The Weekly Shtikle - Year One
Bereishis | Noach | Lech Lecha | Vayera | Chayei Sarah | Toledos | Vayetze | Vayishlach | Vayeshev | Miketz | Vayigash | Vayechi
*Parshas Bereishis*
For this week's shtikle I would like to explore a little astronomy and deal with the pesukim that explain the creation of the sun, moon and stars. I will begin with two questions. First, a simple one. In pasuk 1:16, we are described the creation of the sun, the moon and the stars. The pasuk refers to them as follows: "Es hamaor hagadol l'memsheles hayom, v'es hamaor hakatan l'memsheles halayla, v'es hakochavim." The sun is for the reign of the day, the moon for the reign of the night, and the stars. I seems from this pasuk that the sun and moon are referred to as "memsheles" but the stars are not. This is also apparent from Rashi who comments that the stars were just given as 'legions' of the moon. What puzzled me was that if this is so, it seems in contradiction with the pasuk in Tehillim 136:9 which we say every Shabbos, "Es hayarei'ach v'chochavim l'memshelos balayla, ki l'olam chasdo". The stars are clearly referred to as memshelos as well.
My second problem involves a little more astronomy. Two pesukim before, we are told the purposes of the sun and moon. On the word "l'yamim", for days, Rashi comments that the sun operates half the day and the moon operates half the day. Put them together, and you have an entire day. I do not understand what Rashi is trying to say. It can be assumed that this 'time of operation' to which Rashi is referring, is the time which it is above the horizon and visible from Earth. The sun does have a set time for which it is visible, i.e. the beginning of the day to the end of the day. However, the time span in which the moon is above the horizon is not set. It varies from day to day, with its times for rising and setting advancing approximately 48 minutes each day. There is clearly no 'time sharing' between the moon and the sun. The moon can sometimes be out for the entire time that the sun is not, or sometimes be out at the same time that the sun is out. And anywhere in between. Furthermore, if we were perhaps to consider the time of the creation of the sun and moon, this would be towards the very end of either Elul or Adar (see Rosh HaShanah 10b). At that time of the lunar month, the moon follows rising and setting times quite similar to those of the sun. It would make my Bereishis to hear a good pshat in this Rashi.
Lastly, pasuk 16 refers to the sun and the moon as "shnei me'oros hagedolim", the two large luminaries but concludes by referring to the sun as the "maor hagadol" and the moon as the "maor hakatan". On this pasuk there is the well-known Rashi that brings the Midrash that the moon and the sun were created equal but the moon complained that "two kings can not use one crown". Therefore, it was reduced. Is this the simple explanation of the pasuk, though? In "In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science", a fascinating book reconciling "ma'ase bereishis" with modern science, Professor Nathan Aviezer offers an eye-opening interpretation. An astronomical body is measured both by its true size and by its apparent size. The apparent size specifies how large it appears to an observer on Earth. This figure is the ratio of the true size of the object to its distance from the Earth. This figure is expressed as the angle that the object subtends from the position of an observer on Earth. That means, if you were pointing to the bottom of the object, the apparent size is the number of degrees you must rotate your arm to be pointing at the top of the object. The sun is 400 times bigger than the moon. But interestingly enough, it is also 400 times further away from Earth. As a result, the apparent size for the sun and moon are identical at 0.53 degrees! Now we can understand the pasuk as follows. The first part of the pasuk is referring to the point of view of an Earth observer. From this point of view, the sun and moon are 'in a tie' for the biggest heavenly bodies seen from Earth. We only know that the sun is bigger because we have been taught that but one would never be able to tell just from looking at them. The second part of the pasuk refers to the true size of the sun and moon.
Have you ever wanted to know how much Noach's Teiva weighed? Well, then, click here.
In a chabura this week in Yeshiva, a member of the Kollel here asked a pretty interesting trivia question on the Parsha that I felt compelled to spread around the world. Here it is:
Who is mentioned in this week's Parsha, as well as his father, as well as his great uncle, as well as his great uncle's father, as well as his great uncle's great uncle. In other words, X is mentioned in this week's parsha, as well as X's father, as well as X's great uncle as well as X's great uncle's father, as well as X's great uncle's great uncle. Have fun.You may use any relevant Midrashim pertaining to the identification of certain characters in the Parsha. In fact, let me tell you that you will have to. I figured it out that night, but only with the help of R' Chaim Kunyevsky's "Limchaseh Atik" found in the back of "Ta'ma D'kra".
The missing links will be easier to find if you go through Targum Yonasan.
The answer to the riddle is Yishmael. His father was Avraham. That is obvious. Hagar was the daughter of Paroah who was the son of Nimrod (Targum Yonasan). Eliezer was also the son of Nimrod (also TY). That makes Eliezer Yishmael's great-uncle. Nimrod was Amrafel (Rashi). And Eliezer's great uncle could be Canaan or Mitzrayim. But the best answer is Og (the Palit, Rashi) whose mother married Cham after giving birth to him (Da'as Zekanim, Chukas). And that is it.
*Parshas Vayera*
*Parshas Chayei Sorah*
I have a little dikduk ha'ara concerning this week's parsha. In the pasuk of Veyiten Lecha, the words read "mishmanei ha'aretz". One would simply translate this as "from the fats of the land". However, if that were the case, the word mishmanei would then be a conglomerate of "min" and "shemanei" and that, by law, would put a dagesh in the shin and it would then read "mishemanei" with a sheva na under the shin. However, as you will see, the dagesh is nowhere to be seen. The Ibn Ezra and Minchas Shai explain that in fact the mem is 'yesodi' and the meaning is not "from the fats of the land" but rather "the fatteners of the land" and therefore there is no dagesh in the shin. The word mishmanei is simply the plural of "mishman" or "meshamen".
This week, there are a couple of cool gematrias. First there is a quick one. Rashi says that we learn from Vayetze that when a tzaddik leaves a city, "Panah zivah, panah hodah, panah hadrah" it loses all its beauty, etc. The Yalkut Lekach Tov points out that if you take the gematria of Be'er Sheva (575) and subtract from it the gematria of Yaakov (182) you are left with 393, the gematria of "Panah zivah, hodah, vehadrah".
The next one comes from my Uncle Yitzchok Bulka of Far Rockaway. I believe he said this on his own. In the end of Yaakov's neder he says that he will give ma'aser and he says "Aser a'aserenu lach". From the dual language of aser a'aserenu, the gemara (Kesubos 50a) learns that when giving ma'aser, one may not give more than a fifth. (Two times a tenth is a fifth.) However, the gemara asks, if you take ma'aser and then take it again, the second one will only be 9% of the original lot and you will be left with only 19% ma'aser instead of 20% so how can we learn that the limit is 20%? The gemara learns (acc to Rashi) that since the pasuk said a'aserenu instead of a'aser, we learn that the second ma'aser is like the first. My uncle explains that the gematria of "aser" is 570. The word a'aserenu is made up of the word aser and three more letters: Alef, Nun and Vav. The gematria of those three letters is 57, exactly 10% of 570. Perhaps this is what shows that the second ma'aser is 10% of the original, not 10% of the remainder. Cute.
For this week's Dvar Torah I would like to present a ha'ara a friend of mine made last year which I feel is worthy of note. We know that in this week's Parsha, Rashi makes mention of the concept of "acharon, acharon chaviv". If asked what the meaning of this saying is, one would probably answer "The last is the most dear". However, from Rashi himself it is seen that this is in fact not the case. Pasuk 33:2 discusses the order of Yaakov's wives and kids as they approached Eisav. First were the shfachos and their kids. Then were Leah and her kids and then Yosef and Rachel. It is on this pasuk that Rashi presents the concept of "acharon acharon chaviv". However, the comment of Rashi might have been expected to be going on Rachel since she was last but in fact it is going on the words "V'es Leah uvaneha acharonim". It seems clear that what is bothering Rashi is that the word acharonim is used even though Leah and her kids were not last. Rachel was behind them. Rashi then explains that acharonim really only means further behind but not the last. Rashi conveys this by telling us that acharon, acharon chaviv, which, as we see from Rashi's placement, does not merely mean that the last is the dearest but rather the further back, the more dear. Leah was specifically put behind the shfachos because she too was dear. More dear than the shfachos but not as dear as Rachel and Yosef. Later, I saw that the sefer "Lifshuto Shel Rashi" learns Rashi this way as well.
**********
Now for a couple of interesting divrei halacha connected with this week's parsha. Following the fight between Yaakov and the Mal'ach, the Torah tells us (32:33) that the Gid HaNasheh is therefore forbidden for B'nei Yisroel to eat "ad hayom hazeh", until this day. The Binyan Shlomo infers from here that since the Isur of theGid HaNasheh serves only as a symbol of the struggle with Eisav, when Moshiach comes and the struggle with Eisav comes to an end, the Gid HaNasheh will no longer be forbidden to eat. This is what is meant by "Ad hayom hazeh" only until this day but no further. [Perhaps from this we may see that we must always read the pasuk as referring to today, that today will be the last day of the isur of the Gid HaNasheh and by tomorrow Moshiach will have come and the Gid HaNasheh will be mutar.]
**********
It is the minhag of some to do "Shnayim Mikrah ve'Echad Targum" by pesuchos u'setumos. That is, to stop at every Peh and Samech. The dilemma in this week's Parsha is that in pasuk 35:22, there is a Peh right in the middle of a pasuk. The same situation is encountered in the Aseres Hadibros both in Yisro and Va'eschanan, in Pinchas and in Devarim. What is to be done? Should one stop in the middle of the pasuk? The Machatzis HaShekel in Shulchan Aruch (OC 285) quoting the Sh'lah, who is the source of the minhag to do Shnayim Mikra like this in the first place, writes that one should in fact stop in the middle of the pasuk. Even in Pinchas where the pasuk has the Shem HaShem, the halacha is such. The Aruch HaShulchan (285:5) holds likewise and he reconciles this din with the gemara that says "Kol pasuk delo pasak Moshe, anan lo paskinan."
**********
In 1933 when the Nazis, yemach shemam, came into power, the Ponovizer Rav, realizing that European Jewry was about to face a great downfall, asked the Chofetz Chaim what will be of the Jews of Europe. The Chofetz Chaim answered him with a pasuk from this week's parsha (32:9) "Ve'haya hamachaneh hanish'ar lifleta", if Eisav comes to one camp and strikes it, the remaining camp will survive. But, asked the Ponovizer Rav, being that a majority of the Jews are in Europe where will this camp be? The Chofetz Chaim answered him from this week's haftarah (Ovadia 1:17) "U'vehar Tzion tihiye fleita", but on Mount Zion there shall be a remnant!
There was a Rashi in this past week's parsha that bothered me and I wanted to ask you about it. On the pasuk of "Ma betzah ki naharog es achinu v'chisinu es damo" Rashi comments, "Vechisinu es damo: vnaalim misaso". My problem is as follows: Even now that the brothers did not kill him but rather sold him, they still made Yaakov think that he died. So why does Rashi say that they would have to cover up his death? Why would they have to cover up his death? If Rashi had said "venaalim harigaso" that would have sufficed. I had a rather novel suggestion that may seem a little unusual. Perhaps, the answer is that it is harder to tell a lie when you are closer to the truth than if you are further from it. What I mean is that it is only if the brothers actually killed Yosef that they wouldn't be able to tell Yaakov, "Yosef died but we didn't do it". But if they really didn't kill him, they would have no problem implying to Yaakov that he was dead. Therefore, only if they killed him would they need to cover up his death. I wanted to get your psychological opinion on this, to see if any such svara exists. I doubt it does. But then what to do with Rashi?
**********
In this week's parsha we have the infamous episode, amongst others, of Yosef and the wife of Potifar. The gemara in Sotah 36b explains that Yosef in fact had a desire to give in to her initially, but in the end he supressed it. One may ask that the psukim make no reference of such a desire and clearly says (39:8) "Vayemaein Yosef", and Yosef refused. What then did Chazal see to suggest that Yosef in fact had an urge? My Rebbe, Rav Kulefsky, explains in the name of the Afikei Yehudah that the explanation lies in the meaning of the word 'vayemaein'. It does not connote a total lack of desire but rather a refusal of an apparent desire. The contrast between 'meiun', refusal and total unwant is illustrated in a number of places in the Torah.
When Bnei Yisroel requested permission from Edom to pass through their land, the language of Edom's refusal is "vayemaein Edom" (Bemidbar 20:21). When they requested of Sichon permission to pass through his land the reply is described as "v'lo avah Sichon" (Devarim20:30) and Sichon did not want. The apparent explanation would be that Sichon was under no circumstances willing to do this favour for B"Y and did not want to at all. Edom would not have inherently opposed B"Y's passage if not for the fact that they were afraid that they would wage war against them. But it seems that the favour itself Edom had no opposition to. (Perhaps this contrast is also seen in the fact that Sichon waged war immediately and Edom did not.) That's why their answer is called a refusal and Sichon didn't want.
When Bil'am is convinced by HaShem not to curse Bnei Yisroel, the messengers of Balak report "mei'ein Bil'am" (Bemidbar 22:14). Surely Bil'am at this point still wanted to curse B'nei Yisroel but because of HaShem's command he could not. That is why the language of refusal is used.
The final example is the most interesting as it uses both terminologies in the same Pasuk. In the parsha of Yivum, the woman is required to come before Beis Din and recite a specific passage: (Devarim 25:7) "Mei'ein yivami lhakim l'achiv shem b'Yisroel, lo avah yabemi". As far as the component dealing with being "meikim shem" which is the essence of the Mitzvah, the verb of refusal is used because deep down every one really wants to do a Mitzvah but nevertheless for a certain reason he has refused (like the famous Rambam in Hilchos Gittin). The end of the pasuk reads "lo avah yabemi", he doesn't want to do yivum to me, i.e. It is ME that he "doesn't want".
This, suggests the Afikei Yehuda, is what Chazal saw to learn as they did. Vayemaein Yosef implies not that Yosef had no desire whatsoever, but that he had a desire and refused it.
When going through this episode last year it occurred to me that this entire incident in general seems to be somewhat paradigmatic, in a way, of modern times. It seems that Israel's enemies always seem to be playing the part of Potifar's wife, luring Israel into situations it would rather not be in, but situations where their enemies are nevertheless at fault. Once they enter the situation, be it a war or a minor showdown of sorts, one way or another the enemy seems to escape vindicated while Israel is always looked upon by the outside world, America in particular, as the transgressors. Yosef faced this same predicament as he was clearly innocent but was nevertheless found guilty.
This week's dvar Torah is a great little shtikle I heard in a chabura given in Ner Yisroel by R' Eli Wolf:
The pasuk (41:50) tells us that Yosef's two sons were born "terem tavo shnas hara'av", just before the famine came. Rashi here quotes the gemara in Taanis 11a which learns from here that in a time of famine, it is forbidden for one to engage in marital relations. The question that is asked by many meforshim is that later on Rashi explains how Yocheved was born on the Egyptian border as Yaakov and his sons entered Mitzrayim. If that is the case, then it appears that Levi, her father, did not adhere to this prohibition. Tosafos in Taanis asks this question and answers that the din in the gemara is a "midas chasidus" and not an outright prohibition. The exact meaning of this Tosafos is the subject of discussion being that the gemara seems to imply an outright "issur" but no matter what the explanation, asks the Torah Temimah, is this to say that Levi is not a chassid chas veShalom ?
The Mizrachi avoids all this. He explains that the gemara goes on to state that one who has not yet fulfilled his obligation of Pru Urvu is exempt from this prohibition. There is a machlokes in Yevamos what the obligation is. Beis Shamai say that it is two boys and Beis Hillel say that it is one boy and one girl. The problem is that in order for the pshat of the Mizrachi to work, it has to be that Yosef had fulfilled his chiyuv and Levi had not. But both of them had sons but no daughters. Three answers are offered to this problem. The Da'as Zekanim miBaalei Tosafos suggest that Yosef held like Beis Shamai and since he had two sons, he had fulfilled his chiyuv. Levi who held like Beis Hillel did not have a daughter and had not fulfilled his chiyuv. HaRav Ovadyah MiBartenura in his sefer Amar Nake proposes that Yosef was not aware of this exemption for one who has not fulfilled his chiyuv. Aside from the fact that these answers are hard to hear, there is also a Yerushalmi in Yevamos that says that B"H agree to B"S that two boys is good enough but they add that one boy and one girl is also good enough. That throws a wrench into both these answers.
The third is the most bizarre. The Shvus Yaakov suggest that Yosef had a girl already. He brings a proof from Rashi in the beginning of Vayigash, explaining Yehuda's charge at Yosef: "It's not like we are asking to marry your daughter". This is quite a strange way to prove that Yosef had a daughter. Clearly Yehuda was using a figure of speech.
The answer to all the problems comes from the Netziv who explains that Paroah's two dreams reflected the gravity of the famine inside Egypt and outside Egypt. In short, the famine was much stronger in Egypt and therefore Yosef had a more of an obligation to adhere to the prohibition. Since the famine in the surrounding countries was not as grave, Levi did not have to adhere to the prohibition.
The Shaarei Aharon offers another answer, probably the most "Glatt". Yosef knew that the famine would only last for 7 years for that was the interpretation of the dream. Therefore, the exemption did not apply to him. For all Levi knew, the famine could last forever so he had the exemption in order to fulfill the chiyuv of Pru uRvu.
This week's Dvar Torah is a very interesting ha'ara from my father. Pasuk 45:23 recounts what Yosef sent to his father. Rashi adds from Chazal that Yosef sent his father aged wine. My father asked, why did Yosef send his father all these things? My father explains that Yitzchok gave Yaakov the bracha of (23:28) "Veyiten l'cha... v'rov dagan v'sirosh." The Sforno explains that "v'rov dagan v'sirosh" that Yaakov will have more than he needs, enough that he will be able to support others. But with this famine that was brought upon the land, toward the end of Yaakov's life, not only was he not supporting others, he was being supported by others, namely the king of Egypt. Yosef, therefore, knowing of the bracha of Yitzchok to Yaakov, thought that Yaakov would be lamenting at this point that his bracha was not being fulfilled and even more so that the opposite was true. So Yosef sent with the brothers bread and wine, those items mentioned in Yitzchok's bracha, to show his father that indeed his bracha was being fulfilled but that it was being fulfilled through Yosef his son who was the supplier of food to all the lands.
**********
Rashi on pasuk 46:1 writes that one is obligated more so to respect their father than they are to respect their grandfather. The very simple understanding of this Rashi would imply that there is in fact some halachic obligation of respect owed to one's grandfather. This is the view of the Rama in Yoreh De'ah 240:24 where he brings this Midrash quoted by Rashi as a support. However, this issue is the subject of great discussion amongst the poskim and the phrase "ein kan makom l'haarich" would apply here, not that this is not the place to write at length but simply that there is no room to write at length (the phrase could theoretically be interpreted either way). However, I will give a list of mar'ei mekomos for reference on this subject:
In Pasuk 48:22 Yaakov refers to what seems to be a certain piece of land that he captured "becharbi uve'kashti". The simple translation of these words is "with my sword and my bow". However, Targum Onkelos translates "btzlosi uv'vausi", with my prayer and supplication or something of the like. The Meshech Chochma (Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk) explains the use of these two words as the translation of the words in the pasuk and the difference between the two types of prayer that Onkelos refers to.
The word "tzlosi" refers to the prayers that have been specifically prescribed by the Anshei Keneses HaGedolah. The halacha regarding these prayers is that one does not require specific kavana for these prayers to work. Therefore it is the translation of "charbi", sword. It is like the sword which is used in close battle and requires little control in order to strike the target. It more or less "kills" in any circumstance.
"Bausi" which literally means needs, refers to one's own personal prayers to HaShem outside of those daily prayers mentioned before. With these prayers one requires specific kavana in order for them to be at all affective. These prayers are likened to the "Keshes", the bow and arrow. Without a skilled shooter, it is ineffective and will more often than not miss its target. It requires specific aim in order for the arrow to reach its desired destination.
**********
Two questions to ponder to close out Sefer B'reishis:
1) Did Yaakov ever find out exactly what was done to Yosef?
2) Did Yosef ever truly forgive his brothers?
Sefer Shemos
Shemos | Va'era | Bo | Beshalach | Yisro | Mishpotim | Terumah | Tetzaveh | Ki Sisa | Vayakhel | Pekudei
*Parshas Shemos*
There really is quite an abundance of topics to write about this week. This is what I have chosen: Pasuk 7:7 says that Moshe was 80 years old when he stood in front of Paroah. There is a blatant dificulty with this. We know that Moshe dies at the exact age of 120 and that he was born on the 7th of Adar. He was therefore 80 years old when they left Egypt. Moshe stood in front of Paroah on the first of Nissan. That would make him 81 when they left. An easy way to dodge this problem is to say that the Torah means that he was in his 80th year. However, the Chasam Sofer (tshuvos - 6:29) points out that it is not the way of the Torah to speak like that. He himself gives an answer in his drashos (page kuf-yud-zayin) to resolve this problem. I have not yet seen it, though. Eli Wolf, a member of the Kollel here in Ner Yisroel suggested an answer based on a Turei Even in maseches Rosh HaShanah (10b and 11a) who (b'kitzur) resolves that before Matan Torah, the ages of men were determined by the beginning of the year and not by their birthday. According to R' Yehoshua, who holds that the world was created in Nissan, Moshe had already passed his 80th Nissan when he stood in front of Paroah and thus, the pasuk considers him to be 80 years old. This answer does not work, however, according to R' Eliezer who holds that the world was created in Tishrei.
**********
In the plague of barad, hail, HaShem brought down hail accompanied by kolos, thunder. The hail also seemed to include rain. When Paroah demands that Moshe pray that the plague end (9:28) he asks him to pray that the thunder and the hail should cease, but he does not mention the rain. This is because, as Rashi has mentioned many times, Egypt did not receive rain and relied solely on the Nile for irrigation. Therefore, Paroah would have been more than happy for the rain to stay. They needed it. However, when Moshe davens to HaShem, the pasuk (33) recounts that the thunder, the hail and the rain ceased. Thus, when Paroah saw this, as the next pasuk tells us, that he saw that the rain, the hail and the thunder had ceased (note how the order is switched from the previous pasuk), he hardened his heart for he saw that his request wasn't fully carried out. (Minchas Yitzchok)
The pasuk in Bemidbar 3:13 states "Ki li kol bchor byom hakosi kol bchor b'eretz mitzrayim". In the hakdama to Maseches S'machos (found in the back of maseches Avodah Zarah) it is asked that the pasuk in this week's parsha states "vayehi bachatzi halayla v'HaShem hika kol bchor..." If the maka occurred at night, why does the pasuk in Bemidbar say "b'yom"? The answer given there is that the maka was initiated at night, and they were struggling until the morning when they died. The Maharsham states that it is because of this that we find that Pidyon HaBen is usually done during the day, because the actual death of the first born was during the day.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurebach zt"l points out that this concept may answer an interesting discrepency between the Birchos Kriyas Shema of the morning and of the night. In the morning we say (after Shema) "mimitzrayim gealtanu... v'chol bechoreihem haragta". At night we say,"hamakeh v'evraso kol bchorei mitzrayim, vayotze es amo Yisrael mitzham..." At night, the term haka'ah is used, whereas in the morning, hariga is used. Furthermore, at night the exodus is mentioned after the killing of the first born, whereas in the morning it is mentioned before. The explanation is that at night we refer to what happened at night. The initial "haka'ah" took place at night and the exodus followed after. The actual death is what happened in the morning and that is what we refer to. By then, the geula had already begun because Bnei Yisroel were on their way out.
R' Chaim Kunyevsky, in his sefer Ta'ma d'Kra points out that over the last few parshios we find that Paroah is referred to sometimes as Paroah, sometimes as Melech Mitzrayim, and sometimes as both. Surely, there must be a pattern. He suggests that any time Paroah is acting in the interests of the country, or at least seemingly so, he is referred to as Melech Mitzrayim. For example, 1:15, "vayomer melech miztrayim lamyalados haivriyos" Paroah was acting on his master plan for the sake of his country. Every time Paroah is acting for his own sake, for instance, every time he hardened his heart, since it is a product of his own pride, he is referred to as Paroah. In some situations, such as 14:5 in this week's parsha, he is referred to first as Melech Mitzrayim and then as Paroah. When the message is delivered to him it is done so as Melech Mitzrayim but the change of heart is a product of his own stubbornness.
**********
A cute observation: Pasuk 17:12 describes how Aharon and Chur held up Moshe's hands. They sat him down on a rock and they held up his hands. When I was going over this last year it occurred to me that according to the pasuk, it would seem that Moshe was quite a bit taller than Aharon and Chur because it seems that they were still standing. Yet they were at the level of Moshe's hands, even though he was sitting. One can obviously contest such an interpretation but I actually found it mentioned in the sefer "Mincha Belula".
These two divrei Torah are ha'aras from my Rebbe in Eretz Yisroel, Rabbi Greenwald: At the beginning of this week's parsha we are once again given the reason behind the naming of Gershom : "Ki ger hayisi b'eretz nochria", because I was a stranger in a strange land. Here the explanation of Eliezer's name is given as well, "Ki elokei avi b'ezri, vayatzileini micherev paroah", referring to Moshe's escape from execution at the hands of Paroah. At first glance, these names seem to be out of order. The reasoning for Gershom seems to have come after that of Eliezer. Moshe was a stranger in Midyan after he escaped from the hands of Paroah. My Rebbe suggests that perhaps there is a different explanation behind Gershom's name. In the years leading up to Gershom's birth, Moshe realized that although he seemed at home in Egypt as a prince and leading quite a good life, he was nevertheless a stranger in a strange land. So "Ki ger hayisi..." is in fact referring to Moshe's years in Mitzrayim rather than those in Midyan.
Another interesting point concerning the naming of Gershom and Eliezer, for Gershom it says "veshem ha'echad Gershom". And than for Eliezer, "veshem ha'echad Eliezer". "Shem Harishon... veshem hasheni" or something of the like would have been a more expected description of Gershom and Eliezer. Why are they both referred to as "ha'echad". My Rebbe suggested that the answer may lie in the Midrash on the pasuk (2:22) "Vayoel Moshe" which states that Moshe made a pact with his father-in-law to give his first son to Avodah Zarah (there is a discussion as to what the pact really was. Not for now, though.) Therefore, Gershom was the "ben ha'echad" for Avoda Zarah and Eliezer was the "ben ha'echad" laShem.
It just occurred to me that this concept brought up in the answer to the second question could perhaps be used to answer the first. Maybe, since Moshe had this pact with Yisro, he didn't want to mention any specific praise of HaShem which would convey to Yisro that he had not kept to the deal. Therefore, he waited until his second child to mention the praise of HaShem for saving him from Paroah's sword but it indeed did come first.
This week's parsha is jam-packed and thus, so is this week's dvar Torah email. First is a great piece I heard last year from my Rebbe, Rav Kulefsky of Ner Yisroel. In this week's parsha, we find the prohibition of "Lo sevashel gdi bachalev imo" (23:19), not to cook a goat in its mother's milk, the source for the prohibition of milk and meat. This phrase appears three times in the Torah. Here and in Ki Sisa, (34:26) the phrase appears right next to the mitzva of Bikurim. In Dvarim (14:21), however, it does not. The Netzi"v explains in Hemek Davar that is the way of the nations to mix meat and milk together and put it in the grounds as a very effective fertilizer. Thus, the prohibition of the mixing of meat and milk was put next to Bikurim to tell you that even for the purpose of growing nice fruit for Bikurim, one may not mix meat and milk. Chazal learn that three iterations of the prohibition correspond to the prohibition of cooking, that of eating and of deriving benefit from meat and milk that was cooked together. The prohibitions of cooking and deriving benefit may be connected to this agricultural phenomenon. But the prohibition of eating may not (if you eat it, you can't put it in the ground). Therefore, it is exactly twice that "lo sevashel gdi" appears next to the mitzvah of Bikurim. My Rebbe then told a ma'ase with Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz, who was in the bathroom and reading a secular agriculture book when he came across this fact that putting milk and meat together in the ground helps the soil and immediately he figured out the pshat in the pasuk and thus began to think Torah. So he had to run out of the bathroom right away!
**********
Something to think about: In pasuk 24:4 Moshe wrote down all the words of HaShem. Rashi comments that this refers to the Torah from Bereishis until then and also the mitzvos that they were commanded in Mara. The Torah that he wrote was obviously Torah shebichsav. However, the very fact that we were commanded specific mitzvos in Mara is Torah sheba'al peh. All we have is one pasuk from which we learn that specific mitzvos were given then. To write down any of the transpirings in Mara would constitute writing down Torah shba'al peh which is forbidden. [Perhaps all he wrote was the parshios from the Torah corresponding to the mitzvos given in Mara.]
**********
Trivia question of the year: A great stumper for this week's parsha and anybody learning Makkos. This also comes courtesy of Rav Kulefsky. The law of "Edim Zomemin" states that a witness who attempted to make his friend pay a certain amount of money and he is found to be lying and goes through the necessary process of "hazama" he must pay the money himself. It is generally assumed that he pays the one he tried to make pay. But what is the source for this? [For a real challenge stop reading here.] Said R' Yisroel Salant, the answer is in Rashi in this week's parsha. And you could go through the entire parsha, and still not find it. Happy hunting!
This week's shitkle gets a little deep. The story goes that R' Chaim of Volzhin had trouble understanding a certain passage of Zohar and appeared before his Rebbe, R Eliyahu of Vilna (GR"A) and asked him to explain it to him. The GR"A then proceeded to give him the following pshat on a pasuk in this week's parsha. The pasuk (25:11) tells us that the Ark be made of wood and be coated inside and out "mibayis umichutz" with gold. Rashi explains from the Yerushalmi in Shekalim that Bezalel made three arks, two of gold and one of wood. He put the wooden ark in the larger gold one and then the smaller gold one inside the wood one and then coated the top of it. If such was the order, asks the GR"A, then why does the pasuk say "mibayis umichutz"? It should say "michutz umibayis" because the Ark was coated first on the outside and then on the inside. He answers that "mibayis umichutz" is not referring to the wood but rather to the gold. This to say that the larger golden ark coated the wood "with its inside" and the smaller golden ark coated the wood "with its outside". So instead of the pasuk telling us to coat the wood on its inside and its outside, it is in fact saying to coat the wood with the inside of the gold and with the outside of the gold.
And why did the Torah go out of its way to explain this process in such a strange manner? The GR"A explained that it was to express the following symbolism. (This is where it gets deep) The wood refers to man as the pasuk says (20:19) "Ki haAdam etz hasade" and the two coatings of gold refer to the two portions of Torah that must evelop man, the "nigle" and the "nistar". Torah is compared to gold in Tehillim (19:11) "hanechemadim mizahav". The Torah is telling us that as far as the chelek hanigle, represented by the outer coating of gold, is concerned, one has the ability to reach the deepest depths of this chelek haTorah. This is demonstrated by the fact that it is the inside of the gold that coats the wood. But in the chelek hanistar, symbolized by the inner gold, one may only reach the surface and may not be able to reach the full depth of the chelek hanistar, as it is only the outside of this layer of gold that coats the wood. Following this explanation, the GR"A would not explain that particular passage in Zohar to R' Chaim.
My question is, though, that in the Yerushalmi, at least the one I looked at, the order is actually the other way around that the inner layer of gold was first placed in the wooden ark and then they were placed in the larger layer of gold. According to this, the order of the pasuk is fine the way it is. Perhaps Rashi had a different "girsa" in the Yerushalmi for in Yoma 72b Rashi explains this process in the same way he does here in Parshas Terumah. Any answers?
**********
One last reminder to click here for a thorough discussion of the placement of the beams of the courtyard of the Mishkan.
This week's dvar Torah combines Parshas Tetzave and Purim in a very interesting way. It comes from Eli Wolf, the head of a weekly chabura that I attend. Pasuk 28:40 commands "Velivnei Aharon ta'ase kutanos", and for the sons of Aharon you shall make tunics. This can be interpreted in two ways - one tunic for each Kohen or many tunics for each Kohen. This is the subject of a dispute in the Yerushalmi Yoma (Perek 3 Halachah 6) Rabanan hold two tunics for each Kohen and R' Yose holds one tunic for each Kohen suffices.
In the gemara in Megilla 7a Rav Yosef learns that when it says in Megillas Esther "matanos l'evyonim" it means 2 matanos for 2 evyonim - only one for each poor person. The Turei Even in Chagiga and the Avnei Shoham in Megilla (same author) comment that this gemara goes like R' Yose in the Yerushalmi who holds one tunic for each Kohen. However, asks the Mitzpe Eisan in Megilla, from the Tosafos in Chagiga (3a) we see that the halachah in regards to the dipute in the Yerushalmi is like the Rabanan. If Rav Yosef in Megilla is going only according to R' Yose then it is not in accordance with halachah.
The Mitzpe Eisan answers from the Pri Chadash (Orach Chaim 694) who writes that if the pasuk had written "ul'evyonim matanos" then it would have implied two to each but now that it says it the other way around it only means one to each. Therefore, the rule is that if the subject is written before the object then it may imply that to these subjects you will give objects to each. That then is the subject of dispute in Yerushalmi where the pasuk in question is "Velivnei Aharon ta'ase kutanos", the subject comes before the object. However, with Matanos l'evyonim where the object comes first, it means that these objects shall be distributed amongst the following subjects and everyone will agree that it is one per person. (This also explains why the gemara in Yoma entertains the possibility that there were two lots on each goat in the Yom Kippur procedure because the pasuk is "al shnei haseirim goralos" the subject before the object.)
Despite all the hype and excitement surrounding Purim, I was able to put together a couple of Divrei Torah for this week. Much thanks, as usual, to the trusty Chumash chaburah which took place at its normally scheduled time. In pasuk 32:26, following the sin of the Golden Calf, Moshe calls out "Mi l'haShem elai!" Who is for HaShem, come to me! And all of shevet Levi joined him. They then proceeded to wipe out all those who participated in the worshiping of the Golden Calf. Now it is known that the sinners in the episode of the Golden Calf represented a small minority of Bnei Yisroel (3000 men were killed). How is it then, that only the tribe of Levi joined Moshe in carrying out the punishment? The B'chor Shor suggests that there were really many others from other tribes who did not worship the calf and joined Moshe. The reason that Levi was singled out by the pasuk is, as the pasuk says "kol b'nei Levi", all of the sons of Levi. It was only Levi whose tribe completely separated itself from this great sin and joined Moshe in carrying out justice. Each of the other tribes had at least part of the tribe worshiping the calf.
The Netzi"v in Hemek Davar suggests a very novel interpretation. Moshe and his followers were about to carry out a Mitzvah. We know that a "shaliach mitzvah" is protected from any damage. This, however, does not apply in a case where there is evident danger (see Kiddushin 39b). How then could Moshe bring people together to carry out this task? The Netziv suggests that this applies only to those who do a mitzvah in the regular way that humans perform mitzvas, with at least some sort of a personal interest, be it a reward in this world, or be it a reward in the next world. However, someone who has dedicated himself solely to the service of HaShem with the lack of any personal desires, even in the case of evident danger, need not fear to perform any mitzvah. Therefore, Moshe exclaimed "Mi l'haShem, elai!", Who is for HaShem and HaShem only. Who has dedicated himself completely to the service of HaShem. Only shevet Levi, who were not subjected to servitude by the Egyptians but rather left alone to serve as spiritual leaders (Ramban), only they were able to reach this level of service of HaShem. Therefore it was only they who were on the spiritual level to join Moshe in carrying out justice in such a dangerous manner.
R' Yosef Miller, a Rebbe in Yeshivas Merkaz HaTorah in Yerushalayim, in his sefer Hadras Kodesh, suggests that this idea may be used to answer a famous question in Parshas V'zos haBeracha. In Levi's blessing it says "ubrischa yintzoru". Rashi comments that this refers to the fact that while Bnei Yisroel did not perform the mitzvah of Bris Milah in the desert, shevet Levi did. The obvious question is that the reason why B"Y did not do Milah in the desert is because there was a specific Northern wind that was not present in the desert which made a Bris a very dangerous operation. How then could Levi go ahead and give their kids a Bris? With this idea of the Netziv, however, it is understandable how only Levi was able to do so.
How about one dvar Torah from Vayakhel and one from Pekudei to keep things even. The pasuk states (36:1) "Ve'asa Bezalel..." this seems to be recounting Bezalel's working on the Mishkan as the Targum, "ve'avad", seems to indicate. However, Mahari"l Diskin points out that the pesukim that follow tell of Moshe's calling upon Bezalel and Ahaliav to do the work on the Mishkan. Surely, it is not possible that they did the work before they were called upon. He suggests that the Targum is an error and should rather reflect an imperative tense rather than a past tense. This pasuk should in fact be connected to the previous pesukim and are in fact a command that Bezalel and Ahaliav will work on the Mishkan. (According to Biblical grammar the word may be read either way.) The fact that this is the beginning of a perek should also be ignored as these are markings that were inserted by the Christians and thus, we are surely not bound by them whatsoever.
The fascinating thing about this pshat, as R' Kulefsky tells over, is that when they told this to the Chazon Ish, he right away replied that it is in concurrence with Rashi on Makkos 12a (d"h veratzach) where he brings this very pasuk as an example of a command. The Rogotchover, in Tzafnas Paneach also references this Rashi.
The pasuk (40:22) recounts the placing of the Shulchan in the North before the placing of the Menorah in the South. However, points out R' Chaim Brisker, the Mishkan was put together from the Kodesh Kadashim and out, i.e. from the West to the East. There is a concept known as "Kol pinos she'ata pone, lo yehu ela derech yamin" (Sotah 15b and various other sources). That is, that all turns should be to the right. If so, when facing East, one should theoretically turn right to the South and place the Menorah first and then place the Shulchan in the North. R' Chaim answers that we see in the layout that Moshe was commanded (26:35) that aside from being in the South, the Menorah should be "Nochach haShulchan", opposite the Shulchan. Therefore, it had to be placed after the Shulchan so that it would face it right away. So, too, is the reason why the outer altar was put in its place before the Kiyor which was closer to the Mishkan for in the description of the Kiyor (30:18) it is to be placed "bein Ohel Moed uvein haMizbeach" between Ohel Moed and the altar which is only possible if both are in place. R' Chaim Kunyevsky gives this answer as well in Parshas Pekudei.
**********
A question: Rashi recounts (38:22) that Moshe commanded Bezalel to construct the vessels for the Mishkan followed by the Mishkan itself. Bezalel questioned this on the basis that first you must build a place to keep the vessels, then build the vessels themselves. Moshe agreed with Bezalel and praised him for being in the shadow of HaShem as Rashi goes on to explain (from Brachos 55a). The question that is asked in the name of R' Nosson Adler, the Rebbe of the Chasam Sofer, is that the work on the Mishkan was completed on the 25th of Kislev but it was not put together until Nissan. According to Bezalel's argument, what was done with the vessels from the time they were constructed until the Mishkan was actually built? (See Toras Moshe)
Chazak, Chazak, veNischazek!
Vayikra | Tzav | Shemini | Tazria | Metzora | Acharei Mos | Kedoshim | Emor | Behar | Bechukosai
It is getting harder and harder to find good stuff on the Parsha. This dvar Torah comes, once again from R' Kulefsky. The Gemara in Chullin (8 or 9) asks how we know that an Olas HaOf, an Olah offering brought in the form of a bird, may not be brought at night. The Rashb"a writes in his Teshuvos that he was asked how the Gemara could ask such a question. No korban may be brought at night. Why would we think that the olas haof should be any different. He therefore says that the girsa is incorrect and he changes it. In our gemaras, in fact, such a girsa is not found. The Ohr Somayach (R' Meir Simcha of Dvinsk), however, suggested a justification for this girsa. If one cannot afford to bring an animal for a Chatas offering he brings one bird for a chatas and one for an olah (5:7). Ibn Ezra explains that the reason for the addition of the second bird for an Olah offering is because had an animal been brought, there would have been a burning of the innards, "haktaras eimurim", on the mizbeach. Now that a bird is brought instead of an animal, there is no haktaras eimurim. Therefore, an additional bird is brought as an olah, in replacement of the haktaras eimurim. The halacha is that haktaras eimurim may be done at night, even though a korban may not be brought at night. Therefore, explains the Ohr Somayach, since the olas haof comes only as a replacement of the haktaras eimurim, I might have thought that it can be brought at night.
The sefer Mekor Baruch relates that after the Ohr Somayach said this pshat, he had a dream where in shomayim, they were discussing how nowadays, no one comes up with any true original Torah. The Rashb"a stood up and exclaimed "That is not true! I said something and I was wrong, and a Yid in Dvinsk corrected me."
**********
A point to ponder: In pasuk 3:1 we are introduced to the concept of the Korban Shlamim. Rashi explains the meaning of the word Shlamim as coming from the word Shalom, peace, that it puts peace between Man and his Master. However, the Targum of Shlamim in all instances is "nichsas kudshaya" which clearly does not follow the simple translation. Why?
In this week's parsha, the Korban Todah is discussed. The Todah is brought as a thanks to HaShem for one of four reasons discussed by Chazal. The Todah consists of a sacrifice and 40 loaves of bread. Netzi"v, in Hemek Davar points out that even though the Todah is a Shelamim sacrifice whose prescribed time for eating is a day and a half, the Todah may only be eaten that night. This, in addition to the excessive bread requirement will make it impossible for the "ba'al hakorban" to consume everything on his own and thus he will have to make a party for all his friends wherein he will praise HaShem in public, in order that he not leave over any of the Korban after the night. This, suggests the Netziv, is the reason why the Torah commanded the bringing of the Todah in this fashion.
With this concept, the Netziv (in Herchev Davar on the bottom of Hemek Davar) explains the pesukim from Tehillim that we recite in Hallel: "L'cha ezbach zevach toda, uv'shem HaShem ekra", L'cha ezbach refers to the korban (animal) which is referred to as a zevach Todah. Uv'shem HaShem ekra refers to the public thanks to HaShem that is given at the gathering of friends. "Nedarai laShem ashalem" refers to the korban and in "negda na l'chol amo", the word negda comes from the word lehagid, to tell, referring to the telling over of HaShem's praise that will take place at the gathering. Finally, "bechatzros beis HaShem, besochechi Yerushalayim" would at first glance seem to be contradictory for bechatzros etc. clearly refers to the boundaries of the Beis HaMikdash whereas besochechi Yerushalayim refers to the entire city. However, according to the Netziv's interpretation it is clear that bechatzros beis HaShem is referring to the korban which is brought within the courtyard of the Beis HaMikdash. The meal in which the bread is eaten, however, will broadcast HaShem's praise throughout all of Yerushalayim.
**********
At the end of each parsha (with the odd exception) there is a line that tells the number of pesukim in the parsha and a siman that corresponds in gematria to that number. This week is a famous one - 96. The gematria of Tzav is also 96. However, there are 97 pesukim in Tzav! Any thoughts?
The pasuk says (9:7) regarding Aharon's personal chatas that it should be an atonement for him and for the nation. In a drasha given last year, R' Moshe Mintz of Ner Yisroel asked why Aharon's korban involved an atonement for the nation. The Ohr HaChaim answers that Aharon's involvement in the sin of the Golden Calf was brought about by the nation who coerced him into aiding them in the making of the Golden Calf. Therefore, the nation could not achieve a full atonement until Aharon, for whom they were responsible, achieved his own atonement. Rabbi Mintz went on to explain how important it is, therefore, that we are careful with all our actions within the "kahal" for all of our actions have a spiritual effect on the kahal as a whole and whatever sins one causes through his actions will not be atoned for until all involved have achieved atonement.
**********
At the end of the parsha, the pasuk (11:45) says "Ki ani HaShem hamaale eschem..." Rashi comments that in all other instances it says "hotzeisi" but here it says "hama'ale" and quotes from Tana d'Bei Eliyahu that the term ma'ale implies that this mitzva itself is a ma'ala, a virtue in and of itself, for which B'nei Yisroel merited exodus from Egypt. The obvious inference is from the change of terminology from 'yetzia' to 'aliyah'. But I thought that perhaps there is another inference to be made. In all other instances, the word "hotzeisi" is used. It is in past tense. Here, had the pasuk said "asher he'elisi" then there would not have been such a strong implication that this mitzva is a ma'ala but only that HaShem took us out and therefore we should keep it. Now that it is written in the present tense, it implies that with this mitzva HaShem brings us up to a higher level and it is a virtue for us.
The chief topic of this week's parshios, Tazria and Metzora is the sickness known as (don't call me leprosy) Tzora'as. Be'er Moshe, in the introduction to Chelek 3 of his tshuvos notes that we find that a Metzora must bring two birds after his Tzora'as has gone away (14:4). One of the birds is slaughtered and the other is sent away. Why? Rashi there writes that the reason why birds are brought is because they talk a lot and the reason why one becomes afflicted with Tzora'as is because he spoke Lashon Hora. Be'er Moshe explains, therefore, that the slaughtering of the bird is to symbolize how we must be aware of when to keep our mouths shut and to prevent whatever words we were going to say. However, the most complete way to battle Loshon Hora is not by simple verbal repression. One must be able to speak normally, using his mouth for good, for Divrei Torah, etc. but in a way that he watches his words and doesn't say anything wrong. Therefore, the second bird is sent out into the world symbolizing how one is supposed to go out and talk naturally, but the bird is first dipped in the blood of the dead bird, to show how he must always keep in mind his responsibilities to refrain from speaking evil.
**********
A question: In Parshas Metzora (14:34-) we deal with the case of the house which has become afflicted with Tzora'as. The gemara in Sanhedrin (71a) teaches that such a case never happened and never will happen and is only related for the purpose of learning and receiving reward. The gemara goes on to explain that the reason why it can never happen is because the prerequisite for such a case is a blotch the size of two beans in the corner of the house, etc. which is so remote that it could never happen. My question is that the entire existence of Tzora'as and the way it works is a total miracle out of the bounds of nature. Since it is all a miracle from Above to begin with, why do we deem it so remote that it could happen in this fashion?
**********
This email deals with this week's Parsha and the email that should have come with it deals with Sefiras HaOmer. The following is a connection between the two. The sefer "Bein Pesach li'Shvuos" points out how Metzora always comes around the time of the counting of the Omer, if not after Pesach, immediately before it. A remez to this is found in pesukim (15:13-15) which deal with the counting that the zav must do, a process that is likened in many ways to the counting of the Omer. In these three pesukim there are a total of 49 words like the 49 days of the Omer. Additionally, the 33rd of these 49 words is "moed", symbolizing the semi-Yom Tov we observe on Lag B'Omer.
A minor question: In Bemidbar 3 and 26 when Nadav and Avihu are referred to, the pasuk recounts "vayamusu... bahikravam eish zara..." the pasuk retells their sin of bringing the ketores which they were not commanded to bring. However, here, it only says at the beginning of the parsha "b'karvasam ... vayamusu" with no mention of the "Aish zara". Why?
In perek 19 (9-10), we are taught four different mitzvos with regard to the poor: peah, leket, peret and olalos. The required quantity for these mitzvos is quite small. For instance, the Mishna in Peah teaches that one or two sheaves constitutes leket but three is not, i.e. it is too much and may be retrieved by the owner. R' Moshe Mintz (of Ner Yisroel) asks why the Torah commanded us a number of mitzvos of such small quantity instead of perhaps commanding us one mitzva of greater quantity. He answers that perhaps we can understand this with a Rambam on a mishna in this week's perek of Pirkei Avos, perek 3. Mishna 19 teaches "hakol l'fi rov hama'ase". The Rambam explains that it is better for a person to give a little tzedaka at a greater frequency than to give a larger amount of tzedaka less often (assuming the total amount is the same). The more actions you do, the better. Therefore, the Torah specifically commanded us to do many different acts of tzedaka in smaller quantities, rather than less acts in larger quantities.
In the beginning of this week's parsha (21:5), Kohanim are commanded not to make bald spots on their head, not to shave their beards and not to make scars on their flesh. This commandment is followed by "Kedoshim tihyu..." Mahari"l Diskin explains the juxtaposition. It is customary among priests of other religions to make themselves appear differently by making marks on their head, face or flesh so that it is recognizable that they are priests. This is because they are not in the least bit recognizable by their deeds because they are guilty of many abominations (and in some cases can be even worse than the rest). Therefore, the Kohanim are commanded that they, being the priests of the Jews should not do so for they are Kedoshim and must stand out by means of their deeds and need not stand out by means of physical appearance.
**********
Question: One of the women that a Kohen is forbidden to marry is an "isha gerusha me'ishah", a woman divorced from her husband. This includes even a woman who is divorced out of Kiddushin and never had Nissuin, seemingly because she is still considered "gerusha me'ishah". However, the Mishna in Sotah 4:1 learns that an arusa who has not yet had Nissuin does not drink the mei Sotah. This is learned from the pasuk "Asher tiste isha tachas ishah". Here it seems that ishah refers only to a husband after Nissuin ?
**********
A very special story: This story is making its way around the world very fast so it is quite possible that you heard it already. R' Kulefsky told this story last Friday night which he heard from his mechutan R' Glustein from Montreal which he heard from the actual subject of the story. A man was on a flight from Montreal to Eretz Yisroel. He received his Kosher meal, a meat sandwich. He opened it up and went to wash his hands. When he returned he realized that he had left the sandwich uncovered while he was away. According to the law of "basar shenis'alem min ha'ayin", meat that was hidden from the eye, it was forbidden to eat this meat so he ate only the bread and the rest of the meal and left the meat. The person sitting next to him became very curious and asked him why he ate everything but the meat. The man tried as well as he could to explain to him that he is forbidden to eat meat that has been left uncovered. The man turned white and told him "You have a very special God. For many years I always wanted to know what Kosher meat tastes like. While you were gone, I switched my meat for yours."
Wow!
At the beginning of Behar we are taught about the mitzva of Shmita. One thing that bothered me is that at the very beginning (25:2) the pasuk says "ki savo'u... veshavsa ha'aretz shabbos laShem". The Torah seems to imply that the Shmita happened right away. Only afterward does it explain the six years of planting, etc. R' Chaim Kunyevsky deals with this in Ta'ama D'kra. But I would like to deal with an explanation that R' Kulefsky tells over in the name of the Meshech Chachma. He brings a Yerushalmi in Pesachim that says that even a field which someone plants for Hekdesh is subject to the laws of Shmita. How can this be? None of the other laws relating to the ground apply to Hekdesh, why is this different? Meshech Chachma answers that it is a sort of "hefkero kodem l'isuro". The Torah, by telling us "veshavsa haaretz" that the land should rest, before anything else, is conveying that Shmita is part of the land and is a condition of our ownership of it in the first place. In other words, it is as if the owner of land only owns 6 out of 7 of its years, and he does not even own the seventh year. When he is makdish the field, the seventh year falls into the realm of "ein adam makdish davar she'eino shelo", since he does not own the seventh year, he can not be makdish it and the Hekdesh is never applied to the seventh year in the first place. (This sounds a little convoluted, I think, because it was hard to write down. I suggest looking in the Meshech Chachma itself, particularly the Kuperman edition.)
At the beginning of Bechukosai, we are told that if we follow HaShem's laws, we will be given a number of good things. Amongst them is the great blessing of peace. "Venosati shalom ba'aretz" (26:6) This peace requires definition. It would seem that the Torah then goes on to explain what this peace is. "Ush'chavtem v'ein macharid..." The next pasuk reads "ur'daftem es oyveichem, venaflu lifneichem becharev." You will chase your enemies and they will fall in front of you by the sword. This would appear to sound a lot more like war than peace. I think the message that the Torah is teaching here is that true peace is not living WITH your enemies but rather living WITHOUT your enemies. Now surely, this is not to say that we should go out and murder our enemies for the sake of peace. But I believe it does say is that signing a measly document that says Oslo on it is surely not the Torah's defintion of peace, and it would therefore be foolish to consider it our definition of peace.
Chazak, Chazak, veNischazek!
Bemidbar | Naso | Beha'alosecha | Shelach | Korach | Chukas | Balak | Pinechas | Matos | Mas'ei
*Parshas Bemidbar*
At the beginning of this week's parsha, B'nei Yisroel are split into camps. One of Rashi's explanations of "ish al diglo le'osos" (2:2) is that each tribe's camp had a flag which bore the colour of the stone of that tribe's stone on the Choshen. The purpose of this, Rashi explains, was so that everyone would know which camp was there. What bothered me about this was that Ephraim and Menasheh, who had separate camps, did not have their own stones on the Choshen. What then would be the colour of their flag? Even if you say that they both had Yosef's colours, the objective of this plan is not achieved. What I found even more intriguing is the explanation of Targum Yonasan here. He explains that each large camp of three had a flag bearing three colours corresponding to a row of stones on the Choshen. For instance, the camp of Yehuda, Yissachar and Zevulun had a flag with the colours of Odem Pitda and Barekes on them. While this would take care of the problem with Ephraim and Menasheh, the difficulty is that those stones are the stones of Reuven, Shimon and Levi (according to all opinions). What is their connection to that camp?
*Parshas Naso*
This week, I would like to focus on the connections between the Haftara and the Parsha. The obvious connection is that the Haftara speaks of Shimshon who was a nazir and the nazir is discussed in this week's parsha. However, there are some other connections that lie beneath the surface. Firstly, the Sotah process is discussed in this week's parsha. Chazal tell us that the purpose of the Sotah process is to eventually instill peace between man and his wife by resolving the existing conflict. Peace is so important that HaShem has his name erased in the water for it. In the Haftara we also see the importance of peace between a man and his wife. The Midrash recounts that when Manoach and his wife were not able to have children, they were fighting over whose fault it was that they were not having kids. Therefore, the angel informed Manoach's wife that she was in fact the "akara". R' Chaim Kunyevsky writes that from here we learn a very important lesson regarding Shalom, that if you know that one party in argument is correct, it is proper to go over to the one who is wrong and inform them so that they may confess for in that way you will preserve peace. If you inform the one who was correct, you will not resolve the argument and the conflict will only continue. That is why the malach went directly to Manoach's wife rather than Manoach. (See Midrash Rabba on "Veyasem lecha Shalom")
Also, we are taught, (according to one opinion in the gemara) that a Sotah who was previously childless, will become pregnant if she comes out of the Sotah process alive. R' Dovid Kohn explains why this is. If someone is childless, it is because there has been some decree from Shomayim that this person suffer, for whatever reason, a punishment comparable to death. As Chazal teach us, one who has no children is like they are dead. However, there are other things that are comparable to death. One of them is embarassment. If someone embarasses another person, it is as if they are killing them (Pirkei Avos). Therefore, when the woman goes through the Sotah process, she endures so much embarassment that she has served the punishment equaling death and now there is no place for the decree of infertility anymore. This concept, too, is seen in the haftara. The Midrash recounts that Ivtzan (Boaz) who was the Shofet at the time, had 30 sons and 30 daughters and made two banquets for each one. However, he did not invite Manoach to any of these banquets for he reasoned "He doesn't have any kids, how could he ever pay me back." R' Dovid Kohn suggests that here too it was enduring the embarassment of 120 banquets to which he was not invited, an embarassment directly related to the fact that he was childless, that earned him the zchus to have a child.
*Parshas Beha'alosecha*
I heard the following Dvar Torah from the Rosh HaYeshiva (in Baltimore) last year. Unfortunately, he has become very ill. This Dvar Torah is bizchus a refua shelema for Shmuel Yaakov ben Ayala Hinda. We are commanded to remember the episode with Miriam that appears in this week's parsha. Part of this rememberance is being careful not to speak Loshon Hora, which was why Miriam was punished. However, if we look at the pasuk, when HaShem rebukes Miriam and Aharon He says (12:8) "Madua lo yaraisem ledaber b'avdi beMoshe", How could you not be fearful of talking badly about my servant Moshe?! It seems from here that the main problem was that they had spoken about Moshe, but if it were about someone else it would not have been so serious. But we know this not to be true for it is forbidden to say Lashon Hara about anyone. The Rosh HaYeshiva explains that here we see a very important aspect of Lashon Hora. The principal mistake that one makes when he speaks LH is that he fails to realize the positive attributes of the person about whom he is speaking. Miriam and Aharon's error was that they failed to realize the level that Moshe was on and that's why they said what they said. Had they realized the greatness of Moshe, they never would have done so. Likewise, anyone who speaks LH about someone fails to realize the true greatness of that person, at whatever level it may be, and therefore speaks badly about them. It is for this reason that it is forbidden to tell Lashon Hora about one's self for the same fault is involved.
**********
This week's haftara comes from Zecharia. The direct connection to the parsha is obvious. The parsha speaks of a prophecy involving a Menora, just as the parsha speaks of the lighting of the Menora. However, Rav Soloveichik offered another connection to the parsha. When HaShem rebukes Aharon and Miriam, He stresses that Moshe is not like other prophets. Pasuk 12:6 tells us that HaShem appears to prophets "bamar'ah", not a clear image but a mirror image, a regular prophet is not spoken to directly but indirectly in a way that requires him to decipher HaShem's will. However, (12:8) to Moshe, HaShem appears as a "mar'eh" a clear vision. This very point is illustrated in the haftara. Zecharia is shown a prophecy and in the end he is unable to decipher it and it must be explained to him for he is a regular prophet, not like Moshe who receives a direct transmission of HaShem's will.
*Parshas Shelach*
Of course the most significant of events that takes place in this week's parsha is the sin of the spies.Ten of the spies delivered bad reports about Eretz Yisroel while only Yehoshua and Calev delivered positive reports. My grandfather (from Eretz Yisroel) points out, though, that if you look at the positive components of each of the reports, there doesn't seem to be much difference. In pasuk 14:8 Calev describes Eretz Yisroel as "Eretz zavas chalav udvash" But the ten spies also describe it as such in 13:27 "vegam Eretz zavas chalav udvash hi". What is the difference? Also, why did the ten spies use the word "vegam". Mygrandfather answers that we see in next week's parsha (16:13) that part of Dasan and Aviram's complaint to Moshe was "hame'at ki he'elisanu me'eretz zavas chalav udvash", this referring to Egypt. We see that they considered Egypt to also be an "eretz zavas chalav udvash". Therefore, the spies are rebuked for saying "vegam..." because what they meant was that Eretz Yisroel is also nice, like Egypt, but no better. Calev, however, worded it differently, saying "eretz zavas chalav udvash hi" IT is an eretz zavas chalav udvash like no other.
To add to this, we see a similar concept in the gemara Sanhedrin 104a. The gemara describes how Sancheirev was rewarded for praising Eretz Yisroel and Bnei Yisroel were rebuked for speaking badly about it. The gemara goes on to explain the specifics, that when Bnei Yisroel were exiled and they came to their new lands they said "This is just like we had in Eretz Yisroel". The lesson learned from all of this is a great one. For we know that the principal lesson in this week's parsha is the gravity of the sin of talking badly anout Eretz Yisroel. It is obvious that this includes direct criticism of Eretz Yisroel, but now we see that even putting other lands on the level of Eretz Yisroel is a grave sin which falls under the same category.
**********
In the end of the parsha we have the episode of the "mekoshesh eitzim" the one who gathered wood on Shabbos who was given the death penalty for transgression of Shabbos. Targum Yonasan writes that the mekoshesh acted with good intentions, that until that time we knew only that a transgressor of Shabbos is given death but we did not know what specific death. The mekoshesh acted in order that we find out the true halacha. The Maharsha in Bava Basra 119a asks how could he go so far as to transgress Shabbos just to learn this Halacha. He answers that really, since he did so only to find out the halacha, it is considered a "melacha she'eina tzricha le'gufa", a work that is not needed for its principal purpose for which one is not liable, like digging a ditch because you need the dirt, for which you are not liable for digging a ditch because you did not need the ditch. However, since he did not tell this to the witnesses, he was liable for the death penalty but "min haShomayim" he did not transgress Shabbos.
*Parshas Korach*
At the beginning of the parsha, Rashi recounts that Korach and his crew came to Moshe with a halachic query: Does a garment made of Techeles require Techeles on the corner? Does a house full of seforim require a mezuza? In both cases the answer was 'Yes'. They scoffed at this: Can it be that a regular garment requires only one thread and a garment full of Techeles still requires that one thread? The Chasam Sofer brings from his rebbe, R' Nosson Adler, that this dispute symbolizes and is in exact accordance with the large-scale dispute that Korach had with Moshe. Korach argued "Ki kol ha'eda kulam kedoshim..." The entire nation is holy and therefore Moshe had no right to assume the role of leader. His argument was that in a group where all are on such a high level, an individual leader is not needed. Likewise, if an entire garment is made of Techeles, surely it does need another string to rule over it in order to fulfill the mitzva of Tzitzis. Moshe's reply is not merely a halachic psak but he is pointing out that Korach is in error in his whole thought process. No matter what the state of the people is, a leader is always needed to guide the people or anarchy will result. Likewise, even a garment made of pure Techeles requires an additional string of Techeles on each corner.
With this analysis of the conflict between Korach and Moshe it is easily understandable that this episode is followed by the Mitzvah for the Kohanim not to take part in the work of the Leviim nor for the Leviim to do the work of the Kohanim. The Sefer HaChinuch explains that if two groups are put in charge of one job, it will never get done because one will always rely on the other. This mitzvah teaches B'nei Yisroel, in light of the episode of Korach and in answer to his argument, that each group in Klal Yisroel has their own purpose. A Kohen may not do a Levi's job and a Levi may not do a Kohen's. And furthermore, even a nation made up of "kedoshim" requires a leader who will take upon himself the responsibility to lead the nation, without relying on anyone. Any nation without an individual leader will lead only in anarchy. This is why Korach was wrong.
**********
With regards to the mitzvah of "Techeles" mentioned in last week's parsha, there is a dispute amongst the Rishonim as to how many of the eight strings must be Techeles. Rambam in Perek 1 of Hilchos Tzitzis, Halacha 6 states that one out of eight must be Techeles. But Ra'avad argues that it must be two out of eight, in other words, one full string out of the four. Rashi and Tosafos (Menachos 38a) however hold that we require two full strings of Techeles and two of white. Four and four in total. As mentioned above, when Korach and his crew asked Moshe about the garment made of Techeles, they said "Is it possible that a regular garment needs only one string of Techeles to fulfill the obligation..." It seems clear from here that only one string is needed. This is fine according to Rambam and Ra'avad but how can Rashi and Tosafos learn this Midrash? I would love to hear an answer to this one, it has bothered me for a while.
*Parshas Chukas*
As the Rosh HaYeshiva Shlit"a (Shmuel Yaakov ben Ayala Hinda) is still quite ill, this week I have once again included a Dvar Torah from the Rosh HaYeshiva bizchus his "Refua Shelema". In Parshas Chukas, when Moshe is told to speak to the rock, the pasuk says (20:8) "vedibartem el haselah... v'nosan meimav". However, in Parshas Beshalach, when Moshe is told to hit the rock, it says (17:6) "vehikisa batzur vyotz'u mimenu mayim". There the verb of "yetzia", to bring out, is used whereas here the verb "nesina" is used. The Rosh HaYeshiva explained that when the rock is dealt with in a forceful manner, the waters are produced in an unnatural manner. However, when the rock is dealt with in a calm, passive manner it 'gives' the water, denoting a more natural process. I heard the Rosh HaYeshiva deliver this Dvar Torah at a Bar Mitzvah where he parabled this concept to a situation of chinuch. Children and students, he explained, are more likely to prduce more natural results when dealt with in a calm and caring manner. But if they are dealt with forcefully, the results are forced as well and are thus lesser in value.
*Parshas Balak*
(This Monday also happens to be the yahrtzeit of the previous Rosh HaYeshiva zt"l Rabbi Yaakov Yitzchok Ruderman so it is fitting that I quote from him as well.) Rashi (22:10) recounts that Bilam told HaShem "even though I am not dignified in your eyes, I am dignified in the eyes of kings." The Rosh HaYeshiva asks what kind of ridiculous statement is this for Bilam to make? Why should it matter one bit to HaShem what the kings think of Bilam? What could he possibly have intended to accomplish with this? The Rosh HaYeshiva answers that Bilam's intentions were to incriminate Bnei Yisroel. His claim was as follows: "HaShem, you know that I am really not significant whatsoever. Nevertheless, I am significant in the eyes of kings. Moshe, however, even though he is held so highly in Your eyes, look how he is treated by Bnei Yisroel!" Therefore, when HaShem finally lets Bilam go along to Moav, he instructs Bilam "go with them, but only do that which I tell you to do". This is meant as an answer to his claim. The reason why you are revered by kings is because you tell them what they want to hear. Moshe tells Bnei Yisroel what I tell him to say. Now you go to the kings and tell them what I tell you, and see how they treat you now.
**********
At the beginning of this week's parsha, we find that Moav is frightened of Bnei Yisroel because of what they did to Sichon. Someone asked me a very intriguing question last year. Sichon met his demise only because he started up with Bnei Yisroel. As long as Balak behaves himself, what does he have to be afraid of? I would like to offer the following answer, although it still appears the question is better than the answer. Perhaps what frightened Moav was that they saw that as soon as Bnei Yisroel requested to go through Sichon's land, that is when everything started to go wrong. Sure, Sichon started up, but what was he supposed to do? How is a country supposed to see such a request as a friendly gesture? The way Balak saw it, as soon as Bnei Yisroel asks for permission to go through the land, it means trouble. Now in the parsha we do not find that any such request was sent to Moav. However, in the haftara of Chukas (Shoftim 11:17) we find that messengers were sent to Moav as well with the same request. Perhaps the episode of Balak happened after these messengers were sent and that is why he became frightened. [Even though it appears that the messengers were sent to Moav first, still after they saw what happened to Sichon, they became frightened that they too were on Bnei Yisroel's hit list.]
For those who have not yet heard, I am sad to report that the Rosh HaYeshiva, Moreinu veRabeinu HaRav Shmuel Yaakov Weinberg passed away early Thursday morning. Baruch Dayan HaEmes. The levaya was a very moving one including hespedim from many revered Roshei Yeshiva as well as his brother and two of his sons. I feel it is appropriate that for this week's Dvar Torah, I quote R' Weinberg in the hesped that he delivered for the previous Rosh HaYeshiva R' Ruderman at the end of his shiva:
The gemara in Shabbos 112b states: "If the Rishonim (the earlier generations) were the sons of angels, we are the sons of men. If the Rishonim are sons of men, we are like donkeys. And not like the donkey of R' Pinchas ben Yair but rather like other donkeys." R' Weinberg explains, certainly we all appreciate that the previous generations were on a much higher spiritual level than we are. The gemara is not coming to give a comparison. Rather, the gemara is teaching us that one who looks upon the Rishonim as sons of angels, he has the status of a 'ben-adam'. This is the way a normal person should view the Rishonim. However, if we look at the Rishonim as simple 'bnei-adam', we are lowering ourselves to donkeys. Why donkeys? The pasuk in Yeshaya 1:3 states "Yada shor koneihu, vachamor eivus ba'alav", The ox knows his owner, and the donkey his master's trough. The ox is an animal that knows his owner and therefore appreciates where his food is coming from. The donkey, however, knows only his master's trough. He knows where to get the food, but he does not recognize its source. Therefore, one who views the Rishonim as mere 'bnei-adam' is cutting himself off from the previous generations and although he may be thoroughly well-versed in Torah, he has no appreciation of where it has come from and who has passed it down to him. Thus, he is like a donkey. [And not like the donkey of Pinchas ben Yair who recognized his owner but like other donkeys.]
**********
In the beginning of this week's parsha, B'nei Yisroel are once again counted. While examining the descendants of Reuven, the Torah tangentially discusses Dasan and Aviram and their involvement with Korach. Then the pasuk says "Uvnei Korach lo meisu". R' Chaim Kunyevsky asks in Ta'ama D'Kra that this pasuk seems to be out of place. Why would the Torah discuss Korach's sons here? He answers that while discussing the demise of Dasan and Aviram, one might ask why they were punished so severely. Rashi writes at the beginning of Parshas Korach that Dasan and Aviram were drawn into Korach's group because their camp was right next to Korach's. So why were they punished so badly? They were drawn in. Therefore, the Torah tells us that Korach's sons didn't die. They did tshuvah and thus, were saved from their father's fate. With this the Torah tells us that even those in Korach's own family were able to resist his influence and do tshuva. So Dasan and Aviram have no excuse.
*Parshas Matos*
The following is one of my favourite pieces from R' Chaim Kunyevsky because it so well exemplifies his unique thought pattern which distinguishes him from all other Gedolim of our time. In the beginning of Perek 32, the tribes of Gad and Reuven come to Moshe and inform him that the land they had just captured from Sichon and Og is very good grazing land and that they have a lot of cattle. They then proceed to suggest that they inherit that land rather than inheriting land in Eretz Canaan. R' Chaim points out something very intriguing which I'm sure very few would realize. Right before B'nei Gad and B'nei Reuven request the land but after they inform Moshe of its value, there is a samech, denoting a minor pause. Why would there be a pause in the middle of their conversation? They were talking the whole time, the conversation never shifted. R' Chaim suggests as follows. There is a Yerushalmi in the first perek of Bikkurim that says that one does bring bikkurim from the land of Gad and Reuven but they do not recite the viduy because it contains the phrase "ha'aretz asher nasata li", the land which you have given me, precluding a land which you took on your own as Gad and Reuven. The half tribe of Menasheh on the other hand, even though they also reside on the other side of the Yarden, they do say the viduy since they were not with Gad and Reuven in their request but the land was given to them without asking. R' Chaim suggests that Gad and Reuven were aware of this halachah and therefore they first informed Moshe of the value of the land and how it would be good for them and then they paused, hoping that Moshe would take the hint and offer the land to them so that they may recite the viduy when they bring bikkurim. After they realized that Moshe was not offering it, they had to ask for themselves.
*Parshas Mas'ei*
The following Dvar Torah is not only relevant to Parshas Mas'ei but it also coincides with the Daf Yomi of only a few days ago. The gemara in Rosh HaShanah 3a explains that the juxtaposition of Aharon's death to "Vayishma haC'naani melech Arad" teaches us that it was the death of Aharon that Sichon heard and he then realized that the "ananei haKavod" had gone away and he thought that it was now permissable to fight B'nei Yisroel and that he would win. Therefore, when the pasuk says "Vayiru kol ha'eda ki gava Aharon", the literal translation is that they saw that Aharon died, but it may be allegorically interpreted as "and they were revealed" by the disappearance of the "ananei haKavod". This juxtaposition appears in both Parshas Chukas (Perek 21) and in Parshas Mas'ei (33:39). Tosafos points out that the gemara must be learning from the pasuk in Mas'ei because in Chukas, the pasuk says outright what the C'naani heard - that Yisrael had come by way of the "asarim". It is only in Masei where nothing is said of what the C'naani heard that the gemara may learn its drasha. Tosafos then says Rashi was not precise in his pirush on Chumash for he brought this gemara in Chukas.
I believe that the following may be the defence for Rashi. Firstly, Rashi does again bring this gemara in Mas'ei. That already lessens the difficulty. Secondly, the pasuk in Mas'ei makes absolutely no mention of any war whatsoever. Thirdly, the pasuk that the gemara learns from that B'nei Yisroel became 'revealed' appears only in Chukas. Even if the gemara is learning what the C'naani heard from the pasuk in Mas'ei as Tosafos suggests, the drasha would still have no standing without the pesukim in Chukas and therefore, it is just as relevant there. The sefer Asifas Zekenim, however, learns that Tosafos holds that the war in Chukas was a different war altogether which would explain why Tosafos still had a difficulty with Rashi but I do not understand how that would work out with the above.
Chazak, Chazak, veNischazek!
Devorim | Va'eschanan | Eikev | Re'eh | Shoftim | Ki Setze | Ki Savo | Netzavim | Vayelech | Ha'azinu | Vezos HaBeracha
*Parshas Devorim*
In Pasuk 1:25, Moshe recounts that the meraglim came back with a report and said "The land that HaShem is giving us is good." The question is obvious. It seems that the meraglim gave a positive report when in fact we know that 10 out of the 12 gave a bad report. Rashi comments that this refers to Calev and Yehoshua only. There are some difficulties with this pshat which Ramban deals with. However, I wanted to write R' Chaim Kunyevsky's answer to this problem. He makes reference to the famous Zohar that the reason why the meraglim gave a bad report is because they had a personal bias, that they knew that they would no longer be nesi'im when they enter Eretz Yisroel. Calev and Yehoshua, however, had no personal reason to give a positive report. Therefore, says R' Chaim, the mussar given in this pasuk is that Bnei Yisroel should have discerned this and therefore should have discarded the other 10 meraglim's reports totally and the only reports that would matter would be those of Calev and Yehoshua for there was no bias involved. It is this concept we see in the gemara Sanhedrin that after one leaves Bes Din after being declared innocent, we say "midivreihem nizdeka ploni" by their words he was declared innocent, even if there were those among them that put in a vote of guilty.
**********
In 2:36 regarding the war with Sichon, the pasuk recounts "lo haysa kirya asher sagva mimenu", there was no city that overpowered us. Only a few psukim later (3:4) with regards to the war with Og, we find a very similar, yet slightly different phrase: "lo haysa kirya asher lo lakachnu me'itam". There was no city that we did not take from them. I suggest that the difference between them is that Sichon was stronger than Og (after all, the Midrashim do go out of their way to mention how powerful and fortified his kingdom was). Therefore, the chidush that the pasuk delivers is that there was no city that was able to overpower them. That still leaves it to be interpreted whether or not Bnei Yisroel wiped them out on every front. But with regard to Og, the pasuk need not mention that there was no front on which Og won the battle, but that there wasn't even one city which B'nei Yisroel didn't take cleanly. It would seem that B'nei Yisroel had an easier time with Og than with Sichon. Just a ha'ara.
**********
A question that bothered me in this week's parsha was that in Perek 1 where Moshe speaks of the institution of the officers, he says that B'nei Yisroel answered him (1:14) "Tov hadavar asher dibarta". Good is that which you have said. He makes no mention of Yisro whatsoever. Wasn't this all Yisro's idea? How could Moshe take credit for an idea that was not his own? Any answers?
Have a good Shabbos and may we merit to see this month turn from "eivel" to Yom Tov and witness the coming of Moshiach and the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash bimheira beyameinu.
*Parshas Va'eschanan*
In the beginning of this week's Parsha (3:27) after Moshe prays to be allowed into Eretz Yisroel, HaShem rejects his request and tells him "Go up to the top of the mountain and raise your eyes West, North, South and East and see with your eyes for you will not cross the Jordan." What has bothered me for a couple of years now is that Moshe was standing on the Eastern border of Eretz Yisroel. Therefore, in order to see the land, he need only look West, North and South. Why did HaShem tell him to look East? R' Chaim Kunyevsky does deal with this question but I do not understand the answer he gives. A friend once showed me that Eliyahu Kitov, in Sefer HaParshios deals with this question. His answer was that HaShem showed Moshe the land of Israel and then showed him the subsequent Galus that Bnei Yisroel were to encounter, thus showing Moshe that this entrance would not be the ultimate entrance into Eretz Yisroel but that a galus would ensue. This answer does seem more on the homiletic side but it is interesting to note that HaShem told Moshe to look East last. This goes well with this pshat that Moshe was shown the galus after he was shown Eretz Yisroel. When HaShem showed Avraham the land, for instance, (Bereishis 13:14) he was told to look North and South and East and West. There must be a reason why the order is changed. According to this pshat, we have an answer to this as well.
**********
One of the favourite, and often entertaining forms of drashos is the Gematria, finding a significance in the numerical value of a word or group of words. The Steipler Rav devoted the back of his sefer, Birchas Peretz, to gematrias on the parsha that can blow the mind. We are not talking one word equaling another. We're talking time after time when a phrase in the Torah has equal numerical value to the phrase that Rashi uses to explain it. One of the rules of gematrias is that it is allowed to be off by one. What the deeper reason is for this, I do not know. However, the Shibolei HaLeket brings an amazing proof to this concept from the gemara. It is not only pertinent to this week's parsha, it is also connected to Tisha B'Av which we commemorated yesterday, hopefully for the last time. The reading for the morning, taken from this week's parsha, begins (4:25) "When you have children and grandchildren, and you dwell long in the land..." the pasuk goes on to explain that Bnei Yisroel will commit grave sins. And HaShem vows that Bnei Yisroel will subsequently be wiped out. The gemara (Gittin 88a and Sanhedrin 38a) learns from a pasuk in Daniel 9:14 "HaShem hastened the calamity and brought it upon us, for HaShem our God is just in all His deeds..." Is it because HaShem is just in all His deeds that he brought calamity upon us? The gemara explains that if Bnei Yisroel had dwelled in Eretz Yisroel for the numerical value of the word "venoshantem" (and you will dwell long), 852, then HaShem would have had to fulfill "avod tovedun", you shall surely perish. However, from the time that Bnei Yisroel entered Eretz Yisroel until they were exiled was only 850 years. HaShem graciously exiled us early so that we would not be doomed to being wiped out. The question is, if HaShem was being so gracious, why didn't he at least wait one more year? It must be, therefore, that 851 would have been considered the same as 852 and HaShem had to exile us two years before. From here we see that a gematria may be off by one.
**********
After receiving the Ten Utterances (not commandments), (5:23) Bnei Yisroel tell Moshe that he and only he should speak with HaShem, "for who has heard the voice of 'Elokim Chayim' speaking from within the fire like we have, and lived." Well, I ask, who ever heard the voice of HaShem and didn't live? What is the precedent for such a comment by Bnei Yisroel? It is clear that they assumed that such an experience leads to death. Where did they get that from. Somebody once told me, although I haven't seen the source, that the Kuzari tells of a nation who once claimed to have witnessed nationwide Divine revalation, something only the Jews have ever claimed. The next day, the entire nation died. I don't know if this answers the question, I don't even know when it happened, but it is interesting.
*Parshas Eikev*
In the beginning of the Parsha (7:15) we are promised "Vechol madvei Mitzrayim hara'im asher yadata lo yesimam bach", we will not be subjected to "madvei Mitzrayim hara'im". It seems that most of the meforshim explain it to mean the bad sicknesses of Mitzrayim. However, a careful examination of the notes in the pasuk suggest otherwise. The notes 'kadma' and 'azla' are often together and when they are, they join the two words. The notes 'kadma' and 'azla' appear on the words "Mitzrayim" and "ra'im". It would seem, therefore, that the word ra'im is describing Mitzrayim and it means the sicknesses of the bad Egyptians. This in fact, would seem to be the way that the Targumim (Onkelos, etc.) translate it.
Follow up: The following argument was sent to me by Ari Brodsky, a friend of mine who, as you can see, is well-read when it comes to trup (notes):
"I disagree with the suggestion from the te'amim. If I'm not mistaken, there is a telisha ketana on the word madvei. A telisha ketana is a mesharet, just as is the kadma. If I remember correctly from what I read in Rav Breuer's book Ta'amei Hamikra beKaf Alef Sefarim uveSifrei Eme"t, he explains that when you have the sequence telisha ketana - kadma - azla, there is no way to tell from the te'amim whether the word with the kadma is more closely connected to the word with the azla, or to the word with the telisha ketana. It could be either way. (I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with understanding it the way the Targumim do, I'm just saying that you can't prove it either way from the ta'amei hamikra in this case.)
I stand corrected.
**********
There are a number of interesting little differences between the first Parsha of Kriyas Shema which we read last week, and the second which we read this week. One of them is that in the first parsha, the mitzva of Kriyas Shema, "beshivt'cha beveisecha, uv'lechtecha vaderech" is written before the mitzva of Tefillin. It is the other way around in the second parsha. R' Chaim Kunyevsky, in his unique manner, offers a novel explanation. The Beiur Halacha in the beginning of siman 58 concludes that Kriyas Shema Kevasikin, i.e. at Alos HaShachar (dawn), takes precedence over davening with Tefillin. If you can do only one or the other, it is better to do Shema Kevasikin. Rashi has explained that the first Parsha is talking to a yachid, a single person and the second parsha is talking to the rabim, the general public. There is a gemara in Yoma 37b that says that a tzibbur does not have the ability to synchronize all together with kevasikin. Therefore, it is definitely suggested that the tzibbur daven in such a time where they would be putting on Tefillin. Therefore, the first parsha which refers to a yachid, puts Kriyas Shema first because for a yachid it takes precedence. But the second parsha speaks to the rabbim, so it puts Tefillin first for for them, it takes precedence.
*Parshas Re'eh*
The Parsha Begins "Re'eh anochi nosen lifneichem..." The obvious difficulty with this pasuk is that the word re'eh means "see" in the second person - singular. Lifneichem, however, means in front of you in the plural. There are a number of answers given to this problem. I would like to deliver the answer of the Chasam Sofer and Klei Yakar. They answer that the Torah is indeed talking to each individual. However, the importance and responsibility of keeping the mitzvos that each individual must take upon themselves spans much larger than the personal scale. The Gemara in Kiddushin 40b teaches us that one must always look at himself as if the entire world is half righteous and half guilty and the fate of the entire world rests on his shoulders. The next deed can turn the judgement of the entire world one way or the other. This is the lesson taught in the first pasuk of this week's parsha. Eveyone must view the world's merit of the blessings or of the curses, as if it depends on them alone.
*********
In this week's parsha, we are taught about the meisis, the one who tries to seduce another to idolatry, bring them to the Dark side, so to speak. The pasuk (13:9) says "Lo sove lo" Rashi interprets sove as the same root as ahava. He writes that even though we are taught "ve'ahavta le'reiacha kamocha", You shall give love to your neighbour as you do yourself, to this man, it does not apply. I had a question on this. The gemara in Sanhedrin 45a discusses the place where those who were to be stoned met their punishment. The first step was to push them off two stories down. The gemara asks why it was not simply 10 tefachim high? It seems that for some reason it would have been better that way. But the gemara answers that this would result in excessive pain and the Torah says "ve'ahavta le'reiacha kamocha", therefore, we must give him a more proper death. However, according to Rashi here, "ve'ahavta le'reiacha kamocha" does not apply to a meisis, so why do we not kill a meisis by pushing him off a ledge 10 tefachim high? I asked this question of a bochur in Ner Yisroel. He happened to have had the same question. He told me a friend of his answered from the gemara on 43b which states that he who is to be stoned does viduy, confession, before receiving the death penalty. It seems that even the meisis does this as well. Therefore, after he has confessed his sins, he may now be considered in the mitzvah of "ve'ahavta le'reiacha kamocha" where Rashi was referring to the proceedings beforehand.
**********
A question: The pasuk says (17:3) that you shall eat the Pesach and the Matzah... "So that you shall remember the day you left Mitzrayim all the days of your life." This pasuk is used as the basis for the daily requirements regarding the recitation of Shema. But Rashi interprets "Through the eating of the Pesach and Matzah you shall remember etc." Although this may reflect the simple reading of the pasuk, how then do we understand "kol yemei chayecha", all the days of your life? These mitzvos are only once a year. How will this make us remember "yetzias mitzrayim" all the days of our life?
**********
The pasuk in this week's haftara, (Yeshaya 55:1) says "Hoy kol tzame l'chu l'mayim", all who are thirsty, go to (drink) water. The gemara in Taanis 7a tells us that water here refers to Torah, that all who are thirsty shall go and learn Torah. The question is: Why is Torah compared to water? R' Chaim Kunyevsky, in Ta'ama D'kra explains: We are taught (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 204:7) that there is a distinct difference between water and all other food and drink. For all other food and drink, if they are eaten or drunk, they require a bracha no matter what, because under all circumstances, one derives a certain amount of pleasure from the food or drink. Water is different. One only makes a bracha on water if they are drinking it because they are thirsty. If they are drinking it in order to wash down food, it does not require a bracha because no pleasure is derived from it. Similarly, the only way to really fulfill one's self with Torah, is if you are thirsty for it. One who learns Torah without a genuine thirst for it, will simply not get out of it what he should.
At the end of the Shiva for the Rosh HaYeshiva zt"l, Rabbi Frand said over a similar thought from the Rosh HaYeshiva. Everybody will tell you that you are supposed to drink 6 cups of water every day. But who does it? Why not? Because we only drink water when we're thirsty. Even though we know it is best for us to drink more often, we will still only drink when we're thirsty.
R' Eli Wolf uses this idea to explain the gemara which comments that one of the sins which led to the destruction of the Bais HaMikdash was that "They did not make a bracha on the Torah first." Many commentaries are bothered how it is possible that they did not recite Birchas HaTorah. There are many explanations given. Perhaps, we could understand it now. Maybe what the gemara means is that they did not learn Torah out of thirst and thus, did not learn it in a manner that would require a bracha in the way that a bracha is required for water.
*Parshas Shoftim*
WARNING: The following Dvar Torah contains dikduk related material. Reader discretion is advised.
In the beginning of the Parsha (17:6), regarding the giving of capital punishment, the pasuk says "Al pi shnayim eidim...", that we require at least two witnesses. Later on, (19:15), regarding monetary matters, it states "Al pi shnei eidim...", again that two witnesses are required. Although the word 'shnayim' and 'shnei' both seem to mean '2', there is still a difference between the two. What is the difference, and why is one used over the other in each instance?
Netzi"v writes, in Hemek Davar, that 'shnei' means two identical objects whereas 'shnayim' doesn't mean 2, but rather a pair. In the Yerushalmi Sanhedrin, brought in the Rosh 23a, it says that if two witnesses give absolutely identical testimony, they must be checked out for something is a little suspicious. [It is told that the GR"A would disqualify witnesses who gave absolutely identical testimony based on a Mishna in Sanhedrin.] Therefore, with regards to capital cases, since there is a requirement to deeply investigate the witnesses (drisha vechakira), it says 'shnayim', because identical testimony is not accepted. But in monetary matters, where there is no requirement of 'dirsha vechakira', it says 'shnei', because they are allowed to be identical.
[I was once asked why when we count the omer we say 'shnei shavuos' or 'shnei yamim' instead of 'shvu'ayim' or 'yomayim'. I answered based on this pshat, that shvuayim or yomayim would mean a pair of weeks, or a pair of days and therefore, would not be a real counting of two and for the sfira, we require a genuine count.]
Mahari"l Diskin offers an alternate explanation. The word 'shnayim' means not only two, but two at the same time. Just as raglayim or yadayim refers to a presence of two hands or feet, shnayim means two together. Therefore, for capital matters, it says 'shnayim' because the two witnesses must be present together. Two witnesses who both see a crime, but don't see each other are not valid witnesses. This is referred to in the gemara as "eidus meyuchedes". However, for monetary matters, "eidus meyuchedes" is still valid. So the Torah wrote shnei instead of shnayim over there.
**********
In this week's parsha, we are taught more about the false prophet. The pasuk says (18:22) that a prophet who speaks in the name of HaShem, and it does not come true, this is the word that was not spoken by HaShem. In Rambam Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 10:4 we are taught that only one who prophecies about a good thing that does not come is deemed a false prophet. But someone who prophecies of the coming of a bad thing, and that bad thing does not come, he is not deemed a false prophet for perhaps tshuva was done and the bad decree was overturned. However, where is this hinted to in the pesukim in front of us? R' Chaim Kunyevsky offers an answer. In the Midrash Tanchuma - Tazria, and briefly in Tosafos Taanis 3a d"h 've`ilu', we learn that HaShem does not mention His name with the bad. That is, that when a prophecy is given about a bad thing, HaShem does not mention His name. Therefore the Torah says that a prophet who delivers a prophecy 'in My name', which can only be referring to something good, he is a false prophet. But any prophecy about a bad thing will not be in the name of HaShem.
*Parshas Ki Setze*
In this week's parsha, (23:5), we are told that an Amonite and Moavite are not allowed to come 'bekahal HaShem', that a convert from Amon or Moav may not marry into B'nei Yisroel. The reasons given are because they did not come forth with bread and water as we passed their land and for their hiring of Bilam to curse us. The question that is asked by many of the commentaries is that in 2:29, and particularly with the explanation of Rashi, it seems that Edom and Moav both provided B'nei Yisroel with bread and water, albeit with a price. Also, we do not see in the psukim anywhere that Amon had anything to do with the hiring of Bilam. There is much discussion amongst the commentaries concerning this question, too much to deal with at one time. I will focus on the answer of the Sma"g. He simply interprets the pasuk as giving one reason for each nation. The Amonites are forbidden to marry into our nation because they did not come forth with bread and water. The Moavites are forbidden for their involvement in the hiring of Bilam. The problem with this interpretation, however, is that in the Gemara Yevamos 76b we learn that women are excepted from this prohibition. We learn this because the reason of not having come forth with bread and water would not apply to women whose nature is not to come forth in that manner. It seems from there that this reason applies to both Amon and Moav, for it is specifically Moavites that are the subject of that Gemara. The way for the Sma"g to escape this problem is that it is not the nature of women to go out and hire, just like it is not their nature to go out and greet a nation. The only difficulty with this, of course, is that such a reasoning is not mentioned in the Gemara itself. Nevertheless, the Rashba in Yevamos interprets the gemara in accordance with the Sma"g.
Another interesting nuance in the pasuk is that the language used in the failure to bring bread and water is 'asher lo kidmu eschem', B'nei Yisroel are referred to in plural. But in the hiring of Bilam it states 'va'asher sachar alecha', referring to B'nei Yisroel in singular. I think that the explanation for this is that when Bilam was to curse B'nei Yisroel, it was to be done on the entire nation at once. Therefore, the nation is referred to in singular form. However, from the aforementioned gemara in Yevamos it seems that it was expected of the Amonites to come forth with the men giving food to the men, and the women to the women. Since they were expected to come and give individual attention to separate groups of B'nei Yisroel, they are referred to in the plural.
*Parshas Ki Savo*
In the fall of 1992, there was a fascinating article concerning this week's parsha written up in Tradition magazine by Rabbi Michael Broyde of Atlanta and Steven Weiner of Los Angeles. I will try to sum up the article as concisely as possible. The pasuk tells us (27:12) that the tribes of Shimon, Levi, Yehuda, Yissachar, Yosef and Binyomin stood on Har Grizim for the delivering of the bracha. Reuven, Gad, Asher, Zevulun, Dan and Naftali stood on Har Eival for the delivering of the klala. The gemara in Sotah 37a presents a quandary based on a pasuk in Yehoshua that seems to show that the Kohanim were in the middle of the two mountains. So how could they be said to have been on Har Grizim? The Gemara gives three different answers as to how the Kohanim were split up, some below, and some on the mountain. The answer that seems to be most dealt with amongst the meforshim is that those who were 'fit for work' were below with the Aron, and those who were not were above. Rashi learns this to refer to those above thirty while the Maharsh"a learns that it is referring to b'nei Kehas who were in charge of the Aron.
Now, in dividing the tribes between two mountains, there are 462 different ways to make such a division [12!/2(6!6!)]. Broyde and Weiner point out a fascinating fact. Taking the most recent census data that we are given in the Torah and dealing with the answer of the gemara that we have discussed, if you examine every single possible formation of the tribes, the actual formation of the tribes is the absolute most even division of the tribes possible. That is, the difference in population between the two mountains is at a minimum with this formation. [I personally wrote a computer program to test it out and it worked. In the article, they include a list of all possible combinations and their respective differences.] What is even more fascinating, is that this works out for both Rashi and the Maharsh"a. And what may be the most fascinating of all is that according to the Maharsh"a, the population on Har Grizim would have been 307,929 and that of Har Eival 307,930. No, that's not a typo. That is a difference of 1! According to both, this is by far the most even division of the tribes. The next step is what to do with such an impressive observation. What does this tell us? I will leave that for the reader to decide. [In the article, they suggest a parallel to that which we are taught (and as previously quoted in the weekly Shtikle), that one should always look at the world as if it were half righteous and half guilty and the judgement of the entire world is dependent on him.] But for what it's worth, it is surely an intriguing observation on its own.
**********
B'nei Yisroel are commanded (27:4) that after they cross the Yarden they are to set down the rocks on Har Eival, etc. In the gemara Sanhedrin 44a, R' Shaila learns that Yehoshua did not act accordingly as the pasuk instructs to perform this ceremony immediately after crossing the Yarden but he travelled for 60 mil. Tosafos asks the obvious question. B'nei Yisroel were clearly commanded to do all this on Har Grizim and Har Eival. Is it Yehoshua's fault that these mountains were 60 mil from the Yarden? Tosafos puts together a rather creative answer. In the gemara Sotah 33b there is a dispute between R' Yehuda and R' Elazar. R' Yehuda holds that Har Grizim and Eival were far away from the Yarden while R' Elazar holds that they were right next to it. Tosafos explains that R' Elazar holds that there were two sets of mountains and that they carried out the commandment on the closer one. The Yerushalmi says that according to R' Elazar, they made two mountains by themselves upon crossing the Yarden and called one Grizim and one Eival. Tosafos explains that R' Shaila here is of the opinion that what B'nei Yisroel were commanded to do follows R' Elazar's interpretation. But what they in fact did follows R' Yehuda's interpretation and that is why Yehoshua is rebuked for having delayed 60 mil.
*Parshas Netzavim*
There is a well known concept, said in the name of the GR"A, that every parsha of sefer Dvarim corresponds to a century in our current millenium, the 5000's. When the GR"A was asked where he is hinted to in the Torah, he cited the pasuk "Even sheleima..." (25:15) a pasuk in Ki Setze, the parsha corresponding to the 5500's, the century in which he lived. Parshas Ki Savo deals with many difficult times to befall Klal Yisroel. It is therefore not a coincidence that many tragedies befell the Jewish people in the 5600's. The pogroms in Russia and Word War I were both in that century. And the seeds of World War II were sown before the century was done. But Netzavim and Vayelech, which represent our current century show signs of a new hope for Klal Yisroel. While the parsha opens with what seems to be the tail end of the 'tragedies' of Ki Savo, perhaps hinting to the Holocaust at the beginning of the century, the pesukim then go on to (which is why it always falls out right before Rosh HaShana) speak of teshuva and then the ultimate geula. In our day we have certainly witnessed a great rise in Torah study in Eretz Yisroel and abroad and the tremendous surge of the Ba'al Tshuva movement. This week's parshios also make mention of the ultimate Geula. This brings us to an interesting pshat from Netzi"v in Hemek Davar. Pasuk 30:3 reads: "Veshav HaShem Elokecha es shevuscha verichamecha, veshav vekibetzcha mikol ha'amim..." To translate loosely, HaShem will return our captives and have mercy upon us, and will return and gather us from amongst all the nations... What Netzi"v is bothered by is the appearance of the word 'veshav' twice. It need only be mentioned once at the beginning of the pasuk. He explains, based on a Ramban in Shir HaShirim, that the ultimate redemption will present itself in two stages. The first stage is a slight ingathering of exiles granted by the nations. The second stage is the ultimate ingathering when all of Klal Yisroel will be brought together from the nations to which they had been exiled. It is certainly not farfetched to suggest that the goings on at the beginning of this century correspond to those hinted to in the first stage. Whether it is or it isn't, the second stage is surely still yet to come and that is what we must strive for.
*Parshas Veyelech*
In pasuk 31:8, Moshe is giving Yehoshua words of encouragement upon his taking over of Moshe's position. The pasuk ends off "Lo sira velo seichas". In pasuk 1:21, Moshe commands B'nei Yisroel, with regards to their seemingly imminent conquer of Eretz Yisroel, "Al tira ve'al teichas". Now it seems that both pesukim are commands that you shall not fear and not worry. But although both the word 'lo' and 'al' seem to indicate a 'don't' command, there is surely a difference between the two. It would seem that the word 'al' can only be interpreted as the command 'don't'. The word 'lo', however, can take on the form of a command, as in "lo tirtzach", thou shalt not murder. But it can also take on the form of a promise that something will not happen. Perhaps the clearest example of this is 1:42 where HaShem commands B'nei Yisroel not to go up and fight following the incident with the spies. HaShem says "Lo sa'alu". The simple reading is clearly "do not go up!" However, Rashi brings a drasha "Lo aliya tehe lachem", it WILL NOT be a rise for you. Here we see clearly that the word 'lo' can mean both a command and a promise, even at the same time. Perhaps in our parasha, Yehoshua is not only being told not to fear, but he is also being promised that he will have nothing to fear. Why this pasuk must differ from the one in Parshas Devarim, however, I do not know.
*Parshas Ha'azinu*
At the end of this week's parsha, Moshe is told to go to the mountain where he is to pass away. The pasuk gives the reason why he is dying here (32:51): "Al asher me`altem bi... al asher lo kidashtem osi", (Concerning the rock-hitting incident) because of that which you trespassed against me... that which you did not sanctify me. Why is it that two reasons are given? The GR"A, in Pirkei Avos 3:1, "lifnei mi ata atid litein din vecheshbon" writes that din, judgement, refers to the judgement of a person's deeds. Cheshbon, calculation, refers to what that person could have been doing at that time. So one is judged not only for their bad deeds, but for the good deeds they could have been doing at that time. This, says the Meshech Chachma, is the meaning of this pasuk. "Al asher me`altem bi" refers to the din, that which they did. "Al asher lo kidashtem osi" refers to the cheshbon, the judgement on what they could have done at that time, that had Moshe not hit the rock, there would have been a Kiddush HaShem.
The Meshech Chachma explains in the end of Parshas Netzavim that this concept is a very important one to keep in mind on Yom Kippur. The gemara in Yoma 20a says that the gematria of 'HaSatan' is 364, to hint that every day of the year the Satan is allowed to do his 'work'. But on one day of the year, Yom Kippur, he is not. This day is set aside to allow us to do a full tshuva without having to battle the Satan. When we say the 'shehecheyanu' bracha at the beginning of Yom Kippur, we must say it with total and utter happiness, in appreciation of this opportunity that HaShem has given us. But if we don't use this time to do tshuva, the time that HaShem has specifically set aside for tshuva, how much greater of a transgression it is, that we have actively rejected this opportunity.
I don't think I will have time to send out a special piece for Yom Kippur so this will have to do. Have a good Shabbos and a Gmar Chasima Tova.
*Parshas Vezos HaBerachah*
See Simchas Torah.
Chazak, Chazak, veNischazek!
Rosh HaShanah | Tzom Gedalya | Shabbos Shuva | Yom Kippur | Succos | Koheles | Shemini Atzeres | Simchas Torah | Shekalim | Zachor | Purim | Parah | Leil Seder | Pesach | Sefiras HaOmer | Yom HaAtzmaut | Yom Yerushalayim | Shavuos | Tisha B'Av | Elul | Machar Chodesh
*Rosh HaShanah*
Last night, R' Eli Wolf gave his annual halacha shiur on Rosh HaShana. The following are a few important halachos he discussed. Firstly, there is a song that everybody knows "Dip the apple in the honey, say a bracha loud and clear." Well, I appologize if I am spoiling anybody's childhood but the song is probably wrong. We (Ashkenazim and Sefardim alike) paskin (Orach Chayim 211:1) that as far as the order of what food to recite a bracha on, if we have in front of us two fruit of identical bracha, i.e. ha'eitz, and one is from the "shiv'a minim" e.g. dates or pomegranates, the bracha is to be recited on the fruit from the "shiv'a minim", not on the one that is more favoured. Therefore, if one has dates or pomegranates on the table, which we usually do on Rosh HaShana night, the 'ha'eitz' is to be recited on one of those (the date preferably) rather than the apple.
**********
The next topic is the 'shehecheyanu' made on the second night. There is a discussion as to whether a 'shehecheyanu' is necessary on the second night so the custom is to have something new like a suit on which to have the 'shehecheyanu' take effect. Some use another new fruit. If this is done, then contrary to popular opinion, the fruit should be eaten immediately after Kiddush and not after Hamotzi. The washing of the hands and eating of bread creates an additional unnecessary 'hefsek' which is easily avoided by eating the fruit after Kiddush. Nevertheless, to avoid problems with 'bracha acharona' less than a k'zayis and not a complete fruit should be eaten. R' Wolf goes on to tell how every year people come up to him and tell him that it's not true and we don't do that nowadays and the poskim don't say so. So last year he gave someone a sheet of paper. On one side was 20 poskim who supported his side (Tshuvos veHanhagos, Riv'vos Ephraim, Mateh Ephraim, Machatzis HaShekel to name a few) and the other side was for him to fill out. He has not received the paper yet. So it sounds like the poskim concur that the fruit should be eaten before washing of the hands.
**********
Whether or not to repeat benching if Ya'ale ve'Yavoh is forgotten is a complicated issue on Rosh HaShana. I will try to sum up briefly. The halacha is that any time one is eating because they have an obligation to, if they forget to mention the 'reason they have to' i.e. Retze or Ya'ale ve'Yavo, they must go back such as the first two meals on Shabbos and Yom Tov. On Rosh HaShana, there are some who say that fasting is permissible during the day. Although we do not hold like them, since there is not a definite obligation to eat a meal, one need not repeat benching. The night is more complicated. One must eat at night but there is a reasoning not to have to go back still. Nevertheless, it is to the agreement of nearly all the poskim, except R' Moshe Shternbuch in Tshuvos veHanhagos, that one should go back if they forgot Ya'ale ve'Yavo.
R' Wolf concluded that these halachos are by no means of grave importance such that severe consequences will befall those who do not adhere to them. Nevertheless, they are important in that they are not well known. And on a day like Rosh HaShana, it is surely a time not to settle for second best when it comes to kiyum haMitzvos.
*Tzom Gedalya*
On Monday we have a fast day commemorating the assassination of Gedalia ben Achikam, the last leader of the Jews of Eretz Yisroel after the destruction of the first temple after which the galus became complete. Yirmiya 41 recounts that Gedalia was murdered by Yishmael ben Nesanya. However, we are only told that it happened on the seventh month, Tishrei, but not which day of the seventh month. The Beis Yosef (Orach Chaim, end of siman 549) brings from R' Yerucham that it happened on Rosh HaShana but the fast is pushed off to the day after Rosh HaShana. However, the gemara in Rosh HaShana 18b seems to say clearly that he was murdered on the 3rd of Tishrei. R' Chayim Kunyevsky in Limchase Atik is bothered by this as well but he does not give an answer. The truth is, it doesn't really make that much of a difference one way or the other. I just thought it was interesting.
*Shabbos Shuva*
Since we ended off 5759 with halacha, I figured why not start off 5760 with halacha as well. This Shabbos, the haftara will begin from Hoshea with the fitting words "Shuva Yisroel, ad HaShem elokecha", Return, Israel, unto HaShem your God. The exerpt from Hoshea ends "Ki yeshorim darchei HaShem, vetzadikim yelchu bam, uposh'im yikashlu bam." Just are the ways of HaShem, the righteous shall go by them, and the rebellious ones shall stumble upon them. This is a bad note on wish to end and there is a concept that we do not end off a reading on a bad note, especially on Shabbos Shuva. Tosafos in Megilla 31b say that we add a piece from Yoel. But Abudraham says that we add from Micha. The Elya Rabba writes that the minhag is to read from both. However, in most chumashim the order is Hoshea-Micha-Yoel. The problem with this is the halacha we find in Orach Chaim 144:1. In the Torah we are not allowed to skip from one topic to another. In Navi we are allowed to skip from one topic to another but not from one Navi (i.e. sefer) to another. In Trei Asar, since it is one unit, we are allowed to skip from one Navi to another. However, the Magen Avraham (144:4) writes that to skip backwards is not allowed, even in Trei Asar. The jump from Micha to Yoel is indeed a backward jump. Therefore, the Likutei Maharich writes that one who does like Elya Rabba should read from Yoel and then Micha. Such is the minhag in Ner Yisroel.
However, the Noda BiYehuda writes in Dagul MeR'vava (428:8) that this is not the proper practice. But rather that the psukim in Micha are more relevant to the pesukim in VaYelech ("Veheishiv la'ad apo" versus "vechara api") and the psukim from Yoel, which speak of rain, are in correlation with Ha'azinu which begins "Ya'arof kamatar (rain) likchi". That is why the Micha excerpt was printed before that of Yoel, because Micha corresponds to VaYelech which comes before Ha'azinu. And the proper custom would then be to add on only Micha when Shabbos Shuva is Vayelech, and to add Yoel only when Shabbos Shuva is Ha'azinu as it is this year.
Finally, R' Moshe Feinstein is of the opinion, like the Noda BiYehuda, that only one of the two should be read. But he has a different calculation. When the Haftara is being read from parchment, Yoel should be read because it comes right after Hoshea and therefore will constitute less of a wait for the congregation which could be problematic if we had to wait until we got to Micha. However, if the Haftara is being read from a Tanach or a sefer of Haftaros, since the switch is much simpler, for you can easily keep your place, it is advisable to read from Micha which is shorter and more on the topic. The important conclusion is that it doesn't seem that any of the poskim say it should be done in the order that it appears in the chumashim.
*Succos*
"And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of the Hadar tree, branches of palm trees and the boughs of thick-leaved trees and willows of the brook" (Vayikra 23:40) The Midrash Rabba in Vayikra Rabba 30 delves into the symbolism behind the esrog, lulav, hadasim and aravos that we take every year on Succos. In 30:12, the Midrash speaks of the Arba Minim symbolizing different traits among B'nei Yisroel. The esrog, which has smell and taste, is likened to those who have smell and taste, i.e. those who have Torah and Ma'asim Tovim, good deeds. The lulav comes from a date tree. The date tree has taste but no smell. This is like the man who has Torah but no Ma'asim Tovim. The hadas has a smell but no taste, corresponding to the man who has Ma'asim Tovim but not Torah. The aravos, which have neither taste nor smell, represent the man of neither Torah nor Ma'asim Tovim.
The Midrash's choice to refer to Torah with taste and to good deeds with smell is surely not coincidental. There must be a significant meaning behind it. A chaver from the kollel in Ner Yisroel explained it as follows. Taste is surely a more fulfilling sense than smell. It satiates and satisfies whereas smell often leads only to the desire to taste. Likewise, Torah is a more fulfilling trait. It is demanded of us to show proper respect for the man of Torah for his stature is paramount. But like taste, it is a trait that must be experienced at close range, with direct contact, just as taste requires you to actually have the food and place it in your mouth.
Good deeds are different. Just as an object with a pungent smell may be sensed from across the room, a good deed may be sensed from a far distance. If someone, for example, holds the door open for someone, everyone around sees it. Good deeds are sensed by all in the vicinity, just as smell has this power to affect a great many at one time. In a nutshell, Torah must be "tasted", but good deeds can be "smelled". [A more comprehensive and better written version of this shtikle will soon be available on www.tfdixie.com . The article is by Ariel Shoshan.]
I would like to add two more points, other possible meanings behind these comparisons. Firstly, it is known that the sense of taste requires the sense of smell to aid it. If one plugs his nose, it becomes much harder to taste. But you don't need a tongue to smell. Likewise, if a person has Ma'asim Tovim but no Torah, at least his Ma'asim Tovim can exist by themselves. But one who has Torah but not Ma'asim Tovim, even his Torah is affected and surely hindered by his lack of midos. This is the exact message of the Mishna in Pirkei Avos (3:12) "He would say: One whose good deeds exceed his wisdom, his wisdom will endure. One whose wisdom exceeds his good deeds, his wisdom will not endure."
Secondly, it is interesting to note that the object of good smell is the hadas. It is the hadas itself that smells good. The object referred to as having good taste is the lulav. It is not the lulav itself which tastes good but rather the fruit from the tree from which it came. Perhaps this can be a symbol that the one who has good deeds, his deeds are sensed up front. His lack of Torah does not present a lack in his good deeds. But one who has Torah but not good deeds, his Torah becomes hidden and not sensed due to his lack of midos. This is a little bit like the other explanations but I thought this point of the lulav not actually tasting was an interesting one.
*Shemini Atzeres / Koheles*
It is customary to read Megillas Koheles on Shabbos Chol HaMoed Succos. However, since this year there is no Shabbos Chol HaMoed, it is read on Shmini Atzeres. The megila deals with the futilities of man in his daily toils under the sun. Each of the megilos has its own reason why it is read in its particular time. There are various ways in which Koheles is applicable to Succos. Perhaps the most accepted one is that Succos is a time of great happiness and joy and it is easy for one to lose himself and become lightheaded in the midst of all the celebration. Koheles therefore reminds us that all is futile. And in his final statement, he asserts that the essence of Man is only to fear HaShem and to perform his mitzvos. All else is futile.
In "Shelter Amongst the Shadows", R' Moshe Eisemann of Ner Yisroel explores the different themes of Koheles and various applications to Succos. One of the main themes of Koheles is "Ein chadash tachas hashemesh", that nothing is new under the sun. "Tachas hashemesh" is used constantly in Koheles to represent Man's daily toils in the physical world, excluding those of the spiritual world, the world of Torah, which is 'above the sun'. Succos comes right after the tense period of the Aseres Yemei Teshuva where we have risen to new heights spiritually. These accomplishments need to be sheltered and protected. The Succah gets its name from the schach that is its covering (Rashi Succah 2a). It represents a gathering in of the spiritual achievements of the Yomim Noraim, shielding them from the sun, tachas hashemesh, protecting it from the world of physicality.
In the end of Perek 7, Koheles is in search of the worthy man, free of sin. Pasuk 28 says: "Adam echad me'elef motzosi. ve'isha bechol eileh lo motzosi." I have found one man in a thousand. And a women in all of these I have not found. R' Chaim Kunyevsky has a startling ha'ara on this pasuk. It is not one that 'brings down the house' so to speak. But it clearly shows you the difference between when a hedyot, a simple man, reads a pasuk and when a talmid chacham does so. If we were to look at this pasuk statistically, one would say that the ratio of worthy men is 1:1000 and of worthy women is 0. Not so, says R' Chaim Kunyevsky. In no place do we ever find the word "adam" referring only to males. It refers to Man as a species. Therefore, we must view the 1000 as being a mixture of men and women, presumably an even mixture of 500 and 500. Koheles therefore tells us that one in a thousand are worthy. And within this thousandth, he found no women. Although this doesn't change the state of the women, it does change the ratio of worthiness for the men. Instead of a 1:1000 worthiness ratio, according to R' Chaim Kunyevsky's interpretation of the pasuk, it is 1:500.
*Simchas Torah*
On every other Yom Tov, the parsha next in line is not read. Rather, a section of the Torah which is connected to the Yom Tov is read. On Pesach we read about Yetzias Mitzrayim. On Shavuos we read about Matan Torah. Simchas Torah, however, seems at first glance not to follow suit. We read V'zos HaBracha, the next and last parsha in line. Why is Simchas Torah different?
The answer is, of course, that Simchas Torah is not different. V'zos HaBracha has its connections to Simchas Torah as well. In fact, we find in the gemara Megilla 31a that even when the Torah was read in a three year cycle, V'zos HaBracha was still read on the last day of Yom Tov. Abudarham writes that the reason why V'zos HaBracha is read on Simchas Torah is because that was the time that Shlomo HaMelech would bless the nation as seen in Melachim I 8:14. Therefore, we read V'zos HaBracha which includes Moshe's blessing of the tribes before his passing. Meshech Chachma offers a different answer. The time of Shmini Atzeres is a special time for B'nei Yisroel. Over Succos we bring 70 korbanos corresponding to the 70 nations. Succos holds some significance for the other nations. But Shmini Atzeres symbolizes HaShem's special love for B'nei Yisroel, asking them to stay behind for just one more day as it were (see Rashi Vayikra 23:36). So it is on this day that we read of HaShem's giving the Torah to Bnei Yisroel. The pesukim at the beginning of the parsha (33:2) "vezorach mi'Seir lamo, hofia meihar Paran", according to Rashi, refer to HaShem's offering of the Torah to the other nations and they did not accept it. Just as Shmini Atzeres symbolizes our separation from all other nations, so too, the beginning of V'zos HaBracha illustrates how we differ from all other nations.
Another interesting discussion is found with regards to the haftara on Simchas Torah. The gemara in Megilla 31a says that we read from "Vaya'amod Shlomo" (Melachim I 8). However, the minhag is to read from the beginning of Yehoshua. Tosafos address this problem. First they suggest that it is a mistake. Then they bring that Rav Hai Gaon changed it, but we don't know why. Meshech Chachma suggests that the gemara is talking within the three year system. That is, that the Torah would not be completed every Simchas Torah. Therefore, only "Vaya'amos Shlomo" would be applicable. But now that we finish the Torah every year, we read from the beginning of Yehoshua to show the continuity from Torah into Navi, that the Torah continues on.
The Torah ends off praising the accomplishments of Moshe Rabeinu. The last words are "Asher asa Moshe l'eini kol Yisroel." Rashi says that this is referring to the breaking of the luchos. It seems odd, that of all the praises of Moshe Rabeinu, that this would be the ultimate praise with which to end the Torah. I offer the following explanation. All the other missions on which Moshe was sent, one can argue that he simply did what he was told, with the instruction and the aid of HaShem. Surely, it was Moshe's greatness that earned him such a role. But the onlooker might have room to reason that Moshe was put in that position. This is not the case, however, with the breaking of the luchos. The breaking of the luchos was Moshe's decision on his own. HaShem did not tell him to do it. But Rashi stresses that after he did it, HaShem said "Yiyasher kochacha sheshibarta". HaShem congratulated Moshe on his decision. This episode proves that Moshe was at the level to make his own decision that was in accordance with the retzon HaShem. This, therefore, is his ultimate accomplishment.
*Parshas Shekalim*
This week being Parshas Shekalim, I figured I would put in a little something for Shekalim. Rashi (30:13) writes that Moshe was shown a coin in the form of fire and was told "this they shall give". My Rebbe from Ohr Yerushalayim, Rav Greenwald, explained the symbolism behind this as follows. Fire is distinct in that it holds within it the power to be very destructive. However, at the same time, if fire is used in the right way, it can actually be very constuctive, both physically e.g. baking and pottery and spiritually, e.g burning the korbanos. It is this duality that is found in money as well. Money, when utilized in the wrong manner leads to power, greed and corruption. However, when money is used in the right way, tzedaka, for example, the Shekel HaKodesh for another, it is a perpetuator of good.
*Parshas Zachor*
This week is also Parshas Zachor. This week we fulfill the mitzva of Mitzvas Zechiras Amalek, to remember what Amalek did to us. Regarding this mitzva, the Chasam Sofer brings a gemara in Berachos, (58b) regarding aveilus, that the prerequisite timespan for forgetting is 12 months. He suggests, based on this, that perhaps in a leap year situation where there will be 13 months between the reading of Parshas Zachor to the next, that one should have specific kavana in Parshas Ki Setze to fulfill the mitzva of Zechiras Amalek. The Mahara"m Shi"k writes that the Chasam Sofer's custom was to do so. However, the Chasam Sofer himself ends up saying that one need not do so. Either way, it occurred to me that this may even apply to a year which is not a leap year. This year would be just such an example. Last year, Purim was on Thursday so Parshas Zachor was read on the 9th of Adar. This year, Purim is on Tuesday so Parshas Zachor will be read on the 11th of Adar, more than twelve months after the last reading. If we were to require specific kavana in the leap year situation and it should apply here as well. Nevertheless, we need not do so, so it doesn't really matter. I later heard, though, that R' Mordechai Willig of YU and the aforementioned R' Eli Wolf had the same thought. Baruch shekivanti.
*Purim*
Rashi and Radak note in Hoshea that B'nei Yisroel rejected three things in the days of Rechavam. Amongst them was Malchus Beis David. The Chasam Sofer (Darshos page 169) notes that the word Yehudi is a reference to Malchus Beis David. In the beginning of the Megilla, Bnei Yisroel were living rather peacefully under the rule of Paras and Madai and lost interest in Malchus Beis David and Eretz Yisroel. Had they been truly yearning for its return, surely they would not have taken part in Achashveirosh's party. But they did. And therefore, they are not referred to as Yehudim but rather "kol ha'am hanimtze'im". Mordechai, however, truly yearned for the return of Malchus Beis David. That is why the pasuk goes out of its way to refer to him as "ish Yehudi" even though he was from shevet Binyomin. The purpose of the party was to show that Malchus Beis David was over and done with and that the Jews would be ruled by Achashveirosh forever. Therefore, Mordechai did not attend the party as a statement to his brothers that they not give up on the return of the Beis HaMikdash and Malchus Beis David. Later in the megilla, we do in fact see the Jews referred to as Yehudim. Mordechai made an influence.
Surely, in these times, in light of the turmoil we are witnessing in Eretz Yisroel, HaShem has unfortunately made it very easy for us to realize the terrible consequences of the Jews being ruled by a body other than Malchus Beis David. This should serve as a strengthening for our constant yearning for the return of the Beis Hamikdash and Malchus Beis David and the bias goel bimhera b'yamenu. Amen.
**********
Purim Torah: Shabbos Chapter 2, Mishna 1 reads "Ein madlikim b'chelev Nachum", one may not light the Shabbos candles with Nachum's fat. The question is, why did the Rabanan impose a restriction on Nachum's fat. The story is that when B'nei Yisroel were leaving Egypt, there was a man named Nachum who was a candle seller. After Makas Bechoros, he realized that the next year he could make a killing of Yahrtzeit candles from the Egyptians. So he stayed in Egypt and did not go out with Bnei Yisroel. Therefore, the Chachamim prohibited use of his candles for Shabbos. The proof to this is in the pasuk at the beginning of Parshas Beshalach: "Vayehi beshalach Paroah es ha'am ve'lo Nachum." And it was when Paroah sent out the nation, but not Nachum.
(DISCLAIMER: The preceding is bogus so don't try telling it over as emes. See the actual flow of the mishna in Shabbos to see why.)
*Parshas Parah*
The Shulchan Aruch says (OC 146:2 and 685:7) that both Parshas Zachor and Parshas Parah are Biblical obligations. The source for this seems to be a variety of Rishonim in Brachos 13a. Many Acharonim (Ba"ch, Magen Avraham, GR"A) however, say that this is based on an error and in fact only Zachor is "d'oraisa". A number of later Acharonim, however, suggested justifications for such an obligation. Malbi"m, in his sefer Artzos HaChaim, as well as the Torah Temimah suggests that we see from Rashi in the beginning of Chukas that the Parah Adumah was an atonement for the Golden Calf. In Parshas Eikev (Devarim 9:7) the pasuk says "Zachor al tishkach es asher hiktzafta es HaShem elokecha bamidbar." The Torah Temimah and Malbim learn that this is a reference to a Biblical obligation to remember the sin of the Golden Calf which is materialized through the reading of Parshas Parah.
R' Yaakov Kaminetzky, in Emes L'Yaakov questions this in Parshas Chukas for if we were to be commanded to remember the Golden Calf, why not remember it with a direct reference rather than an allegorical allusion. In Eikev, he points out that this pasuk does not even refer to the Golden Calf for it is the psukim that follow that refer to the Golden Calf. Rather, he learns that the pasuk refers to Marah (Parshas Beshalach) where Bnei Yisroel complained about the bitter waters and HaShem sent a piece of wood which Moshe put in the waters and sweetened them. Chazal teach us that there we were given the Parsha of Parah. The purpose of this was to show us how things don't need to be logical in the world of Torah, that the word of HaShem is to be followed because it is the word of HaShem, where there is a reason or not. This was the lesson to be taken out of the episode of Marah, where a bitter stick thrown into bitter water made the water sweet, an event which on the surface made no sense. It is this that we are commanded to remember in Eikev and therefore, we read Parshas Parah to remind us of the incident in Marah and the lessons we are to take out of it.
The Aruch HaShulchan (OC 685) gives his own source for the Biblical obligation for Parshas Parah. In the Parsha, the term "Chukas olam" is used twice. On the first instance, the Sifrei learns that it is to teach us that the ashes of the Parah may be used forever, even if there is no Beis HaMikdash. The Aruch HaShulchan posits that the second instance must be a reference to the reading of the Parshah and that's why we read it every year.
*Leil Seder*
In the Haggadah, we discuss the four sons and how they approach the Seder night. The Rasha is called a "kofer be'ikar" because he has removed himself from the group as reflected by the word "lachem", implying that the avoda is not for him. The question that is dealt with by many is that the Chacham, too, in his question, uses a similar language when he asks "Ma haeidus... asher tziva... 'eschem'", seemingly implying that the laws do no apply to him. Considering this, how, in fact, do the Rasha and the Chacham differ?
There are a number of answers to this question:
1) Gr"a points out that the Chacham adds in the words "HaShem Elokeinu", therefore including himself in the group. The Rasha, however, makes no mention of HaShem at all. Gr"a supports this with a beautiful explanation of a pasuk in Koheles which I will not go into here.
2) The Chacham and Tam ask questions, as the pesukim say "ki yish'alcha bincha leimor". Furthermore, the term 'leimor' implies a desire for an answer. The Rasha, however, does not ask but only states as the pasuk says "ki yomru". He is not interested in the answer and is only making a statement. (Aruch HaShulchan, Malbi"m, Meshech Chachma)
3) Klei Yakar notes, in the parshios of the Chacham and Tam we see the term 'machar', which in its simplest elucidation would mean in the future. This may be interpreted, though, to mean tomorrow literally, that the Chacham and Tam do first and ask later, following the path of "na'ase venishma". This course of action, says She'eris Menachem, is reflected at the end of Maggid when we say "Matza zo she'anu ochlim, al shum ma?". We are not asking why do we eat the Matza but rather the Matza that we eat - what is it for? The Rasha, though, doesn't talk 'machar' but rather objects right away. There seems to be another support to this concept of machar found in the 'Eino yodeia lishol'. There, too, the word 'machar' is not mentioned but rather the instruction is "bayom hahu", on that day. The reason here, according to our interpretation of machar, is because at the present moment the 'Eino yodeia lishol' is ignorant and does not to do anything on his own. Therefore, the pasuk warns you not to wait until tomorrow but rather to educate the 'Eino yodeia lishol' right away.
4) A very interesting nuance in this discussion is found in a number of versions of this excerpt of the Haggadah. In the Yerushalmi, the question asked by the Chacham is "Ma haeidos vehachukim... asher tziva... **osanu**". The Mechilta also has such a version as well as a girsa in the Rambam's Haggadah. The obvious difficulty is that this is not the wording used by the pasuk. However, the Da'as Zekainim miBa'alei Tosafot in Devarim 6:20 comment that the Chacham is not really removing himself from the group but the reason he uses the word eschem is because he is asking people who were commanded directly from HaShem whereas he was not. Therefore the word eschem connotes the generation gap between the father and the son. [A slight difficulty with this interpretation, however, is that the pasuk appears in Devarim after the 40 years in the dessert. None of the men to whom Moshe was speaking would have received the commandment directly in Egypt nor at Sinai unless they were under 20 at the time.] With this interpretation we can understand that the pasuk refers only to the son whose father heard the mitzvos directly. The Chacham of the ages, however, shares with his father that same masoretic gap and therefore the word eschem would not be used by the Chacham. The aforementioned versions of the four sons, who speak of the Chacham of the ages, therefore inserted the word osanu instead of eschem.
**********
Halacha: The obligation to repeat Birkas HaMazon on Shabbos when one has fogotten "Retze" stems from the fact that there is an obligation to have a seuda on Shabbos. Therefore, this BH is one of an obligation and it is necessary to go back and repeat it correctly. In Seuda Shelishis however, since one may fulfill his obligation without eating bread, he need not repeat BH because it did not stem from an obligatory meal. HaRav Bergman, son-in-law of Rav Shach writes in Shaarei Orah that R' Shach questioned what the halacha would be concerning the Al HaGefen blessing following the four cups, if one forgot to mention Pesach. Since here there is an obligation to drink the wine, perhaps one must repeat it if he forgot to mention Pesach. What bothered me about this question is that Rem"a writes in OC 483 that one may fulfill his obligation with "chamar medina" which would result only in a "Borei nefashos". Then the halacha concerning the wine should be exactly like that of Seuda Shelishis. However, a careful reading of the words of the Rem"a shows that it appears his halacha may only apply in a case where one has no wine but if one has wine, chamar medina is not enough. Therefore, the wine, when it is there, is an obligation. (This may raise an interesting question regarding those who have wine but don't like it.) Nevertheless, what we do see is that one should be careful to mention Pesach so as not to fall into this situation of uncertainty.
[From the beginning until 4) was from Rabbi B. Ginsburg, a rebbe of mine from Ohr Yerushalayim. From 4) and on was from Eli Wolf.]
*Pesach*
R' Yaakov Kaminetzky in Emes L'Yaakov (Shemos 12:10) asks the following questions:
1)The pasuk (Shemos 12:18) says that you shall eat Matza from the 14th in the eve until the 21st in the eve. In Vayikra, (23:32) in reference to Yom Kippur, the pasuk implies that the fast may begin on the ninth day of Tishrei. The gemara in Berachos (8b) and Rosh HaShanah (9a) pick up on this difficulty and explain the pasuk's meaning. However, asks Tosafos in Berachos, nothing is mentioned with regards to the pasuk of Pesach.
2)The gemara in Kiddushin 37a assumes that the term "mimochoras haPesach" used in Yehoshua denotes the 16th day of Nissan. Tosafos there ask in the name of Ibn Ezra that in Bemidbar 33:3 the pasuk says that Bnei Yisroel went out "mimochoras haPesach", clearly referring to the 15th, the day after the slaughtering of the Pesach. How then do we know that in Yehoshua we are referring to the 16th?
3)In the Haggadah, following the four sons we ask "Yachol meRosh Chodesh... Bayom hahu - yachol mibe'od yom..." The Haggadah suggests that the word Bayom Hahu may imply that the mitzva is to begin from before Yom Tov. We reject this by showing that the mitzva is to be done when Matza and Maror are placed in front of you. R' Yaakov asks, how does this in fact satisfy the condition of "bayom hahu" if it is the next day already?
R' Yaakov answers all three of these questions with a concept that is suggested by the Sefer HaMiknah on Kiddushin. He suggests that although now according the Jewish calendar has the day following the night, before Matan Torah the night followed the day i.e. the calendar day began at day break. This answers all the questions as follows:
1) The gemara is not bothered by the fact that the pasuk implies that Pesach begins on the 14th because when Pesach began in Mitzrayim at the same time as ours, it was in fact the 14th day of Nissan.
2) When we refer to the Pesach we always refer to the eating of the Pesach. The eating of the Pesach in Mitzrayim was in fact done on what was still 14th of Nissan. Therefore, in reference to Yetzias Mitzrayim, "mimochoras haPesach" refers to the 15th. However, in all subsequent years, the date on which the Pesach is eaten is the 15th and therefore, "mimochoras haPesach" must refer to the 16th.
3) Even though the night on which we are obligated in Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim is in fact the 15th, a day after the slaughtering of the Korban Pesach, in Mitzrayim that night was the 14th day, the same as the day of the slaughtering and thus this night still fulfills the requirement of "bayom hahu"
Here is where this begins to apply to the last days of Yom Tov. The Tzla"ch points out that there is a difficult Rashi found in Bemidbar 15:41. Rashi writes that the 8 strings of the Tzitzis represent the eight days it took from when Bnei Yisroel began to leave Mitrayim until they said Shira. On the seventh day of Yom Tov, the 21st of Nissan we read from Beshalach because Kriyas Yam Suf happened on that day. What is Rashi's calculation? If we consider, though that before the Torah was given, the night came after the day then we understand that the Yetzia began at night. That night was still the 14th. The 21st is then the 8th day since the beginning of Yetzias Mitzrayim.
*Sefiras HaOmer*
This is one of my favourite pieces from R' Kulefsky. I heard it from him my first week here exactly two years ago and I went back last year just to hear him say it and to see the glow on his face as he says it. I plan to do the same this year. Tosafos in Menachos 66a write in the name of Beha"g that if one forgot to count at night, he may count during the day with a bracha. Rabeinu Tam however, is of the opinion that a day counting is not a real counting and if one counts during the day it should be done without a bracha. Yet another machlokes is in the case where one forgot a complete day. Beha"g holds he may not continue counting with a bracha but Rabeinu Tam holds that he may. Terumas HaDeshen writes that if one forgot at night and counted during the day, he may continue counting with a bracha. Pri Chadash and many other Acharonim comment that this is because of a sfeik sfeika, i.e. that it is a safek on a safek - perhaps counting during the day is a good counting, and even if it is not, perhaps missing a day does not make you lose your bracha. [If one missed an entire day he does not continue with a bracha because he is subject only to one safek and safek brachos lekula] However, notes R' Kulefsky, this does not really enter the realm of the sfek sfeika. It is a matter of "double-ended" logic. The reasoning behind Rabeinu Tam and Beha"g are the same in both disputes. Rabeinu Tam holds that the "temimus", completeness we require for the counting is on each individual counting. Therefore, counting during the day is not a real counting but the bracha goes on each individual counting so missing one day has no bearing on the next. Beha"g holds that the "temimus" refers to the full 49 days. Therefore, counting on the day is OK but we need all 49 days in order to be able to count with a bracha and if you missed one day, it's all over. So the problem associated with counting during the day is in fact impossible to coexist with the problem of missing a day and therefore, "mima nafshach", either way, you are safe. [This is in fact even stronger than a sfek sfeika.]
R' Ovadia Yosef has a tshuva in which he discusses someone who forgot to count the entire day and remembered "bein hashemashos" if he may continue with a bracha. He notes that on one hand there is a sfeik sfeika lekula: Maybe he counted during the day; and even if he did not count during the day and therefore did not count properly at all, maybe missing a day is not a problem. However, he points out, there is also a sfeik sfeika lechumra: Maybe he counted at night and therefore did not count at all, and even if he counted during the day, maybe counting during the day doesn't "count". However, R' Kulefsky points out here as well that this sfeik sfeika lechumra is not a sfeik sfeika at all. For even on the possibility that counting during the day doesn't count, by that very reasoning missing a day is not a problem and you can proceed with a bracha in any case. So there remains really only one safek on the side of chumra and the sfeik sfeika lekula so one should definitely be able to proceed to count with a bracha.
*Yom HaAtzmaut*
In the Haftarah to Metzora which we would have read last week had it not been Rosh Chodesh, the Navi speaks of the four metzoraim that were outside of the city. This city is Shomron. (I do not know the source for this.) Shomron is a city that was built by Omri (Melachim I 16) a king of Israel. Omri was a very bad king and his reasons for building Shomron were largely involved with Avoda Zara. Nevertheless, the Gemara in Sanhedrin 102b teaches that the reason why Omri merited kingship was because he added a city to Eretz Yisroel (Shomron). The problem that arises is that the law of sending out metzoraim only applies to cities that were surrounded by a wall from the time of Yehoshua. Shomron was built later. Meshech Chachmah explains that the kingdom of Israel saw how the kingdom of Yehuda had Yerushalayim as a spiritual capital where all would gather and sought to create a diversion to sway people away from Yerushalayim. They set up Shomron as the spiritual capital and place of worship. As part of the diversion they gave Shomron the same level of holiness as Yerushalayim had and therefore sent out metzoraim from there as well. R' Eli Wolf points out a tremendous thing. According to this interpretation, Shomron was built solely for the purpose of diverting Jews from Avodas HaShem. Yet still, Omri received his proper reward for adding a city to Eretz Yisroel. Perhaps it is no coincidence that Yom HaAtzmaut falls out in many years directly before or after Parshas Metzora. Perhaps the lesson learned with regard to Omri could be applied to the situation in Eretz Yisroel. Although those in charge of the establishment of the Jewish State in Eretz Yisroel clearly did not have any religious intentions in mind. In fact, their intentions were anti-religious if anything. Nevertheless, the positive outgrowths of having Eretz Yisroel must not be ignored and recognition must be given.
*Yom Yerushalayim*
The Sefer Hachinuch writes that the sole point of Yetzias Mitzrayim was Matan Torah. The celebration of Pesach is directed towards the ultimate celebration of Shavuos and Matan Torah. The Sefer Hachinuch therefore suggests that the point of Sefiras HaOmer is to establish this connection between Pesach and Shavuos. This concept is reiterated by Rav Hirsch who points out that Yetzias Mitzrayim was not to be seen as a goal but as a means of achieving the ultimate goal of Matan Torah. As a representation of this idea we bring the Korban Omer on Pesach. It consists mainly of barley, which is basically animal food, for on Pesach we celebrate only our physical freedom, the emancipation of what is the animalistic part of our being. But on Shavuos we bring human food - wheat bread - as a Korban for on Shavuos we are celebrating the part of us that make us humans - our spiritual being. The interval in between is to be seen, therefore, as a time to progress spiritually. One of my Rebbeim told me that he heard from a Rebbe in Sha'alvim that with this we can understand the way that Yom HaAtzmaut and Yom Yerushalayim fall out. Their falling out during Sefiras HaOmer reflects this very idea. We must recognize the establishment of the State of Israel as a Pesach of sorts, for it provided us for a place to dwell, physically, but not yet a Shavuos, for there were many spiritual aspects missing from Israel. Yom Yerushalayim brought us one step closer spiritually as it provided us the opportunity to daven at the Kosel and of course other spiritual benefits that only Yerushalayim Ir HaKodesh could provide. All we are missing now is that one final step. In light of all the recent indications that the coming of Moshiach is drawing near, this is a nice idea to keep in mind today, on Yom Yerushalayim and as we approach Shavuos, zman Matan Toraseinu.
*Shavuos*
There are a number of ways in which Shavuos differs from the other chagim. For one, Pesach and Succos have two days of Yom Tov on either end with a Chol HaMoed in the middle but Shavuos is only one day of Yom Tov with no Chol Hamoed. [Of course one can look at the time of Sfiras HaOmer as a Chol HaMoed between Pesach and Shavuos as the two Yamim Tovim are connected.] In the sefer Nachalas Yaakov, this difficulty is addressed. He explains that on Pesach we celebrate freedom and on Succos we celebrate the dwelling of the Shchina among us. Both these concepts have undergone a slight evolution over time. Nowadays, we surely do not experience the freedom we experienced when we went out of Egypt, nor do we witness the dwelling of the Shchina among us. But when Moshiach comes (bim'heira be'yameinu) we will witness both of these. We will regain our freedom and the Shchina will dwell among us. The first days of Yom Tov represent our experiences from long ago and the last days represent the return of these experiences when Moshiach comes. The middle days of Chol Hamoed represent the time in between where we lack these aspects in our lives so we have a few days of lesser sanctity when certain things are permitted. [The fact that the last days of Succos are considered a Yom Tov unto itself represents that which we are taught in Yirmiyah 31 that the "haShra'as aShchina when Moshiach comes will be even greater than it ever was]. However, on Shavuos we celebrate the giving of the Torah. The Torah is something that has always been with us since it was given, never has it diminished in any way, and it never will. Therefore, Shavuos need not take the form of the other Yamim Tovim but one day of Yom Tov represents the inertia with which Torah remains a part of Klal Yisroel.
**********
In Pesachim 68 there is a discussion as to how one is to conduct himself on Yom Tov. One opinion is to either devote the whole day to HaShem (in prayer and learning etc.) or the whole day to one's self (eating etc.) The other is that Yom Tov is to be split in half, half to HaShem and half to one's self. However, on Shavuos, everyone agrees that we require devotion to one's self. Why? Because it is the day that the Torah was given to Bnei Yisroel. The Beis HaLevi asks that according to this reason it would have seemed more appropriate to devote the entire day to spirituality and service of HaShem. Why is this a reason to eat? He answers that we are taught that when HaShem was going to give us the Torah, the angels argued over whether man was more deserved than the angels to receive the Torah. Moshe argued that since the angels don't have a physical body, they can not fulfill physical mitzvos that require a body. With this argument Moshe won over the angels. Therefore, it is appropriate that we celebrate by showing how we differ from the angels and therefore, why we deserved the Torah in the first place. This cannot be done by prayer, learning and service of HaShem for even angels could do that. Rather, we must celebrate by eating which angels cannot do. Also, we see from a different source that one of HaShem's claims on the angels was that they ate milk and meat at the house of Avraham which even the smallest Jewish kid knows is wrong. Therefore, there is a custom to eat milk and then meat on Shavuos to engross ourselves in the relevant halachos of cleaning out the mouth between milk and meat and other mitzvos involving the body to once again show why we deserved to receive the Torah.
R' Chaim Kunyevsky has an interesting observation on the above gemara that everyone agrees that we must devote time to ourselves on Shavuos. If it were otherwise, that we don't require any devotion to ourselves but rather all to HaShem in the form of learning, how would it have been possible for Bnei Yisroel to have fulfilled this the year they received the Torah? The Torah wasn't given until the day so until then they must have been engrossed in devotion of the self for devotion to HaShem wasn't fully possible yet.
**********
In the pesukim dealing with Shavuos (Vayikra 23:21) we are told "ukrasem b'etzem hayom haze" we shall declare on this very day... This term "b'etzem hayom haze" is found concerning Yom Kippur to teach us that it is not pre-empted by Shabbos but none of the other chagim have it. Why is it only found regarding Shavuos? The Brisker Rav answers that in Rambam Hilchos Kiddush HaChodesh we are taught that [when Rosh Chodesh was determined by the spotting of the new moon] if Beis Din decided to make a month, Nissan for example, 30 days because no witnesses came on the 30th day to declare Rosh Chodesh but later on in the month, even toward the end of the month witnesses come and testify that they saw the new moon on the 30th day, the month is readjusted based on their testimony. So, if this took place on the 23rd of the month, it would now be the 24th. Therefore, says the Brisker Rav, for all the other chagim, I one can never be 100% sure that they are celebrating the Yom Tov "b'etzem hayom haze" for after Yom Tov some witnesses may come and change the whole month. What you thought was the 15th of Nissan may have been the 16th. Not so for Shavuos, though. Shavuos does not have a set date in Sivan but rather it is the 50th day from the 2nd day of Pesach. This adjustment can only be made on the month which we are currently in. Therefore, since Nissan can no longer be changed we know exactly when the 50th day is and so Shavuos is the only chag we can celebrate with the utmost certainty that it is indeed the right day. [This raises the question of why then there is two days of Yom Tov even in Chutz La'aretz but that is not for now. Maybe next year.]
*Tisha B'Av*
In the event that we do in fact have to commemorate Tisha B'Av this year as a day of mourning, I am sending a Dvar Torah that would be rather relevant. However, despite the pertinence of this Dvar Torah to Tisha B'Av, it probably should not be told over on Tisha B'Av itself due to the "lumdish" content. I heard it at the famous Chabura of R' Eli Wolf last year.
The Midrash Rabba in Eichah (1:20) recounts an exchange between Avraham Avinu and HaKadosh baruch Hu. Avraham is wandering around the Kodesh HaKadashim and asks: "Where are my children?"
HaShem answers: "They have sinned and I have exiled them amongst the nations."
Avraham asks: "Were there not tzaddikim among them?"
HaShem answers: "They have carried out evil schemes."
Avraham comments: "You should have looked upon the good in them."
HaShem answers: "'sugeihen bishin' seemingly another way of saying they are all bad."
It is hard to understand the final exchange. What exactly was Avraham answering after being told that there were no tzadikim, and what was HaShem's answer?
Furthermore, there is a Midrash based on the pasuk 3:15 "Hisbiani vamerorim, hirvani la'ana." 'He filled me with bitterness, sated me with wormwood." Hisbiani vamerorim refers to the Maror on the first night of Pesach. With that he sated me with wormwood on Tisha B'Av. What is the connection of one to the other?
The sefer Shev Shmatsa, in the hakdama, offers an explanation. There is a discussion in Maseches Zevachim as to the concept of "issur mevatel issur". This is that if you have a mixture made up of three different issurim, e.g. pigul, nosar, and tamei, the mixture may be considered permissible to eat since each issur "batel berov", negated by a 2 to 1 ratio of that which is not that particular issur, even though all three parts have their own issur.
Avraham Avinu was trying to argue that although everyone sinned, the individual sins should be negated by each other, that HaShem should look at the good in them - a majority didn't steal, a majority didn't murder. But HaShem answers that each of them are bad in their own right and that is enough, for we do not hold of that opinion that "issur mevatel issur". And how do we know that? From Korech on Seder night. Even though the matza is more than the maror, it does not negate it for it too is a mitzvah. So, too, an issur does not negate another issur. So the other Midrash is now understood. It is by the logic we employ for the Maror that is the reason why we were exiled on Tisha B'Av.
*Elul*
NEWS FLASH: This Tuesday, HaRav Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky Shlit"a, my former rebbe, was officially instated as the new Rosh HaYeshiva of Ner Yisroel. His 'inaugural address' was full of Divrei Torah and Chizuk, some of which were already familiar to me. The following is a Dvar Torah that he says every Elul:
In "Ledavid" (Tehillim 27) we say "Achas sha'alti mei'eis HaShem, oso avakesh." One thing I ask of HaShem, it is what I request. "Shivti b'veis HaShem...", to dwell in the house of HaShem, etc. The first pasuk seems to containing a redundancy. What is the difference between 'sha'alti' and 'avakesh'? Malbi"m explains that she'eila is what someone asks, whereas bakasha is the reason why they ask. For instance, if someone wants some money to buy a car, the 'she'eila' is the money, but the 'bakasha', the ultimate desire is for the car. But when David HaMelech asks of HaShem to dwell in His house all his days, he says that I ask one thing of HaShem, and this is my request. In this he expresses that his desire to dwell in the house of HaShem is solely for the purpose of dwelling there, with no ulterior motives.
*Machar Chodesh*
This week, we do not read the regular haftara for Bemidbar but rather, we read the special haftara for the day before Rosh Chodesh, from Shmuel I perek 20. Yehonasan tells David that tomorrow is Rosh Chodesh and there will be a seuda etc. and they devise a whole plan to see whether Shaul still wants to kill David. R' Shimon Schwab, in Maayan Beis HaShoeva, is bothered, is it only because of the fact that Yehonasan mentions the words "machar chodesh" that we read this haftara? Surely there is a greater reason to push aside the regular haftara in favour of this one. Rather, Yehonasan's intentions in telling David not to escape until after the seuda of Rosh Chodesh were because Rosh Chodesh, as the moon enters a new cycle around the Earth, symbolizes a time of repentance and atonement and an opportunity to start anew. Yehonasan was telling David to wait and see if Rosh Chodesh will possibly have this positive effect on Shaul and he will change his mind. Therefore, we read this haftara to impress upon the masses this important aspect of Rosh Chodesh. Additionally, Rosh Chodesh is a time "mesugal" for geula which is why we daven "Mizbeach chadash b'Tzion tachin". And if Moshiach doesn't come, we are left wondering "why has ben Yishai not come, not yesterday and not today" (20:27, a pasuk in the haftara.) The Navi remarks "Vayipaked makom David" David's place was vacant, an allusion to the fact that we, too, are lacking the presence of ben Yishai. And just as it was gratuitous hatred that caused David's absence from the party, it is exactly that that causes Moshiach to be absent today.
Tam venishlam, shevach l'Kel Borei Olam!