Lech Lecho 5770

“And Hashem said to Avrom, go for yourself from your land, from your birthplace and from your father’s house to the land which I will show you.” Bereishis, 12:1

Why is there this three-pronged instruction to Avrom to leave his land, birthplace and father’s house, wouldn’t one suffice? Avrom was at that point in his father’s household, the verse should have said this one place alone.

As a preface to the answer, the Midrash Raba tells us that Hashem never revealed the destination to Avrom in order to “Make it valuable in his eyes and to give him reward for every step”.
The Etz Yosef explains this as follows, “to make it valuable in his eyes, so that he would wish to know where he was going and the knowledge would come to him after much desiring.” And, “For every step, for one who travels to a known destination understands that upon arrival he can rest. But for one who travels without knowing where he will rest, each step will seem a heavy load. Thus for each step his reward grew.”

The Maharil Diskin asks how Avrom know which direction to go in, since his destination had not been revealed, (for the reasons above). His answer is that the he knew from land, birthplace and father’s house. His land, the place where he grew up was Aram Naharim, he was born in Ur Kasdim, and his father’s household was in Choron. These three locations make up a triangle which Avrom understood that he had to get away from, any direction but straight towards Canaan would take him either into the triangle or keep him the same distance from one of its sides.

Parshas Shoftim

“Judges and guards give for yourself in all your gates which Hashem your God gives to you to your tribes and judge the people a righteous judgment.” Devorim 16:18
Rashi explains that this verse requires the establishment of botei din, (courts), to judge and a system of enforcement to impose their ruling as required.

Upon whom is this requirement placed? Who has the responsibility of appointing the courts?

The Sefer HaChinuch writes, “And this is one of the mitzvos upon the community as a whole in every place.”

In Ayeles HaShachar on Makos 7a also asks this question and concludes, “It requires consideration as to whether this obligation falls upon the people of the place in question or on the Sanherdrin HaGodol, (the great court of seventy one). It is logical that this obligation is on the people of the place.”

In Parshas Yisro, Yisro advises Moshe to establish a system of courts, “Any big thing should be brought before you, (Moshe) and any small issue should be judged by them, (the men who would be appointed to judge).

The verse tells us, “And Moshe harkened to the words of his father in law and did all that he had said. And Moshe chose capable men from all Yisroel and he gave them as heads over the people, etc.” Shemos 18:25

With Moshe now exhorting Yisroel to establish botei din, it would appear reasonable to follow his example and establish local botei din via the highest judicial authority – i.e. the Sanhedrin HaGodol. How does the Ayeles HaShachar consider the opposite to be logical?!

A possible answer could be that since each individual is obligated to conduct his affairs in accordance with halocho, they are required to consult a beis din in an unclear or disputed case in order to resolve any disagreement and ensure that monies and property reside with their legitimate owner. A local beis din will be required! Thus, the people of any given place as a corporate body of individuals are obligated to establish a beis din.

The Netziv, in HoEmek Dovor, writes that Sanhedin HaGdol is referred to in the singular and understands the singular, “loch”, “for yourself” as meaning that this is an obligation on the Sanhedrin HaGodol, that they should establish a beis din in each town and supervise them to ensure that they judge a righteous judgment.

Even though in Makos, Ayeles HaShacha considers it logical that this is an obligation on the community in each place, the Netziv could argue that it is also logical that the Sanhedrin are best placed to establish and supervise a national system of botei din. For the Netziv, this could allow the linguistic indication of “yourself” to override the opposing logic. Those opposing the view of the Netziv could use the logic of an obligation on the community to reinterpret the “yourself” in a less literal fashion, as referring the the individual in the context of a member of the community.

Parshas Eikev

It's the Thought That Counts


“And it will be on account of your harkening to these statutes and guarding them and doing them, and Hashem your God will guard the covenant and the kindness which he swore to your fathers. And He will love you and bless you and increase you and bless the fruit of our womb and the fruits of your land, your grain, your corn and your wine, the young of your cattle and the choice of your flocks on the land which was sworn to your fathers to be given to you.” (Devorim 7:12-14)

Rashi: “And it will be on account of your harkening: If the minor mitzvos that a person tramples with his heels you harken to…..”

“And Hashem your God will guard the covenant: He will guard for you His guarantee.”

Why des the verse specify those “minor” mitzvos, especially those which people disregard?
Does the verse refer to “just” these mitzvos or “even” these mitzvos. The Gur Aryeh understands this as meaning “even”, since all mitzvos have details which seem minor.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in Drash Moshe writes that a mitzvah only appears more of less significant if one performs mitzvos on the basis of his understanding, one who performs mitzvos because Hashem has commanded it won’t distinguish because every mitzvoh is an equally significant commandment of Hashem.

According to this Rashi’s explanation o the verse is that I we perform the mitzvos because Hashem commanded them and thus serve Hashem, He will uphold His covenant.

The outcome of a half hearted service of Hashem will be that mitzvos will contain an element of “performed according to ones understanding”, that is, to the extent that one doesn’t perform a mitzvo out of devotion to the Creator the motivation will be a composite of ones understanding, habit and social pressure etc. together with some amount of devotion to Hashem.

In parsha Bechukosai the verse says, “If in my edicts you shall walk and my commandments you shall guard and do them; and I shall give you yours rains at their appropriate times and your land shall give its harvest and the tree of the field shall give its fruit” If Yisroel shall observe Hashem’s mitzvos, then they shall receive blessing.

A partial observance of mitzvos, with some details and apparently minor commandments being trampled under heal, indicates that he mitzvos are not being observed out of true service of Hashem. Such mitzvos don’t qualify as mitzvos for covenant purposes.

A similar idea is found in Yevamos 39b; “Aba Shaul says, one who marries his yevomo out of attraction, in order to have a wife or for any other (ulterior) motive, has committed illicit relations and the child born of such a relationship is close in my eyes to being a momzer, (a child born of illicit relations).

Even though the actions of the mitzvo were performed perfectly, a lack of intention for the purpose of mitzvo, even though the brother knows that he is participating in yibum, will cause that action to be considered close to a non-action for mitzvo purposes. (One may only have relations with his brother’s wife, even after his brother’s death in the cas of yibum). Aba Shaul is close to rendering the act as non-yibum and thus forbidden relations resulting in the child being a momzer.

If we apply this idea to all mitzvos, insufficient intention in the performance of the mitzvo as a commandment of Hashem will correspondingly cause that mitzvo to be considered a non-mitzvo for keeping the covenant purposes.

Therefore we can understand Rashi as explaining the verse to say, “If you keep my commandments fully, as an indication of your dedication to Hashem, out of a desire to serve Him, and thus keep your side of the covenant, He will keep His side of the covenant too.”

Parshas Shelach 5769

Take heed Evildoers

“And Hashem spoke to Moshe to say, “Send for yourself men and they will tour the Land of Canaan which I am giving to the Children of Yisroel, one man according to the tribe of his fathers you shall send, each one a great person from them” (Bamidbar 13:1 – 2)

“Why did the Torah juxtapose the parsha of the spies to the parsha of Miriam, (who was afflicted with tzaras)? Because she was afflicted on account of that which she said about her brother, (that he shouldn’t have separated from his wife), and these evildoers saw this and didn’t take heed.” Rashi

Why does Rashi have to give an explanation of why these two parshios are next to each other? Even though “there is no chronological order in the Torah”, this only applies when we are forced into saying this through a problem in maintaining chronology. Otherwise we can be confidant that the Torah is chronological. The events of Bereishis occur in chronological order, without any indication otherwise, there is no reason to believe that there has been a departure from the format whch has been established from the beginning of the Torah.

Rashi doesn’t need to give any reason for these parshios being juxtaposed; they are together because this is the order of their occurrence! (As is written in Seder Olam, “They traveled from Kivros HaTaavah and came to Chatezros and were there seven days as it says, “And Miriam was quarantined seven days”. They traveled from Chatezros and they came to the Wilderness of Paran on the 29th Sivan. And on the 29th Sivan Moshe sent spies, etc.”)

The Maskil L’Dovid asks this question and adds that Rashi only explains the juxtaposition of two passages in chronological order when there is a need to explain an issue in the language of a verse.

Thus he explains that Rashi’s intentionis to tell us Hashem’s communication with Moshe regarding the permissibility of sending spies could only have taken place once the people had seen and absorbed the consequences of evil speech.

Now all that’s left is to understand…………….

The next Rashi explains, “Send for yourself, according to your own decision, I am not commanding you, if you want to; send! Because Yisroel came and said, “\end for us men in front of us”, as it says, “And all of you drew close to me” (Devorim 1:22). And Moshe consulted with the Shechinah . “I said that (the land) is good,” as it says, “I shall raise you up from the affliction of Egypt etc.” (Shemos 3:17) “By your lives, I shall giveyou an opportunity to make a mistake through the words of the spies so as not to inherit it!”

To summarize:
The people wanted to send the spies.
Hashem had already guaranteed the quality of Eretz Yisroel and their conquering and settling thereof.
This desire to send the spies thus signified a lack of faith.
This lack of faith did not mean that they weren’t worthy of the land, rather that they were to get the opportunity of delaying their entrance to the land. Before this the inheritance of the generation of the Exodus was assured.

With a flaw in their faith, Yisroel were in danger of being particularly receptive to a negative report from the spies., therefore to balance this, the permission to send spies could only be given after the consequences of evil speech had been seen, in order that the spies themselves should be deterred from giving a negative report.

(in terms of mida keneged mida, the suitability of the punishment to the crime, the sin was to have a lack of faith in Hashem’s promise to give them the land, and so to rely on human effort, the punishment was for Hashem to remove His assurance and enable Yisroel to decide to postpone their entry.)

Parshas Behar/BeChukosai 5769

Put That In Your Pipe and Smoke It!

“And Hashem spoke to Moshe at Mont Sinai to say, “Speak to the Bnei Yisroel and say to them, “When you come to the land that I give to them and the land shall rest a Sabbath to Hashem.” Shemos 25:1 – 2

“And the land shall give its fruits and you shall eat to satiation and you will dwell securely upon it. And if you should say, “What will we eat in the seventh year? For we will not sow and we will not collect our produce: And I will command my blessing to you in the sixth year and the produce shall be sufficient for three years.” Shemos 25:19 – 21

The Noam Elimelech asks a very fundamental question on these verses; the Torah doesn’t need to spell out the question that someone may ask, “What will we eat in the seventh year?” Rather our expectation, (in line with the usual style of the Torah), would be: “And the land shall give its fruits and you shall eat to satiation and you will dwell securely upon it. And I will command my blessing to you in the sixth year and the produce shall be sufficient for three years.” This is a stark departure from the normal style of the Torah!

The Noam Elimelech explains as follows:

“The answer would appear to be that Hashem Yisborach Baruch Hu, as he created the world, affixed a pipeline to deliver His bounty to fulfill the needs of humanity. The nature of this bounty is that it never ceases to flow, except, when a person falls, and doesn’t trust in the Creator Baruch Hu, the true Guide, who feeds and provides plentifully, without interruption at all. Thus, this person with his thought that is not pure, causes a blemish in the upper worlds and “weakens” the strength of the heavenly host and Hashem Yisborach needs to establish from new this pipe line, so that it should flow as it did from the start of the Creation.”

All of a person’s requirements are provided for by Hashem, it’s only someone’s lack of
trust which damages the Divine distribution system

(Maybe this could be the explanation of the verse in Psalms which we say in Ashrei, “Open your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing” – Hashem opens His “hand” to provide for us, it’s up to us to make ourselves able to receive what He’s trying to give us by trusting in Hashem alone. This is very different from the popular notion that we generate our own income and Hashem decides whether to help us or to get in our way).

Rabbi Dessler says, “There is no reality to nature and causality,” and elsewhere in the same piece, “Nature is no reality but rather a means of hiding, (the miraculous nature of the world), ….. , in order to allow one to be mistaken” – that is to allow for free will by hiding God’s constant, direct intervention in all aspects of creation.

There is a fundamental concept of “midah keneged midah”; measure for measure.

The world is run through Hashem’s constant miracles; there’s no such thing as nature. When we realize this, we enable ourselves to receive Hashem’s blessing. This is measure for measure, we accept that God’s running the show and in return He looks after us.

However if we question Hashem’s direct involvement and start attributing the availability of food to our planting and harvesting – that is to the apparently natural causes, then measure for measure we disable our ability to receive His bounty. Nature can’t help – there’s no such thing!

The Noam Elimelech said that if a person drops a level in faith, then the Divine pipeline will be broken. As long as he remains at this level, every time Hashem “fixes” this pipeline, it will immediately break again! In order for it to remain fixed, he needs to raise his level of faith and trust in the Creator to a higher level.

Acharei/Kedoshim 5769

“And Hashem spoke to Moshe after the death of the two sons of Aharon at their offering/drawing close in front of Hashem and they died.” Shemos 16:1

“And Hashem said to Moshe, speak to Aharon your brother; “And don’t come at all times into the snatuary behind the Paroches to the face of the Kapores (cover) that is on the Aron and (he won’t) die, for in a cloud I shall appear on the Kapores.” Shemos 16:2

If the posuk tells us that Hashem spoke to Moshe after the death of his two sons, why does the same posuk tell us that they died as a result of their offering? We would have expected the verse to miss out the ending of “And they died”.

Therefore it must be that the two expressions of the death of Aharon’s sons must perform different functions in the verse and tell us different things.

The Gemoro in Yoma, (53:a), discusses the opening verses of our parsha, “R’ Elazar says, “he will not die” – (this tells us the) punishment, (for abrogating this commandment), “For in a cloud I shall appear – (this tells us the) prohibition” “One could think that this was said before the death of the sons of Aharon, thus the Torah says, “After the death of the two sons of Aharon”, etc.
“Rava says, “For in a cloud I shall appear”, and He had not yet appeared! What was the reason that they were punished? As we have learnt, R’ Elazar says, the sons of Aharon did not die for any reason other than that they ruled on the din in front of their teacher” (The din being that even though a fire descended from the heavens to consume the offering, a regular fire was still required to be kindled).

The Gemoro in Brochos tells us, “All who rule on a halocho in front of their rebbi/teacher is liable for death”, however this doesn’t normally carry an immediate heavenly death sentence!

In HoEmek Dovor, the Netziv explains that, the first two verses are two separate points. Nadav and Avihu sinned by ruling in front of Moshe, and were killed immediately since Hashem’s aspect of strict justice, (midas hadin), had been aroused by their entrance into the Sanctuary, (the beis in “b’hakravtem” – in their offering/drawing close is not functioning as “when” here but is rather indicating that they were geographically in front of Hashem as it were). As the Ntziv writes, “Their sin was at the moment that they drew close before Hashem in the palace of the King of all Kings, the Holy One Blessed Be He”.

Afterwards Hashem told Moshe this parsha, preceding it with this first verse to teach that any kohen who is not meticulous in performing the Yom Kippur service in the sanctuary in accordance with the halocho – “his blood is on his head”. He’d better watch out because midas hadin is about! In the King’s palace, a higher standard of behavior is expected at all times!

Why does midas hadin make a difference?
The Satmar Rov in Divrei Yoel, (Parshas Pinchas), quotes the Divrei Chaim of Tzanz who explains that there is a disagreement amongst the commentators as to when the Egyptian exile began. There are those who say that it began from the birth of Yitzchok and therefore was finished at the point of the Exodus. There are others who say that it began only from the actual enslavement itself and thus had not finished at the point of the Exodus, thus requiring it to be completed at a later point. When Hashem is acting in accordance with midas harachamim – the attribute of mercy, then He “rules” according to the lenient opinion that the exile ended with the Exodus, however, when Yisroel sin, He rules in accordance with the strict opinions that the exile still requires completion. The woes that befall us as a result are a continuation of the Egyptian exile.
The Satmar Rov uses this principle to go on to explain why a plague broke out amongst the people as a result of Zimri’s taking a Moabite woman and challenging Moshe in front of the whole nation as to whether she was permitted to him.
There are different opinions in the Gemoro as to what extent one is required to chastise their fellow when they sin. The stricter opinion says until they physically assault you, the lenient says until they curse you. The sin of Zimri caused Hashem to act towards us in accordance with midas hadin and thus follow the strict opinion which says that Klal Yisroel should have prevented this sin from taking place even at the threat of physical violence from the tribe of Shimon in defense of their prince. Now since they had not fulfilled their obligation, they were punished with a plague.
In both of these cases midas hadin resulted in the application of a stricter ruling where a leniet ruling would otherwise have been expected.

In the case of Bnei Aharon, their being in the “Kings Palace” put them into a situation of midas hadin – geographically triggered midas hadin as opposed to sin triggered. There is a difference here from the cases in Divrei Yoel; no stricter ruling was applied in the face a more lenient one, however the principle of stringency is relevant here. Presumably one isn’t actually executed for ruling in front of ones rebbe, rather the crime is of sufficient magnitude to be deserving of death. In any case there was no warning, testimony of witnesses or judgment by a Sanhedrin, (all essential for capital cases). Midas hadin meant that a sin that would normally go unpunished by man was punished immediately and spectacularly by Hashem. They were deserving of death but the sentence could not be implemented, Hashem stepped in to carry out the judgment despite these issues, the technical factors preventing execution were bypassed thanks to midas hadin.

We know that tzadikim are punished for seemingly minor indiscretions that a regular person would go unpunished for, their greater holiness could perhaps put them into a “King’s Palace” type situation, as they are close to Hashem at all times. (ie. I am suggesting that these are three manifestations of the same idea).


Practically speaking: when monkey business is going on, or when one is involved in matters concerning holiness, extra care is required due to midas hadin.




(Note: the midos/attributes of Hashem are complicated; this essay is not an explanation of these concepts but a study into their application as seen in the revealed Torah of the commentators).

Parshas Tazria - Metzoro 5769

Parshas Tazria

“And Hashem spoke to Moshe to say; Speak to Bnei Yisroel to say; “A woman when she conceives and gives birth to a male and it will make her impure for seven days like the days of her nidas dosoh she will be impure. And thirty day and three days she shall sit in her bloods of purity, all kodesh she shall not touch and to the Mikdosh she shall not come until the filling of her days of purity”. Shemos 12:

Rashi: like in the days of her nidas dosoh she will be impure, like the order of all impurities which are said regarding nidah, it makes her impure with the impurity of child birth, and even if the womb opens without blood.

Rashi: Dosa, a term of seeping from her body. An alternative meaning, a term of infirmity and illness, that a woman doesn’t see blood without feeling ill and her head and limbs feeling heavy upon her.

When a woman menstruates she becomes ritually impure. The posuk here tells us that this is the case regarding a woman who’s given birth as well, (yoledes).

Is this impurity caused by the blood flow as in nidah? Or is the cause of this impurity the birth itself? The first Rashi quoted above tells us that the birth itself causes the impurity, irrelevant of blood flow.

In the case of regular nidah, the passing of blood from the womb is the cause of the impurity, this is the case whether she sees the blood or whether she feels the blood flow without it exiting her body. (Mareh Kohen – Hilchos Nidah).

In Asvan D’Oraytoh, Rabbi Yosef Engel quotes a Tosfos in Bava Kama, (11a), which explains that the issur of yoledes is issur and not tumah. This means that even though the status of yoledes creates an obligation of purification and makes the woman impure, the prohibition on relations with her is not because she is impure but because the Torah prohibits such relations separate to her status of impurity, were it not for this separate prohibition, relations would be permitted despite the status of impurity.

R’ Y Engel goes on to cite Rambam in Hilchos Isurei Bi’oh, perek 5, halocho 2, that all women become impure through the internal passage of blood, therefore this will apply to a yoledes and a nidah.

Now then: Rashi seems to hold that the impurity of yoledes comes from the birth itself, the Rambam according to R’ Y Engel with the backing of his application of Tosfos to the Rambam says that the impurity comes from the passage of blood. (It could be that without R’ Yosef, Tosfos could agree with Rashi regarding birth and disagree with Rambam that the din is the same whether nidah or yoledes).

The Gur Aryeh and Mizrachi explain Rashi’s explanation of no blood required for the yoledes to become impure; because if there is blood, she will be impure as a nidah, not a yoledes. Therefore if the Torah has a separate parsha for yoledes, it must be that there are different requirements.

Perhaps the Rambam could argue with this and say that a separate parsha is needed for yoledes because the halachos are different. Even though passage of blood is required, the situation of birth converts the status from nidah to yoledes. (The blood is required to get into the parsha of impurity, the status of birth or otherwise will determine whether the impurity caused is nidah or yoledes)




Parshas Metzoro


“And Hashem spoke to Moshe to say: “This will be the law of the metzoro on the day of his purification, and he will be brought to the kohen”. Shemos 14:1-2

“This will be,” “Zos tihiye” is a very unusual way of saying that we are dealing with the law of something, (the Midrash in Toras Kohanim says that this whole sentence is superfluous). If the Torah wanted to introduce the laws of metzoro it could have skipped out “will be/tihiye” completely.

The Midrash in Toras Kohanim makes the drasha, “Tihiye – in this time”, that is, even without a Beis Hamikdosh, a metzoro still performs the purification process but without the offerings.

The phrase “and he will become pure” is used three times in the context of Moetzoro in the parsha:
“And the one being purified will shave all his hair and wash in water and afterwards enter the camp and sit outside his tent for seven days”. 14:8
“And it will be on the seventh day he will shave all of his hair, his head, his beard, and his eyebrows and he will wash his clothes and wash his clothes in water and he will become pure”. 14:9
“And the kohen will offer up the oleh and minchah offerings on the altar and the kohen will atone him and he will become pure”. 14:21

These three repetitions correspond to three levels of impurity/purification:

Before the first shaving the metzoro may not enter the camp. Afterwards he may enter, he will not cause something which he carries or sits on to become impure.
After seven days and the second shaving, he will not longe make someone he touches impure and after immersion and nightfall he can eat ma’aser and trumoh, (tithes – if he’s a kohen or Levy or has ma’aser sheni in Yerushaliyim).
After the korban he may eat from kodshim. (Rambam in Hilchos Metzoro)

In order for the metzoro to become sufficiently pure to eat kodshim – sacrifices, the respective sacrifice is required. In our times, where (due to our sins) there is no Temple and thus no sacrifices, there is no necessity to attain this level of purity. Therefore, the metzoro can perform the other stages of purification to remove themselves from the most intense levels of impurity.

Now that we have seen this, why do we need a Midrash to tell us that from the word “tihiye” in the verse the process of purification of a metzoro up until the bringing of the korban can be performed even without a Beis HaMikdosh? If everything else can still be performed, why should our inability to offer the relevant sacrifice to attain a level of purity that doesn’t have any practical consequences prevent the rest?

Perhaps the presentation of the three stages would lead us to think that this is one long process, if one part is unable to be performed, the whole process is nullified. The verses read:
“And the one being purified will shave all his hair and wash in water and afterwards enter the camp and sit outside his tent for seven days”. 14:8
“And it will be on the seventh day he will shave all of his hair, his head, his beard, and his eyebrows and he will wash his clothes and wash his clothes in water and he will become pure”. 14:9
“And on the eighth day he will take two male lambs, unblemished and one female year old ewe, unblemished……….etc.”

The sacrifice is brought on the eighth day, if the posuk had read, “after the seventh day” or something similar, then it would be clear that the last stage could be separated from the previous two and that even without the offerings, the first two stages of purity could be attained in accordance with the ruling of the Rambam above. However, written as it is, it appears to me that the simple understanding, (especially after the Rashi dealing with the opening posuk of Shmini – see last week’s post), is that the Torah presents us with a non-divisible eight day process. Therefore, an extra word of “tihye/will be” is necessary to tell us that even when it is impossible to bring the offerings, the rest of the process can be split off, to attain the lower levels of purity.

(It could be that the Torah presents the purification of the metzoro as one process to tell us that a stage can’t be skipped over).


Have a nice Shabbos – no loshon horo!

Parshas Shmini 5769

All 7's and 8's

And it was on the eighth day, (of the inauguration of the Miskon), Moshe called to Aharon and to his children and to the Elders of Ysrael,. And he said to them, “Take a one year old bull as a chatas and an unblemished goat for an Olah and offer them in front of Hashem.” Shemos 9:1-2

Rashi, “And it was on the eighth day, the eighth day of inauguration, this was Rosh Chodesh Nissan, when the Mishkon was erected on that day and ten crowns were taken as is recorded in Seder Olam.

At first glance, we may not have known that this posuk is referring to the eighth day of the inauguration of the Miskon, therefore Rashi tells us that this is the case. However, the previous Parsha ends, detailing the procedures of the inauguration of the Miskon, if there has been no indication of a change in subject why would we think that the verse is discussing anything else?

The Gur Aryeh points out that at the end of Parshas Tzav, the Torah writes, “And from the entrance of the Tent of Meeting they shall not go out for seven days until the days of their inauguration have been fulfilled, all seven days they shall bring their offerings,” (according to Onkelus) (Shemos 8:13). This sounds like the inauguration of the Mishkon was a seven day process.
Therefore, even though the posuk of “And it was on the eighth day”, follows on from a parsha dealing with the inauguration of the Mishkon, this earlier posuk would appear to break the continuity of the parshios, (by excluding the possibility of an eighth day), thus meaning that the opening verse of our parsha could be referring to the eight day of the month.
However, we don’t expect the Torah to jump around, we perhaps could see 8:13 as an indication of a break in continuity, but according to the Gur Aryeh, having come from a parsha dealing with the seven days and opening a new parsha dealing with the eighth day, we have to say that here the Torah is referring to the eighth day of the inauguration.
The Gur Aryeh explains that the Torah uses the term “Eighth day”, rather than saying “after the seven days…” to show that this day is connected to the seven days and the focus of the seven days, the whole inauguration process was leading up to this day.
It could be that he means that since the earlier posuk has stated that there were seven days of inauguration and now we are forced into saying that we are dealing with day eight as a continuation of the seven, we have to understand the function of the apparent exclusion of an eighth day in 8:13. Thus we can say that it tells us that there were seven days of the inauguration leading up to the focus of the whole process which was the eighth day; a part of the whole process but different in nature, the preceding days being a preparation for this day.


To summarize, an apparent exclusion in a posuk can be overridden by logic, requiring a reinterpretation of this exclusion whilst keeping it as close as possible to it’s original function.

Pekudei 5769

Here is a vort for Pekudei. I know it's old news now, but for the sake of completion.....


Witness Protection

“These are the accountings of the Mishkon, the Mishkon of Witness which were counted according to Moshe, the work of the Leviim in the hand of Isomor ben Aharon HaKohen.” Shemos 38:21

Why does the Torah suddenly refer to the Mishkon as Mishkon HaEdus, (witness)? Until now it has been plain old Mishkon!

Rashi writes that the Mishkon, (constructed as an atonement for the Golden Calf), was a witness to Yisroel that Hashem had forgiven them for their sin.
The Mizrachi, a commentator on Rashi, explains that the Luchos/Tablets of the Ten Commandments could not fill this purpose. Since the Children of Israel had become Jews as far as Halocho is concerned at the giving of the Torah at Har Sinai, they had to receive the commandments as this was already incumbent upon them. Hashem had already accepted Klal Yisroel, and Klal Yisroel had already agreed to receive the Torah. They could not be unselected. Thus, the Shechinah’s residing amongst them through the Mishkon was a witness to Hashem’s forgiveness of them.

The Da’as Zekeinim however, (the Ba’alei HaTosfos), write that the Mishkon was a witness for the other nations of the world that Hashem had forgiven Yisroel for the sin of the Golden Calf. What are they arguing over?

Before suggesting an answer, we need to refer to the sefer Parshas Drochim, the first part of which deals with the status of the Avos, (Avrohom – Matan Torah), in terms of whether they were completely Jewish, completely not Jewish, or a mixture of both with regard to applying the most stringent ruling, (sometimes the halocho is more stringent for non-Jews).
(Note: We can see that the Mizrachi does not hold according to this first view since he holds that Yisroel became Jewish at Sinai).

Having seen this we can suggest as follows: The Da’as Zekeinim hold that the receipt of the Luchos was a witness for Yisroel that they had been forgiven, thus leaving the dwelling of the Shechinah amongst them to be a witness to the rest of the world.
(This is coming off the Mizrachi who says that the Luchos were insufficient proof – I have understood this as meaning that were it not for the problem that he points out, the Luchos would have been sufficient as a witness. The other nations would require a greater indication that Yisroel had been forgiven to draw their attention).

Perhaps Da’as Zekeinim hold that Yisroel were not full Jews until Matan Torah and that Matan Torah had two components, the first being a statement of readiness to receive the Torah on the part of Yisroel, and the second being the actual handing over of the Luchos to Moshe, signifying Hashem’s assent to giving the Torah to Yisroel and upgrading everyone spiritually to the status of full Jew.

The sin of the Golden Calf took place before Moshe presented the Luchos to the people and he went so far as to break them, perhaps an indication of the non-finalization of the process of conversion.
When Moshe ascended the mountain for the second time, the receipt of the second Luchos was the sign that the process was complete, Hashem had accepted Yisroel and they were now Jews in the Halachic sense.

Rashi may disagree with this two stage process of conversion; at Matan Torah Klal Yisroel became Jews regardless of subsequent developments, since Hashem had initiated the process, no further indication of His assent was required. Thus, receiving the Luchos was no witness to the forgivenes of Bnei Yisroel, the presence of Hashem’s Shechinah was.

Vayikro 5769

Who's Calling?


"And He called to Moshe and Hashem spoke to him from the tent of meeting to say: “Speak to the Bnei Yisroel and say to them, “When a person from you brings a sacrifice to Hashem from the animals, from the cattle and from the flocks you shall bring your offerings”

The word Vayikro, “He called”, is an unusual way to start a verse, normally the Torah uses the word spoke, Vaydaber.
Rashi explains that Vayikra is a language of fondness which preceded Hashem’s speaking to Moshe. Rashi also uses the word Vayikro to explain that when Hashem wished to speak to Moshe after the completion of the Ohel Moed/Tent of Meeting, which was part of the Mishkon, he would call to him. This call was a load voice which emanated from between the Cherubim atop the Aron HaKodesh and travel to Moshe’s ears but which the rest of Yisroel couldn’t hear.
(the word Vayikro in the verse, (called), tells us that Hashem called to Moshe in a physically manifest voice, (ie the ears could hear it), and the word VayDaber, (spoke), tells us that this calling was not constant but only when Hashem wanted to tell a passage to Moshe.

This raises several questions but I want to focus on the voice which Moshe could physically hear.

In Bad Kodesh, Rabbi Baruch Dov Parvarsky investigates this phenomenon. At Har Sinai, Hashem spoke in a physical voice which required physical receptors, (ears), in order to hear it. The whole of Klal Yisroel could hear this voice, not as a spiritual perception, but as a physical sensation of hearing. The voice itself was a spiritual “voice”, (a transmission of spiritual information emanating from Hashem as a wholey spiritual being), which was clothed in a “garment” of physicality – decibels, which was received through physical means.
From the completion of the Mishkon, this is how Hashem spoke to Moshe, there was a spiritual communication, clothed in physicality, received in a physical way by Moshe.
Other prophets received their prophecy in a totally spiritual manner, not through the intermediary of hearing, thus meaning that the message of their prophecy was not immediately clear and required interpretation by the prophet.
Until the completion of the Mishkon, Moshe too received his prophecy in this way.

Based on this I would like to posit the following chidush:
This physically perceptible voice is a higher level of prophecy than any other. Regular prophecy is a spiritual visitor, not at home in our physical world. At Sinai, the revelation of the Torah was a physical phenomenon. Just as the Torah takes on a form relevant to Olam HaZeh as it reaches our world of physical existence, perhaps, in order for the Torah to create a reality of spiritual cause and effect in the physical world, it required a physical revelation, making it a part of this world, as opposed to something from the outside.

The Miskon was a “house” for the Shechinah, bringing Hashem’s presence into this world. Perhaps the Mishkon/Beis HaMikdosh integrated the spiritual with the physical, (possibly through the duel means of elevating the physical building into something totally holy and also bringing the spiritual “presence” of Hashem into the physical world), thus there was always this physical voice of prophecy extant as long as the Mishkon/Beis Hamikdosh stood. However, it required a prophet of the stature, (holiness, humility, selflessness, love of Hashem, etc.), to perceive this voice through physical means. Without a Moshe, prophecy was received the spiritual way. Prophecy subsequent to Moshe did not introduce new Torah, but rather admonished Klal Yisroel regarding that which had already been revealed via Moshe.
Alternatively, we could say that once Moshe had received the whole of the Torah, there was no subsequent requirement for this type of prophecy and so it ceased despite the continued presence of the Mishkon/Beis Hamikdosh.




This is all wholly speculative, I have tried to reach an understanding of the mechanics of prophecy from the opening verse of our parsha and Rashi’s comments. The fundamentals of Jewish belief are passed down through the great sages of every generation, just because I have written my understanding of something on the internet, doesn’t mean that it is in anyway correct of authoritative.

Vayakhel

All Together Now..........


“And Moshe assembled the whole of the Congregation of the Children of Israel and said unto them, “These are the things that Hashem has commanded to do them. Six days you shall do melocho, (the 39 prohibited labours), and on the seventh day in shall be to you holy, it is a Shabas Shaboson, (emphatically Sabbath’y), to Hashem, all who do melcoho on it shall be put to death. Do not burn a fire in all your dwellings on the day of the Shabos.”
“And Moshe said unto whole of the Congregation of the Children of Israel to say, “This is the thing that Hashem has commanded: Take from yourselves a Trumoh to Hashem, etc.” (Shemos 35:1-5) (Instructions appertaining to the construction of the Mikdosh from this point).

Why does the parsha begin with the very unusual term “And Moshe assembled” (Vayakhel Moshe)? This is the only instance of the usage of this term in the Torah!
Why did Moshe gather the people together?
Why does the verse say, “These are the things that Hashem has commanded to do them” And then continue with an exhortation not to do labour on Shabos?

These are all questions which need answers!

Rashi explains that Moshe preceded the instructions for the building of the Mikdosh with the warning against desecrating Shabos in order to show that the construction of the Mikdosh does not push aside Shabos.

The Ikar Sifsei Chachomim explains Rashi’s reasoning as that since the commandment to refrain from labour on Shabos had already been given by this point this repetition must be telling us about labour on vis-à-vis the Mikdosh. (If something is repeated in the Torah it must be telling us something new either directly or from deduction). Therefore, the main topic of this passage is the Miskon, Shabos is a detail within the construction thereof.

But, why would anyone think that the labour can be performed in Shabos for the construction of the Mishkon? Also, if this is all one passage about the Mishkon, why is it interrupted by, “And Moshe said unto whole of the Congregation of the Children of Israel to say,”? Shouldn’t the laws of Shabos flow directly into the details of the construction of the Mishkon?

The Maharil Diskin writes that the phrase “to do them” within the verse, ““These are the things that Hashem has commanded to do them.” (Second verse in the parsha), must refer to the construction of the Mishkon, since there is no relevance of using the word “doing” with regards to an admonishment to refrain from doing! The passage starts off with saying that there is something to be done “stam”, (closed – ie without specifying). Then the passage tells us that this can only be done for six days a week, excluding Shabos, then the passage goes into details and explains what it is that is to be done. The verse, “And Moshe said unto whole of the Congregation of the Children of Israel to say, “This is the thing that Hasehm has commanded:” is the beginning of the details and explanation, having established the conditions.


The Maharil Diskin also has an answer for why we should ever think that the labour would be permitted on Shabbos, so that we should require an additional warning to the contrary. There is a Midrash which says that all of the construction work for the Mikdosh was done through miracles, as soon as a worker would start a particular task, an angel would come and finish it for him. The halocho is that a person is only liable for the performance of labour on Shabos if he starts and completes the melocho. One person starting and another finishing, whilst not permitted is not considered to be a Torah violation of Shabos.
Thus the verse tells us that even so, labour may not be performed on Shabos. Furthermore, Shabos is a Shabas Shaboson to Hashem, it’s also Shabos for Him, and anyone who attempts to perform the construction work on Shabos won’t receive angelic assistance.

Going back to the question of why Moshe gathered the whole nation together, the Alshich explains that the construction of the Mishkon was performed as an atonement for the sin of the construction and worship of the Golden Calf. The Golden Calf represented the “booting out” of Hashem from our midst, the Mishkon was the house holy to Hashem from which His Presence dwelt amongst us. The verse Shemos 32:1 says, “And the People gathered together against Aharon”. Since the sin was done through the gathering of the whole nation, so to the atonement had to be done through the gathering of the whole nation. (If the whole nation demands an idol, it’s a desecration of Hashem’s name of great magnitude. If anything less than the whole nation is involved in the atonement it won’t be an equivalent sanctification of Hashem’s name).
In addition, continues the Alshich, the “whole of the Congregation of the Children of Israel” excludes the Eruv Rav, (Mixed Multitude), who incited the CCI to demand an idol.

To summarise, Moshe gathered the whole nation together in order to atone for the sin of the Golden Calf in which the whole nation was involved.
The main subject of this gathering was the work relating to the construction of the Mishkon but Moshe started by presenting a condition of the prohibition of work on Shabos which one may have thought was permitted due to the angelic assistance received, thus avoiding any Shabos desecration.





Have a delightful Shabos! (Sorry about last week, I was preparing for Purim/drunk/hungover. B’ezras Hashem I will post a vort for Kiy Sisa soon)

Parshas Tetzaveh

Moses's Woe'ses's

”And you shall command the Children of Israel and take to you clear olive oil, produced by crushing, for illumination, to raise up the constant light, (Ner Tamid)” (Shemos 27:2)

The start of this verse is very unusual; usually the Torah says that Hashem speaks to Moshe and tells him what to do, here it jumps straight in to Hashem speaking to Moshe directly, without mentioning his name. (The Tur HaAruch points out that this is the only parsha from Shemos until VeZos HaBrachah that doesn’t mention Moshe by name at all).

The Chumash Bais Yehuda interprets this unusual language as telling us the Moshe was upset at his lack of involvement in actual the construction of the Mishkon, to console him Hashem told him that “And YOU shall command…“regarding the oil and later “And YOU shall bring close to you Aharon…” and “And YOU shall talk to all wise of heart…” regarding the priestly garments. This highlighted Moshe’s pivotal role in managing the inauguration of the Mikdosh.

This still begs the question, why was Moshe so upset? Wasn’t he involved enough? Furthermore, how can one of the greatest people who ever lived, who achieved a level of prophecy higher than any other, be satisfied with such a consolation?

Moshe was upset because he wanted more spirituality! Chazal say, “One who loves money will never be satisfied by money”, referring to mitzvos, if you love mitzvos, however many mitzvos you do, however close you become to Hashem, it’s never enough! Moses our teacher was a crazed fundamentalist! All he cared about was God, His Torah and spirituality! That’s what it takes to be a Moshe Rabenu!

Rabbi Yakov Kaminetzky writes in Emes L’Yakov, that Moshe gave shape to the construction of the Mishkon. Presumably this means that whatever construction had took place, it was Moshe that converted this into a House set aside for Hashem, in which His Shechinah would dwell. Bnei Yisroel had built the physical building and implements, but it required Moshe under Hashem’s instruction to make all this into a Mishkon.

Staying with this idea, we can ask what exactly it is that makes something a Mishkon. Can anyone follow the instructions in Parshas Trumah and produce a Mishkon, or does the commandment empower the commanded to turn a building and utensils into a Mishkon?

The Rambam in Hilchos Melochim rules that Klal Yisroel are obligated to appoint a king, destroy Amalek and build a Bais HaMikdosh, (specifically in this order), upon entering Eretz Yisroel. (He writes that this order cannot be changes and is based upon the chronology of Melochim 1)
Although the building of the Temple, (or Mishkon), are mitzvos upon which the entirety of the nation as a whole is commanded, it could be from the order of the Rambam that without a king, the Temple will not have the status of Beis HaMikdosh, (aside from the practicalities of the king is the most able to get the Beis HaMikdosh built, employing legislative and executive powers).
If this is so, either: without a king any Temple will not be a Beis HaMikdosh, it will always remain a very nice building, (the king is a ikar to the toras din shaim "Beis Hamikdosh"), or, the Temple that the nation builds without a king will be a Beis HaMikdosh, but will be posul, the Shechinah will not dwell there until there’s a king, (the appointment of a king would be the completion of the Beis HaMikdosh), (the king is a tanay to the toras din shaim "Beis Hamikdosh"). (Italics are the technical term for what I wrote in English - see Bircas Shmuel on Gittin, forgotten which siman).

If the above idea is true, although Moshe was relatively uninvolved in the construction of the Mishkon in Parshas Trumoh, it was him, with his status of king, that enabled the Mishkon to be the location of Hashem’s dwelling amongst Yisroel, either because without him it would not be a Mikdosh, or it would be a Mikdosh but unable to function.

Therefore, by emphasizing “you shall command” regarding the production of the oil and the inauguration of the Kohanim, leading to the inauguration of the Mikdosh with the Avodah, (temple service), Hashem was telling Moshe that he, as king of Yisroel was imparting the status of Mishkon and thus essentially involved in the construction.

Parshas Trumah

If God Owns the Whole Universe, Why do I have to Give Him My Hard Earned?


“And Hashem spoke to Moshe to say: “Speak to the Bnei Yisroel and take for me trumoh, from each man whose heart volunteers him take my trumoh”” Shemos 25:1-2

“And make for me a Mikdosh, and I will dwell amongst you.” Shemos 25:8


Hashem tells Moshe to take building materials from any one who volunteers them.

After telling him this, He tells him to build a Mikdosh and Hashem will thus dwell amongst Bnei Yisroel.

Onkelos translates Trumoh as a separating; the posuk says that anyone who wants to donate should “separate a separating.” This repetition could indicate that this donation has to be actively separated – there has to be an action of separation, and that once separated, the materials have to be set aside for their holy purpose.

The word Mikdosh is a derivation of Kodesh, “holy” or literally, set aside, (Something holy is set aside for holy purposes).
Rashi explains the phrase, “And make for me a Mikdosh” as meaning “Make in my name a holy/separated house”. Thus, once a “house”, set aside for godly purposes, is made for Hashem, then he will dwell amongst us.

Why without a Mikdosh will Hashem refrain from dwelling amongst us?
Why do the contributions have to be volunteered? Moshe had the status of King over the Jewish People in the desert; he could have raised a tax to acquire the required materials!

I should like to suggest by means of an answer, that to build a sanctuary for God in this world and allow His Shechinah to dwell amongst us, (in whatever sense that means – we talk about Shechinah a lot but that doesn’t make it a simple concept), will result in great closeness to Him. To achieve a sense of closeness to any person, requires a will to do so. All the more so, to achieve this sense of closeness to Hashem, who’s so beyond our comprehension, needs a will on our part. To attempt to cause Him to “dwell” amongst us in this world with a compulsory tax, extracted from everybody against their will can’t work! Therefore the materials had to be donated; a will had to be there on the part of Bnei Yisroel.

Rabbi Shmuel Birenbaum (of blessed memory – Rosh Yeshiva of Mir in America) explains in B’krai Shmoi why the request for contributions preceded the command to build a Mikdosh and the explanation of what that Mikdosh will result in. Were the whole nation to know for what a great purpose they were donating from their hard earned wealth, this may allow ulterior motives to creep into the giving. A request for donations “from the heart” will ensure that only love of God will motivate the givers.

R’ Shmuel uses this to demonstrate the greatness of the act of building the Mishkon; the whole of the heavens and the Earth can’t provide a dwelling for His Shechinah and yet in our parsha Hashem instructs Moshe to do just that! Not only this, but it has to be funded by people giving away the booty which they had traveled across Egypt and the shore of the Yam Suf to collect, for an unknown purpose, in the name of Hashem!

I think that this can also be used to develop my answer above; that the donations were to be motivated purely by an expression of love for Hashem.


Note:
(The Brisker Rov also deals with why the materials had to be donated before the commandment of building the Mikdosh.
The Halocho is that the Mikdish has to be built with communal funds, belonging to the whole of Klal Yisroel, by the whole of the nation. Therefore the materials had to be donated by the respective individuals to the communal funds, then sanctified and used for the building).



A (very) brief biography of HaRav Shmuel Birnbam can be found at my other blog, Jewish Fundamentalim.

Jewishfundamentalim.blogspot.com

(See link in links box)

Parshas Mishpotim

Money, Money, Money


“And these are the statutes that you shall put before yourselves.” Shemos 21:1

Onkelos translates this verse as “And these are the laws that you shall order before yourselves” This adds an element of a requirement of orderliness and arrangement of the commandments taught in the parsha.

This leads into Rashi’s explanation that Hashem told Moshe that these laws should not be studied until known, rather the reasons and explanations of the laws have to be studied, the word “Tasim”, (which I translated as “put”) connotes that these laws should be like a set table ready for a person to eat from. That is, everybody should be well versed in these laws and understand them fully, not just in terms of practical halacha but to understand the fundamental underlying principles.

Does this exhortation apply exclusively to the mitzvos of this parsha or to all of the mitzvos of the Torah? (Perhaps a binyan av could tell us to apply this concept across the Torah – the Torah chose to put this posuk here but intended it to apply generally, just as it applies here, it applies everywhere unless otherwise indicated).

Why were these financial laws chosen for this exhortation?

The Ponim Yafos, (Rabbi Pinchas HaLevy Horowitz of Frankfurt), quotes the Gemoro at the end of Bava Basra, (175a), to illustrate this verse: “Rabbi Yishmael says, “One who wishes to become wise should involve himself in monetary laws, for there is no connectedness in the Torah greater than in these laws and they are like an abundant well”.

He continues to explain that all monetary laws are based on concepts which can be arrived at through analysis, (wisdom and sense), and are similar to one another. This is not the case with other Mitzvos which have laws that are specific to that particular Mitzvah and the principles don’t necessarily transfer to other areas of halocho.

According to this, the Torah specified that these monetary laws expressed in the Parsha should be studied diligently in order to understand the underlying principles, since the Mitzvos expressed here are precisely those which will lead to wisdom if studied correctly.
However, this is not the simple understanding of the verse, rather a drosh, (allegorical interpretation). Therefore it is still possible to say that in “simple” pshat terms the verse applies to all Mitzvos.

The Nefesh HaChaim and the the Ramo (in the introduction to his commentary on Megilas Ester), (and probably several other seforim which I havn’t seen), explain that the Torah takes on an outer dressing appropriate to that spiritual world in which it is in. Thus in our physical world, it deals with physical matters, such as monetary law and the stories of the fathers of the Nation of Yisroel, the dressing of the spiritual principles, applying them to this world . The Torah in the highest spiritual planes is without this dressing, and that which is allegorical in the Torah as given to us is the simple meaning there. (I’m not saying that I understand this, or that it’s simple!)
The Chida, (Rabbi Chaim Yosef David Azulay), writes in Nachal Kedomim, that each word and letter of Torah has many hidden meanings which were transmitted to Moshe by Hashem. The vav of “v’eleh”, (the “and” of the “And these…”), indicates that “these statutes” are in addition to something else. The Chida explains this something else as referring to the hidden meanings of the Torah, as opposed to the “dressing” to apply it to our world denoted by the eleh, (these). These laws, as the dressing of the Torah for our world are what are placed in front of us, written expressly in the Torah. The hidden meanings, in this world are reserved for certain worthy individuals. The revealed Torah is what we are required to toil in, in order to adhere to Hashem’s Mitzvos in this world and is the primary means of connecting with Hashem. The hidden is for those who have already mastered the revealed – no matter how exciting the hidden part of Torah may seem.
According to this, the admonition to become fully expert in the laws and their workings would apply to the whole of the Torah, there is no reason that this should apply to monetary law more than any other area, (although perhaps monetary halocho is Mitzvos at their most worldly).

This would appear to conflict with the Ponim Yafos, however, more than one allegorical meaning can exist in any given verse, since this is anyway not the simple literal meaning of that verse. Two contradicting literal readings cannot coexist, but drosh anyway presupposes several interpretations.


This was fun, but didn’t answer the questions above!

The Ikar Sifsei Chachomim understands Rashi’s explanation of “place” as referring to gaining the greatest expertise and understanding as being necessitated by the unusual word “put”, rather than the usual “Hashem spoke” or “said”. Since the Torah has changed its language here, there must be an additional connotation beyond the regular transmitting of law from Hashem to Moshe, thus the explanation of the verse as an exhortation to understand the reasoning of the Torah.

Of course, we can still ask whether the change in language indicates something particular to this parsha, or something general, applicable to the whole Torah.

Perhaps, we can use the allegorical interpretations of the Ponim Yafos and the Chida on a pshat, (literal), level.

The Torah wanted to exhort us to delve into the reasoning of the Torah in all laws. According to the Nefesh HaChaim, this amounts to instant deveikus, (closeness), to Hashem. Why should this be restricted to monetary halocho? Thus the v’eleh will tell us to gain understanding on the laws which have been put before us – the revealed Torah as a whole. However, the Torah chose the parsha of the monetary laws for this exhortation because of their interconnectedness and their lending themselves to the development of wisdom and technique in Torah study. (It could be that the Torah indicates this as a starting point in Torah study; yeshivos focus on the masechtos dealing with these laws, leaving intensive study of other areas of halocho for students already versed in monetary halocho).

Thus, two apparently allegorical interpretations of the verse have been combined to understand the pshat!


Gut Shabbos

Yisro

“And Yisro the priest of Midian, the father-in-law of Moshe heard all that Elokim had done to Moshe and to Yisroel His people, for Hashem had taken Yisroel out of Egypt.” (Shemos, 18:1)

………………….

“And Yisro, the father-in-law of Moshe, and his, (Moshe’s) children and his wife came to Moshe, to the desert, where he had encamped at the mountain of Elokim.” (Shemos, 18:5)

Rashi writes on “And Yisro… heard”, “What did he hear to motivate him to come? The splitting of the sea and the battle with Amalek.”

This explanation of Rashi is based on the Gemoro in Zevochim, 116a: “What did Yisro hear to motivate him to come and convert? Rabbi Yehoshua says, “The battle with Amalek is what he heard that motivated him to come, etc.” Rabbi Elazar Hamodai says, “Matan Torah is what he heard that motivated him to come, (etc)” Rabbi Elazar says, “Krias Yam Suf (the splitting of the sea) is what motivated him to come, etc.”

All three of the Tanaim, quote from verses to support their opinions. (Our focus is on Rashi, therefore I havn’t quoted the whole piece).

We can see from this, that Rashi has combined the reasons of R’ Yehoshua and R’ Elazar, leaving aside the explanation of R’ Elazar Hamodai.

The Maharal writing in his commentary on Rashi, Gur Aryeh, explains that the miracle that motivated Yisro to travel to Moshe could not have been any of the ten plagues because they took place over a period of one year, he could have come several months before he did. In addition, it can’t be that only after hearing of all ten he was motivated to come, because if one was insufficient, two or more of the same magnitude of miracle would also be insufficient, (we’ll come back to this later).

The Maharal explains that Rashi doesn’t quote the opinion of R’ Elazar Hamodai because the parsha of Yisro’s arrival is related before Matan Torah. Thus his opinion is not in line with the simplest meaning of the text, (we try to keep the Torah chronological unless there is need to say that an earlier passage happened after a later one – the principle “there is no earlier and later in the Torah” is not a line of first resort, hence for example Bereishis is accepted as taking place before Shemos), Yisro couldn’t have heard about it because it hadn’t happened yet. (R’ Elazar Hamodai has reasons for moving away from the simplest meaning and invoking “there is no earlier and later in the Torah”, but Rashi focuses on the simplest meaning and explanation in his commentary).

Now we’re left with the splitting of the sea and the battle with Amalek. The battle with Amalek immediately precedes the Parsha of Yisro’s arrival and therefore is the most simple explanation contextually. However, the end of the verse, (18:1), says, “for Hashem had taken Yisroel out of Egypt”, therefore the Krias Yam Suf, the greatest of all the miracles involved in the escape from Egypt, (as Rashi says), must also be included in the reason for Yisro coming.

Therefore we can see from this that Rabbi Elazar Hamodai says that Matan Torah and Krias Yam Suf were what inspired Yisro to come, and Rabbi Yehoshua says that it was the battle with Amalek and Krias Yam Suf.

Krias Yam Suf demonstrated a total control of Hashem over the land – all of the waters in the world split to reveal dry land. During the battle with Amelek the sun stood still, demonstrating a total control of Hashem over the heavens. These were both of greater magnitude than anything which had occurred during the ten plagues. They were all localized and demonstrated control of only one aspect of creation at a time, something which idolaters also attribute to their idols, (if every polytheistic pantheon there is a god of thunder, a god of the seas etc.). Therefore in the Egyptian plagues there was no unarguable proof as to the greatness of Hashem.

However, these two miracles together demonstrated a comprehensive control over the heavens and the earth.

Therefore, Rabbi Elazar holds that the demonstration of total mastery over the earth was sufficient to inspire Yisro to join Klal Yisroel, Rabbi Yehoshua holds that only after an additional demonstration of mastery over the heaves as well was Yisro motivated to do so. (Rabbi Elazar Hamodai holds that Matan Torah, demonstrating mastery over Olam Haba and spirituality was required in addition to convince Yisro).

So, returning to Rashi, he explains that the demonstration of Hashem’s mastery over the heavens and the earth, being the two simplest ways of explaining the verse, (in addition to the most tangible – Yisro could see the land/water and sky, Torah doesn’t have a physical manifestation), together motivated Yisro to come.

We may not see open miracles in our times, but, someone sensitive to spirituality can appreciate many instances of Divine influence in our lives, in the lives of others and in the life of Klal Yisroel as a whole.

The Torah, Nevi’im and Kesuvim tell us of the open miracles that Hashem performed for our fathers.

When Yisro heard of these miracles, he left his land, religion and culture to convert, all the more so, we can leave behind the alien mindsets which we have acquired during the long torment of our exile and strengthen ourselves towards greater faith and trust in Hashem by contemplating both the miracles of the Torah and the miracles we see today.

Post for Yisro coming soon.......

Parshas B'shalach

Oi Vay!


“And it was, (Vayhi), as Paroh sent the people (out of Egypt)…..”

Chazal, (the sages of the Talmud), tell us that “Vay” – “And it…” is a loshon tzar; a linguistic device to indicate trouble and upset.

Therefore whenever a passage begins with the (vav/kometz/yud) “Vay..” prefix, something is wrong!

The most famous example is at the start of the Megilla, “And it was in the days of Achashverush…”, “Vayhi bimey Achashverush…” (Please excuse the transliterations, the site won’t let me paste Hebrew in from Word).
There the verse introduces us to the tale of the attempted genocide against the Jewish nation.

In the context of our parsha however, with the downtrodden children of Yakov Avinu, finally led out of the land of their enslavement as free men/women/people, what trouble and upset was there?! Wasn’t this a moment of unparalleled joy?

This is the question of R’ Yehonason Eibshitz in his work Tiferes Yehonason.

He explains that “the people”, (“Ha’am”), refers to the mixed multitude, or the Eiruv Rav, the large group of members of other nations, also enslaved in Egypt that left together with Yisroel.

The Egyptians were the world leaders in sorcery, R Yehonason explains, (and I have also heard in the name of the Gr”a), that Egyptian sorcerers were able to prevent slaves from leaving Egypt through their sorcery: The Eiruv Rav was only able to leave with Paroh’s permission.

But why would Paroh give everyone permission to leave? Just because Yisroel were leaving, did that call for giving up and letting everybody go?!

Rather, explains Rabbi Eibshitz, after being decidedly beaten by Hashem in the game of wills, Paroh knowingly did this in order to reduce Hashem’s Glory: If just Yisroel had left, it would have clearly been the work of God. If everybody left, the miracles of the plagues could be attributed to the idols of the other nations as well!

If the followers of idolatry also left en mass, how can you be sure that Hashem performed miracles on behalf of the Jewish people? Maybe it was the idols weighing in for their worshippers, either on their own or together with Hashem?

Thus Moshe and the whole Nation of Israel were upset, at what was supposed to be the moment of national relief and celebration, God’s honor had been reduced through Paroh’s latest scheme!

Why should they have been so upset though? Who cares about Hashem’s glory?!

The Chasam Sofer writes in one of his drashos, that, anyone who’s heart is completely with Hashem is able to perceive the spiritual feeling of mourning during the period of the three weeks between 17 Tamuz and 9 Av. Such people don’t need laws of mourning during this period, they are in sincere mourning anyway!

The hearts of Moshe and Klal Yisroel were at this point completely with Hashem, they could perceive this reduction in God’s glory! Thus they were pained by this to the extent that even at the moment of their freedom, they were preoccupied with this scheme of Paroh.

Most of us today do not feel pained at any reductions in God’s glory, it’s not an easy task in our generation! However, if we can at least realize that when Hashem’s honor is under attack se should feel upset, then this could be a start towards “resensitizing” ourselves to Hashem and spirituality!
Then there's Labor, the party that, at Camp David in 2000 and in the subsequent final months of president Clinton's administration, sought and failed to achieve a permanent agreement with the Yasser Arafat-led PA. I don't know whether, even as a junior coalition partner, it would push for further concessions than those considered by Barak back then. Those concessions, it will be recalled, fell some way short of the parameters apparently contemplated by Olmert in recent months. enders have warned that the is unlikely to recover this year, despite the government's suggestions that lending should be returned to 2007 levels.ohousing market unemployment foreign exvhange personal finaince

Mazal Tov

MAZAL TOV

advertise your simcha here!


seforimgisheft@gmail.com

Parshas Bo

“And Hashem said to Moshe, come to Paroh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his servants in order to place these wonders of mine in his midst.”

The Ramban comments on this verse as follows:

“The Holy One Blessed Be He made known to Moshe that he was hardening their hearts since they were afraid of Him on account of the hail and confessed their iniquity.
And He said to him, (Moshe), “The reason that I am doing this is in order that I will place in their midst these wonders which I wish to do to them so that Egypt will know of my might, not that I shall punish them more because of this hardening, and further more, in order that you and all Yisroel should recount the strength of My doings for your subsequent generations and you shall know that I am Hashem and all that I wish to do, I carry out, in the heavens and the earth.”

God told Moshe that although the Egyptians wouldn’t be punished any more than they were already deserving of, nonetheless, the hearts of Paroh and his counselors would be hardened in order to prolong the subjugation of the Jewish People and the perform additional plagues to demonstrate His might.

However, if Hashem was going to perform additional plagues, isn’t that additional punishment?

If the full amount of the punishment already accrued by Egypt hadn’t yet been visited upon them by the time they confessed their iniquity, hadn’t the opportunity to continue punishing them been lost?

Why was this step by step slow increase in the intensity of the plague required? Why couldn’t one super-plague have took the place of the hail, without any subsequent need for additional heart hardening?

It could be that Hashem wanted to incrementally increase the intensity of the plagues rather than to throw everything at them at once in order to make the greatest psychological impact. There is a format in Mishnayos of introducing the smallest chiddush first. (That is quoting the halacha which departs the least from our expectations at the beginning of a list of halachos). This format is called Lo Zu, Af Zu, not only this but even this! I have heard said in a gemoro shiur, that this format is designed to intensify the emotional impact on the reader, as the Mishna intensifies the “newness” of its contents.
Thus it could be said in the case of the plagues too, that one super-plague wouldn’t have the incremental physcological effect of a build up of ten plagues, ending with the slaying of the first born.
Therefore, if Paroh and his advisors had acceded to Moshe’s request to be allowed to leave before reaching “number 10”, the full revelation of God’s power which He wanted to reveal in Egypt would not have been reached. Yisroel would have left before they had seen the all of the miracles which would testify for them that, “I am Hashem and all that I wish to do, I carry out, in the heavens and the earth.”

Therefore the punishment of which Egypt was already deserving, before the start of the plagues, was divided into ten from the outset.

However this still leaves the question that if Paroh and his advisors wanted to repent, thereby bringing the plagues to an early conclusion, how could Hashem prevent this? And isn’t this an infliction of additional punishment?!

To answer this it may be possible to rely on the Rambam, Hilchos Teshuva, 1:4, who says that in the case of serious transgressions, even though the sinner repents, only once tribulations have come upon him, (and in the most serious cases of sin, death as well), will he be atoned.

If this idea can apply to nations as well as individuals, then we can now understand why even after Paroh wanted to repent and his heart was hardened, additional plagues weren’t considered additional punishment, the repentance of Egypt wasn’t enough to avoid the coming of further plagues.

Therefore, in order to visit divine retribution in an orderly and incremental fashion, revealing some of Hashem’s greatness to the Jewish people in the most effective manner, Paroh’s heart had to be hardened, allowing the plagues to continue in the presence of the Jewish people in Egypt.


Although this approach hasn’t dealt will all the questions that one could ask on the Ramban, and although it too generates further questions, nonetheless, we have at least to some extent understood this piece and identified some fundamentals of the faith!



foreign exchange, mobile phone, computing, download manager

Parshas V’era

“And Elokim spoke to Moshe and said to him I am Hashem”. Shemos 6,2

A first reading of the opening verse of the parsha reveals something quite unusual:

The verse begins referring to Elokim, the name connoting God’s attribute of justice and correspondingly has God speaking to Moshe, connoting harshness.

However, the verse finishes with God referred to as Hashem, connoting His attribute of mercy, saying to Moshe, connoting softer speech!

Put like this the verse reads, “And God with his attribute of justice spoke harshly to Moshe to say to him in a softer fashion that, ‘I am God in my attribute of mercy’!”

Why did the verse need to open with justice and harshness in order to close with softness and mercy, without even saying anything in between?!

Parshas Shemos ends with Moshe Rabenu, filled with distress that his first meeting with Paroh has resulted only in the increase of the hardships of the Bnei Yisroel. He asks God, “Master! Why have you worsened the lot of this people? Why have you sent me?”

Rashi explains our verse in this week’s parsha as beginning with God speaking to Moshe harshly and with justice, on account of his having questioned Him (in Shemos) and ending with God confirming that He will reward those who walk in front of him and that not for nothing has he sent Moshe on his mission.

The Satmar Rov, HaRav Yoel Teitelbaum asks two questions on this verse:

1) Why should God speak harshly to Moshe for asking in his distress at the suffering of Yisroel, why He allowed the situation of to worsen?

2) Having done so, why should God go back on Himself to speak with Mercy within the same prophetic communication? He could have “made His point” continuing to speak harshly!

The Satmar Rov continues to quote a Midrash, that in our verse, “Elokim” refers to God’s dealing with Egypt and “Hashem” to Yisroel, explaining in the name of the Yefes To’ar, (a Chassidic work on the Torah), that God explains in this verse that he will judge Egypt and have mercy upon Yisroel. On this Midrash and its explaination, Reb Yoel asks, “Who mentioned Egypt”? The verse is referring to God talking to Moshe about the sufferings of Bnei Yisroel and Moshe’s response to those sufferings!

To provide a theoretical basis for his answer the Satmar Rov, turns to another Midrash. This Midrash explains that the verse dealing with the splitting of the Red Sea, “And the water was for them a wall, (Chomah)” should also be read homiletically as “And the water was for them angry, (Chamoh)”

The sea was filled with anger at Yisroel for serving idols in Egypt. Ultimately this anger was unleashed on the pursuing Egyptians as the walls of the sea came crashing down upon them. Reb Yoel explains that even though both Yisroel and Egypt had served Idols, the Jewish People are judged swiftly, in order to punish them in this world, whereas the other nations are shown clemency, in order that those good deeds that they have are fully rewarded in this world and not the World to Come.

Nonetheless, this punishment was transferred onto the Egyptians and the sea’s anger at Bnei Yisroel was unleashed on their oppressors, even though Bnei Yisroel were guilty of idolatry and even though Egypt had plenty of their own misdeeds to be punished for, without needing to receive anyone else’s punishment instead!

At that moment it was appropriate to punish Yisroel, and so the sea filled with anger. However, the sins of the enslaved Jewish nation were not entirely of their own volition, under the strain of their slavery and the influence of the corrupt Egyptian society surrounding them, they were led into sin.

Therefore the anger generated at the sins of Yisroel ultimately found the right address; those responsible for the descent into sin!

With this Midrash, Reb Yoel is able to explain the two difficulties outlined above, although Moshe Rabbenu was moved by the suffering of his brethren, for somebody on his exalted spiritual level, his complaint against God was considered to be improper. Thus, God’s attribute of justice was aroused.

However, Moshe’s distress was caused by the suffering inflicted by Egypt, thus the punishment was directed at Egypt!

Now we can understand the first Midrash, the attribute of justice aroused by Moshe’s complaint was transferred into Egypt, leaving Moshe and Yisroel to be dealt with according to the attribute of God’s mercy.