
Rav Zvi Hirsch Kalischer zatz'l
born 4 or 8 Nisan 5555 (1795) - died 5 Cheshvan 5635 (1874)
Born in the town of Lissa in western Poland, Rav Kalischer was
a leading student of that town's rabbi, Rav Yaakov Lorberbaum "Ba'al
Hanetivot," and of Rabbi Akiva Eiger. He also excelled at languages,
philosophy, and various secular studies.
After refusing for a long time to accept any rabbinical position,
Rav Kalischer agreed to be the rabbi of his wife's hometown, Theren,
but without a salary. As rabbi, he was a fierce opponent of the
so-called "Enlightenment" and was able to beat back the heretics on
their own ground thanks to his secular knowledge.
Rav Kalischer is best known today for his leading role in
encouraging the resettlement of Eretz Yisrael and for his halachic
views regarding the possibility of bring sacrifices in the absence
of a bet hamikdash. On the latter subject he corresponded with his
teacher Rabbi Akiva Eiger and with the latter's son-in-law, the
Chatam Sofer, who accepted some of his views.
Regarding the settlement of Eretz Yisrael, Rav Kalischer taught
that the Final Redemption will come about through "natural" means.
Therefore he encouraged the establishment of organizations and groups
to further the goal of resettling the Land. Also, he actively
lobbied leading rabbis and leading philanthropists (e.g., Montefiore
and the Rothschilds) in support of settlement. Unfortunately, as
Rav Meir Simcha Hakohen of Dvinsk (the "Ohr Sameach") zatz'l would
later note in a letter, many rabbis opposed Rav Kalischer's nascent
movement. (B'sdeh Hareiyah p.89)
For example, Rav Samson R. Hirsch zatz'l wrote to Rav Kalischer
in 1864, "I do not delve into G-d's mysteries [of when the redemption
will come]. All I know is that the beaten path of our ancestors is
to strengthen Torah and await the redemption." In that same letter,
Rav Hirsch referred to the hopeless poverty in Eretz Yisrael and to
the fear that the average settler will be unable to keep the
agricultural laws of the Land. (Shemesh Marpeh, Letter No. 12)
Rav Kalischer also published a number of works on various subjects
including halachah, philosophy and chumash.
|
| 989.437 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Lech Lecha | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Nov 03 1995 21:56 | 196 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Lech Lecha
Vol. X, No. 3 (440), 11 Cheshvan 5756, November 4, 1995
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 110. The Midrash
Shocher Tov and the gemara (Nedarim 32b) interpret this chapter as
referring to events in Avraham's life.
When Avraham returned from defeating the Four Kings (as described
in this week's parashah), he was met by Malki-Tzedek, King of Shalem
(i.e., Yerushalayim). The Torah says of Malki-Tzedek (14:18), "He
was a priest of G-d."
Upon meeting Avraham, Malki-Tzedek said (14:19-20), "Blessed is
Avram . . . and blessed is G-d."
Avraham responded, the gemara tells us, "Do you then bless the
servant before the Master?"
Immediately, the gemara says, priesthood was stripped from Malki-
Tzedek and given to Avraham and his descendants. Thus we read in
our chapter of Tehilim (verse 4), "You shall be a priest forever,
in accord with Malki-Tzedek's word." This means, the gemara
explains, because of Malki-Tzedek's word.
Maharal explains that a kohen must keep Hashem at the forefront
of his thoughts, and Malki-Tzedek demonstrated by his words that he
did not do so. (Chidushei Aggadot)
Alternatively, this chapter may be interpreted as referring to
mashiach. Ramban explains that King David called his descendant "My
master" (verse 1) as a tribute to mashiach's greatness. All of the
military victories which G-d wrought for David pale in comparison
to what He will do for mashiach (Sefer Ha'vikuach). Abarbanel adds
that mashiach will be a greater prophet than King David was (Yeshuot
Meshicho).
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the Chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"Your nation ('amcha') volunteered on the day of your campaign
because of your majestic sanctity from the womb, from emergence; you
possess youthful innocence like fresh dew." (110:3)
The midrash reads the word "amcha" as another word with the same
spelling, and interprets this verse as follows:
Hashem said to Avraham, "I was with you ('imcha') on the day that
you cleaved to My Name and went into the furnace." And, because
Avraham was afraid that he had sinned by worshipping idols as a
child, Hashem told him, "Just as dew evaporates, so your sins have
evaporated; just as dew brings blessing to the world, so you will
bring a blessing to others."
Rav Yehuda Roseannes (the "Mishneh Le'melech") zatz'l asks: Why
was Avraham afraid of his childhood sins? Didn't he know that a
convert is in G-d's eyes like a newborn? Also, why did Hashem have
to tell Avraham, "I was with you on the day that . . . went into the
furnace"? Considering the miracle that occurred, would we think
otherwise?
In fact, the Rishonim (medieval commentaries) dispute whether or
not Avraham and his descendants (until the Torah was given) were
Jewish. This had halachic implications for those generations--for
example, while non-Jews are forbidden to worship idols, they are not
obligated to give their lives to sanctify G-d's Name. Thus, Avraham
was not sure whether or not he had acted properly by going into the
furnace; if he was not Jewish (as some Rishonim hold), then he had
no right to risk his life in that manner.
Then why would he have been saved miraculously? Perhaps, Avraham
thought, he was saved only in the merit of his descendants. "No,"
Hashem said, "I was with you on the day that you went into the
furnace." Why? "Because you cleaved to My Name."
This explains also why Avraham was afraid of his childhood sins,
for up to that moment, Avraham did not know whether he had the
halachic status of a convert.
[Ed. note: This does not refute the halachic view that Avraham
was not Jewish, because (1) the midrash may be subject to other
interpretations, and (2) midrashim are not generally accepted as
halachic sources.]
(Parashat Derachim II)
************************************
The people of Avraham's generation, the Generation of the
Separation (i.e., the dispersement after the building of the Tower),
did not know G-d, except for one member, by the name of Ashur
(Assyria), who did know G-d. However, Ashur did not rebuke his
contemporaries because he knew that his descendant, the Assyrian
general Sancheirev, would curse G-d, and he felt that his
contemporaries would consider him to be a hypocrite. However, when
Avraham came along, Avraham informed people about G-d.
(Midrash Tanna D'Vei Eliyahu Zuta ch. 25)
************************************
Why, asks Rav Akiva Yosef Schlesinger zatz'l (died 1922), was
Avraham more credible than Ashur? Avraham too would have descendants
who would blaspheme G-d!
The answer lies in the difference between Avraham and Ashur.
Ashur knew of G-d, but he did not serve G-d in any remarkable way.
Not so Avraham, who made an outstanding kiddush Hashem
(sanctification of the Name of G-d) through his experience in the
furnace. Thus Avraham had more credibility, notwithstanding how some
of his descendants would behave.
Moreover, Avraham did not rebuke the people, he educated them in
a soft and loving manner. [Ed. note--What Rav Schlesinger appears
to be saying is the following: The precise language of the above
midrash is that "Ashur did not rebuke his contemporaries . . .
However, when Avraham came along, Avraham informed people about G-d."
Apparently, Ashur's temperament was such that had he spoken up at
all, it would have been in rebuke. To rebuke others, one must
himself be pure. Avraham, however, did not rebuke--he lovingly
educated. Thus, his own "faults" could be overlooked.]
How did the sinners of that time know who would come from Ashur?
Were they prophets? No, says Rav Schlesinger. Rather, the fact that
Ashur's own service of Hashem was a very private matter (in contrast
to Avraham's) was a sure sign that he would not pass it on to his
grandchildren. The inevitable result is a Sancheirev.
(Tosfot Ben Yechiel)
************************************
The midrash compares Avraham's coming to recognize G-d to someone
who walks past a well-cared-for building and asks, "Who is the
manager of this building?"
When Avraham asked that question, Hashem "stuck his head out the
window" and answered, "I am the owner of the building."
Rav Simcha Wasserman zatz'l explains why Hashem identified Himself
as the owner of the world when Avraham was looking for the manager:
Avraham knew that if society has a manager, and it follows his rules,
society succeeds. Therefore, Avraham wanted to know what those rules
are. Hashem told him, however, "Think of Me first as the creator
and owner of the world, then you may understand how I manage the
world as well."
(Reb Simcha Speaks)
************************************
The Eleventh of Cheshvan
Today marks the yahrzeit of three figures from early in our
history: Metushelach, Rachel Imenu, and Binyamin Hatzaddik.
Metushelach lived 969 years, longer than any person whose age is
recorded in the Torah. (Midrashim speak of other people living
longer. For example, Serach, one of Yaakov's granddaughters, was
still living at the end of the first bet hamikdash, some 1100 years
after Yaakov died.)
We know the exact date of Metushelach's passing from the verse
(Bereishit 7:4), "For in seven more days time I will send rain upon
the earth . . ." Rashi explains that out of respect for Metushelach,
Hashem waited through the seven days of mourning for that tzaddik
before bringing the flood. Others say that the generation of the
flood earned a seven day reprieve because they mourned for
Metushelach. (The flood started on the 17th of Cheshvan.)
Metushelach taught Torah to Shem, the son of Noach. Also, the
midrash lists Metushelach as one of the "Seven Shepherds" who will
serve as mashiach's entourage.
Rachel Imenu ("our mother") died in childbirth "on the road to
Efrat"--identified as modern-day Bet Lechem (Bethlehem). Yaakov
buried her there so that she could plead for her descendants when
they passed by on their way to exile in Bavel. The prophet Yirmiyahu
writes (Yirmiyahu ch.31), "Rachel cries for her sons, she refuses
to be consoled." Hashem answers her, "There is reward for your
efforts, and your sons will return to their boundaries."
Binyamin was born on the day that his mother, Rachel Imenu, died
and he lived 111 years (Shalshelet Hakabbalah). He is one of the
four people in history who died without sin, i.e., they died only
because death was decreed on man after Adam sinned. (The other three
were Amram, the father of Moshe; Yishai, the father of David; and
Kilav/Daniel, a son of David.)
The tribe of Binyamin was the first to enter the Yam Suf (Red
Sea). The first king, Shaul, came from Binyamin. Also, the bet
hamikdash was built in Binyamin's territory.
|
| 989.438 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Vayera | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Nov 15 1995 18:48 | 191 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Vayera
Vol. X, No. 4 (441), 18 Cheshvan 5756, November 11, 1995
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 11. The primary
connection to the parashah is in the following verses, which refer
to two events that we read about this week.
Pasuk 5: "Hashem tests the righteous one, but the wicked and the
lover of violence He despises." Referring to Avraham and the akeidah
(binding of Yitzchak), the midrash Bereishit Rabbah (55:2) states
that just as a salesman beats only the good flax (in modern terms--
kicks the good tires), so Hashem tests only those who He knows will
pass.
Pasuk 6: "He will rain down upon the wicked, fiery coals and
brimstone; a burning blast is their allotted portion." Bereishit
Rabbah (51:3) interprets this as a reference to the destruction of
S'dom, which was destroyed by fire and burning sulfur. The midrash
asks, "Why is man disgusted by the smell of burning sulfur? Because
his soul realizes that that is how it eventually will be punished."
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"You have torn down the foundations; what has the righteous man
done?" (11:3)
Rav Yissachar Shlomo Teichtel HY"D explains: During the Second
Temple period, Jews studied Torah and performed mitzvot, but they
were jealous of each other. By destroying Jewish unity, they
destroyed the foundations of our people. The result was a calamity
much worse than the destruction of the first bet hamikdash; while
the first Temple's foundations were left standing, the second bet
hamikdash was completely uprooted and destroyed.
From here we can learn, says Rav Teichtel, that Jews who toil in
Torah study and are very particular in their mitzvah observance, but
who teach disdain for other Jews (for whatever reason), are
destroying the foundations of our people and are lengthening the
exile. Paraphrasing the above verse: If you tear down the
foundations, what is all of your righteousness worth?
(Eim Habanim Smeichah p. 309)
************************************
"Hashem is in His holy Temple, Hashem's throne is in heaven. . ."
(11:4)
One midrash interprets the above verse to mean: "When the Jews
fulfill G-d's will, He is in His holy Temple. Otherwise, He places
His throne (far away) in the heavens."
Another midrash explains the same verse to mean: "Whether the bet
hamikdash is standing or is destroyed, Hashem is there. Even though
His throne is in the heavens, He is in the Temple."
Rav Yedayah Hapenini zatz'l (died 1315) writes that these two
midrashim are arguing whether G-d "personally" supervises the Jewish
people when they are in exile. The first view holds that He does
not, i.e., He remains in the far away heavens. The second view
maintains that He does watch over us, symbolized by His being in the
Temple which is on earth.
According to the latter view, it is particularly important to
recognize that every calamity that befalls us is a punishment for
our sins.
(Leshon Hazahav)
************************************
"He placed him on the altar, above the wood . . . and he took the
knife with which to slaughter his son." (22:9-10)
Several commentaries ask: All sacrifices are the same in one
respect--they are slaughtered before they are placed on the altar.
Why then did Avraham reverse the order when he offered Yitzchak as
a sacrifice? Rav Yosef Rosen (the "Rogatchover Gaon"; died 1936)
zatz'l answers that once Avraham slaughtered Yitzchak, Avraham would
have the status of an onen (a mourner before the funeral). The
halachah prohibits an onen from performing the sacrificial service.
Therefore, Avraham had to have the sacrifice (i.e., Yitzchak) on the
altar before he (Avraham) became an onen.
However, asks Rav Eliezer Waldenberg shlita, the midrash states
that Avraham had the status of a kohen gadol. A kohen gadol, we
know, is not prohibited from performing the sacrificial service when
he is an onen! The question thus returns--why did Avraham reverse
the order of a normal sacrifice?
Rav Waldenberg answers as follows: G-d never intended Avraham to
slaughter Yitzchak; G-d merely told Avraham, "Raise him there as an
olah" (22:2). Avraham did not initially understand the subtlety in
G-d's words, but he did nevertheless realize that Hashem did not
explicitly tell him to kill Yitzchak. Thus, Avraham reasoned, first
he should do what Hashem commanded explicitly (place Yitzchak on the
altar) and only then do what was implied (slaughter Yitzchak).
Avraham undoubtedly recognized that the order was "wrong," but who
was he to question G-d rather than to do G-d's will?!
Also, Rav Waldenberg asks: How could Avraham sacrifice the ram
which he found stuck in the bush? A ram for an olah must in its
second year, and this ram, Chazal say (Avot ch. 5), was created
during the twilight of the first Friday in history, two millennia
previously.
One possibility, says Rav Waldenberg, is that when Chazal say that
the ram was created during that twilight of the first Friday, they
mean that the decree was made at that time that the ram would be
"fortuitously" caught at the right time and place. However, the ram
itself was the right age.
(Tzitz Eliezer Vol. 15, No. 6)
************************************
The shofar of Rosh Hashanah commemorates this ram. Why is this
ram so important that its memory is invoked on the day when G-d
judges man? Was sacrificing it not little more than an afterthought?
Rav Yaakov Weinberg shlita explains: If we were faced with the
same test as Avraham was, and at the last moment we were given a
reprieve, we probably would react by saying, "Thank G-d! Now, let's
get out of this place." But Avraham did not do that; his reaction
upon hearing that he was not to slaughter his son was, "Then what
can I sacrifice to G-d?"
This is both the great merit which we ask G-d to remember and the
lesson which we hope to learn ourselves by blowing the ram's horn
on Rosh Hashanah.
(heard from Rabbi Shlomo Naiman shlita)
************************************
Rav Yissachar Dov Rokeach zatz'l
born 5614 (1854) - died 22 Marcheshvan 5687 (1926)
Rav Yissachar Dov, known by the chassidim as "Reb Socher Ber,"
was the third Belzer Rebbe. Under his leadership, Belz was the
largest chassidic group in Poland.
One of Rav Yissachar Dov's best known chassidim was a woman, Sarah
Schneirer, who in 1917 founded the "Bais Yaakov" movement with the
Rebbe's blessing. Before that time, girls did not attend school
outside of the home, unless they attended public school. The result
was an increasingly large gap between the religiosity of young Jewish
boys and their prospective mates. Sarah Schneirer's brain-child
reversed this trend, and by 1937 Bais Yaakov had 38,000 students in
250 cities.
During World War I, Rav Yissachar Dov was forced to flee from
Belz, which was on the front lines. He was away for eleven years,
of which the years 1921-25 were spent in Holshitz, in the home of
the chassid Yisrael Vogel (see this week's dedication). (A nephew
of this chassid was Reb Shalom Vogel, who served as "regent" when
the current Belzer Rebbe assumed that post at age 11.)
Rav Yissachar Dov succeeded his father as head of the Machzikei
Hadas movement, an organization founded by Rav Yehoshua Rokeach and
Rav Shimon Sofer to strengthen Torah observance in Galicia. (The
latter was a son of the Chatam Sofer.) Rav Yissachar Dov refused,
however, to join the Agudas Yisrael movement.
Hashem used the expression "Lech lecha" twice, once in last week's
parashah when he told Avraham to leave his homeland, and again in
this week's parashah when he sent Avraham to perform the akeidah.
The midrash asks, "How can we tell which expression is more beloved?"
The midrash answers that the second one is, for there the Torah says,
"Go to the land of Moriah."
How has the question been answered? asks Rav Yissachar Dov. He
explains as follows:
Chazal say that in the future, the entire world will attain the
sanctity of Eretz Yisrael, all of Eretz Yisrael will attain the
sanctity of Yerushalayim, and all of Yerushalayim will attain the
sanctity of Har Ha'moriah--the Temple Mount.
Hashem should have told Avraham to perform the akeidah on "Mount
Moriah," not in the "land of Moriah." However, Hashem was hinting
at the day when Moriah would be not just a mountain, but an entire
territory. Thus this verse is not just a command for that time, but
a prophecy for the future--something beloved indeed. (Sefer Maharid)
|
| 989.439 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Chayei Sarah | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Nov 15 1995 18:50 | 189 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Chayei Sarah
Vol. X, No. 5 (442), 25 Cheshvan 5756, November 18, 1995
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 45. One
connection to the parashah is verse 14, which serves as a fitting
eulogy for our Matriarch, Sarah (who is buried in this parashah).
That verse is, "The complete glory of the princess is within;
surpassing golden settings is her raiment." Chazal tell us that this
verse describes the inborn modesty of Jewish women. Sarah, in
particular, is praised in the Torah for practicing this trait. (See
Bereishit 18:9 and Rashi there.)
Rav Samson R. Hirsch zatz'l writes that this entire chapter of
Tehilim is an ode in honor of an unspecified marriage. The marriage
of Yitzchak and Rivkah is the predominant theme in our parashah.
Our parashah tells us that after the deaths of Avraham and Sarah,
Hashem found their son Yitzchak to be a fitting successor. As Rav
Avraham Halevi Horowitz zatz'l (father of the Shelah Hakadosh) wrote
in his will: "Fortunate are children who present themselves with
alacrity to obey the words of their parents, and whose parents rebuke
them and teach them to fear G-d and to occupy themselves with Torah
and mitzvot. Regarding the likes of them we read (verse 17 of our
chapter of Tehilim), 'Succeeding your fathers will be your sons; you
will appoint them as leaders throughout the land'." (Yesh Nochalin)
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"Gird your sword upon your thigh, O mighty one--your majesty and
your splendor." (45:4)
The mishnah (Shabbat 63a) states that a man may not go out in the
street on Shabbat (where there is no eruv) wearing a sword or others
weapon. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees, arguing that such weapons are a
man's adornments, and may be worn in the same way that jewelry is
worn. The sages say that no, wearing weapons is disgraceful, as it
is written (Yishayah 2:4): "They shall beat their swords into
plowshares. . ."
The gemara explains that Rabbi Eliezer's opinion derives from the
verse, "Gird your sword. . ." (quoted above). To this the gemara
retorts, "Isn't this verse a metaphor for Torah study, and not to
be taken literally?"
The gemara answers, "Even if a verse contains a metaphorical
meaning, every verse has a literal meaning as well." The gemara then
quotes Rav Kahana who says, "When I was 18 years old, I knew the
entire Talmud by heart, but I had never heard that every verse has
a literal meaning."
Rav Menashe Meiliah zatz'l (1767-1831) explains this gemara's
lesson as follows: There are some verses in Tanach which appear to
be primarily metaphorical. In fact, however, even those verses have
a literal meaning as well, with something to teach us. Moreover,
the Torah or Prophets would not choose a metaphor that is not itself
true. Thus, says Rabbi Eliezer, if the Prophet uses the "majesty
and splendor" of a man girded with a sword as a metaphor for Torah
study, it must be that the Prophet considers the sword itself to be
majestic.
(quoted by Rav Isaac Sher zatz'l
in Lekket Sichot Mussar)
************************************
How is it possible that Rav Kahana was such an accomplished
scholar, but had never heard that every verse has a literal meaning?
Rav Moshe Sofer (the "Chatam Sofer") zatz'l explains that excessive
study of scripture--if done independently of midrashim and other
interpretations of the Sages--leads to heresy. It thus became
customary that students did not study Tanach until they had completed
many years of study of Talmud and midrash. This also is the reason
why children are taught midrash even before they learn how to read.
(Torat Moshe: Beshalach)
************************************
Chazal say that all of Sarah's years were equally good. Rav Chaim
Yosef David Azulai ("Chida") zatz'l notes that this is alluded to
in the opening verse of our parashah, "Sarah's life was. . ." The
first hebrew word in the verse (spelled "vav" "yud" "hay" "yud"
"vav") is a palindrome (the same backwards and forwards), indicating
the uniform quality of Sarah's years.
(Torat Hachida)
************************************
Avraham commanded Eliezer: "To my land and my birthplace you shall
go and take a wife for my son Yitzchak." (24:4)
Eliezer related this to Rivkah's family as: "Go to my father's
house and to my family and take a wife for my son." (24:38)
Why did Eliezer make subtle changes in Avraham's words? Rav Meir
Simchah Hakohen of Dvinsk explains as follows:
Avraham said, "To my land," because even the land of Aram (on the
Syrian-Iraqi border) is part of Eretz Yisrael, which was promised
to Avraham and over which King David later would reign. However,
Eliezer did not want Rivkah's family to feel threatened, so he
omitted this description.
Avraham said, "To my birthplace," because he didn't necessarily
care if Yitzchak's bride was a relative. He simply wanted a girl
from his hometown, where morals were higher than in Canaan. This
is why Eliezer devised a chessed (kindness) "contest" for choosing
Yitzchak's bride, rather than going straight to the home of Avraham's
relatives.
However, once Avraham's niece won the "contest," Eliezer wanted
to impress upon Rivkah's family that this marriage was Divinely
ordained. Thus he interpreted Avraham's statement, "To my
birthplace," to mean, "To my father's house." Not only had Rivkah
been singled out by a Divine sign, he told them, Avraham already had
hinted prophetically that Eliezer would bring back a relative.
This also explains why Eliezer gave Rivkah gifts before learning
her identity, but he told her family that he had learned her name
first. Eliezer gave her the gifts first because he would have been
willing to take her back to Yitzchak even if she had not been his
cousin. However, he said that he asked her name first because he
wanted to impress on her family the importance of her being from
Avraham's family.
(Meshech Chochmah)
************************************
Rav Avraham Azulai zatz'l
born 5330 (1570) - died 21 or 25 Marcheshvan 5404 (1643)
Rav Avraham Azulai was born in Fez, Morocco, to which his family
had fled from the inquisition. Rav Avraham longed to settle in Eretz
Yisrael and to study kabbalah under the disciples of the Arizal and
Rav Chaim Vital, and he set out in the year 1610. After a stormy
journey, the ship docked in Egypt; no sooner were the passengers off
and another storm blew the ship out to sea, along with all of the
passengers' belongings. In recognition of the miracle which had
saved his life, Rav Avraham thereafter signed his signature in the
shape of a boat.
Rav Avraham settled in Chevron (Hebron), where he remained until
a cholera epidemic struck in 1619. From there he moved to
Yerushalayim, then back to Chevron, and eventually, to Azah (Gaza).
It was in Azah that he wrote his best known work, Chessed L'Avraham.
Later he returned to Chevron again.
In addition to writing many works of his own, Rav Avraham helped
Rav Yaakov Zemach to publish previously hidden works of Rav Chaim
Vital, the foremost student of Arizal. (Rav Chaim Vital himself had
been reluctant to publish these works, which were commentaries on
his master's teachings. One of the foremost present-day kabbalists,
Rav Yaakov Moshe Hillel shlita, explains that Rav Chaim felt that
his position as the disseminator of the Arizal's teachings required
him to present those teachings in their unadulterated form
[Introduction to Kehilot Yaakov, by Rav Yaakov Zemach].)
The story of Rav Avraham's passing is as follows: A wealthy Arab
who had come to pray in the building above the Me'arat Hamachpelah
accidentally dropped a bejeweled golden sword down the shaft leading
to the burial place of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs. After several
Arabs died trying to retrieve that sword, the Arabs decided that only
a Jew could retrieve it.
The lot fell upon Rav Avraham. He immersed himself in a mikveh
and spent the whole night in Torah study, before descending into the
cave. There he met a "man" whose appearance was so awesome and holy
that Rav Avraham nearly died of fear. However, he recovered, and
learned that the man was Eliezer, the servant of Avraham (and the
"hero" of our parashah), who guards the entrance to his master's
burial place.
Rav Avraham asked permission to see the cave itself, and was told
to wait while Eliezer sought the permission of Avraham, Yitzchak and
Yaakov. Then Rav Avraham entered and, realizing that he was in Gan
Eden, he asked if he could remain. No, he was told, "The Jews of
Chevron await you outside. However, tomorrow you may return."
Rav Avraham returned home and related what he had seen. Before
morning, he again immersed in the mikveh, dressed himself in his
tachrichim (shrouds), said the "Shema," and passed away. (From the
biography of his descendant, Maran Hachida Hakadosh)
|
| 989.440 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Toldot | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Nov 15 1995 18:52 | 198 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Toldot
Vol. X, No. 6 (443), 2 Kislev 5756, November 25, 1995
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 36. This chapter
contrasts the righteous and evil man, perhaps an allusion to Yaakov
and Esav who are born, and who begin their eternal struggle, in this
parashah.
Our present exile is known as "Galut Edom" - "the exile of Edom."
"Edom" is another name for Esav, as we read in this week's parashah
(25:30). In this chapter of Tehilim, specifically from verse 10--"By
Your light we shall have light"--we learn to have faith and wait for
Hashem to redeem us from this long exile. The midrash describes a
man who wanted to read at night, but each time that he lit a candle
it flickered out. Finally he said, "Why bother? I will wait until
morning."
Similarly, we were exiled to Egypt, and Moshe and Aharon redeemed
us. We were exiled to Bavel, and Chananiah, Mishael, and Azaryah
redeemed us. We were oppressed by the Greeks, and the Chashmonaim
saved us. Now that we are exiled again we must say, "Why bother?
Only by Your light will we truly have light." (Midrash Shocher Tov
and elsewhere)
This chapter also reminds us of the merit of Yitzchak, who is
another subject of this week's parashah. In verse 7 we read, "Man
and beast You save, Hashem." This is a reference to Yitzchak who
was offered on the altar like a beast, and we ask Hashem to remember
Yitzchak's merit, as He has promised. (Pirkei D'rabbi Eliezer ch.31)
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
. . . man and beast You save, Hashem." (36:7)
Sometimes, says Rav Moshe Alshich zatz'l, Hashem saves a man in
the merit of his animals. Other times, Hashem saves man in the merit
of Eretz Yisrael, as it is written (Tehilim 85:2), "Hashem, You have
desired Your land, You returned the captivity of Yaakov."
(Torat Moshe Al Hatorah: Shmot 9:29)
************************************
Commenting on the verse, "Man and beast You save," the gemara
(Chullin 5b) says, "This refers to intelligent men who behave like
animals."
Why is it meritorious for intelligent men to behave like animals?
Rav Yitzchak Blazer ("Rav Itzele Petersburger") zatz'l explains as
follows:
The halachah states that if one person sells a beast to another,
title passes to the buyer when he calls to the beast, causing it to
walk towards him. In contrast, when a person buys a slave, he cannot
take title in this manner. The reason is, the gemara (Kiddushin 22b)
explains, that the beast obviously is reacting to being called (and
thus, so-to-speak, is acknowledging its new owner). A slave,
however, being a human being, may be acknowledging his new owner or
may be moving because he wants to; accordingly, he cannot be acquired
just by calling his name.
Our service of Hashem should be like that beast, says Rav Itzele.
When we are called by Hashem, we should go--for no other reason than
that He is calling us.
(Kochvei Ohr)
************************************
". . . by Your light we shall see light." (36:10)
Rav Chaim of Volozhin zatz'l explains that this is a metaphor for
Torah. The more a person studies, the more he is able to study.
This may be compared, says Rav Chaim, to a person who enters the
king's treasury, where light is reflecting off of the gold, silver,
and gems. By that light, he sees another door, leading even deeper
into the treasury. In the case of the Torah, there are an endless
number of doors, and the contents of each room light the way to the
next room.
(Ruach Chaim 6:1)
************************************
". . . over all of his brothers he (Yishmael) fell. And these
are the offspring of Yitzchak. . ." (25:18-19)
The Ba'al Haturim zatz'l (1275-1340) writes that these verses (the
last verse of last week's parashah and the first verse of this
week's) are juxtaposed to teach that only when Yishmael falls will
mashiach come.
Rav Moshe Wolfson shlita (mashgiach of Yeshiva Torah Vodaath)
explains: The prerequisite to inheriting Eretz Yisrael is the mitzvah
of circumcision. The descendants of Yishmael also practice this
mitzvah, and, therefore, also have a claim to Eretz Yisrael.
However, their practice of the mitzvah is devoid of the holy
intentions which the descendants of Yitzchak have. Accordingly, for
all of the centuries that the descendants of Yishmael ruled over the
Land, they could not make it flower.
The third bet hamikdash, which will come down from heaven in a
ball of fire, will follow the reign of Yishmael (who, as noted,
practices circumcision). In kabbalah, says Rav Wolfson (based on
the Zohar) the mitzvah of circumcision is related to the "element"
of fire. For now, control of the world's fires is in the hands of
the descendants of Yishmael, who control the flow of oil; indeed,
nine centuries ago Rashi observed that the fact that Yosef was sold
to a caravan of Yishmaelites bearing sweet-smelling "spices, balsam,
and lotus" (37:25) was a miracle, because Arabs ordinarily sell only
oil. However, when the "bayit shlishi" (Third Temple) is built, we
will see the fulfillment of a phrase whose gematria equals that of
"bayit ha'shlishi," i.e, Breishit 21:10--"the son of that maidservant
will not inherit."
(Kuntres Emunat Itecha: Parashat Vayera)
************************************
In the Friday night zemirot composed by the Arizal we read: "To
the right and to the left, and in between them, the bride." The
"bride" presumably is Shabbat, but was is "to the right and to the
left"?
Rav Pinchus David Horowitz zatz'l (the "Bostoner Rebbe"--see page
4) explains:
In kabbalah, the "right" and the "left" represent the attributes
of "chessed" (loving-kindness) and "gevurah" (strength) respectively.
In our history, Avraham epitomized chessed (the right) and Yitzchak,
gevurah (the left).
Avraham fathered Yishmael, who, according to the midrash, refused
to accept the Torah because it outlawed adultery. Adultery is the
result of chessed (love) gone awry (see Vayikra 20:17). Yitzchak
fathered Esav, who refused to accept the Torah because it prohibited
murder, which is the excessive use of "gevurah."
The nations on the right and the left observe their sabbaths to
the right and the left of Shabbat, i.e., on Friday and Sunday,
respectively. This is what the Arizal's song refers to.
Each of these three nations--Yishmael, Esav, and ourselves--claims
to have the true Torah of Avraham. When we observe Shabbat, says
the Bostoner Rebbe, we add to it a few minutes from Friday and a few
minutes from Sunday in order to solidify our claim.
(quoted in Shoshelet Boston p.273)
************************************
Rav Pinchus David Halevi Horowitz zatz'l
(The First "Bostoner Rebbe")
born Elul 5636 (1876) - died 8 Kislev 5702 (1941)
Rav Pinchus David was born in Yerushalayim, where his maternal
grandfather was the "Lelover Rebbe." His teachers included his uncle
Rav David Biderman (later the "Lelover Rebbe"), Rav Shneur Zalman
of Lublin (the "Torat Chessed"), Rav Shmuel Salant, and the kabbalist
Rav Mordechai of Rachmestrivka.
In his youth, Rav Pinchus David learned 18 hours every day. In
the remaining hours he took care of his physical needs and taught
himself engineering and construction, which became his livelihood.
Among the buildings which he designed and built were the first two-
story apartments in the Meah Shearim neighborhood of Yerushalayim.
(Incidentally, that neighborhood derives its name from this week's
parashah (26:12).)
At the turn of the century, most of Yerushalayim's Jews learned
Torah full time and were supported by charitable organizations (known
as "kollelim") based in Europe. When the two major kollelim
contemplated a merger, a dispute arose between them and the citizens
of Yerushalayim over how charity funds would be allocated after the
two charities joined forces. A din Torah - hearing before a
rabbinical court - was called before Rav Eliyahu Feinstein
(grandfather of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik and uncle of Rav Moshe
Feinstein), and Rav Pinchus David, then 36 years old, was chosen to
travel to Europe to represent his hometown.
Rav Pinchus David successfully argued his case and Yerushalayim
prevailed. However, before Rav Pinchus David could return home,
World War I broke out. Rav Pinchus David, an Austrian citizen by
heredity, was drafted into the Austrian Army. Planning his escape,
he voluntered to travel to neutral Greece as a spy. (He spoke
Hebrew, Yiddish, German, Turkish and Arabic.) One of the more
obvious miracles along the way occurred when he stepped off the road
to wash his hands for the melaveh malkah meal and thus escaped notice
by a passing patrol. From Greece, he made his way to neutral United
States, arriving in June, 1915. (From the new book "Shoshelet
Boston")
To Be Continued
Please see page 3 for a dvar Torah from Rav Pinchus David
|
| 989.441 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayetze | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Nov 30 1995 20:27 | 196 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Vayetze
Vol. X, No. 7 (444), 9 Kislev 5756, December 2, 1995
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 3. This chapter
describes David's flight from his son, Avshalom, but its words could
well have been said by Yaakov as he contemplated his enemies, Esav
and Lavan: "Hashem, how many are my tormentors; the great rise up
against me. . . But You, Hashem, are a shield for me--for my soul,
and to raise up my pride. With my voice I call out to Hashem, and
He answers me from His holy mountain." Indeed, some commentators
identify the "holy mountain" as the Temple Mount, the same mountain
on which Yaakov sleeps and dreams in this week's parashah. We might
also note that the speaker calls out with his "voice"--reminiscent
of the fact that Yaakov fights with his voice and Esav with his hands
(see Bereishit 27:22).
Chazal ask why David began this psalm, "A song of David." Surely
it should have been "A lamentation of David," since it describes his
flight from his son. The Zohar (I:152b) answers that David was
inspired to joy when he compared his own flight with Yaakov's.
Whereas Yaakov fled from home alone, David was accompanied by many
of his nobles. Looking at the bright side of his predicament, David
said, "A song of David."
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"A song of David, when he fled from Avshalom. . ." (3:1)
"A song of David" and not "A lamentation of David"? the
commentaries ask. Rav Yehonatan Eyebschutz zatz'l explains (in his
work Ye'arot Devash) as follows:
There are two kinds of suffering that a person can experience.
Some suffering is ordinary and natural; it happens simply because
Hashem is "hiding" from man. Other suffering is supernatural and
out of the ordinary. Only when man experiences this type of
suffering can he be sure that it is designed specifically for him,
and for the sole purpose of atoning for his sins. This type of
suffering actually indicates that Hashem is paying attention to man.
When a son chases his father and wants to kill him, as Avshalom
did to David, that certainly is out of the ordinary. Thus, this
suffering made David happy.
Rav Mendel Hager (the "Vishuver Rebbe") zatz'l adds that this is
the meaning of verse 3: "Many say of my soul there is no redemption
by G-d." Our enemies claim that our present exile is because G-d
has turned away from us, and not because Hashem is expatiating our
sins. However, we are promised that the Shechinah (G-d's presence)
will never leave the Kotel Ha'maaravi (Western Wall), meaning that
Hashem always is "present" here on earth to watch over us. This,
in turn, means that Hashem is punishing us in order to bring us
atonement.
(She'erit Menachem)
************************************
"Hashem, how many are my tormentors . . . I lay down and slept."
(3:2 and 6)
Chazal say that whoever enjoys Shabbat will share in the blessing
to Yaakov. Why, asks Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky zatz'l, is it
specifically the blessing to Yaakov and not to Avraham and Yitzchak?
He explains that a person who eats three meals on Shabbat and
thoroughly honors and enjoys the day demonstrates that he has faith
in Hashem that He will take care of tomorrow. A person of lesser
faith would conserve his food to ensure that there will be leftovers.
Unlike Avraham and Yitzchak who were blessed by Hashem when they
already were in comfortable surroundings, Yaakov was blessed (several
times in this week's parashah) when he was on the run, first from
Esav and then from Lavan. Thus, a person who uses up everything in
honor of Shabbat deserves the blessing that was given to the tzaddik
who had nothing.
The greatest level of bitachon (trust), says Rav Kaminetsky, is
to trust in Hashem despite having nothing. King David exemplified
a similar trait; despite being surrounded by his tormentors, he
trusted in Hashem enough to lay down on his bed and get a good
night's sleep.
(Emet L'Yaakov: Parashat Beshalach)
************************************
"He became frightened and said, 'How awesome is this place. . .'"
(28:17)
Rashi writes that when Yaakov reached Charan he said, "Is it
possible that I passed the place where my father and grandfather
prayed, and I did not pray there?" He then returned to Bet El and
prayed there and slept there.
Rav Eliyahu Meir Bloch zatz'l observes that Yaakov was
particularly distressed because he had passed Bet El and had not
taken advantage of being there, more so than he would have been had
he never been in Bet El. This teaches, says Rav Bloch, that a person
is particularly responsible for getting the greatest spiritual
advantage out of his present circumstances; the failure to take
advantage of one's favorable situation damages the soul.
We see this in the case of Moshe. When he said (Shmot 33:14),
"Show me Your glory," Hashem responded (according to Chazal), "When
I wanted, you did not want. Now that you want, I do not want." When
Hashem first appointed Moshe to lead Bnei Yisrael, Moshe resisted.
By not accepting the spiritual gifts which Hashem offered, he damaged
his soul. Therefore, when he wanted to "see" Hashem's glory, he was
unable to fathom it.
(Peninei Da'at)
************************************
"If He will give me bread to eat and clothes to wear." (28:20)
When the first winter arrived after Rav Pinchus David Horowitz
zatz'l (the "Bostoner Rebbe"--see page 4) had settled in Boston, he
had only the clothes on his back to keep him warm, and no coat.
There was an old Jew (Mr. Rosenblatt) in Boston who had been a
chassid in Europe of Rav Pinchus David's great-grandfather, Rav Moshe
of Lelov. One night, Rav Moshe appeared in a dream to Mr. Rosenblatt
and rebuked him, "My descendant is cold and you are sleeping?!"
After this dream repeated itself, Mr. Rosenblatt sought out the
recently arrived immigrant from Yerushalayim. "Who are you?" he
asked.
"A Jew from Eretz Yisrael," Rav Pinchus David responded humbly.
Only after he was pressed did he admit that he was a great-grandson
of Rav Moshe of Lelov.
Mr. Rosenblatt bought the Rebbe a warm winter coat, which he wore
until its disintegrated. But he never threw it way; "If my ancestor
came all the way from heaven to bring me this coat, I cannot throw
it away," he explained.
(Shoshelet Boston)
************************************
Rav Pinchus David Halevi Horowitz zatz'l
(The First "Bostoner Rebbe")
Part II
Rav Pinchus David arrived in New York in June, 1915. While still
living in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, Rav Pinchus David
designed what may have been one of the earliest Shabbat-clocks.
Before long, he was recognized for the tzaddik and scholar that he
was, and he was offered several rabbinical posts. He chose Boston,
in gratitude to a Bostonian Jew who had helped him settle his
immigration status.
In Boston, Rav Pinchus David found a motley group of chassidim
of various geographic backgrounds and different "styles" of serving
Hashem. However, Rav Pinchus David had no trouble catering to the
needs of all of them. Eventually, he adopted the title "Bostoner
Rebbe." Explaining why he did not choose the more distinguished
title of one of his ancestors, Rav Pinchus David said that this way,
if he failed in his mission, people would say, "Well, what can you
expect of an American rebbe!"
As in many American cities, Boston in the 1920's had large
congregations made up of elderly people, but very little religious
participation by the youth. To remedy this situation, Rav Pinchus
David founded a talmud Torah in Boston. He later realized that a
few hours of Torah study in the afternoon would not overcome the
public school influence, and he therefore proposed a day school with
a joint religious-secular program. However, this proposal was
rejected by his rabbinic colleagues, who felt that there was no place
in a talmud Torah for secular studies.
Rav Pinchus David never stopped acting and dressing like a
Yerushalmi Jew. He introduced to the United States several customs
which we take for granted, most notably shemurah matzah. He also
introduced the idea of chalav Yisrael. Rav Pinchus David frequently
spoke out on family purity, telling people who found its laws
irrational that ritual purity, just like the invisible force of
electricity, is no less powerful because one doesn't understand it.
The Rebbe's work on behalf of kashrut even brought him death threats
from the Mafia.
Rav Pinchus David never stopped longing for Eretz Yisrael, and
he made aliyah three times. Each time, however, the Hand of G-d
brought him back to Boston. Eventually, he moved to Williamsburg
(Brooklyn), becoming one of the earliest chassidic rebbes to settle
there. (From the new book "Shoshelet Boston")
Please see page 3 for a story about Rav Pinchus David
|
| 989.442 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayeshev | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Dec 14 1995 00:25 | 192 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Vayeshev
Vol. X, No. 9 (446), 23 Kislev 5756, December 16, 1995
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 112. The opening
verses state: "Fortunate is the man who fears Hashem, who greatly
desires His commandments. Mighty in the land will his offspring be,
a generation of the upright who shall be blessed." According to
Midrash Shocher Tov, "Mighty in the land" refers to Yaakov, and "a
generation of the upright who shall be blessed" refers to Yaakov's
sons. It is important to remember this when we read this parashah,
in which ten of Yaakov's sons appear to gang-up on Yosef because of
their jealousy. Yaakov's offspring were righteous, and they acted
for the sake of Heaven. (For one of the classic interpretations of
their actions, see Parashat Derachim, quoted in Hamaayan Vol. VIII
No. 9.)
Verse 4 provides the type of hope that Chazal say Yosef felt when
he languished in Egypt: "Even in the darkness a light shines for
the upright; He is compassionate and merciful." So great was Yosef's
faith under ordinary circumstances that when he momentarily lapsed
and begged the Egyptian butler to remember him, he was punished by
G-d for it. (see Bet Halevi, to be discussed at length next week.)
Verse 9 states: "He gave a distribution to the destitute, his
charity endures forever." The Zohar (I:208) states that this verse
refers to Yosef.
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah.
"Fortunate is the man who fears Hashem, who greatly desires His
commandments. Mighty in the land will his offspring be, a generation
of the upright who shall be blessed." (112:1-2)
We find in various verses in Tanach that tzaddikim are promised
long life and wealth. However, says Rav Yekutiel Yehuda Halberstam
(the "Klausenberger-Sanzer Rebbe") zatz'l, some tzaddikim don't want
wealth. What then happens to Hashem's promise?
The answer is that if a man "desires [only] His commandments,"
i.e., he wants no more of this world than is absolutely necessary
in order to do mitzvot, then, "Mighty in the land will his offspring
be, a generation of the upright who shall be blessed." The wealth
due to this tzaddik will be saved for his descendants.
(Shefa Chaim IV:238)
************************************
Pirkei Avot (ch.2) states: "Weigh the loss from a mitzvah against
its reward." This is an admonition to the leaders of the community,
says Rav Eliezer Zvi Safran (the "Komarna Rebbe") zatz'l, that they
should be willing to sacrifice their personal spiritual gain in order
to raise the level of others. Even if a person must interrupt his
own learning or growth in order to engage in kiruv (bringing others
closer), this loss is insignificant compared to the rewards.
Rav Safran--known as the "Sar Bet Hazohar" ("Master of the
Zohar"), a takeoff on the jailer's title in verse 39:22 of this
week's parashah--adds: Regarding this the Zohar (II:128b) says that
if one helps another overcome his yetzer hara, it is as if he has
created a new person. Moreover, there is no greater honor to Hashem
than this, the Zohar says. If one holds the hand of a rasha and
tries to lead the rasha on a new path, he accomplishes three things:
he helps to crush the yetzer hara, he brings honor to G-d, and he
causes the world to endure. Such a person will merit to see children
and grandchildren, and about him it says (in our verse), "Mighty in
the land will his offspring be, a generation of the upright who shall
be blessed."
(Zekan Beto)
************************************
"Yaakov settled in the land where his father lived, in Eretz
Canaan." (37:1)
Rashi comments: Yaakov wanted to live in peace, but the troubles
with Yosef pounced on him.
What was so wrong if Yaakov wanted to live in peace? asks Rav
Moshe Teitelbaum (the "Satmar Rebbe") shlita. Also, is it necessary
to say that Eretz Canaan is "the land where his father lived"?
The gemara (Bava Metzia 85b) relates that Eliyahu Hanavi appeared
regularly in the study hall of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi ("Rebbe"), but
one rosh chodesh, he did not come. Later, Rebbe asked him why.
He answered, "I had to awaken Avraham, wash his hands, pray with
him, and lay him down, and then I had to do the same for Yitzchak
and Yaakov [and before I finished, the sun set]."
Rebbe asked him, "Why didn't you awaken all three at once?"
Eliyahu answered, "If the three of them would pray at once, they
would bring mashiach before his time."
Similarly, says Rav Teitelbaum, Yaakov wanted to live in peace,
i.e., the ultimate peace of the days of mashiach. Had Yaakov been
able to pray together with his father Yitzchak (who was still alive,
the verse reminds us) and his son Yosef, they would have brought the
Redemption. However, it was not yet time, and the troubles with
Yosef pounced on Yaakov to prevent their joint prayers.
(Berach Moshe)
************************************
Why did Chazal say, "the troubles with Yosef pounced on him"
instead of "the troubles with Yosef started"?
Also, the midrash says, "Why did the brothers hate Yosef? So that
the Red Sea would split for the Jews." What does this mean?
Rav Moshe Aryeh Freind shlita (head of the Eidah Charedis in
Yerushalayim) explains that every person has the strength to face
the challenges which the yetzer hara (evil inclination) throws at
him. If the yetzer hara wins, it is not because the person couldn't
prevail but because he didn't try.
Sometimes, however, Hashem lets the yetzer hara completely
overpower a person. At these times, the yetzer hara thinks that it
has won a great victory, but in fact this is part of its undoing.
For example, the incident in this parashah of Yehuda and Tamar looks
like a great coup for the yetzer hara but it actually was part of
Hashem's plan for bringing about the birth of King David, the days
of mashiach, and the eradication of the yetzer hara.
Similarly, tzaddikim such as Yaakov's sons would not have hated
their brother and tried to kill him were it not part of the Divine
plan. Here, too, Hashem effectively took away their free will in
order to bring the Jews to Egypt where they would absorb the "sparks"
("nitzotzot") of spirituality which existed there and remove those
"sparks" from the country at the miraculous splitting of the sea.
This is the meaning of Chazal's statement, "the troubles with
Yosef pounced on him." Specifically, the yetzer hara was allowed
to pounce on Yaakov and his family, with a strength far in excess
of what these tzaddikim were used to.
(Ateret Yehoshua)
************************************
Rav Chizkiyah di Silva zatz'l
born 5419 (1659) - died 28 Kislev 5458 (1697)
Rav Chizkiyah di Silva, known as the Pri Chadash after his
important halachic work, was born in Livorno, Italy. At age 20 he
settled in Yerushalayim and continued his studies under Rav Moshe
Galanti. Rav Chizkiyah later succeeded Rav Galanti as rosh yeshiva.
Rav Chizkiyah's Pri Chadash is printed in the standard edition
of the Shulchan Aruch, the code of Jewish law. His style was to
state his opinion forcefully, even disagreeing with the authorities
of previous generations; as a result, there was opposition to his
work. Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulai ("Chida") writes that the Jews
of Egypt accepted on themselves never to study Rav Chizkiyah's works,
but they effectively undid their decree when they appointed Rav
Shlomo Algazi, a student of Rav Chizkiyah, as chief rabbi (Shem
Hagedolim, ma'arechet gedolim, ot chet). Another student of Rav
Chizkiyah was Rav Yishayah Azulai, Chida's grandfather.
Selections from Rav Chizkiyah's Talmud commentary, Mayim Chaim,
are printed in the standard edition of the gemara. Rav Chizkiyah
also composed a work on kabbalah, which he ordered buried. (Part
of the manuscript of Pri Chadash accidentally was buried with it.)
In his final years, Rav Chizkiyah traveled in France as a
fundraiser for the Yerushalayim community. Chida writes that awesome
miracles happened for Rav Chizkiyah during his travels, but does not
elaborate (Shem Hagedolim, ma'arechet sefarim, "Pri Chadash").
In Pri Chadash (ch. 670), Rav Chizkiyah cites Chazal's statement
that the name "Chanuka" signifies "Chanu-ka"-"They rested on the
25th." If so, i.e., that the battles ended on that day (as Rambam
explains ), then the Jews did not reenter the Temple and light the
menorah until the evening of the 26th! Why then do we light the
menorah on the preceding night ?
This question may be answered with the help of the Bet Yosef''s
famous Chanukah question: If there was enough oil to burn for one
day and it burnt instead for eight days, then the actual miracle
lasted seven days. Why then do we celebrate for eight days?
The answer to both questions, says Rav Chizkiyah, is that the
first day celebrates the military victory, not the miracle of the
oil. [We only light the menorah on the first night for the sake of
consistency.]
|
| 989.443 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Miketz | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Dec 22 1995 23:25 | 187 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Miketz / Sixth day of Chanukah
Vol. X, No. 10 (447), 30 Kislev 5756, December 23, 1995
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 40. Chazal
interpret this chapter as referring to Yosef, especially verse 5:
"Blessed is the man who made Hashem his trust, and turned not to the
arrogant, and to strayers after falsehood." (The inside pages of
this issue are devoted to this verse and its connection to this
parashah.)
The psalm associated with Chanukah is chapter 30, "Mizmor shir
chanukat habayit"-"A song with musical accompaniment for the
inauguration of the Temple"-since Chanukah is a time when the Temple
was rededicated. But what does the remainder of this chapter, which
discusses Hashem's healing man from sickness, have to do with the
construction or dedication of the Temple?
Rav Reuven Margaliot zatz'l explains: The Bet Hamikdash, and
particularly the altar, must stand in a precisely chosen location.
We read in Divrei Hayamim I (ch. 21) that a plague resulted when King
David counted the Jewish people. After 70,000 people had died, David
looked up and saw an angel holding a sword standing on the future-
Temple Mount. David understood that that was where the altar should
go, and when he brought a sacrifice at that place, the plague ceased.
Thus, it was precisely the plague and its cure which made the
construction and dedication of the Temple possible. (Hamikra
Ve'hamesorah)
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah/holiday (see page 1).
The midrash (Bereishit Rabbah) teaches: Parashat Miketz opens,
"It came to pass at the end of two years, and Pharaoh dreamt." This
is alluded to by the verse (Tehilim 40:5), "Blessed is the man who
made Hashem his trust"--this is Yosef--"and turned not to the
arrogant"--because Yosef said to the sar hamashkim (butler) at the
end of last week's parashah, "Remember me" and, "Mention me," he had
to remain in jail for an additional two years.
Numerous commentaries ask: Isn't this midrash inherently
contradictory? First it says that Yosef is the man who made Hashem
his trust, then it says that Yosef was punished for turning to the
arrogant Egyptians for assistance!
Moreover, doesn't G-d help those who help themselves? What's
wrong if Yosef asked the butler to remember him?
On this page and the next we offer several explanations:
Rav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik zatz'l and Rav Elya Lopian
zatz'l (among others) explain that the degree to which a person must
help himself depends upon his spiritual level. The greater a person,
the more he is expected to trust in Hashem, and the less he is
allowed to engage in "independent" effort.
Because of Yosef's lofty spiritual level--he was "the man who made
Hashem his trust"--he was expected to maintain that trust and not
to rely on human agents. Because this one time he failed, he was
punished for it.
Moreover, says Rav Lopian, Yosef did very little to get himself
out of prison; indeed he uttered only two short Hebrew phrases
("Remember me" and "Mention me"), yet he was punished terribly with
two additional years of imprisonment. In light of the fact that
Hashem is strict with tzaddikim in proportion to their righteousness,
the severity of this punishment indicates how great Yosef's trust
ordinarily was.
(Bet Halevi; Lev Eliyahu)
************************************
Another indication of how strictly G-d judged Yosef is the fact
that--according to Malbim--the butler was destined to die just like
the baker, if not for the fact that the butler had a part to play
in Yosef's release from prison. Thus, says Rav Yitzchak Arieli
zatz'l (mashgiach of Yeshivat Merkaz Harav and author of Enayim
La'mishpat), when Yosef asked the butler for help, he really was
telling the butler, "This is your mission in life." However, even
this was unbecoming a man such as Yosef.
(Midrash Ariel)
************************************
On the previous page we asked: Doesn't G-d help those who help
themselves? What's wrong if Yosef asked the butler to remember him?
Rav Eliyahu Meir Bloch zatz'l explains that Yosef was too eager.
When Yosef interpreted the butler's dream, he knew that the butler
would remain in jail an additional three days, and he should have
waited before asking the butler to help him. However, Yosef did not
do that; instead he immediately asked.
(Peninei Da'at)
Rav Avraham Yishayahu Karelitz (the "Chazon Ish") zatz'l explains
Yosef's sin as follows: Yes, one must help himself and not rely on
miracles. However, Yosef was asking for help from a person whose
nature was not to help. Therefore, Yosef's act was a sign of
desperation--which is a sin--not the act of a person who simply is
acting because such is the way of the world.
(Emunah U'vitachon II:6)
The midrash says that the butler used to tie strings around his
fingers and take other steps to remember Yosef, but angels would come
and undo the knots. Doesn't this contradict the explanation of the
Chazon Ish (see previous paragraph)?
No, says Rav Moshe Schwab zatz'l. The fact that he had to design
strategms to remember is proof that he did not care to remember.
If something is important to you, you remember it.
(Ma'archei Lev IV:147)
Rav Yehoshua Leib Diskin zatz'l gives the midrash (see page 2)
a completely different interpretation, in light of which the
questions presented here do not even arise:
Yosef took a very casual approach to getting out of jail. He told
the butler, "Remember me" and "Mention me"--but that's all he said.
Because Yosef placed his trust in G-d, he made a token effort to get
out, but he didn't plead and he didn't beg.
Had Yosef pleaded with the butler, he might have been released
right away. Then he probably would have returned to his father's
house. That would have been the end of the story; certainly Yosef
never would have become viceroy of Egypt.
However, Yosef was "the man who made Hashem his trust and turned
not to the arrogant." Because Yosef said to the butler only,
"Remember me" and "Mention me," he was able to remain in jail an
additional two years until a time when Pharaoh needed him.
(Maharil Diskin Al Hatorah)
************************************
Rav Gershon Henach Leiner zatz'l
born 5599 (1839) - died 4 Tevet 5651 (1890)
Rav Gershon Chanoch Henach Leiner was one of the more
controversial chassidic rebbe's of the second half of the 19th
century, as will be explained below. His father, Rav Yaakov, and
his grandfather, Rav Mordechai Yosef, had been the rebbes of Izbica,
an offshot of Kotzk. When Rav Gershon Henach was only 13 years old,
he already was producing Torah works, and eventually his works would
include: commentaries on Talmud, halachic responsa, a work on Hebrew
script in halachah and kabbalah, responsa regarding agunot (women
unable to remarry), a commentary on the Talmud Yerushalmi, an
encyclopedia on kabbalah, a commentary on Rambam's Sefer Hamitzvot,
and more.
Two works by Rav Gershon Henach made him controversial. The first
was entitled Sidrei Taharah, and was a commentary on the mishnayot
of the sixth order of the Mishnah. Although there is no gemara on
most of this Order, there are interpretations of it scattered
throughout the Talmud. Rav Gershon Henach gathered these and
published a work that looked like a gemara, with the teachings of
the sages of the Talmud in the middle, and a Rashi-like commentary
on one side and a Tosfot-like commentary on the other. While
everyone recognized the genius of the work, there were objections
to its gemara-like format.
Better known, and even more controversial, was Rav Gershon
Henach's work to restore the techelet-dye which the Torah says should
be used on tzitzit. Rav Gershon Henach studied dyes in Italy
(possibly in the Vatican), and concluded that the correct dye was
that produced by the Sepia officinalis, a member of the octopus
family. On the first day of Chanukah in 1889, Rav Gershon Henach
began to wear techelet, and soon 12,000 chassidim followed suit.
Today, Radzhiner and Breslover chassidim still wear techelet.
The gemara says that Yosef was released from prison on Rosh
Hashanah. In Sod Yesharim (Rosh Hashanah p. 75), Rav Gershon Henach
explains that that holiday itself represents a kind of release from
prison. The great potential for spirituality which exists in the
world is constrained by the world's physical limitations. Indeed,
the kabbalistic concept of "tzimtzum" teaches that G-d so-to-speak
constrained Himself in order to give the world room to exist. On
Rosh Hashanah, the day of creation, we briefly experience the world
in its "free," unconstrained state.
|
| 989.444 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayigash | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Dec 28 1995 18:36 | 178 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Vayigash
Vol. X, No. 11 (448), 7 Tevet 5756, December 30, 1995
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 48. (This is
also the shir shel yom - psalm of the day - for Mondays.)
This chapter describes the beauty of Yerushalayim, which it refers
to (verse 3) as "yefeh nof" -"more beautiful than Nof." According
to Zohar Chadash (Vayetze 28b), "Nof" is Egypt. Thus, in the week
when we read that Yaakov and his sons settled in Egypt, we read the
psalm which makes us long for Yerushalayim.
Verse 5 says: "For behold the kings assembled, they came
together." The Zohar on this parashah (page 206b) and the Midrash
Rabbah state that this refers to Yosef and Yehuda. (Parashat
Vayigash opens with these two "kings" facing off over Binyamin's
fate.) Many of the other verses in this chapter of Tehilim are
interpreted in the Zohar with respect to Yosef.
We read in the parashah (46:8), "These are the names of the sons
of Yisrael who came to Egypt. . ." On the nearly identical verse
in Sh'mot (1:1), the midrash Yalkut Shimoni comments: "Regarding this
it is written (Tehilim 48:11--our chapter), 'Like Your Name, G-d,
so is Your praise'." While many people have names that do not fit
them, G-d's Name fits Him well. So, too, says the midrash, Yaakov's
sons had names that fit them well. (See inside for an interpretation
of this.)
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"As ('ka-asher') we heard, so ('ken') we saw--in the city of
Hashem of Legions. . ." (48:9)
The Vilna Gaon zatz'l observes: In Devarim (28:63) we read, "And
it will be that just as ('ka-asher') Hashem rejoiced over you to
benefit you and multiply you, so ('ken') Hashem will cause them to
rejoice over you to make you perish and to destroy you." We see that
the word 'ka-asher' is used in connection with good tidings, while
the word 'ken' is used with bad tidings.
This is consistent with our verse which speaks of Yerushalayim
and says: "As ('ka-asher') we heard, so ('ken') we saw. . ." We have
only heard of the good tidings for they were so long ago--as is
written (Tehilim 44:2), "With our ears we have heard . . . the deeds
which You performed in their days, the days of old"--while we have
seen the bad in our own days.
(Divrei Eliyahu)
************************************
"Like Your Name, G-d, so is Your praise." (48:11)
The midrash Yalkut Shimoni comments: Many people have names that
do not fit them, but G-d's Name fits Him well.
What does this mean? Rav Aharon Lewin (the "Reisha Rav") HY"D
zatz'l explains that if we say that a person performed an act of
bravery, this may well mean that he is not brave. If all of a
person's acts are acts of bravery, why talk about it? It is only
the unusual things about a person that are worth talking about.
Thus, the way in which we describe a person (his "name") actually
may not fit him or be a true description of him. Not so Hashem.
He is consistent and unchanging; therefore any way in which we
describe Him is always true. His name fits Him well.
This idea explains the halachah that praising another person
sometimes is considered to be lashon hara. By highlighting an
unusual act of righteousness which a person performed, one may be
suggesting that it is unusual for that person to perform acts of
righteousness.
(Hadrash Veha'iyun: Devarim p. 134)
************************************
"Hashem said to Yisrael in a vision of the night, and He said,
'Yaakov, Yaakov." (46:2)
Rav Aharon Cohen zatz'l (son-in-law of the Chafetz Chaim)
explains: The repetition of "Yaakov" signifies Hashem's affection.
This affection was needed all the more here, when Yaakov was on his
way to Egypt, because of the perils of the exile. Indeed, this was
a vision, not only in the night, but of the night (of exile).
(Pirchei Aharon)
************************************
"I shall descend with you to Egypt, and I shall also surely bring
you up, and Yosef shall place his hand over your eyes." (46:4)
Many commentaries debate the meaning of the phrase, "Yosef shall
place his hand over your eyes." Rav Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin
("Netziv") zatz'l explains that a tzaddik's "eyes" refers to his
greatest desires--in Yaakov's case to be "secure and solitary"
(Devarim 33:28).
"Security" comes from peace, which results from love amongst Jews.
This is something that Yosef brought about by going out of his way
to make his brothers comfortable in Egypt. "Solitude," i.e., that
the Jews mingle with the outside world only to the extent absolutely
necessary, also was a product of Yosef's efforts, for he arranged
for the Jews to live in the province of Goshen.
Thus, Yosef placed his hand over Yaakov's eyes.
(Ha'emek Davar)
Dayan Yitzchak Yaakov Weiss zatz'l offers another explanation:
The Torah says that Yosef cried when he saw Yaakov (46:29). Chazal
say that Yaakov did not cry because he was reciting the Shema. Why
did Yaakov choose this particular time to say Shema?
A person whose children do not observe mitzvot cannot say Shema
with complete sincerity because it would be hypocritical of him to
say, "And you shall teach them to your sons." When Yaakov heard that
Yosef was in Egypt, he was certain that Yosef was not observant, and
this had a negative effect on Yaakov's recitation of the Shema. Now,
when Yaakov saw Yosef for the first time in 22 years and discerned
that he was a great spiritual personage, Yaakov was able to say Shema
with complete sincerity again.
When we say Shema, we place our hands over our eyes. The phrase,
"Yosef shall place his hand over your eyes," means that through
seeing Yosef, you (Yaakov) will be able to place your hands over your
eyes with complete sincerity.
(Minchat Yitzchak)
************************************
Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz (founder of Artscroll) relates that he once
entered the home of Rav Moshe Feinstein zatz'l just as the latter
had finished arbitrating a dispute between two Jews (call them Reb
Yoel and Reb Hillel). "Now apologize," Rav Moshe said to Reb Yoel.
"I apologize for the aggravation that I caused you," Reb Yoel
said.
"Don't worry," Reb Hillel responded, "I obviously was meant to
suffer some heartache. It's alright."
Rav Moshe listened attentively, and then said, "Tell him
explicitly that you forgive him."
"It's fine," Reb Hillel said. "I'm not upset with him.
Everything worked out fine."
"That is not enough," said Rav Moshe. "You must tell him clearly
and unequivocally that you forgive him."
Realizing that Rav Moshe was insistent, Reb Hillel said, "I
forgive you." Rav Moshe then wished Reb Yoel and Reb Hillel well
and sent them on their way.
"Why was the rosh yeshiva so insistent that Reb Hillel declare
outright that he forgives Reb Yoel?" Rabbi Zlotowitz asked Rav Moshe
(referring to him in the reverential third person).
Rav Moshe explained: "Chazal teach us that the Jews suffered the
terrible loss of the ten martyrs (i.e., Rabbi Akiva and his
colleagues) because Yosef's ten brothers sold him as a slave.
Rabbenu Bachya wonders about this and asks, 'Didn't the brothers ask
forgiveness?'
"The answer," said Rav Moshe, "is that Yosef responded (45:5),
'Don't be distressed and don't reproach yourselves for having sold
me here, for it was as a provider that Hashem sent me here ahead of
you.' It would seem from this that Yosef was not angry with his
brothers; however, he never said that he forgave them. Because of
this, the sin still hung over their heads and they were punished for
it through their descendants."
(Along the Maggid's Journey)
|
| 989.445 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayechi | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Jan 02 1996 19:36 | 193 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Vayechi
Vol. X, No. 12 (449), 14 Tevet 5756, January 6, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 41. This psalm
begins, "Praiseworthy is he who cares wisely for the poor ('dal')."
Rav Menachem Mendel of Kossov zatz'l notes that the Hebrew word "dal"
has the same gematria--34--as "vayechi." (He explains the connection
in kabbalistic terms which are beyond the scope of this publication.)
(Ahavat Shalom)
One theme which this chapter shares with the parashah is the idea
that the Shechinah (Divine Presence) is present at the head of the
sick man's bed. In the parashah this is alluded to in the verse
(47:31), "And Yisrael prostrated himself towards the head of the bed"
(Midrash Tanchuma). In Psalm 41 this is alluded to in verse 4:
"Hashem will fortify him on his bed of misery" (Shabbat 12b).
As for the reason that the Shechinah is present at the head of
the sick bed, Rav Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook zatz'l explains that
man's body and intellect are in a constant battle for supremacy, a
battle which the body all too often wins. However, when man's body
is weakened by illness, his intellect can assert itself without
opposition. Accordingly, the Shechinah is present at the head of
the bed, near the mind, the seat of the intellect. (Ein Ayah)
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"Praiseworthy is one who cares wisely for the poor, on the day
of disaster Hashem surely will cause him to escape." (41:2)
Reb Shraga Feivel Mendelowitz zatz'l (early 20th century Torah
pioneer) would encourage his students to make sacrifices for charity
in bad times as in good times. He based this on a reading of our
verse with one comma moved: "Praiseworthy is one who cares wisely
for the poor on the day of disaster, Hashem surely will cause him
to escape [from harm]."
(quoted in The Artscroll Tehilim p.514)
************************************
"As for me, I said, 'Hashem, show me favor. Heal my soul for I
have sinned against You'." (41:5)
Rabbenu Nissim zatz'l writes: There is no doubt that at a time
of illness a person should search carefully for a cure for his soul,
and he should give it precedence over the cure for his body. This
is what King David said in the above verse.
If a person has two ailing organs, there are three ways to
prioritize the order in which he should seek cures for those organs:
(1) seek a cure for the one which is more critical to his survival;
(2) seek a cure for the one which is the cause of the other ailment;
and (3) seek a cure for the one on which remaining healthy depends.
All of these priorities indicate that healing the soul is more
important than healing the body. Firstly, spiritual health is more
critical to a person's long-term existence than physical health.
Secondly, spiritual sickness is the cause of physical ailment.
Finally, long-term health depends on spiritual well-being.
(Derashot Haran #6)
************************************
Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg shlita writes that in light of this
we can understand why the Torah (Devarim 30:11-14) says that teshuvah
is easy. Certainly it is not easy for a person to change his ways.
However, if a person realized how important teshuvah was, even to
his physical well-being, he would repent immediately.
(Derech Emunah U'vitachon: Parashat Ha'azinu)
************************************
"Into their conspiracy may my soul not enter; with their
congregation may my honor not join. . ." (49:6)
This is part of Yaakov's parting words to his second and third
sons, Shimon and Levi. Rashi explains this to mean that Yaakov did
not want his name mentioned by the Torah in the genealogy of Zimri,
from the tribe of Shimon, and Korach, from the tribe of Levi (see
Bemidbar 25:14 and 16:1, respectively).
Rav Yechezkel Halberstam of Shiniva zatz'l explains further that
more is at stake here than Yaakov's honor and reputation. Rather,
Yaakov was concerned that it remain possible to rectify the sins of
Zimri and Korach.
A sin can be rectified so long as the sinner's corruption is
superficial and does not reach to the core of his being. The
spiritual core of the Jewish people is Yaakov, who, kabbalists say,
is one of the "wheels" of Hashem's "chariot." Thus, Yaakov prayed
that when Korach and Zimri would lead the Jewish people astray (each
in his own time) he (Yaakov) should not be connected with their sins,
i.e., that Hashem should keep the corruption from sinking too deep
into the nation's soul.
And, indeed, Korach's own sons repented.
(Divrei Yechezkel)
************************************
The gemara (Ta'anit 5b) teaches: Rav Nachman and Rav Yitzchak were
sitting together. Rav Nachman said, "Yaakov did not die."
Rav Yitzchak retorted, "Did they then embalm him and eulogize him
for no reason?"
Rav Nachman answered, "I am only interpreting the verses (see
Yirmiyah 30:10)." [Until here from the gemara.] Rashi adds, "They
only thought that he died."
Rav Leib Chasman zatz'l observes how different our sages' outlook
was from ours. We try to interpret the Torah to be consistent with
reality. Chazal understood, however, that if the apparent "reality"
differs from what the verses of the Torah or prophets say, it is
"reality" that requires reinterpretation.
And indeed, says Rav Chasman, the midrash says that when one of
Yaakov's grandsons beheaded Esav, and Esav's head rolled onto
Yaakov's bier, Yaakov opened his eyes and smiled. Clearly then
Yaakov was not dead.
(Ohr Yahel III:81)
************************************
Rav Yehoshua Boaz Baruch zatz'l (16th century) interprets Rav
Nachman's answer differently: "Yes, it appears that Yaakov died, but
I am only interpreting the verses. I am merely saying that if the
prophets wrote verses that could be intepreted in this manner, there
must be some hidden meaning which we are meant to learn" [e.g., that
the righteous are more alive in death than the wicked are when they
are alive.]
(Shiltei Gibborim: Avodah Zarah ch.1)
************************************
Rav Aryeh Leib Lipschutz zatz'l
("Aryeh D'vei Ilai")
born 5527 (1767) - died 17 Tevet 5606 (1846)
Rav Aryeh Leib was a leading posek (halachic authority) and
chassidic figure of his time. His teachers included Rav Aryeh Leib
Hakohen of Stry, author of Ketzot Hachoshen.
In his youth, our subject was attracted to the chassidic movement,
and particularly to Rav Yaakov Yitzchak, known as the "Chozeh"
("Seer") of Lublin. However, unlike the Chozeh's other followers
who used to spend their time in Lublin together, Rav Aryeh Leib
preferred to be alone and to devote his time to Torah study. It was
Rav Aryeh Leib that the Chozeh sent to the noted mitnaged (opponent
of chassidut), Rav Azriel, to show him that chassidim too were
proficient in Torah.
Rav Aryeh Leib's father-in-law was Rav Moshe Teitelbaum, a
prominent rabbi and a mitnaged. However, under Rav Aryeh Leib's
influence, Rav Moshe became a chassid, and eventually, a chassidic
rebbe. His Yismach Moshe is a popular Torah commentary. Rav Moshe's
descendants are the chassidic rebbes of the Teitelbaum family,
including the Satmar Rebbe.
Rav Aryeh Leib himself was not interested in leading chassidim,
preferring instead to serve Hashem in a low-key manner. He once
said, "At first I thought I could perfect the world. Then I thought
I could at least perfect my province. Then I concluded I should just
perfect my neighborhood. Finally I realized I would be lucky to
perfect myself." Those chassidim who did cleave to him had to meet
very strict standards of behavior and character. He stressed that
serving Hashem was a full time occupation, and that even one's food
and drink and other pleasures had to be dedicated leshem shamayim -
for the sake of Heaven.
In 1837, Rav Aryeh Leib wanted to settle in Eretz Yisrael, but
his contemporaries dissuaded him. In particular, his father-in-law
(like Rav Moshe's descendants after him) argued that the Arab riots
of 1836 were a sign that Hashem did not want Jews to resettle the
Land until mashiach's arrival.
Rav Aryeh Leib served as rabbi of several towns, lastly in
Vizhnitza (not the same as Vizhnitz). He also wrote two halachic
works: Aryeh D'vei Ilai and Ari She'bachaburah.
Rav Aryeh Leib's son-in-law was Rav Yechezkel Halberstam of
Shinivah. A devar Torah from Rav Yechezkel appears inside this
issue.
|
| 989.446 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Va'era | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Jan 17 1996 19:15 | 183 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Va'era
Vol. X, No. 14 (451), 28 Tevet 5756, January 20, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 46. On verse
1, "On the hidden things, a song," the Midrash Shocher Tov observes
that we can't describe all of Hashem's wonders, for His true
greatness is hidden. Similarly, the Sages of the gemara criticize
one who praises G-d excessively. "Have you said all of your Master's
praises?" the Sages ask rhetorically of the person who begins
praising Hashem effusively and then stops. Rather, a person should
limit himself to the set prayers and psalms. (Berachot 33b)
Yet, our Sages say, "The more one speaks about the Exodus, the
more he is praiseworthy." How can this be reconciled with the above
teachings?
There is a difference between praise and thanks, says Maharal.
When you are indebted to someone, do you refrain from thanking him
just because you cannot thank him enough? For the specific event
when G-d redeemed us from slavery, we must be grateful, and must
praise Him as much as we are able. It is only spontaneous praise
that is prohibited. (Gevurot Hashem ch.1)
Rav Yitzchak Hutner zatz'l offers another answer: It is
disrespectful to speak about the king's wealth because one might
underestimate it. However, if the king has something that he wants
to show off, he understands that each viewer will appreciate that
object only on his (the viewer's) own level. Such is the case with
the miracles of the Exodus, which G-d performed only in order to
increase His own honor. (Pachad Yitzchak: Pesach ch.16)
Because Hashem's wonders are hidden, says Rav Yediyah Hapenini
zatz'l (13th century), Pharaoh's magicians were unable to imitate
most of the plagues, as told in our parashah.
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"Go and see the works of Hashem, Who has wrought devastation in
the land. He makes cessation of wars to the end of the earth. . ."
(46:9-0)
These verses are contradictory, says Rav Chaim Eliezer Shapira
(the "Munkatcher Rebbe") zatz'l. If we are praising Hashem for
ending wars, why say that He has wrought devastation in the land?
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that He has wrought peace in
the land?
These verses are referring to the time before the Final
Redemption, says Rav Shapira, when the nations of the world will
unite against the Jewish people. Wars among former enemies will
cease, but that very peace will bring devastation to the Jews
(whether materially or spiritually).
(Divrei Torah V:81)
Rav Yosef Yaavetz zatz'l (15th century) explains that Hashem will
wreak devastation on the land in a "war to end all wars." All of
the world's implements of war will be expended in this war, the "War
of Gog and Magog."
Rav Yaavetz adds: We are taught to say, "Everything that Hashem
does is for good." Certainly the "War of Gog and Magog" is not good,
but it is for good.
(Peirush Tehilim)
************************************
We asked on page 1 how Chazal's criticism of one who praises G-d
excessively--"Have you said all of your Master's praises?"--can be
reconciled with the statement in the Pesach Haggadah, "The more one
speaks about the Exodus, the more he is praiseworthy." Rav Ovadiah
Yosef shlita quotes Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector zatz'l as follows:
The Haggadah's word "meshubach"--commonly translated
"praiseworthy"--should be translated instead as "of high caliber."
The Haggadah's message is, "The more a person is able to appreciate
the significance of the Exodus, the more we can be certain that this
is a person of high spiritual caliber.
(Haggadah Chazon Ovadiah p.203)
************************************
"On that day I shall set apart the land of Goshen upon which my
people stands, that there shall be no 'arov' there." (8:18)
"Arov" was the fourth plague, a swarm of wild animals which
attacked the Egyptians but not the Jews. The name "arov" suggests
a mixture or combination of many different animals.]
Rav Yosef Meir Weiss (the "Spinka Rebbe") zatz'l explains this
verse allegorically as follows: Chazal say that the prophet Yishayah
cursed Bnei Yisrael 18 times, but could not be calm until he told
them (Yishayah 3:5), "The young will act brazenly against the elder,
and the despised against the honorable." How can we understand this?
Rav Weiss asks in the name of his teacher, Rav Meir Asch zatz'l.
Did the great Yishayah curse Bnei Yisrael in order to assuage his
own anger?
Rav Asch answered: Chazal say that mashiach will not come until
the generation is completely righteous or completely wicked. This
does not mean that all people will be righteous or all people will
be wicked. It means that the good will be thoroughly good and the
bad will be thoroughly bad, with no in-between.
The reason this has not occurred already, says Rav Asch, is
peoples' shame. Many righteous people sometimes are embarrassed to
do good, and thus do not become thoroughly righteous. On the other
hand, many wicked people sometimes are embarrassed to do evil, and
thus do not become thoroughly evil. However, said the prophet
Yishayah, a time will come when shame will disappear; then "[t]he
young will act brazenly against the elder, and the despised against
the honorable," and every person's true colors--good or bad--will
show through.
This, says Rav Weiss, is alluded to by our verse. "On that day"--
the day of the ultimate redemption--"I shall set apart the land .
. . upon which my people stands, that there shall be no mixture
there"--only complete good and complete evil.
(Imrei Yosef)
************************************
Another sign that the ultimate redemption is approaching,
according to the Talmud (Sotah 49b) is "chutzpah yisgei"--usually
translated, "Chutzpah will proliferate." However, notes one sage,
"yisgei" also can mean, "will be sufficient." Before the advent of
mashiach, says the gemara, chutzpah will be sufficient.
Qualifications and credentials will be unnecessary; people will get
by on chutzpah alone.
************************************
Rav Pinchas Mordechai Teitz zatz'l
Thirty days since his passing
Rav Teitz, rabbi of the United Orthodox Community of Elizabeth,
New Jersey, for the past sixty years, passed away this past 4th of
Tevet (December 26, 1995). Rav Teitz was born in Latvia in 1908.
His father, Rav Avraham Binyamin zatz'l, was rabbi of Lebenhoff, 25
miles from Dvinsk, and this enabled Rav Teitz to become a member of
the inner circle of Rav Yosef Rosen, the famed "Rogatchover Gaon"--a
remarkable accomplishment given the well-known reclusiveness of the
Rogatchover.
In later years, Rav Teitz published an abridged version of Rav
Rosen's work, Tzofnat Paneach (calling it Klalei Tzofnat Paneach),
and recorded some of his memories of the Rogatchover in the
introduction to that work. Rav Teitz notes that when Rav Rosen was
offered the rabbinate of Slobodka in 1926, it was Rav Teitz, then
18, who was that town's emissary to the Rogatchover. Rav Teitz also
wrote other works and articles.
Rav Teitz studied in the yeshivot of Slobodka and Telz. In 1933,
he founded the Yavneh Yeshiva in Latvia, and also began editing a
newspaper. However, the next year he left for the U.S., and the year
after that he assumed the leadership of the Elizabeth community.
In addition to leading several shuls, he founded (in 1941) and headed
the well-known Jewish Educational Center and Bruriah High School,
which have graduated thousands of boys and girls.
From 1953 to 1989, Rav Teitz broadcast a weekly Talmud lecture
on New York radio station WEVD, a program once estimated to have
20,000 listeners. (If correct, this would make Rav Teitz one of the
greatest disseminators of Torah in Jewish history.)
Rav Teitz served as president of the "O-U" from 1956 to 1968, and
was a pioneer in outreach to Soviet Jewry, reportedly making 22 trips
to the former Soviet Union.
Rav Teitz is survived by sons, daughters, and grandchildren who
hold prominent positions in Jewish education. His son, Rav Elazer
Teitz, is a rabbi in Elizabeth, and one of his daughters is Dr. Rivka
Blau, principal of several girls schools in New York City. (Her
husband, Rav Yosef Blau, is mashgiach ruchani at Yeshiva Rabbenu
Yitzchok Elchanan of Y.U.) (Based on published obituaries and
information from students.)
|
| 989.447 | Torah question... | CADSYS::GROSS | The bug stops here | Mon Jan 22 1996 19:56 | 15 |
| In last week's portion, Pharoah orders Moses and Aaron to "make for yourselves
a sign". Aaron throws his staff upon the ground and it turns into a serpent (or
dragon? or crocadile?). However, Pharoah's magicians are able to duplicate this
feat. In fact, Midrash says that Pharoah summoned his wives and children and
they all could duplicate it too.
Last time I tried this, it didn't work for me. What kind of people were those
Egyptians that they possessed such miraculous capabilities?
In attempting to answer this question for myself, the best I came up with
was that the Egyptians were a truely superior nation. Their flaw was (to
paraphrase Pharoah's own words) that they did not "know the Lord". Without
G-d, we would today be inferior to those Egyptians. Am I even close?
Dave
|
| 989.448 | As usual - two opinions .. | TAV02::CHAIM | Semper ubi Sub ubi ..... | Tue Jan 23 1996 11:33 | 23 |
| Actually your question is an arguement between the Rabbis in the Talmud and
later on between the Ramban and the Rambam.
The Talmud in Sanhedrin (page 67:) quotes an arguement between two Rabbis (I
don't remember the names). The Torah itself states that the "magicians" in
Egypt were unable to reproduce the lice which was the third plague. One Rabbi
is of the opinion that the reason was that the powers of magic cannot work on
any object smaller than a grain. He evidently was of the opinion that
magic/witchcraft does indeed exist. The second Rabbi argues, asking, "And if
the plague had been camels would the magicians have succeeded in "creating"
camels", and maintains that all which the "magicians" were able to do was
merely slide-of-hand using optical illusions.
Subsequently, the Ramban and Rambam argue likewise. According to the Rambam
there is no such thing as magic and that it is merely "Achizat Anaaim" or
optical illusions (in fact according the Rambam it is FORBIDDEN to these things
and the Rambam quotes as examples "pulling a coin out of someones ear"). The
Ramban on the other hand maintains that there is such a thing as witchcraft or
magic.
Thanks,
Cb.
|
| 989.449 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Bo | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Feb 01 1996 19:23 | 183 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Bo
Vol. X, No. 15 (452), 6 Shevat 5756, January 27, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 77. As
understood by Radak, the psalmist here laments the long exile (which
David foresaw prophetically) and wonders why we do not witness
miracles like those of the Exodus.
Verse 16 states: "With Your powerful arm You redeemed Your Nation,
the sons of Yaakov and Yosef, Selah." One reason that the Jews in
Egypt were called "sons of Yosef" is that he caused their descent
to Egypt and supported them there. On a deeper level, Midrash
Tanchuma says that Bnei Yisrael were redeemed from Egypt in Yosef's
merit.
Rav Moshe Aryeh Freind shlita explains that just as Yosef achieved
great levels of bitachon -trust in G-d - so the Jews were redeemed
from Egypt because of their trust that Hashem would fulfill His
promise to the Patriarchs. (Ateret Yehoshua: Miketz; see Yalkut
Shimoni: Tehilim 685)
The Targum (Aramaic translation) renders this verse: "You
redeemed your flock with strength--the children that Yaakov fathered
and Yosef sustained forever." How did Yosef sustain his family
"forever"? Perhaps this alludes to the bitachon which he taught
them.
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"And I said, 'Chaloti is changing the right hand of the One Most
High'." (77:11)
This word "chaloti" is translated many different ways. Rav
Azaryah Figo zatz'l explains: "Chaloti - my sickness - is a
spiritual illness which comes from changing G-d's priorities, making
what should be "right" "left" and vice versa.
(Binah La'ittim)
************************************
"You led ('nachita') Your nation like a flock, by the hand of
Moshe and Aharon." (77:21)
Midrash Tanchuma says that 'nachita' is an acronym for "Nevi'im,
chassidim, yesharim, temimim"--i.e., "You caused there to be amongst
Your nation prophets, pious men, upright men, and perfect men." The
midrash continues, "Just as the flock goes wherever the shepherd
goes, so the Jews followed wherever Moshe and Aharon went."
Rav Mendel of Kossov zatz'l explains: The Torah is eternal and
the Exodus recurs in some fashion in every generation. Similarly,
every generation has its own Moshe and Aharon in the form of its own
leaders. When we relate to our leaders as sheep to a shepherd, then
we find amongst ourselves nevi'im, chassidim, yesharim, temimim -
prophets, pious men, upright men, and perfect men.
Our own exodus occurs when we escape from the forces of impurity
which our sins create. This happens when we follow our "Moshes" and
"Aharons."
(Ahavat Shalom: Matot-Masei)
************************************
"Hashem said to Moshe, 'Come to Pharaoh. . .'" (10:1)
One would expect Hashem to say, "Go to Pharaoh." Rav Moshe
Gruenwald zatz'l explains that Moshe was afraid to go to Pharaoh lest
he be affected by the impurity which reigned in Pharaoh's house.
Chazal explain this with a parable: One who enters a tannery leaves
with the smell on his clothes even if he touched nothing.
Therefore Hashem said, "Don't worry. I'm going there to inflict
punishment on them. Come with me."
(Arugat Habosem)
************************************
"This month shall be for you the beginning of the months, it shall
be for you the first of the months of the year." (12:2)
This is the first mitzvah which was given to the Jewish people
as a whole, i.e., to look for the new moon and to set the calendar
accordingly. Chazal derive from Vayikra 23:4 that even if the
Sanhedrin errs in performing this responsibility, G-d will accept
the judges' decree. (For example, Hashem will judge us on the day
which the Sanhedrin says is Yom Kippur.)
Ibn Ezra here notes that eating on Yom Kippur and eating Chametz
on Pesach are offenses punishable by death. Thus, the fact that some
"minor" mitzvot are described in the Torah in excruciating detail,
while the Torah says almost nothing about the new moon, indicates
that the Torah meant the Sanhedrin to have the final say.
Similarly, says Rav Yissachar Shlomo Teichtel HY"D (see his
biography on page 4), the Torah says very little about the ultimate
redemption because it is up to the Sages to take steps to bring the
redemption. Certainly, it is wrong to simply sit back and wait for
mashiach to come and carry us to Eretz Yisrel on the wings of eagles.
(Eim Habanim Smeichah p.173)
************************************
"In every generation a person must view himself as if he had taken
part in the Exodus from Egypt." (the Pesach Haggadah)
Rav Shimon Schwab zatz'l explained this difficult mitzvah as
follows: If a person breaks his left arm, he may still point to it
decades later and say, "I broke this arm." In fact, with the passage
of time, there is not a single molecule in that arm which was in the
"arm" that broke.
Similarly, the physical content of the Jewish nation is different
than it was thousands of years ago, but we must see ourselves as the
continuing embodiment of those people.
(Ma'ayan Bet Hashoevah)
************************************
Rav Yissachar Shlomo Teichtel HY"D
born 5645 (1885) - died 10 Shevat 5705 (1945)
Rav Teichtel was a leading rabbi and rosh yeshiva in pre-Holocaust
Slovakia, serving from 1921 to 1942 in the town of Psiatyn. In his
yeshiva, "Moriah," he taught "practical" rabbinics to approximately
50 elite students.
From age 15, he studied under Rav Shalom David Ungar zatz'l, who,
with his son-in-law, Rav Michoel Ber Weissmandel zatz'l, later saved
many Slovakian Jews from the Holocaust. Rav Teichtel also studied
under Rav Moshe Gruenwald, author of Arugat Habosem (see inside).
Rav Yissachar Shlomo was a chassid, and would spend Elul and
Tishrei with the Belzer Rebbe. He was friendly with many gedolim,
and sent one of his sons to the Lithuanian yeshiva of Slobodka after
meeting one of its heads at a summer resort.
In his life-time, Rav Teichtel was acclaimed for his halachic
work, Mishneh Sachir, published in 1924. When the Nazis YM"SH
entered Czechoslovakia in 1939, Rav Teichtel's family received visas
for Belgium. Rav Teichtel sent his younger children, but himself
delayed because he was preparing to publish a second volume of his
work. Unfortunately, that manuscript was destroyed and he lost his
chance to escape.
In 1942, while hiding in an attic in Psiatyn, Rav Teichtel
recalled the first Lubavitcher Rebbe's (Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi)
statement that he was released from prison (in 1798) in the merit
of Eretz Yisrael. Thus, Rav Teichtel began writing Eim Habanim
Smeichah in praise of the Land. There he discusses the mitzvah of
settling the Land and that mitzvah's role in bringing the ultimate
redemption. Because he takes positions contrary to those of most
Hungarian rabbis (of whom the Satmar Rebbe zatz'l was typical), the
work became popular in the religious-Zionist camp. However, as
related in the publisher's preface to the 1983 edition, Rav Teichtel
later wrote to his son:
To my great pain and sorrow, there are many who have not understood
my intentions in writing [this book]. When I wrote this book, my
eyes flowed with tears for the indescribable horrors from which G-d's
people sigh and cry. I saw in Eretz Yisrael a ray of light and a
refuge, and although I knew and feared that people would say things
in my name that I never said or meant, the Knower of Secrets knows
how I prayed that my words should not mislead others. [Presumably,
he is referring to the difference between settling the land and
supporting secular, political Zionism.]
After fleeing Psiatyn, Rav Teichtel wandered for a year. The
Debrecener Rav, Rav Moshe Stern shlita, relates how Rav Teichtel
refused to enter Jews' homes lest he endanger his hosts. Later, Rav
Teichtel was active in the Budapest community until his expulsion
to Auschwitz. He was murdered on a death train by Ukrainian POWs
after protesting at a Ukrainian who had stolen food from a Jewish
"passenger."
|
| 989.450 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Beshalach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Feb 01 1996 19:25 | 191 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Beshalach
Vol. X, No. 16 (453), 13 Shevat 5756, February 3, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 66. Verse 6
explicitly refers to the events of this parashah: "He changed the
sea into dry land, through the river they passed on foot, there we
rejoiced in Him." The sea is the Yam Suf which Moshe split. The
reference to a river is to Yehoshua's splitting the Jordan River when
Bnei Yisrael entered Eretz Canaan.
Rashi on our parashah (13:18) states that only one-fifth of Bnei
Yisrael left Egypt, and the remainder died during the plague of
darkness. This is alluded to in verse 10 of this psalm, "For You
examined us, G-d, You refined us as if refining silver" (see Sforno).
The Vilna Gaon lists this chapter as the psalm for the sixth day
of Pesach (Ma'aseh Rav No. 194). (Those who follow the Vilna Gaon's
order of prayer do not recite the regular weekday shir shel yom -
"song of the day" - on holidays.) The last day of Pharaoh's chase
of Bnei Yisrael, just before the Yam Suf split, was the sixth day
of Pesach.
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"Go and see the works of G-d, awesome in deed ('alilah') toward
mankind." (66:6)
The word "alilah" suggests blame. An example of the idea
expressed in this verse, says the Midrash Tanchuma, is that Yaakov's
love for Yosef caused the exile to Egypt.
Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zatz'l explains that the choices which
individuals make play an important role in bringing the Divine plan
to fruition. For example, G-d decreed that Avraham's descendants
would be exiled, but it was a series of choices made by Yaakov,
Yosef, and their family which caused that exile to take place in
Egypt at just the time when it did. Paraphrasing the above verse:
G-d's works are awesome, but the blame for many events falls on
mankind.
This is one reason why a person must see everything for the best.
One never knows how the trouble which he got himself into fits-in
with the bigger picture. It may just be that he was nothing more
than a pawn in G-d's Hand.
(Sichot Mussar 5732, No. 9)
Rav Samson R. Hirsch zatz'l makes the following related comment
on verse 3 of this psalm, which he translates: "How tremendous is
the total effect of the individual acts of [Your] sovereignty, the
ultimate goal of which [Your] acts shall bring about."
************************************
"Go and see the works of Elokim, awesome in deed toward mankind.
He changed the sea into dry land. . ." (66:6-7)
The name "Elokim" signifies Hashem's attribute of justice. Thus
this verse suggests that Bnei Yisrael deserved to have the Yam Suf
split for them.
One of the most awesome aspects of this miracle, says Rav Chaim
of Czernowitz zatz'l, is how it differed from Hashem's ordinary
"behavior." Usually, the attribute of justice (also symbolized by
the left hand) destroys, while the attribute of kindness (the right
hand) saves. The right versus the left hand symbolizes that Hashem's
kindness is "stronger" than His justice.
Here, however, the attribute of justice saved Bnei Yisrael, as
seen above. Also, the Torah (Shmot 15:6) tells us that, in splitting
the Red Sea, Hashem crushed the enemy with His right hand.
(Be'er Mayim Chaim)
************************************
"Moshe said to the people, 'Do not fear! Stand and see the
salvation of Hashem that He will perform for you today, for as you
have seen Egypt today, you shall never see them again'." (14:13)
The midrash breaks this verse into two parts. First Moshe said
to Bnei Yisrael, "Stand and see the salvation of Hashem that He will
perform for you."
Bnei Yisrael asked, "When?"
Moshe responded, "Tomorrow."
Bnei Yisrael complained that they could not stand to wait any
longer. Then Hashem showed Moshe the legions of angels waiting to
destroy Egypt, and Moshe said, "It will be today, for as you have
seen Egypt today, you shall never see them again."
Rav Bezalel Stern zatz'l (of Vienna, Austria, and Melbourne,
Australia) explains this midrash as follows: When Pharaoh asked
Moshe to pray that the plague of frogs end, Moshe said, "I will pray
today, but when would you like the plague to end?"
Pharaoh said, "Tomorrow." Despite the immense suffering which
Pharaoh endured from the frogs, he preferred to suffer another day
in order to prove that a prayer said on one day cannot influence
another day. This would confirm his belief that there was not one
all-powerful G-d. Similarly, Moshe felt that, because the Jewish
people had been influenced by idolatry in Egypt, he needed to show
them that he could pray today for salvation to occur tomorrow.
In response to Bnei Yisrael's complaints, Hashem showed Moshe that
Egypt would soon be completely eradicated. This would wean Bnei
Yisrael of their idolatrous views, and thus the salvation did not
have to wait for the next day. Therefore Moshe said, "It will be
today, for as you have seen Egypt today, you shall not see them ever
again."
We say in our prayers (from Tehilim 20:9-10), "They slumped and
fell, but we arose invigorated. Hashem save! The King will answer
us on the day when we call." When the last of the false ideologies
has fallen, says Rav Stern, Hashem will routinely answer us on the
day when we call, without having to prove a point by waiting for
another day.
(B'tzel Hachochmah: Vol. IV, Intro.)
************************************
"There he established for the nation a decree and an ordinance.
. ." (15:25)
Chazal explain that at this place (called "Marah") Hashem gave
the laws of Shabbat and Parah Adumah. We may understand why Shabbat
was taught even before the Torah was given, says Rav Moshe Shick
zatz'l, because it represents belief in creation, a principle of our
faith. But what of Parah Adumah?
Parah Adumah, the red heifer whose ashes purify the impure, is
the quintessential chok--a Divine decree whose reason is beyond our
grasp. As a prerequisite to receiving the Torah, one must understand
that a complete understanding of the Torah's depth is beyond man's
abilities.
(Maharam Shick Al Pirkei Avot)
************************************
Rav Shimon Greenfield zatz'l
("Maharshag")
born 4 Cheshvan 5621 (1860) - died 19 Shevat 5690 (1930)
Maharshag was considered to be one of the three leading rabbis
within Hungary's post-Word War I borders. (Most of Hungary's great
yeshivot, notably Pressburg, were outside of those lines.) Rav
Shimon's father, Rav Yehuda Greenfield, was a leading chassid of Rav
Chaim of Sanz and a leading Torah scholar whose contemporaries said
that he never forgot anything. Maharshag himself was a student of
Rav Moshe ("Maharam") Shick, one of the leading students of the
Chatam Sofer. (A dvar Torah from Maharam Shick appears inside.)
Maharshag wrote thousands of halachic responsa, many of which are
found in his work She'elot U'teshuvot Maharshag. In his youth, he
used to write very long responses with many proofs for his position.
Later, however, he began writing shorter responses. There were two
reasons for this, he explained. Firstly, he didn't want the rabbis
who wrote to him to feel inadequate that he found seven proofs and
they could find none. Secondly, he said, students should learn not
to "over-prove" their point, for that which is permitted based on
seven proofs is also permitted with just three proofs. In general,
he objected to those who published excessive stringencies.
Rav Greenfield also headed a large yeshiva in the town of
Sanmihely. The style of learning there was different than in other
Hungarian yeshivot. Whereas those institutions studied by sugya
(topic), wherever it might lead them in the Talmud, Maharshag focused
on the tractate at hand. He delivered two lectures a day, on two
different tractates. One class covered the gemara with the
commentaries of Rashi, Tosfot, Rabbenu Asher, and Rabbenu Nissim,
all of which Maharshag considered to be indispensable to
understanding the text. The other lecture was in greater depth, but
also focused on the early medieval commentaries. Unlike many
yeshivot, his emphasized the more practical tractates over others.
He discouraged memorization, saying the most students could excel
at understanding or memorization, but not both. Maharshag also
differed from other roshei yeshivot in that he took the weakest, not
the strongest, student as his study partner.
Maharshag used to deliver a 2-3 hour long chumash lecture every
Thursday night, particularly emphasizing Ramban's commentary. These
lectures developed into his Torah commentary, Zehav Sheva.
|
| 989.451 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Yitro | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Feb 07 1996 20:05 | 208 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Yitro
Vol. X, No. 17 (454), 20 Shevat 5756, February 10, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 19. This chapter
is largely devoted to praise of the Torah (which is given in this
week's parashah). Verses 8-11 state: "The Torah of Hashem is
perfect, it restores the soul; the testimony of Hashem is
trustworthy, making the simple one wise. The orders of Hashem are
upright, gladdening the heart; the command of Hashem is clear,
enlightening the eyes. The fear of Hashem is pure, enduring forever;
the judgments of Hashem are true, altogether righteous. They are
more desirable than gold, than even much fine gold; sweeter than
honey, than dripping from the combs."
The above verses are preceded by the verse, "The heavens declare
the glory of G-d, and the expanse of the sky tells of His handiwork."
Rav Samson R. Hirsch zatz'l writes that this psalm has as its theme
the sources from which one could come to recognize G-d and worship
Him. These sources are the "book of nature," from which King David
derived his knowledge of G-d, and the Torah, from which he learned
how to worship Him. Rav Hirsch explains that the realization that
there must be a G-d comes to anyone who thoughtfully contemplates
nature; however, this does not teach man why he should praise G-d
or what man should do with his free will. These answers come from
the Torah.
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"The heavens declare the glory of G-d, and the expanse of the sky
tells of His handiwork . . . There is no speech and there are no
words, without their being heard." (19:2 and 4)
This translation follows the explanation of Rav Eliyahu Dessler
zatz'l. With all of the wonders in the world which declare the glory
of G-d and His handiwork on a daily basis, how can there be non-
believers?
The answer, he says, is that a person doesn't see or hear G-d if
he doesn't want to. "There is no speech and there are no words,
without their being heard." The praise which creation gives to G-d
is there to be heard. One must only listen.
(Michtav M'eliyahu I:173)
************************************
The midrash (Perek Shirah, Introduction) says that when King
David finished writing Psalms, he was very proud of himself. "Is
there any creature that praises Hashem as much as I?" he asked.
Just then a little frog passed by and said, "Don't get carried
away; I say more praise than you." [Until here the midrash.]
Rav Yosef Leib Bloch (the "Telzer Rav") zatz'l explains: There
are two ways to understand the above verse, "The heavens declare the
glory of G-d, and the expanse of the sky tells of His handiwork"--(1)
that the beauty of the heavens and the earth cause us to declare the
glory of G-d and tell of His handiwork," or (2) that every creature
and creation says its own praise to Hashem. This does not take place
in our world, but rather in a higher spiritual world where the
"roots" of these creations are found.
This concept of different worlds can be understood with the
following parable: If you place two candles next to mirror, you see
four candles. But how many candles are there in the real world?
The answer depends on how developed your senses are. If you have
a sense of touch, you can detect that there are only two candles.
However, if your senses are limited, you may not understand what a
mirror is, and may believe that there really are four candles.
Similarly, our senses can detect only the world where a frog is
a frog. We do not have that extra sense which can detect the world
where a frog exists as a spiritual being which praises Hashem. And
these worlds are qualitatively different. In our world, we
understand Hashem only through His actions, but we do not perceive
His true essence. Thus, all of King David's praises address only
Hashem's actions and attributes, but not Hashem himself. Not so the
praises of the frog; since it is not the frog which praises Hashem
but its higher spiritual counterpart, it can praise Hashem's essence.
(Shiurei Da'at I:50-52)
************************************
When Rav Aharon Kotler zatz'l was told of astronomers' discovery
that stars emit sounds, he was not impressed. After all, King David
recorded this fact in our verse thousands of years ago.
(heard from Rav Kalman Winter shlita)
************************************
Rav Avraham Weinberg (the "Slonimer Rebbe"--see page 4) zatz'l
wrote in a letter: We are commanded by G-d, "Remember the day when
you stood at Chorev (i.e., Har Sinai)." This teaches that it is a
mitzvah to keep in our minds and hearts that all of the Jewish
people--all the souls that were then and that will be for all time--
were at Mount Sinai, and Hashem said to all of us, "I am Hashem your
G-d," and, "You shall not have any other G-d."
We are commanded to study how the Torah was given, which included
two aspects. We accepted the Torah willingly--not like that
descendants of Esav and Yishmael who asked what the Torah says, but
rather completely, willingly, enthusiastically, and with love and
awe. We said, "We will do and we will listen," referring also to
what the sages would tell us in the future, for that is G-d's will.
However, because the Creator wanted us always to serve Him with
fear and awe . . . He created an evil force which attempts to seduce
us to be like those who prefer freedom and anarchy. Through his
(i.e., the yetzer hara's) tricks, we forget the willingness, the
love, and the enthusiasm with which we accepted the Torah.
Therefore, Hashem did us a favor and held the mountain over our
heads, teaching us to serve Him like slaves, even at times when there
is no ta'am to it.
(Birkat Avraham, No. 17)
************************************
"You shall not covet. . ." (20:14)
In his classic mussar (ethical) work, Orchot Chaim, Rabbenu Asher
~"~ writes: "One should be watchful to avoid . . . jealousy of people
and hatred of people."
Rav Yosef Shlomo Kahaneman (the "Ponovezher Rav") zatz'l observes
that Rabbenu Asher was among those early sages ("rishonim") whose
words were chosen with great care. Accordingly, says Rav Kahaneman,
we must understand why he wrote "jealousy of people and hatred of
people" rather than just "jealousy and hatred." [Ed. note: In fact,
Rabbenu Asher used the possessive pronouns "their jealousy and their
hatred," but in context, the antecedents of these pronouns are the
people.]
Hashem created jealousy and hatred for a reason, says the
Ponovezher Rav. Jealousy was created so that people may be jealous
of the mitzvot and Torah knowledge of others. This inspires people
to improve themselves. Similarly, hatred was created in order to
hate bad deeds. However, it is only bad deeds which we may hate,
and it is only good deeds of which we may be jealous, not the people
who have these deeds. This is what Rabbenu Asher is teaching us.
(quoted in Orach Yesharim,
an anthology of commentary to Orchot Chaim)
************************************
Rav Moshe Kliers zatz'l
born 7 Adar 5634 (1874) - died 23 Shevat 5694 (1934)
Rav Moshe Kliers was a leading posek and a leader of the large
settlement of Slonimer chassidim in the Galil (Galilee). Born in
Tzefat, Rav Moshe came from a simple and very poor family. Both his
father and grandfather were laborers (the latter, a grave-digger)
and neither were scholars. Rav Moshe, however, was a child prodigy,
and later told his students that he succeeded in his studies because
he never let poverty and hunger deter him. As an adult, when he
visited Europe, Rav Moshe impressed many sages and received semichah
(rabbinical ordination) from Rav Chaim "Brisker" Soloveitchik and
Rav Avraham David Rabinowitz-Teomim (the "Aderet") zatz'l.
After his marriage to Dobrah Slonim (sister of the tzaddik, Rav
Mordechai Chaim Slonim zatz'l), Rav Moshe continued his studies,
while his wife aided him in concealing the extent of his greatness.
(One of their children, Rav Chaim Elisha HY"D, was murdered in the
Arab riots in Tzefat in 1929.) In 1900, Rav Moshe moved to Teveryah
(Tiberias), where he headed a yeshiva, Ohr Torah. This yeshiva was
revolutionary because the chassidic settlement in those days was
largely a "retirement" community and did not cater to children's and
young men's needs. Following the methods which had succeeded for
him personally, Rav Moshe wanted to prevent students from beginning
gemara until they knew the Five Books of the Torah thoroughly.
Although this practice is endorsed by the Shlah Hakadosh (17th
century) and the Vilna Gaon (18th century), Rav Moshe was unable to
introduce it in Teveryah.
Among Rav Moshe's students was Rav Avraham Weinberg zatz'l. He
said in his teacher's name, "If I have a sudden desire to do a
certain mitzvah, I must ask myself why? Could the yetzer hara have
an interest in making me do this?" (Much later, this same Rav
Avraham became the Slonimer Rebbe. A dvar Torah from him appears
on page 3. Rav Yaakov and Rav Noach Weinberg shlita, heads of
Yeshivat Ner Yisrael and Yeshivat Aish Hatorah, respectively, are
Rav Avraham's nephews.)
At the end of his life, Rav Moshe was chief rabbi of Teveryah,
but not before he fled to Europe rather than accepting this honor.
Because of his humility, Slonimer chassidim applied to him the verses
(Tehilim 24:3-4), "Who may ascend to the mountain of Hashem, and who
may stand in the place of His sanctity? One with cleans hands,"
i.e., one who believes that for all of his good deeds and Torah
knowledge, he is still empty-handed and has not yet accomplished what
is expected of him. Rav Moshe always sought to avoid making halachic
rulings, saying, "If I am too lenient, I offend G-d, but if I am too
strict, I offend G-d and man."
Rav Moshe wrote a number of works: Tevur Ha'aretz, a collection
of Chazal's teachings on Teveryah, Torat Ha'aretz, on agricultural
laws, and halachic responsa. The former work was written during a
period of enforced rest, and from memory. (Based on Marbitzei Torah
Me'olam Hachassidut by Rav Aharon Surasky.)
|
| 989.452 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Mishpatim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Feb 15 1996 20:38 | 169 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Mishpatim
Vol. X, No. 18 (455), 27 Shevat 5756, February 17, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 72. Paralleling
this week's parashah, which teaches the laws of judges, the opening
verses of this psalm state: "For Shlomo--O G-d, give Your judgments
to the king, and Your righteousness to the prince. May he judge Your
nation with righteousness and Your poor with justice."
Midrash Shocher Tov explains that this was David's prayer for his
son: "O G-d, give Your judgments to the king--just as You, G-d, judge
without witnesses, so may Shlomo judge without witnesses." That G-d
answered this prayer is evident from Divrei Hayamim (I 29:23), "And
Shlomo sat on Hashem's throne."
On example of this, the midrash continues, is the famous story
of the two women and the baby. When Shlomo ordered that the baby
be cut in half, the people said (Kohelet 10:16), "Woe is to a land
whose king is but a youth." [Shlomo was twelve years old at the
time.] However, when the correctness of his judgement was revealed,
the people said (Kohelet 10:17), "Fortunate is a land whose king is
a man of dignity."
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"In his days may the righteous man flourish with abundant peace
until there is no moon." (72:7)
What does it mean, "until there is no moon"? Rav Mordechai Yosef
Leiner (the "Izbica Rebbe") zatz'l explains: The waxing and waning
of the moon symbolizes the glory of G-d, which is sometimes revealed
and sometimes hidden. When there is no moon, G-d's "light" will
shine brightly without end.
At that time, there will be no more sorrow and no need to call
out to G-d for salvation. Thus David concludes this psalm (72:20):
"The prayers of David, the son of Yishai, are ended."
(Mei Hashiloach)
************************************
"May an abundance of grain be in the land on the mountain tops;
may its fruits rustle like the Lebanon." (72:16)
Based on this verse, the gemara (Shabbat 30b) teaches that in the
days of mashiach, the earth will produce finished bread. Rav
Yitzchak Karo zatz'l (uncle of Rav Yosef Karo, author of the Shulchan
Aruch) writes that it is because of this prophecy that we bless
Hashem (before eating bread) as "the One who brings bread out from
the land." Although now He brings only grain out of the land, in
the future, He will bring forth bread.
Why do we bless now over what will be only in the future? Rav Karo
asks. The reason is that such is the ideal state (and it would exist
now if not for our sins). Our true existence, however, will be in
those days of mashiach.
(Toldot Yitzchak: Parashat Behar)
Why will the earth produce finished bread in the days of mashiach?
Rav Avraham Pinso (Chief Rabbi of Bosnia) zatz'l explains that the
processes which we must use to winnow and purify grain before baking
bread merely parallel the purification process that our souls must
undergo in this world.
In the days of mashiach, the world will reach a perfect state and
such purification of our souls will no longer be necessary.
(Katit La'maor)
************************************
"And these are the laws that you shall place before them." (21:1)
Rashi explains this verse: "And these"--Wherever the Torah uses
the expression, "These," it means "to the exclusion of what came
before." If it says, "And these," it means, "in addition to what
came before." Just as the laws in the previous parashah are from
Sinai (i.e., of Divine origin), so the laws of this parashah are from
Sinai.
Rashi continues: "You shall place before them"--Don't think that
it is unnecessary to teach the reasons for the laws; rather, they
should be like a set table, ready for eating.
Rav Eliyahu Meir Bloch zatz'l observes that these two comments
by Rashi are related. There is a danger in teaching people the
reasons for the laws, arising from the fact that man's limited mind
cannot plumb the depths of the Divine Intellect. Thus the Torah
warns us to ensure that our teachings are consistent with what was
given at Sinai.
This is also a lesson to people who try to solve communal
problems, continues Rav Bloch. Don't solve problems by undoing prior
traditions. Rather, look for ways to supplement those traditions.
(Peninei Da'at)
************************************
"You shall not curse a leader among your people." (22:27)
"You shall not hate your brother in your heart. . ." (Vayikra
19:17)
"You shall love your fellow as yourself. . ." (Vayikra 19:18)
If we must love everyone, certainly we may not hate anyone in our
hearts, observes Rav Aharon ("Reb Archik") Bakst HY"D. And, if we
may not hate anyone, certainly we may not curse another! Why then
are all three of these commandments necessary?
He explains as follows: The Torah is realistic, and gives us only
mitzvot that are possible to keep. Yes, we are commanded to love
every person, but that is truly practical only regarding people we
don't know well (therefore we don't know their faults). The Torah
knows that the people closest to us (our "brothers") inevitably get
on our nerves. Thus, at a minimum, the Torah expects us not to hate
them.
What of the leader/rabbi? If he is doing his job and rebuking
us sternly for our wrongdoing, we inevitably will hate him. However,
the Torah demands, "Don't curse him."
(Lev Aharon, Intro. p. 23)
************************************
Rav Eliezer Gordon zatz'l
born 5601 (1841) - died 4 Adar 5670 (1910)
Rav Gordon was the son of Reb Avraham Shmuel Gordon, a whiskey
manufacturer who used his long nights watching over his products to
become an expert in the Talmud. A personage no less than Rav Chaim
of Volozhin used to stand up for Reb Avraham Shmuel.
As a teenager, Rav Gordon studied under Rabbi Yisrael Salanter.
When Rav Gordon was 18, Rabbi Yisrael appointed him as a lecturer
in the yeshiva. Beginning in 1874, Rav Gordon held rabbinic
positions in Kovno, Kelm, and Slobodka, but it was as rabbi and rosh
yeshiva in Telz that he gained his greatest fame.
Rav Gordon was very innovative both as a rosh yeshiva and as a
rabbi. For example, it was unheard of in his time to police the
number of hours that employers worked their employees. Rav Gordon,
however, used his powers over kashrut in Telz to do just that for
bakery employees. As a rosh yeshiva, he was the first to divide his
institution into classes based on ability. He taught the highest
class, while his son-in-law, Rav Yosef Leib Bloch, and Rav Shimon
Shkop taught the other four classes.
Rav Gordon did not found the yeshiva in Telz, but he did
revolutionize it. He changed the focus of study from the 15th and
16th century commentaries (the "Acharonim") to the 10th-13th century
commentaries (the "Rishonim") and a limited number of later works,
notably the Ketzot Hachoshen. He also introduced the study of
mussar, a move which became so controversial that it once led him
to expel the entire student body of the yeshiva.
In 1907, Rav Gordon was appointed Chief Rabbi of Yerushalayim,
but his doctors forbade his travelling. Indeed, when Rav Gordon was
forced to travel to London to solicit donations for the yeshiva, he
died there and was buried there with great honor.
Rav Gordon had two well-known sons-in-law, Rav Yosef Leib Bloch
(d. 1929) and Rav Zalman Sorotzkin (1881-1966). A dvar Torah from
a grandson, Rav Eliyahu Meir Bloch appears inside this issue.
|
| 989.453 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Terumah | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Feb 23 1996 19:39 | 161 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Terumah
Vol. X, No. 19 (456), 4 Adar 5756, February 24, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 26. In verse
8, we are reminded of this week's parashah, which sets out the design
of the Mishkan (Tabernacle): "Hashem, I love the house in which You
dwell and the place in which Your glory resides."
The midrash interprets the above verse: "Hashem, I love the house
in which You dwell," i.e., the Bet Hamikdash because it parallels
"the place in which Your glory resides." This refers to the teaching
that there is a mishkan above which parallels the one in this world.
The midrash also brings many verses to support another
interpretation: The design of "the house" in which Hashem dwells --
i.e., the mishkan -- parallels the earth itself. The earth is the
place in which Hashem's glory resides as a result of man's
recognizing his creator and sanctifying Him. (Midrash Tanchuma:
Parashat Pekudei)
In verse 6, King David writes: "I wash my hands in purity, and
I encircle Your altar, Hashem." Rav Samson R. Hirsch ~"~ explains,
"A striving for purity, for blamelessness in one's dealings with
one's fellow men, is a prerequisite if one is to approach the
Sanctuary and to join that group which is united around G-d's altar."
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"For Your kindness is before my eyes, and I have walked in Your
truth." (26:3)
Your kindness, which is true kindness, carried out with no hope
of pay -- for how can one repay Hashem? -- is before my eyes, and
it inspires me to walk in Your truthful ways and to perform kindness
with no expectation of reward.
(Rav Reuven Halevi Horowitz zatz'l: Dudaim Basadeh)
************************************
"I despised the congregation of merry makers, and with the wicked
let me not sit." (26:5)
The verse opens in past tense and concludes in the future. Rav
Yosef Chaim of Baghdad zatz'l explains this as follows:
Chazal teach that those who receive their reward in the World-to-
Come will sit side-by-side with those who have not earned a reward.
They will "eat and drink" the same thing, but the former group will
appreciate it because they have prepared themselves, while the latter
group will have no appreciation for what they are experiencing.
David did not wish to share his Olam Haba with such company and
he said, "I have always despised the congregation of merry makers
in this world. Therefore, let the wicked let not sit near me in the
World-to-Come."
(Chaim Vehashalom)
************************************
"My foot is set on the straight path, in assemblies I will bless
Hashem." (26:12)
Rav Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook zatz'l writes: There are some
tzaddikim who consider sincere repentance to be necessary, not only
if they fail for a moment to cleave to Hashem, but also if their
attachment to Hashem is one-dimensional, i.e., based only on yir'ah
(awe, but not love) or ahavah (love, but not awe). This is the
meaning of David's statement, "My foot is set on the straight path,"
i.e., "My service of Hashem is balanced, and I do not limp on only
one leg (i.e., yir'ah or ahavah)."
(Orot Hateshuvah)
************************************
"And they shall make for Me a mikdash--holy place." (25:8)
Rav Moshe Feinstein zatz'l asks: Doesn't the holiness come only
from the fact that G-d's glory rests there? Shouldn't He have said,
"And they shall make for Me a house, and I shall make it into a
mikdash"?
The Torah is teaching us that bringing G-d into the world is in
man's hands. How? This question is answered by the following:
Why did Hashem first tell Bnei Yisrael to donate gold and other
finery, and only then tell them to build a mishkan? The answer is
that holiness comes from recognizing G-d's ownership of creation.
If He takes your money, don't ask why; accept it. Moshe did not
tell Bnei Yisrael what the donations were for because only if Bnei
Yisrael gave their money in the proper spirit could it turn into
a holy place.
(Darash Moshe)
************************************
When Adar Arrives
We are instructed to drink on Purim until we cannot tell the
difference between "Blessed is Mordechai" and Cursed is Haman." Many
poskim (halachic authorities) say that it is sufficient to drink
slightly more than usual so that one falls asleep. When one is
asleep, one cannot tell the difference between "Blessed is Mordechai"
and "Cursed is Haman," they explain.
Not so Rav Naftali Amsterdam zatz'l! He would say: If Mordechai
also had looked for a way out of his obligations, he could have found
a halachic loophole that would allow him to bow down to Haman. Then
we wouldn't even have a holiday of Purim.
[Chazal teach that a person's true nature comes out when he
drinks. The biographers of Rav Naftali Amsterdam and other ba'alei
mussar relate that when these spiritual giants became drunk, their
true nature came out. All of the holiness and piety when they
concealed so well they were in control of their faculties was
revealed when they were drunk.]
************************************
Rav Naftali Amsterdam zatz'l
born 5592 (1832) - died 6 Adar 5676 (1916)
Along with Rav Simcha Zissel of Kelm and Rav Yitzchak Blazer (aka
Rav Itzele Petersburger), Rav Naftali was one of the three leading
disciples of Rav Yisrael Salanter, the founder of the mussar
movement. Because of Rav Naftali's humility, relatively little is
known about him. He preferred not to serve in the rabbinate --
although he was well-qualified for it -- and he did so only when he
could no longer make ends meet. From 1867 to 1875, he served as
rabbi of Helsingfors (Helsinki), Finland. Afterwards he served for
two years as the assistant to Rav Blazer, then rabbi of St.
Petersburg.
When Rav Naftali lived in Kovno, he would occasionally lecture
at the yeshiva in neighboring Slobodka. In general, Rav Naftali
preferred to serve Hashem in solitude, but on Shabbat he would study
with a young man from the neighborhood in order to fulfill Chazal's
instruction that a person should not study only by himself. This
young study partner first had to agree to several rules--for example,
that he would never stand up for Rav Naftali, that he would not serve
Rav Naftali or carry his books, and that if Rav Naftali would remain
silent for some time ("because of my slow comprehension," Rav Naftali
said) the young man would not waste the time but would continue to
study.
Rav Naftali devoted great energy to perfecting his character, and
his diary which reveals his plan-of-action still exists. He used
to work on one trait a week, paying careful attention to that trait
and constantly reviewing "slogans" (perhaps sayings of Chazal)
related to that trait. The first trait which he attacked, according
to his diary, was haughtiness. Rav Naftali refused to wear rabbinic
garb until Rav Yisrael Salanter told him that it would bring pleasure
to his wife.
In 1906 Rav Naftali settled in Yerushalayim, where he continued
his low-key ways of disseminating of Torah and mussar.
|
| 989.454 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Tetzaveh/Purim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Feb 29 1996 00:54 | 168 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Tetzaveh-Purim
Vol. X, No. 20 (457), 11 Adar 5756, March 2, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 65. Ibn Ezra
writes that this psalm was composed by King David in honor of the
Aron Hakodesh (the Holy Ark), or possibly (Ibn Ezra writes) it was
composed in honor of the Temple.
The psalm associated with Purim is chapter 22. David wrote this
psalm prophetically when he realized that he too contributed to the
Purim miracle. This came about because David forgave Shimi ben Gera,
who deserved capital punishment for blaspheming the king (see Shmuel
II 16:5-13). This is the same Shimi who is mentioned in Megilat
Esther (2:5) as an ancestor of Mordechai and Esther.
Chazal say that this psalm was on Esther's lips as she approached
Achashveirosh's throne room without an invitation. At that moment,
she felt G-d's presence leave her, and she called out (verse 2):
"My G-d, my G-d, why have You forsaken me?"
From verse 3, "I call out by day and You do not answer; by night
there is no respite for me," the gemara (Megillah 4a) derives the
law that the megillah should be read once on Purim night and again
in the morning.
************************************
The following commentary relates to the chapter of Tehilim
associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"Who calms the roar of the seas, the roar of their waves and the
multitude of nations." (65:8)
The greatest of G-d's miracles, says Rav Yechezkel Levenstein
zatz'l (in the name of Rav Yaakov Emden zatz'l), is the continued
existence of the Jewish people. We saw during the Holocaust how the
Poles, the Ukrainians, and other nations of the world willingly came
forward to help the Nazis; it is only because of G-d's constant
protection that we endure.
Hashem "calms the roar of the seas and the multitude of nations."
The first phrase means that He controls nature so that the beach
holds back the seas, and the world is not destroyed [even our world,
which is undoubtedly more depraved than Noach's generation which was
destroyed in the flood]. The second phrase means that He holds back
the nations who otherwise would destroy us.
(Ohr Yechezkel: Emunah p.138)
************************************
"They shall take the gold, the turquoise, purple, and scarlet
wool, and twisted linen with a woven design." (Sh'mot 28:5)
Sforno writes that this is an instruction that the mere carrying
of the materials should be done with the same lofty intentions and
the actual manufacture of the priestly garments. Rav Yaakov Yitzchak
Ruderman zatz'l explains this requirement as follows:
The gemara (Bava Metzia 85b) relates that when Rabbi Chanina and
Rabbi Chiya once debated, the former said, "Would you argue with me,
who, if the Torah were forgotten, could reconstruct the whole thing
through my intellect?"
Rabbi Chiya responded, "Would you argue with me, who has taken
steps to ensure that the Torah will never be forgotten?" What steps
had Rabbi Chiya taken? the gemara asks. He had planted flax,
harvested the flax, made nets out of the flax, trapped deer, fed the
meat to orphans, made scrolls out of the skins, written the Torah
on the scrolls, and taught it to the orphans.
Why, asks Rav Ruderman, didn't Rabbi Chiya just buy the necessary
materials? Why did he trouble himself in this way? The answer is
that the success of a religious endeavor is inextricably tied to the
intentions with which it is done. This applies even to the mundane
preparations for that endeavor.
(Sichot Levi)
************************************
Purim
[Ed. Note: The following thoughts are presented in the spirit of
Purim -- not, as it might appear, after the spirits of Purim. Read
this at your own risk, if you have nothing better to do.]
"On that day, King Achashveirosh gave to Queen Esther the home
of Haman, the enemy of the Jews. . ." (8:1)
"For Haman ben Hamdata the Agigite, the enemy of all of the Jews.
. ." (9:24)
Why does one verse refer to Haman as the "enemy of the Jews" and
the other verse refers to him as the "enemy of all of the Jews"?
Chazal teach us that one should say only some of a person's praise
to his face, but not all of it. In Haman's warped mind, his greatest
distinction was undoubtedly his hatred of the Jews. The first verse
refers to the day on which Haman was hung on the gallows which he
built for Mordechai in the courtyard of his (Haman's) house (Esther
6:9). This was the very same house which Achashveirosh was now
giving to Esther. With Haman hanging in the yard, it would not be
right to say all of his praise (i.e., that he was the enemy of all
of the Jews) to his face. Thus he is called only the "enemy of the
Jews."
The second verse takes place later, and probably somewhere else.
Thus Haman's complete praise can be mentioned.
As everyone knows, it is customary to drink a lot on Purim. But
does anyone really know why? Here are some answers that you won't
find in any Torah work (and for good reason):
1. The aspiring queens of Persia prepared to meet Achashveirosh
by bathing in many perfumed soaps. Obviously this created lots of
"suds."
2. The miracle of Purim lifted the "spirits" of the downtrodden
Jews.
3. This custom reminds us to "distill" the essence of the Purim
story from the many midrashim.
4. Because throughout the two feasts with the wicked
Achashveirosh and Haman, Esther comported in a "Regal" fashion.
5. Shushan is in southern Persia and its citizens always welcomed
guests into "Southern Comfort."
[Ed. note: Don't say we didn't warn you!]
Haman, may his name be blotted out
died 16 Nissan 3405 (355 B.C.E.)
Haman (may his name be blotted out) was born somewhere in the
Middle East -- some say in India. He was the son of Hamedata the
Agigite, son of Sarach, son of Buza, son of Aflatus, son of Deyosef,
son of Deyosim, son of Prom, son of Madei, son of Bulakan, son of
Intimros, son of Haridom, son of Shegar, son of Negar, son of
Parmashta, son of Vyzata, son of Agag, son of Sumkei, son of Amalek,
son of the concubine of Elifaz, the eldest son of Esav. (This is
not a joke; this genealogy is found in the midrash called Targum
Sheni.) Chazal say that Agag "merited" to be the ancestor of Haman
(may his name be blotted out) because he prayed sincerely that his
evil lineage should not be wiped out.
Haman (may his name be blotted out) and Mordechai knew each other
long before the Purim story. When the Jews began rebuilding the
Temple (18 years before the second Temple was successfully built),
the gentiles challenged the Jews right to do so. Haman (may his name
be blotted out) and Mordechai were chosen to travel to Persia to
litigate before the king. They were sent off with equal rations,
but while Mordechai ate conservatively, Haman (may his name be
blotted out) quickly finished his food. Faced with death from
starvation, Haman (may his name be blotted out) sold himself as a
slave to Mordechai, writing the contract on the bottom of Mordechai's
shoe. (Aggadat Esther)
Haman (may his name be blotted out) used to wear an idol on a
necklace. This is one of the reasons that Mordechai would not bow
to him. The midrash says that Haman (may his name be blotted out)
was so desperate for Mordechai's attention that he used to stand in
the street next to Mordechai and pretend to be engaged in animated
conversation. Mordechai, however, ignored him.
The rest, as they say, is history.
|
| 989.455 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Ki Tisah | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 06 1996 21:35 | 193 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Ki Tisah
Vol. X, No. 21 (458), 18 Adar 5756, March 9, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 75. As explained
in Midrash Shocher Tov, this chapter contains numerous parallels to
the parashah.
Verse 1: "Do not destroy." This parallels Moshe's prayer after
the sin of the golden calf, "Do not destroy Your people." (The sin
is described in this week's parashah, though this prayer is found
in Devarim 9:25.)
Verse 8: "He lowers this one and raises this one." The midrash
makes a play on the Hebrew word "zeh"/"this") and states that G-d
lowered the Jews when they said (Shmot 32:1), "This man, Moshe --
we do not know what has become of him." G-d then raised the Jews
with the verse (30:13), "This they shall give -- everyone that passes
through the census." (See page 2 for another interpretation.)
Verse 11: "Exalted shall be the pride [literally, 'horns'] of the
righteous." The midrash states that there were ten tzaddikim who
had "horns" of some kind. One of these was Moshe, of whom we read
in this week's parashah (34:30), "The skin of Moshe's face had become
radiant." (The Hebrew word "karan"/"had become radiant" is spelled
the same as "keren"/"horn.")
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"When I will take mo'ed, I will judge with fairness." (75:3)
Rav Avraham Horowitz zatz'l (father of the "Shlah Hakadosh")
writes in his will: In this verse, "mo'ed" means "time." This verse
is an admonition against acting hurriedly. Only when one takes his
time can he judge fairly. Indeed, not only to judge, but to do any
task well, one must take his time.
(Yesh Nochalin)
************************************
"For G-d is the Judge; This lowers and This raises." (75:8)
We find many verses were G-d is called "This"--for example
(Yishayah 25:9), "This is Hashem that we awaited Him," and (Shmot
15:2), "This is my G-d." Why is He called "This"? Rav Zvi Elimelech
of Dinov (the "Bnei Yissaschar") zatz'l explains that "This" connotes
permanence. Unlike man who is always changing, G-d is immutable.
In contrast, says Rav Zvi Elimelech, the Torah introduces the
census in this week's parashah with the phrase (30:12), "When you
raise the Children of Israel." The choice of the word "raise"
(rather than the word "count") indicates that man is changing,
hopefully for the better.
(Igra Dekallah: Parashat Vayakhel)
************************************
Pesach
Chazal say that the purpose of the exile in Egypt was to correct
the sin of Adam. When the Bnei Yisrael left Egypt, they had attained
the level of Adam before his sin.
How so? Chazal say that when Adam sinned, the yetzer hara (evil
inclination) became a part of him. Rav Avraham Grodzenski (menahel
ruchani of the Slobodka yeshiva) zatz'l explains that free will
before Adam's sin was different than free will after his sin. Before
the sin, man knew that he had free will, but he had no desire to use
it. After the sin, man wanted to exercise his free will. In short,
the essence of the yetzer hara is the desire to be free; we don't
mind doing what is right, as long as it was not imposed on us. As
a result of the sin, man became, so-to-speak, "pro-choice."
We acknowledge that we are G-d's servants, but do we really
understand what servitude is? We are too enamored of our freedom
to be servants. This is why Hashem enslaved His people in Egypt.
Only after that subjugation were they ready to accept the Torah.
(Torat Avraham)
************************************
"When you shall take a census of Bnei Yisrael according to their
numbers, every man shall give Hashem an atonement for his soul when
counting them so that there will not be a plague among them when
counting them." (30:12)
Why would there be a plague if Bnei Yisrael were counted as
individuals? Rav Eliyahu Meir Bloch zatz'l explains that the Jew's
essence is spiritual, not physical. The real Jew is his soul, and
not all souls are equal [because of people's accomplishments].
Because counting bodies is a misrepresentation of what a Jew is, it
endangers us.
Thus the Torah commanded that each Jew give a half-shekel; "The
wealthy shall not increase and the destitute shall not decrease from
a half-shekel" (30:15). After each Jew does an identical mitzvah,
there is a reason to count all Jews equally.
(Peninei Da'at)
************************************
"He gave to Moshe, when He finished speaking to him on Har Sinai,
two Luchot/Tablets of Testimony, stone tablets inscribed by the
finger of G-d." (31:18)
Rashi observes that the word "Luchot"/"Tablets" is written without
the letter "vav," unlike the usual plural form. He explains that
this indicates that the two tablets were identical.
Rav Yisrael Meir Hakohen (the "Chafetz Chaim") zatz'l elaborates
on this: The midrash says that the Torah was given on two tablets
to allude to the two parts of the Torah--the Written Law and the Oral
Law. The fact that the two tablets were identical in size, shape,
and form teaches us the unity of the written and oral parts of the
Torah.
Frequently, the gemara or midrash derives laws from a seemingly
innocuous clue in the written Torah. However, the fact that G-d made
the two tablets--the symbols of the Written and Oral Laws,
respectively--exactly identical alludes to the fact that the Written
and Oral Laws are a "perfect fit" with each other, even if it is not
immediately obvious.
(Likutei Halachot)
************************************
"And on the day that I make My account, I shall bring their sin
to account against them." (32:34)
Rashi explains: "Whenever I punish them for their sins, I will
add in more punishment for the golden calf."
The sin of the golden calf was initiated by the Erev Rav, hangers-
on to the Jewish people who used the Exodus as their own chance to
escape from Egypt. The gemara (Avodah Zarah 4b) states that Hashem
allowed Bnei Yisrael to be misled only in order to teach us about
teshuvah.
If so, asks Rav Eliezer Friedman shlita, then the golden calf was
not a sin at all. Why, then, does Hashem punish each generation for
that event?
The reason is, he explains, that we have not learned the lesson;
we do not do teshuvah for our own sins. Each time Hashem punishes
us, He punishes us also for not repenting.
(Hadrat Yirmiyah)
************************************
Rav Eliyahu Levinson zatz'l
("Reb Elinke Krettinger")
5582 (1822) - 18 Adar 5648 (1888)
Usually this space is devoted to a great municipal rabbi, rosh
yeshiva, or chassidic rebbe. This week's subject was none of these,
but rather was a banker. Rav Levinson is noteworthy because he lived
the philosophy of his teacher, Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, that not every
person must be a practicing rabbi, but every person should be capable
of being one.
Rav Elinke, as he was affectionately known, was a tzaddik and a
gaon (Torah sage) who knew the entire Talmud with its major
commentaries virtually by heart. As befitting a man of his wealth,
he also was a great philanthropist. His honesty, too, was
impeccable; when a customer caused the bank a 100,000 ruble loss,
Rav Elinke felt responsible and quit his job. He then went into
business so that he could repay the bank on his own. (This
incredible story was reported in the Russian and German newspapers
of the time, bringing Rav Elinke great fame and, eventually, even
more wealth.)
Despite his vast business interests, Rav Elinke never moved his
home away from the village of Krettinga where he had been born. He
also never ceased his routine of intense Torah study or his strict
adherence to the Shulchan Aruch, and he would visit Rabbi Yisrael
Salanter regularly in order to refresh himself spiritually. He did
not hesitate to put his religious principles before his financial
interests, even to the point of publicly opposing his boss'
appointment to a Jewish affairs council called by the Czar. (To the
boss' credit, that man recognized Rav Elinke's pure motives and
forgave him.)
The only written legacy of Rav Elinke is his will. Among other
instructions, he writes that if his sons do not learn Torah for two
hours on a given day, they should not say kaddish on the next day.
After all, it is not the saying of kaddish which is key, but the
doing of acts of kedushah (holiness).
|
| 989.456 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayakhel-Pekudei | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Mar 18 1996 20:33 | 197 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Vayakhel-Pekudei
Vol. X, No. 22 (459), 25 Adar 5756, March 16, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah. The chapter which corresponds
to Vayakhel is Psalm 61; to Pekudei, Psalm 45.
Psalm 61 is one of King David's prayers from the period when he
was fleeing from Shaul. In verse 5 he says: "I shall dwell in Your
tent forever, take refuge in the shelter of Your wings, Selah." This
tent is none other the mishkan, whose construction is described in
our parashah.
Psalm 45 is the same chapter which is associated with Parashat
Miketz. Verse 13, "As for the daughter of Tyre, with homage will
they seek your presence, those richest of the nation," alludes to
the building of the Bet Hamikdash. The "daughter of Tyre" is Chiram,
King of that city-state, who sent cedar trees to build the Temple
(Abarbanel: Yeshuot Meshicho). (Another Tyrean by the same name was
an important craftsman, and is mentioned in the haftarah which
ordinarily is read for Parashat Vayakhel.)
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to one of the
chapters of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"May he sit forever before Elokim, appoint kindness and truth,
that they may preserve him." (61:8)
The gemara (Eruvin 86a) comments: "When will one sit forever
before Elokim? When kindness and truth preserve him." What does
this mean, and what is the gemara adding to our existing
understanding of the verse?
Rav Shmuel Felkinfeld zatz'l (late 17th century) explains this
in light of Chazal's teaching that tzaddikim convert Hashem's
attribute of justice to kindness. How so? The gemara (Berachot 54a)
states that one must bless Hashem for bad tidings just as one does
for good tidings. In other words, one should accept the attribute
of justice with the same joy with which one accepts Hashem's
attribute of kindness.
In Shmot 15:2 we read, "The might and vengeance of G-d was
salvation for me." The Kli Yakar explains that when one joyfully
accepts G-d's might and vengeance, that itself becomes a merit which
brings salvation.
In light of this we can understand the gemara's teaching, "When
will one sit forever before Elokim? When kindness and truth preserve
him." "Elokim" refers to the attribute of justice. Chazal teach
that when Hashem rules with that attribute, the world cannot stand.
Thus the gemara asks: Under what circumstances can the world sit
forever before Elokim? When kindness and truth preserve him, i.e.,
when man joyously views G-d's might and vengeance as kindness, then
man will have the merit with which to stand before G-d's justice.
(Bet Shmuel Acharon: Parashat Noach)
************************************
Pesach
We say in the haggadah, "Even if were are all wise . . . we are
nevertheless commanded to relate the story of the Exodus, and the
more one relates the story of the Exodus, the better."
Why would we think that one is exempt from a mitzvah because he
is wise? Where is there such a precedent?
In general, says Rav Yehoshua Deutsch zatz'l, Chazal do discourage
us from praising G-d excessively. "Have you said every thing there
is to say about G-d?" they ask the person who praises Hashem
excessively. Thus, one might think that the wise man, who knows that
he cannot appreciate G-d, shouldn't try, and thus the haggadah must
say that even a wise man is obligated in this mitzvah.
Why? Because the Torah says so. Indeed, "The more one relates
the story of the Exodus, the better."
(Haggadah Shel Pesach: Kol Yeshuah)
************************************
"These are the things that Hashem commanded to do them. 'On six
days, work may be done, but the seventh day shall be holy for you,
a day of complete rest for Hashem, whoever does work shall be put
to death. You shall not kindle any fire in your dwellings on the
Sabbath day'." (35:1-3)
Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin zatz'l asks: Shouldn't the verse say,
"These are the things that Hashem commanded not to do them"? Most
of the laws of Shabbat are prohibitions!
The message of Shabbat, says Rav Henkin, is that we must do.
Shabbat represents the end of creation, when G-d turned the world
over to man. "Everything is in the hands of G-d except the fear of
Heaven," say Chazal, but what aspect of creation does not relate to
the fear of Heaven? And, there can be no bitachon -- reliance on
G-d -- when it comes to doing mitzvot. Just as no one would think
that his tefilin will miraculously lay themselves on his arm and
head, so one may not expect to have money to give tzedakah or to do
other mitzvot if he does not work for it. Just as one will not know
the Torah if he does not study, so he will not be healthy enough to
perform mitzvot if he doesn't take care of himself. (According to
this, says Rav Henkin, Chazal's statement that "Everything is in the
hands of G-d except for colds and fevers" is merely a restatement
of the teaching that "Everything is in the hands of G-d except the
fear of Heaven.")
Of course, man must recognize Who gives him the strength to do
these things. This is why the Torah says (Devarim 5:15), "And you
shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and
Hashem, your G-d, has taken you out of there with a strong hand and
an outstretched arm; therefore Hashem, your G-d has commanded you
to make the Sabbath day." Even when we keep the Sabbath day, with
its message that we should fend for ourselves, we must remember the
strong arm of G-d which can override nature and perform awesome
miracles.
(Perushei Ivra)
************************************
Parashat Hachodesh
"This month [Nissan] shall be for you the beginning of months."
(Shmot 12:2)
The first Nissan in Jewish history was only the "beginning of
months," says Rav Moshe Hager zatz'l. Specifically, it was the first
of many joyous "Nissans" in history. The first mishkan was dedicated
on the first of Nissan, and so the Third Temple will be dedicated
in a future Nissan [G-d willing, this one].
Reading about the Tabernacle in this week's parashah should bring
us great joy, particularly when (as this year) it coincides with the
beginning of Nissan. The verse (38:21), "These are the reckonings
of the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle of Testimony . . .," reminds us
that after the two Tabernacles (i.e., Temples) which were destroyed,
will come another which will be G-d's everlasting Testimony that He
has forgiven us.
(Lekket Ani: Parashat Hachodesh)
************************************
Rav David Sperber zatz'l
5637 (1877) - 25 Adar II 5722 (1962)
Rav Sperber was known as the "Gaon/Sage from Brashov," after the
Rumanian city where he served as rabbi beginning in 1922. His first
rabbinic post was in Polen-Riskava, and it was there that he
demonstrated his understanding of Chazal's teaching, "The talmidei
chachamim in the city are responsible for all its affairs." In
addition to the traditional functions of a rabbi, his activities
included nursing cholera victims during an epidemic and organizing
armed self defense bands during a pogrom.
Rav Sperber was known as an expert judge regarding both public
affairs and business matters. (He even wrote a work on the halachot
of ex parte communications with judges.) He also made then-
innovative decrees for the good of the community, including that
every butcher, no matter how observant, must have a full time
mashgiach on the premises.
Despite his own stature, Rav Sperber remained a self-effacing
chassid of Rav Moshe Hager of Kossov. He was responsible for the
publication of that rebbe's works. (A dvar Torah from one of those
works, Lekket Ani, appears in this issue.) However, Rav Sperber also
visited other leading chassidic rebbes of Hungary, and tried to learn
from their ways.
In his great humility, Rav Sperber used to blush whenever he heard
himself referred to as a "gaon." In his writings, he bemoaned the
fact that he was never able to establish a yeshiva, and possibly did
not leave any true students (a fear which was unfounded). He told
his children that he wanted to be remembered as one who shared in
the suffering of other Jews and as one who tried to attain the true
meaning of Torah. One of his sons related that Rav Sperber
restrained his quick mind in order to concentrate on a subject's main
point. To do otherwise, he felt, was like eating the fruits that
have fallen off a tree, but never stopping to pick the many fruits
that remain.
Rav Sperber was active in rescue efforts during the Holocaust.
(Rumanian Jews were protected, though not well treated, but their
government.) In 1950, Rav Sperber settled in Israel, where he
continued to be active in public affairs.
A Dvar Torah from Rav Sperber's son-in-law, Rav Yehoshua Deutsch
(Rabbi of the Katamon section of Yerushalayim) appears inside. One
of Rav Sperber's grandsons is Rabbi Dr. Daniel Sperber, author of
several volumes entitled Minhagei Yisrael.
|
| 989.457 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Mar 28 1996 19:53 | 1 |
| Reserved for Vayikra.
|
| 989.458 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Tzav | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Mar 28 1996 19:55 | 165 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Tzav
Vol. X, No. 24 (461), 10 Nissan 5756, March 30, 1996
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 107. This
chapter parallels one of the mitzvot in this week's parashah,
specifically, the korban todah/ thanksgiving offering.
The counterpart of the korban todah when the Temple is not
standing is the recitation of birkat hagomel. The gemara (Berachot
54b) derives from our chapter of Tehilim that four individuals must
recite this blessing: one who crosses the sea, one who crosses a
desert, one who is cured from an illness, and one who is released
from prison. Each of these is alluded to in this psalm (verses 24-
27, 4-5, 17-20, and 14, respectively). The phrase, "Then they cried
out to Hashem in their distress and from their woes he saved them,"
appears four times (verses 6, 13, 19 and 28).
The Gerrer Rebbe points out that when one brings a korban todah
he is obligated to thank Hashem for the every day hidden miracles,
as well as for the specific salvation which triggered his obligation
to bring the sacrifice. Indeed, this is why the korban todah is
accompanied by loaves of both chametz and matzah (unlike any other
sacrifice). Matzah represents the lofty plane where G-d's special
protection is felt, while chametz represents a "courser" level of
existence. (Sefat Emet: Tzav 5650)
**********************
The following verses and commentaries relate to the chapter of
Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
Four individuals must recite the blessing known as birkat
hagomel: one who crosses the sea, one who crosses a desert, one who
is cured from an illness, and one who is released from prison. The
question is asked: Why do we thank Hashem for saving us from
dangerous situations, yet we do not thank Him when He does not place
us in dangerous situations in the first place?
Rav Yekutiel Yehuda Halberstam (the "Klausenberger Rebbe")
writes in the name of several authorities being placed in danger is
a sign that one is being judged for his sins. Thus one thanks Hashem
for saving him from danger despite his sins.
(Shefa Chaim, No. 222)
Another answer is that a person should be more grateful when
he is placed in danger and saved than if he never is in danger. The
reason, according to Sefer Hayashar, is that a person who experiences
danger is undergoing cleansing of his sins. However, a person who
never suffers either is a perfect tzaddik -- which is extremely
unlikely -- or is being ignored by G-d. That is the worst possible
fate.
(heard from Rabbi Kalman Winter)
***************************
Pesach
"Bring the entire tithe to the storehouse and let there be food
in My house--and test Me now thereby, says Hashem, Master of Legions,
if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour down for
you blessing beyond your capacity." (Malachi 3:10)
Why should bringing ma'aser/tithes be the source of a special
blessing? asks Rav Chaim Soloveitchik (Reb Chaim Brisker). It is
after all a mitzvah like any other, and the Torah demands that it
be observed! He explains as follows:
The obligation to separate ma'aser does not exist at all times.
Thus, for example, a person may pick a fruit off of a tree and eat
it without tithing. Rather, the halachah establishes certain
conditions which trigger the obligation to tithe.
The gemara (Berachot 35b) observes that earlier generations went
out of their way to trigger the obligation to take ma'aser, for they
loved the mitzvot. In contrast, later generations used to take
advantage of the loopholes, and would not give ma'aser [much in the
same way that typical Americans will be busy next week trying to
reduce their tax costs].
Such behavior is legal and above-board, but when it is carried
out in connection with a mitzvah, it indicates that one loves money
more than he loves G-d. Thus our pasuk says, "Bring the entire
tithe." "Test Me by showing your love for Me and doing more than
the minimum required, and I will open for you the windows of heaven
and pour down for you blessing beyond your capacity."
(quoted in Haggadah Shel Pesach Mi'bet Halevi)
"With seventy persons your forefathers descended to Egypt, and
now Hashem, your G-d, has made you as numerous as the stars of the
heaven." (Devarim 10:22; quoted in the Pesach Haggadah)
Rav Moshe Rosenstain (see page 4) said: It is a basic principle
of the Torah that we are bound to value every individual. Each
person must say, "The world was created for my sake." Yet how is
it possible to view each man as a world onto himself? When we see
that man is as numerous as the fish in the sea, are we truly to think
that each is worthy to have G-d create the world for his sake? How
can we imagine that G-d would make a covenant with each and every
one?
But when we gaze upwards to the heavens, towards the billions
of stars, and realize that each star is a world in itself, immense
and important, then we can believe that, even if the people of the
world are like the sands of the seashores, each is a world onto
himself. G-d created all for his sake and he is worthy to hear the
word of G-d and enter into His covenant.
(quoted in The Artscroll Mussar Haggadah)
******************************
Rav Moshe Rosenstain z"l
born 5640/1 (1880/1) - died 14 Nissan 5700 (1940)
Rav Moshe Rosenstain was best known as the mashgiach of the
Lomza Yeshiva. (The mashgiach is the person charged with instilling
mussar/ethical teachings in the students.) He was known as a person
of great piety as well as for his truthfulness and his orderly and
logical mind. Many stories are told about his almost prophetic
vision, whether it was knowing that the Chafetz Chaim had passed away
hundreds of miles away or reading a student's future from the boy's
face.
Rav Moshe was introduced to mussar as a young man of 19 by Rav
Yerucham Levovitz, later to be one of the greatest teachers of
mussar. (Rav Moshe's mother had arranged the match between her next
door neighbor's daughter and young Reb Yerucham.) Rav Moshe also
was a student of Rav Shimon Shkop when the latter taught at the Telz
Yeshiva.
The prophet Yishayah wrote, "Before the terrible times the
tzaddik is recalled." In our century this has been applied to the
year 1940, for just before Germany invaded the U.S.S.R. many of the
greatest tzaddikim died, thus being spared the horrors of the
Holocaust. One of these was Rav Moshe.
A dvar Torah from Rav Moshe appears inside this issue.
*****************************************
This week marks the shloshim of Rav Pinchas Menachem Alter, the
Gerrer Rebbe. Born in 1926, he served for decades as rosh yeshiva
of the Gerrer yeshiva in Yerushalayim. He became the rebbe in 1992,
when his half-brother, Rav Simcha Bunim Alter, passed away.
Together with the Vizhnitzer Rebbe (yibadel lechaim/may he be
distinguished for a long life), Rav Pinchas Menachem served as
spiritual head of Agudat Yisrael. In that capacity he played a major
role in Israeli politics. In the tradition of his father and
brothers (his predecessors as rebbe), Rav Pinchas Menachem always
maintained good relationships with non-Agudah camps within Orthodox
Jewry.
[Rav Pinchas Menachem passed away during the week when Parashat
Parah was read. In the Torah, this section is followed by the death
of Miriam, and Chazal ask why this is so. They answer that just as
the red heifer atones, so the death of a tzaddik atones. We pray
that the death of this tzaddik may be an atonement for the Jewish
people in these difficult times.]
**************************
Donations to Hamaayan are tax-deductible.
**************************
Announcements:
Hamaayan will not be published next week;
the next issue will be Parashat Shemini
(Hamaayan's ninth birthday).
Hamaayan is moving,
so please excuse the reruns while we unpack
our library.
********************
|
| 989.459 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Apr 09 1996 20:56 | 1 |
| Hamaayan for Parashat Shemini is a reissue of reply .227.
|
| 989.460 | reruns continue | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Apr 18 1996 20:57 | 1 |
| Hamaayan for Parashat Tazria - Metzora is a reissue of reply .228.
|
| 989.461 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Apr 25 1996 21:40 | 1 |
| Hamaayan for Parashat Acharei Mot - Kedoshim is a reissue of reply .229.
|
| 989.463 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Behar-Bechukotai | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri May 10 1996 03:09 | 192 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Behar-Bechukotai
Vol. X, No. 29 (466), 22 Iyar 5756, May 11, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalms 112 (for
Parashat Behar) and 105 (for Bechukotai). The former is the same
chapter associated with Parashat Vayeshev.
Psalm 112 speaks of the rewards awaiting one who does kindness
with his money, including making loans to those in need (verse 5).
Parashat Behar teaches the mitzvah of shemittah, when loans must be
forgiven. This parashah also contains the prohibition on taking
interest from a borrower (Vayikra 25:35-38).
Psalm 105 chronicles the early history of the Jewish people.
(With only slight differences, it is the same as chapter 16 of Divrei
Hayamim I, which is part of the morning prayers.) Verses 44 and 45
state: "He gave them the lands of peoples and they inherited the
toils of nations so that they might safeguard His statutes and
observe His teachings." This week's parashah contains the
tochachah/rebuke which teaches us what will happen when the condition
under which the land was given is not fulfilled.
Midrash Seder Olam relates that this psalm was sung every morning
throughout the 43 years between the Holy Ark's arrival in
Yerushalayim and the construction of the Bet Hamikdash. This may
explain the Sephardic custom of reciting the parallel section of
Divrei Hayamim immediately after the korbanot section of shacharit
(Rav Moshe Eisemann shlita). (Ashkenazim recite it later in the
service.)
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapters
of Tehilim associated with our parashot (see page 1).
"Praiseworthy is the man who fears Hashem, who greatly desires
His commandments. Mighty in the land will his offspring be, a
generation of the upright who shall be blessed." (112:1-2)
The gemara (Avodah Zarah 19a) comments, "'He greatly desires the
commandments,' not the reward for the commandments." Rav Yosef Dov
Halevi Soloveitchik z"l explains that there are spiritual genetics,
just as there are physical genetics. Thus, a person's
accomplishments and priorities are passed down to his descendants.
However, the fact that a person inherits his father's strength, for
example, doesn't necessarily use that strength in the same way that
the father did; so, too, a person may inherit his parents' spiritual
qualities, but use them in the wrong way.
For example, Chazal offer qualified praise for one who studies
Torah with the intent of receiving reward. However, who is to say
that his son will inherit the desire to study Torah? Maybe the son
will inherit only the love for reward, and maybe he will become a
bank robber. Therefore, paraphrasing the above verse, "Praiseworthy
is the man who greatly desires His commandments -- not the reward
for the commandments. Only he can be sure that "mighty in the land
will his offspring be, a generation of the upright who shall be
blessed."
(Bet Halevi)
************************************
"And He took them out with kessef v'zahav/silver and gold, and
among His tribes there was none who stumbled." (105:37)
Rav Zvi Elimelech of Dinov (the "Bnei Yissaschar") z"l observes
that the gematria of "kessef" and "zahav" is 174, the number of hours
which chametz is prohibited according to Torah law (i.e., 7 days
times 24 hours, plus six hours on Erev Pesach). Today we stop eating
chametz two hours before noon on Erev Pesach in order to ensure that
no one transgresses inadvertently, but at the time of the Exodus
"there was none who stumbled."
Rav Yekutiel Yehuda Halberstam (the "Klausenberger Rebbe") z"l
offers a slightly different explanation: We know that the Patriarchs
kept the Torah before it was given, and surely the generation of the
exile did the same. This verse tells us that Hashem protected the
Jews lest they inadvertently transgress something which later would
become prohibited.
We read in Parashat Bo (12:39), "They baked the dough which they
had taken out of Egypt into cakes of matzah, for it did not become
chametz." Commentaries say that this is referring to the matzah
which they ate on the morning of Pesach. Even though the law that
chametz was prohibited for seven days did not yet apply that first
year, Hashem protected them so that their "bread" for seven days "did
not become chametz."
(Shefa Chaim 6:446)
************************************
"When you come into the land that I give you, the land shall
observe a Sabbath rest for Hashem." (25:2)
Rav Aharon Bakst ("Reb Archik") observed: This parashah contains
the answer to those who claim that the Torah developed in response
to certain conditions at a certain time and place, and now needs to
be updated. The Torah was given in a barren desert, a desolate
wasteland, a place that saw no agriculture. There was no trade and
there were no merchants, buyers or sellers. Despite this, the Torah
taught the laws of shemittah, and ordered that plowing or planting
not be done and that no trade be conducted with the fruits of
shemittah.
Moreover, what rationale society would develop a law that requires
two consecutive years without planting, i.e., the shemittah and then
the yovel (the 49th and 50th years in the cycle)? The Torah itself
acknowledges that this is difficult to fathom, for the Torah (25:20)
states: "If you will say: 'What will we eat in the seventh year? -
- behold! we will not sow and we will not gather in our crops'."
The Torah promises, however, that Hashem will provide, a promise
which no society can make of its own.
(Lev Aharon)
************************************
"If you will follow My decrees and observe My commandments and
perform them -- then I will provide your rains in their time and the
land will give its produce. . ." (26:3-4)
Rashi comments: "If you will follow My decrees" -- I might think
that this refers to the observance of the commandments, but this
cannot be, for the next phrase says, ". . . and observe My
commandments and perform them." What then is the meaning of "If you
will follow My decrees"? That you should toil in Torah study.
Rav Eliezer Zusia Portugal (the "Skulener Rebbe") z"l adds:
Studying Torah is like planting seeds, and observing the mitzvot is
like harvesting the grain. One who studies but doesn't do is like
one plants and does not harvest.
In light of this, says Rav Portugal, we can understand the middah-
kenneged-middah (measure-for-measure) nature of the reward expressed
above. If you toil in Torah and observe the commandments, you will
be like one who plants and harvests. Accordingly, Hashem "will
provide your rains in their time and the land will give its produce.
. ."
(Noam Eliezer)
************************************
Rav Binyomin Mendelsohn z"l
died 24 Iyar 5739 (1979)
Rav Mendelsohn was a rabbi in his native Plock, Poland, and in
Kiryat Atta and Kommemiut, Israel. He is best-known for his
tireless, and very successful, efforts to revive the observance of
shemittah.
Rav Mendelsohn's whole life was dedicated to Hashem. Indeed,
after being saved miraculously from a car accident he wrote:
We can learn from this that, as far as nature is concerned, I am
no longer here. My very presence in this world is supernatural.
Therefore, I must not make calculations, rather whatever [mitzvah]
comes before me I must do.
When the baker in Kommemiut told Rav Mendelsohn that his losses
were forcing him out of business, Rav Mendelsohn told the baker to
think of all of the surrounding communities that were eating kosher
bread because of him. When the baker threatened to close
nevertheless, Rav Mendelsohn said, "I will give you my reward for
the ten best Torah lectures I ever gave if you will just keep the
bakery open."
Rav Mendelsohn's first position was as rosh yeshiva in Bodzhanov,
Poland, his wife's native town. In 1933, he settled in Eretz
Yisrael, becoming rabbi of Kfar Atta (today, Kiryat Atta). He
achieved immense popularity as an adviser and judge, but also made
many enemies for his uncompromising stand on then-contemporary
issues.
In 1951, he became rabbi of Kommemiut, a new agricultural
settlement in the Negev desert. Fittingly, that year (5712) was a
shemittah year, for many credit Rav Mendelsohn more than any other
individual with making shemittah observance a viable option for
Israel's farmers. He successfully negotiated with the government
to allow religious farmers to distribute their produce in a manner
permitted by the laws of shemittah.
Not only did Rav Mendelsohn teach that the agricultural laws of
the Torah apply in full force today, so, he taught, does the mitzvah
of settling Eretz Yisrael. Thus, when Arab terrorists threatened
the fields of Kommemiut, Rav Mendelsohn ordered his congregants to
arm to protect their land holdings.
Rav Mendelsohn also played an active role in Agudat Yisrael and
other national Torah organizations.
|
| 989.462 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Emor | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu May 16 1996 22:46 | 165 |
| Emor
Vol. X, No. 28 (465), 15 Iyar 5756, May 4, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah--this week Psalm 42.
On verse 4, "My tears are my bread day and night," the Midrash
Shocher Tov states: "From here we see that crying is a substitute
for eating." (The midrash brings additional verses which prove the
same point.) This stands in contrast to the bread which sat on the
shulchan/table in the Bet Hamikdash, as discussed in this week's
parashah.
This psalm also contains allusions to the holidays which are
discussed in this week's parashah. Verse 3 expresses our longing
to go to the Temple on the pilgrimage festivals: "When will I come
and appear before G-d?" (Yalkut Shimoni). Verse 5 describes our
sorrow at no longer observing the three pilgrimage festivals as they
once were: "These do I recall and pour out my soul within me, how
I passed with the throng, walking gingerly with them up to the House
of G-d, with joyous song and thanks, a celebrating multitude"
(Midrash Shocher Tov). In particular, this verse may apply to
Shavuot, when large groups came together to bring the bikkurim (first
fruits).
At the end of the parashah, we read of the blasphemer.
According to Yalkut Shimoni, verse 3, "My soul thirsts for Elokim,"
is a prayer that G-d punish blasphemers and idolaters.
***********************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"When shall I come and appear before G-d?" (42:3)
"Anticipate G-d, for I shall yet thank Him. . ." (42:6)
Rav Yosef Yaavetz z"l (one of the exiles from Spain) writes:
This psalm foretells with Divine inspiration (ruach hakodesh) the
words of the generations of the diaspora. It describes their immense
longing for the salvation -- not to chase their gentile enemies with
a vengeance, but only to derive pleasure from serving G-d, to see
Hashem's pleasant countenance and to visit His sanctuary.
Even though it is true that after the future redemption our
oppressors will become our servants, it is our spiritual salvation
which primarily interests us. We cry not for our suffering, but for
the desecration of G-d's Name which accompanies it, as the Psalmist
says (verse 4), "My tears are my bread day and night, as they taunt
me all day long, 'Where is your G-d'?"
(Peirush Al Tehilim)
"By day, Hashem will send His kindness with me, and at night,
His song is with me." (42:9)
The gemara (Chagigah 12b and elsewhere) derives from here, "If
someone studies Torah at night, Hashem's kindness will accompany him
all day."
Rav Moshe Aryeh Freind shlita notes that studying Torah at night
is one of the prerequisites to attaining the "Crown of Torah." The
Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 246:23) states:
If one wishes to attain the "Crown of Torah" he should take care
every night and not waste a single night with sleeping, eating,
drinking, and conversation. Rather they should be devoted to
wisdom and Torah, for a person acquires most of his knowledge
at night.
The Prishah (a commentary on the Shulchan Aruch) elaborates:
"Every night" means even the short summer nights [when one is almost
ready for bed by the time darkness comes]; even then, one should
learn at least a little at night.
Rav Freind adds: And when it is time for bed, one should not
waste time, so that he will be able to rise in the morning to serve
Hashem. Under such circumstances, even one's sleeping counts as
service of Hashem.
(Ateret Yehoshua: Parashat Vayera)
****************************
"A widow, a divorcee, a harlot -- he shall not marry these."
(21:14)
Why, in fact, is a kohen gadol prohibited from marrying a woman
who was married previously? The Ba'alei Tosfot explain that the
kohen gadol may be attracted to a married woman and, since he is
permitted to utter the Ineffable Name of G-d, he may bring about her
husband's death or her divorce.
There is an incredible lesson here, observe the Ba'alei Mussar
(Teachers of Ethics). When does the kohen gadol utter the Ineffable
Name? Only on Yom Kippur. Where does he do so? Only in the Holy
of Holies. Even so, such is the power of the yetzer hara, that he
may use that opportunity to curse the husband of the woman he
desires.
(Shai Latorah and other works)
"After the sun has set he shall become purified; thereafter he
may eat from the holies." (22:7)
The mishnah (Berachot 2a) gives the time that kohanim come home
to eat terumah as the time when Shema may be recited in the evening.
What is that time? When the stars come out.
Why did the mishnah choose this round about way of teaching the
time for Shema? Rav Yoel Teitlebaum (the "Satmar Rav") z"l explains:
The prophets taught that at the time of the future redemption we will
witness wonders like those of the Exodus. This means that we will
be surrounded by ananei hakavod/clouds of glory. If so, we will be
unable to see the stars. The only way that we will know to say Shema
is that the kohanim who had been impure, and thus were sent outside
of the camp, will come home.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Mahari Teitlebaum)
"They placed him under guard to clarify for themselves through
Hashem." (24:12)
Why were Bnei Yisrael unsure of how to punish the one who
blasphemed G-d? Rav Yosef Shaul Nathanson z"l explains that one
could argue that it is beneath G-d's dignity to punish a blasphemer.
As the King David said (Tehilim 2:4), "He who sits in heaven will
laugh, the Lord will mock them."
Why then did Hashem, in fact, order the blasphemer executed?
Not because He needed it, but to make an impression on Bnei Yisrael.
Similarly, when a person is insulted, he should let the insult pass.
Others who hear it, however, are obligated to rise to the defense
of the insulted one.
In light of this we can understand the Torah's command (24:14),
"The entire assembly shall stone him," whereas generally the
execution is carried out only by the witnesses and the court.
(Divrei Shaul)
[Ed. note: Interestingly, Rav Nathanson concludes this thought
with the words, "In my humble opinion, this is the truth, but if I'm
wrong, may G-d who is good forgive me."]
**************************
Rav Eliyahu Chaim Meisel z"l
born 9 Sivan 5581 (1821) - died 14 Iyar 5672 (1912)
Rav Eliyahu Chaim was born near Vilna, and was a child prodigy
who earned the title "Moreinu"/"Our Teacher" when he was only twelve
years old. By that age, and maybe earlier, he already was studying
in the "Mother of yeshivot" -- Volozhin.
Rav Eliyahu Chaim's rabbinic career began at age 19, and the
young rabbi distinguished himself as much for his chessed as for his
wisdom. When a cholera epidemic broke out in the town where he
served, he personally visited and cared for every victim.
In 1873, Rav Eliyahu Chaim was appointed rabbi of Lodz, one of
Poland's major cities. Although a massive welcoming ceremony was
planned, the new rabbi sneaked into town unnoticed. When asked why
he did this, he said, "I do not usually accept a reward for a job
before doing it."
From 1873 on, Rav Eliyahu Chaim was one of the leading spokesmen
for Polish/Russian Jewry, representing them at important government
conferences. When the massive emigration of Jews to the United
States began, Rav Eliyahu Chaim joined with Rav Yosef Dov Halevi
Soloveitchik (the "Bet Halevi") and Rav Shmuel Mohilever and called
upon Jews to settle in Eretz Yisrael instead. These sages also
promoted investment in kibbutz-like settlements in the Holy Land.
(Rav Eliyahu Chaim and Rav Soloveitchik did not, however, support
cooperation with non-religious settlement movements.)
It was Rav Eliyahu Chaim who awarded semichah (ordination) to
Rav Chaim Brisker. This happened in 1892, when Rav Eliyahu Chaim
came to Brisk to eulogize Rav Chaim's father, the Bet Halevi. [In
those days, many gedolim did not obtain formal semichah until they
needed it for some official purpose, in this case, so that Rav Chaim
could succeed his father.]
|
| 989.464 | Hamaayan/The Torah Spring: Parashat Bemidbar | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu May 16 1996 22:48 | 167 |
| Bemidbar
Vol. X, No. 30 (467), 29 Iyar 5756, May 18, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah -- this week Psalm 122. The
gemara (Kiddushin 70b) derives the importance of marrying a worthy
spouse from verse 4 in this psalm. From this same verse, the Zohar
(II:4a) derives that the Jews did not mix with the Egyptians [except
for the one case mentioned in the Torah]; thus the genealogies
mentioned in our parashah are pure.
Parashat Bemidbar virtually always is read on the Shabbat
preceding Shavuot. This fact, too, connects this psalm to this
Shabbat. Specifically, Rambam (Hil. Bikkurim 4:16) writes that this
psalm was recited as the pilgrims made their way to Yerushalayim
carrying bikkurim, the "first fruits" which were given as gifts to
the kohanim beginning on Shavuot. As they approached Yerushalayim
they would call out (verse 1), "I rejoiced when they said to me, 'Let
us go to the House of Hashem'." When they entered the gates of
Yerushalayim they said (verse 2), "Immobile stood our feet within
your gates Yerushalayim."
************************************
"Hashem spoke to Moshe in the Sinai Desert." (1:1)
Rabbenu Bachya comments, "'In the Sinai Desert'--where Mount Sinai
is." He continues:
The Torah was given through three creations: fire, water, and
desert. Fire--as is written (Sh'mot 19:18): "And Har Sinai was
covered with smoke because Hashem came down upon it in fire."
Water--as is written (Shoftim 5:4): "Hashem, when You left Se'ir,
when You strode from the Field of Edom, the land quaked, also the
skies dripped, also the clouds dripped water." [This is a reference
to when Hashem offered the Torah to the sons of Esav.]
Desert--as is written: "Hashem spoke to Moshe in the Sinai
Desert."
Why was the Torah given through these three? To teach us that
just as these three are available for "free," i.e., they exist in
the world in unlimited quantities, so too the Torah is available for
free to anyone who wants it. Also, the Torah was given in the desert
to teach us that the Torah only stays with those who humble
themselves like the desert.
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"I rejoiced when they said to me, 'Let us go to the House of
Hashem.' Immobile stood our feet within your gates Yerushalayim."
(122:1-2)
The gemara (Berachot 8a) records that the sage Abaye said, "I used
to study Torah at home and pray in shul, but once I heard that,
'Since the Temple was destroyed, Hashem is interested in nothing but
the study of halachah,' I began praying and studying at the same
place."
Rav Shmuel Felkinfeld z"l explains this as follows: The Magen
Avraham (O.C. 151:1) states that a shul where people act in a
lighthearted manner is like a temple of idolatry. The Magen Avraham
further cites the Arizal who did not study in shul lest he be drawn
to speak mundane matters there. Rather, the shul was for praying
and nothing else.
Abaye, too, says Rav Felkinfeld, had the same concern that the
Arizal later would have, and he therefore did not study at shul.
However, once he learned that Hashem is interested in nothing but
the study of halachah, he gained the willpower to resist interrupting
his learning by talking.
In any case, we see from this how easy it is to turn a shul into
a temple of idolatry. The gemara (also Berachot 8a) teaches that
synagogues in the diaspora will one day be transplanted to Eretz
Yisrael, but surely, says Rav Felkinfeld, this applies only to shuls
that are kept "pure." This is the meaning of the above verse, "I
rejoiced when they said to me, 'Let us go to [a true] House of
Hashem'." Such a shul will one day be transplanted to Eretz Yisrael
and then we can say: "Immobile stood our feet within your gates
Yerushalayim."
(Bet Shmuel Acharon: Parashat Balak)
************************************
Pirkei Avot
"Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: 'Every day a bat kol (heavenly
voice) proclaims from Har Chorev (Mount Sinai), "Woe is to them, to
My creations, for the disgrace which they cause to the Torah".'"
(Ch. 6)
Rav Shlomo Kluger zatz'l presents several questions on this
mishnah. First, why the repetitive language, "Woe is to them, to
My creations."? Second, why does this bat kol originate from Har
Chorev of all places? Rav Kluger offers several explanations, among
them the following:
The disgrace to the Torah of which the mishnah speaks is the
insult which is caused when one abuses or speaks evil of a talmid
chacham (Torah scholar). Rabbis often appear to be "weaklings" and
their congregants think nothing of abusing them. This is
particularly true when the talmid chacham in question has a humble
and unassuming nature. Do not make this mistake--the honor of those
who study Torah is the honor of the Torah itself.
Chazal teach that when Hashem prepared to give the Torah, many
mountains vied for the privilege of having the Torah given on their
peaks. Some of these were tall, some were beautiful, some were
covered with trees or other greenery. But Hashem chose Har Sinai
(also known as Har Chorev) precisely because it was a plain,
unassuming mountain. Why? In order to warn us that the honor of
the humble Torah scholar, like the humble mountain, is the honor of
the Torah itself.
Yet this mishnah contains a warning for the talmid chacham as
well: Do not think that because your honor is the honor of the Torah
that you may never forgive one who insults you. The double language
of the mishnah is meant to inform the talmid chacham that any
punishment befitting one who insults him will come on its own. "Woe
is to them, to My creations" from their self-inflicted wounds.
(Magen Avot)
************************************
Shavuot
Shavuot is the most "soft-spoken" and "subtle" of all of our
holidays, writes Rav Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan zatz'l (1890-1924; dean
of Berlin's Hildesheimer Seminary from 1920). Pesach and Sukkot both
have names that vividly portray the nature of the holiday:
"Chag HaPesach" - "The holiday when G-d skipped over the homes
of the Jews."
"Chag HaMatzot" - "The holiday when the Jews left Egypt so quickly
that they had no time to bake bread."
"Chag HaSukkot" - "The holiday commemorating the 'Clouds of Glory'
which protected Bnei Yisrael in the desert."
Not so Shavuot! Its name - "The Feast of Weeks" - tells us only
that it follows a period during which we eagerly counted-off the days
until this occasion.
Another example of Shavuot's low key nature: Pesach coincides
with the beginning of the harvest, when the Jewish farmer joyfully
goes out to the field, full of thanks to the Creator of all. Sukkot
falls at the end of the harvest, when the same Jew celebrates the
success of his harvest season. Shavuot? It falls early in the
summer when the harvest is in full swing and the farmer is about to
turn his attention towards cutting his wheat - the most basic and
"unromantic" of all crops.
Shavuot is a holiday with no mitzvot of its own; it does not need
any. Shavuot celebrates the most basic of all of man's needs:
Torah, for the soul; bread, for the body. Shavuot does not advertise
itself through great miracles (as does Pesach) or a plethora of
mitzvot (as do all of the other holidays). Shavuot expects us to
understand on our own, and those who are close to the ideals that
Shavuot represents do.
(B'ikvot Hayir'ah, p.234)
|
| 989.465 | some translations | CADSYS::GROSS | The bug stops here | Sat May 18 1996 02:20 | 79 |
| I've been tempted to try this for a while. Some readers
may have difficulty following this thread for lack of translations
of some of the words. Here is my shot at translating the
words used in .464 in the order in which they appear. If a word or
phrase is translated in the text I left it out below (usually).
Parashat - A weekly reading from the Torah. This is the combining form of
the noun. "parashah" is the stand-alone form.
Bemidbar - Hebrew name for the book of Numbers. Literally, "in the wilderness".
The Torah portion for this week is the beginning chapters of the
book of Numbers, hence "Parashat Bemidbar".
Iyar - The present month of the Hebrew calendar.
Siddur Avodat Yisrael
- Siddur = "prayer book", Avodat = "worship of", Yisrael = Israel
This is the title of a prayer book which it happens I've never seen.
Tehilim - Psalms
gemara - Part of the Talmud. I believe this is the early commentaries
on Jewish law.
Kiddushin 70b
- A volume of the Talmud (literally: Marriage). 70b is the page number.
Rambam - Moses Maimonides
kohanim - priests
Shavuot - Festival of Weeks, a Jewish holiday coming up in about 2 weeks.
Hashem - "The Name" - used as a substitute for G-d's name when not
actually praying.
Rabbenu - "Our rabbi", a title of respect for an author of the Talmud
Har Sinai- Har = "mountain", hence Mount Sinai
Shoftim - The book of Judges
Berachot - A volume of the Talmud ("Blessings" i.e. prayers)
halachah - Jewish law
z"l - Pronounced zal. An abbreviation for "His memory is a blessing".
A term of respect for the dead.
Rav - rabbi
Eretz Yisrael
- Literally, the Land of Israel
Parashat Balak
- A portion in the book of Numbers wherein is told the story
of Balaam's talking ass. I think the reference here is to a
book of commentary on this portion.
Pirkei Avot
- A Volume of the Talmud, literally "Ethics of the Fathers".
zatz'l - An abbreviation for "The memory of the righteous is a blessing".
A term of respect for a holy person who is dead.
mishnah - The ancient Jewish law. The "oral law" as written down in the
Talmud. Much of the Talmud consists of the Mishnah and commentaries
on the Mishnah from various sources.
Chazal - Collective term for the sages of the Talmud
Chag - "holiday"
mitzvot - "commandments"
Dave
|
| 989.466 | A few minor corrections, and nits. | STAR::FENSTER | Yaacov Fenster, Process Improvement, Quality & Testing tools @ZK | Sun May 19 1996 17:28 | 37 |
|
<<< Note 989.465 by CADSYS::GROSS "The bug stops here" >>>
-< some translations >-
A few minor corrections and nits -
>gemara - Part of the Talmud. I believe this is the early commentaries
> on Jewish law.
Gemara is the "raw data", not the commentary.
>Kiddushin 70b
> - A volume of the Talmud (literally: Marriage). 70b is the page number.
A better translation would be sanctification. The Tractate
discusses rhe sanctification of marriage.
>Pirkei Avot
> - A Volume of the Talmud, literally "Ethics of the Fathers".
While it discusses ethics, a literal translation would be "Chapters of
the fathers", and it isn't part of the Talmud.
> Chazal - Collective term for the sages of the Talmud
It is an acronym for Chamenu Zichronam Levrachah. Literally "Our
sages(wise oneS) of blessed memory". Not only from the period of the
Talmud.
> mitzvot - "commandments"
When saying "commandments" the context is usually the ten commandments,
which are called "Dibrot" (Things that were said). The Mitzvot are many
more - 613 to be precise.
|
| 989.467 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Shavuot | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri May 24 1996 02:53 | 184 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
SHAVUOT
May 24, 1996 / 6 Sivan 5756
*******************
This week's issue of Hamaayan is an anthology of articles on Shavuot
that have appeared in previous years of Hamaayan.
*******************
Rav Yehuda Ze'ev Segal zatz'l offers the following "Words of
Awakening" regarding Shavuot:
Now that we have reached the holiday of Shavuot, baruch Hashem,
one must know that Shavuot is exactly like Yom Kippur - it is the
day of judgment over Torah study. . . .
[Moshe Rabbenu asked Hashem to postpone giving the Torah for one
day.] Moshe sensed that the Jews were not yet ready to receive the
Torah. Contrary to what we think, being ready to receive the Torah
does not mean having a new suit. On Shavuot we must accept the Torah
anew.
Decorating the shul with flowers for Shavuot is a nice custom,
but a person must "decorate" himself as well. This can be done only
by accepting the Torah and studying Torah.
[How does one prepare to receive the Torah?] Rabbenu Yonah
comments on the Mishnah: "If there is no derech eretz there is no
Torah." A person must correct his character flaws and then the Torah
will reside within him. However, the Torah never resides in a body
which has bad character traits.
A key character trait is gemilut chassadim - performing acts of
kindness. One must not wait for opportunities to perform kindness;
one must seek them out! And when one meditates upon the idea of
kindness, he sees that there are so many ways to help others.
When Rabbi Yisrael Salanter was on his deathbed, he took the time
to reassure his nervous attendant that there was no reason to fear
a corpse. This is greatness! Did Rabbi Yisrael not have many lofty
matters to meditate upon?
[Another character trait:] The blessing we say in the morning,
"Who forms the light and creates darkness, makes peace and creates
all," is based on a similarly-worded verse in Yishayah (45:7).
However, that verse actually has the phrase "creates bad" instead
of "creates all." Why do we change it? So that our daily language
will be "clean."
(Yir'ah vaDa'at I 173)
*********************
Shavuot is the most "soft-spoken" and "subtle" of all of our
holidays, writes Rav Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan zatz'l (1890-1924; dean
of Berlin's Hildesheimer Seminary from 1920). Pesach and Sukkot both
have names that vividly portray the nature of the holiday:
"Chag HaPesach" - "The holiday when G-d skipped over the homes
of the Jews."
"Chag HaMatzot" - "The holiday when the Jews left Egypt so
quickly that they had no time to bake bread."
"Chag HaSukkot" - "The holiday commemorating the 'Clouds of
Glory' which protected Bnei Yisrael in the desert."
Not so Shavuot! Its name - "The Feast of Weeks" - tells us only
that it follows a period during which we eagerly counted-off the days
until this occasion.
Another example of Shavuot's low key nature: Pesach coincides
with the beginning of the harvest, when the Jewish farmer joyfully
goes out to the field, full of thanks to the Creator of all. Sukkot
falls at the end of the harvest, when the same Jew celebrates the
success of his harvest season. Shavuot? It falls early in the
summer when the harvest is in full swing and the farmer is about to
turn his attention towards cutting his wheat - the most basic and
"unromantic" of all crops.
Shavuot is a holiday with no mitzvot of its own; it does not need
any. Shavuot celebrates the most basic of all of man's needs:
Torah, for the soul; bread, for the body. Shavuot does not advertise
itself through great miracles (as does Pesach) or a plethora of
mitzvot (as do all of the other holidays). Shavuot expects us to
understand on our own, and those who are close to the ideals that
Shavuot represents do.
(B'ikvot Hayir'ah, p.234)
************************************
The Gemara (Shabbat 88a) relates that Hashem held Har Sinai over
the heads of Bnei Yisrael and forced them to take the Torah. This,
says the Gemara, was an excuse for generations which did not
observe the Mitzvot.
R' Mordechai Gifter, shlita (Telshe Rosh Yeshiva) notes that
this Gemara appears to contradict the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (3a).
There we find that, in the future, the nations of the world will
complain that they were not forced to accept the Torah. This, says
R' Gifter, implies that being forced to accept the Torah does have
a binding effect.
R' Gifter resolves this based on the following two points:
First, we learn in Masechet Nedarim [which Daf Yomi participants
concluded this week] that the basis for the annulment of a vow is
changed circumstances, i.e. that the assumptions upon which the vow
was based are no longer valid. When the Jews accepted the Torah,
they did so through a vow. Second, the Jews were forced to accept
the Torah -- not literally, but through their recognition of the
Truth, brought about by their exalted spiritual level.
The Jews assumed that they would always remain on that level.
However, with their exile from Eretz Yisrael, they fell from it.
They thus had an excuse to cease performing the Mitzvot until they
reaccepted the Torah (for all time) after the Purim miracle.
The nations of the world, however, were not forced to accept the
Torah. Hashem did not raise them to the same spiritual level to
which he raised the Jews. This will be the nations' complaint in
the future. [Ed. note: see Avodah Zarah 3a for Hashem's answer.]
(Pirkei Mo'ed p.129)
************************************
The Rambam, in Moreh Nevochim ("Guide to the Perplexed") cites
three views regarding the origin of the world. Some believe that
it is very ancient, having formed itself at some time in the past
when conditions were ripe. A second group believes that some
higher being created the world, but did so with matter that existed
previously. The Torah view, by contrast, is that G-d formed the
world "Yesh Mai'Ayin" - "something out of nothing" - not because
any outside conditions required it, but simply because He so chose.
Rambam also cites three views regarding the nature of prophecy.
Some believe that a person need only prepare himself, and prophecy
will come on its own. Others believe that even after one has
prepared himself, prophecy will come only if and when G-d chooses.
Finally, there are those who believe that no preparation is
required, for G-d alone determines who His prophets will be. Note
how each view of prophecy roughly parallels one of the views of
creation in regard to whether G-d acts alone, circumstances act
alone, or the two act in combination.
Interestingly, while the Torah's view is that G-d created the
world from nothing, needing and receiving no help from any other
source, the Torah's view of prophecy is that "G-d does not reveal
his presence except on one who is wise, rich, brave, and humble"
(Nedarim 38a). In other words, the prophet requires preparation.
Why?
Although Hashem created the world from nothing, He decreed that
never again would such a miracle occur. Henceforth, He would work
through nature. Thus Chazal tell us that such miracles as the
splitting of the Red Sea were ordained at the time of creation.
(See Chazal's comment on Sh'mot 14:27.) Why? Because if Hashem
would repeatedly change creation it would call into question
creation's perfection and (G-d forbid) that of G-d himself.
One time in history, prophecy was given to those who were not
prepared for it. These were the Jews at Har Sinai. A new creation
was brought into being for their benefit: Prophecy without
prerequisites. Why?
Chazal say that Hashem did leave one aspect of creation
imperfect. As Rashi (B'reishit 1:31) explains, G-d made the
world's permanent existence contingent on one thing. If Bnei
Yisrael had not accepted the Torah when it was offered at Har
Sinai, the world would have returned to its state before creation.
Without Torah, the world cannot exist. It turns out, therefore,
that not until the great revelation at Har Sinai was the work of
creation finished. It is certainly fitting that just as the world
was created by Hashem without preparation, so, when Bnei Yisrael
brought it to completion, they should merit a similarly miraculous
gift.
(R' Meir Leibush Malbim, Eretz Chemdah: "Drush L'Chag Shavuot)
|
| 989.468 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Naso | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu May 30 1996 21:26 | 171 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Naso
Vol. X, No. 31 (468), 14 Sivan 5756, June 1, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah -- this week Psalm 67. The
obvious relationship between Parashat Naso and this psalm is in
verse 2, "May G-d favor us ('yechonenu') and bless us
('yevarchenu'), may He display His luminous countenance ('ya-er
panav') with us, selah." This is a direct parallel to the birkat
kohanim/priestly blessing found in this week's parashah. When
Hashem blesses us in this way, says the midrash, He makes His Name
known to the world, as it says (verse 3), "To make Your way known
on earth..." (Yalkut Shimoni)
This chapter contains allusions as well to the period just
ended, and to the next Shabbat. This psalm has 49 words (not
including the introductory verse) and thus has become part of the
just-ended Sefirat Ha'omer service, paralleling the 49 days. Also,
Rav Yosef Chaim David Azulai (in Midbar Kedemot 4:22) cites a
midrash that both Moshe and David were granted a prophetic vision
in which this psalm was engraved in the form of a menorah on a
sheet of pure gold. (David, in fact, engraved these verses on his
shield.) This relates to next week's parashah, which discusses the
seven-branched menorah.
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"May G-d favor us ('yechonenu') and bless us ('yevarchenu'), may
He display His luminous countenance ('ya-er panav') with us,
selah." (67:2)
Rav Samson R. Hirsch writes: "Chanan" [the root of "yechonenu"]
denotes preponderantly the favoring with mental talents,
particularly when occurring in conjunction with "berachah" [the
root of "yevarchenu"], the granting of economic means.
Intellectual ability has always been the prime desire within the
heart of the Jewish nation. The first prayer in the shemoneh esrei
is "Atah chonen l'adam da-at" / "You favor man with knowledge"; the
wish for material blessing follows after. The former is a
prerequisite for the perception of what G-d's will is, the latter
is essential if we are to fulfill His will. "Panim"/"countenance"
are the "sights," the goals toward which G-d's countenance is
directed, the aims which He intends to realize through His rule and
which He desires to see turned into living reality through the
voluntary acts of man, who is in His service. "Ya-er panav" / "may
He display His luminous countenance" [therefore] means to
illuminate His goals, namely to make them so perceptible that we
may recognize what they are.
(Commentary on Psalms)
************************************
Rav Ovadiah Sforno writes in his commentary on Tehilim: This
psalm is a prayer regarding the future redemption. "May G-d favor
us," i.e., redeem us as a favor, without our being worthy.
"And bless us" -- as a nation, whereas now we have been left few
in number.
"May He display His luminous countenance with us" to enlighten
our eyes, so that they will see wonders in His Torah.
************************************
"A man or a woman who shall disassociate himself by taking a
Nazirite vow of abstinence for the sake of Hashem." (6:2)
Rashi writes, "Why do the laws of nazir follow the laws of the
sotah? To teach us that one who sees the downfall of a sotah
should abstain from drinking wine."
Rav Yerucham of Mir z"l (see page 4) explains: A person who sees
an adulteress woman shouldn't take it in stride and say, "How does
this relate to me?" This is not the way of the wise; one should
know that the adulteress did not fall to this level in a moment.
It started with her pampering herself with luxuries or her being
too outgoing. Thus, when a person sees an adulteress, he should
examine his own deeds and see if he is headed on a path for
disaster.
There are many paths to losing oneself, says Rav Yerucham.
There are many kinds of drunkenness other than that from wine, and
a person must watch himself. However, wine is the worst, and that
is why the Torah warns about it.
(Da'at Torah)
************************************
"The one who brought his offering on the first day was Nachshon
ben Aminadav, of the tribe of Yehudah." (7:12)
"On the second day, Netanel ben Zuar offered, leader of
Yissachar." (7:18)
"On the third day, the leader of the children of Zevulun..."
(7:24)
When the Torah described the sacrifices brought by the nesi'im
(leaders of the tribes), the first leader, Nachshon, is not
identified as being a nasi. The second one is described as "leader
of Yissachar," as if he was just one of many. Only from the third
nasi on does the Torah say, "the leader of the children of..."
Why?
Rav Moshe Chafetz z"l (1664-1712) explains: The Torah is
teaching leaders to be humble. Thus, to "compensate" for
Nachshon's being listed first, he is not described as a nasi, i.e.,
he is given no honorific. Netanel, who is listed second, is not
called "the leader of the sons of Yissachar," but just "leader of
Yissachar," a modest title. Only from the third nasi on is the
full title given.
(Melechet Machshevet)
************************************
Rav Yerucham Halevi Levovitz z"l
born 5635 (1875) - died 18 Sivan 5696 (1936)
Rav Yerucham of Mir was considered the ba'al mussar (master of
ethics/character) par excellence of the period between the two
World Wars. Very little is known of his childhood, except that he
was born in Luban (where Rav Moshe Feinstein later was rabbi). At
age sixteen, he entered the yeshiva of Slobodka. In 1897, at the
instructions of the "Alter of Slobodka," Rav Yerucham transferred
to Kelm, where the "Alter of Kelm" was in the last year of his
life. (The latter was a student of Rabbi Yisrael Salanter.)
In Kelm, Rav Yerucham excelled in both learning (his study
partner was Rav Naftali Trop, later Rosh Yeshiva in Radin) and
mussar. In Kelm, the students themselves were responsible for all
the chores and the maintenance in the yeshiva, and Rav Yerucham's
colleagues report that he saw this as part of his service of
Hashem. Another rule in Kelm was that the mail never was opened on
the day it arrived, a rule that Rav Yerucham observed even when he
was awaiting an answer to a marriage proposal.
Rav Yerucham served briefly as mashgiach (dean of students) in
Radin, home of the Chafetz Chaim. However, he left there when he
saw that some students perceived his captivating manner as
competing with the elder sage of the generation. He then joined
the yeshiva of Mir, which he served until World War I and again
from 1923 until his passing.
Mir was a yeshiva of more than 300 students, including "Litvaks"
(Lithuanians), Polish chassidim, and even Americans. Each student
received Rav Yerucham's personal attention; students report that
when they would approach him with personal problems, he not only
would give them immediate advice, but his public discourses over
the following weeks would further amplify on their questions (of
course, in a discrete way). Moreover, having 300 students crowd
around him to hear his talks did not prevent him from noticing when
one of the 300 felt faint and needed to get fresh air. (This
student was Rav David Povarsky shlita, now rosh yeshiva in
Ponovezh.)
Rav Yerucham's discourses are published in two works: Da'at
Chochmah U'mussar and Da'at Torah. The latter is said to include
the special chumash classes which he held for the Americans who
came to Mir. Because of their weak backgrounds and their previous
college educations, they presented Rav Yerucham with a different
challenge than did the Eastern European students. (Based on the
biography, Ha'adam Bikar) (A dvar Torah from Rav Yerucham appears
inside.)
|
| 989.469 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Beha'alotecha | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jun 06 1996 23:54 | 180 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Beha'alotecha
Vol. X, No. 32 (469), 21 Sivan 5756, June 8, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah -- this week Psalm 68. There is
an obvious connection between one of the verses in this psalm and
one of the verse in the parashah. Verse 2 in the former says, "Let
G-d arise and let His enemies be scattered, and let His foes flee
before Him." Verse 10:35 in the parashah reads, "Arise, G-d, and
let your foes be scattered, let those who hate You flee from before
You."
Another tie between this psalm and the parashah is in the fact
that this parashah (9:1-14) discusses some of the laws of Pesach.
According to Radak (quoted in the Artscroll Tehilim), this psalm
refers to G-d's destruction of the Assyrian army under Sancheirev,
an event which occurred on that holiday. Also, verse 7 alludes to
the Exodus when it says, "He releases the prisoners at suitable
moments." Rashi explains that Pesach was suitable for the Exodus
because of the fine spring weather.
(For another pair of verses connecting the parashah to this
psalm, see page 2 inside.)
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"The chariot of G-d is twice ten thousand, two thousands; my
Lord is among them at Sinai in holiness." (68:18)
We see from here, says Rav Yehuda Loewe ("Maharal") z"l, that
the Shechinah rests amidst 22,000 angels. Thus our parashah
states, as well (10:36), "Reside tranquilly, Hashem, among the
myriads, thousands of Israel." The plural "myriads" suggests
20,000, and the plural "thousands" suggests another 2,000. [Unless
the Torah specifies otherwise, we assume that a plural form
connotes "2" (the smallest plural number), rather than "3" or
more.]
Similarly, says Maharal, we find that the Leviim whose camp
surrounded the mishkan also numbered approximately 22,000.
What is the significance of this number? It is the fact that
the beginning of everything was the Torah, which is made up of 22
letters. However, the number on which the Shechinah rests is
22,000, not just 22, because Hashem does not rest His Presence on
individual things, but only on "complete" things. That one
thousand is more "complete" than one may be seen in the letter
"aleph," which connotes "one." The complete spelling of this
letter's name is "aleph-lamed-feh," which spells "eleph" / "one
thousand."
(Gur Aryeh: Bamidbar 10:36; Chiddushei Aggadot: Bava Kamma 83a)
Rav Tzadok Hakohen of Lublin z"l explains further that one
thousand represents completion because it is the highest number is
the Hebrew language. He explains that the word "revavah" --
translated above as 10,000 -- is not a number, but just means
"many." Thus, for example, we read in Parashat Yitro that Moshe
appointed officers over thousands, officers over hundreds, and so
on down, but not officers over ten-thousands. This is why one and
one-thousand share the word "aleph"/"eleph," i.e., because they are
both basic units.
(Yisrael Kedoshim 12b; Dover Tzedek 8a)
************************************
"Give might to G-d..." (68:36)
How do we give might to G-d, the source of all might?
Conversely, what does it mean (Devarim 32:18), "The rock Who gave
birth to you is weakened"?
Rav Moshe Chaim Luzzato ("Ramchal") z"l explains that one of the
two principles which Hashem created to guide the world is that of
reward and punishment. By G-d's own design, our good deeds make
Him stronger, i.e., they give Him the "freedom" to be good to us.
Conversely, our own bad deeds "weaken" G-d because (again, by His
own design) they "force" Him to turn away from us.
(Da'at Tevunot)
************************************
"When the Ark would journey, Moshe said, 'Arise, Hashem, and let
Your foes be scattered...'" (10:35)
This verse and the next verse are set off in the Torah by upside
down letters "nun." Rashi explains that this parashah doesn't
belong here, but it was put here to separate between two
unfortunate events in Jewish history.
Why were verses about the Ark chosen for this purpose? Rav
Yonatan Eyebschutz z"l explains: The verses immediately preceding
these relate that the Ark traveled three days ahead of Bnei
Yisrael. Had the Ark traveled among Bnei Yisrael, says Rav
Eyebschutz, it would have destroyed them when they rebelled against
Hashem. This is alluded to in the verse quoted above, "Vayehi
be'nesoa" / "When the Ark would journey," because "vayehi" is a
word that Chazal say alludes to sadness.
(Tiferet Yehonatan)
************************************
"Why did you not fear to speak against My servant Moshe?"
(12:8)
Rashi quotes the midrash: "My servant Moshe"--"My servant, even
if he were not Moshe; Moshe, even if he were not My servant."
Rav Meir Dan Plotzky z"l asks: We can understand that one would
have to respect Hashem's servant, even if he were not Moshe, but
what is the meaning of "Moshe, even if he were not My servant"?
The gemara relates that Rabbi Chaninah ben Dosa was more
successful at praying for the sick than was Rabban Yochanan ben
Zakkai. The latter's wife asked her husband, the leading sage of
his generation, "Is Rabbi Chaninah greater than you?"
"No," said Rabban Yochanan, "but I am like a royal minister who
enters only with permission, while he is like a servant who has the
run of the house."
Says Rav Meir Dan: The world stands on several pillars,
including Torah and avodah (prayer or "service of G-d"). The
"royal minister" in Rabban Yochanan's parable is the Torah scholar,
while the "servant" is the master of prayer. So too in our
midrash, "Moshe" represents the Torah scholar, while the "servant"
represents service of Hashem. Thus the midrash says, "Should you
not fear to speak against your brother even if he had only one of
these traits? How much more so now that he is My servant and
Moshe."
(Kli Chemdah: Parashat Vayikra)
************************************
Rav Hillel Milikowsky z"l
born 5581 (1821) - died 23 Sivan 5659 (1899)
Rav Milikowsky studied in the Ramailles Yeshiva in Vilna under
the leadership of Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, the founder of the
mussar/character development movement. Later, Rav Milikowsky was
among the activists upon whom Rabbi Yisrael called to solve
communal problems. His fluency in Russian helped him gain access
to top decision-makers, and he frequently traveled to St.
Petersburg (Russia's capital) to represent the interests of Russian
Jewry.
Rav Milikowsky served as rabbi of Salant, Ponovezh and other
towns. Except for his salary, he accepted none of the traditional
remuneration offered to rabbis (e.g., money for selling chametz).
At the instigation of Rabbi Yisrael, Rav Milikowsky was offered the
rabbinate of Paris, but declined it.
Rav Milikowsky was completely objective, refusing even to
write a letter of recommendation for his son. "You own deeds will
draw you close or distance you from that which you seek," he said.
Another of his teachings was that happiness is a sign of trust in
G-d. Rav Milikowsky's understanding of the need for mussar study
is revealed in his will, as follows:
The gemara states that Hashem created the Torah as a
counterpart to the evil inclination. "Torah" here refers to
the laws of the Torah. However, just as the diet and exercise
regimen which a physician prescribes for a healthy man may not
be appropriate for one who is ill, so studying and keeping the
laws is sufficient for one who is spiritually healthy, but not
for our generation, which is ill. The additional medicine
which we need is mussar study.
Rav Milikowsky wrote that good character traits are inborn, but
they are lost if they are not used.
On the day of Rav Milikowsky's funeral, even the non-Jews in
his town closed their shops out of respect for the deceased.
(Tnuat Hamussar vol. 2)
|
| 989.470 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Shelach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jun 13 1996 20:56 | 161 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Shelach
Vol. X, No. 33 (470), 28 Sivan 5756, June 15, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah -- this week Psalm 64. This psalm
describes the rasha who speaks lashon hara. Verses 3-5 state: "Hide
me from the counsel of the wicked, from the assembly of evildoers;
Who have sharpened their tongue like the sword and aimed their arrow
-- a bitter word; To shoot in secrecy at the innocent, suddenly they
shot, and they are unafraid."
This describes the ten spies who brought back a bad report about
Eretz Yisrael, as we read in our parashah. The Torah says that the
spies began their report (13:27), "We arrived at the Land to which
you sent us, and indeed it flows with milk and honey..." However,
like the slanderer described above by King David, they shot their
arrows suddenly, saying (13:28), "However, the people that dwells
in the Land is powerful..."
In the midrash, this entire psalm is interpreted in relation to
the life of the prophet Daniel. The commentator Rav Ovadiah Sforno
interprets the psalm as referring to the Purim story.
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"Hide me from the counsel of the wicked, from the assembly of
evildoers. Who have sharpened their tongue like the sword, and aimed
their arrow -- a bitter word. To shoot in secrecy at the
innocent..." (64:4-5)
Rav Azaryah Figo z"l explains: There are two kinds of people who
speak lashon hara -- those who speak in veiled terms and those who
come right out and speak their evil. Thus, the first type of lashon
hara is the "counsel of the wicked." (The Hebrew word for "counsel"
is "sod" -- literally, "secret.") The second type is the "assembly
of evildoers," that is, those who are blatant as if they are actually
doing evil.
The two types of lashon hara are represented by two weapons. The
sword does its work as it is held in the hand, just like those who
speak lashon hara openly do their damage as they speak. The arrow's
damage is removed in time from when it is released, just as those
who disguise their evil tongues cause harm only after a delay.
In either case, says Rav Figo, lashon hara is the "mother of all
sins" (literally, "avi avot kol ha'avonot").
(Binah La'ittim: Et Lachashot, drush rishon)
Rav Yitzchak Hutner z"l also divides lashon hara into two types,
but along different lines. One type involves revealing another
person's secret. The second type involves failing to judge another
person favorably. There are halachic differences between these two
types, Rav Hutner says (although a full discussion is beyond the
scope of this space).
(Pachad Yitzchak: Shavuot III)
************************************
"Who have sharpened their tongue like the sword, and aimed their
arrow -- a bitter word. To shoot in secrecy at the innocent..."
(64:4-5)
Rav Yosef Chaim of Baghdad z"l writes that this refers to those
who speak lashon hara indirectly. For example, such people stand
before the king's cook and say, "Give us cheese," thus reminding the
cook that the milkman did not bring cheese that day.
(Hachaim Vehashalom)
************************************
[The divrei Torah on this page are from two descendants of Rav
Baruch Frankel-Teomim, the subject of this week's biography. The
yahrzeits of both of these chassidic rebbes fall in the next two
weeks.]
"The Land that we passed through to spy it out -- the Land is
very, very good. If Hashem desires us, He will bring us to this Land
and give it to us, a Land that flows with milk and honey. But do
not rebel against Hashem!" (14:7-9)
This was Yehoshua and Kalev's retort to the other ten spies' bad
report about Eretz Yisrael. Rav Yekutiel Yehuda Halberstam (the
"Klausenberger Rebbe") z"l explains: "If Hashem will desire us, i.e.,
if we will be worthy, then even we will see that the Land is very,
very good."
Also, says Rav Halberstam, why is the Land "very, very good"?
Usually, when Hashem blesses man with "milk and honey" (i.e.,
material wealth), man becomes haughty and rebels against Him.
However, Eretz Yisrael has a special characteristic that G-d can give
its residents milk and honey, and they will not rebel. In part, this
comes from the holiness of the Land, and it also comes about when
we recognize that we must be a "nation that lives apart" (cf.
Bamidbar 23:9).
(Shefa Chaim V:417)
************************************
"Like the number of days that you spied out the Land, forty days,
a day for a year, a day for a year, shall you bear your iniquities
forty years..." (14:34)
Rav Simcha Bunim Alter (the "Gerrer Rebbe") z"l asks: Shouldn't
the verse say, "a year for a day," rather than, "a day for a year"?
Also, is it really in Hashem's nature to punish so stringently?
Although the spies committed a terrible sin, for it was Hashem's
will that Bnei Yisrael enter the Land at that time, the spies'
intention was for good. Specifically, the spies saw the Jewish
people surrounded by the clouds of glory, eating a wholly spiritual
food (mahn) and learning Torah from Moshe, and they (the spies) did
not want this state to end. Thus Hashem said, "I will reward you
that each day of your effort will bear fruit 'for a year'." And,
it turns out that the punishment was not so stringent. To the
contrary, the long period of wandering in the desert was a reward
for them.
(Lev Simchah p.175)
************************************
Rav Baruch Frankel-Teomim z"l
("Bruch Ta'am")
died 7 Tamuz 5588 (1828)
When the chassidic movement was founded, most leading Torah
scholars could be counted among its opponents ("mitnagdim"). Rav
Baruch's generation saw much of that opposition give way to peaceful
coexistence and even acceptance; Rav Baruch, for example, was a
leading posek and rabbi in Moravia. While Rav Baruch himself was
not a chassid, he accepted a chassid as his son-in-law, namely the
young man who became Rav Chaim Halberstam of Sanz. Through him, Rav
Baruch became the progenitor of the current Klausenberger rebbes.
(There are two, one in Netanya, Israel, and one in Union City, N.J.)
Also, one of Rav Baruch's great-granddaughters was the wife of the
Sefat Emet, great-grandfather of the current Gerrer Rebbe.
Rav Baruch had several teachers of whom the best known was Rav
Meshulam Igra. Rav Baruch's first rabbinic position was in Vishnitza
(not the same as Vizhnitz). This city is known in Jewish lore as
a place that had stormy relations with its rabbis, and Rav Baruch's
experience was no different. Later, he moved to Leipnick, in
Moravia, where he opened a yeshiva.
His best known work is B'ruch Taam. A scholar no less than the
Chatam Sofer wrote a glowing approbation for this work of halachic
responsa. At least seven other works of his are known as well.
Also, Rav Baruch's Talmud notes and commentaries are published in
the back of the standard Vilna edition of the Talmud, while his notes
on other works (for example on Turei Even of Rav Aryeh Leib of Metz),
are published in the standard editions of those books. Indeed, it
is rare to find scholars of Rav Baruch's generation commenting on
the works of their contemporaries, but Rav Baruch did so.
|
| 989.471 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Korach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jun 20 1996 22:38 | 174 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Korach
Vol. X, No. 34 (471), 5 Tamuz 5756, June 22, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah -- this week Psalm 5. This psalm
is David's prayer for salvation from his enemies Doeg and Achitophel,
but it closely parallels Moshe's response to Korach's rebellion.
For example, Moshe said (Bemidbar 16:5), "In the morning G-d will
make known the one who is His own..." David said (verse 4), "G-d,
in the morning hear my voice..."
Moshe prayed that Hashem identify who is chosen to serve Him in
the mishkan (Tabernacle). David prayed (verse 8), "As for me, I will
enter Your house, I will prostrate myself toward Your holy sanctuary
in awe of You." Indeed, Doeg was jealous of David's special
connection to the future Temple, just as Korach was jealous of Moshe
and Aharon's connection to the mishkan. (See Zevachim 54b, and note
that the person who taught David the laws of the Temple was the
prophet Shmuel, a descendant of Korach.)
Moshe prayed that Hashem reject the offerings of Korach and his
band. David prayed (verse 11), "Declare them guilty, G-d, ... for
their many sins cast them away."
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"Heed the sound of my outcry, my King and my G-d, for to You alone
do I pray." (5:3)
Rav Chaim Vital z"l asks: Why does David call Hashem, "My King
and my G-d" (instead of just one of these)? Also, why does he use
two different terms, "outcry and prayer"?
Rav Vital explains: An "outcry" is a call that deserves a
response. For example, if a person is attacked by thugs, the king's
police are obligated to answer his "outcry." "Prayer" ("tefilah"),
by contrast, is a request that does not merit a response. A mortal
king likely will not answer such a call, but G-d will answer out of
His endless kindness.
Thus David says to Hashem, "Heed the sound of my outcry because
You are my King. But, You are also my G-d, and thus to You do I
pray."
(Etz Ha-da'at Tov)
************************************
"Hashem, at dawn hear my voice..." (5:4)
Dawn signifies renewal, says Rav Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Izbica
z"l. David prays: At any time that I experience renewal, hear my
voice so that this feeling will not develop along lines that are
against Your will.
(Mei Hashiloach)
************************************
"For their many sins case them away, for they have rebelled
against You. And all who take refuge in You will rejoice, and You
will shelter them." (5:11-12)
Rav Moshe Alshich (the "Alshich Hakadosh") z"l explains: When
Hashem's enemies fall, the tzaddik rejoices. However, when the
tzaddik's enemy falls, the tzaddik does not rejoice, for then the
verse says (Mishlei 24:17), "When your enemy falls, do not rejoice."
As long as we rejoice for Hashem's honor, and not for our own,
this verse says, then we can ask that He shelter us.
(Romemut Kel)
************************************
"And Korach ... and Datan and Aviram ..."
Korach's rebellion was the last time, but not the first time, that
Datan and Aviram quarrelled with Moshe. They were the ones who
handed Moshe over to Pharaoh to stand trial for killing an Egyptian
(Shmot 2:12). They also were the ones who tried to prove that the
mahn did indeed fall on Shabbat (Shmot 16:27).
Were Datan and Aviram really so wicked? If so, why didn't they
die in the plague of darkness with the other resha'im among Bnei
Yisrael?
In truth, we must understand that all of those who witnessed matan
Torah and the other miracles of the desert were truly great people.
No one is without a fault, however. It was Datan and Aviram's
"misfortune" that their one fault was their inability to get along
with Moshe. In every other respect, however, they were great men.
(heard from Rabbi Gedaliah Anemer shlita)
************************************
"They stood before Moshe..." (16:2)
Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlita writes: This could be taken literally,
that the rebels stood out of respect for Moshe. Such is the way of
the wicked, attempting to show that they recognize the greatness of
Moshe but differ with him on one point (i.e., whether it is
appropriate to single out one person as the kohen gadol).
(Ta'am Vada'at)
************************************
"And Aharon -- what is he that you protest against him?" (16:11)
This verse also can be punctuated: "And Aharon -- what is he?
Protest against him!" Rav Meir Shapiro (the "Lubliner Rav") z"l
explained in the name of his teacher, Rav Meir Arik z"l, as follows:
Chazal say that there are three ways to determine a person's true
character -- "bekoso, bekiso, beka'aso"/"through his drink, through
his pocketbook, and through his anger." Moshe said, "Do you want
to see how fine Aharon's character is? You can't tell through his
drink, because the kohen gadol may not drink. You can't tell through
his pocketbook, because in the desert all were equal. Therefore,
if you want to see what Aharon is, protest against him! Try to get
him angry and see how he reacts."
(quoted in Marbitzei Torah Me'olam Hachassidut,
III p.42)
************************************
Rav David Lifshitz z"l
born 5666 (1906) - died 9 Tamuz 5753 (1993)
Rav David, known as the "Suvalker Rav," was a important figure
in American Jewish life for nearly five decades, as a rosh yeshiva
and as president of the Ezras Torah welfare organization from 1976
until his passing. He was born in Minsk, but moved to Grodno as a
child, where he studied in Yeshivat Shaar Hatorah of Rav Shimon Shkop
z"l. He later transferred to the Mir yeshiva where he studied under
Rav Eliezer Yehuda Finkel z"l and Rav Yerucham Levovitz z"l.
At age 24, Rav David married Zipporah Chava Yoselewitz, daughter
of the rabbi of Suvalk. (Students of "The Mir," as the yeshiva was
known, generally did not marry at such "young" ages, either because
they were too busy studying or due to the lack of suitable girls in
those pre-Bais Yaakov days.) Two years later, in 1935, Rav David
succeeded his father-in-law as rabbi of Suvalk, a title he carried
for the rest of his life.
Rav David suffered tremendous persecution at the hands of the
Gestapo before the Jews were expelled from Suvalk. One-half of
Suvalk's 6,000 Jews (including the Lifshitz family) escaped to
Lithuania. In June 1941, Rav David arrived in San Francisco on a
boat that carried several other leading sages.
Rav David's first position was in Chicago, but he soon moved to
Yeshivat Rabbenu Yitzchak Elchanan (the rabbinical school of Yeshiva
University), where he remained for the rest of his life. A small
number of Rav David's shmuessen (ethical lectures) were printed
posthumously under the title Tehilah Le'David. Several of these
relate to the subject of "shalom," such as one from Yom Kippur 1974
when he said:
When we say "Shalom aleichem," we are not merely greeting someone;
we are blessing him. "Shalom" is a name of G-d, meaning
"completeness." "Shalom"/"Peace" means that the whole cosmos has
achieved a state of completion through uniting to serve G-d. Whereas
man was created lacking, it is his job to complete himself...
Israel today [one year after the Yom Kippur War] is in a state
of truce. There are agreements, but is that peace? Is a cease-fire
peace? Real shalom can exist only when Hashem's awe is over all His
handiwork, united to do His will (paraphrasing the Yom Kippur
prayers). Shalom cannot be just the absence of war, because peace
is completeness, a name of G-d.
|
| 989.472 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Matot-Masei | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jul 12 1996 23:42 | 144 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Matot-Masei
Vol. X, No. 37 (474), 26 Tamuz 5756, July 13, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah. This week's psalms are 111 and
49, corresponding to Matot and Masei, respectively.
According to Midrash Shocher Tov, psalm 111 praises Hashem for
the death of our mortal enemies. In Parashat Matot, Hashem orders
the Jews to avenge themselves on the evil Midianites. The prophet
Bilam also is killed in this week's parashah.
Psalm 49 describes the foolishness of devoting one's life to
amassing wealth. (This psalm traditionally is recited twice a day
in a mourner's home.) The phrase, "You can't take it with you," may
originate in verse 18 of this psalm--"For upon his death he will not
take anything, his splendor will not descend after him." In Parashat
Masei (as well as in Matot), we read about of the allocation of Eretz
Yisrael, and also about the tribe of Menashe's complaints against
giving land to Tzelofchad's daughters. Perhaps this psalm reminds
us, as Rav Chaim of Volozhin told two neighbors who fought over a
strip of land, "The Land doesn't belong to us; we belong to it."
(See Around the Maggid's Table, p.121)
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"The strength of His deeds He declared to His nation, to give them
the heritage of peoples." (Tehilim 111:6)
Rashi (Bereishit 1:1) quotes the midrash which asks, "Why does
the Torah begin with creation, rather than with the first mitzvah?"
He answers with the above verse, explaining, "If the nations accuse
the Jewish people of stealing Eretz Yisrael from its previous
inahbitants, we will answer them, 'G-d created the world, and He
gives its territory to whomever He sees fit. First He gave it to
other nations, and now He has given it to us'."
Rav Eliyahu Meir Bloch z"l explains that the midrash does not mean
that that this argument will convince the gentiles of the legitimacy
of our claim. Rather, this argument is meant to reinforce the
resolve and the faith of the Jews themselves. If the Jews waver and
question their own right to dispossess the gentiles who have lived
on the land for centuries, they should study the first verse of the
Torah to remind themselves who is the ultimate Master of the Land.
(quoted in The ArtScroll Tehilim, p.1352)
Also, Rav Bloch explained, we need to be reminded of who is
Master of the Land so that we do not think that we conquered it by
our own might.
(Peninei Da'at)
************************************
"But as for man, in his glory he shall not repose, he is likened
to silenced animals." (Tehilim 49:13)
Rav Moshe Chaim Luzzato ("Ramchal") writes: This refers to Adam
(the word used for "man" is "Adam"), who did not repose in Gan Eden
even one night before he sinned and was expelled. When that
happened, he fell to the level of an aminal.
There are three levels to man's existence, explains Ramchal. They
are: (1) what man was before the sin, (2) what man is after the sin,
and (3) what man could have been but for the sin. When Adam sinned,
he lost not only what he was -- so lofty that the angels themselves
thought he was a god -- but what he could have been. This latter
level now will be achieved only at the end of time, specifically,
after techiyat hameitim/the resurrection of the dead.
(Da'at Tevunot)
************************************
"If a man takes a vow to Hashem or swears an oath to establish a
prohibition upon himself, he shall not desecrate his word; according
to whatever comes from his mouth he shall do." (30:3)
In his classic mussar (ethical) work, Orchot Chaim, Rabbenu Asher
z"l writes: "One should be watchful of the stumbling block of vows,
and of cheating others, whether monetarily or verbally."
The ba'alei mussar (19th and 20th century mussar teachers) offer
several explanations of why Rabbenu Asher combines a mitzvah between
man and G-d--i.e., "be watchful of the stumbling block of vows"--with
one between man and man--i.e., "and of cheating others, whether
monetarily or verbally."
Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv (the "Alter of Kelm") z"l explains:
Rabbenu Asher is teaching that our observance of mitzvot between man
and man is not only because society demands it, but because G-d
demands it. Moreover, the mitzvot between man and man are a stepping
stone to the mitzvot between man and G-d, as the midrash says, "If
today man denies that his friend did him kindness, tommorow he will
deny that Hashem did him kindness."
Rav Avraham Yoffen z"l explains: The way to avoid sins that
people take lightly--for example cheating in business--is to take
a vow to be more meticulous in the observance of the relevant laws.
Needless to say, a prerequisite to this is to be meticulous in the
observance of the laws of vows.
Rav Abba Grossbard z"l explains: Both the stumbling block of vows
and the sin of cheating others originate from the trait of lying.
If a person lies to himself by making false vows, he will inevitably
lie to others.
(quoted in Orach Yesharim,
an anthology of commentary to Orchot Chaim)
************************************
Rav Shlomo Ganzfried z"l
born 5564 or 65 (1804/5) - died 28 Tamuz 5648 (1888)
Rav Ganzfried was born in Ungvar, now in the Slovak Republic.
He was orphaned at age eight and was raised by the local rabbi, Rav
Zvi Heller (a/k/a "Rav Zvi Charif"), who was also his teacher. Rav
Ganzfried first was a businessman, and his rabbinical career began
when he was 39 years old. From 1850 until his death, he was av bet
din/head of the rabbinical court of his birthplace, Ungvar.
Rav Ganzfried wrote a number of works, but he is best known for
his concise code of Jewish law, the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch. This work
enjoyed incredible popularity, and in the author's lifetime alone,
it was reprinted 14 times.
Another popular work by Rav Ganzfried is Kesset Hasofer ("The
Scribe's Pen"), a compendium of the laws of writing a Torah, tefilin,
or mezuzah. Rav Moshe Sofer (the "Chatam Sofer") wrote that no
person should be given a sofer's kabbalah (license) unless he is
proficient in this work. Rav Ganzfried wrote this work when he was
30-year old businessman.
In Central Europe of the 19th century, Jews were required by law
to pay dues to the local Jewish community council. In 1869, Rav
Ganzfried became one of the first to call for Orthodox Jews to have
the right to secede from communities that had been taken over by the
Reform movement. (The best known warrior in this battle was Rav
Samson Raphael Hirsch z"l. See Collected Writings of Rabbi Samson
Raphael Hirsch, Vol. VI.)
|
| 989.473 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Devarim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Jul 16 1996 19:46 | 160 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Devarim
Vol. X, No. 38 (475), 5 Av 5756, July 20, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah -- this week, psalm 137. Parashat
Devarim is always read on, or just before, Tishah B'Av, and, most
likely, this chapter was chosen because it echoes the themes of
Tishah B'Av: "By the rivers of Babylon -- there we sat and also
wept, when we remembered Zion . . . How can we sing the song of
Hashem on alien soil. If I forget thee, O Yerushalayim, let my right
hand forget its skill . . ."
In this psalm, David prophesied regarding the destructions of both
Temples. Verse 1, "By the rivers of Babylon -- there we sat and also
wept," refers to the first Bet Hamikdash, which was destroyed by
Bavel/Babylon. Verse 7, "Remember, Hashem, for the offspring of
Edom, the day of Yerushalayim," alludes to the second Bet Hamikdash,
which was destroyed by Rome, which is traditionally associated with
Edom/Esav. (Midrash Shocher Tov)
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"By the rivers of Babylon -- there we sat and also wept, when we
remembered Zion. On the willows/aravim we hung our musical
instruments. For there our captors requested words of song from us,
and our joyous hanging [instruments], 'Sing for us from the songs
of Zion'." (Tehilim 137:1-3)
Rav Moshe Alshich z"l asks: Why is it significant that our
ancestors sat by the river, of all places, or that they hung their
instruments on willows, of all trees? Also, given the Jews' sadness,
why did they hang their instruments on the trees, rather than getting
rid of them entirely?
The Zohar relates that the Jews who were exiled were depressed
beyond description. It was at that time that Yechezkel, who was
standing by the River Kevar, saw the vision of the merkavah/chariot
described in the opening chapters of his book. That vision
symbolized that G-d and his entourage also were going into exile as
a guarantee (in Hebrew, "arevut") of the future redemption.
As a sign of their consolation, the "Alshich Hakadosh" explains,
the Jews kept their musical instruments, objects of joy, and they
hung them on the aravim --related to arevut -- by the river.
In light of this, he continues, we can understand the next verse.
At first, the Babylonian captors assumed that the Jews would be too
depressed to sing; therefore they requested only to know the words
of the Jews' songs. However, when they saw the hanging instruments,
they realized that their captives had been consoled, and they
ordered, "Sing for us from the songs of Zion."
(Romemut Kel)
************************************
"By the rivers of Babylon -- there we sat and also wept."
The entire way from Yerushalayim to Bavel, the Jews were not
allowed to rest. The Babylonians reasoned, "This nation has a
merciful G-d. If we let them rest, they will cry out to Him and He
will save them."
"There we sat and also wept" also alludes to Yirmiyahu's rebuke
to the exiled Jews: "Had you only cried to G-d one time while you
were still in Yerushalayim, you would not be here today."
(Midrash Shocher Tov)
************************************
"Enough of your circling this mountain/'har'; turn yourselves
northward/'tzafonah'." (2:3)
Rav Ben-Zion Halberstam (the "Bobover Rebbe") z"l comments:
Before one can please G-d with his good deeds, he must abandon his
bad deeds. This is alluded to in our verse.
The letters which surround those of the word "har"/"mountain"
spell "kadosh"/"holy." (The letters "kuf" and "shin" are before
and after the letter "resh," and the letters "dalet" and "vav"
precede and follow the letter "heh.") One cannot so easily "circle
the mountain," i.e., become holy. First one must "turn
"tzafonah"/"northward." The "tzefoni"/ "hidden one" is a nickname
for the yetzer hara; before one can be holy, he must turn his
attention to the yetzer hara and defeat it.
(Kedushat Tzion)
************************************
"For Hashem your G-d has blessed you . . ." (2:7)
Rashi comments: "Therefore, do not be ungrateful by appearing
to be poor. Rather, you should appear to be rich."
Rav David Sperber z"l asks: Doesn't this contradict the advice
which Yaakov gave his children (Bereishit 42:1), "Do not make
yourself conspicuous"?
Rav Sperber explains: Chazal said, "Poverty is good for the Jews
like a saddle for a horse." When does a horse where a saddle? Not
when it is home, in the stable -- the horse wears the saddle
outdoors. Similarly, Jews should not appear conspicuous when they
are outside, among the gentiles. Privately, however, Jews should
be satisfied with what they have, and should "feel" rich.
(Michtam L'David)
[Ed. note: In fact, Rashi's wording may be precisely chosen to
preempt Rav Sperber's question. Rashi does not advocate showing off.
Rather, he is saying, "You must not act so poor that you appear to
be ungrateful for Hashem's kindness."]
************************************
Rav Ben-Zion Halberstam hy"d
born Iyar 5634 (1874) - died 4 Av 5741 (1941)
Rav Ben-Zion Halberstam, the "Bobover Rebbe," was a great-grandson
of Rav Chaim Halberstam, the "Sanzer Rav." Rav Ben-Zion was one of
the major leaders in Galicia (southern Poland), and was at once a
chassidic rebbe, town rabbi, and head of a large network of yeshivot.
He also was noted as a miracle worker and composer, and for giving
sage advice to Jews in trouble.
For example, to a Jew who accidentally stepped on a facsimile of
the official seal of the Polish state and was charged with sedition,
Rav Ben-Zion advised: "When you go to trial, bring a book of matches
that has the seal of Poland on the cover, but take out all but one
match. When you see the judge take out a cigarette, offer him a
light." The defendant did this, and watched as the judge threw away
the empty matchbook, seal and all. The defense counsel pointed this
out to the judge, and charges were dismissed.
Upon succeeding his father in 1905, Rav Ben-Zion revolutionized
the chassidic world. Before him, the movement had catered to the
spiritual needs of the middle-aged and old. Bobov revolved around
the young. Rav Ben-Zion explained that just as soldiers are trained
to meet different challenges now than they were 100 years ago, so
it is with our youth. In previous generations, Jews had lived
sheltered lives and there had been few spiritual challenges facing
the young. They did not need the inspiration of visiting a rebbe.
However, this is no longer true.
With the outbreak of World War II, Rav Ben-Zion and his family
fled eastward in front of the advancing Nazis. He turned down the
opportunity to flee to the United States because one of his children
was missing. (He had been taken to Siberia, where he died.) After
some time in the city of Lvov, Rav Ben-Zion was "arrested" by
Ukrainian police and murdered in cold blood.
Rav Ben-Zion's eldest son is the Bobover Rebbe in Brooklyn. One
of Rav Ben-Zion's daughters (who passed away last month) was the
mother of the well-known Twerski brothers: psychiatrist and author,
Dr. Avraham; law professor and activist, Rabbi Aharon; and Rabbis
Michel (Milwaukee) and Shlomo (Denver).
A dvar Torah from Rav Ben-Zion appears on page 3.
|
| 989.474 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vaetchanan | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Aug 01 1996 00:05 | 176 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Vaetchanan
Vol. X, No. 39 (476), 11 Menachem Av 5756, July 27, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah -- this week, psalm 90. The
relationship of this psalm to the parashah is obvious compared to
those of previous weeks. Specifically, the parashah opens with Moshe
saying, "I pleaded with G-d," and this psalm begins, "A prayer by
Moshe..."
This psalm bears a relationship also to the post-Tishah B'Av
period, when we read the Prophets in search of consolation. Rabbenu
Maimon (father of Rambam/ Maimonides) writes that this psalm includes
a prayer for every type of trouble that would befall the Jewish
people from the beginning of the exile until its end. Moshe prayed,
writes Rabbenu Maimon, that G-d should have mercy on us, that He
should punish us (when He must) with mercy, and that He should give
us strength to outlast the exile. Moshe's prayer was accepted, says
Rabbenu Maimon. The proof is that all of the ideas that are only
alluded to in this psalm are addressed at length in the later
prophets. (Iggeret Hanechamah)
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"You turn man back until he is crushed, and You say, 'Repent, sons
of man." (90:3)
Rav Yitzchak Arama explains: The first half of the verse teaches
that Hashem wants every person to repent, and He brings about various
circumstances to promote that result. If necessary, Hashem even will
bring suffering on a person, all so that he will see the wrongfulness
of his ways.
However, the second half teaches, Hashem is very kind. After he
has brought the sinner back against his will, he gives the sinner
credit as if he repented on his own.
(Akeidat Yitzchak: Parashat Shemini)
Rav Ovadiah Sforno writes that this verse explains why the
generations after the flood lived much shorter lives than before.
Long life makes man lose sight of the need to repent. "You turned
man back until he is crushed," i.e, You turned back the number of
his days until they are nothing compared to what they used to be,
all in order to say, "Repent, sons of man."
(Beur Al Tehilim)
************************************
"Satisfy us in the morning with Your kindness, then we shall sing
out and rejoice all of our days." (90:14)
Midrash Shocher Tov (ch. 36) tells about a man who was unable to
light his lamp in the evening. Each time he lit it, it went out.
Finally, in exasperation, he said, "Will I be doing this repeatedly?
I may as well wait until morning, and then I will walk by the
sunlight."
So it is with Yisrael, says the midrash. They were subjugated
by Egypt, and Moshe and Aharon redeemed them. By Babylon--and
Chananiah, Mishael, and Azaryah redeemed them. By the Greeks--and
Mattityahu, Chashmonai and his sons redeemed them. Finally, when
the Jewish people were exiled by Edom/Rome they said, "From now on,
we do not want anyone except Hashem to light our way."
Rav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik explains that this is the idea
contained in our verse: "Hashem, satisfy us in the morning with Your
kindness, not with brief respites from the long night such as the
previous redemptions brought. Only then we shall sing out and
rejoice all of our days, instead of only temporarily."
(Bet Halevi: Drush Dalet)
************************************
"Let me now cross and see the good Land that is on the other side
of the Jordan. . ." (3:25)
The gemara (Sotah 14a) asks: Why did Moshe want to enter Eretz
Yisrael? Was he looking forward to eating the fruit of the Land?
the gemara asks rhetorically.
On this, Rav Akiva Yosef Schlesinger z"l asks: What would have
been wrong if Moshe had been looking forward to eating the fruit of
the Land? After all, don't we pray in the berachah which we recite
after eating cake or drinking wine, "May You take us up to it [i.e.,
the Land] and we will eat of its fruits"?
In fact, there is some halachic controversy regarding the above
language of the blessing (see Tur Orach Chaim 208). However, Rav
Yoel Sirkes (the "Bach") justifies the language on the basis that
"the holiness of the land which comes from Above flows to its fruits
also," and, "by eating its fruits we are enjoying holiness and purity
from Above." As Rav Schlesinger explains, eating the fruits of Eretz
Yisrael brings holiness to the soul and aids us in serving Hashem
and improving our characters.
Moshe was on a level where such concerns were not relevant to him;
he was as close to being a perfect human being as one can be. Thus,
regarding Moshe, one could rightly ask: Was he looking forward to
eating the fruit of the Land?
(based on Tosfot Ben Yechiel p.50b)
************************************
"Hear O Israel, Hashem is our G-d, Hashem is One." (6:4)
This verse begins the daily recital of "Shema." In the gemara
(Berachot 13a), reciting this verse and the following five verses
is called, "Accepting the yoke of Heaven." Reciting the second
paragraph of Shema (Devarim 11:13-21) is called, "Accepting the yoke
of mitzvot."
What is the yoke of Heaven as distinct from the yoke of mitzvot?
asks Rav Avraham Grodzenski (mashgiach of the Slobodka Yeshiva) hy"d.
To understand this, we must understand the basic tool of the yetzer
hara, says Rav Grodzenski. This tool is the concept of "choice."
Man doesn't mind doing what is right, but he is "pro-choice"--he must
feel like he is in control and no one can tell him what to do.
Phrased differently, man does not object to doing mitzvot; what he
objects to is the yoke of Heaven. (Rav Grodzenski explains how this
resulted from Adam's first sin.)
Conversely, says Rav Grodzenski, accepting the yoke of mitzvot
is not so hard, so long as one has accomplished the prerequisite:
"Accepting the yoke of Heaven." This means subjugating man's desire
for "choice" to the recognition that man is ultimately a slave to
G-d.
(Torat Avraham p.59)
************************************
Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv z"l
(The "Alter of Kelm")
born 5584 (1824) - died 8 Av 5658 (1898)
Of the three leading students of Rav Yisrael Salanter, founder
of the mussar movement, Rav Simcha Zissel was the one who Rav Yisrael
expected to carry on the movement. Rav Simcha Zissel devoted his
entire adult life to Rav Yisrael's teachings. Though he never held
any official position -- when he was offered the rabbinate of St.
Petersburg, he sold it to his friend Rav Yitzchak Blazer for 25
rubles -- his numerous students included many of the mussar greats
of the next generation, including Rav Nosson Zvi Finkel of Slobodka,
Rav Yosef Yoizel Horowitz of Novhardok, Rav Aharon Bakst, Rav Reuven
Dessler (father of the Michtav M'Eliyahu's author), Rav Nachum Ziv,
and Rav Hirsch Broida.
It would be impossible to summarize Rav Simcha Zissel's approach
to mussar/character improvement in so small a space as this.
However, the historian, Rav Dov Katz, writes that there were three
guiding principles: (1) one should become emotionally involved in
his studies, whether joyful or sad; (2) one should ask himself after
everything he learns, "What did I think before, and what do I know
differently now?"; and (3) one's study should always include
stripping away the veneer and getting to the essence of the topic.
Rav Simcha Zissel taught that the whole world was a classroom
where one could learn to improve his character and increase his
belief in G-d. Such study was not limited to books or to Torah
sources. Of course, worthwhile lessons do not come merely from
observation. Rather, intense reflection is required. Also, one must
realize that this study never ends. This is why Torah scholars are
called, "talmidei chachamim"/"students of wise men." Rav Simcha
Zissel used to quote Socrates, who said that true wisdom is knowing
that one doesn't know.
Rav Simcha Zissel was very sickly his whole life. Therefore, much
of his teaching was through letters that he wrote to his students,
rather than in person. (He also encouraged his followers to
establish groups to strengthen each other and review his teachings.)
Only a small portion of his written legacy has been published (Based
on Tnuat Hamussar).
|
| 989.475 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Eikev | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Aug 01 1996 00:06 | 173 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Eikev
Vol. X, No. 40 (477), 18 Menachem Av 5756, August 3, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah -- this week, psalm 75. This
chapter echoes the theme of consolation which began with last week's
psalm. (This is a common thread that runs through the late-summer
haftarot as well.)
This week's parashah and psalm both encourage us to reflect on
history, and to see the purpose in Hashem's deeds. In the parashah
(8:2): "You shall remember the entire road on which Hashem, your G-d,
led you these forty years in the Wilderness so as to afflict you,
to test you, to know what is in your heart . . ." In the psalm
(verse 3, as explained by Shelah Hakadosh): "When I take my time,
I shall judge with fairness," i.e., if I rush to judgment, it appears
to me that You are unfair, but when I reflect on it, I see that I
was wrong.
Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch z"l expresses a related thought based
on this verse, but with Hashem speaking: When I shall choose the due
and appointed time (and I do choose an appointed time), I often allow
much time to elapse during which no one can perceive My rule and men
say, as Pharaoh said, "Who is Hashem that I should listen to Him?"
. . . Once I choose the proper time, then I will come forth as "Ani"
[the same pronoun by which Hashem identified Himself in Egypt], and
I shall judge with equity; I shall crush tyranny and establish
order."
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
[On the first page of this issue, we translated verse 3 of this
psalm as, "When I take my time, I shall judge with fairness." Other
commentaries explain this verse differently.]
"That which I wait for the moe'd/appointed time, is because I
judge with fairness."
Rav Ovadiah Sforno z"l explains that in this psalm we justify
Hashem's decision to delay the ultimate redemption, referred to by
the Prophet Daniel as the "mo'ed." The reason is that Hashem is
waiting for the the Jews' repentance, and also until the rest of the
world has angered Him beyond the point of return.
(Be'ur Al Tehilim)
OR
"When I set a time, I shall judge with fairness." (75:3)
Chazal speak frequently of the importance of having set times for
Torah study. Rav Yosef Chaim of Baghdad z"l writes: The halachah
states that "Anything which is fixed is like half-and-half" (see
explanation below). Thus, if a person has fixed times for Torah
study, it is like half of his day is occupied with Torah. Therefore,
says G-d, I shall judge him more favorably. [According to this
interpretation, the two halves of the verse are different speakers.]
(Chaim V'hashalom)
The concept of "Anything which is fixed is like half-and-half" works
as follows: Ordinarily, when in doubt, we follow the majority.
Thus, for example, if a street has ten butcher shops, nine kosher
and one non-kosher, there are situations where a piece of meat found
on the street will be considered kosher.
However, if instead of finding the meat, the person bought it,
but he doesn't know where he bought it, it cannot be kosher if there
is even one non-kosher butcher nearby. Because that butcher shop
stands in a fixed place, we attach greater weight to it, and treat
the odds as only 50-50 that the meat is kosher.
(Tractate Ketubot 15a)
************************************
"You will eat and you will be satisfied, and bless Hashem your
G-d. . ." (8:10)
In his classic mussar (ethical) work, Orchot Chaim, Rabbenu Asher
z"l writes: "Do not speak over the cup of wine over which the birkat
hamazon is said." [Ed. note: This refers to the cup held by the one
who leads the "bentching."]
Rav Yosef Shlomo Kahaneman (the "Ponovezher Rav") z"l asks: Why
does Rabbenu Asher insert a halachah in the middle of a mussar work?
He explains as follows:
Man is a combination of body and soul, which constantly are at
odds with each other. The only way to achieve peace is to sanctify
the body and soul through Torah study and mitzvot.
If a person eats in the spirit of holiness, with the intention
of sustaining himself in order to engage in mitzvot, it is akin to
serving in the Bet Hamikdash. One must wash his hands before the
meal as a kohen washes before serving in the Temple, and every aspect
of the meal must similarly be invested with holiness. Thus, the
instruction not to speak and be distracted over the cup of wine of
birkat hamazon is more than a halachah, it is part of the key to
sanctifying oneself.
(quoted in Orach Yesharim,
an anthology of commentary to Orchot Chaim)
************************************
"Then I shall provide rain for your (plural) Land in its proper time,
the early and the late rains, that you (singular) may gather in your
grain, your wine, and your oil." (11:14)
The gemara (Berachot 32b) records a dispute between Rabbi Yishmael
and Rabbi Shimon about the proper mix of work and Torah learning.
The former says that some work is the way of the world, while the
latter retorts, "And who will learn Torah?" Only when we sin, Rabbi
Shimon said, does G-d make us work. The gemara concludes, "Many
adopted Rabbi Yishmael's view and succeeded. Many adopted Rabbi
Shimon's view and did not succeed."
Many commentaries challenge Rabbi Shimon's opinion based on our
verse. In context, this verse clearly is talking about a time when
we are serving Hashem, and it says, "that you may gather in your
grain, your wine, and your oil." Clearly, then, work is not a
punishment.
Rav Chaim of Volozhin explains that the key to this question is
the statement, "Many adopted Rabbi Shimon's view and did not
succeed." Rabbi Shimon agrees that the majority of the people cannot
live the way he recommends. Note, however, how our verse changes
from plural to singular. This signifies that a bountiful harvest
is a blessing for most people, but is a curse for the unique
individual who is capable of devoting himself entirely to Torah.
What then is the disagreement between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi
Shimon? Rav Chaim explains that it regards man's attitude about
work. According to the former, this is G-d's will, and man should
not feel guilt or regret about working. According to Rabbi Shimon,
G-d's will is full time Torah study.
(Nefesh Hachaim I:8)
************************************
Rav Shimshon Wertheimer z"l
born 5418 (1658) - died 17 Menachem Av 5485 (1725)
Rav Shimshon was a leading Jewish businessman of the 17th and 18th
centuries, and was the "money manager" of Austrian Emperors Leopold
I, Josef I and Karl IV. He also served these monarchs as an
ambassador; for example, when Leopold's brother married the daughter
of the King of Poland, Rav Shimshon negotiated a 1,000,000 florin
(Austrian currency) wedding gift from the latter.
In exchange for his services, Rav Shimshon demanded better
treatment for his brethren throughout the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
He was able to stop the publication of inciteful anti-semitic books,
and he negotiated the Jews' right to live in major cities including
Vienna and Frankfurt.
Unlike many "Court Jews" throughout history, Rav Shimshon was a
great talmid chacham/Torah scholar. He was offered many rabbinical
positions, most of which he rejected. In 1692, he was appointed
Chief Rabbi of Hungary. He also used his wealth to build many shuls
and yeshivot and to finance the publication of Torah works. In 1712,
he rebuilt the Jewish quarter of Nikolsburg, which had burnt down.
Rav Shimshon had several sons and daughters. The wedding of one
of his daughters to Rav Yissachar Ber Eskeles, chief rabbi of several
cities and of Hungary, is described in the memoirs of Gluckel of
Hamlen.
Among Rav Shimshon's descendant's were the chassidic rebbes of
Bendri.
|
| 989.476 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Re'eh | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Aug 12 1996 20:52 | 172 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Re'eh
Vol. X, No. 41 (478), 25 Menachem Av 5756, August 10,1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah -- this week, psalm 97. The
connection between this psalm and our parashah appears to be through
one concept which is alluded to in both. Verse 11 of the psalm says,
"Light is sown for the righteous, and for the upright/yishrei of
heart, gladness." In the parashah (12:25), we are exhorted,
". . . in order that it be well with you and your children after you,
when you do what is upright/yashar in G-d's eyes."
What does it mean to be yashar? Rav Shalom Noach Brazovsky (the
"Slonimer Rebbe") shlita explains that we have an obligation beyond
doing mitzvot and not committing sins. That is the obligation to
be "good and upright in G-d's eyes" (see Devarim 6:18). We will not
always find clear instructions in the Torah for how to behave in a
given situation, and on those occasions we are expected to ask
ourselves what would be right in G-d's eyes. This, in turn, requires
us to keep our obligations in this world in clear focus before us.
(Netivot Shalom, Intro. to Vol. I and elsewhere)
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"A cloud and fog surround Him..." (97:2)
Rambam writes: This verse, and others like it, do not mean that
G-d is a being that we cannot see because His body is surrounded by
clouds and fog. Rather, it means that our material nature is a
curtain of fog which virtually precludes us from grasping that which
is spiritual.
This is what the Torah conveys when it says that Hashem appeared
at Har Sinai cloaked in a cloud. Even though He "appeared" to us,
we are incapable of fathoming Him.
(Moreh Nevochim III:9)
************************************
"Light is sown for the righteous..." (97:11)
Just as the seed that is sown in the ground is hidden from view,
and alot of hard work is needed until it brings forth its fruit, so
the essence of Torah -- its light -- is hidden from view. The
tzaddik's hard work makes it blossom and shine.
(Sefer Tehilim Im Asefat Ma'amarim)
************************************
"You will not be able to eat in your cities, the tithe of your
grain, and your wine, and your oil; the firstborn of your flock..."
(12:17)
What does it mean, "You will not be able to eat..."? Shouldn't
the Torah say simply, "Do not eat"?
Rav Shlomo Hakohen of Radomsk z"l (see page 4) explains that the
Torah is telling us why we must eat these things only in
Yerushalayim. A chassid who returns home from the rebbe recognizes
that a certain holiness that he tasted in the rebbe's food is missing
from his own food. So, too, once you have eaten in Yerushalayim,
you will recognize that eating these sanctified foods elsewhere just
isn't the same. You will not be able to eat them elsewhere;
therefore the Torah commands that you eat them in Yerushalayim.
(Tiferet Shlomo)
************************************
"When Hashem, your G-d, will broaden your boundary as He spoke
to you, and you say, 'I would eat meat,' for you will have a desire
to eat meat, to your heart's desire you may eat meat." (12:20)
This verse tells us that we may eat meat when we choose. However,
during the forty years in the desert, Bnei Yisrael were forbidden
to eat meat, except as part of a sacrifice brought in the mishkan.
What was the purpose of this restriction?
Rav Meyer Isaacson shlita explains as follows: According to
Ramban, bringing animal sacrifices is a form of role-playing. When
the sinner sees his sacrifice being slaughtered, he will say, "By
rights, that should have happened to me." However, asks Rav
Isaacson, what is the purpose of those sacrifices that are not
brought because of a sin?
He answers: Originally, man was not permitted to eat meat. After
all, what right do we have to end the life of another, even an
animal? After the flood, however, G-d permitted the eating of meat
in order to strengthen man. Since man is the highest life-form, it
is worth killing animals if it will make man better. Nevertheless,
killing of any kind has its dangers. It can make man callous, even
to the point where killing becomes a sport. Thus, says the Torah,
when you kill animals, do it in the mishkan, under the supervision
of a kohen. And, once you are settled in your Land, and the Temple
is too distant, observe the laws of shechitah. This way, not only
will killing not be a sport, it will be done only by people of high
spiritual caliber who have studied the many intricate laws of the
Shulchan Aruch related to this activity.
(She'elot U'teshuvot Mevaser Tov No. 68)
What does the halachah say about hunting for sport? Rav Yechezkel
Landau z"l (18th century) writes as follows:
It would not be prohibited because it causes pain to animals, even
if it does, for prohibition of causing to animals refers only to
wanton pain, but not when it serves man's purpose. It also cannot
be called wanton destruction, because the hides can be used.
Nevertheless, hunting the profession of Nimrod and Esav, not of
the children of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. Also, hunting is
dangerous (as Esav himself acknowledged -- Bereshit 25:32), and the
Torah prohibits putting oneself in danger.
(She'elot Uteshuvot Noda B'Yehuda H, Yoreh Deah 10)
************************************
Radomsk
18 Menachem Av 5702 (1942)
This day marks not only the martyrdom of Rav Shlomo Chanoch
Hakohen Rabinowitz, the last chassidic rebbe of Radomsk, and Rav
David Moshe Hakohen, the rosh yeshivah of the Radomsk network of
institutions, it also marks the end of that dynasty.
The founder of this dynasty was Rav Shlomo Hakohen Rabinowitz,
known as the "Tiferet Shlomo" after his works. (An excerpt appears
inside.) This first Rav Shlomo was a disciple of the Chozeh/Seer
of Lublin and of Rav David of Lelov. When Rav David settled in Eretz
Yisrael in 1850, he instructed his chassidim in Poland to take Rav
Shlomo as their leader.
Under the Tiferet Shlomo, who died in 1866, the distinguishing
characteristic of the chassidut of Radomsk was its love for every
Jew. Radomsk also devoted special attention to prayer -- not for
oneself, but for others, and also for G-d's "pain" because of the
exile.
The second and third rebbes of Radomsk, Rav Avraham Yissachar
Hakohen (died 1892) and Rav Yechezkel Hakohen (died 1911), both lived
fewer than fifty years. They continued the traditions of Radomsk;
Rav Yechezkel's name spread as well for the respect which he
commanded from the leaders of the anti-religious Bund movement, and
for his success in neutralizing that movement's impact on the youth
of Radomsk.
The fourth, and last, rebbe was Rav Shlomo Chanoch Hakohen,
mentioned above. Under him, Radomsk (which actually was based in
Sosnowiec after World War I) reached its pinnacle. He established
a network of forty yeshivot under the name "Ketter Torah" in which
the curriculum differed somewhat from what chassidim were used to.
First, he disapproved of the pilpul method so popular in Poland.
Second, the tractates studied in depth were those which typically
were not studied elsewhere. Finally, he discouraged the teaching
of chassidic works to young students. The yeshivot were also unusual
in that they never conducted appeals for funds. The rebbe, who was
independently wealthy, and a small group of chassidim provided all
of the money necessary.
The head of Ketter Torah was the rebbe's son-in-law, Rav David
Moshe Hakohen Rabinowitz.
After the outbreak of the war, the rebbe and his family lived
first in the ghetto of Lodz and then in Warsaw. It was there that
they were murdered, during their Friday night dinner, after defiantly
refusing to be arrested. May Hashem avenge their blood.
|
| 989.477 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Shoftim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Aug 13 1996 21:02 | 172 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Shoftim
Vol. X, No. 42 (479), 2 Elul 5756, August 17, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah -- this week, psalm 17.
The psalm opens, "Hear, Hashem, what is righteous," and closes
(verse 15), "In righteousness I shall behold Your face." Thus it
alludes to one of the best known verses in the parashah (16:20),
"Righteousness, righteousness shall you pursue."
This week's parashah teaches many of the special laws that apply
to the king. Verse 2 of this psalm, "May my judgment come from You,"
alludes to another law of the king, as Midrash Shocher Tov explains:
David said, "The halachah is that a king cannot be judged by his
subjects; therefore, let me by judged by You." Perhaps one reason
for this law is the command in our parashah that we be in awe of our
king (see 17:15).
[Incidentally, this midrash appears to argue with the gemara
(Sanhedrin 19a) which holds that legitimate kings from the House of
David can be judged. It is only other Jewish kings who cannot be
judged, because, not being as righteous, they may take revenge. (See
Margaliot Hayam)]
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"Give ear to my prayer from lips without deceit. May my judgment
be dismissed from before You, Your eyes behold directly." (17:1)
Rav Mendel Hager (the "Vishuva Rav") z"l explains: Chazal teach
(Megillah 29a) that shuls and batei midrash/study halls in the
diaspora will one day be transplanted to the Land of Israel. Chazal
also teach that our prayers ascend to Heaven through Eretz Yisrael.
It follows, therefore, that one who prays in a synagogue will have
his prayers accepted more readily than one who does not, for the
former is in a place which has some connection (even now) to the Holy
Land.
However, Rav Hager continues, this is true only if one does not
engage in idle conversation in shul. Otherwise, he is like those
about whom Chazal said (Ketubot 110b), "One who lives in the diaspora
is like a godless person." This means: "One who lives in the
diaspora -- even when he is in shul -- is like a godless person."
This was David's prayer: Let my prayer come from lips without
deceit, i.e., that are not engaged in other activities in the middle
of prayer. Then, at the time when You judge me, may my judgment be
dismissed from before You, because Your eyes will behold me directly,
as if I had prayed in Eretz Yisrael.
(She'erit Menachem)
************************************
"May my judgment come from You . . ." (17:2)
Hashem can judge man Himself or through a messenger, explains Rav
Yosef Yaavetz Hadoresh z"l. To be judged by a messenger means that
an angel is told what the law is and what a fitting punishment is,
and he is sent out to execute that punishment wherever he find that
law broken.
Thus, only when one merits to be judged by Hashem is repentance
possible, for the messenger cannot deviate from his appointed task.
This is why David prayed, "May my judgment come from You."
(Peirush Al Tehilim)
************************************
"Do not deviate from the word which they will tell you, right or
left." (17:11)
Rav Meir Simcha Hakohen of Dvinsk z"l writes: The Torah desired
that -- aside from our keeping the Torah, which is eternal -- the
sages should create stringencies as the need arises from time to
time, using the wisdom which has been handed down to them. And, if
a later bet din exceeds their wisdom, it can nullify the decree.
However, lest every individual claim this right for himself, the
Torah commands, "Do not deviate . . ., right or left." Indeed, says
Rav Meir Simcha, it is possible that an earlier bet din erred in
making a certain decree, but we cannot have every man making his own
Torah.
(Meshech Chochmah)
************************************
"You shall separate three cities for yourselves in the midst of your
Land . . ." (19:2)
The mitzvah of setting aside arei miklat/cities of refuge to which
manslaughterers can flee is mentioned several times in the Torah.
In Shmot 21:12 we read: "One who had not lain in ambush and G-d had
caused it to come to his hand, I shall provide you with a place to
which he shall flee." Why, asks Rav Eliezer Zusia Portugal (the
"Skulener Rebbe") z"l, does the Torah say, as if to Moshe, "I shall
provide you with a place . . ."?
Every Jew contains a little spark of Moshe's soul, Rav Portugal
explains. All of the Torah we learn and all of the mitzvot we do
are because Moshe taught us the Torah. And, when the manslaughterer
escapes those who would avenge the victim and lives to serve G-d for
another day, that spark of Moshe's soul benefits. Thus, it is as
if the soul of Moshe himself is fleeing to the ir miklat.
(Noam Eliezer: Parashat Mishpatim)
[In Parashat Va'etchanan (4:41) we read that Moshe set aside the
three cities of refuge on the eastern bank of the Jordan. Although
they would not become "operational" until the western bank was
captured decades later (and Moshe would not live to see that day),
Moshe said, "That which I can do, let me do." (Rashi)
Moshe's action teaches us an important lesson, but why did he
choose the mitzvah of ir miklat to teach us this? In light of the
Skulener Rebbe's idea, we can understand Moshe's actions on a deeper
level.]
************************************
Rav Eliezer Zusia Portugal z"l
Rosh Chodesh Marcheshvan 5658 (1898) - 29 Menachem Av 5742 (1982)
Rav Eliezer Zusia, the "Skulener Rebbe," was not a chassidic
rebbe at all until well into his sixties. His first "career" was
as Rabbi of the town of Skulyany (Skulen), in Bessarabia. His focus
there was on increasing the spiritual level of his town-folk,
including writing booklets in Yiddish specifically tailored to the
spiritual needs of his neighbors. When the Sadigorer Rebbe visited
Skulen and saw Rav Eliezer Zusia's accomplishments, he urged him to
move to Czernowitz, where he could serve a larger community. Rav
Eliezer Zusia complied, and before long was chosen as chief rabbi
of that city. (The wisdom of the Sadigorer Rebbe was demonstrated
soon after, when Bessarabia was invaded by the Russian communists,
under whom the Jews suffered terribly.)
Czernowitz, too, changed hands several times during World War II,
eventually ending up in the Soviet Union. A new chapter in Rav
Eliezer Zusia's life opened after the war, when he became the father
of hundreds of war orphans, even formally adopting scores of them.
(Rav Eliezer Zusia had one natural son--today, the Skulener Rebbe
in Brooklyn.) Later Rav Eliezer Zusia smuggled his "family" into
Rumania and settled in Bucharest where he adopted even more children.
In his will, Rav Eliezer Zusia would ask that his "children" show
their appreciation by remaining loyal to Judaism and studying Torah
at every possible moment.
In 1959, Rav Eliezer Zusia was jailed for five months on the
charge of being a spy for Israel and the U.S. Finally, in the spring
of 1960, he was able to settle in the United States. He chose the
U.S. over Israel so he could better help those who remained in
Rumania. He was encouraged to open a yeshiva, but he said, "What
would my yeshiva add to all the others? A person who wants to do
a mitzvah must ask how he can give the most 'pleasure' to G-d."
Instead, he founded the "Chessed L'Avraham" network of schools to
compete with leftist schools in Israel for the children of immigrants
to that country.
In 1961, Rav Eliezer Zusia visited Israel for the first time.
One of his side-trips was to a leftist kibbutz to forgive a Rumanian
socialist who had been one of his fiercest opponents years before.
(That man's descendants later became observant.)
Rav Eliezer Zusia left several works. An excerpt appears above.
|
| 989.478 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Ki Tetze | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Aug 22 1996 20:07 | 172 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Ki Tetze
Vol. X, No. 43 (480), 9 Elul 5756, August 24, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of Tehilim
which corresponds to each parashah -- this week, psalm 32.
This psalm deals with repentance. Siddur Avodat Yisrael
associates it with Shabbat Shuvah, while Rav Yaakov Emden and the
Vilna Gaon recommend that it be recited on Yom Kippur itself. Our
parashah always fall during the month of Elul, the season of
repentance. Indeed, the midrash interprets the beginning of our
parashah as an allusion to man's war against the evil inclination.
Also, the Zohar interprets the verse (21:13), "And she shall cry for
her mother and father for 30 days," as a reference to tears of
teshuvah during the 30 days preceding Rosh Hashanah.
Rav Yechezkel Sarne z"l writes: The basic requirements of
teshuvah -- confession, regret, and resolution to improve -- are
sufficient to obtain forgiveness. Beyond that, man desires to be
completely purified of his sins. That is what King David worked on
his whole life, as addressed in this psalm. (Daliot Yechezkel)
************************************
The verses and commentaries on this page relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see page 1).
"Fortunate is the man against whom Hashem will count no iniquity,
and whose spirit is without deceit." (32:2)
Rabbenu Yonah z"l (13th century) writes: There are many levels
of repentance, in accordance with which one draws near to the Holy
One Blessed be He. And, although there is forgiveness in relation
to each kind of repentance, the soul does not become completely
purified to the extent that the sins are regarded as never having
been committed unless one purifies his heart and properly conditions
his spirit.
It is the same here as with a garment that needs washing. A
little washing will suffice to remove the surface dirt, but only
after much cleaning will it become entirely clean. The soul is
cleansed from transgression according to the cleansing of the heart.
(Shaarei Teshuvah I:9)
Rav Yehuda Leib Segal z"l elaborates: When a person sins, he
becomes distanced from Hashem. Even after his repentance, a blemish
remains on man's soul until he attains the required spiritual level
where his soul is finally cleansed. "Fortunate is the man against
whom Hashem will count no iniquity -- because he has finally been
forgiven completely -- and whose spirit is without deceit -- because
he has cleansed his soul of the effects of sin."
(Yir'ah Vadaat: Commentary on Shaarei Teshuvah)
************************************
"If bird's nest happens to be before you on the road . . ."
(22:6)
The midrash states: Wherever you go, the mitzvot accompany you.
If you build a new house, you shall make a fence for your roof. If
you make a door, put a mezuzah on it. If you put on new clothes,
make sure there is no shatnez, etc.
Even when you are doing nothing, says the midrash, just walking
in the road, the mitzvot accompany you. "If bird's nest happens to
be before you on the road . . ."
Rav Gedaliah Schor z"l (Rosh Yeshiva of Mesivta Torah Vodaath)
explains: This accompaniment connotes "connection." Specifically,
through mitzvot, a person becomes connected to Hashem. When a person
engages in physical activities, his very nature becomes more material
and less spiritual. (This is the idea behind the teaching that "One
sin brings another sin in its wake.") Therefore, Hashem commanded
that every type of activity should be associated with a mitzvah, not
only those mentioned above, but also those associated with planting,
harvesting, baking, eating, etc.
On a deeper level, the truth is not that the mitzvot exist to
sanctify our actions, but the opposite. G-d did not give us the
mitzvah of mezuzah to sanctify our houses; he gave us houses so that
we could observe that commandment.
(Ohr Gedalyahu: Chodesh Elul)
************************************
"A perfect and honest weight shall you have, a perfect and honest
measure shall you have . . ." (25:15)
The gemara (Shabbat 31a) teaches: "When man is brought into
judgment in Heaven, they ask, 'Did you conduct your business
faithfully/b'emunah? Did you set aside times for Torah study? Did
you look anticipate the redemption?'"
Rav Avraham Yaakov Hakohen Pam shlita (Rosh Yeshiva of Mesivta
Torah Vodaath) asks: What does it mean, "Did you conduct your
business faithfully?" Should not the question be, "Did you conduct
your business according to halachah?"
Says Rav Pam: In fact, the question is not only whether you
conducted your business strictly in accordance with the law. Hashem
wants to know, "Was your faith in Me so strong that you were able
to exceed the minimum demands of halachah?" Did you give yourself
the benefit of every halachic doubt, or did you give that benefit
to the other party?
(Atarah La'melech p.105)
************************************
Rav Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz z"l
("Mr. Mendlowitz")
born 5646 (1886) - died 3 Elul 5708 (1948)
Rav Shraga Feivel was (in the words of Rav Moshe Feinstein z"l),
"The father of all Torah Jews in the United States in his generation
and beyond." Yet, he was not a posek, a rosh yeshiva, or a chassidic
rebbe, and he insisted on being called only "Mr. Mendlowitz."
Rav Shraga Feivel was a leading student in the finest yeshivot
in Hungary before coming to the United States in 1913. After some
wandering, he accepted a job in a Scranton, Pennsylvania cheder.
He was laughed at, though, when he spoke of creating a full-time day
school, so he quit his job and attempted to manufacture ice cream
in the hopes of some day financing his own day school.
Later, Rav Shraga Feivel settled in the Williamsburg section of
Brooklyn, where he joined with others to found a newspaper devoted
to raising the spiritual level of New York's Jews. A new chapter
opened in 1923, when he was hired as the rebbe of the 8th -- and
highest -- grade in Yeshiva Torah Vodaath. Through his influence,
there soon was a 9th grade, then a 10th, and so on. (His influence
was felt outside the classroom as well, for example, in the dramatic
increase in the market for more expensive tefilin and better
tzitzit.) When his first students completed high school, he
persuaded them to stay on, and thus began the new post-high school
division of Torah Vodaath. This was the beginning of a Torah
revolution in the Western Hemisphere, the first post-high school
yeshiva which offered no secular studies and was not devoted to
producing pulpit rabbis.
Torah Vodaath was unique in another respect as well, being the
first yeshiva in the world to combine the Lithuanian method of
learning -- he hired many great Lithuanian roshei yeshiva -- with
the warmth and teachings of the chassidic movement. Contrary to the
mood of American Jewry of the time, Rav Shraga Feivel encouraged his
students to be expressive about their Judaism, including singing and
dancing as a means of serving Hashem.
Rav Shraga Feivel was instrumental in the founding or growth of
many other yeshivot. For example, beginning in 1938, he refused to
accept students from the area of Brooklyn where Mesivta Chaim Berlin
had just been founded. Later, he would send his best students to
serve as the kernel of such new institutions as Lakewood and Telz.
He also directed substantial amounts of money to the fledgling Ner
Israel in Baltimore.
Rav Shraga Feivel's concern for his students' growth did not end
in June of each year. Accordingly, he invented the yeshiva summer
camp as we know it.
Another legacy of Rav Shraga Feivel is "Torah U'Mesorah," the
umbrella organization for hundreds of day schools throughout the
United States. This organization provides financial assistance,
educational materials, and teacher training to schools in far-flung
communities which might otherwise be bereft of Judaism.
Divrei Torah from two of his students appear above.
|
| 989.479 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parshiot Nitzavim-Vayelech | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Sep 06 1996 23:24 | 164 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Nitzavim-Vayelech
Vol. X, No. 45 (482)
23 Elul 5756, September 7, 1996
Siddur Avodat Yisrael writes that there is a chapter of
Tehilim which corresponds to each parashah -- this week, psalm 81
for Parashat Nitzavim and psalm 65 for Parashat Vayelech.
Psalm 81 is the psalm which the Levi'im sang to accompany
the Temple service on Rosh Hashanah. Perhaps it was selected for
this week because of that connection. (Parashat Nitzavim is always
read on the Shabbat preceding the new year. On the one hand, we
want to read the curses of last week's parashah at the end of the
year; on the other hand, we do not want to go into Rosh Hashanah
with those curses on our minds. The compromise is read the curses
two weeks before Rosh Hashanah and to read Parashat Nitzavim this
week.)
Psalm 65 speaks of our longing for mashiach, a subject
alluded to in this week's parashah. Also, this psalm contains a
verse which appears in the selichot recited each day during this
time of year (at least in the Ashkenazic liturgy): "O heeder of
prayer, to You does all flesh come."
************
The following verses and commentaries relate to the chapter
of Tehilim associated with our parashah (see above).
"Blow the shofar at the moon's renewal, at the time
appointed for our festive day." (81:4)
Rav Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook z"l writes: The Jewish
calendar is based on the moon and the Jews are compared to the moon
because the quality of renewal is typical of the Jews. Thus the
full moon is a good omen for the Jews. [Ed. note: See next dvar
Torah.]
The new moon is a time of atonement for the Jewish people
because the Jewish soul also goes through a process of renewal.
True, repentance technically consists of regret, confession, and
resolution for the future; however, every sin has its root in a
lack of fear and love of G-d, and this illness must be cured before
its symptoms can be healed. The reason that man experiences this
illness is that his soul is constantly reborn [and is weak like a
newborn]. Therefore, says King David, blow the shofar at the time
of renewal. The shofar does not address specific spiritual
problems; it just calls out to us to fear and love G-d and improves
our personalities merely by instilling a fear of the Holy One.
(Olat Reiyah II p.337)
How can the full moon, or any predictable natural event, be
an omen, good or bad? Maharal (16th century) writes as follows:
It would appear to be inherently improbable that an eclipse
of the sun or moon is a bad omen, says Maharal, since any
astronomer can calculate their occurrence. But this actually
proves the wisdom of the sages [for they were not afraid to express
the truth, however implausible].
The explanation of Chazal's words is that they had no
interest in teaching us the immediate cause of the natural events
[since we don't need Torah scholars to teach us what any scientist
can figure out]. Rather, Chazal are teaching why these events
occur. True, they are predictable, but so is the fact that man
will sin. Since G-d created a world where sin would be rampant, He
also created omens to remind mankind of its failings.
(Be'er Hagolah Part 6)
************
"Behold, you [Moshe] will soon lie to rest with your
ancestors, and rise this nation will, and stray after idols."
(31:16)
The gemara (Sanhedrin Ch. 11) tells the following story. A
Roman noblewoman asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah: "Where in the
Torah are there allusions to your belief that G-d knows the future
and that He will resurrect the dead?"
Rabbi Yehoshua answered her: "Both are found in the above
verse. G-d foretells that Bnei Yisrael will sin ('...rise this
nation will, and stray after idols'), and also tells Moshe, 'You
will soon lay to rest with our ancestors and rise'."
The noblewoman responded, "What you say about Moshe rising
is not seen from the simple meaning of the verse, for you must read
the word 'rise' twice."
"You are right," said Rabbi Yehoshua, "but at least take
the one answer."
Here the gemara's story ends. Rav Natan Adler z"l (see
page 4) asks: How could Rabbi Yehoshua tell the woman to be
satisfied with only one answer, when she had asked two questions?
He explains as follows: The midrash says (based on Tehilim
95:11 which we say in our Friday night prayers) that although the
generation of the Exodus died in the desert without entering Eretz
Yisrael, they will enter the land in the time of mashiach. "They
will not come to the first resting place," Hashem said, "but to a
future one, i.e., another bet hamikdash, they will."
Chazal teach that if Moshe had entered Eretz Yisrael, the
bet hamikdash would never have been destroyed. The perfection of
mankind, which now awaits mashiach's arrival, would have taken
place immediately, and the need for a future in-gathering of exiles
would not exist. Thus, the generation of the Exodus would, G-d
forbid, be stranded in their desert graves.
In fact, however, Hashem told Moshe that he would die, and
that Bnei Yisrael would therefore sin. As a result, the generation
of the Exodus would have a second chance. Thus, even if Moshe's
resurrection is not alluded to (because a word would have to be
read twice), the fact that Bnei Yisrael will sin makes possible the
resurrection of the generation of the desert., and thus alludes to
the concept of resurrection as well.
(quoted in Torat Moshe)
The above verse is one of the five in the Torah whose
proper punctuation we do not know. Thus, the person reading the
Torah should be careful not to pause before or after the word
"vekam"/"rise."
(Sha'arei Ephraim 3:16)
************
Rav Natan Adler z"l
born 10 Tevet 5502 (1742) - died 27 Elul 5560 (1800)
Rav Natan Hakohen Adler (uncle of the British Chief Rabbi
of the same name) was born in Frankfurt-am-Main and spent much of
his life there. Relatively little is known about Rav Adler, except
that he was the teacher of the Chatam Sofer, the leading posek
(halachic authority) of the next generation. One indication of Rav
Adler's genius is the fact that he used only a braille-like code to
record his Torah interpretations. He felt that since Torah was
intended to be transmitted orally and was written down only because
the generations were incapable of remembering it, one should not
write more than necessary.
The Chatam Sofer revered his teacher immensely, saying,
"There was no angel who knew the by-ways of heaven like my teacher
and master, for he was greater than fiery angels." The people of
Frankfurt did not share that opinion of Rav Adler. This was
because of his unusual behavior which was based on kabbalistic
sources unknown to the community's leaders. Rav Adler also upset
his contemporaries by holding a private minyan in his home and
pronouncing the prayers with the Sephardic pronunciation.
In 1783 or 1785, Rav Adler was expelled from Frankfurt, and
was chosen as rabbi of Boskowitz. On his way there, he stopped in
Prague to visit its rabbi (the Noda B'Yehuda), who was extremely
impressed with him. After a short time he returned to Frankfurt,
though he was not officially accepted back into the community until
he was on his deathbed.
A dvar Torah from Rav Adler appears above.
|
| 989.480 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Haazinu | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Sep 19 1996 20:00 | 172 |
| 989.481 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Bereishit | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Oct 09 1996 22:06 | 152 |
| 989.482 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Noach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Oct 15 1996 19:49 | 158 |
| 989.483 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Lech Lecha | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Oct 24 1996 23:34 | 169 |
| 989.484 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayera | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Oct 29 1996 19:21 | 181 |
| 989.485 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Chayei Sarah | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Nov 06 1996 19:34 | 177 |
| 989.487 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayetze | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Nov 21 1996 19:32 | 162 |
| 989.486 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Toldot | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Nov 22 1996 00:03 | 173 |
| 989.488 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayishlach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Dec 05 1996 19:10 | 177 |
| 989.489 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayeishev | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Dec 05 1996 19:11 | 182 |
| 989.490 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Miketz | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Dec 11 1996 18:59 | 185 |
| 989.491 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayigash | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Dec 19 1996 19:35 | 171 |
| 989.492 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayechi | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Dec 27 1996 22:52 | 177 |
| 989.493 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Shmot | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jan 02 1997 19:11 | 181 |
| 989.494 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vaera | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jan 09 1997 23:11 | 205 |
| 989.495 | Question about the translation of "bo" | CADSYS::GROSS | The bug stops here | Fri Jan 17 1997 19:56 | 5 |
| 989.496 | | SMURF::FENSTER | Yaacov Fenster, Process Improvement, Quality and testing tools @ | Fri Jan 17 1997 23:54 | 6 |
| 989.497 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Bo | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Jan 20 1997 21:46 | 197 |
| 989.498 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Beshalach | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jan 23 1997 19:19 | 181 |
| 989.499 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Yitro | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jan 30 1997 19:35 | 189 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Yitro
Vol. XI, No. 17 (500), 24 Shevat 5757, February 1, 1997
In this week's parashah, the Torah describes the sounds of the
shofar and the fire and clouds of smoke which accompanied the giving
of the Torah. What was the purpose of this spectacle? Rav Moshe
Sternbuch shlita explains with the following parable:
A certain wealthy man once betrothed his daughter to a
distinguished young man. They agreed that the wedding would take
place in the young man's town on a certain date, and that the young
couple would remain to live in that town.
When the wedding date approached, the bride and her family set
out in a golden carriage. In every town the carriage passed through,
the bride's father spent money lavishly, and the newspapers reported
on the fabulous wealth of the bride and her family. In the town of
the groom himself, the family was greeted as royalty.
Yet the bride's father saw that the groom himself looked
depressed. Upon asking why, he was told, "Even with your daughter's
dowry, how will I ever maintain the lifestyle she is used to?"
"Don't worry," said the bride's father. "My daughter and I both
know that she will live a simpler life from now on. I merely arrived
here this way so that you would appreciate where she came from and
always do your best to give her everything that you can."
Similarly, says Rav Sternbuch, the Torah is the daughter of the
King of Kings, who betrothed her to common man. In order to remind
us of the Torah's glorious origins, G-d gave her away amidst a
spectacular show of fire and sound. (Ta'am Vada'at)
************************************
Parashat Yitro In Halachah
This parashah contains seventeen mitzvot -- numbers 25 through
41 of the 613. (Minchat Chinuch)
The phrase, "The Ten Commandments," is a misnomer. The section
of the Torah often referred to by that name actually contains
fourteen commandments. These are: (1) to believe in the existence
of G-d; (2) that we should not believe in any other god; (3) not to
make an idol; (4) not to bow down to an idol; (5) not to serve an
idol in the manner that that idol ordinarily is served; (6) not to
take an oath in vain; (7) to recite kiddush on Shabbat; (8) not to
do work on Shabbat; (9) honoring parents; (10) not to kill an
innocent person; (11) not to commit adultery; (12) not to kidnap;
(13) not to testify falsely; and (14) not to desire the belongings
of another.
This group of mitzvot is referred to twice in the Torah as,
"Aseret Hadevarim"/"The ten spoken things" (Devarim 4:13 & 10:4).
This is because these mitzvot do fall into the ten general topics
commonly known as the "Ten Commandments."
The other three mitzvot in this parashah are: not to make statutes
of humans, not to build an altar of cut stone, and not to take large
steps on the altar.
Part of the daily service in the Bet Hamikdash was to recite the
Aseret Hadibrot every day, just as Shma is. (Tamid 32b). Rambam
writes in his mishnah commentary that an attempt was made to do the
same outside the Temple, but that heretics began claiming this as
proof that only the Aseret Hadibrot, and not the rest of the Torah,
was of Divine origin.
The Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 1:4) recommends that every person recite
the Aseret Hadibrot to himself every morning. The purpose of this
is to remember the giving of the Torah and thereby strengthen one's
belief (Mishnah Berurah, para. 13).
"And Yitro rejoiced over all of the good which G-d had done to
Yisrael . . . And Yitro said, 'Blessed is G-d who saved you from the
hand of Egypt and the hand of Pharaoh . . ." (18:9-10)
Rav Velvel Brisker z"l observed that this is an example of the
halachah that if a person truly rejoices over the salvation of
another, then he may recite Birkat Hagomel over his friend's
salvation, even with G-d's name. (Shai LaTorah)
************************************
"Moshe related to his father-in-law all that Hashem had done to
Pharaoh and Egypt for Israel's sake . . . And Yitro said, 'Blessed
is G-d . . . Now I know that G-d is greater than all forces for [He
punished the Egyptians] in the manner in which they had conspired
against them'." (18:8-11)
Yitro recognized G-d's power because he saw that G-d punished the
Egyptians middah-kenegged-middah-/measure-for-measure. Rav Aharon
Hakohen z"l (son-in-law of the Chafetz Chaim) observes that Yitro
was uniquely situated to recognize this because Yitro had been a
member of Pharaoh's cabinet, which had plotted against the Jews.
(Pirchei Aharon)
************************************
"You have seen that I spoke to you from the Heavens." (20:19)
Rav Yitzchak Hutner writes: Chazal interpreted this verse to
mean, "You have seen that I spoke to you from the Heavens, and I am
not asking you merely to believe some old tradition." We, of course,
are asked to believe the old tradition that Hashem appeared on Har
Sinai, says Rav Hutner. What Chazal mean is the following:
The Jewish nation is comparable to the human body. A human
experience usually begins through sight [or one of the other senses],
and then the rest of the body acts based on what the eyes saw. The
legs do not see on their own; they simply carry out the instructions
which follow from what the eyes saw.
We are the legs of the Jewish people, virtually as far from the
eyes (the generation that received the Torah) as possible. We know,
however, that what we are asked to do began with something that our
eyes beheld.
(Pachad Yitzchak: Shavuot ch. 26)
************************************
From the humor of our sages . . .
"Israel camped there . . ." (19:2)
Rashi writes that the verb "camped" is written in the singular
to indicate the unity of the Jewish people when they arrived at Har
Sinai.
Added Rav Naftali of Ropshitz z"l: Such unity was possible only
before the Torah was given, for after the Torah was given, each
person thinks only he knows the right way to serve G-d.
************************************
"And all the people answered simultaneously . . ." (19:8)
It's a good thing, said Rav Moshe Amiel (Chief Rabbi of Antwerp
and Tel Aviv), for if one person had been first to say, "We will do,"
another certainly would have said, "We will not do."
************************************
Rav Yosef Zundel Hutner z"l
born 5606 (1846) - died 27 Shevat 5679 (1919)
Rav Yosef Zundel was born in Dvinsk, where his father was a noted
scholar. His father was also his first, and only, teacher, as from
a young age, Rav Yosef Zundel was self-taught.
At the age of 25, Rav Yosef Zundel published his first work,
Bikkurei Yosef. (In the introduction, he bemoans the passing of his
young wife.) Thereafter he moved to Bialystok, where he remarried,
and became the chavruta/ study partner of Rav Meir Simcha Hakohen,
who later achieved fame as rabbi of Dvinsk and author of Meshech
Chochmah and Ohr Sameach. Rav Yosef Zundel himself was offered the
rabbinate of Dvinsk at that time, but he declined it.
In 1897, Rav Yosef Zundel became rabbi of Eishishok. The demands
on his time in this small town were few, and he was able to study
Torah almost without interruption. Even during World War I, when
the front approached Eishishok, Rav Yosef Zundel was not distracted
from his study.
Rav Yosef Zundel took it for granted that young men should become
Torah scholars. When he was introduced to Rav Eliezer Yehuda Finkel
(then a student in Radin, later rosh yeshiva of the Mir Yeshiva in
Yerushalayim) and was told that the boy was expert in the entire
Talmud, Rav Yosef Zundel asked, "How old is he?" Told that the
student was 17 years-old, the sage responded, "Then why is it a big
deal that he knows the entire Talmud?!" Similarly, he told the young
Yosef Shlomo Cahaneman (later the "Ponovezher Rav"), "Being a great
Torah scholar does not require constant study. Fourteen hours a day
is enough."
Rav Yosef Zundel also was known for his piety and for the power
of his prayers. When supplicants would seek a blessing from the
Chafetz Chaim, he would send them to nearby Eishishok, to Rav Yosef
Zundel.
Rav Yosef Zundel left several written works, which were published
by his sons. One of his grandsons was Rav Yehoshua Hutner, executive
director of the Encyclopedia Talmudit project. The latter's sister,
Chava Leah, was the wife of Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook. Rav Yitzchak
Hutner, rosh yeshiva of Yeshiva Chaim Berlin in Brooklyn, also was
a relative of our subject.
|
| 989.500 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Mishpatim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Feb 07 1997 22:07 | 184 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Mishpatim
Vol. XI, No. 18 (501), 1 Adar I 5757, February 8, 1997
This week's parashah contains the famous phrase, "Na'aseh
v'nishmah"/"We will do and we will hear," by which Bnei Yisrael
accepted the Torah unconditionally, even before hearing it. Yet,
the gemara says, Hashem had to force Bnei Yisrael to accept the
Torah. How so?
Tosfot explains that Bnei Yisrael willingly accepted the Written
Law, but had to be forced to accept the Oral Law (i.e., the Talmud,
which was studied orally until about 1500 years ago). What does this
mean? What good is the Torah without the Oral Law? Rav Dov Meir
Kreuzer shlita (rosh yeshiva of the Yeshiva of New Square, N.Y.)
explains as follows:
Bnei Yisrael did not reject the content of the Oral Law; they
merely wanted it to be written, just like the Five Books of the Torah
were from the beginning. They wanted the study of the Oral Law to
be as easy as the study of the Written Law.
Chazal say that when the first Luchot/Tablets were given, they
did somehow contain the entire Oral Law on them. This is why Moshe
broke the Luchot when he saw the golden calf, for he understood that
Bnei Yisrael had too much time on their hands. With the entire Torah
handed to them on a platter, so-to-speak, Bnei Yisrael had time to
sin. Only if Torah study was made difficult and time-consuming would
Bnei Yisrael be too busy to stray.
Chazal say that Moshe's face shone because he wiped the left-over
ink from writing the second Tablets on his face. Why was there left-
over ink? Because the second Tablets were "shorter" than the first;
they did not include the Oral Law. The shine on Moshe's face was
the light of the Oral Law, i.e., the radiance which comes from
working hard to understand the Talmud. (Kovetz Be'er Yaakov, Vol.
3)
************************************
Parashat Mishpatim In Halachah
This parashah contains 53 of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. (Sefer
Hachinuch)
In 13th century Barcelona, and in Algiers and Tunis even recently,
this parashah was divided into two parashot in certain years. In
those years, the second parashah began with verse 22:24. (See
Minchat Chinuch [Machon Yerushalayim ed.], note on p.308 )
"These are the laws which you shall place before them." (21:1)
Rabbi Tarfon said: Wherever you find gentile courts , even if
their laws are the same as the Torah's laws, you are prohibited from
bringing your cases before those courts, as it is written, "These
are the laws which you shall place before them [i.e., the Jewish
people"--"before them" and not before non-Jewish courts. (Gittin
88b)
The Shulchan Aruch writes: "It is forbidden to adjudicate disputes
before gentile judges or in their courts, even if their law is
identical to the Torah's law, and even if both litigants have
consented. One who brings a case before them is a rasha, and it is
as if he blasphemed and raised his hand against the Torah."
One must first summon his opponent to bet din. If he does not
come, one may obtain permission from the bet din to sue in secular
court. (Choshen Mispat 26:2)
"His healing he shall heal." (21:19)
From here we learn that doctors are permitted to heal (Bava Kama
85a). If the Torah did not teach us this, we might have thought that
it was forbidden to attempt to undo what the King had done.
Ramban writes: Since the verse did not say simply, "He shall give
his healing," we learn that this award of damages must go directly
to pay the doctors. The assailant may even pay the doctors directly.
If the victim prefers to keep the money and not be healed, he does
not have that right.
************************************
From the humor of our sages . . .
"Distance yourself from an untruth." (23:7)
An author once brought his work to Rav Eizel Charif and asked for
an approbation. Rav Eizel leafed through the book, and then he took
a large sheet of paper, wrote two or three lines of praise at the
top, and signed his name at the very bottom.
When he was asked why he wrote in this manner, he cited the verse:
"Distance yourself from an untruth."
************************************
"An eye for an eye." (21:24)
The literal translation of the verse is: "An eye, below an eye."
The Vilna Gaon observes that the Hebrew letters which follow the
letters of the word "eye"/"ayin" -- ayin, yud, nun -- are feh, kaf,
and samech. These make up the word "kessef," thus alluding to
Chazal's teaching that the true punishment for gouging out someone's
eye is monetary compensation.
"Behold I will send an angel before you to protect you on the way
. . ." (23:20)
In Tehilim (91:11) we read: "He will charge His angels for you,
to protect you in all your ways." Why, asks Rav Avraham Shmuel
Binyamin Sofer (the "Ketav Sofer") z"l, does the verse in Tehilim
refer to the protection of multiple (i.e., two) angels, while our
verse refers to the protection of only one angel?
The Ketav Sofer answers as follows: A traveler needs two kinds
of protection. Firstly, he himself needs to be protected while he
is on the road. Secondly, he needs his family and his property to
be protected while he is away. This is why Hashem sends two angels
to protect a traveler -- one protects his person, and the other
protects whatever he has left behind.
Our pasuk refers to Bnei Yisrael when they traveled in the desert.
They had no need for two angels because when they traveled, they took
their families and belongings with them.
The above idea also explains the verse (Devarim 28:6), "You shall
be blessed when you arrive; you shall be blessed when you leave."
Since a traveler leaves home before he arrives, should not the order
of the verse have been reversed? The Ketav Sofer explains that until
the traveler arrives home and finds that his family and his property
are safe and sound, he cannot judge whether his trip was worthwhile.
For example, what is the point of making a business trip only to have
one's business looted while one is traveling?
Only if you are blessed when you arrive home can you conclude that
you were blessed when you left.
(Ketav Sofer: Parashat Ki Tavo)
************************************
Rav Avraham Yehuda Farbstein z"l
born 5677 (1917) - died 5757 (1997)
This week marks the shloshim of Rav Avraham Farbstein, rosh
yeshiva of the Chevron Yeshiva in Yerushalayim. (That yeshiva is
the successor to the famed Slobodka Yeshiva, which moved from
Lithuania to Chevron in 1924. After the Arabs massacred Chevron's
residents in 1929, the yeshiva was rebuilt in Yerushalayim.)
Rav Farbstein's father was one of the founders of Bnei Brak, and
was head of its first city council. The young Rav Farbstein studied
in the Chevron Yeshiva and, for two years, at the Mir Yeshiva in
Europe. Rav Farbstein's wife was a daughter of Rav Yechezkel Sarna
z"l, rosh yeshiva of Chevron. (A dvar Torah from Rav Sarna appears
below.)
Rav Farbstein taught in the Chevron Yeshiva for 50 years, and
raised several generations of students. His four sons and one son-
in-law also are yeshiva educators.
************************************
The Torah's description of the revelation at Har Sinai continues
in this week's parashah. Rav Yechezkel Sarna z"l observes that this
revelation was a noteworthy event in and of itself, aside from the
fact that the Torah was given at that time. Thus we say in the
Pesach Haggadah: "If He had brought us near Har Sinai and not given
us the Torah, that too would have been enough." Why?
We say in Hallel, "The sea saw [the Jews leaving Egypt] and fled
. . . the mountains danced like rams; hills [danced] like lambs."
Just as the sea literally fled before the eyes of tens of thousands
of people, says Rav Sarna (in the name of Ramban), so, too, the
mountains and hills literally danced. That is how awesome G-d's
revelation was.
At that time, the very heavens opened up before the eyes of Bnei
Yisrael and they saw all the different types of angels and all manner
of secrets. The fog which ordinarily shields us from great heights
of spirituality was removed for a brief time. Thus, "If He had
brought us near Har Sinai and not given us the Torah, that too would
have been enough." (Daliot Yechezkel II p. 237)
|
| 989.501 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Terumah | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Feb 13 1997 20:56 | 186 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Terumah
Vol. XI, No. 19 (502), 8 Adar I 5757, February 15, 1997
In this week's parashah, we begin to read about the construction
of the Mishkan/Tabernacle. The parashah begins: "Speak to Bnei
Yisrael and let them take for Me a portion, from every man whose
heart motivates him, you shall take My portion." On this the midrash
observes, "Thus it is written (Devarim 15:10), 'You shall surely give
him [i.e., a person in need], and let your heart not feel bad when
you give him, for in return for this matter, Hashem, your G-d, will
bless you . . .'" What connection does the midrash see between these
two verses?
Rav Aryeh Leib Zunz z"l (see page 4) explains that both verses
teach that when a person gives charity, whether to build a Mishkan
or to support a pauper, he is not giving of his own property.
Everything we possess, in reality, belongs to Hashem, as King David
said (Divrei Hayamim I 29:14), "Who am I, and what is my people, that
we should muster the strength to donate in this manner [for the
Temple]? For everything is from You, and from Your hand we have
given to You."
How then can Hashem reward a person for giving charity? The only
thing that truly belongs to a person is his free will. This is the
meaning of the verse quoted above, "[L]et your heart not feel bad
when you give him, for in return for this matter," -- i.e., in return
for your heart, your free will, agreeing to give, "Hashem, your G-d,
will bless you." Similarly, the verse from our parashah says,
"[F]rom every man whose heart motivates him . . ." The only part
of the mitzvah that man can claim credit for is the fact that his
heart motivates him; the remainder of the mitzvah is in the hands
of G-d. (Shiyurei Kometz Haminchah, Drush L'parashat Beha'alotecha)
************************************
Parashat Terumah In Halachah
This parashah contains three of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. These
are: (#95) to build a Bet Hamikdash; (#96) never to removes the
carrying-poles from the aron/ark; and (#97) to arrange the lechem
hapanim/bread on the shulchan/table. (Sefer Hachinuch)
"Like everything that I show you, the form of the Tabernacle and
the form of all its vessels -- and so shall you do." (25:9)
Rambam writes: It is forbidden to add to the city [of
Yerushalayim] or to the courtyards [of the Temple], except through
consultation with the king, a prophet, the urim v'tumim, and the
sanhedrin of 71 members. This is learned from the above verse,
particularly the phrase, "and so shall you do" (i.e., for all future
generations), with Moshe taking the place of the king. (Hil Bet
Habechirah 6:11)
[In other words: There were certain sacrifices and other
sanctified foods which were permitted to be eaten only within the
Temple courtyards or within the walls of Yerushalayim. Because of
the holy status assigned to these places, one could not expand them
without the participation of all of the people listed above and the
urim v'tumim/the Kohen Gadol's breastplate. This is learned from
our verse, in which Hashem said to Moshe, "All of the conditions
which are present when you are building the Tabernacle today must
be present any time future generations wish to expand the
Tabernacle's successor, the Temple." Although there was no king in
Moshe's time, Moshe took the place of the king.]
Regarding the ketoret/incense which was burnt in the Mishkan and
later in the Temple, Chazal said, "If you would only add to it a
measure of honey, no one could withstand its (pleasant) aroma. Then
why don't we add honey? Because the Torah prohibited honey from
being brought as a sacrifice to Hashem."
Rav Avrahamele of Ciechanow z"l (see page 4) asked: What kind
of question is that? Surely the sage asking it knew that an explicit
verse forbids honey from being brought as a sacrifice?!
The lesson, however, is as follows: Don't try to improve on the
Torah. One who says, "I can make the aroma even better by adding
honey" or "I can make such and such mitzvah nicer by altering it,"
is simply mistaken.
************************************
"[F]rom every person whose heart motivates him you shall take My
portion. This is the portion which you shall take from them: gold,
silver and copper (25:2-3)
Rav Moshe Chafetz z"l (Italy; ca 1700) notes the apparent
contradiction between verse 2 and verse 3. On the one hand, Hashem
says that gifts for the mishkan should be taken from those who offer
out of the goodness of their hearts. On the other hand, Hashem says,
"This is the portion which you shall take from them," implying that
it should be taken forcefully.
The reason for this is very simple, says Rav Chafetz. Many people
are pious and well-meaning, and their hearts motivate them to do G-
d's mitzvot. Nevertheless, when it comes time to part with their
gold, silver and copper, the yetzer hara is just too strong, and you
(Moshe) will have to take it forcefully.
(Melechet Machshevet)
************************************
From the humor of our sages . . .
"From every man whose heart motivates him you shall take my
portion." (25:1)
Rav Moshe Leib of Sassov z"l explained to a certain miser: What
is the difference between looking through a window and looking at
a mirror? When you look through a window you see other people, but
when you look at a mirror you see only yourself. And why? Are they
not both plates of glass?
The difference is that a silver lining blocks the view through
the mirror.
************************************
"Oil for illumination, spices for the anointment oil and the
aromatic incense." (25:6)
The Ba'alei Tosfot ask: Why are these three items listed here
among the building materials for the mishkan? After all, the Torah
does not list: "Flour for the bread and animals for the sacrifices"!
The answer is that the oils and the spices were among the
construction materials. The anointment oil was necessary to prepare
all of the mishkan's vessels for use; the oil for illumination and
the aromatic spices were necessary so that the mishkan could be
completed. One who builds a palace for a mortal king would not tell
the king that the work was finished if the house was dark and
unpleasant smelling; how much more so one who builds the house of
the King of Kings.
Adds Rav Chaim Elazary z"l: A practical consequence of whether
or not these items were considered to be construction materials is
whether women would be obligated to participate. Women are not
obligated to fund the operations of the Temple, though they are
obligated to help build it.
(Netivei Chaim)
************************************
Rav Avrahamele Landa of Ciechanow z"l
born 5549 (1789) - died 5 Adar I 5635 (1875)
In the generation after Rabbi Akiva Eiger, one of the most
prominent scholars of the last two centuries, this sage was called
the "Rabbi Akiva Eiger" of his time. This praise was all the more
remarkable considering that our subject was a chassidic rebbe. (The
popular, though not accurate, image of a 19th-century chassidic rebbe
is someone whose piety exceeds his scholarship.)
Little is known about Rav Avrahamele's early years, including how
he came to chassidut. His primary teacher of chassidut was Rav
Fishel of Strikov, while his teacher of Torah was Rav Aryeh Leib
Zunz, rabbi of Plock. (A dvar Torah from Rav Leib -- aka "Reb Leib
Charif" -- appears on the front page.)
Rav Avrahamele was an unusual chassidic rebbe in several respects.
One of the criticisms often leveled at chassidim was their propensity
to disregard certain laws (e.g., observing the set times for prayer,
which were sacrificed on the theory that one could not daven until
he was spiritually ready). Rav Avrahamele, however, adhered
meticulously to the Shulchan Aruch in every respect. (See below.)
When Rav Avrahamele felt that one of his own grandsons was lax in
respecting the property of others, Rav Avrahamele advised the young
man's prospective father-in-law to break the engagement. Also
unusual was the fact that Rav Avrahamele davened Nusach Ashkenaz,
whereas chassidim as a group adopted Nusach Sepharad. Even Rav
Avrahamele's descendants davened Nusach Sepharad.
A number of times, groups of chassidim tried to make him their
rebbe, but he refused. However, when the first Gerrer Rebbe died
in 1866 leaving no adult heir, Rav Avrahamele finally acquiesced.
Rav Avrahamele always learned Torah standing up, just as (the gem
ara records) was the custom from the days of Moshe Rabbenu until
late in the Second Temple era. He left a number of works, although
he wrote nothing during the last four decades of his life.
In 1943, Rav Avrahamele's body was exhumed and reinterred where,
it was thought, it would be more secure from the Nazis. It was noted
at that time, almost 70 years after Rav Avrahamele's death, that his
body had not decomposed.
|
| 989.502 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Tetzaveh | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Feb 19 1997 19:35 | 187 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Tetzaveh
Vol. XI, No. 20 (503), 15 Adar I 5757, February 22, 1997
Much of this week's parashah is devoted to the bigdei kehunah/the
priestly garments. The Torah (Shemot 28:2) states that these
garments were to be "lekavod u'letifaret"/"For honor and beauty."
Rav Aharon Soloveitchik shlita observes: "At first blush it
appears that nothing could be more alien to the spirit of the Torah
than the duo of honor and beauty. Is not the pursuance of honor a
factor conducive to man's ruin? [See Avot 4:21]" Similarly, Mishlei
says, "Beauty is vanity"! He explains as follows:
The Torah is teaching us that honor and beauty do have a place
in our lives. Honor is a destructive force if it stems from
selfishness and if it tends to negate one's granting honor and
recognition to others. However, honoring all people on account of
the image of G-d inherent within them is essential to one's spiritual
personality.
Beauty, as well, plays a significant role in Jewish life, as one
can see from the meticulous care with which every detail of the Bet
Hamikdash was executed [or, in the parashot with which we presently
are involved, the mishkan]. Additionally, Rav Soloveitchik writes
in the name of the Vilna Gaon: Why would the Torah mention the
beauty of Sarah, Rivkah, and Rachel if beauty was not to be valued?
Rather, the beauty which is vanity, as Mishlei states, is only beauty
which is uncoupled from morality. [This is alluded to in the end
of the verse in Mishlei: "A G-d-fearing woman, she is praiseworthy."
When is beauty vain? When it is not coupled with fear of G-d.] (The
Warmth and the Light)
************************************
Parashat Tetzaveh In Halachah
This parashah contains seven of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. They
are: (#98) to set-up lights in the Bet Hamikdash; (#99) that the
kohanim should wear the priestly garments; (#100) that the choshen
should never be separated from the ephod; (#101) not to tear the
jackets of the kohanim; (#102) to eat the meat of the sin offerings
(both the chatat and asham); (#103) to offer-up the ketoret/incense;
and (#104) not to sacrifice anything on the golden (i.e., the inner)
altar. (Sefer Hachinuch)
"They shall take for you pure, pressed olive oil for illumination
. . ." (27:20)
The gemara (Shabbat 21a) states: Any oil which cannot be used
for Shabbat candles, cannot be used in the Bet Hamikdash.
Rabbi Akiva Eiger z"l asks: What is the meaning of this
statement? The Torah states that only olive oil may be used in the
Bet Hamikdash!
Rav Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook z"l answers as follows: There
is a discussion in the gemara whether the menorah must be made of
gold. One view says that it must be, for the Torah says the menorah
should be gold. The other opinion says that it need not be made of
gold. Rather, the Torah means that if the menorah is made of gold,
it should be made according to the design described in the Torah;
if it is not made of gold, then it need not have that particular
design. The reason for this opinion is the rule found in the Talmud
that none of the Temple laws are mandatory unless the Torah states
them twice. (Thus, the menorah which the Chashmonaim lit and on
which the Chanukah miracle occurred consisted of seven iron spits
standing side-by-side.)
So, too, Rabbi Akiva Eiger's question may be answered by saying
that the use of olive oil is not mandatory. Rather, our verse is
teaching that if you use olive oil it should be pure. If you use
another oil, it need not be as pure. (Tov Ro'ee)
The Ba'al Haturim observes that Moshe's name is not mentioned in
this entire parashah. From here we learn that a person should not
curse himself, even conditionally. When Hashem threatened to destroy
the Jewish people after the sin of the golden calf, Moshe said
(Shemot 32:32 -- in next week's parashah), "And now, if You would
but forgive their sin; but if not, erase me from Your book which You
have written." Hashem did forgive the Jewish people, but He
nevertheless erased Moshe's name from part of the Book.
[This is the only parashah in the books of Shemot, Vayikra and
Bemidbar in which Moshe is not mentioned. It is interesting to note
that this parashah is nearly always read in the week of Moshe's
yahrzeit, 7 Adar. (This is not true this year. As was noted in
other issues, this year has several unusual calendrical
features.)]
************************************
"And you shall command Bnei Yisrael and they shall take for you
pure, pressed olive oil for illumination . . ." (27:20)
In what way was the oil for Moshe? Rav Yaakov Lorberbaum of Lissa
(the "Nesivos") z"l explains that the action of each mitzvah causes
a parallel event among the spiritual forces. Oil, a flowing liquid,
parallels the flow of holiness from the heavenly spheres downward,
and lighting the menorah lights the way of G-d which we must follow.
Certainly, no one knew the way of G-d better than did Moshe, and
no one was closer to the "light" than was Moshe. However, say
Chazal, all of Moshe's greatness was in the merit of Bnei Yisrael.
Thus, when they brought the oil, it was for Moshe.
(Nachalat Yaakov)
"Vecheishev afudato/The belt with which it is emplaced, asher
alav/ which is on it, mimenu hu kema'asehu/shall be of the same
workmanship . . ." (28:8)
This verse may be translated literally: "And the importance which
he places on the belt -- from him, like his deeds it will be." Rav
Yosef Chaim of Baghdad z"l explains that clothes are a metaphor for
children. For example, in Zechariah 3:3, Yehoshua Kohen Gadol is
said to be wearing soiled clothes because his sons are married to
non-Jewish women.
This verse teaches, says Rav Yosef Chaim, that you may teach your
children many lessons. You may rebuke them harshly. You may even
hit them with a belt (as alluded to in our verse). However, the
importance that your children attach to your rebuke will be in
accordance with your deeds, i.e., they will look at whether you
practice what you preach.
(Od Yosef Chai)
************************************
From the humor of our sages . . .
"Venishmah kolo/And his voice will be heard when he enters the
Holy." (28:38)
The word "venishmah" appears three times in Tanach: here; in
the verse, "All that G-d has spoken na'aseh venishmah/we will do and
we will listen"; and in the verse, "Venishmah pitgam hamelech/And
the king's command was heard." It is said that these refer to three
types of rabbis, as follows:
"Na'aseh venishmah" refers to a rabbi who is appointed because
he is learned and obeys the commandments. "Venishmah kolo" refers
to a rabbi who is appointed because he is a fine orator. Finally,
"venishmah pitgam hamelech" refers to a state-appointed rabbi.
(Chiyuchah Shel Torah)
************************************
Rav Tzedakah Chuzein z"l
born 5459 (1699) - died 5533 (1773)
Rav Tzedakah is credited with beginning a spiritual revival which
turned Baghdad into a thriving center of Torah, as it was until the
middle of this century. Rav Tzedakah himself was born in Aleppo,
Syria, where he studied under Rav Rephael Shlomo Laniado. In 1743,
after a plague devastated Baghdad, the Jews of that city turned to
Rav Laniado and requested that one of his students become their
rabbi. Rav Laniado chose Rav Tzedakah.
Because all of Rav Tzedakah's siblings had died in infancy, his
parents gave him up to foster parents (presumably out of fear that
they did not deserve children who would live). By age 15, Rav
Tzedakah was already recognized as a posek/halachic authority and
public speaker. Among the prominent rabbis who sought his opinion
were Rav Shimon Hakohen Dwik and Rav Emanuel Chai Riki.
In Baghdad, Rav Tzedakah rebuilt the community and vastly
increased the numbers of those learning Torah. He also instituted
certain practices which are followed among Baghdad's Jews to this
day.
Shortly before Rav Tzedakah's death, three of his five sons died
in a cholera epidemic which struck Baghdad. One of his surviving
sons was Rav Moshe Chuzein, a noted liturgical poet. Rav Tzedakah
himself left behind numerous manuscripts covering halachah, aggadah,
and chumash commentary, one of which was published in 1926 by Rav
Yitzchak Nissim (later Chief Rabbi of Israel). Some of his
manuscripts were stolen by highway-men when he sent his writings to
his teacher in Aleppo.
Rav Tzedakah's primary student, Rav Yaakov ben Yosef Harofeh, was
the teacher of Rav Abdallah Somech, who was in turn the teacher of
Rav Yosef Chaim of Baghdad, popularly known as the "Ben Ish Chai."
(A dvar Torah from the latter appears inside.)
|
| 989.503 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Ki-Tisah | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Feb 27 1997 20:37 | 184 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Ki-Tisah
Vol. XI, No. 21 (504), 22 Adar I 5757, February 29, 1997
A large part of this week's parashah is devoted to the incident
of the golden calf. The Torah relates that when Moshe came down from
Har Sinai and saw what the Jews had done, he threw down the
luchot/tablets and broke them.
What was Moshe thinking? asks Rav Shimon Shkop z"l. Did he think
that henceforth the Jews would be without a Torah?
The gemara (Eruvin 54) states that if the first luchot had not
been broken, one who studies Torah would never forget what he had
learned. This was not a blessing, Moshe felt after he saw the golden
calf, but a recipe for disaster. If one could read the Torah once
and never forget it, one could easily amass vast Torah knowledge and
use it for improper purposes. Also, imagine the desecration of G-d's
Name that would result when egregious sinners turned out to be
immense Torah scholars!
Moshe preferred a world where one had to struggle to learn in the
first place, and had to review and practice in order to retain what
he had learned. In this way, when a person deviated from a Torah
lifestyle, he would begin to forget what he had learned.
The gemara (Nedarim 38) teaches that Moshe became rich from the
scraps that were left after the luchot were engraved. Rav Shkop
explains that this was intended to answer the people's fear: If
Moshe changed the world so that one now has to struggle over Torah
learning, when will people earn their livings? From Moshe's
experience we see that G-d can find ways to support us and even to
make us rich, while we devote our time to Torah and mitzvot.
(Sha'arei Yosher, Introduction)
************************************
Parashat Ki-Tisah In Halachah
This parashah contains nine of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. They are:
(#105) to give a half-shekel to the Bet Hamikdash every year; (#106)
that the kohanim should wash their hands and feet before working in
the Bet Hamikdash; (#107) that High Priests and kings should be
anointed with oil; (#108) that a non-kohen should not be anointed
with the oil that Moshe made; (#109) that one should not make oil
like the anointment oil; (#110) that one should not make a mixture
of spices like the ketoret; (#111) that one may not eat or drink that
which was sacrificed to idolatry; (#112) that Eretz Yisrael should
rest in the shemittah/sabbatical year; and (#113) not to eat meat
and milk that were cooked together. (Sefer Hachinuch)
************************************
"You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk." (34:26)
This instruction appears three times in the Torah, once to teach
that cooking meat and milk together is prohibited, once to teach that
it is prohibited to eat meat and milk that were cooked together, and
once to teach that it is prohibited to have any benefit (including
economic) from such a mixture.
Why doesn't the Torah say: "Do not eat meat and milk that were
cooked together"? Because then we would have prohibited only the
ordinary manner of eating, but one would not be liable if, for
example, he swallowed a scalding hot mixture of meat and milk. In
fact, however, a person is liable for that. (Sefer Hachinuch)
Chazal say: "Shivrei haluchot munachim ba'aron" -- the shards of
the luchot that Moshe broke were placed in the Aron Kodesh alongside
the second, whole set of luchot. This teaches us that even an old
talmid chacham/Torah scholar who has forgotten his learning (who is
like the broken luchot) must be accorded the honor due a Torah
scholar.
************************************
From the humor of our sages . . .
"On this side and on this side they were written." (32:15)
A merchant once approached Rav Chaim Eliezer Wachs (rabbi of
Kalish) and said, "I've been offered a deal, and if I twist the truth
just a little bit, I'll make a huge profit."
Rav Wachs responded, "What can you do? The luchot were engraved
on both sides; no matter how you twist them, they still say, 'Thou
shall not steal'."
************************************
"Every man shall give Hashem an atonement for his soul when
counting them, and there will not be a plague among them when
counting them." (30:12)
Why is the phrase, "when counting them," repeated? asks Rav
Eliezer Zusia Portugal (the "Skulener Rebbe") z"l. He explains as
follows:
Some people might think of putting off paying their half-shekel
contributions, saying, "Count the other people now and I will pay
later." Thus the Torah says, "Every man shall give . . . when
counting them," and not later.
As a reward for prompt payment, the Torah promises, "[T]here will
not be a plague among them when counting them." The Torah emphasizes
"when counting them" to say that, not only will counting Bnei Yisrael
not cause a plague (as it might have, because of the ayin hara
involved), but prompt payment actually will protect the Jews.
Indeed, during the entire period of the mishkan's construction and
beyond, some seven months, not one person died.
(Noam Eliezer)
************************************
"And on the seventh day He rested va'yeenafash/and was refreshed."
(31:17)
Chazal read the word, "va'yeenafash," as a contraction of, "Vai!
Avda nefesh"/"Woe! The soul is lost." Rav Mendel of Kossov z"l
explains: If a person comes to the seventh day and rests without
having prepared himself spiritually during the preceding six days,
then his soul will be lost.
(Ahavat Shalom)
************************************
"You know that the nation is in evil." (32:22)
Rav Avraham Yehoshua Heschel of Apta z"l (known as the "Ohev
Yisrael") observes that Aharon did not say that the nation is evil,
only that it is in evil. G-d forbid, he writes, that a person should
speak badly of the holy nation whose souls come from under G-d's
throne.
Even if a person sins, one should not blame him, for it is only
that he is entrapped by his material nature. This is what Aharon
meant: The nation is in evil and it cannot get out. The people
themselves, however, are good.
(Ohev Yisrael)
Of course, writes Rav Tzadok Hakohen z"l, after expressing a
similar idea, this refers only to our view of others. However, one
may not excuse his own behavior in this manner.
(Tzidkat Hatzaddik No. 43)
************************************
Rav Yeshayah Schorr z"l
died 27 Adar 5639 (1879)
Rav Schorr's praises are many: He was considered one of the
leading scholars and poskim (halachic authorities) of his time, he
taught many students, and he wrote works covering Talmud, halachah,
chumash and kabbalah. Due to his longevity -- some say 98 years,
some say longer -- he was an important link between the earliest
generations of chassidic leaders and more recent times. In
particular, the rebbes of the Skulener chassidic dynasty are his
spiritual heirs.
Rav Yisrael Avraham Portugal, grandfather of the present-day
Skulener Rebbe of the same name, lived in Rav Schorr's house in order
to learn from his teacher full-time. Rav Schorr, for his part,
pushed his student to super-human levels, never permitting him to
sleep more than two hours a night. (Undoubtedly, the teacher himself
did not sleep more than that either.) Although Rambam writes that
one should sleep eight hours each night, Rav Schorr held that that
applies only for the common man.
Rav Schorr's primary teacher was Rav Mordechai of Kremnitz, the
son of the Maggid of Zlotchov, one of the leading students of the
Ba'al Shem Tov. Rav Schorr also was a frequent visitor to Rav Mendel
of Kossov and to Rav Avraham Yehoshua Heschel, known as the "Ohev
Yisrael."
Rav Schorr's last rabbinical post, and the one for which he is
best remembered, was in Iasi (on the present-day border between
Rumania and Moldova). Towards the end of his days, Rav Schorr
reluctantly permitted some of his writings to be published -- best-
known among them, Klil Tiferet on chumash.
(Divrei Torah from several of the sages mentioned above appear
on page 3 of this issue.)
|
| 989.504 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayakhel-Shekalim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Mar 07 1997 02:26 | 204 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Vayakhel-Shekalim
Vol. XI, No. 22 (505),
29 Adar I 5757, March 8, 1997
This week's and next week's parashot describe the construction of
the mishkan and its vessels. The content of these parashot is
virtually identical to that of Terumah and Tetzaveh, except that
those earlier parashot contain G-d's commands and these later
parashot describe their implementation.
What purpose does this repetition serve? Rav "Velvel Brisker" z"l
explains as follows:
There is a question in the gemara (Bechorot 17b) called
"efshar le'tzamtzem," i.e., whether it is possible to measure
anything precisely. Is it possible for any two events to happen at
precisely the same time or for any two objects to be precisely the
same size? For example, if an ewe gives birth to twins, is it
possible that they would both be the bechor?
The gemara attempts to answer this question by noting Hashem's
command that the mishkan and each of its vessels be of a certain
size. Presumably, then, it is possible to measure precisely. No,
the gemara says, G-d just meant that man should do the best that he
can, but there is no proof from here that precise measurement is
possible.
The purpose of our parashah, says Rav Velvel, is to teach that
although man could not have measured the mishkan and its vessels
precisely, they did in fact turn out exactly right.
(Chiddushei HaGriz)
************************************
Parashat Vayakhel In Halachah
This parashah contains one of the Torah's 613 mitzvot, i.e., the
mitzvah that the court should not execute a convict on Shabbat.
(Sefer Hachinuch)
According to Rambam, the same prohibition would preclude bet din
from carrying out corporal punishment on Shabbat. (Hil. Shabbat
24:7)
"Everyone whose heart motivates him shall bring . . ." (35:5)
Rambam writes: "One who makes the type of vow called a "neder"
or the type of vow called a "nedavah" is not obligated to fulfill
his vow unless his lips and his heart were in agreement. How so?
If one meant to say, 'I will bring an olah,' but instead he said,
'I will bring a shelamim,' he is obligated in neither.
"However, if a person made a vow in his heart but said nothing,
he is obligated to fulfill his vow. How so? If one said in his
heart, 'I will bring an olah,' he is obligated to do so, as it is
written, 'Everyone whose heart motivates him shall bring'." (Hil.
Ma'aseh Hakorbanot 14:12)
"Every wise-hearted woman spun with her hands." (35:26)
Rambam writes: "Which tasks a wife must perform in the house
depends on local custom. If it is customary for a wife to weave,
she should weave. If it is customary for a wife to embroider, she
should embroider. If it is customary for a wife to spin flax or
wool, she should spin flax or wool.
"However, if it is not customary for wives to do any of these
things, she need not do them, with the exception of spinning wool -
- not flax, because it could be harmful to the mouth and lips, but
wool, which is a trade unique to woman, as it is written, 'Every
wise-hearted woman spun with her hands'." (Hil. Ishut 21:1)
************************************
From the humor of our sages . . .
"And the seventh day will be holy to you." (35:2)
Rav Avraham of Sochatchov (noted posek and chassidic rebbe) once
traveled to a resort in Germany. The local "enlightened" rabbi saw
Rav Avraham's shtreimel and asked derisively, "Why are you wearing
a fur hat in the summer?"
"True, it is summer now," responded Rav Avraham, "but Shabbat here
is very cold."
"Every man and woman whose heart motivated them to bring for all
of the work that Hashem had commanded la'asot. . ." (35:29)
The word "la'asot" frequently is translated "to do" or "to make,"
but it also can mean "to cause others to do." Rav Eliezer Dovid
Grunwald z"l explains the above verse in that light, as follows:
Each of Bnei Yisrael wanted to participate in "all of the work
that Hashem had commanded" as part of the mishkan's construction,
but that, of course, was impossible. Each donation that was given
had to go to a specific cause, and some people could not afford to
give more. However, by causing others to donate to the best of their
abilities, one could take part in a larger share of the construction.
(Keren Le'Dovid)
************************************
"He gave him (Bezalel) the ability to teach, he and Ohaliav . .
." (35:34)
Should not the Torah have said simply: "He gave him (Bezalel) and
Ohaliav the ability to teach"? Rav Moshe Grunwald z"l answers as
follows:
Just as when you pour from one vessel into another the receiving
vessel must be lower than the other, so one can learn from another
person only if the student humbles himself before the teacher. The
ironic result of this is that a haughty teacher cannot teach, for
the haughtiness also passes to the student and makes him unable to
learn.
Why was Bezalel able to teach? the Torah says. Because he always
felt that "he and Ohaliav" were a team, even that he (Bezalel) was
secondary.
(Arugas Habosem)
************************************
THE MONTH OF ADAR
Kabbalists teach that the month of Adar is alluded to in the
verse (Bereishit 49:11): "He will tie his donkey to the vine; to the
vine branch his donkey's foal." Rav Yaakov Yechezkiyah Grunwald z"l
explains as follows:
Adar is a month of joy. Joy must lead to teshuvah/repentance,
in particular, repentance motivated by love for G-d. This is indeed
what happened at the original Purim time, when the Torah, which had
been accepted in Moshe's time out of fear, was accepted anew out of
love (see Shabbat 88).
The Bnei Yissaschar says that repentance motivated by love for
G-d is like a grape. If you extract the juice of any fruit, that
juice has a less "important" berachah than the fruit itself did.
Not so grapes, whose berachah is "ha'etz," but whose juice has the
berachah of "hagefen." So, too, when one's repentance is motivated
by love for G-d, one's sins are raised to a higher level and actually
are counted a merits. [Thus, repentance out of love is represented
in the verse as one who ties his "donkey" (an allusion to man's
lowest nature) to a vine.]
The above pasuk continues: "He will launder his garments in
wine," alluding to the fact that one's "clothes" which are sullied
by sin should be washed in the joy of Adar. Then we will be "white-
toothed from milk," as the following verse says, for white alludes
to cleanliness and purity. (Vayaged Yaakov)
************************************
Rav Yaakov Yechezkiyah Grunwald z"l
died 2 Adar 5701 (1941)
Rav Yaakov Yechezkiyah was a member of one of the most
distinguished families of Hungarian Jewry. His father, Rav Moshe
Grunwald, was rabbi of Chust and headed a major yeshiva. Rav Moshe
is better known by his works, each entitled Arugas Habosem. Rav
Moshe's brother, Rav Eliezer Dovid Grunwald, was rabbi of several
towns, including Viso and Satmar. (He is not to be confused with
the Satmar Rebbe.) Rav Eliezer Dovid, known as the Keren Le'Dovid,
also headed an important yeshiva.
Rav Y.Y. studied under his father until his marriage. In a letter
to Rav Y.Y. shortly thereafter, the Arugas Habosem outlined a course
of study for his son: Concentrate on halachic authorities (including
Shulchan Aruch, Bet Yosef, the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Shneur Zalman,
and the Chavas Da'as), and, if possible, study the related Talmudic
sections in depth; study at least one daf/page of gemara every day
with just Rashi's commentary, beginning at the beginning and
continuing in order until completion; and study a chapter of
Tanach/Bible every day, as well as major commentaries on the weekly
parashah. Combining halachic studies with the study of Talmud was
commonplace in Hungarian yeshivot, including the yeshivot which Rav
Y.Y.'s himself would head.
In 1929, Rav Y.Y. was chosen as rabbi of Papa, Hungary (known to
Jews as "Pupa"). Within a short time, the yeshiva which he
established there numbered 300 students. The sound of Torah never
stopped, as students studied in shifts round the clock. Rav Y.Y.
himself was in the bet midrash at all hours as well. (The yeshiva
also had a cafeteria, unusual in those days.)
On Friday night, the yeshiva students would come to Rav Y.Y.'s
table for kiddush, hurry out to eat, and then return to his table
for Divrei Torah, singing and dancing. At seudah shlishit, Rav
Y.Y.'s son would choose a passage of midrash at random and Rav Y.Y.
would expound on it. Over time, Rav Y.Y.'s rabbinate took on many
trappings of a chassidic court; although Rav Y.Y.'s father was not
born into a chassidic family, he had gravitated towards the Shiniva
and Belzer Rebbes and had taken his son on his many visits to those
rebbes. Thus, Rav Y.Y.'s yeshiva became known as a place where one
could obtain a solid Torah education and absorb the spirit of
chassidut. Indeed, today, Pupa is a full-fledged chassidic court
in its own right, based in Brooklyn, N.Y., where Rav Y.Y.'s son, Rav
Yosef Grunwald, settled in 1951.
Divrei Torah from Rav Y.Y., his father, and his uncle appear on
page 3.
|
| 989.505 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Pekudei | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Mar 13 1997 19:08 | 153 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Pekudei
Vol. XI, No. 23 (506)
6 Adar II 5757, March 15, 1997
This parashah concludes the Torah's description of the mishkan's
construction. The parashah opens, "This is the mishkan, the mishkan
of testimony . . . ," and the midrash asks on this, "Why is the
mishkan mentioned twice here?"
The midrash answers that the two mentions of the mishkan allude
to the two Temples which were taken by G-d as a mashkon/collateral.
In other words, our sins have caused us to be indebted to G-d, and
he has taken our Temples from us until we repay the debt through
repentance. However, says Rav Yitzchak Arieli z"l (mashgiach of
Yeshivat Merkaz Harav; author of Enayim Lamishpat), we may be
consoled by the fact that the Bet Hamikdash has only been taken as
a pledge; it is not lost to us forever. To the contrary, the future
Temple will be more spectacular than its predecessors, as G-d has
promised through the prophet Yeshayah (60:17), "In place of bronze,
I will bring gold; in place of iron, I will bring silver."
So great is the Temple, says Rav Arieli, that in its own
destruction it protects the Jewish people from being destroyed. G-d
pours out His wrath on sticks and stones, rather than on His people.
And, the ruins of the Bet Hamikdash are a symbol for the future rise
of the Jewish people, as Rabbi Akiva said, "Just as I see that the
prophecies of destruction were fulfilled, so I am sure that the
prophecies of redemption will be fulfilled." (Midrash Ariel)
******************
"This is the mishkan, the mishkan of testimony . . ." (38:21)
Rashi writes: "Why is the mishkan mentioned twice here? It alludes
to the two Temples which were taken by G-d as a mashkon/collateral.
What is the 'testimony' referred to? The mishkan testifies that G-d
has forgiven the Jewish people for the sin of the golden calf, for
He has rested His Shechinah among them."
Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky z"l asks, "How can it be that the Temples
which were destroyed were merely taken as collateral?" He explains
this follows:
At the time that the Jews donated their gold and silver to the
mishkan, the war to conquer Eretz Yisrael still lay ahead of them.
They might have said, 'How can we spend our money on the mishkan when
we don't know what our future holds? If we must have a mishkan,
let's build it out of bronze or clay!" But they didn't, and from
this we see how important the mishkan was to them.
When a person loses all of his money, he may raise money by selling
his more luxurious possessions. However, a person will not sell the
bare necessities which he owns; if he is short of cash, he will pawn
those items or take a loan and give them as collateral. Thus, says
Rav Kamenetsky, it cannot be that the Temple (the successor to the
mishkan) has been "sold" permanently, for our ancestors viewed it
as a necessity of life. Rather, G-d can only have taken it as
collateral.
And, the mishkan testifies that G-d has forgiven the Jewish people
for the sin of the golden calf, for what was the cause of that sin?
It was the fear of the unknown when the people thought that Moshe
had died. Yet, despite the unknowns of the war ahead, the Jewish
people showed their trust in Hashem by giving their gold and silver
for the mishkan. Accordingly, they were forgiven.
(Emet LeYaakov)
******************
Parashat Pekudei In Halachah
- This parashah does not contain any of the Torah's 613 mitzvot.
(Sefer Hachinuch)
- "They hammered out the thin sheets of gold and cut threads to
work the weavers craft into the techelet, into the purple, into the
scarlet wool and into the linen." (39:3)
Rambam writes, "The weaving of gold into the choshen and the ephod
(two of the priestly garments) was done as follows: They would take
one thread of pure gold and cable it with six threads of techelet.
Similarly, they would cable one thread of gold with six of purple,
one thread of gold with six of scarlet, and one thread of gold with
six of linen. Thus, there were four threads of gold and 28 threads
in all. (Hil. Klei Hamikdash 9:5)
- "They wrote on it writing . . . 'Sanctified to G-d'." (39:30)
Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlita quotes the Ba'alei Tosfot who ask: Why
is this verse in plural? How could more than one person have written
on the tiny tzitz/the kohen gadol's headband?
They answer: Whenever the name of G-d is written, ten men must
stand nearby. This applies as well to the writing of tefilin and
mezuzot.
Rav Sternbuch writes that this is a "chiddush" for which he could
find no source. (Ta'am Vada'at)
- "Moshe, Aharon and his sons washed their hands and feet from
it." (40:31)
Rabbi Yosi the son of Chaninah said: "Any kiyor/wash basin which
does not have enough water in it to wash four kohanim, is not holy."
He learns this from the above verse, which mentions four people.
(Zevachim 21b; see Kessef Mishneh, Hil. Bi'at Hamikdash 5:13)
The Chaftez Chaim writes: This obligation applies only when the
kohanim begin washing. However, if the volume falls below the
required level as a result of use, that is permitted. (Likutei
Halachot: Zevach Todah)
******************
Rav David Friedman of Karlin z"l
born 5588 (1828) - died 4 Adar 5675 (1915)
Rav David'l Karliner was one of the leading poskim (halachic
authorities) of his time. His opinion was sought on all of the
leading questions of the age, including: whether sacrifices could
be brought at the place of the Bet Hamikdash in the absence of the
Temple structure; whether the land of Eretz Yisrael could be sold
to non-Jews to avoid the prohibitions of the shemittah year; whether
secular studies should be taught in Russian yeshivot; and whether
changes advocated by certain French rabbis could be introduced into
the marriage ceremony. Rav Chaim Brisker encouraged Rav David to
speak out on the last issue, confident that once Rav David had done
so, all those who uphold the Torah would follow his view.
Before his marriage in 1846, Rav David was a student of Rav Zalman
Rivlin of Shklov. Although Rav David was a child prodigy, he never
stopped studying; even when he was in his seventies, he studied 18
hours each day, standing up. Neither did his dedication to learning
waiver in the face of a Cossack invasion of Karlin in the early part
of World War I. Yet, Rav David attested that he never had time to
study the works of the Acharonim (scholars of the late 15th century
onwards) because, he claimed humbly, he had not yet understood the
Talmud with the commentaries of the Rishonim (11th-15th century
scholars).
Rav David was offered the chief rabbinates of prestigious cities
such as Vilna and Minsk -- both of which had abolished the position
of chief rabbi decades before -- but he declined. His preference
was for a small town where he could devote his time to learning,
except for the occasional halachic question. (At his death, Rav
David left thousands of pages of halachic responsa.) Rav David's
published works include Yad David on the laws of marriage and
divorce, and She'elat David, a collection of a small fraction of his
responsa.
|
| 989.506 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Vayikra-Zachor | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Mar 20 1997 19:07 | 161 |
| Hamaayan/The Torah Spring
edited by Shlomo Katz
Vayikra-Zachor
Vol. XI, No. 24 (507)
13 Adar II 5757, March 22, 1997
The letter "aleph" of the word "Vayikra" is written in the Torah
smaller than the surrounding letters. The midrash comments: Come
and see how beloved children are before G-d! When the Sanhedrin
was exiled, the Shechinah did not go with them. When the families
of the kohanim were exiled, the Shechinah did not go with them.
However, when the Jewish children were exiled, the Shechinah did go
with them.
What is the connection between the small "aleph" and Hashem's
love for children? Rav Yosef Zvi Salant z~l explains that the
letter "aleph" means "study" (see Iyov 33:33). The "aleph" is
small as if to say, ~Hashem loves the Torah study of the small
ones.
This concept is found elsewhere. For example, when Hashem
wanted to give Bnei Yisrael the Torah, He demanded that the Jewish
children be pledged as collateral. Also, we find that Hashem's
voice spoke to Moshe from between the keruvim/cherubs atop the aron
kodesh. Why are they called keruvim? Because that word contains
within it the word keraviah/ young one, an allusion to the baby-
faced cherubs.
(Quoted in Yalkut Lekach Tov)
************************************
Parashat Vayikra In Halachah
This parashah contains 16 of the Torah's 613 mitzvot, all but
one having to do with the sacrificial service. The one exception
is the mitzvah for a person who was a witness to any matter in
dispute to testify in court regarding that matter.
(Sefer Hachinuch)
This week's and next week's parashot focus on the laws of the
sacrifices, one of the more neglected areas of Torah study. In
recent times, the greatest advocate of their study was the Chafetz
Chaim. He writes:
Learning the laws of Kodshim/the sacrifices, although they are
of no practical consequence today, is very, very lofty, for it is
counted as if one had brought a sacrifice. Various verses indicate
this, for example (Malachi 1:11): "In every place, it is brought up
in smoke and brought near for My Name." Is it possible that
sacrifices are brought in every place? Rather, this refers to
Torah scholars who study the laws of the sacrifices, and G-d
considers it as if they have brought sacrifices.
Indeed, the study of Kodshim should be greater than all other
Torah disciplines, for many tractates of the Talmud are built
entirely on one phrase or one paragraph in the Torah, whereas
Kodshim covers most of the Book of Vayikra and parts of Shmot,
Bemidbar, and Devarim
Many will say that Kodshim should not be learned because its
laws cannot be practiced. If this is the reason, why do yeshivot
focus on tractates such as Yevamot, whose laws also are not
practiced today? And even if this were a valid argument, how can
a person go through all his days missing a large part of the Torah?
When G-d reveals His secrets in the Next World, such a person will
be lacking the foundation to understand a large portion of them!
Moreover, we pray daily for the speedy redemption and the
rebuilding of the Bet Hamikdash. What will happen if the Bet
Hamikdash is built suddenly? Who will know the laws which apply?
(Likutei Halachot: Introduction)
************************************
"And He called to Moshe . . ." (1:1)
The midrash states: Moshe had ten names, but Hashem called him
only by the name which Pharaoh's daughter gave him, i.e., "Moshe."
Rav Pinchas Menachem Alter (the late Gerrer Rebbe) z"l explains:
A person~s name indicates his mission in this world, his essence,
and what is expected of him. Moshe's task was to draw people close
to G-d, and this what he did.
The gemara (Chullin 139b) asks: Where in the Torah do we find an
allusion to Moshe? In the verse (Bereishit 6:3), "beshagam/Surely
he is but flesh." (The gematria of beshagam is equal to the
gematria of Moshe.)
Why does the Torah search for an allusion to Moshe's name?
Moshe's name is mentioned hundreds of times in the Torah! The
Maharsha answers that the gemara is trying to understand the
meaning of Moshe's name. Specifically, based on the meaning
ascribed by the Torah (Shmot 2:10) to Moshe's name - "I pulled him
from the water" - his name should have taken a passive form such as
"Mashui" or "Nimsheh." Why then did Hashem cause that he be given
a name in the active form, "Moshe"/"One who pulls"? Because
Moshe's task in life was to pull others to the service of G-d.
Accordingly, continues Rav Alter, we can understand why Moshe's
name is alluded to in connection with the flood in the time of
Noach. One such as Moshe could draw near even someone who was
drowning in the deepest depths of impurity.
(Pnei Menachem)
************************************
From the humor of our sages . . .
We read in Tehilim regarding the days of mashiach: "Then all
the trees will rejoice." Why do the trees care if mashiach comes?
Rav Shepps shlita (maggid shiur/instructor in Yeshiva Torah
Voda~ath in Brooklyn) explained: Today, more and more sefarim/Torah
works are being published, and we can no longer tell which
represent the true interpretation of Torah and which do not.
However, when mashiach comes, the Truth will become widely known,
and there will be much less publishing taking place. With the
decrease in publishing, the demand for paper will decrease as well,
thus leading to widespread rejoicing among the world's trees.
(Heard from Rabbi Victor Weill)
************************************
We found this biography "hanging" around, and thought you might
like to see it again. Even Esther got to see Haman twice.
Haman, may his name be blotted out
died 16 Nissan 3405 (355 B.C.E.)
Haman was born somewhere in the Middle East -- some say in India.
He was the son of Hamedata the Agigite, son of Sarach, son of Buza,
son of Aflatus, son of Deyosef, son of Deyosim, son of Prom, son of
Madei, son of Bulakan, son of Intimros, son of Haridom, son of
Shegar, son of Negar, son of Parmashta, son of Vyzata, son of Agag,
son of Sumkei, son of Amalek, son of the concubine of Elifaz, the
eldest son of Esav. (This is not a joke; this genealogy is found
in the midrash called Targum Sheni.) Chazal say that Agag
"merited" to be the ancestor of Haman because he prayed sincerely
that his evil lineage should not be wiped out.
Haman and Mordechai knew each other long before the Purim story.
When the Jews began rebuilding the Temple (18 years before the
second Temple was successfully built), the gentiles challenged the
Jews right to do so. Haman and Mordechai were chosen to travel to
Persia to litigate before the king. They were sent off with equal
rations, but while Mordechai ate conservatively, Haman quickly
finished his food. Faced with death from starvation, Haman sold
himself as a slave to Mordechai, writing the contract on the bottom
of Mordechai's shoe. (Aggadat Esther)
Haman used to wear an idol on a necklace. This is one of the
reasons that Mordechai would not bow to him. The midrash says that
Haman was so desperate for Mordechai's attention that he used to
stand in the street next to Mordechai and pretend to be engaged in
animated conversation. Mordechai, however, ignored him.
The rest, as they say, is history.
|
| 989.507 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Tzav-Parah | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 26 1997 23:40 | 175 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Tzav-Parah
Vol. XI, No. 25 (508)
20 Adar II 5757, March 29, 1997
One of the mitzvot in this parashah is the Temple service known
as "terumat hadeshen." Essentially, this service consisted of
cleaning the altar and taking out the garbage.
Rav Meir Rubman z'l asks: The halachah is that a Torah scholar or
community leader may be exempt from the mitzvah of hashavat
aveidah/returning a lost object. This is true if it is beneath
that person's dignity to stoop to pick up an object in public or to
be seen carrying such an object. How, then, can the Torah command
that a kohen take out the Temple's garbage?
Rav Rubman answers: The Torah is teaching us, "There is no
greatness in the king's palace." In other words, no one is too
important to perform any task in the Temple, which is Hashem~s
palace. So, too, says Rav Rubman, when there is work to be done in
or for a yeshiva or religious institution, no one should think
himself too important.
One person who practiced the above lesson was Yehoshua bin Nun,
the student and successor of Moshe. Our Sages teach that
Yehoshua merited to succeed Moshe because Yehoshua used to arrive
early at the study hall in order to set up the benches. (Zichron
Meir)
Our sages have always exemplified this trait. In recent times,
for example, Rav Yehuda Zev Segal (the Manchester Rosh Yeshiva)
z'l was seen one Friday leaving the storage closet at a local shul
with something hidden under his long coat. His mission, it turned
out, was to make sure that all of the tissue dispensers in the
restrooms were sufficiently filled with pre-cut tissues for
Shabbat.
(The Manchester Rosh Yeshivah p.195)
************************************
Parashat Tzav In Halachah
This parashah contains 18 of the Torah's 613 mitzvot. (Sefer
Hachinuch)
It is customary to read various verses relating to the
sacrifices every morning. A large number of those verses come from
this parashah (see Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 1:5 and Mishnah
Berurah there).
"And the zevach/slaughtering of his thanksgiving peace-offering
. . ." (7:15)
For all sacrificial offerings, the one doing the Temple service
must have in mind the sacrifice and the owner at the time of
shechitah, the time of catching the blood, the time of carrying the
blood to the altar, and the time of sprinkling the blood on the
altar, as the above verse teaches: The slaughtering shall be for
his thanksgiving peace offering.
If one thought nothing while doing the service, the sacrifice is
kosher [as long as he did not think the wrong thing]. (Rambam,
Hil. Avodat Hakorbanot 4:10)
************************************
"When one brings his shelamim/peace offering to Hashem, he shall
deliver his offering to Hashem . . ." (7:29)
Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulai writes: When one brings an olah or
a chatat, we hope that he will never bring such an offering
again, as those offerings are brought because of sins. However,
when one brings a shelamim, we bless him that he shall again
deliver his offering to Hashem.
(Nachal Kedumim)
Moshe said to the assembly, "This is the thing that Hashem
commanded to be done." (8:5)
Rashi interprets: Do not say that I did anything for my own
honor or for the honor of my brother (Aharon).
Rav Elya Meir Bloch z'l cites the midrash which says that Moshe
feared that he had improperly derived pleasure from anointing
Aharon with the anointing oil. Perhaps his intention had been for
the honor of his family, and not for G-d's honor. Thus, a bat
kol/Heavenly voice exclaimed that Moshe's intentions were pure.
Aharon too feared that he had derived pleasure from being
anointed. Again, a bat kol exclaimed that his intentions were
pure.
What about us? asks Rav Bloch. If even Moshe and Aharon were
unsure of themselves, can we be assured that our involvement
in holy works is for the sake of G-d, and not for some personal
honor? At least such purity is a goal we should strive for,
concludes Rav Bloch.
(Peninei Da'at)
************************************
From the humor of our sages . . .
"And Moshe did all that G-d had commanded him, and the people
gathered [before Moshe]." (8:4)
Rav Mendel of Kotzk z'l said: In the old days, the people would
not gather before Moshe until they saw that he did what
G-d commanded him. Nowadays, people choose a rebbe without seeing
that he does all that G-d commanded.
************************************
More on Unusual Haftarot
The haftarah for Parashat Tzav is one of the more rarely read
haftarot. In some years, as this year, Parashat Tzav coincides
with Parashat Parah and a special haftarah is read. In many other
years, this parashah falls on Shabbat Hagadol, the Shabbat
before Pesach, and the special haftarah for that day may be read.
And, in Yerushalayim, where Purim may be observed on Shabbat,
Tzav can coincide with that day and a special haftarah is read.
Some communities read the haftarah for Shabbat Hagadol only if
Pesach falls on Sunday, and some communities read that haftarah
only if Pesach does not fall on Sunday. Thus, it is impossible to
state absolutely how many times in a calendar cycle the haftarah
for Parashat Tzav is read. However, in the last fifteen years,
Tzav has been a "free" parashah only twice. Ironically, the
haftarah for Tzav is the only haftarah of a regular parashah that
is specifically mentioned in the gemara (see Megillah 23b).
[Thanks to Rabbi Benjie Gerstman for his research and
correspondence on the frequency of various haftarot.]
************************************
Pesach Thoughts
It is customary at the Pesach seder to wash our hands an extra
time, dip a vegetable in salt water and do other things
to induce our children to ask questions. But one year, try as he
might, the Belzer Rebbe, Reb Yissachar Ber z'l, could not get
his young son, Aharon, to ask any questions. Finally, the rebbe
asked his son in exasperation, ~Why don~t you question all of
the unusual things that I am doing?
"No matter what my father does," said the boy, "I do not question
it."
(Haggadah Shel Pesach: Imrei Kodesh Belz)
************************************
Chazal say that Hashem hurried to take the Jewish people out of
Egypt before they became permanently mired in Egypt's impurity.
Although the exile was supposed to last 400 years, Hashem, in His
kindness, counted the 400 years from the birth of Yitzchak.
Rav Eliezer Nachman Puah z'l (Italy, 1600's) observes that the
Jews were in a "catch-22" situation. On the one hand, if they
had remained in Egypt, they would have been lost spiritually. On
the other hand, he writes, fruit which is artificially or forcibly
ripened is not as sweet as fruit which ripens naturally, and, so
too, the redemption from Egypt could not be complete because it
had to be hurried. This is why the Jews had to suffer so much in
the desert, and this is why we have suffered in additional exiles
until today.
This also explains, he writes, why our Sages cautioned against
hurrying the ultimate redemption. Rather, we should wait until
the "fruit" ripens at the ordained time.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Midrash Bechiddush)
|
| 989.508 | Drasha from Simcha Shlomo's bris | TAV02::JEREMY | | Thu Apr 10 1997 14:01 | 146 |
|
The following dvar Torah was given last week on the occasion of our son
Simcha Shlomo's bris.
May we all experience simchas for many happy and
healthy years to come.
The Talmud (Shab. 130a) tells us:
All precepts (mitzvos) which were initially accepted with
joy--such as circumcision (milah), as it is written (Ps. 119),
"I rejoice over your pronouncements as one who finds
a great treasure"--are yet fulfilled joyously.
Tosfos brings a Midrash (Shochar Tov on Ps. chap. 6) as an illus-
tration. The psalm begins:
To the musician (Lamenatzeach) of the "eighth"
a psalm of David.
The midrash explains that David was feeling depressed over his
"nakedness" in terms of precepts. He then recalled the precept of
circumcision (performed on the "eighth" day) and rejoiced.
That one would experience joy in fulfilling certain commandments
such as resting on the Sabbath and holidays, or other festive oc-
casions is understandable. But the _mitzva_ of _milah_ is undeni-
ably a difficult event for all involved. It is physically painful
and can even be dangerous. Of all the examples of _mitzvot_, why
is this one chosen as the example par excellence of joy?
What does the word "milah" mean in the Holy Tongue? R. Samson Ra-
phael Hirsch points out that it has nothing to do with "cutting"
or blood- letting. The root is actually _mool_, meaning "oppo-
site," as in _el mool panav_--standing opposite another (this
meaning is corroborated in both Radak's and Rabeinu Yona's "Sefer
Hasherashim"). Opposite what?
Nature dictates many aspects of life. There are many things over
which we have no control. However, the Jew understands that Na-
ture is merely a tool in the hands of the great Artisan; it has
no power on its own. Nature may point us in a particular direc-
tion, but we are not necessarily obliged to follow. Each instinct
and urge must be tested against the will of Nature's Master, and
if it is found to be at variance with that will, it must be com-
batted.
The Torah portion of the week, Shemini, "the eighth day," the day
on which the Kohanim--priests--were consecrated as such, is com-
pared by R. Hirsch to the eighth day upon which the circumcision
is performed. In both cases the individual enters a new realm, a
new reality. A well-known Maharal explains that the number seven
symbolizes the natural (e.g. the weekly and sabbatical cycles),
whereas eight is always the symbol of that which transcends na-
ture.
Not for naught is Abraham referred to as _Ha'ivri_, literally the
one who "crossed." Abraham the first monotheist stood on one side
of the river with the entire heathen world on the other. He un-
derstood the folly of paganism and took the opposite stand, come
what may. His commitment and determination--even in the face of
mortal danger--is the model for the Jewish people in all genera-
tions.
R. Hirsch points out on Ps. 6 that both psalms (6 and 12) which
begin with the words "to the musician of the 'eighth' a psalm of
David," are not happy chapters; on the contrary they record the
hopelessness of trust in Mankind. Why then the joy expressed by
David in the title as explained in the midrash brought above?
Indeed was David actually bereft of mitzvos that the only one he
could think of was that of _milah_?
David was given to deep meditation, especially on the purpose of
life. Although he himself had extraordinary accomplishments to
his credit, he was nagged by this question: ultimately, to what
end? We appear to differ little from the animal kingdom in our
instincts and urges, as indeed in our genesis and destination. We
appear to be little more than slaves to Nature, and life a folly
which often leaves us broken- spirited and in the end returned to
the dust whence we derive. What is the good of Man's accomplish-
ments in this light?
But then he remembered the _milah_. He realized that we have the
power to overcome Nature's base dictates, to withstand the forces
of nature in our quest to fill the world with the glory of the
_Shechina_ (Divine Presence). Whatever we do accomplish in pur-
suit of that goal is a permanent change in the world; indeed it
is our ultimate purpose here.
This was the source both of David's joy and of the joy of all
Jews in carrying out this very difficult _mitzva_. It is the joy
of transcending the mundane, the baseness of Nature. And it pro-
vides us with the strength to stand up to the multitudinous vi-
cissitudes life presents. A purpose, an eternal contribution.
The Talmud (Arachin 13a) interprets this verse in Psalms ("the
eighth") as referring to the harp itself. A standard harp had
seven strings, but these psalms were to be played on the harp of
the Messiah, which will be composed of eight strings. Here again,
because the Messiah will appear on the scene when we realize that
there is more to the world than meets the eye, that we are em-
powered by the Almighty to control Nature, and not the other way
around.
Nothing in life is haphazard. Our son was born on Purim, the fes-
tival on which the Jews discerned the supernatural in a series of
coincidences. He is our eighth child beli ayin hara. His bris
took place on Parashas Shemini. The message appears to be that we
must find the strength to overcome the difficulties in which we
find ourselves by looking beyond the mundane, to an ultimate
goal. By nature we would find ourselves depressed by the filth
and injustice which confronts us in the here and now. But our
lives must not be controlled by Nature; if it dictates depression
we can and must find the strength to transcend it and achieve
joy.
Through this transcendent joy may we merit to hear the glorious
music of the Messiah's eight-stringed harp speedily indeed.
|
| 989.509 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Shemini-Hachodesh | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Apr 15 1997 20:46 | 192 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Shemini-Hachodesh
Vol. XI, No. 26 (509)
27 Adar II 5757, April 5, 1997
This week's parashah, Shemini, and the special reading for
Parashat Hachodesh, actually are related. Our parashah describes
the eighth day of the dedication of the mishkan, which fell on the
first day of the month of Nisan. Parashat Hachodesh takes its name
from the commandment that Nisan be counted as the first month of
the year.
The gemara (Shabbat 87b) teaches that the first day of Nisan took
ten "crowns" at the time when the mishkan was dedicated: It was:
1 - the first day counting from the creation of the world
(i.e., it was a Sunday);
2 - the first of the twelve days when the Nesiim/Princes
brought their sacrifices;
3 - the first day that Aharon and his sons served as
kohanim;
4 - the first day of the Temple service;
5 - the first time that fire came down from heaven to the
altar;
6 - the first day that kodshim/sacrifices were eaten;
7 - the first day that the Shechinah rested among men;
8 - the first day that Birkat Kohanim/the Priestly
Blessing was recited;
9 - the first day when private altars were forbidden; and
10 - the first day in the count of months.
******************
Pesach Thoughts
We begin the Pesach seder by reciting, "Whoever is hungry, let
him come and eat . . . This year here; next year in Eretz
Yisrael." How do these thoughts relate to each other? Also, how
can we say, "Whoever is hungry, let him come and eat," when the
doors of our houses are closed?
Rav Yehuda Assad z"l explains as follows: Why are we happy on
Pesach - after all, aren't we once again in exile? The answer is
that we rejoice in the knowledge that we can be redeemed at any
time. Even from Egypt, where we were destined to remain for 400
years, G-d took us out early. Certainly, then, He can take us out
of our present exile which has no fixed length. How can we earn
this redemption? Through charity. The haggadah excerpt quoted
above is not literally an invitation. It is a reminder that if
throughout the year we practice feeding the hungry, then: This year
here; next year in Eretz Yisrael.
(Divrei MaHaRY"A)
******************
The gemara says that the story of the Exodus should be told in a
question and answer format. Even if a person is all alone, he is
expected to follow this format. Why?
Rav Aryeh Leib Zunz z"l explains: The Zohar says that when a
person tells the story of the Exodus, Hashem Himself rejoices. He
then gathers together the entire heavenly entourage and says to
them, "Go and hear My praises which My children are saying." Thus,
says Rav Zunz, a person who is conducting a seder is never really
alone.
(Haggadah Shel Pesach Birkat Shir)
******************
"You shall tell Bnei Yisrael: 'Take a goat for a sin
offering ... for today Hashem appears to you.'
They took what Moshe had commanded to the front of the
Tent of Meeting, and the entire assembly approached and
stood before Hashem.
Moshe said, 'This is the thing that Hashem has commanded
you to do, and the glory of Hashem will appear to you'."
(9:3-6)
What does the last verse add to the story? The Torah has already
related in the previous verses that Hashem's glory will appear when
the offerings are brought!
Rav Chaim Yaakov Goldvicht z"l explained in the name of the
Brisker Rav z"l: The midrash interprets Moshe's statement to mean,
"Eliminate that certain yetzer hara/evil inclination from your
midst. Just as He is One, so your intentions shall be for one
purpose. If you do this, He will appear to you."
What does this mean?
If a person were told, "Do this mitzvah and the Vilna Gaon will
appear to you; do this mitzvah and Rabbi Akiva will appear to you,"
would the performance of that mitzvah be considered to be
leshmah/for the sake of Heaven? One could argue that it is, since
the desire to see the Vilna Gaon or Rabbi Akiva is a wholly
spiritual aspiration. What if a person is told, "Do this mitzvah,
and Hashem will appear to you" ? Would the performance of that
mitzvah be considered to be leshmah?
The answer, our verses teach, is, no. True leshmah means serving
Hashem simply because He has commanded it, with no expectation of
receiving any benefit whatsoever. Moshe said, according to the
midrash, "Eliminate that certain yetzer hara, i.e., the yetzer hara
that demands a reward for serving Hashem, from your midst." If you
do this thing which Hashem has commanded, says our verse, then
Hashem~s glory will, in fact, appear to you. However, that should
not be your intention.
(Quoted in Shai Latorah)
******************
From the humor of our sages . . .
"And Moshe heard, and it was good in his eyes." (10:20)
Rav Natan David of Shidlovitza z"l once visited Rav Chaim of Sanz
z"l, who asked his guest to speak a few words of Torah. Rav Natan
David did not wish to speak in the presence of one of the leading
sages of the generation, but what choice did he have? This is what
he said:
What does the Torah mean by "it was good in Moshe's eyes"? The
answer is that Moshe was used to speaking and having Aharon listen
to him. Now, when Aharon spoke, Moshe saw that hearing words of
Torah is better than speaking words of Torah.
And with that, Rav Natan David said no more.
******************
Parashat Shemini In Halachah
-- This parashah contains 17 of the Torah's 613 mitzvot,
including the basic laws for recognizing kosher and non-kosher
animals, fish, birds and insects. (Sefer Hachinuch)
-- The Torah tells us that an animal is kosher if it chews its
cud and has split hooves, and a fish is kosher if it has fins and
scales. However, the Torah does not tell us how to recognize a
kosher bird. Rather, the Torah lists, by name, 24 species of non-
kosher birds, and the rest are kosher.
We do not know what those 24 are. Although the gemara does
list four signs of kashruth for birds, which have been handed down
through the Oral Law, it is our practice to eat only those birds
regarding which we have a tradition of kashruth. (Shulchan Aruch,
Y.D. 82:1-2)
In light of this halachah, how can we explain the widespread
practice of eating turkey? Since turkey is an American bird, there
could not have been a tradition regarding its kashruth before the
1500's. Rav Zvi Hirsch Shapira z"l (1845-1914; the Munkatcher
Rebbe and a major posek) suggests that we eat turkey because of its
similarity to the Indian peacock, which is a kosher bird. However,
he notes, some people do not eat turkey. (Darchei Teshuvah 82:26)
-- "Everything that has fins and scales in the water, in the
seas, and in the streams, those you may eat." (11:9)
Ramban writes that it is not enough for fish to have scales in
order for the fish to be kosher. The scales must be of a type
which can be scraped off easily.
Rav Yechezkel Landau z"l writes that if anyone but the Ramban
had said this, he would argue, for he can find no source in the
gemara or midrash for such a halachah. "But what can I do, when
our great master, the Ramban, has said this?" he writes. (Noda
B'Yehuda II No. 28)
The Vilna Gaon writes that Ramban's source is the Tosefta
(Chullin, chapter 3) which writes, "The scales which the fish
wears." (Beur Hagra, Y.D 83:1)
-- A giraffe is a kosher animal and may be shechted (slaughtered)
anywhere on its long neck. There is no truth to the popular
statement that we don't eat giraffe because we don't know where to
shecht it. Some say that the giraffe is the "tachash" whose hide
was used in the mishkan. (Sichat Chullin pp. 417-418)
|
| 989.510 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Metzora | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Apr 30 1997 21:37 | 189 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Metzora
Vol. XI, No. 28 (511)
12 Nisan 5757, April 19, 1997
This parashah continues to discuss the laws of tzara'at. Chazal
say: "Whoever speaks lashon hara, blemishes come upon him." Rav
Ephraim of Lunschitz z'l (better known as the "Kli Yakar") writes
that this need not refer only to the tzara'at blemishes which would
come upon a person who spoke lashon hara in the times of the Bet
Hamikdash. Rather, when one speaks lashon hara, people attribute
to him blemishes of the type that he describes in others.
People do not speak lashon hara for no reason; they do it in
order to distract others from the speaker's own faults. However,
Chazal assure us that people are not so easily fooled. If one
criticizes others, sooner or later, everyone will realize what the
speaker's own blemishes are.
What greater proof of this is there than from Moshe Rabbenu
himself. At the beginning of his career, he spoke lashon hara
about Bnei Yisrael, accusing them of being non-believers. At the
end of his career, G-d sentenced Moshe to an early death "because
you did not believe in Me" (Bemidbar 20:12). (Ir Gibborim)
******************
Shabbat Hagadol
The Shulchan Aruch (430:1) writes: The Shabbat before Pesach is
called "Shabbat Hagadol" because of the great miracle which
happened on that day. That miracle was that the Jews set aside
lambs, the Egyptian diety, to be the korban Pesach, and the
Egyptians did not protest.
Some suggest that the name "Shabbat Hagadol" is taken from the
haftarah which many communities read on this day. That selection
contains the final prophecy of the last prophet. In it, that
prophet (Malachi) rebukes Bnei Yisrael for their laxity in
performing mitzvot. He warns that the Day of Judgment will come,
and that it will then be apparent to all who is found to be worthy
and who is not. The haftarah concludes: "Behold, I will send to
you Eliyah Hanavi, before the coming of the yom Hashem
hagadol/great and awesome day of G-d"--i.e., the day of the final
judgment and redemption. Thus it is that we prepare for the
celebration of the first redemption from exile by reading of the
future, final one, and the day on which we read of the "Yom
Hagadol" is known as "Shabbat Hagadol." (Mateh Moshe)
Rav Yissachar Yaakovson z'l suggests the following additional
connection between the haftarah and the occasion: Pesach, more
than any other holiday, is a family-oriented celebration. Eliyahu
Hanavi, the haftarah tells us, will work to reunite families and
"return the hearts of fathers to their sons," (3:24) and vice-versa
(Chazon Hamikra).
Rav Mendel Hirsch writes that, in fact, the verse just quoted
should be translated, "He will turn the thoughts of fathers towards
their sons, and the thoughts of sons towards their fathers." The
accomplishment of Eliyahu Hanavi will be that he will bridge the
generation gap which has so divided society.
******************
There are different customs regarding when this haftarah is or is
not read. Specifically, some read this haftarah on every Shabbat
Hagadol, some read it only when Erev Pesach falls on Shabbat, and
some only when Erev Pesach does not fall on Shabbat.
Levush argues that this haftarah was intended for when Shabbat
Hagadol falls on Erev Pesach. The reason is that it contains a
reminder to bring ma'aser, a mitzvah whose deadline is Erev Pesach
(every third year). The Levush's opinion is cited by Be'er Heitev.
Among the chassidic rebbes who followed it were Rav Chaim Elazar
Shapira of Munkatch and Rav Menachem Mendel of Rimanov.
The Vilna Gaon's custom was to read this haftarah only if Erev
Pesach fell on a weekday (Ma~aseh Rav). Rav Yissachar Ber of Vilna
explains in Pe'ulat Sachir that there is no purpose to giving a
reminder about ma'aser on Erev Pesach which is Shabbat; by then, it
already is too late to bring the tithes from home. Only if some
weekdays separate the reading and Erev Pesach is the reminder
helpful.
Rav Chaim David Halevi notes that the above explanation is
correct only if the deadline for bringing ma'aser is Erev Pesach.
However, some say that it is the sixth day of Pesach. (Aseh Lecha
Rav)
******************
Parashat Metzora In Halachah
- This parashah contains 11 of the 613 mitzvot. (Sefer Hachinuch)
- "This is the law of the metzora . . ." (14:2)
The gemara elaborates: "This is the law of the motzi shem ra /
one who speaks evil of another." (Erachin 15b) [The gemara is
reading the word "metzora" as an abbreviation of "motzi shem ra" in
order to teach that tzara'at is a punishment for speaking lashon
hara.
The Chafetz Chaim writes that one may transgress as many as 31
of the 613 commandments with one act of speaking lashon hara. A
partial list of these includes: the prohibition on being a gossip;
the commandment to avoid tzara~at; the prohibition on placing a
stumbling block before another (because the one who speaks lashon
hara causes othes to listen to lashon hara, which also is a sin);
the prohibition on forgetting G-d (because a person who speaks
lashon hara thereby demonstrates haughtiness, whereas a person who
remembers G-d is aware of his own faults and is never haughty); the
two prohibitions on taking revenge and bearing a grudge; the
prohibition on giving false testimony; and the prohibition on
following in Korach's footsteps (i.e., by bringing about hostility
between people.
(Sefer Chaftez Chaim: Introduction)
******************
From the Humor of Our Sages . . .
The leaders of the town of Radin complained to the Chafetz Chaim
that donations to the town~s Ma~ot Chittim (i.e., Pesach charity)
fund were inadequate to feed the town~s poor. The Chafetz Chaim
acceded to the leaders~ request that he address the townsfolk.
"I am an old man," the Chafetz Chaim said in his speech. "Soon
I will be called to give an accounting in the World-to-Come, and I
will be asked whether the people of my town of Radin gave
generously to charity. I will then be faced with a dilemma. If I
say that they did, I will be telling a lie, something I have never
done. On the other hand, if I say that the people of Radin did not
give generously, I will be speaking lashon hara, which I also have
never done.
"There is only one solution to my dilemma - for each of you to
give generously to the Ma'ot Chittim campaign."
(A Word of Wisdom, A Word of Wit)
******************
Pesach Thoughts
Perhaps one of the most perplexing parts of the Haggadah is the
song known as "Dayenu," in which we say that if G-d had taken us
out of Egypt but had not judged the Egyptians, that would have been
enough for us. Or, if He had judged the Egyptians, but had not
destroyed their idols, that, too, would have been enough for us.
Or, if He had destroyed their idols, but had not killed their
firstborns, that, too, would have been enough. Or . . . What does
this song mean?
Rav Eliyahu Hakohen Ha'itamari z'l of Izmir (commonly known as
the "Ba'al Shevet Hamussar") explains that for each of the Divine
gifts or miracles listed in this song, one could make an argument
that G-d should have acted otherwise. Our praise of G-d is that He
considered all these arguments and acted in the way that was best
for us and for the glory of His Name. For example, one could
argue that if G-d had taken us out of Egypt but had not judged the
Egyptians so harshly as to practically destroy them, His name would
have been magnified even more because the Egyptians would live to
remember, and to tell others, how He had humbled them. On the
other hand, one could argue that they would not feel humbled in
that event. Rather, they would say, "He won this battle, and we
will win the next battle."
That is why G-d judged the Egyptians harshly. However, one could
argue that if G-d had judged the Egyptians harshly but had not
destroyed their idols, those idols would have served as constant
reminders of G-d's power to anyone who saw them. On the other
hand, some people would say that G-d was not strong enough to
destroy the Egyptians' idols.
That is why G-d destroyed the Egyptians' idols. However, one
could argue that if G-d had destroyed their idols, but had not
killed their firstborns, then those firstborns would have had a
special reason to tell others of G-d's greatness. It was customary
at that time to devote one~s firstborn to the service of the idol;
with all the idols destroyed, the Egyptian firstborn, who were no
longer performing that service, would be a testament to G-d~s
power. On the other hand, Pharaoh was a firstborn; if the
firstborns had not been smitten, people would say that it was
Pharaoh~s merit or power which saved him and those like him.
That is why G-d killed the firstborn. . .
(Minchat Eliyahu ch.32)
|
| 989.511 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Acharei | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon May 05 1997 22:17 | 195 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Acharei
Vol. XI, No. 29 (512)
26 Nisan 5757, May 3, 1997
We read in this parashah (18:5), "You shall observe My
decrees and My laws, which man shall carry out and live ba'hem."
The last phrase may be translated several different ways,
including: "by which he shall live" and "through which he shall
live." (From the latter translation, we learn that preserving
human life takes precedence over virtually all of the Torah~s
other laws; man should live through the Torah and not die through
the Torah.)
Rav Chaim of Volozhin z'l translates the phrase: "in
which man shall live." He explains that from the moment that a
person thinks of performing a mitzvah, it makes an impression
above. At that moment, an all encompassing "light"/ohr makif
surrounds him, and this connects him to G-d. At this moment, his
soul is literally in Gan Eden. This is the meaning of "in which
man shall live" - he is surrounded by this light and is literally
inside the mitzvah.
Conversely, when man transgresses one of G-d's laws, a
spirit of impurity surrounds him, as is written (Vayikra 11:43),
"Lest you become contaminated in them." (Nefesh Hachaim 1:6,
quoted in Beurei Rabbenu Chaim Volozhin p. 33)
******************
Parashat Acharei in Halachah
- This parashah contains 28 of the 613 mitzvot. (Sefer Hachinuch)
- "One who hunts an animal/chayah or a bird that may be eaten,
and he spills its blood, he shall cover it with dirt." (17:13)
We are commanded to cover the blood of birds and certain types
of animals ("chayot") after slaughtering them. This mitzvah is
called "kisui hadam." The reason for this is that one can
acquire the trait of callousness by slaughtering an animal and
eating it while its blood lies before him. The reason that this
mitzvah does not apply to cows, sheep and goats (collectively
called "behemot") is that those animals sometimes are sacrificed
on the altar, and their blood must be sacrificed as well. The
Torah did not want to make separate rules for behemot that are
brought on the altar and those that are not. (Sefer Hachinuch)
Rav Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook z'l explains the existence of
different laws for behemot and chayot as follows: The purpose of
kisui hadam is to remind man that, even as he slaughters an
animal, he should be sensitive to the fact that it is a living
being. However, in the case of behemot, which generally are
raised by man, man feels entitled to use them for his own
purposes. Therefore, it would be too much for the Torah to ask
that man be sensitive to these animals. (Afikim Banegev in
Otzrot Hareiyah p748)
Rav Chaim Elazar Shapira z'l (the Munkatcher Rebbe; known as
the "Minchat Elazar") explains as follows: Man is permitted to
eat meat because he elevates the animal's "soul" thereby. Yet,
it is a rare person who can eat meat properly, and one must
therefore "hide" the fact that he has slaughtered an animal.
This concern only exists, though, with regard to chayot, which
are a delicacy and are eaten by few. Since behemot, on the other
hand, are commonly eaten and are usually cut into many parts and
shared, it is likely that one person will partake of the animal
who knows how to eat it with proper intentions. Therefore, the
blood of behemot need not be covered. (Divrei Torah II No. 103)
******************
From the Humor of Our Sages . . .
"He shall not come at all times into the Holy . . ." (16:2)
Chazal taught that one who supports his children gives charity
at all times. Says the Shelah Hakadosh: "Do not think that with
this charity alone you can come before G-d into the Holy."
******************
"B'zot/Thus shall Aharon enter the Holy . . ." (16:3)
The gematria of the word "b'zot" is 410, alluding to the 410
years that the first Temple stood. The second Temple is not
alluded to here because the Holy of Holies in the second Temple
did not contain the aron (which had been hidden away), and was
less holy than in the first Temple.
(Rav Yisrael Isserlin z'l, author of Terumat Hadeshen)
******************
"You shall observe My decrees and My laws . . ." (18:5)
Rabbi Yisrael Salanter z'l writes: Decrees, i.e., the
commandments which are kept without knowing the reason, are
mentioned before laws, i.e., the commandments for which we do
know the reasons, because the decrees are the steps to the
fulfillment of the laws. This is true, in particular, when it
comes to improving a character trait.
Take a person who is prone to excessive anger at the
slightest provocation, writes Rabbi Yisrael. He may try to
recognize the evil of anger by studying statements of Chazal such
as, "Whoever becomes angry, gehinom rules over him."
Nevertheless, at the moment that his temper grabs hold of him, he
becomes a different person, and all of the scenarios which he
planned out in his mind for controlling his anger are as if they
never were.
How then does such a person control his anger? Only by
telling himself that it is a decree, and he has no choice but to
control himself.
(Ohr Yisrael ch. 31)
******************
Pirkei Avot
"Avtalyon said: 'Wise men - be careful with your words, lest
you be subjected to a decree of exile . . .' " (Chapter 1)
Why would wise men be subjected to exile if they are not
careful with their words? Rav Chaim Sanzer of Brody z'l explains
as follows:
Chazal enacted various rabbinic decrees to distance us from
the possibility of transgressing Torah prohibitions. Some people
might say, "I do not have to observe the rabbinic decrees,
because I can be trusted not to transgress the related Torah
prohibitions." Even if this is so, says Avtalyon, be careful
with your words [i.e., the rabbinic laws], lest someone else
learn from you. If another person transgresses a serious Torah
law because he learned from you to be lax in the rabbinic
ordinances, you will be a manslaughterer in the eyes of G-d (and
a mansluaghterer's punishment is exile to a city of refuge).
(Peirush Rav Chaim Sanzer Mi'Brody)
******************
Rav Yosef Feimer z'l
"Rav Yosele of Slutsk z.l."
born 5556 (1796) - died 30 Nisan 5624 (1864)
Rav Yosele was one of the leading students of Rav Chaim of
Volozhin; indeed, due to Rav Yosele's great diligence, he was
known as the "Pillar of the Yeshiva" of Volozhin. When Rav
Yosele's hometown burnt down and his mother needed his help to
support the family, Rav Chaim attributed the entire conflagration
to the satan's desire to interrupt Rav Yosele's Torah study. Rav
Chaim foresaw that Rav Yosele would be a leader of the next
generation, and he personally trained Rav Yosele for that role.
Rav Yosele's first rabbinic position was in Luknik, where
his students included Rabbi Yisrael Salanter. (However, Rav
Yosele should not be confused with another "Yosef" who was also a
student of Rav Chaim and the primary teacher of Rabbi Yisrael,
i.e., Rav Yosef Zundel of Salant.) In 1829, Rav Yosele ascended
to the rabbinate of Slutsk, one of White Russia's greatest
communities. His greatness may be seen through the identity of
his halachic correspondents, including Rav Abba Posvaler of
Vilna, Rav David Tevele of Minsk (the "Nachalat David"), and Rav
Yaakov of Karlin (the "Mishkenot Yaakov"). (These were some of
the greatest sages of the day).
So beloved was Rav Yosele in Slutsk that the wealthy
willingly paid the taxes which he imposed on them for the benefit
of the city's thousands of poor. Even the gentiles venerated Rav
Yosele, and the governor sent an artist to capture Rav Yosele's
image on canvas.
Rav Yosele also was consulted on weighty public matters.
After the death of Rav Chaim's son and of the latter~s eldest
son-in-law, the leadership of the yeshiva of Volozhin was shared
by Rav Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin (the "Netziv") and Rav Yosef Dov
Soloveitchik (the "Bet Halevi"). However, the vastly different
styles of these two sages made cooperation impossible, and thus a
bet din was convened to mediate between them. Rav Yosele was a
member of that court. He even was asked to mediate communal
disputes as far away as Yerushalayim.
In 1861, Rav Yosele was elected rabbi of Minsk, but the
citizens of Slutsk would not accept his resignation. Rav Yosele
relented, but on the condition that he not receive a raise, lest
it appear that he had made his decision based on financial
considerations.
It is said that at the moment of Rav Yosele's death, the sun
disappeared from the sky and a blizzard struck Slutsk.
|
| 989.512 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Kedoshim | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu May 08 1997 04:01 | 193 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Kedoshim
Vol. XI, No. 30 (513)
3 Iyar 5757, May 10, 1997
The opening verses (2-5) of our parashah state: "You shall be holy
. . . A man shall fear his mother and father . . . Do not turn to
idols . . . When you slaughter an offering to Hashem." How do these
thoughts flow one from another?
Rav Chaim Menachem David Horowitz z"l hy"d (the last rabbi of
Dzikov/Tarnobrzeg, Poland) explains based on the following three
points:
(1) The reason that man must honor and fear his parents is that
they were partners in his creation. But is it good that man was
created? Only if he does G-d's will (see Eruvin 13b).
(2) Chazal say that Hashem consults with the angels before doing
bad, but not before doing good. Yet the verse (Bereishit 1:26) says,
"Let us make man," implying that Hashem did consult the angels. Was
man's creation "bad"?
(3) Chazal acknowledge that the plural form ("Let us") in the
above verse might be used by heretics as "proof" that there are
multiple gods. The reason for the plural form, however, is to teach
man humility, as if to say: "Even G-d asks for advice."
In light of the above, the verses from our parashah may be read as
follows: If you are holy, then your parents should be honored, for
they did a good thing by participating in your creation. But if your
creation was a good thing, why does the Torah say that Hashem
consulted with the angels? Certainly not so that the verse may be
a source of heresy, for you shall not turn to idols. Rather, it
should teach humility; indeed, "The [best] offering to G-d is a
humble spirit" (Tehilim 51:19). Thus, if you are humble, you will
be slaughtering an offering to Hashem. (From the introduction to
his grandfather's She'eilot U'teshuvot Ateret Yeshuah)
******************
Parashat Kedoshim in Halachah
This parashah contains 51 of the Torah's 613 mitzvot.
(Sefer Hachinuch)
******************
Another Unusual Haftarah
This week, for the first time since 5733/1973, many congregations
will read the haftarah known as "Hatishpot" (Yechezkel 22:1-16),
which is found in many chumashim after Parashat Acharei Mot, and,
in others, after Parashat Kedoshim. Previously in this century, this
haftarah was read only in the years 5662/1902, 5679/1919, 5703/1943,
5706/1946, and 5730/1970. Indeed, so rare is this haftarah, that
in 1943, Rav Yechiel Michel Tickochinski z"l, author of the well-
known calendar listing the customs of Yerushalayim, had to advertise
in the newspaper seeking citizens of Yerushalayim old enough to
reliably report on the custom of the city. The reason is as follows:
There are four sets of calendrical circumstances which can prevent
us from reading this haftarah. First, in many years, the parashot
Acharei Mot and Kedoshim are combined as one, causing us to lose a
haftarah. If the parashot are separate, it is likely either that
the Shabbat Kedoshim will be rosh chodesh or the day before rosh
chodesh, or that Acharei Mot will be read on Shabbat Hagadol. In
all of those cases, a special haftarah is read, again causing us to
lose one haftarah. In any of these circumstances, the Shabbat of
Acharei Mot or Kedoshim which is left "free" is given the haftarah
known as "Halo chivnei," which is commonly shown in chumashim after
Acharei Mot and which is taken from Amos 9:7-15.
We avoid reading "Hatishpot" whenever possible because it speaks
of the "abominations" of Yerushalayim (Mishnah Berurah 428:26).
Specifically, it contains the verse (Yechezkel 22:2): "And as for
you, son of man, are you indeed w illing to take up the cause of the
city of blood? Then make her aware of all her abominations."
In Megillah 25b, Rabbi Eliezer states that one may not publicly
read the verse (Yechezkel 16:2), "Son of man! Make Yerushalayim
aware of her abominations." The gemara relates:
Someone once read this verse as the haftarah in the presence
of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Eliezer told him, "Before you go
checking into the abominations of Yerushalayim, check into
the abominations of your mother." Sure enough, it turned out
that the man was of illegitimate descent.
(Commentaries explain that when a person gratuitously speaks evil
of others -- after all, this man could have chosen some other chapter
to read, as there were not yet fixed haftarot in those days -- it
is a sign of a blemish on that person's soul.)
Thus, we are faced with two questions: (1) Did Rabbi Eliezer
prohibit only reading Yechezkel 16:1, or even a verse like it (such
as 22:2)? and (2) Does the halachah follow his view? (Regarding
haftarot, the halachah often does not follow the gemara.)
Levush (Chapter 493, see Machatzit Hashekel 428:10.) argues that
Rabbi Eliezer referred only to the specific haftarah which he
mentioned. Indeed, Rabbi Eliezer was not upset at all about the
insult to Yerushalayim, for many haftarot rebuke the Jewish people
for their sins. Rather, Rabbi Eliezer's concern was with the end
of verse 16:1, which appears to insult Avraham and Sarah.
Rav Moshe Feinstein z"l (Igrot Moshe, O.C. 36.) questions this
explanation based on the story quoted above. There it appears that
Rabbi Eliezer was upset specifically about the insult to
Yerushalayim. Thus, according to Rav Feinstein, Rabbi Elizer would
prohibit even "Hatishpot." The question is academic, however,
because the gemara (Megillah 25b) expressly states that the halachah
does not follow Rabbi Eliezer. (For a defense of Levush, see the
journal Moriah Vol. 2, No. 5-6 (5730), p.63.)
Some congregations never read this haftarah. According to Rav
Yosef Dov Soloveitchik z"l (Divrei Hashkafah p.90) this was the
custom in Lithuania. Instead, the selection from Amos was read for
both parashot.
The reason for this, says Rav Soloveitchik, is that both Parashat
Acharei Mot and Parashat Kedoshim are potentially very depressing.
Both of them lay down many laws, particulary laws relating to
morality, and both warn that the Land of Israel will not tolerate
any immorality. True, says the haftarah, but be assured that there
is hope:
"I shall bring back the captivity of My people Israel and they
will rebuild desolate cities; they will return and plant
vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and
eat their fruit. I shall implant them upon their Land; they
will not be uprooted again from upon their Land that I have
given them, says Hashem your G-d." (Amos 9:14-15)
Amos addressed this subject even before Yishayah, Yirmiyah, and
Yechezkel (the three prophets from whose works most haftarot are
drawn), says Rav Soloveitchik. Thus it is appropriate to read his
prophecy, even two weeks in a row.
The custom in Yerushalayim, according to Rav Tikochinski, (Ir
Hakodesh Vehamikdash ch. 25) is that when Acharei Mot and Kedoshim
are read separately, the haftarah for Acharei Mot is "Hatishpot" and
the haftarah for Kedoshim is the one from Amos.
******************
From the Humor of Our Sages . . .
When Rav Yechezkel Halberstam z"l of Shiniva wrote to another
scholar, he addressed him as, "The gaon and tzaddik, Rabbi so-and-
so." If he did not know the credentials of his correspondent, he
would not address him as a gaon (genius), for that might not be true.
However, he would still call the addressee a tzaddik, for the verse
(Yeshayah 60:21) says, "Your nation is entirely tzaddikim." (Shabbat
Bet Ropshitz p.287)
******************
Rav Yeshayah Steiner z"l
"Rav Yeshayahle Keresterir z.l."
born 5611 (1851) - died 3 Iyar 5685 (1924)
Young Yeshayahle was orphaned of his father at age three and was
raised by his mother until the age of 12, when she gave him over to
the care of Rav Zvi Hirsch, the "Lisker Rebbe." After the latter's
death, Rav Yeshayahle became a follower of Rav Chaim of Sanz, and
later, of Rav Mordechai of Nadvorna. This last teacher ordained
Rav Yeshayahle and recommended that his pupil settle in Kerestir
(Hungary).
Before long, Rav Yeshayahle became famed as a miracle worker whose
prayers were answered. He was also known for his great generosity
and his love of people.
The story is told that Rav Yeshayahle once received an important
visitor who was a well-known Torah scholar, an eminent kabbalist and
a descendant of a long-line of distinguished chassidic rebbes. Said
the guest condescendingly, "As a special favor to you, I'll tech you
the deeper kabbalistic meanings that are hidden in the letters of
the alef-bet, and the incantations you should say in order to restore
a person's soul."
"Thank you, but I use an entirely different approach," replied Rav
Yeshayahle. "When a man comes to see me with a troubled heart,
hungry and depressed, I begin by offering him a glass of brandy and
a piece of cake. Then I give him some money, and, instantly, his
soul is restored."
Rav Yeshayahle was succeeded as rebbe by his son, Rav Avraham.
Today, the Kerestirer dynasty is continued in Borough Park by the
latter's grandson, Rav Yissachar Dov Rubin shlita.
|
| 989.510 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Tazria | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu May 22 1997 20:26 | 168 |
| 989.514 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Behar | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu May 22 1997 20:30 | 182 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Behar
Vol. XI, No. 32 (515)
17 Iyar 5757, May 24, 1997
This parashah opens: "Hashem spoke to Moshe on Har Sinai, saying,
'. . . When you come into the land that I give to you, the land shall
observe a Sabbath rest for Hashem. For six years you shall sow your
field . . .'" Chazal (quoted by Rashi) ask: Why does the Torah
mention that the laws of shemittah were given at Sinai? To teach
that just as every detail of shemittah's laws was given at Sinai,
so every detail of the Torah was given at Sinai.
Rav Pinchas Menachem Alter (the immediately past Gerrer Rebbe)
z"l observed that Sinai is mentioned in connection with a number of
other mitzvot. What, then, is unique about the shemittah?
The gemara (Sanhedrin 39a) asks: What is the reason for shemittah?
It answers: "The Torah says, 'Plant for six years and rest in the
seventh year, so that you will know that the land is Mine'." It
appears from here [says Rav Alter] that planting during the six years
also is a mitzvah, provided that it is done with the same faith in
Hashem with which one rests in the seventh year. (This is why, says
Rav Alter's grandfather, the Sefat Emet, the consequence of not
keeping the shemittah is exile. If we lack the faith in G-d to keep
the shemittah, then we also will not plant with faith. In that case,
we have no business being on the land.)
The whole world was created so that we could keep the Torah; when
we observe the Torah, we testify that Hashem created the world. We
bear the same testimony when we live a life which is imbued with the
message of shemittah. This is why it is appropriate to compare the
entire Torah to shemittah, as in the Rashi quoted above. (Pnei
Menachem)
******************
"If you will say, 'What will we eat in the seventh year? Behold!
We will not sow and not gather in our crops.' I will direct My
blessing for you in the sixth year, and it will yield sufficient
crops for the three year period." (25:20-21)
If the fields are to lie fallow every seventh year (the
shemittah), then the produce of the sixth year must be sufficient
to sustain the 6th, 7th and 8th years. Yet this verse implies that
Hashem will increase the sixth year's crop only if we worry: 'What
will we eat in the seventh year?
Ba'alei Mussar explain that there are two ways that Hashem can
provide for the 7th and 8th years: He can give us a larger crop in
the sixth year or he can help us be satisfied with less so that the
sixth year's yields will last for three years.
Which is a greater blessing? The latter solution is, for if the
sixth year produces threefold, we will have to work three times as
hard to harvest and process the produce. This the meaning of our
verses: "In any case, I will provide for you in the shemittah year.
However, if you will worry about what you will eat in the seventh
year, then I will punish you by directing My 'blessing' in the sixth
year so as to increase the crop (and your work) threefold."
******************
Rav Dov Ber, the Maggid of Mezeritch, z"l observes: When the
Jewish people keep the Torah and mitzvot, they cause Hashem's
blessings to be drawn down to this world. There also is another way
to accomplish this, and that is through emunah/faith.
Observing the mitzvah of shemittah (the subject of much of our
parashah) is itself an expression of faith, for it requires a farmer
to leave his fields fallow for a year. Thus, Hashem promises to
direct His blessings to us if we keep the shemittah.
Nevertheless, the question in the above verse also indicates a
failure of faith. This is why Hashem will have to affirmatively
direct His blessings to us. When we serve Hashem with true faith,
His blessings flow to us automatically.
(Quoted in Torat Hamaggid)
******************
Parashat Behar in Halachah
* This parashah contains 24 of the Torah's 613 mitzvot.
(Sefer Hachinuch)
* "You shall sound a teruah/broken blast on the shofar in
the seventh month, on the tenth of the month; on Yom
Kippur you shall sound the shofar throughout the land."
(25:9)
How many shofar blasts must a person hear on Rosh
Hashanah? Nine. This is learned as follows:
The Oral Law teaches that all of the shofar sounds of the
month of Tishrei are equated to each other, i.e., whatever
sounds we blow on an ordinary Rosh Hashanah we also blow
on Yom Kippur of the Yovel/jubilee year. The word "teruah"
appears in connection with the Yovel [in the quoted verse]
and in connection with Rosh Hashanah a total of three
times. Every teruah must be preceded and followed by an
unbroken sound [i.e., a tekiah], yielding nine sounds.
(Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 590:1)
* "If your brother is impoverished and is sold to you .
. . you shall not subjugate him through hard labor; you
shall fear your G-d." (25:39-43)
What is "hard labor"? It is work which has no defined
end. Also, it is work which serves no constructive
purpose and is given to the slave as busy work. For
example, a master may not tell his eved ivri/Jewish slave,
"Hoe under the grape vines until I come to meet you," for
this is work which has no defined end.
Even though this mitzvah does not, strictly speaking,
apply today (because all of the laws of eved ivri apply
only when the Yovel is observed, i.e., when most Jews live
in Eretz Yisrael), nevertheless, a person should observe
the spirit of this law with regard to the paupers who are
members of his household. One should keep in mind the
wheel of wealth and poverty which constantly turns, and
that wealth comes from G-d. No matter how much a person
accumulates and stores away, he can lose it all because
of his sins to G-d. (Sefer Hachinuch, mitzvah 346)
******************
From the Humor of Our Sages . . .
The wife of Rav Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev z"l complained to her
husband that there was never enough food to put on the table. "It's
true," he said. "I have failed to keep the promise in your ketubah
that I will support you 'as is the custom of Jewish men'."
"Nevertheless," he added, "Your ketubah continues, '. . .who feed
and support their wives honestly.' You should know that earning a
living honestly is not an easy undertaking."
******************
Rav Moshe Chaim Ephraim
of Sudlikov z"l
(The "Degel Machaneh Ephraim")
born approximately 5508 (1748) - died 17 Iyar 5560 (1800)
Rav Moshe Chaim Ephraim was a grandson of the "Ba'al Shem Tov,"
and the brother of Rav Baruch of Medzhibozh. The Ba'al Shem Tov
himself taught young Moshe Chaim Ephraim, and found him to be "an
extraordinary genius in learning." After the Ba'al Shem Tov's
passing in 1760, his grandson became a disciple of Rav Yaakov Yosef
of Polnoye (known as the "Toldos") and Rav Dov Ber, the "Maggid of
Mezeritch."
As an adult, Rav Moshe Chaim Ephraim served as rabbi and maggid
(preacher) in Sudlikov. Shortly before his death, he returned to
his birthplace in Medzhibozh, and he is buried next to his
illustrious grandfather.
Rav Moshe Chaim Ephraim is known for his work Degel Machaneh
Ephraim, which is considered to be one of the basic works of
chassidic philosophy. (An excerpt appears below.)
******************
"For you are sojourners/gerim and residents with Me." (25:23)
Rav Moshe Chaim Ephraim of Sudlikov writes: David Hamelech says
(Tehilim 119:19), "I am a sojourner in the land; do not hide Your
laws from me." The nature of a sojourner is to feel all alone, for
he has no one in whom to confide. Only when he meets another ger
does he open up and talk about his feelings and experiences.
Hashem is a ger in this world, for there is no one like Him here.
David said (in the above verse from Tehilim), "I, too, do not feel
at home in this world; therefore, Hashem, You should confide in me."
And, this is the meaning of our verse: If you are as sojourners
in this world, then you will be residents with Me. (Degel Machaneh
Ephraim)
|
| 989.515 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Bechukotai | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri May 30 1997 20:04 | 189 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Bechukotai
Vol. XI, No. 33 (516)
24 Iyar 5757, May 31, 1997
This week's parashah completes the book of Vayikra. Rav Moshe
ben Yosef Tirani z"l (the "Mabit" -- see page 4) observes that
Vayikra has more mitzvot than any other book: 241. Devarim is next,
with 200. A mnemonic to remember this is "emet," whose gematria is
441 (=200+241). The other three books contain 172 mitzvot, which
can be remembered by the mnemonic, "eikev."
But why is the Torah divided into five separate books? Why was
it not given in one book?
Mabit suggests that the five books of the Torah commemorate the
five individuals who received parts of the Torah before it was
formally given at Har Sinai. These were: Adam and Noach, who
received the seven Noachide laws; Avraham, who received the mitzvah
of milah; Yitzchak, the first person on whom circumcision was
performed on the 8th day; and Yaakov, who was given the mitzvah of
gid hanasheh.
Alternatively, the five books commemorate Amram and Yocheved and
their children, Moshe, Aharon and Miriam, through whom the Torah was
given.
Or, the five books parallel the five places where parts of the
Torah were given: Egypt, Marah (in the desert), Har Sinai, the Ohel
Moed/Tent of Meeting, and the Wilderness of Moav.
Some sources refer to the book of Bemidbar as three separate
books, yielding a total of seven. This would parallel the five
recipients of the Torah (see above) plus Moshe and Aharon, or the
seven days of creation. (Bet Elokim, Sha'ar Hayesodot ch.32)
******************
"Then they will confess their sin and the sin of their
forefathers, for the treachery with which they betrayed
Me, and also for having behaved toward me with casualness.
I, too, will behave toward them with casualness . . . I
will bring them into the lands of their enemies ~ perhaps
then their uncircumcised hearts will be subdued, and then
they will gain appeasement for their sin." (26:40-41)
Many commentaries wonder why the apparent repentance of verse 40
will be rejected and why G-d will "behave toward them with
casualness." Rav Menachem Mendel Stern z"l (early 19th century rabbi
of Sighet) explains that this confession is inadequate because it
blames our sins on the way our parents raised us ("their sin and the
sin of their forefathers"), failing to recognize that our parents
may have sinned, but they did not rebel against G-d. Only when the
younger generation's hearts ~ the seat of their rebellion ~ are
subdued, will they gain atonement.
(Derech Emunah)
******************
"I will remember My covenant with Yaakov and also My
covenant with Yitzchak, and also My covenant with Avraham
I will remember . . ." (26:42)
The gemara (Shabbat 55a) states that Zechut Avot -- the merit of
the Patriarchs which protects us -- has been exhausted.
Nevertheless, Tosfot writes, Berit Avot -- G-d's covenant with the
forefathers -- has not been exhausted. This is indicated in the
above verse.
What is Zechut Avot and what is Berit Avot? Rav Yaakov Leiner
(the "Izbitzer Rebbe") z"l explains as follows:
The Patriarchs earned a great deal of merit for their remarkable
good deeds. This is called "Zechut Avot." But, after all, what are
man's deeds compared to G-d's? In comparison with Hashem's
greatness, man's good deeds are like nothing. Thus, Zechut Avot,
too, is like nothing, and has long ago been exhausted.
Yet, when the Patriarchs "gave-it-their-all," they were in fact
comparable to G-d, who always has all of His abilities at His
disposal. The Berit Avot is that Hashem measures the Patriarchs by
a yardstick appropriate to them, not by His own yardstick. And,
since they were perfect against their own yardsticks, the Berit Avot
will always protect us.
(Bet Yaakov)
******************
Parashat Bechukotai in Halachah
* This parashah contains 12 of the Torah's 613 mitzvot.
(Sefer Hachinuch)
* "If despite these you will not be chastised toward Me,
and you behave casually toward Me, then I, too, will
behave towards you with casualness . . ." (26:23-24)
Rambam writes: Part of the process of teshuvah/return is
that when troubles come, we call out to G-d and
acknowledge that it is because of our bad deeds. This
itself will cause the troubles to be removed. However,
if we do not cry out, but rather ascribe these troubles
to fate (literally, "the way of the world"), this is an
act of cruelty [towards ourselves], for the above verse
teaches that the more we ignore G-d, the more He ignores
us. (Hil. Ta'anit 1:2-3)
* One of the mitzvot in this week's parashah is that the
ma'aser/tithe which one takes from his cattle and his
flock may not be sold, but rather must be eaten in
Yerushalayim. Rambam writes that if a person did sell his
tithes, the sale is void. (Sefer Hachinuch)
The Talmudic sage, Rava, is of the opinion that, "Whatever
the Torah said, 'Do not do,' if one did it, it is as if
it was not done." (An illustration of this is the mitzvah
mentioned above.) Rav Shlomo Eiger z"l, (son of Rabbi
Akiva Eiger) offers the following explanation for Rava's
view:
Rambam writes that if a man refuses to give his wife a
get, bet din may mete out lashes until he agrees. How can
this be? A get must be given voluntarily! The answer is
that everyone wants to do G-d's will, but sometimes the
evil inclination distracts him from that desire. The
purpose of these lashes is only to subdue the yetzer hara
and bring out the man's true desires.
Similarly, writes Rav Eiger, if a person does something
which the Torah has commanded should not be done, we can
ascribe it to the fact that his true desires have been
subjugated by the yetzer hara. Such a person is not
himself; indeed, he is, in a certain sense, a shoteh
(roughly translated, a lunatic). (See Sotah 3a: "One
does not sin unless a spirit of lunacy has entered into
him.") And, we know, the deeds of a shoteh are given no
legal effect. (Sefer Ha'ikkarim,)
******************
From the Humor of Our Sages . . .
One year, Rav Baruch Freidberg, the rabbi of Moscow, called a Jew
who had been drafted into the Czar's army for the aliyah which
contains the tochachah/curses. When asked why, he explained: "The
halachah states that whatever a slave acquires belongs to his master.
I want this slave of the Czar to acquire the tochachah for his
master."
******************
Rav Aharon Lapapa z"l
born approximately 5350 (1590) - died 26 Iyar 5427 (1667)
Rav Aharon Lapapa was born in Magnesia, near the western coast
of Turkey. He studied in Salonika, Greece, where his teacher was
Rav Avraham Motal, and in Constantinople, under Rav Yosef Tirani
("Maharit"). [A dvar Torah from Maharit's father, Rav Moshe Tirani,
appears in this issue.]
He began his rabbinic career in the town of his birthplace in
1632, serving the poor community as rabbi without pay. At the same
time, he headed a yeshiva where many prominent rabbis were trained.
In the spring of 1665, he accepted the post of dayan (judge) left
vacant by the passing of Rav Yosef Escapa, rabbi of Izmir (Smyrna).
In that position, Rav Aharon ruled on civil cases, while another
rabbi, Rav Chaim Benveniste (author of Knesset Hagedolah), ruled on
the community's ritual questions.
Rav Aharon's tenure in Smyrna was short-lived. He was an opponent
of the (now known to be) false messiah, Shabtai Zvi, who had a strong
following in Izmir. On 6 Tevet 5426/1665, the latter proclaimed Rav
Benveniste supreme rabbi of the community, effectively dismissing
Rav Aharon from his post. Thereafter, Rav Aharon was afraid even
to walk the streets, and not until the false messiah converted to
Islam was Rav Aharon safe again. (Unfortunately, Rav Aharon died
soon after.)
Rav Aharon was famed as a posek, and some of his responsa are
published in Bnei Aharon. Others of his works were never published.
The 18th century bibliographer, Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulai
("Chida") mentions a view that part of the Shittah Mekubetzet
attributed to Rav Bezalel Ashkenazi may have been written by Rav
Aharon.
|
| 989.516 | Hamaayan / The Torah Spring: Parashat Bemidbar | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jun 05 1997 21:05 | 169 |
| Hamaayan / The Torah Spring
Edited by Shlomo Katz
Bemidbar
Vol. XI, No. 34 (517)
2 Sivan 5757, June 7, 1997
Parashat Bemidbar is virtually always read on the Shabbat
immediately preceding Shavuot. Rav Chaim Elazar Shapira z"l (see
page 4) writes that this alludes to the humility that one must feel
in order to receive the Torah. ["Bemidbar" means "in the desert."
A desert is a humble place.] Indeed, the gematria of the word "Sinai"
(130) is equal to the gematria of "anavah"/"humility" (131). [A
difference of one is ignored in gematria -- see Ba'al Haturim to
Bereishit 48:5.]
Another reason why Bemidbar is read before Shavuot is found in the
following midrash: At the time of Matan Torah/The Giving of the
Torah, the nations became jealous of Bnei Yisrael. Hashem said to
them, "Bring me your family trees just as the Jews have done (in this
week's parashah)."
What is the connection between family trees and receiving the
Torah? Rav Chaim Elazar Shapira explains that our ancestors' ability
to accept the Torah unconditionally ("na'aseh venishmah") derived
from the fact that the Patriarchs had already observed the Torah
before it was given.
The second day of Sivan (today) is known as "Yom Hameyuchas"/"The
pedigreed day." Some say that it is because the preceding day is
Rosh Chodesh and the following day begins the three days when the
Jews prepared to receive the Torah. No, says Rav Chaim Elazar
Shapira. It is the Yom Hameyuchas because on this day, Hashem spoke
the words (Shemot 19:6), "And you will be for Me a kingdom of
priests." This promise was possible because of our ancestry.(Sha'ar
Yissaschar)
******************
"You shall present the Levi'im to Aharon and his sons -
presented, presented they are to him - from Bnei Yisrael."
(3:9)
Why is the word "presented" repeated? Rav Eliezer David Gruenwald
z"l (whose yahrzeit is today) explains as follows:
At the end of next week's parashah, the Torah records that the
wagons donated by the Nesi'im/Princes were given to the Levi'im to
use in their service in the mishkan. This implies that at the time
of the Princes' gift, the Levi'im were already consecrated. In fact,
however, the wagons were donated (in next week's parashah) one month
before the Levi'im were consecrated (in this week's parashah).
In fact, the Levi'im were always recognized as distinct from the
other tribes. Even Pharaoh recognized this, and therefore did not
enslave the Levi'im. Thus, even before G-d formally chose the
Levi'im as His representatives, the Jewish people singled out the
Levi'im as their representatives.
This is alluded to by the repetition of the word "presented" in
our verse: "You shall present to Aharon today the very same Levi'im
who already were presented in the past."
(Keren L'Dovid)
******************
"Count the sons of Levi . . . every male from one month
of age and up shall you count them." (3:15)
Why were the Levi'im counted from such a young age, while other
Jews were counted from age 20? Rav Isaac Sher z"l (Rosh Yeshiva of
Slobodka) explains that this was in recognition of the fact that the
Levi'im willingly performed many dangerous tasks in the mishkan. [The
work was dangerous because failure to treat the mishkan and its
vessels with proper respect could cause the Levi's death at the hands
of G-d or man.] Such mesirut nefesh/self sacrifice does not come to
a person unless he is trained in it from his infancy.
(Lekket Sichot Mussar)
******************
Parashat Bemidbar in Halachah
The Sefer Hachinuch writes that Parashat Bemidbar contains no
mitzvot "according to our reckoning."
Minchat Chinuch explains that according to reckoning of the Halachot
Gedolot [a very early work of uncertain authorship], there is a
mitzvah in this week's parashah. Specifically, the mitzvah not to
steal the vessels of the Bet Hamikdash, and it is found in the verse
(4:20), "But they shall not come and look as the Holy is covered,
lest they die."
Minchat Chinuch adds: Whether or not one counts this as one of the
613 mitzvot, everyone agrees that stealing from the Temple is
forbidden (as is any theft).
******************
"They shall place upon it a tachash-hide covering and
spread a cloth made entirely of turquoise wool over it,
and place its poles." (4:6)
Tosfot (Yoma 72a) asks: What is the meaning of the instruction that
the kohanim should place the poles on the Ark? The Torah commands
(Shemot 25:15) that the poles never be removed from the Ark! Tosfot
quotes Rav Yaakov of Orleans, who answers that "place its poles"
means ". . . on the shoulders of the levi'im."
"Were I not afraid of what my friends would say," says Tosfot, "I
would say that the Ark had two sets of poles. One set was
permanently installed on the Ark. The other set was installed when
Bnei Yisrael traveled."
Chag Sameach
******************
From the Humor of Our Sages . . .
"They established their genealogy . . ." (1:2)
In a certain assemblage of chassidic rebbes, each one shared a dvar
Torah from one of his illustrious ancestors. For his part, Rav
Yechiel Michel of Ostrovtza had simple parents, and his father was
a baker. "My father," he said, "taught that fresh bread is better
than stale bread."
Then Rav Yechiel Michel said a dvar Torah of his own.
******************
Rav Chaim Elazar Shapira z"l
(The "Minchat Elazar")
born 5631 (1871) - died 2 Sivan 5637 (1937)
Unlike most chassidic rebbes, several generations of the rebbes
of Munkatch (Mukachevo, Ukraine, near the Slovakian border) combined
their leadership of a major chassidic group with attainment of
widespread recognition as halachic authorities. Our subject's
father, for example, is remembered as the author of the important
halachic work, Darchei Teshuvah. Rav Chaim Elazar himself authored
numerous works on a variety of subjects, but he too is known for
posterity by the name of his primary halachic work, She'eilot
U'teshuvot Minchat Elazar.
Rav Chaim Elazar succeeded his father in 1913, continuing a line
of rebbes that began with Rav Zvi Elimelech, the "Bnei Yissaschar."
The title of one of Rav Chaim Elazar's works, Sha'ar Yissaschar
(consisting of chassidic insights on the holidays -- see front
page)alludes to this connection. (The name derives from the time
that Rav Yaakov Yitzchak of Lublin told Rav Zvi Elimelech that the
latter was from the tribe of Yissaschar.) Other works by Rav Chaim
Elazar in the chassidic style include the nine volumes entitled
Divrei Torah as well as Chaim Veshalom Al Hatorah.
Like his father, Rav Chaim Elazar also served as rabbi and head
of the rabbinical court of Munkatch. Besides Minchat Elazar, his
halachic works include: Ot Chaim Veshalom and Nimukei Orach Chaim.
He also completed his father's Darchei Teshuvah.
Rav Chaim Elazar was a fierce opponent of both Zionism and Agudat
Yisrael. He opposed as well the Daf Yomi program of study as being
an artificial division of the Talmud without regard to the flow of
the subject matter (see Divrei Torah Vol. 6, No. 82). Rav Chaim
Elazar's customs are collected in Darchei Chaim Veshalom.
Rav Chaim Elazar's only child was his daughter Frimet. Today, the
Munkatcher dynasty is continued in Brooklyn by her son, Rav Moshe
Yehuda Leib Rabinowitz shlita.
|