What's the connection between the end of the previous parsha -- where Moshe charges Yehoshua not to fear war against Canaan because G-d will help with that conquest just like he helped with the conquest of the lands of Sichon and Og -- and the tefilah of Moshe which opens our parsha?
Ramban (see also Ibn Ezra) explains that there is a gap in the narrative that Moshe is filling in. Moshe told us at the end of last week's parsha that Yehoshua would be in charge, but he never explained why he would not be filling that role himself. Our parsha fills in the rest of the story.
I am not sure how Ramban would explain why the Torah needs to record the entire tefilah of Moshe in all its detail. The only point that we need in order to close the narrative gap is the fact that G-d rejected Moshe's tefilah for whatever reason. In fact, all we really need to know is that Moshe sinned and would therefore not be allowed to enter Eretz Yisrael.
Alshich suggests that the Torah here is delivering a powerful psychological boost to the people. Moshe records his tefilah as a nechama (Shabbos Nachamu!) to Klal Yisrael. Imagine the people's reaction to hearing that Yehoshua would be the one in charge: You took us this far and are now abandoning us? You took us this far and now are giving up the fight? So Moshe tells them that's not the case. To the contrary, he davened because he wanted to join them and continue the journey. He was even willing to give up his role as leader and enter Eretz Yisrael as just a simple Jew, a regular member of the klal, if only to be with them at that moment when they were zocheh to come into the land. Moshe was in effect telling the people look at the great effort I made through tefilah so as not to forsake you.
Hashem turned Moshe down, "Va'yisaber Hashem l'ma'anchem," for the sake of the people. Moshe spent his life working miracles; the dor de'ah of the midbar needed that type of leadership. The generation which entered Eretz Yisrael had to find G-d in the mundane world -- no miracles. Their leader is Yehoshua. Moshe here told the people that G-d had to turn his prayers down because his neshoma was needed in chutz la'aretz, in the midbar, because he was the eternal leader of the dor de'ah; at the time of ultimate redemption he would need to be there to lead them into Eretz Yisrael.
Alshich writes that we see from here that no Jewish soul is forsaken. The dor de'ah were stuck in the midbar because they rejected Eretz Yisrael and trusted in the report of the meraglim. They took the word of the spies over that of Moshe, Aharon, Yehoshua, and Kaleiv. Nonetheless, G-d did not let Moshe enter Eretz Yisrael so as to allow for the future redemption of even these souls.
We've discussed What of the souls of the dor ha'midbar, the generation Moshe served as the leader of for some many years? Who would lead them to Eretz Yisrael in the future if there was no Moshe Rabeinu? Therefore, Moshe had to remain outside the land. Amazing: to bring the generation who had sinned with the meraglim and rejected the land eventually into the land, Moshe is denied the privilege he so wanted. To prevent Jewish souls from being lost, Hashem denied the dying request of the great Moshe.
Thursday, July 26, 2018
Monday, July 23, 2018
incompatible headlines
Just before 9 Av I was looking at Arutz 7 and noticed one tragic headline story after another. In Paris a Jew was beaten, in Vienna Jews were attached, there was the usual fire kites in southern Israel. All over the world it seems Jews are under attack and in peril. The I chanced upon another site and I discovered that for the first time a kosher restaurant will open and be shooting for a Michelin rating. For the first time you can take a kosher cruise to Antartica (I guess we are running out of places to go.)
How can these two worlds exist side by side?
Those who learned the sugya of the churban in the Gitin will recall the story of the great city of Tur Malka, where while the enemy was slaughtering its inhabitants on one side of the city people were dancing and partying on the other end.
I don't think Chazal are just trying to convey to us the great size of Tur Malka. I think Chazal are trying to show us how oblivious people can be to the plight of their neighbors, blind to what is happening until tragedy finally strikes them.
Even if we are not altruistic enough to think about what is happening to others for its own sake, we might well do so if only for selfish reasons.
Midrash Eicha writes that had we been zocheh we would read the pasuk of "Ra'oh ra'isi es ani ami asher b'Mitzrayim," but now we have to deal with the pasuk of "R'ei Hashem ki tzar li mei'ay chamarmaru."
R' Yisachar Teichtel in his derashos explains that if we look at what is befalling others, "asher b'Mitzrayim," who are in difficult straits, that should motivate/ inspire/ shock us to correct our own sins if only to avoid the same plight. But if we are blind to what is happening elsewhere, then, "mei'ay chamarmaru," we will be eating our own kishkes up with grief down the road because the same fate will eventually catch up with us.
How can these two worlds exist side by side?
Those who learned the sugya of the churban in the Gitin will recall the story of the great city of Tur Malka, where while the enemy was slaughtering its inhabitants on one side of the city people were dancing and partying on the other end.
I don't think Chazal are just trying to convey to us the great size of Tur Malka. I think Chazal are trying to show us how oblivious people can be to the plight of their neighbors, blind to what is happening until tragedy finally strikes them.
Even if we are not altruistic enough to think about what is happening to others for its own sake, we might well do so if only for selfish reasons.
Midrash Eicha writes that had we been zocheh we would read the pasuk of "Ra'oh ra'isi es ani ami asher b'Mitzrayim," but now we have to deal with the pasuk of "R'ei Hashem ki tzar li mei'ay chamarmaru."
R' Yisachar Teichtel in his derashos explains that if we look at what is befalling others, "asher b'Mitzrayim," who are in difficult straits, that should motivate/ inspire/ shock us to correct our own sins if only to avoid the same plight. But if we are blind to what is happening elsewhere, then, "mei'ay chamarmaru," we will be eating our own kishkes up with grief down the road because the same fate will eventually catch up with us.
Thursday, July 19, 2018
Shabbos Chazon - 9 Av
First a little lomdus, then a little machshava:
1) When 9 Av is a nidche, the halacha is that a ba'al bris does not have to finish the fast because it is his Y"T.
You still have to fast even though it is a nidche. Why should a ba'al bris have a different halacha than on a regular 9 Av?
Rav Wahrman (Sheiris Yosef vol 5) quotes from R' Leizer Silver and the Rogatchover that a ta'anis tzibur is not just a chiyuv on the gavra not to eat, but there is a chalos in the day.
It could be that a fast which is nidche does not have that chalos in the day. It is not 9 Av on Sunday -- it's 10 Av. There is still an obligation to fast, but that is a chovas ha'gavra, not a result of the status of the day itself. Therefore the Y"T of the individual can override it.
He has a number of proofs, but on to other things...
2) Vi'varech eschem ka'asher dibeir lachem…(1:11) Chazal tell us as a general rule that dibur = kashos, harsh words, as opposed to amira = pleasant talk. Why then does the Torah use the expression "dibeir" when it is speaking about brachos given to Klal Yisrael?
It's Shabbos Chazon; it's 9 Av. We are at the climax of the season of kashos, or difficulties and harshness. What the Torah is telling us, explains the Tiferes Banim (the son of the Bnei Yisaschar), is that even when we are faced with dibur=kashos, there is always a "vi'vareich eschem" behind the scenes. Even when we are getting smacked, it is a bracha in disguise.
The gemara always uses the expression ta shema, come and hear; the Zohar uses the expression ta chazi, come and see. When you are learning pnimiyus haTorah, you have to look more deeply inside (inside the ideas, but inside yourself as well). Shabbos reveals the pnimiyus which is hidden the rest of the week. Shabbos Chazon, ta chazi, is about seeing the pnimiyus of the tzaros of churban; it's about looking forward to the day when we can understand how there can be an element of bracha even there.
The Shulchan Aruch gives us a siman to remember that 9 Av always falls out the same day as the first day of Pesach: aleph-taf. Aleph, the first day of Pesach, always corresponds to taf, Tisha b'Av.
R' Leibele Eiger (Toras Emes last piece in Devarim) writes that this is not simply a mnemonic, but it tells us that there is a relationship between these two days. At the moment of geulah from Mitzrayim, the seed of churban was already planted -- the aleph, the beginning, contained within in the end, taf. But by the same token, the end, Tisha b'Av, contains within it the seed of future geulah, a new beginning.
The gemara (Ta'anis 29) writes that when 9 Av falls on Shabbos one can eat even a meal like that of Shlomo ha'Melech. Why does the gemara use that expression -- why not just as "a big meal?" R' Leibele Eiger explains that the gemara is telling us that Shabbos reveals to us a little of the pnimiyus of 9 Av. Shlomo built the Beis haMikdash, fulfilling the dream of "zeh K-li v'anveihu" (see Targum Onkelus there) that we had at Yam Suf. When 9 Av is on Shabbos we experience a little taste of that fulfillment of geulah that ordinarily lies hidden within the day. We can celebrate as if we lived in Shlomo's times, with a Beis haMikdash, with hashra'as haShechina.
Hopefully we will see it b'poel in our time.
1) When 9 Av is a nidche, the halacha is that a ba'al bris does not have to finish the fast because it is his Y"T.
You still have to fast even though it is a nidche. Why should a ba'al bris have a different halacha than on a regular 9 Av?
Rav Wahrman (Sheiris Yosef vol 5) quotes from R' Leizer Silver and the Rogatchover that a ta'anis tzibur is not just a chiyuv on the gavra not to eat, but there is a chalos in the day.
It could be that a fast which is nidche does not have that chalos in the day. It is not 9 Av on Sunday -- it's 10 Av. There is still an obligation to fast, but that is a chovas ha'gavra, not a result of the status of the day itself. Therefore the Y"T of the individual can override it.
He has a number of proofs, but on to other things...
2) Vi'varech eschem ka'asher dibeir lachem…(1:11) Chazal tell us as a general rule that dibur = kashos, harsh words, as opposed to amira = pleasant talk. Why then does the Torah use the expression "dibeir" when it is speaking about brachos given to Klal Yisrael?
It's Shabbos Chazon; it's 9 Av. We are at the climax of the season of kashos, or difficulties and harshness. What the Torah is telling us, explains the Tiferes Banim (the son of the Bnei Yisaschar), is that even when we are faced with dibur=kashos, there is always a "vi'vareich eschem" behind the scenes. Even when we are getting smacked, it is a bracha in disguise.
The gemara always uses the expression ta shema, come and hear; the Zohar uses the expression ta chazi, come and see. When you are learning pnimiyus haTorah, you have to look more deeply inside (inside the ideas, but inside yourself as well). Shabbos reveals the pnimiyus which is hidden the rest of the week. Shabbos Chazon, ta chazi, is about seeing the pnimiyus of the tzaros of churban; it's about looking forward to the day when we can understand how there can be an element of bracha even there.
The Shulchan Aruch gives us a siman to remember that 9 Av always falls out the same day as the first day of Pesach: aleph-taf. Aleph, the first day of Pesach, always corresponds to taf, Tisha b'Av.
R' Leibele Eiger (Toras Emes last piece in Devarim) writes that this is not simply a mnemonic, but it tells us that there is a relationship between these two days. At the moment of geulah from Mitzrayim, the seed of churban was already planted -- the aleph, the beginning, contained within in the end, taf. But by the same token, the end, Tisha b'Av, contains within it the seed of future geulah, a new beginning.
The gemara (Ta'anis 29) writes that when 9 Av falls on Shabbos one can eat even a meal like that of Shlomo ha'Melech. Why does the gemara use that expression -- why not just as "a big meal?" R' Leibele Eiger explains that the gemara is telling us that Shabbos reveals to us a little of the pnimiyus of 9 Av. Shlomo built the Beis haMikdash, fulfilling the dream of "zeh K-li v'anveihu" (see Targum Onkelus there) that we had at Yam Suf. When 9 Av is on Shabbos we experience a little taste of that fulfillment of geulah that ordinarily lies hidden within the day. We can celebrate as if we lived in Shlomo's times, with a Beis haMikdash, with hashra'as haShechina.
Hopefully we will see it b'poel in our time.
Monday, July 16, 2018
feelings trump facts in tefilah
Two ideas on Masei, one a great yesod in tefilah, one a great Meshech Chochma:
1. Someone who killed b'shogeg must stay in an ir miklat until the kohen gadol dies. The Mishna writes that mothers of kohanim gedolim used to deliver food to the ir miklat so that the killers would not pray for their children to die so they could get out. Why is the sentence of the murderer tied to the kohen gadol? The gemara explains that the kohen should have davened for the killer to not suffer such a fate.
The gemara says that even if the kohen gadol is appointed just before the verdict on the case is announced, the murderer must still stay put until the death of the new kohen gadol.
Why is this new kohen gadol held responsible for not davening when the facts of the case are in already before he is appointed? What good will his prayers do at this point? If the murdered committed a crime, he will be sentenced; if he is innocent he will go free. Prayers can't change what happened in the past!
R' Baruch Sorotzkin (in HaBinah v'HaBracha) answers that when it comes to davening, the facts don't matter. Imagine r"l if a parent or a child is in the hospital -- does anyone say, "Well, the doctor says this is the likely outcome, so there is no point of davening?" Of course not. Tefilah is an emotional response; we don't weigh odds or facts or logic before crying out to Hashem. Here too, if the kohen gadol truly empathized with the plight of this fellow Jew, regardless of whether the facts were in, regardless of whether it was obvious how beis din would rule, he would still cry out on his behalf. To not do so is a pgam in the kohen's ahavas Yisrael and midas hachessed.
2. The halacha is that one must tear kriya on seeing the ruins of the cities of Yehudah. Sha'arei Teshuvah O.C. 561 quotes a sevara to explain why people don't tear kriya on seeing the city of Chevron: since it is an ir miklat and a city for the Leviim to live in, it no longer has the status of being part of Yehudah's portion.
This sevara makes two major assumptions. The first assumption is that cities designated for the Levi'im to live in actually become their nachala. In other words, it is no longer a city of Yehudah (or whatever sheivet) that Levi'im happen to live in, but it is a city that *belongs* to sheiveit Levi as their portion in Eretz Yisrael. The Rambam paskens (Ma'aser Sheni 11:17) that Leviim and Kohanim can recite viduy ma'aser because even though they did not receive a portion in Eretz Yisrael they received cities to live in. This is their nachala.
The second assumption: The gemara at the end of Sota tells us that after churban haBayis there were no longer cities designated for the Levi'im -- even when Ezra returned and resettled Eretz Yisrael. Why not? The Meshech Chochma on our parsha (Masei) admits that he is baffled by the question, but suggests that perhaps it is because unlike in the days of Yehoshua where there was a division of land through the urim v'tunim and each tribe was allocated a portion, Ezra never divided the land between the tribes. (R' Chaim Brisker says a similar sevara to explain why there was no chiyuv terumos u'ma'asros in the days of Ezra even though m'doraysa the kedushas ha'aretz was re-established.)
If this is correct, then the status of Chevron as one of the cities in the nachala of the Levi'im is null and void.
But, you will ask, then why do we have to tear kriya at all -- the status of the cities as "arei Yehudah" is null and void as well? The answer to that is that it is not the ownership of the tribe of Yehudah which demands kriya (why Yehudah more than any other tribe?), but rather it is the cities of Yehudah's proximity to the mikdash which is why we tear kriya for them. It's a geographical reality, not a din in nachala.
See R' Zolti's Mishnas Yaavetz #48 who takes issue with this Meshech Chochma and has a full discussion of the topic.
1. Someone who killed b'shogeg must stay in an ir miklat until the kohen gadol dies. The Mishna writes that mothers of kohanim gedolim used to deliver food to the ir miklat so that the killers would not pray for their children to die so they could get out. Why is the sentence of the murderer tied to the kohen gadol? The gemara explains that the kohen should have davened for the killer to not suffer such a fate.
The gemara says that even if the kohen gadol is appointed just before the verdict on the case is announced, the murderer must still stay put until the death of the new kohen gadol.
Why is this new kohen gadol held responsible for not davening when the facts of the case are in already before he is appointed? What good will his prayers do at this point? If the murdered committed a crime, he will be sentenced; if he is innocent he will go free. Prayers can't change what happened in the past!
R' Baruch Sorotzkin (in HaBinah v'HaBracha) answers that when it comes to davening, the facts don't matter. Imagine r"l if a parent or a child is in the hospital -- does anyone say, "Well, the doctor says this is the likely outcome, so there is no point of davening?" Of course not. Tefilah is an emotional response; we don't weigh odds or facts or logic before crying out to Hashem. Here too, if the kohen gadol truly empathized with the plight of this fellow Jew, regardless of whether the facts were in, regardless of whether it was obvious how beis din would rule, he would still cry out on his behalf. To not do so is a pgam in the kohen's ahavas Yisrael and midas hachessed.
2. The halacha is that one must tear kriya on seeing the ruins of the cities of Yehudah. Sha'arei Teshuvah O.C. 561 quotes a sevara to explain why people don't tear kriya on seeing the city of Chevron: since it is an ir miklat and a city for the Leviim to live in, it no longer has the status of being part of Yehudah's portion.
This sevara makes two major assumptions. The first assumption is that cities designated for the Levi'im to live in actually become their nachala. In other words, it is no longer a city of Yehudah (or whatever sheivet) that Levi'im happen to live in, but it is a city that *belongs* to sheiveit Levi as their portion in Eretz Yisrael. The Rambam paskens (Ma'aser Sheni 11:17) that Leviim and Kohanim can recite viduy ma'aser because even though they did not receive a portion in Eretz Yisrael they received cities to live in. This is their nachala.
The second assumption: The gemara at the end of Sota tells us that after churban haBayis there were no longer cities designated for the Levi'im -- even when Ezra returned and resettled Eretz Yisrael. Why not? The Meshech Chochma on our parsha (Masei) admits that he is baffled by the question, but suggests that perhaps it is because unlike in the days of Yehoshua where there was a division of land through the urim v'tunim and each tribe was allocated a portion, Ezra never divided the land between the tribes. (R' Chaim Brisker says a similar sevara to explain why there was no chiyuv terumos u'ma'asros in the days of Ezra even though m'doraysa the kedushas ha'aretz was re-established.)
If this is correct, then the status of Chevron as one of the cities in the nachala of the Levi'im is null and void.
But, you will ask, then why do we have to tear kriya at all -- the status of the cities as "arei Yehudah" is null and void as well? The answer to that is that it is not the ownership of the tribe of Yehudah which demands kriya (why Yehudah more than any other tribe?), but rather it is the cities of Yehudah's proximity to the mikdash which is why we tear kriya for them. It's a geographical reality, not a din in nachala.
See R' Zolti's Mishnas Yaavetz #48 who takes issue with this Meshech Chochma and has a full discussion of the topic.
Thursday, July 12, 2018
leftover fleishigs on the 9 days
M'ikar ha'din there is no issur of eating meat during the 9 days. The minhag is not to, but technically the issur applies only during seudah ha'mafsekes. R' Yisrael Ya'akov Fischer (quoted in the MB printed with his notes) asks how such a minhag could have gotten started, as it poses a problem of ba'al tashchis. What are you supposed to do with all your fleishig leftovers? Throw them out and waste them? He suggests that perhaps since a child is allowed to eat fleishig during the 9 days it removes the problem.
The gemara (Chulin 17) raises the question of whether leftover meat, which was allowed to be eaten in the midbar without shechita, could be eaten once Klal Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael and shechita was required. The Rosh comments that this is not just a historical question, but has a nafkah minah l'halacha: if a person took a neder not to eat a certain food from day X, can they eat leftovers of that food that remain from beforehand? Since the gemara concludes l'kula, the Rosh paskens l'kula as well.
(Noda b'Yehudah Mh"T Y"D 64 discusses whether a nazir can drink wine that was prepared before he accepted his vow of nezirus, or be mitamei to a meis that died before he accepted his vow of nezirus. Same idea... maybe.)
At first glance the Rosh is difficult. In the desert, killing an animal was matir its meat. The question of the gemara boils down to whether that status-quo of heter remains in place despite the change in circumstance, or whether it falls off. In the Rosh's case, there was never a matir for anything. The question is not whether the status quo of a matir remains, but rather whether the neder can create a new issur on leftovers. Why should it not?
R' Noson Gestetner (in his shiurim to Nedarim daf 3) suggests a solution based on a yesod of the Avnei Nezer (O.C. 483): shechita is not a one time matir, but rather is a peulah na'nimshechet (to use the Rogatchover's jargon). It's like the act of shechita continuously recurs on the animal and continuously recreates the heter.
Based on this, the gemara in Chulin takes on a completely different meaning. An animal was killed in the midbar. That act is a peulah ha'nimshechet, so the heter continuously renews itself. However, once Klal Yisrael enters Eretz Yisrael, meat has a different matir -- it now needs shechita to be eaten. What good is it if the act of killing the animal is nimshechet if that act no longer serves as a matir? The gemara is not sure -- on the other hand, maybe since this meat is leftover meat, the new requirement does not effect it.
This is exactly the Rosh's argument. Just like we see from the gemara that the meat is not effected by the new oser created by the need for shechita, so too, leftover food cannot be effected by the new oser of a neder.
The gemara (Chulin 17) raises the question of whether leftover meat, which was allowed to be eaten in the midbar without shechita, could be eaten once Klal Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael and shechita was required. The Rosh comments that this is not just a historical question, but has a nafkah minah l'halacha: if a person took a neder not to eat a certain food from day X, can they eat leftovers of that food that remain from beforehand? Since the gemara concludes l'kula, the Rosh paskens l'kula as well.
(Noda b'Yehudah Mh"T Y"D 64 discusses whether a nazir can drink wine that was prepared before he accepted his vow of nezirus, or be mitamei to a meis that died before he accepted his vow of nezirus. Same idea... maybe.)
At first glance the Rosh is difficult. In the desert, killing an animal was matir its meat. The question of the gemara boils down to whether that status-quo of heter remains in place despite the change in circumstance, or whether it falls off. In the Rosh's case, there was never a matir for anything. The question is not whether the status quo of a matir remains, but rather whether the neder can create a new issur on leftovers. Why should it not?
R' Noson Gestetner (in his shiurim to Nedarim daf 3) suggests a solution based on a yesod of the Avnei Nezer (O.C. 483): shechita is not a one time matir, but rather is a peulah na'nimshechet (to use the Rogatchover's jargon). It's like the act of shechita continuously recurs on the animal and continuously recreates the heter.
Based on this, the gemara in Chulin takes on a completely different meaning. An animal was killed in the midbar. That act is a peulah ha'nimshechet, so the heter continuously renews itself. However, once Klal Yisrael enters Eretz Yisrael, meat has a different matir -- it now needs shechita to be eaten. What good is it if the act of killing the animal is nimshechet if that act no longer serves as a matir? The gemara is not sure -- on the other hand, maybe since this meat is leftover meat, the new requirement does not effect it.
This is exactly the Rosh's argument. Just like we see from the gemara that the meat is not effected by the new oser created by the need for shechita, so too, leftover food cannot be effected by the new oser of a neder.
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
nedarim define the real you
Chazal tell us that as a result of the sin of not keeping nedarim a person's children can die. Ayom v'nora, a tragic punishment! What is the connection, the midah k'neged midah, between the crime and the outcome?
Sometimes a person feels inspired by a great shiur or a great davening or some other positive experience. At that moment the person feels the urge to make all kinds of changes. "Konam my smartphone alay k'cheirem" -- they take a neder not to use a smartphone any more, for example "Ashkim v'ashaneh perek zeh" (Nedarim 7) -- they take a neder to add a seder of learning., for example. How long does the commitment last? Let's be real. Does it last a day or two, or a week or two? By that point the inspiration is gone and life returns to normal until the next upswing, at which point the process repeats itself.
So who is the real you? Is it the person who is inspired and wants to do better, if only the mundane morass of day-to-day life did not suck you down? Or is the real you the person who lives in the hum-drum of daily existence and those moments of inspiration are the exception to the rule?
The nafkah minah is what you give over to your children. Do you give over inspiration and idealism, even though you may not be able to maintain those height? Or do you give over the daily struggle in the jungle of corporate life, where idealism is just escapism from the work needed to make more money or earn a better position?
Explains Rav Kook, if nedarim -- if those commitments you make when inspired or in need or seeking something greater -- are not real, i.e. if your idealism is just an escape but is not part of your essence, then you cannot properly raise the children Hashem has given you. You sadly view the world backwards, and therefore Hashem c"v will take back the gift he has entrusted you with.
Sometimes a person feels inspired by a great shiur or a great davening or some other positive experience. At that moment the person feels the urge to make all kinds of changes. "Konam my smartphone alay k'cheirem" -- they take a neder not to use a smartphone any more, for example "Ashkim v'ashaneh perek zeh" (Nedarim 7) -- they take a neder to add a seder of learning., for example. How long does the commitment last? Let's be real. Does it last a day or two, or a week or two? By that point the inspiration is gone and life returns to normal until the next upswing, at which point the process repeats itself.
So who is the real you? Is it the person who is inspired and wants to do better, if only the mundane morass of day-to-day life did not suck you down? Or is the real you the person who lives in the hum-drum of daily existence and those moments of inspiration are the exception to the rule?
The nafkah minah is what you give over to your children. Do you give over inspiration and idealism, even though you may not be able to maintain those height? Or do you give over the daily struggle in the jungle of corporate life, where idealism is just escapism from the work needed to make more money or earn a better position?
Explains Rav Kook, if nedarim -- if those commitments you make when inspired or in need or seeking something greater -- are not real, i.e. if your idealism is just an escape but is not part of your essence, then you cannot properly raise the children Hashem has given you. You sadly view the world backwards, and therefore Hashem c"v will take back the gift he has entrusted you with.
Monday, July 09, 2018
just a thought
Can you imagine how much safer the Middle East would be today if Chucky Schumer had been as vocal in speaking out against the Iran deal as he is in speaking out against whoever Trump wants to nominate for SCOTUS?
And yet this man is celebrated a honored by orthodox institutions. I can't figure it out.
And yet this man is celebrated a honored by orthodox institutions. I can't figure it out.
Thursday, July 05, 2018
leadership lessons
My wife says it's OK to be intense. Bilam even gave us a bracha for it -- "Mah tovu ohalecha Ya'akov."
A few thoughts on Moshe's request for Hashem to appoint a new leader:
1) "Vayidaber Moshe el Hashem leimor, 'Yifkod Hashem... ish al ha'eidah.'" There should have been no mystery about who the new leader of Klal Yisrael would be. Chazal tell us that Eldad and Meidad prophesized that Moshe was going to die and Yehoshua would lead the people into Eretz Yisrael. According to another Midrash (see below) Moshe thought his own kids might be worthy of taking the reins from him (not sure whether you can get these two Midrashim to fit together). Whatever the case, Moshe could have simply chosen whoever he thought fit. Yet that's not what he does. "Yifkod Hashem... ish al ha'eidah" -- Hashem, you choose. M'lo ha'Omer writes that an appointment by Moshe would have meant the new leader was a shliach of Moshe. Moshe wanted more than that -- he wanted the new leader to be the shliach of Hashem. That's a completely different level of leader.
The Igra d'Kallah offers a different answer. He suggests that Moshe was not just davening for that generation, but he was speaking to all future generations. When there is a leadership vacuum in Klal Yisrael, then "leimor," we have to echo Moshe's tefilah and ask Hashem to send us people to direct us. "Hu segulah lomar ha'tefilah ha'zos b'chol dor v'dor k'she'ro'im ha'dor shameim m'bli moreh u'manhig," says the Igra d'Kallah. Reciting Moshe's words is a segulah to get Hashem to respond to our need for a new captain for our ship. There are segulos for all kinds of things. A segulah for leadership is one that we sorely need. How many people daven that Klal Yisrael should have proper leaders?
3) The Midrash writes that when Moshe heard the parsha of the inheritance of bnos Tzelafchad he thought to himself that it was time to consider his own children's inheritance. When he asked Hashem to appoint a leader, it was his own children who he had in mind. (The pashtus is that Moshe's request is linked to the previous pesukim, where he was told by Hashem to climb up Har ha'Avarim and look out over Eretz Yisrael because he was going to die without reaching the land. It sounds like Moshe is being given notice that the end is near, and so he begins to think about find a new leader. Why the Midrash ignores the obvious link to the previous pesukim and instead links this parsha back to bnos Tzelafchad is something to think about.) Hashem responded to Moshe that his children were not up to the task because they had not dedicated themselves enough to learning. Instead, the leader would be Yehoshua, who for years had served as Moshe's faithful helper.
What was Moshe's hava amina here? Did he not know his own children's character? Was Moshe no different than every Jewish parent who thinks his/her child is a genius, until Hashem comes to him and tells him kah mashma lan that they are not?
Rabbi Rakeffet tells the story (I hope I have it right) of the students who asked R' Aharon Kotler back in the day whether on Shabbos they could walk around with their suit jacket draped over their shoulders or is that carrying. R' Aharon answered that the bachurim in Slabodka used to wear their jackets like that and the Alter never said anything, so it must be OK. He didn't pull our a Shulchan Aruch or dig up a Mishna Berura -- R' Aharon simply knew the din because that is what he saw by the Alter.
The Ksav Sofer says something fascinating here. Moshe Rabeinu's kids grew up in the home of Moshe Rabeinu. So what if maybe they were not beki'im in every Shach and Taz -- they knew what was right because they got it through osmosis! They lived with and saw a living, breathing Torah. (I find it fascinating because the Ksav Sofer might as well be writing about himself. Of course he was a gaon olam in his own right, but he also grew up in the home of the Chasam Sofer absorbing Torah through osmosis.)
It's a nice hesber of the hava amina, but now you have to struggle a bit to explain why Moshe was in fact wrong and it was Yehoshua who was meant to take over. (See Ne'os Desheh from Ishbitz for a different hesber.)
4) Moshe asks Hashem to appoint a leader who will take charge in times of war and in times of peace (see Seforno), "V'lo ti'hi'yeh adas Hashem k'tzon asher ain lahem ro'eh," so we should not be like a flock with no shepherd.
It's clear from the beginning of his request that Moshe wants Hashem to give us a strong leader. What does he add by saying we should not be like "a flock with no shepherd?" (See Netziv)
If you understanding this pasuk, then you understand what a Jewish leadership is all about. Explains the Sefas Emes (5648), the shepherd of Klal Yisrael is only the Ribono shel Olam. Sadly, we don't always realize that. Sometimes we as sheep wander off. Sometimes we are not even aware of the presence of the shepherd guiding the flock. We think we are all alone, exposed to all kinds of dangers, when really we are being watched over every minute. Moshe said to Hashem, "Please give Klal Yisrael a leader who will help them realize they are not a flock without a shepherd."
True leadership is not about saying, "I'm in charge." True leadership is about making people aware that Hashem is in charge. "Hashem ro'i -- lo echsar…"
A few thoughts on Moshe's request for Hashem to appoint a new leader:
1) "Vayidaber Moshe el Hashem leimor, 'Yifkod Hashem... ish al ha'eidah.'" There should have been no mystery about who the new leader of Klal Yisrael would be. Chazal tell us that Eldad and Meidad prophesized that Moshe was going to die and Yehoshua would lead the people into Eretz Yisrael. According to another Midrash (see below) Moshe thought his own kids might be worthy of taking the reins from him (not sure whether you can get these two Midrashim to fit together). Whatever the case, Moshe could have simply chosen whoever he thought fit. Yet that's not what he does. "Yifkod Hashem... ish al ha'eidah" -- Hashem, you choose. M'lo ha'Omer writes that an appointment by Moshe would have meant the new leader was a shliach of Moshe. Moshe wanted more than that -- he wanted the new leader to be the shliach of Hashem. That's a completely different level of leader.
2) "Vayidaber Moshe el Hashem leimor…" Why does the pasuk add "leimor" here? This is a private conversation between Moshe and Hashem -- there is nothing to communicate to Bnei Yisrael?
Rashi explains that Moshe not only made the request, but he wanted a response from Hashem -- "leimor" here means Hashem should say something back. (Rashi on "Va'Eschanan el Hashem...leimor" lists one other place besides that pasuk and ours where Moshe demanded a response. However, there are actually five pesukim in Chumash, as the Midrash notes, where Moshe makes a request followed by "leimor," so you have to figure out why Rashi only quotes three.) See Ohr haChaim as well here.
3) The Midrash writes that when Moshe heard the parsha of the inheritance of bnos Tzelafchad he thought to himself that it was time to consider his own children's inheritance. When he asked Hashem to appoint a leader, it was his own children who he had in mind. (The pashtus is that Moshe's request is linked to the previous pesukim, where he was told by Hashem to climb up Har ha'Avarim and look out over Eretz Yisrael because he was going to die without reaching the land. It sounds like Moshe is being given notice that the end is near, and so he begins to think about find a new leader. Why the Midrash ignores the obvious link to the previous pesukim and instead links this parsha back to bnos Tzelafchad is something to think about.) Hashem responded to Moshe that his children were not up to the task because they had not dedicated themselves enough to learning. Instead, the leader would be Yehoshua, who for years had served as Moshe's faithful helper.
What was Moshe's hava amina here? Did he not know his own children's character? Was Moshe no different than every Jewish parent who thinks his/her child is a genius, until Hashem comes to him and tells him kah mashma lan that they are not?
Rabbi Rakeffet tells the story (I hope I have it right) of the students who asked R' Aharon Kotler back in the day whether on Shabbos they could walk around with their suit jacket draped over their shoulders or is that carrying. R' Aharon answered that the bachurim in Slabodka used to wear their jackets like that and the Alter never said anything, so it must be OK. He didn't pull our a Shulchan Aruch or dig up a Mishna Berura -- R' Aharon simply knew the din because that is what he saw by the Alter.
The Ksav Sofer says something fascinating here. Moshe Rabeinu's kids grew up in the home of Moshe Rabeinu. So what if maybe they were not beki'im in every Shach and Taz -- they knew what was right because they got it through osmosis! They lived with and saw a living, breathing Torah. (I find it fascinating because the Ksav Sofer might as well be writing about himself. Of course he was a gaon olam in his own right, but he also grew up in the home of the Chasam Sofer absorbing Torah through osmosis.)
It's a nice hesber of the hava amina, but now you have to struggle a bit to explain why Moshe was in fact wrong and it was Yehoshua who was meant to take over. (See Ne'os Desheh from Ishbitz for a different hesber.)
4) Moshe asks Hashem to appoint a leader who will take charge in times of war and in times of peace (see Seforno), "V'lo ti'hi'yeh adas Hashem k'tzon asher ain lahem ro'eh," so we should not be like a flock with no shepherd.
It's clear from the beginning of his request that Moshe wants Hashem to give us a strong leader. What does he add by saying we should not be like "a flock with no shepherd?" (See Netziv)
If you understanding this pasuk, then you understand what a Jewish leadership is all about. Explains the Sefas Emes (5648), the shepherd of Klal Yisrael is only the Ribono shel Olam. Sadly, we don't always realize that. Sometimes we as sheep wander off. Sometimes we are not even aware of the presence of the shepherd guiding the flock. We think we are all alone, exposed to all kinds of dangers, when really we are being watched over every minute. Moshe said to Hashem, "Please give Klal Yisrael a leader who will help them realize they are not a flock without a shepherd."
True leadership is not about saying, "I'm in charge." True leadership is about making people aware that Hashem is in charge. "Hashem ro'i -- lo echsar…"
Thursday, June 28, 2018
a nation, not a religion
Balak sent messengers to Bilam saying that he should come and help, "Va'agarshenu min ha'aretz." The Midrash comments, "Lo haya mivakesh elah l'garsham she'lo yikansu la'aretz." All Balak wanted was to keep the Jews out of Eretz Yisrael.
Balak would fit right in today with the progressives, the EU, the Reform. "I'm not anti-Semitic," he would say. "I'm just anti-Zionist."
Balak made the fundamental error of thinking that Judaism is a religion and not a nationality. A religion stakes no claim to a country. You can practice whatever avodah zarah you like any place in the world and its all the same. Not so Judaism. Judaism without Eretz Yisrael is an incomplete Judaism (see Ramban in parshas Acharei Mos. See also the first Shem m'Shmuel on the parsha re: this Midrash).
Rashi writes that Bilam's donkey banging Bilam's leg into the wall three times is an allusion to the three regalim. Hashem was telling Bilam that he cannot beat a people that celebrates the three Yamim Tovim of the year.
Everyone asks (and we've discussed it before): why does the celebration of the shalosh regalim in particular signify that Bilam's efforts were doomed? Why is it more significant than any other mitzvah that we do?
Sefas Emes (5648 -- you really want to see this one inside) answers that on the shalosh regalim we make aliya la'regel and come together "ba'makom asher yivchar Hashem." We demonstrate the centrality of Yerushalayim, the centrality of the makom mikdash, to who we are as a people.
"Ki me'rosh tzurim er'enu u'migeva'os ashurenu…" Rashi explains that Bilam looked back and saw our roots, the Avos. The Sefas Emes reads the pasuk k'peshuto: Bilam looked out over the mountains and valleys of Eretz Yisrael, and when he looked out at the land, at its character, at its soul, what he saw was the character and soul of the Jewish people. He saw that we are one with the land.
Balak would fit right in today with the progressives, the EU, the Reform. "I'm not anti-Semitic," he would say. "I'm just anti-Zionist."
Balak made the fundamental error of thinking that Judaism is a religion and not a nationality. A religion stakes no claim to a country. You can practice whatever avodah zarah you like any place in the world and its all the same. Not so Judaism. Judaism without Eretz Yisrael is an incomplete Judaism (see Ramban in parshas Acharei Mos. See also the first Shem m'Shmuel on the parsha re: this Midrash).
Rashi writes that Bilam's donkey banging Bilam's leg into the wall three times is an allusion to the three regalim. Hashem was telling Bilam that he cannot beat a people that celebrates the three Yamim Tovim of the year.
Everyone asks (and we've discussed it before): why does the celebration of the shalosh regalim in particular signify that Bilam's efforts were doomed? Why is it more significant than any other mitzvah that we do?
Sefas Emes (5648 -- you really want to see this one inside) answers that on the shalosh regalim we make aliya la'regel and come together "ba'makom asher yivchar Hashem." We demonstrate the centrality of Yerushalayim, the centrality of the makom mikdash, to who we are as a people.
"Ki me'rosh tzurim er'enu u'migeva'os ashurenu…" Rashi explains that Bilam looked back and saw our roots, the Avos. The Sefas Emes reads the pasuk k'peshuto: Bilam looked out over the mountains and valleys of Eretz Yisrael, and when he looked out at the land, at its character, at its soul, what he saw was the character and soul of the Jewish people. He saw that we are one with the land.
Sunday, June 24, 2018
R' Sadya Gaon on "mei" vs "meimei" and the three exceptions to his rule
1) This column on the parsha by R' Nachman Kahane is simply a MUST READ.
I hesitate to excerpt any of it because then people won't click the link; OTOH, some people won't read it anyway and therefore better an excerpt than nothing. He writes:
I hesitate to excerpt any of it because then people won't click the link; OTOH, some people won't read it anyway and therefore better an excerpt than nothing. He writes:
In the process of bringing purity and kedusha to the world, one must be prepared to dirty one’s hands and soil one’s clothing if necessary.
This is the diagnosis of the ailment from which we religious people suffer. How much more pleasant to escape the responsibilities of being an active partner in bringing about the redemption of our nation. It was more pleasant to go on with one’s life in Europe in the early 20th century than going to the Galil to drain — the Chula swamp, or to clear the fields of the Jezreel Valley of the stones to prepare the land for planting after 2000 years of dormancy.
We who believe in the Torah and the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael didn’t do it; the Chalutzim (pioneers), whom we mock for their alienation from Torah, did. They fell from malaria, fought off the Arab gangs with no more than sticks in their hands, went into the ocean to bring in our brothers from the refugee ships under the noses of the brutish-British, and they established the State. And the nearly one million religious Jews in chutz la’aretz led by certain people continue to mock, degrade, despise, scorn, and disdain, the “Tzionim”; but to this day continue to sit on the sidelines, spectators of the renaissance of our nation.
Please read the rest.
2) The Chasam Sofer quotes a yesod from R' Sadya Gaon that Rabeinu Bachei cites on parshas va'eira: there is a difference between the words "mei" and "meimei." "Meimei," like "meimei Mitzrayim," means water that is potable and tastes good. The makah of dam turned the "meimei Mitzrayim," the good, drinkable water of Egypt, into blood. "Mei," like "mei Yam Suf," is water that is not usable.
Chasam Sofer writes that he found what appears to be three exceptions to the rule. One is in our parsha. When Bnei Yisrael want to pass to through the land of Sichon, they say "lo nishteh mei be'eir," we won't drink from the water of Miriam's well. Instead, we will buy your water, "meimecha nishteh…" Asks the Chasam Sofer: what could be better than the water from Miriam's well? Shouldn't it be "meimei be'eir," not the "mei be'eir?"
Unfortunately, the Torah got it right. When they came to the land of Sichon, Klal Yisrael looked at what the people of Edom had and suddenly they lost their appreciation for the gifts Hashem had given them. They viewed the special water of the be'eir as "mei be'eir," something unpleasant to drink. The water their neighbor had was "meimecha," it was Perrier. It's no wonder that immediately following this incident Aharon was taken from them.
The second exception the Chasam Sofer notes is a pasuk we are all familiar with. Mizmor l'David Hashem ro'i lo echsar… b'nos desha yarbitzeini al mei menuchos y'nahaleini. Simple pshat in the mizmor is that we are talking about Hashem giving us pleasant pastures with tranquil springs. So why "mei menuchos" and not "meimei menuchos?"
Chasam Sofer answers that the mizmor actually means that even when Hashem punishes us, it is still pleasant. Even if we have only "b'nos desha," vegetables to eat -- we are not living on prime rib or steak; even if it's only "mei menuchos" that we have, water that is unpleasant to the taste, "gam ki eiliech b'gei tzalmaves lo ira ra ko Hashem imadi," under the worst circumstances we are still satisfied because we know despite it all, Hashem is with us.
The third seeming exception is a pasuk less familiar to most of us, so for that you will have to look up the Chasam Sofer : )
3) The Mishna in Parah (2:1) writes that a cow which is pregnant cannot be used as a parah adumah. The R"AB explains that the you cannot use an animal which has carried a burden for parah adumah. The pregnant cow is considered to be transporting a burden -- the fetus -- within itself and is therefore pasul.
The Chelkas Yoav asks (in the Kaba d'Kusyisa): How then can a pregnant woman walk in a reshuas ha'rabim on Shabbos? Is she not carrying the fetus, just like the cow is carrying the calf within itself?
You probably want to work out some chiluk between hil Shabbos and parah to find an answer, or maybe you have something better to suggest?
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Dama ben Nesina's reward of parah adumah
The gemara (Kid 31) illustrates the extent to which one must go to fulfill kibud av with a story. There was a non-Jew named Dama ben Nesina whose father owned a precious gem. The Chachamim wanted to buy the stone for the ephod, but when they came to make the deal Dama turned them away. The keys to the safe were under his sleeping father's pillow and he would not wake his father. Hashem rewarded Dama for this act of kibud and the next year a parah adumah was born in his herd. When the Chachamim came to buy the parah, Dama told them that he knows they would pay whatever price he would demand, but he would ask them only for what he lost in profit from not being able to sell them his precious gem.
Two questions:
1) Of all the rewards Hashem could have given Dama, why was it specifically a parah adumah which he was given?
2) Why does the gemara go into such detail extoling Dama's virtues, telling us that he knows the Chachamim would pay any price but he wouldn't demand it. Do Chazal need to lay it on so thick?
The Kotzker (the same vort is quoted from others as well) explained that when Dama ben Nesina did this act of kibud av there was a tremendous kitrug in shamayin against Klal Yisrael. Here this non-Jew was willing to sacrifice a fortune for the sake of not disturbing his father -- where is our sacrifice for mitzvos?!
Hashem therefore caused a parah adumah to be born into Dama's herd. Kibud av is the ultimate mitzvah sichlis -- it makes sense even to a non-Jew. Even Eisav understood and fulfilled kibud av! (See Maharal in Ch Aggados). Parah adumah is at the opposite end of the spectrum -- it is the quintessential chok, a mitzvah that is incomprehensible. Dama was willing to give up a fortune to fulfill a mitzvah that made sense to him. A tremendous zechus, but Hashem set the stage for the Chachamim to top it. As Dama himself admitted, they were prepared to pay any price for a mitzvah that made no sense to anyone.
(Parenthetically, we pasken that it is the parent who must bear the cost of kibud av, not the child. In other words if your father needs a new shirt, it's kibud av to get him the clothes he needs, but you can put it on his credit card. Whey then is the Dama story a good example of the mitzvah? He was under no obligation to suffer a loss of his money for the sake of kibud?
Ran gives two answers: 1) there is a difference between kavod, which you don't have to suffer a loss for [assuming the parent can pay], and causing pain to a parent, like waking them from sleep; 2) Dama was only giving up potential profit, not suffering a loss of capital.)
Two questions:
1) Of all the rewards Hashem could have given Dama, why was it specifically a parah adumah which he was given?
2) Why does the gemara go into such detail extoling Dama's virtues, telling us that he knows the Chachamim would pay any price but he wouldn't demand it. Do Chazal need to lay it on so thick?
The Kotzker (the same vort is quoted from others as well) explained that when Dama ben Nesina did this act of kibud av there was a tremendous kitrug in shamayin against Klal Yisrael. Here this non-Jew was willing to sacrifice a fortune for the sake of not disturbing his father -- where is our sacrifice for mitzvos?!
Hashem therefore caused a parah adumah to be born into Dama's herd. Kibud av is the ultimate mitzvah sichlis -- it makes sense even to a non-Jew. Even Eisav understood and fulfilled kibud av! (See Maharal in Ch Aggados). Parah adumah is at the opposite end of the spectrum -- it is the quintessential chok, a mitzvah that is incomprehensible. Dama was willing to give up a fortune to fulfill a mitzvah that made sense to him. A tremendous zechus, but Hashem set the stage for the Chachamim to top it. As Dama himself admitted, they were prepared to pay any price for a mitzvah that made no sense to anyone.
(Parenthetically, we pasken that it is the parent who must bear the cost of kibud av, not the child. In other words if your father needs a new shirt, it's kibud av to get him the clothes he needs, but you can put it on his credit card. Whey then is the Dama story a good example of the mitzvah? He was under no obligation to suffer a loss of his money for the sake of kibud?
Ran gives two answers: 1) there is a difference between kavod, which you don't have to suffer a loss for [assuming the parent can pay], and causing pain to a parent, like waking them from sleep; 2) Dama was only giving up potential profit, not suffering a loss of capital.)
Thursday, June 14, 2018
a one eyed monster
The sefer She'eiris Menachem quotes from the Shem m'Shmuel (the same idea is quoted in other seforim as well) that a person who is blind in one eye is patur from the mitzvah of re'iya on the shalosh regalim because a person who comes to the beis hamikdash needs to see the world with two eyes: one eye focused on the gadlus of Hashem, and one eye focused on his own person shortcomings. A person who sees with only one eye, i.e. someone who sees and appreciates the gadlus of Hashem but is blind to their own faults, will not benefit from coming.
Rashi writes about Korach that "eino hit'aso," his eye deceived him. Korach saw the world with only one eye -- he saw the gadlus in ruchniyus that Aharon achieved, and maybe even was sincere in his desire for that same level of closeness with Hashem. "Boker v'yoda Hashem es asher lo" -- Rashi explains that Moshe told Korach that just like Hashem created boundaries in nature between morning and night, so too, Hashem created boundaries in ruchniyus and not everyone could be kohen gadol. The Emunas Moshe (Rebbe of Aleksander) explains that Korach was a big ma'amin. Who cares if there are rules in teva that way? A tzadik can rise l'ma'alah min ha'teva! Korach saw with his one eye that in ruchniyus everything is possible; Hashem has no boundaries. Korach had 20/20 vision in that eye and got it right. But when it came to seeing with his other eye, the eye that should have seen his own faults, he was completely blind. He failed to see that he was not Aharon; he lacked the lofty traits necessary to rise to the madreiga to which he aspired.
Rashi writes about Korach that "eino hit'aso," his eye deceived him. Korach saw the world with only one eye -- he saw the gadlus in ruchniyus that Aharon achieved, and maybe even was sincere in his desire for that same level of closeness with Hashem. "Boker v'yoda Hashem es asher lo" -- Rashi explains that Moshe told Korach that just like Hashem created boundaries in nature between morning and night, so too, Hashem created boundaries in ruchniyus and not everyone could be kohen gadol. The Emunas Moshe (Rebbe of Aleksander) explains that Korach was a big ma'amin. Who cares if there are rules in teva that way? A tzadik can rise l'ma'alah min ha'teva! Korach saw with his one eye that in ruchniyus everything is possible; Hashem has no boundaries. Korach had 20/20 vision in that eye and got it right. But when it came to seeing with his other eye, the eye that should have seen his own faults, he was completely blind. He failed to see that he was not Aharon; he lacked the lofty traits necessary to rise to the madreiga to which he aspired.
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
bracha on pidyon ha'ben
At the recent pidyon ha'ben made by my nephew for his bechor, my BIL RYGB started discussing with me why you have to make a bracha on the mitzvah of pidyon ha'ben. Rashba writes in a teshuva that we don't say a bracha on mitzvos like tzedakah where the fulfillment depends on other people -- since the poor person can turn down your gift, you risk it being a bracha l'vatala. Since pidyon ha'ben depends on the kohen taking the money (you are not yotzei just by doing a hafrasha -- you have to actually give the kohen the money), it too should be classified as a mitzvah that is taluy b'yad acheirim and not require a bracha.
I asked my son what he thought, and he immediately remembered the Ketzos (243:4) has a chidush that nesina ba'al korcho works when it comes to paying off a debt and matnos kehunah. You don't need the kohen to cooperate -- you can force him to take the money.
I thought you could distinguish between tzedakah and pidyon ha'ben. When it comes to tzedakah, if the poor person does not want/need the money, there is no chiyuv. With respect to pidyon ha'ben, the chiyuv exists whether the kohen cooperates or not. His refusal to accept payment deflects the kiyum mitzvah, not the chiyuv.
RYGB wanted to say a bigger chidush and suggest that the kohen has a mitzvah to accept the payment. I did not believe this (see Pesachim 121 where the gemara says with respect to pidyon that the father has the mitzvah; the kohen gets hana'ah) but I found that R' Noson Gestetner in his sefer on chumash on last week's parsha compares the role of the kohen to that of a woman in the process of kidushin -- there is a hechsher mitzvah or a kiyum of some sort, even if there is not a full chiyuv. He writes that m'sevara this has to be the case. How could a yisrael be commanded to do pidyon if every kohen in the world could theoretically turn down his money? How would he do the mitzvah? It must be that the kohen has an obligation of some sort to participate.
Let's test the theories by applying them to another mitzvah: mishloach manos.
You can't force someone to accept mishloach manos, so it makes sense according to the sevara of the Ketzos that there is no bracha.
According to my approach, it's a little trickier. I have a chiyuv of mishloach manos irrespective of someone else's need for my gift, so isn't it like pidyon ha'ben?
The Manos haLevi writes that the purpose of mishloach manos is to engender friendship between people. That seems to be the logic behind the view of the Rama that the recipient can be mochel the gift -- it's the thought that counts, not the actual present. If so, perhaps no bracha is recited because the essence of the mitzvah -- friendship and collegiality -- is devarim she'b'lev, and no bracha is recited on devarim she'b'lev.
According to RYGB's sevara, it's also a little trickier. If you hold like the Rama, you could simply say that there is no mitzvah on the recipient to accept anything since he can be mochel. But I wonder how you would resolve this question if you don't hold like the Rama. Using R' Noson Gestetner's logic, since I have to give mishloach manos to somebody, doesn't there have to be some mitzvah on the recipient to accept it, or theoretically at least I would never be able to fulfill my mitzvah? (I did not discuss this last point with RYGB.)
I asked my son what he thought, and he immediately remembered the Ketzos (243:4) has a chidush that nesina ba'al korcho works when it comes to paying off a debt and matnos kehunah. You don't need the kohen to cooperate -- you can force him to take the money.
I thought you could distinguish between tzedakah and pidyon ha'ben. When it comes to tzedakah, if the poor person does not want/need the money, there is no chiyuv. With respect to pidyon ha'ben, the chiyuv exists whether the kohen cooperates or not. His refusal to accept payment deflects the kiyum mitzvah, not the chiyuv.
RYGB wanted to say a bigger chidush and suggest that the kohen has a mitzvah to accept the payment. I did not believe this (see Pesachim 121 where the gemara says with respect to pidyon that the father has the mitzvah; the kohen gets hana'ah) but I found that R' Noson Gestetner in his sefer on chumash on last week's parsha compares the role of the kohen to that of a woman in the process of kidushin -- there is a hechsher mitzvah or a kiyum of some sort, even if there is not a full chiyuv. He writes that m'sevara this has to be the case. How could a yisrael be commanded to do pidyon if every kohen in the world could theoretically turn down his money? How would he do the mitzvah? It must be that the kohen has an obligation of some sort to participate.
Let's test the theories by applying them to another mitzvah: mishloach manos.
You can't force someone to accept mishloach manos, so it makes sense according to the sevara of the Ketzos that there is no bracha.
According to my approach, it's a little trickier. I have a chiyuv of mishloach manos irrespective of someone else's need for my gift, so isn't it like pidyon ha'ben?
The Manos haLevi writes that the purpose of mishloach manos is to engender friendship between people. That seems to be the logic behind the view of the Rama that the recipient can be mochel the gift -- it's the thought that counts, not the actual present. If so, perhaps no bracha is recited because the essence of the mitzvah -- friendship and collegiality -- is devarim she'b'lev, and no bracha is recited on devarim she'b'lev.
According to RYGB's sevara, it's also a little trickier. If you hold like the Rama, you could simply say that there is no mitzvah on the recipient to accept anything since he can be mochel. But I wonder how you would resolve this question if you don't hold like the Rama. Using R' Noson Gestetner's logic, since I have to give mishloach manos to somebody, doesn't there have to be some mitzvah on the recipient to accept it, or theoretically at least I would never be able to fulfill my mitzvah? (I did not discuss this last point with RYGB.)
Thursday, June 07, 2018
meraglim and shlichus
1. V'avdi Kaleiv eikev hay'sa ruach acheres imo... Sefas Emes asks why the Torah has to justify Kaleiv getting a portion in Eretz Yisrael. That should be the result m'meila, by default. It's only everyone else's wrongdoing which caused them to lose their portion.
Sometimes not doing wrong is not enough. When terrible evil is taking place, you have to step up to the plate and take action, take a stand, and let your voice be heard in opposition. Had Kaleiv simply remained passive and not done wrong, I think perhaps he still would have forfeited his portion in the Land. It's only by speaking out that he deserved it. (Sefas Emes gives a different answer.)
2. Rashi (12:3) explains that the term “anashim”, men of importance, is used with respect to the spies because they were righteous people and not sinners. Yet, Rashi later (12:26) explains that the spies already had their evil plan in mind when they departed, implying that they were wicked from the start. Which is it?
There is a well known chakira in Achronim with regards to how shlichus works: if Reuvain appoints Shimon as his agent, does that means that it's as if Shimon becomes Reuvain, and everything done by Shimon is as if Reuvain was doing it, or does it simply means that the **result** of Shimon's action is attributed to Reuvain, but Shimon himself is an independent actor?
Maharal in Gur Aryeh uses the first tzad of the chakira to explain Rashi. The spies who were selected were in fact righteous people. However, once they were selected as shluchim by the tzibur, shlucho shel adam k'moso, they became the tzibur. Klal Yisrael unfortunately did not have the right motives in mind in sending meraglim, and therefore, once appointed, they became tainted by that identification and took on the tzibur's bad character.
We've done this Maharal in a previous post, but I bring it up again to have an excuse to share the Ohr Sameiach's (Geirushin 2:15) beautiful proof to the second tzad of the chakira. The gemara (Temurah 10) raises the question of whether it is the person who brings a korban or whether it is the person for whom the korban serves as a kaparah who can make temurah with it. The gemara proves that it's the latter: the Mishna says that a tzibur or shutafim cannot make temurah. Why not? If the tzibur or shutafim appoint a shliach to bring the korban on their behalf, then the shliach should be able to make temurah with it as he is an individual. QED that it's the person who is getting the kaparah which is the key, and it is still the tzibur/shutafim who are getting the kaparah.
Says the Ohr Sameiach: according to the first tzad of our chakira in shlichus -- Shimon the shliach becomes Reuvain -- then the shliach of the tzibur/shutafim should be no different than the tzibur/shutafim themselves. It's only according to the second tzad -- Shimon the shliach is an independent actor the result of whose deeds are ascribed to Reuvain -- that the gemara makes sense.
Pretty convincing. Amazing bekiyus. It's the Ohr Sameiach after all.
3. The Zohar writes that the meraglim did not want to enter Eretz Yisrael because in the midbar they knew they were the "rosh," but that status would be lost once they entered the Land. We are talking about the best and brightest leaders of the best and brightest generation in Jewish history -- did they really selfishly sabotage everything just to retain their own power?!
Shlucho shel adam k'moso. Sefas Emes (5639) explains that what made the meraglim leaders into the "rosh" was the fact that they represented the "rosh" of Jewish history, a spiritually elite. You want such a generation, they thought, to sacrifice their spiritual bounty and take up growing Jaffa oranges? Farming, building, conquering? What kind of job is that for a nation of kollelniks? It was not protecting their own interests, but rather protecting the spiritual status of their generation which motivated the meraglim.
In a nutshell, the meraglim thought holiness could only be cultivated in the protective bubble of the desert, surrounded by the ananei ha'kavod, sustained by the man and the be'er. The reality is that holiness can be found everywhere -- the more mundane the environment, the greater the kiddush Hashem in sanctifying it and revealing the kedusha found there. That's why we are put in a physical, mundane world. That's why we have to farm, to build, to conquer.
Many meforshim read the parshiyos that follow the cheit ha'meraglim as a response to their error. Rav Teichtel in that vein has a wonderful derush on the pasuk that introduces the mitzvah of challah, "V'haya b'achalchem mi'lechem ha'aretz tarimu terumah la'Hashem." (15:19)
The Tur (208) writes that when one says a bracha mei'ein shalosh, one should omit the words "v'nochal m'pirya v'nisba m'tuva," as there is no inherent value in just enjoying the fruit of Eretz Yisrael. The gemara rhetorically asks, "Did Moshe Rabeinu want to enter Eretz Yisrael just to eat its fruit?" Bach disagrees. He writes that the fruits of Eretz Yisrael are nourished by the Shechina itself, and by eating, we connect with G-d. (See post here.)
"V'haya b'achalchem mi'lechem ha'aretz," when one is not eating man -- when instead one is eating mundane bread, created from the wheat grown and harvested by our secular labor, "tarimu terumah la'Hashem," that is an opportunity to elevate that work, that meal, that food, and discover within it something holy to Hashem. (See Sefas Emes 5641 as well).
4. P.S. The Seforim blog has a fascinating piece looking at some of the material from the archives of R' Herzog's letters, now available online. Link and link. Well worth your time!
Sometimes not doing wrong is not enough. When terrible evil is taking place, you have to step up to the plate and take action, take a stand, and let your voice be heard in opposition. Had Kaleiv simply remained passive and not done wrong, I think perhaps he still would have forfeited his portion in the Land. It's only by speaking out that he deserved it. (Sefas Emes gives a different answer.)
2. Rashi (12:3) explains that the term “anashim”, men of importance, is used with respect to the spies because they were righteous people and not sinners. Yet, Rashi later (12:26) explains that the spies already had their evil plan in mind when they departed, implying that they were wicked from the start. Which is it?
There is a well known chakira in Achronim with regards to how shlichus works: if Reuvain appoints Shimon as his agent, does that means that it's as if Shimon becomes Reuvain, and everything done by Shimon is as if Reuvain was doing it, or does it simply means that the **result** of Shimon's action is attributed to Reuvain, but Shimon himself is an independent actor?
Maharal in Gur Aryeh uses the first tzad of the chakira to explain Rashi. The spies who were selected were in fact righteous people. However, once they were selected as shluchim by the tzibur, shlucho shel adam k'moso, they became the tzibur. Klal Yisrael unfortunately did not have the right motives in mind in sending meraglim, and therefore, once appointed, they became tainted by that identification and took on the tzibur's bad character.
We've done this Maharal in a previous post, but I bring it up again to have an excuse to share the Ohr Sameiach's (Geirushin 2:15) beautiful proof to the second tzad of the chakira. The gemara (Temurah 10) raises the question of whether it is the person who brings a korban or whether it is the person for whom the korban serves as a kaparah who can make temurah with it. The gemara proves that it's the latter: the Mishna says that a tzibur or shutafim cannot make temurah. Why not? If the tzibur or shutafim appoint a shliach to bring the korban on their behalf, then the shliach should be able to make temurah with it as he is an individual. QED that it's the person who is getting the kaparah which is the key, and it is still the tzibur/shutafim who are getting the kaparah.
Says the Ohr Sameiach: according to the first tzad of our chakira in shlichus -- Shimon the shliach becomes Reuvain -- then the shliach of the tzibur/shutafim should be no different than the tzibur/shutafim themselves. It's only according to the second tzad -- Shimon the shliach is an independent actor the result of whose deeds are ascribed to Reuvain -- that the gemara makes sense.
Pretty convincing. Amazing bekiyus. It's the Ohr Sameiach after all.
3. The Zohar writes that the meraglim did not want to enter Eretz Yisrael because in the midbar they knew they were the "rosh," but that status would be lost once they entered the Land. We are talking about the best and brightest leaders of the best and brightest generation in Jewish history -- did they really selfishly sabotage everything just to retain their own power?!
Shlucho shel adam k'moso. Sefas Emes (5639) explains that what made the meraglim leaders into the "rosh" was the fact that they represented the "rosh" of Jewish history, a spiritually elite. You want such a generation, they thought, to sacrifice their spiritual bounty and take up growing Jaffa oranges? Farming, building, conquering? What kind of job is that for a nation of kollelniks? It was not protecting their own interests, but rather protecting the spiritual status of their generation which motivated the meraglim.
In a nutshell, the meraglim thought holiness could only be cultivated in the protective bubble of the desert, surrounded by the ananei ha'kavod, sustained by the man and the be'er. The reality is that holiness can be found everywhere -- the more mundane the environment, the greater the kiddush Hashem in sanctifying it and revealing the kedusha found there. That's why we are put in a physical, mundane world. That's why we have to farm, to build, to conquer.
Many meforshim read the parshiyos that follow the cheit ha'meraglim as a response to their error. Rav Teichtel in that vein has a wonderful derush on the pasuk that introduces the mitzvah of challah, "V'haya b'achalchem mi'lechem ha'aretz tarimu terumah la'Hashem." (15:19)
The Tur (208) writes that when one says a bracha mei'ein shalosh, one should omit the words "v'nochal m'pirya v'nisba m'tuva," as there is no inherent value in just enjoying the fruit of Eretz Yisrael. The gemara rhetorically asks, "Did Moshe Rabeinu want to enter Eretz Yisrael just to eat its fruit?" Bach disagrees. He writes that the fruits of Eretz Yisrael are nourished by the Shechina itself, and by eating, we connect with G-d. (See post here.)
"V'haya b'achalchem mi'lechem ha'aretz," when one is not eating man -- when instead one is eating mundane bread, created from the wheat grown and harvested by our secular labor, "tarimu terumah la'Hashem," that is an opportunity to elevate that work, that meal, that food, and discover within it something holy to Hashem. (See Sefas Emes 5641 as well).
4. P.S. The Seforim blog has a fascinating piece looking at some of the material from the archives of R' Herzog's letters, now available online. Link and link. Well worth your time!
Tuesday, June 05, 2018
sitting on the fence
Rashi writes that the Torah juxtaposes the story of the meraglim in parshas Shlach with the story of Miriam's criticism of Moshe and her punishment (see the meforshei Rashi -- maybe the Torah is simply recording events in chronological order?) because the meraglim should have learned from what happened to Miriam not to speak lashon ha'ra.
R' Mordechai Eliyahu (quoted by his son R' Shmuel here) asked: Miriam criticized Moshe Rabeinu, the adon ha'nevi'im. The meraglim were critical of a place, an inanimate thing, sticks and stones. How can that be compared to Miriam's crime?
Speaking against Moshe Rabeinu is not just ordinary lashon ha'ra -- speaking against Moshe undermines the dvar Hashem. If you cannot trust that Moshe acted 100% in accordance with the ratzon Hashem, then the entire Torah c"v is subject to question. So too, speaking against Eretz Yisrael is not just lashon ha'ra -- speaking against Eretz Yisrael undermines the dvar Hashem. The Torah's mission for Klal Yisrael is for us to establish a nation al pi Torah in Eretz Yisrael. It can't be done anywhere else and any other way. If you don't accept that as a positive goal and don't think that's what we are here for, then you are missing the boat of what Hashem wants from us.
The glass I am happy to say is at least half full. I don't think anyone alive 50, 40, or even 30 years ago could have imagined thousands of kids wearing kipot who are shomrei Torah and mitzvos marching down 5th Ave. in support of the State of Israel, this while l'havdil the Reform invite Michael Chabon to speak at their graduation and bash the State. Amazing. These kids grasp, to some degree, what our mission is.
The Reform and Michael Chabon don't worry me. Nor am I worried too much about rebbes and their followers who chose the same say as the parade to hold an anti-Zionism rally in Nassau Coliseum.
What bothers me is the half empty part of the glass that consists of the thousands of bnei Torah, who, while not openly sympathetic to Satmar, still do not think it is incumbent upon them to march, to rally, to speak out in support of and defense of Israel. Where were they on Sunday? Where are they for other rallies, demonstrations, etc.?
There are, of course, those people who are simply apathetic. They don't think about the issue, so case closed. I am not speaking about those people. I am speaking about people who think they are following a "shitah," meaning they have thought about it a bit, or at least think they are following in the footsteps of people who have thought about it.
I think I get it. I am not aware of any Roshei Yeshiva from hesder being invited to visit Lakewood and being given the kavod that the Satmar Rebbe gets when he goes there. And as bnei Torah, the torah of people like R' Elchanan is like your bread and butter, so certainly his anti-Zionist views will have an impact on your hashkafa. So you have to hedge your bets. You do deep down feel having the State is a good thing, but you don't want to actually get labeled as a Tzioni, you don't want to risk going against da'as Torah, so you park yourself on the fence. You don't go to the Coliseum, but you don't go to the parade either. You can even pretend you are pareve for all kinds of religious reasons -- you can't skip seder for a parade or rally, can you? -- and so remain seated on your perch, not tilting to one side or the other.
Sadly, it doesn't work that way. The NY Times doesn't care why you didn't show up. They don't want to hear a pilpul about your hashkafa. PR and politics is very simple -- showing up IS the battle. Not there = you don't support the cause.
And the RW world knows this too. How do I know? Because a few years ago they gathered with Satmar in Manhattan to say tehillim and protest AGAINST the State because of the supposed threat the draft law posed to yeshiva students. You can say tehillim at home or in your shul. Why come to Manhattan to do it in public? Answer: PR and politics. Because the NY Times is not interested in the sentiments you express in tefilah in your beis medrash at home, but they are interested in a rally.
You can't remain on the fence. Your vote will be counted for or against, willy-nilly. So you might as well start thinking about what you really hold and act on it.
There is an even greater reason than PR and politics that should motivate you to get out there and do whatever you can to support the State. I was davening in shul on Shabbos and noticed the gabai very deliberately left out the words "relishes tzemichas geulaseinu" in reciting the tefilah l'shlom ha'medina. Again, the glass is very much half full! -- at least in this shul the tefilah was recited, which is more than I can so for many other place. But why leave out those words? The idea that there is a "lo zachu" geulah that will unfold slowly (kim'a kim'a, as the Yerushalmi and Midrash put it) though natural means, with the land being given to us by the nations, with kibutz galiyos taking place before binyan hamikdash, is well established in Chazal, Rishonim, and achronim. What does this person think the geulah is supposed to look like? My guess is that he envisions a miracle. Isn't that what most people expect? But most people's view is wrong.
You should support the State because if you take the time to investigate the sources, the evidence will, I am certain, lead you to the conclusion that the re-establishment of an autonomous Jewish state, even with all its present flaws, is the most significant theological event in 2000 years. That this is a step -- we can quibble over how big a step and how many more steps are needed -- toward our ultimate geulah is undeniable.
The question is how do we get people off the fence? And again, I am not speaking about convincing the NY Times, or the BDS crowd, or the Reform. I am speaking about our community minei u'bei. How do make people see support of the State as a religious obligation, not merely a hechsher mitzvah because Eretz Yisrael is the best place to learn, or because we want Jews to be safe? Our obligation to the State should go far beyond that.
I don't pretend to have an answer. I'm just glad the somehow the glass is getting there, filling up bit by bit. I just wish the process would go faster.
R' Mordechai Eliyahu (quoted by his son R' Shmuel here) asked: Miriam criticized Moshe Rabeinu, the adon ha'nevi'im. The meraglim were critical of a place, an inanimate thing, sticks and stones. How can that be compared to Miriam's crime?
Speaking against Moshe Rabeinu is not just ordinary lashon ha'ra -- speaking against Moshe undermines the dvar Hashem. If you cannot trust that Moshe acted 100% in accordance with the ratzon Hashem, then the entire Torah c"v is subject to question. So too, speaking against Eretz Yisrael is not just lashon ha'ra -- speaking against Eretz Yisrael undermines the dvar Hashem. The Torah's mission for Klal Yisrael is for us to establish a nation al pi Torah in Eretz Yisrael. It can't be done anywhere else and any other way. If you don't accept that as a positive goal and don't think that's what we are here for, then you are missing the boat of what Hashem wants from us.
The glass I am happy to say is at least half full. I don't think anyone alive 50, 40, or even 30 years ago could have imagined thousands of kids wearing kipot who are shomrei Torah and mitzvos marching down 5th Ave. in support of the State of Israel, this while l'havdil the Reform invite Michael Chabon to speak at their graduation and bash the State. Amazing. These kids grasp, to some degree, what our mission is.
The Reform and Michael Chabon don't worry me. Nor am I worried too much about rebbes and their followers who chose the same say as the parade to hold an anti-Zionism rally in Nassau Coliseum.
What bothers me is the half empty part of the glass that consists of the thousands of bnei Torah, who, while not openly sympathetic to Satmar, still do not think it is incumbent upon them to march, to rally, to speak out in support of and defense of Israel. Where were they on Sunday? Where are they for other rallies, demonstrations, etc.?
There are, of course, those people who are simply apathetic. They don't think about the issue, so case closed. I am not speaking about those people. I am speaking about people who think they are following a "shitah," meaning they have thought about it a bit, or at least think they are following in the footsteps of people who have thought about it.
I think I get it. I am not aware of any Roshei Yeshiva from hesder being invited to visit Lakewood and being given the kavod that the Satmar Rebbe gets when he goes there. And as bnei Torah, the torah of people like R' Elchanan is like your bread and butter, so certainly his anti-Zionist views will have an impact on your hashkafa. So you have to hedge your bets. You do deep down feel having the State is a good thing, but you don't want to actually get labeled as a Tzioni, you don't want to risk going against da'as Torah, so you park yourself on the fence. You don't go to the Coliseum, but you don't go to the parade either. You can even pretend you are pareve for all kinds of religious reasons -- you can't skip seder for a parade or rally, can you? -- and so remain seated on your perch, not tilting to one side or the other.
Sadly, it doesn't work that way. The NY Times doesn't care why you didn't show up. They don't want to hear a pilpul about your hashkafa. PR and politics is very simple -- showing up IS the battle. Not there = you don't support the cause.
And the RW world knows this too. How do I know? Because a few years ago they gathered with Satmar in Manhattan to say tehillim and protest AGAINST the State because of the supposed threat the draft law posed to yeshiva students. You can say tehillim at home or in your shul. Why come to Manhattan to do it in public? Answer: PR and politics. Because the NY Times is not interested in the sentiments you express in tefilah in your beis medrash at home, but they are interested in a rally.
You can't remain on the fence. Your vote will be counted for or against, willy-nilly. So you might as well start thinking about what you really hold and act on it.
There is an even greater reason than PR and politics that should motivate you to get out there and do whatever you can to support the State. I was davening in shul on Shabbos and noticed the gabai very deliberately left out the words "relishes tzemichas geulaseinu" in reciting the tefilah l'shlom ha'medina. Again, the glass is very much half full! -- at least in this shul the tefilah was recited, which is more than I can so for many other place. But why leave out those words? The idea that there is a "lo zachu" geulah that will unfold slowly (kim'a kim'a, as the Yerushalmi and Midrash put it) though natural means, with the land being given to us by the nations, with kibutz galiyos taking place before binyan hamikdash, is well established in Chazal, Rishonim, and achronim. What does this person think the geulah is supposed to look like? My guess is that he envisions a miracle. Isn't that what most people expect? But most people's view is wrong.
You should support the State because if you take the time to investigate the sources, the evidence will, I am certain, lead you to the conclusion that the re-establishment of an autonomous Jewish state, even with all its present flaws, is the most significant theological event in 2000 years. That this is a step -- we can quibble over how big a step and how many more steps are needed -- toward our ultimate geulah is undeniable.
The question is how do we get people off the fence? And again, I am not speaking about convincing the NY Times, or the BDS crowd, or the Reform. I am speaking about our community minei u'bei. How do make people see support of the State as a religious obligation, not merely a hechsher mitzvah because Eretz Yisrael is the best place to learn, or because we want Jews to be safe? Our obligation to the State should go far beyond that.
I don't pretend to have an answer. I'm just glad the somehow the glass is getting there, filling up bit by bit. I just wish the process would go faster.
Thursday, May 31, 2018
the missing "va'yehi chein" of parshas braishis
1. By each of the days of creation the Torah describes what G-d created, and then tells us, "Va'yehi chein." The exception is on day #1 -- "Va'yomer Elokim ye'hi ohr" is not followed with a "va'yehi chein." Where do we find that missing "va'yehi chein?" You have to wait with baited breath from Braishis until our parsha where you finally find it. Aharon lights the menorah, and the Torah tells us, "Va'ya'as kein Aharon." The light of creation is finally complete. The menorah symbolizes the light of torah sheba'al peh (Aharon is the mouthpiece for Moshe, who represents torah sheb'ksav. "Ki sifsei kohen yisheru da'as..." Therefore, Aharon is the one who does the lighting.) The Torah enlightens us. Without it, we can't see and appreciate Hashem's light, Hashem's presence in the world.
2. At the end of the parsha right after we read that Miriam and Aharon spoke against Moshe the Torah tells us that Moshe was the biggest anav in the world. The meforshim are bothered by the placement of this pasuk. Is this part of Hashem's explanation of why Moshe is different than everyone else? If so, it should come 2 pesukim later, where the Torah tells us Hashem's response. Ohr haChaim and Da'as Zekeinim writes that the Torah is explaining why Hashem had to intercede at all -- why didn't Moshe speak on his own behalf? Netziv writes that the Torah is telling us that Hashem was not interceding because this was an affront to Moshe's kavod -- Moshe did not care about kavod. Hashem had to intercede because the singularity of Moshe's nevuah is an essential fact of our emunah.
Based on the Shem m'Shmuel's analysis of what Miriam and Aharon were thinking, the pasuk fits perfectly in context. Didn't Miriam and Aharon appreciate the uniqueness of Moshe? The Shem m'Shmuel explains that aderaba, it was precisely because of their great appreciation for who Moshe was that they questioned his behavior. Why, they wondered, would a tzadik so perfect, a navi so exalted, need to engage in perishus? Wasn't Moshe immune from failings and temptations the rest of us suffered?
Which is harder -- to fast l'shem shamayim on Yom Kippur, or to eat l'shem shamayim the day before? Surely it is the latter. It is hard to engage with the world and remain untainted by selfish motives or desires. I am sure this is true for all of us. It was true for Miriam and Aharon to some degree. But they perceived that it was not true of Moshe. Moshe Rabeinu remained pure in a way that no one else could. Therefore, Moshe and Moshe alone could sanctify every aspect of his life, even the most mundane, in a way that no one else could. What a kiddush Hashem! So how could he pursue a path of asceticism and withdrawal rather than use his talent to its fullest potential (see Eretz Tzvi of the Kozhiglover on the parsha)?
"V'ha'ish Mosha anav..." is not part of the defense of Moshe, but is part of Miriam and Aharon's complaint! Moshe, they thought, in his great modesty thought of himself as no better than anyone else. Just like others required perishus in some degree or other to avoid being swayed by temptation, so too Moshe thought he required the same. But, that modesty came at a cost. Miriam and Aharon's point was that Moshe was not everyone else. No one else could be mekadesh the world of chomer as only a Moshe could and should.
Hashem's answer in no way undermines their argument. Moshe was indeed above all other nevi'im and was not subject to the foibles others might fall prey too. Nonetheless, because "peh el peh adabeir bo," there was a need for perishus, not for fear of temptation, but rather because this was what the higher level of nevuah demanded.
2. At the end of the parsha right after we read that Miriam and Aharon spoke against Moshe the Torah tells us that Moshe was the biggest anav in the world. The meforshim are bothered by the placement of this pasuk. Is this part of Hashem's explanation of why Moshe is different than everyone else? If so, it should come 2 pesukim later, where the Torah tells us Hashem's response. Ohr haChaim and Da'as Zekeinim writes that the Torah is explaining why Hashem had to intercede at all -- why didn't Moshe speak on his own behalf? Netziv writes that the Torah is telling us that Hashem was not interceding because this was an affront to Moshe's kavod -- Moshe did not care about kavod. Hashem had to intercede because the singularity of Moshe's nevuah is an essential fact of our emunah.
Based on the Shem m'Shmuel's analysis of what Miriam and Aharon were thinking, the pasuk fits perfectly in context. Didn't Miriam and Aharon appreciate the uniqueness of Moshe? The Shem m'Shmuel explains that aderaba, it was precisely because of their great appreciation for who Moshe was that they questioned his behavior. Why, they wondered, would a tzadik so perfect, a navi so exalted, need to engage in perishus? Wasn't Moshe immune from failings and temptations the rest of us suffered?
Which is harder -- to fast l'shem shamayim on Yom Kippur, or to eat l'shem shamayim the day before? Surely it is the latter. It is hard to engage with the world and remain untainted by selfish motives or desires. I am sure this is true for all of us. It was true for Miriam and Aharon to some degree. But they perceived that it was not true of Moshe. Moshe Rabeinu remained pure in a way that no one else could. Therefore, Moshe and Moshe alone could sanctify every aspect of his life, even the most mundane, in a way that no one else could. What a kiddush Hashem! So how could he pursue a path of asceticism and withdrawal rather than use his talent to its fullest potential (see Eretz Tzvi of the Kozhiglover on the parsha)?
"V'ha'ish Mosha anav..." is not part of the defense of Moshe, but is part of Miriam and Aharon's complaint! Moshe, they thought, in his great modesty thought of himself as no better than anyone else. Just like others required perishus in some degree or other to avoid being swayed by temptation, so too Moshe thought he required the same. But, that modesty came at a cost. Miriam and Aharon's point was that Moshe was not everyone else. No one else could be mekadesh the world of chomer as only a Moshe could and should.
Hashem's answer in no way undermines their argument. Moshe was indeed above all other nevi'im and was not subject to the foibles others might fall prey too. Nonetheless, because "peh el peh adabeir bo," there was a need for perishus, not for fear of temptation, but rather because this was what the higher level of nevuah demanded.
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
mitzvos bnei noach vs Torah law
Chazal tell us that before Hashem gave us the Torah, he offered it to the other nations. "What's in this Torah?" asked the bnei Eisav. When Hashem told them that it contained a command not to murder, they turned it down. "Our grandfather was told, 'Al charbecha tichyeh,' so how can we accept a Torah that prohibits murder?" they replied. Hashem went to Amon and Moav, but they too turned down the Torah because it prohibits arayos, which is part of their culture. And so each nation had its chance, but in the end, we alone were the only ones willing to accept the Torah.
Question: murder, arayos, etc. are all among the mitzvos bnei Noach. Eisav, Amon, Moav had to observe these commandments irrespective of whether they accepted the Torah. What did the nations hope to gain by not accepting the Torah? Or, to rephrase the same question, how would kabbalas haTorah have changed their obligations?
I want to present two answers I saw and one that I thought of:
1. The scope of mitzvos is different: In the dictionary of an aku"m, murder means killing another person. Yet, for a ben Torah, murder goes far beyond that. Someone who embarrasses his friend, malbin pnei chaveiro, is guilty according to Chazal of shefichus damim, murder. The same expansive scope is true of arayos, theft, and many other mitzvos. You don't have to walk into a bank and hold it up to be guilty of gezel -- if you just wake someone up too early you have committed gezel sheinah. This is what the nations of the world were rejecting (see R' Nevenzah's sichos where he quotes this from Kelm mussar).
2. Mitzvos bnei Noach are about the law; Torah is about a relationship with G-d. The Netziv in the beginning of Parshas Bechukosai offers an analogy: a doctor prescribes a regimen for good health to a patient; he prescribes the same regimen to his son. However, the doctor does not just tell his son what to do like any other patient and leave it to him -- the doctor in this case wants his son to follow his direction, he wants him to obey and be healthy. The benefit to the son of following the doctor's advice is not just good health, but it is a stronger relationship with his father who is doing the prescribing.
Following the mitzvos bnei noach ensures the good health of society. Following the Torah ensures the good health of our relationship with G-d as well. It was that relationship that the nations rejected.
3. Torah is a culture, not just a set of laws. What Eisav and Yishmael and the other nations were telling G-d is that their culture is one of bloodshed, theft, arayos, etc. The ben Noach laws for them are a brake that forces them to curb their natural instinct, to hold back from being barbarians. That's not what Torah is all about. As the Rambam writes in Shmoneh Perakim, the goal of Torah is transform a person into someone who does not desire bloodshed, or theft, or other crimes -- not simply to avoid acting on those base desires. The goal is to cease being a barbarian, not simply to cease acting out like a barbarian. The nations could not envision changing in that way.
Question: murder, arayos, etc. are all among the mitzvos bnei Noach. Eisav, Amon, Moav had to observe these commandments irrespective of whether they accepted the Torah. What did the nations hope to gain by not accepting the Torah? Or, to rephrase the same question, how would kabbalas haTorah have changed their obligations?
I want to present two answers I saw and one that I thought of:
1. The scope of mitzvos is different: In the dictionary of an aku"m, murder means killing another person. Yet, for a ben Torah, murder goes far beyond that. Someone who embarrasses his friend, malbin pnei chaveiro, is guilty according to Chazal of shefichus damim, murder. The same expansive scope is true of arayos, theft, and many other mitzvos. You don't have to walk into a bank and hold it up to be guilty of gezel -- if you just wake someone up too early you have committed gezel sheinah. This is what the nations of the world were rejecting (see R' Nevenzah's sichos where he quotes this from Kelm mussar).
2. Mitzvos bnei Noach are about the law; Torah is about a relationship with G-d. The Netziv in the beginning of Parshas Bechukosai offers an analogy: a doctor prescribes a regimen for good health to a patient; he prescribes the same regimen to his son. However, the doctor does not just tell his son what to do like any other patient and leave it to him -- the doctor in this case wants his son to follow his direction, he wants him to obey and be healthy. The benefit to the son of following the doctor's advice is not just good health, but it is a stronger relationship with his father who is doing the prescribing.
Following the mitzvos bnei noach ensures the good health of society. Following the Torah ensures the good health of our relationship with G-d as well. It was that relationship that the nations rejected.
3. Torah is a culture, not just a set of laws. What Eisav and Yishmael and the other nations were telling G-d is that their culture is one of bloodshed, theft, arayos, etc. The ben Noach laws for them are a brake that forces them to curb their natural instinct, to hold back from being barbarians. That's not what Torah is all about. As the Rambam writes in Shmoneh Perakim, the goal of Torah is transform a person into someone who does not desire bloodshed, or theft, or other crimes -- not simply to avoid acting on those base desires. The goal is to cease being a barbarian, not simply to cease acting out like a barbarian. The nations could not envision changing in that way.
Thursday, May 17, 2018
l'mishpichosam l'beis avosam -- the key to kabbalas haTorah
The Yalkut on our parsha writes that when Bnei Yisrael came to accept the Torah, the nations of the world jealously asked why we deserve to come closer to Hashem then they did. Hashem replied to them, "Bring me the records of your yichus... like Bnei Yisrael have." This, says the Yalkut, is why the Torah juxtaposes the count of Bnei Yisrael in our parsha, which entailed each person tracing his lineage "l'mishpichosam l'beis avosam," with the pasuk, "Eileh hamitzvos asher tzivah Hashem... b'har Sinai," which concludes sefer Vayika.
Why should the nations complain? Chazal tell us that Hashem offered them the Torah before giving it to us and they turned him down. They had their chance!
The answer is that the nations complained because the scales were tipped in our favor. When Hashem offered us the Torah, it was an offer we couldn't refuse -- "kafah aleiham har k'gigis." He did not do the same for any other nation.
This is the point the Yalkut comes to resolve.
The halacha (C.M. 205:12) tells us that if someone is coerced to sell something, the sale is valid, but a purchase made under duress has no validity. Chasam Sofer (B"B 48) explains that a seller merely has to relinquish ownership for someone else to step in; a buyer has to establish a new claim to the item, which is harder to do.
R' Noson Gestetner in his sefer on chumash explains that even if Hashem were to hold a mountain above the nations and coerce them to accept the Torah, their acceptance would not be valid -- a kinyan cannot be made under duress. However, when it came to Klal Yisrael, accepting the Torah, it was not a new kinyan -- it was a yerusha that we had form our Avos and previous generations.
"Bring me your yichus records," Hashem told the nations. You are not the bnei Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov. You cannot claim the Torah as a yerusha, and will not give it over as a morasha, as one generation does not connect to the previous one. Therefore, kaga aleihem had k'gigis would not help you absent a real desire to receive the Torah.
Nice pilpul, but I think you can say perhaps a simpler pshat as well. The nations want closeness to Hashem. Hashem's answer is that closeness to Him is midah k'neged midah contingent on one thing: our closeness to each other. "L'mishpichosam l'beis avosam" -- every member of Klal Yisrael connects to his family, to his sheivet, ultimately to the tzibur as a whole. We connect with each other, therefore, we can connect to Hashem. Only Klal Yisrael has this virtue.
Why should the nations complain? Chazal tell us that Hashem offered them the Torah before giving it to us and they turned him down. They had their chance!
The answer is that the nations complained because the scales were tipped in our favor. When Hashem offered us the Torah, it was an offer we couldn't refuse -- "kafah aleiham har k'gigis." He did not do the same for any other nation.
This is the point the Yalkut comes to resolve.
The halacha (C.M. 205:12) tells us that if someone is coerced to sell something, the sale is valid, but a purchase made under duress has no validity. Chasam Sofer (B"B 48) explains that a seller merely has to relinquish ownership for someone else to step in; a buyer has to establish a new claim to the item, which is harder to do.
R' Noson Gestetner in his sefer on chumash explains that even if Hashem were to hold a mountain above the nations and coerce them to accept the Torah, their acceptance would not be valid -- a kinyan cannot be made under duress. However, when it came to Klal Yisrael, accepting the Torah, it was not a new kinyan -- it was a yerusha that we had form our Avos and previous generations.
"Bring me your yichus records," Hashem told the nations. You are not the bnei Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov. You cannot claim the Torah as a yerusha, and will not give it over as a morasha, as one generation does not connect to the previous one. Therefore, kaga aleihem had k'gigis would not help you absent a real desire to receive the Torah.
Nice pilpul, but I think you can say perhaps a simpler pshat as well. The nations want closeness to Hashem. Hashem's answer is that closeness to Him is midah k'neged midah contingent on one thing: our closeness to each other. "L'mishpichosam l'beis avosam" -- every member of Klal Yisrael connects to his family, to his sheivet, ultimately to the tzibur as a whole. We connect with each other, therefore, we can connect to Hashem. Only Klal Yisrael has this virtue.
Thursday, May 10, 2018
lo timacher l'tzemisus - redeeem the land
The Mishnas Chasidim, quoted by Rav Teichtel in his sefer Mishneh Sachir on parshas Bechukosai, writes that in the two years he spent in Tzefat in 1718/19 -- almost exactly 300 years ago -- he saw so many houses being built that he felt it could not be anything less than a reversal of the curse of 'v'areichem ye'hi'yu charva," the promise in the tochacha of the land being laid desolate. The development of the city, says the Mishnas Chasidim, is a "siman l'bi'as ha'go'el."
What do you think the Mishnas Chasidim would say were he alive today, looking at the many cranes that dot every neighborhood of Yerushalayim, at the buildings going up all over Eretz Yisrael? What do you think he would say if he witnessed the celebration of Yom Yerushalayim in a rebuilt, modern, Yerushalayim in an independent Jewish state?
Ramban in sefer ha'mitzvot lav 227 discusses the nature of the issur of "lo timacher l'tzemisus." Rashi seems to hold the issur is for the buyer not to return the land, but, as Ramban points out, the formulation of the lav seems to indicate the prohibition is on the seller, not the buyer. Ramban, based on the Yerushalmi, is machadesh that the issur is in selling land to an aku"m, who has no incentive to return it. Ramban then compares the issur of leaving Eretz Yisrael in the hands of aku"m to the mitzvah of redeeming a Jew who is sold into slavery to an aku"m. Just like in that case the Torah tells us that the reason for the mitzvah is "ki li Bnei Yisrael avadim," that we are supposed to be servants only of Hashem, so too, Eretz Yisrael is supposed to be a land dedicated to being a makom Shechina, a place of service to Hashem, which is impossible so long as it is not in our hands.
Rav Teichtel quotes 'Ha'gaon ha'mekubal ish ha'Elokim" R' Dovid Lida (the honorifics are especially noteworthy given the background of who R' Dovid Lida was) as saying that our redemption from galus is directly dependent upon the redemption of Eretz Yisrael from our enemies. Why must the two go hand in hand? Why can't Hashem redeem us irrespective of our establishing a home in Eretz Yisrael? Can't we do that afterwards? Rav Teichtel explains that this is not sisrei Torah, but is implicit in the Ramban's equation of the land in foreign hands to an eved. Hashem treats us middah k'neged middah. We want Hashem to take us out of galus and to restore us to being his, and only his, faithful servants. It's up to us to practice the same middah and redeem his land from foreign control so it can be dedicated to his service.
We should celebrate the fact that we have been zocheh to see the start of that slow process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
