Why would Moshe ask Hashem, "Al teifen el minchasam" -- were Dasan and Aviram or Korach going to offer a korban mincha?
Rashi writes that Moshe was asking Hashem to not count Dasan and Aviram's portion of the korban tamid, which was a korban tzibur. (It seems from this Rashi that the korban tzibur was a type of large shutfus, a partnership among all members of Klal Yisrael, such that an individual share could be excluded. See Ramban at the beginning of VaYikra who discusses whether this is indeed the case, or whether a tzibur is a whole that transcends its individual parts and cannot be sliced and diced.)
Ramban takes a more expansive view and writes that Moshe was asking that Hashem not accept any offering or respond to any tefilah from Korach's lot. Why should the fact that these evildoers happened to be engaged in a rebellion against Moshe automatically negate the value of their korbanos? If someone, for example, does not keep Shabbos properly, who are we to ask G-d not to accept that person's tefilah should they come to shul? The difference is, explains Ramban, that the korbanos here would serve as a means to further rebellion. What better way to demonstrate the valdity of a "kehunah for all" popularist rebellion than to lead the masses is offering korbanos without the aid of Aharon or his family? Unfortunately, the baby must be thrown out with the bathwater when the validation of good behavior might be misinterpreted (or where it is deliberately used as a means of fostering the misinterpretation) as validation of other wrong behaviors. This point has practical relavance in other contexts, e.g. can we work together with members of other "movements" of Judaism to achieve shared aims, and if we do, how do we ensure that cooperation in one context is not taken as a broader tacit approval of everything those movements represent? Where do you draw the line?
Seforno goes a step further and writes that Moshe asked that Hashem not accept even korbanos Korach's camp may have offered for the sake of achieving kaparah. Avodah can help achieve repentance in the realm of bein adam la'Makom, but sins bein adam l'chaveiro require asking and receiving mechilah on the part of the one who was wronged. Moshe was not willing to let Korach's lot off with a korban offering alone when it was he as well as G-d who was wronged. I was a bit taken aback by this Seforno. Would Moshe callously deny mechila? I think the point here is that Korach's rebellion at heart was aimed at separating adherence to G-d from adherence to Moshe's leadership. We're all good Jews, preached Korach, and so why should we bow to Moshe's leadership? The only way to undo Korach's false ideology is to acknowledge that no kapparah is possible -- no korbanos are acceptable -- so long as Moshe, G-d's chosen leader, is shut out. The bein adam laMakom is inseperable from the bein adam l'chaveiro of accepting Moshe's authority.
Finally, my favorite reading of this difficult pasuk is found in Ralbag, who suggests that it is not a request by Moshe, but simply a statement of fact -- if those who join with Korach pray that G-d help their cause, G-d will not respond to those tefilos. You cannot daven for G-d's help to achieve an unjust or improper cause -- it just won't work. I seem to recall that the gemara says that even a thief offers tefilah on the threshold of the home he is breaking into. We seem to think that prayer is just another part of the effort required to get what we really want. The thief wants his money, Korach's wanted kehunah, we all want something, and we put those wants into tefilah. What the Ralbag is reminding us is that tefilah works only as an expression of our ethical consciousness -- we pray to bring G-d into the world to make it a better place, not to satisfy our own selfish needs.
Monday, June 25, 2012
korach -- religious reformer or political opportunist?
The question of how to judge the motive(s) and sincerity of Korach's rebellion I think depends in large measure on the machlokes between Ramban and Ibn Ezra as to when the rebellion took place. If one takes the view of Ibn Ezra that the rebellion took place immediately after the first born were replaced by Levi'im and Kohanim -- i.e. chronologically the parsha of Korach occurred immediately after cheit ha'eigel -- then perhaps there was a certain sincere religious motivation to the revolt. Coming so close to ma'mad Har Sinai where the entire nation was told that they were a "mamleches kohanim," the displacement of the bechorim and the creation of a tiered system of Levi'im and Kohanim as exclusively responsible for avodah, with Aharon, the very person who crafter the eigel, as kohen gadol, would create an understandable feeling of frustration. That is not to say that Korach was correct -- simply that the position of those involved becomes more understandable and that perhaps there was a degree of idealism that motivated them.
According to Ramban, the story of Korach occurred chronologically after the meraglim episode. Korach waited to act until Moshe's power was weakest. The people had just suffered the setbacks of the punishment of the misonenim, kovros ha'ta'avah, the meraglim and the decree that they would not enter Eretz Yisrael, they had just heard the prophecy of Eldad and Meidad that Moshe would die in the desert with them -- the time was ripe of revolt. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think an idealist concerned only with religious reform would engage in such political calculations before making his move.
According to Ramban, the story of Korach occurred chronologically after the meraglim episode. Korach waited to act until Moshe's power was weakest. The people had just suffered the setbacks of the punishment of the misonenim, kovros ha'ta'avah, the meraglim and the decree that they would not enter Eretz Yisrael, they had just heard the prophecy of Eldad and Meidad that Moshe would die in the desert with them -- the time was ripe of revolt. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think an idealist concerned only with religious reform would engage in such political calculations before making his move.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Dasan and Aviram or Bnei Eliav -- what a difference it makes!
The Kozhiglover explains that Korach had tremendous hislahavus in his avodas Hashem and therefore felt that Moshe's leadership was unnecessary. Does the presence of one string of techeiles really make a difference when the entire talis is made of techeiles? What Korach did not realize is that all his hislahavus and all the great avodah of those who stuck with him was due not to their own efforts and ability alone, but was due to their being in the presence of the tzadik hador Moshe Rabeinu. It was the one string of techeiles that elevated the rest of the talis.
We once discussed the Maharal's beautiful approach to Rashi's comment that Ya'akov requested that he not be mentioned in recounting the lineage of Korach. Rav Shach in his sefer on chumash writes more plainly that what Rashi means is that Ya'akov davened that he not be assigned any portion of blame for Korach's behavior. The Torah takes the position that certainly parents, but even grandparents and great-grandparents and generations back share in the responsibility for how the next generation turns out. Ya'akov did not want it said that somehow he did not put in enough effort in the chinuch of his children, which in turn led to a Korach generations later. This despite the fact that any minor mistake Ya'akov might have made (and we are speaking of Ya'akov Avinu, so the mistake would be subtle and very minor if there was one at all) had no effect at all on Levi, his son, as Levi himself was a tzadik and had children who were tzadikim. Apparently a minor mistake that is invisible one generation may resound many generation later in ways we might never imagine.
We see a similar idea in a positive vein as well. In an effort to quell the machlokes Moshe sought out Dasan and Aviram. "Vayishlach Moshe likro l'Dasan vaAviram bnei Elieav vayomru lo na'aleh." (16:12) Why does the Torah here make reference to Dasan and Aviram's father, "bnei Eliav" -- we already know from the first pasuk in the parsha who their father was? R' Avraham Yehoshua Heschel, the Apta Rav, in his Ohev Yisrael writes that Moshe was trying to find some way to turn Dasam and Aviram to good. Rather than fight them head on, he appealed to their "shoresh ha'neshoma," he went back to their roots. He reads the pasuk as follows: "Vayishlach Moshe," Moshe sent, "Likro l'Dasan v'Aviram," to call Dasan and Aviram not by their usual names, but by a different name -- "Bnei Elieav," "Children of Elieav." Moshe invoked the name of their saintly father.
We can understand this without getting into any mystical ideas. The names Dasan and Aviram were on most wanted posters, so to speak. They already were laden with the baggage of a lifetime of sin. Moshe had to remind Dasan and Aviram that they were not born that way. They were once Bnei Elieav, the name Eli-Av being a contraction of K-li / Av, Hashem is my Father. Their neshoma came from very holy roots, and they therefore had within them the potential for greateness and tzidkus -- if only they would acknowledge those roots. Moshe said, "I'm not calling you Dasan and Aviram anymore, because you are not really those bad guys everyone is talking about. You are really 'Bnei Eliav,' holy righteous Jews.
Unfortuantely, Dasan and Aviram's response was, "Lo na'aleh." We are not interesting in being elevated by your speech about the greatness of our lineage, the greatness of our neshoma.
There are teachers who I have heard always refer to students as this tzadik'l or that tzadik'l, when most of us would be tempted to call the same kids little monsters. The message is the same -- other people might call them Dasan and Aviram's, but deep down, their real name just might be tzadik'l.
And so we come full circle. Korach, as the Koshiglover explains, viewed his achievements as isolated from outside influence. Dasan and Aviram refused to allow the past lineage of their family, their neshomos noble roots, to influence their destiny -- they refused a name that connected with their family's past greatness. The musar haskel, as we learn from Ya'akov's tefilah, is what tremendous influence we indeed have over others, in particular over our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren, as every deed reveberates and impacts genrations to come.
We once discussed the Maharal's beautiful approach to Rashi's comment that Ya'akov requested that he not be mentioned in recounting the lineage of Korach. Rav Shach in his sefer on chumash writes more plainly that what Rashi means is that Ya'akov davened that he not be assigned any portion of blame for Korach's behavior. The Torah takes the position that certainly parents, but even grandparents and great-grandparents and generations back share in the responsibility for how the next generation turns out. Ya'akov did not want it said that somehow he did not put in enough effort in the chinuch of his children, which in turn led to a Korach generations later. This despite the fact that any minor mistake Ya'akov might have made (and we are speaking of Ya'akov Avinu, so the mistake would be subtle and very minor if there was one at all) had no effect at all on Levi, his son, as Levi himself was a tzadik and had children who were tzadikim. Apparently a minor mistake that is invisible one generation may resound many generation later in ways we might never imagine.
We see a similar idea in a positive vein as well. In an effort to quell the machlokes Moshe sought out Dasan and Aviram. "Vayishlach Moshe likro l'Dasan vaAviram bnei Elieav vayomru lo na'aleh." (16:12) Why does the Torah here make reference to Dasan and Aviram's father, "bnei Eliav" -- we already know from the first pasuk in the parsha who their father was? R' Avraham Yehoshua Heschel, the Apta Rav, in his Ohev Yisrael writes that Moshe was trying to find some way to turn Dasam and Aviram to good. Rather than fight them head on, he appealed to their "shoresh ha'neshoma," he went back to their roots. He reads the pasuk as follows: "Vayishlach Moshe," Moshe sent, "Likro l'Dasan v'Aviram," to call Dasan and Aviram not by their usual names, but by a different name -- "Bnei Elieav," "Children of Elieav." Moshe invoked the name of their saintly father.
We can understand this without getting into any mystical ideas. The names Dasan and Aviram were on most wanted posters, so to speak. They already were laden with the baggage of a lifetime of sin. Moshe had to remind Dasan and Aviram that they were not born that way. They were once Bnei Elieav, the name Eli-Av being a contraction of K-li / Av, Hashem is my Father. Their neshoma came from very holy roots, and they therefore had within them the potential for greateness and tzidkus -- if only they would acknowledge those roots. Moshe said, "I'm not calling you Dasan and Aviram anymore, because you are not really those bad guys everyone is talking about. You are really 'Bnei Eliav,' holy righteous Jews.
Unfortuantely, Dasan and Aviram's response was, "Lo na'aleh." We are not interesting in being elevated by your speech about the greatness of our lineage, the greatness of our neshoma.
There are teachers who I have heard always refer to students as this tzadik'l or that tzadik'l, when most of us would be tempted to call the same kids little monsters. The message is the same -- other people might call them Dasan and Aviram's, but deep down, their real name just might be tzadik'l.
And so we come full circle. Korach, as the Koshiglover explains, viewed his achievements as isolated from outside influence. Dasan and Aviram refused to allow the past lineage of their family, their neshomos noble roots, to influence their destiny -- they refused a name that connected with their family's past greatness. The musar haskel, as we learn from Ya'akov's tefilah, is what tremendous influence we indeed have over others, in particular over our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren, as every deed reveberates and impacts genrations to come.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
40 day cram session
The gemara writes that midah tovah outweighs punishment by a scale of 500 to 1. Chazal illustrate the point from the fact that in the merit of Miriam having waited just a few moments to see that her baby brother Moshe was safe, the entire nation of Bnei Yisrael waited two weeks while Miriam overcame her leprosy . Tosfos (Sota 11a) is bothered by the apparent contradiction to this rule from the story of the meraglim. For every one day that the meraglim spent scouting out Eretz Yisrael, Klal Yisrael had to spend an entire year in the desert. That's not much different than the 500 to 1 ratio of midah tovah.
Tosfos in the end does not answer the question (see Maharasha), but the Sefas Emes offers a response (I did not find this in the Sefas Emes but saw it quoted in the Beis Yisrael). In reality, al pi derech hateva, Klal Yisrael should have had to spend 40 years in the desert. It should have taken that long for them to develop as a nation and be ready to deal with the challenges of yishuv ha'aretz. Hashem, however, wanted to do Klal Yisrael a favor and cram those 40 years of preparation into only 40 days. If only the meraglim had brought back a positive report and Klal Yisrael would have responded appropriately, job over! Since they didn't, they had to face reality and do the job the long way. The 40 years therefore were not an onesh -- they were simply the way things should have been if not extra special chassadim.
Says the Sefas Emes, once Klal Yisrael figured out over 40 years the tikun that was necessary and realized the mistake they had made, the power to effect the same result in only 40 days as originally planned became part of the collective spiritual yerusha of Klal Yisrael. We now know what needs to be done and can do it the quick way. Every year during these 40 days, from the beginning of Tamuz until 9 Av, we have a chance to do it right this time around.
Tosfos in the end does not answer the question (see Maharasha), but the Sefas Emes offers a response (I did not find this in the Sefas Emes but saw it quoted in the Beis Yisrael). In reality, al pi derech hateva, Klal Yisrael should have had to spend 40 years in the desert. It should have taken that long for them to develop as a nation and be ready to deal with the challenges of yishuv ha'aretz. Hashem, however, wanted to do Klal Yisrael a favor and cram those 40 years of preparation into only 40 days. If only the meraglim had brought back a positive report and Klal Yisrael would have responded appropriately, job over! Since they didn't, they had to face reality and do the job the long way. The 40 years therefore were not an onesh -- they were simply the way things should have been if not extra special chassadim.
Says the Sefas Emes, once Klal Yisrael figured out over 40 years the tikun that was necessary and realized the mistake they had made, the power to effect the same result in only 40 days as originally planned became part of the collective spiritual yerusha of Klal Yisrael. We now know what needs to be done and can do it the quick way. Every year during these 40 days, from the beginning of Tamuz until 9 Av, we have a chance to do it right this time around.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
ishbitzer on nesachim and challah
The story of the mergalim is immediately followed by the parsha of nesachim and the parsha of mitzvas challah, both of which seem out of place here. Nesachim would seem to fit better somewhere in VaYikra, or perhaps in Parshas Pinchas where the nisachim of korbanos hachag are discussed. Challah seems to fit in with terumos and ma'asros, not here. So why does the Torah choose this place to discuss these halachos?
Ramban adopts the view (it is a machlokes Tanaim) that nesachim were only offered in Eretz Yisrael. Based on this he explains that the Torah here is reassuring Bnei Yisrael that despite the setback of having to spend 40 years in the desert, they will ultimately get to Eretz Yisrael. The same idea holds true of challah, which is the only agricultural-type mitzvah that applies immediately upon entering Eretz Yisrael, even before the land is conquered and divided.
Even though the Ramban himself doesn't say it, I think there is a connection between nesachim and a Ramban earlier in the parsha. What did Moshe Rabeinu hope to gain by sending meraglim? Surely Moshe believed that Eretz Yisrael was a land of "zvas chalav u'devash," and no matter what the report, he intended to lead Bnei Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael. So what did he hope to gain? Ramban explains that Moshe Rabeinu was fully confident that the spies would bring back a glowing report of Eretz Yisrael. The description of the land's beauty would serve to heighten Bnei Yisrael's enthusiasm for the task of kibush and yishuv ha'aretz. Moshe wanted Bnei Yisrael to not just enter the land, but to do so b'simcha, with hislahavus. [Obvious lesson of how important how a mitzvah is done is.]
The Midrash darshens the pasuk in Koheles (9:7), "Leich echol b'simcha lachmecha u'shtei b'lev tov ye'einecha ki kvar ratzah ha-Elokin es ma'asecha," as referring to our parsha. The lechem the pasuk refers to is challah; the wine the pasuk refers to is nesachim; both showed that Hashem still desired the avodah of Klal Yisrael despite the cheit hameraglim. In light of the Ramban, I think the key words here are "simcha" and "lev tov." Even though the attempt to inject simcha and hislahavus into the mitzvah of kibush ha'aretz ultimately resulted in the entire miztvah being lost for a generation, that doesn't mean these values carry no weight. It doesn't mean we should push aside emotion lest it disrupt or cause the loss of the ikar mitzvah. Echol b'simcha.. shtei b'yein tov -- don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The Ishbitzer has such a classic Ishbitzer torah (no other way to describe it) here. The pasuk in Koheles refers first to lechem and then to wine. Why then does our parsha first introduce the mitzvah of nesachim, wine, and only secondly present the halachos of challah, bread, the reverse order of the pasuk in Koheles?
The difference between bread and wine is that wine takes little effort to produce -- the juice is already there inside the grape. Bread, however, takes enormous effort to produce. You have to harvest the wheat, mill it, turn the flour to dough, bake the dough, etc. There are a whole host of melachos on Shabbos that we derive from the numerous steps in the process of producing bread. Bread is symbolic of yiras shamayim -- a person has to work on him/herself day in and day out to maintain yirah, and certainly to grow in yirah. It's not an easy task. Wine is symbolic of the connection each and every one of us has b'omek halev to Hashem, a connection that can never be extinguished or destroyed,a connection which is there whether we work on it and want it to be there or whether we ignore it.
Under ordinary circumstances, bread precedes wine. A person has to first grapple with the challenge of building his/her yiras shamayim, but after all that grappling, the end result is that a person realizes that all along they were connected to Hashem b'omek halev -- it was always like wine. But sometimes that doesn't work -- sometimes a person is so down and out that the prospect of engaging in the avodah of lechem is overwhelming; it's too daunting, it seems beyond anything a person is capable of. In that case, you have to start with the avodah of wine. You need to remind a person that no matter how far he/she has fallen, b'omek halev there is still a connection. Beneath the surface, just like the juice inside the grape, the sweetest taste is there already. That chizuk will be the motivation to once again return to making bread, to putting in the effort to grow and come closer through one's own avodah.
After the cheit hameraglim, Bnei Yisrael felt they were the lowest of the low -- they didn't have the strength to go on. The Torah had to first give the parsha of nesachim and remind them that b'omek halev they were and always will be connected to Hashem, and only then remind them of the mitzvah of challah, of the need for great avodah and growth in yirah.
Ramban adopts the view (it is a machlokes Tanaim) that nesachim were only offered in Eretz Yisrael. Based on this he explains that the Torah here is reassuring Bnei Yisrael that despite the setback of having to spend 40 years in the desert, they will ultimately get to Eretz Yisrael. The same idea holds true of challah, which is the only agricultural-type mitzvah that applies immediately upon entering Eretz Yisrael, even before the land is conquered and divided.
Even though the Ramban himself doesn't say it, I think there is a connection between nesachim and a Ramban earlier in the parsha. What did Moshe Rabeinu hope to gain by sending meraglim? Surely Moshe believed that Eretz Yisrael was a land of "zvas chalav u'devash," and no matter what the report, he intended to lead Bnei Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael. So what did he hope to gain? Ramban explains that Moshe Rabeinu was fully confident that the spies would bring back a glowing report of Eretz Yisrael. The description of the land's beauty would serve to heighten Bnei Yisrael's enthusiasm for the task of kibush and yishuv ha'aretz. Moshe wanted Bnei Yisrael to not just enter the land, but to do so b'simcha, with hislahavus. [Obvious lesson of how important how a mitzvah is done is.]
The Midrash darshens the pasuk in Koheles (9:7), "Leich echol b'simcha lachmecha u'shtei b'lev tov ye'einecha ki kvar ratzah ha-Elokin es ma'asecha," as referring to our parsha. The lechem the pasuk refers to is challah; the wine the pasuk refers to is nesachim; both showed that Hashem still desired the avodah of Klal Yisrael despite the cheit hameraglim. In light of the Ramban, I think the key words here are "simcha" and "lev tov." Even though the attempt to inject simcha and hislahavus into the mitzvah of kibush ha'aretz ultimately resulted in the entire miztvah being lost for a generation, that doesn't mean these values carry no weight. It doesn't mean we should push aside emotion lest it disrupt or cause the loss of the ikar mitzvah. Echol b'simcha.. shtei b'yein tov -- don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The Ishbitzer has such a classic Ishbitzer torah (no other way to describe it) here. The pasuk in Koheles refers first to lechem and then to wine. Why then does our parsha first introduce the mitzvah of nesachim, wine, and only secondly present the halachos of challah, bread, the reverse order of the pasuk in Koheles?
The difference between bread and wine is that wine takes little effort to produce -- the juice is already there inside the grape. Bread, however, takes enormous effort to produce. You have to harvest the wheat, mill it, turn the flour to dough, bake the dough, etc. There are a whole host of melachos on Shabbos that we derive from the numerous steps in the process of producing bread. Bread is symbolic of yiras shamayim -- a person has to work on him/herself day in and day out to maintain yirah, and certainly to grow in yirah. It's not an easy task. Wine is symbolic of the connection each and every one of us has b'omek halev to Hashem, a connection that can never be extinguished or destroyed,a connection which is there whether we work on it and want it to be there or whether we ignore it.
Under ordinary circumstances, bread precedes wine. A person has to first grapple with the challenge of building his/her yiras shamayim, but after all that grappling, the end result is that a person realizes that all along they were connected to Hashem b'omek halev -- it was always like wine. But sometimes that doesn't work -- sometimes a person is so down and out that the prospect of engaging in the avodah of lechem is overwhelming; it's too daunting, it seems beyond anything a person is capable of. In that case, you have to start with the avodah of wine. You need to remind a person that no matter how far he/she has fallen, b'omek halev there is still a connection. Beneath the surface, just like the juice inside the grape, the sweetest taste is there already. That chizuk will be the motivation to once again return to making bread, to putting in the effort to grow and come closer through one's own avodah.
After the cheit hameraglim, Bnei Yisrael felt they were the lowest of the low -- they didn't have the strength to go on. The Torah had to first give the parsha of nesachim and remind them that b'omek halev they were and always will be connected to Hashem, and only then remind them of the mitzvah of challah, of the need for great avodah and growth in yirah.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
tefilos for the meraglim
The theme of tefilah seems to sneak its way between the lines of the story of the meraglim. Moshe davens for his beloved talmid Yehoshua, which of course begs the question of why he did not daven for anyone else if he smelled danger. Kalev takes a detour to Chevron to daven at the kever of the Avos, and Rashi makes the point that noticably missng are the tefilos of the other meraglim. And yet there is an even larger component of tefilah hidden in the parsha.
The biggest question, the unavoidable question, that one must grapple with in reading the parsha of the meraglim is what was Moshe Rabeinu thinking. Was there any doubt in his mind that Eretz Yisrael was "eretz zavas chalav u'devash?" Surely not. Yet if the purpose of sending spi was purely to discover the best military strategy, why ask them to scout out whether the land is "shmeina hi im razah," whether, "ha'yesh bah eitz im ayin?"
R' Yehoshua of Belz has an interesting insight that brings us back to a gemara discussed in a post way back in 2006 (link1,link2)If you rent a field with payment being a certain number of bushels from your crop, and you agree to grow wheat (for example), if the whole city suffers a flood you owe nothing -- it's like an implicit act of G-d clause (B.M. 106). However, if instead of the agreed upon crop of wheat you plant barley, even if the entire city gets flooded, you still owe the owner payment. Why? What happened to the built-in act of G-d clause? The gemara answers that the difference in tefilah. If the owner and you agree that you will plant wheat, and despite his davening for nothing to go wrong with that wheat crop the field gets flooded, you are off the hook. But if you plant barley, the owner has a right to come back to you and say that he davened for nothing to go wrong with the wheat crop -- had you lived up to the agreement and planted wheat, maybe in fact nothing would have gone wrong! Because you planted barley, his tefilah accomplished nothing and you have to pay.
I ask you -- if the owner of the field knew you were going to pull a switch and plant barely instead of wheat, don't you think he would want the barley to grow so he could collect his due? Don't you think that had he known, just like he davened for wheat thinking you were planting wheat, he also would also have davened for bracha and hatzlacha for barley? In fact, isn't it implicit in the fact that he davened for wheat thinking his sharecropper was planting wheat that he also wants Hashem's bracha for barley if his sharecropper plants barley? Why does he have to spell out the obvious?!
Yet we see a chiddush gadol from this gemara that in fact you do have to spell things out. If you daven for wheat, you stand to gain a bracha on wheat and wheat alone. If you daven for barley, you stand to gain a bracha on barley alone. Words matter. Tefilah is not Hallmark -- it's not just the thought that counts.
The reason why Moshe wanted precise information about Eretz Yisrael, says the Belzer Rebbe, is because Moshe wanted to daven for Bnei Yisrael's success in the conquest of the land. Had Moshe and Bnei Yisrael had a wrong impression, their tefilos mght be completely off base and ineffective. By knowing the nature of the land, they could direct their tefilos like precise missiles. (True, one could be mechaleik between the case of the gemara, where the tefilos were done for the wrong crop, and Bnei Yisrael's situation where they could have still offered general tefilos, but the point remains that tefilah is enhanced by greater specficity.)
Unfortunately it's late and my keyboard is broken, so maybe I'll come back to this post when I have more time and will tie things up. Al regel achas: Were these tefilos a tnai in the battle of conquest being successful, or perhaps the physical battle was just a tnai in these tefilos coming to fruition? I think perhaps Moshe sent the spies with the hope that the latter would be true,while unfortunately the meraglim took the former view. Moshe was aware of the danger of this shift in attitude and therefore he prepared Yehoshua in particular with his tefilos, because it was Yehoshua who already served as general while Moshe stood to the side and davened in the war against Amalek - Yehoshua was the physical arm of the army while Moshe was its spiritual heart.
The biggest question, the unavoidable question, that one must grapple with in reading the parsha of the meraglim is what was Moshe Rabeinu thinking. Was there any doubt in his mind that Eretz Yisrael was "eretz zavas chalav u'devash?" Surely not. Yet if the purpose of sending spi was purely to discover the best military strategy, why ask them to scout out whether the land is "shmeina hi im razah," whether, "ha'yesh bah eitz im ayin?"
R' Yehoshua of Belz has an interesting insight that brings us back to a gemara discussed in a post way back in 2006 (link1,link2)If you rent a field with payment being a certain number of bushels from your crop, and you agree to grow wheat (for example), if the whole city suffers a flood you owe nothing -- it's like an implicit act of G-d clause (B.M. 106). However, if instead of the agreed upon crop of wheat you plant barley, even if the entire city gets flooded, you still owe the owner payment. Why? What happened to the built-in act of G-d clause? The gemara answers that the difference in tefilah. If the owner and you agree that you will plant wheat, and despite his davening for nothing to go wrong with that wheat crop the field gets flooded, you are off the hook. But if you plant barley, the owner has a right to come back to you and say that he davened for nothing to go wrong with the wheat crop -- had you lived up to the agreement and planted wheat, maybe in fact nothing would have gone wrong! Because you planted barley, his tefilah accomplished nothing and you have to pay.
I ask you -- if the owner of the field knew you were going to pull a switch and plant barely instead of wheat, don't you think he would want the barley to grow so he could collect his due? Don't you think that had he known, just like he davened for wheat thinking you were planting wheat, he also would also have davened for bracha and hatzlacha for barley? In fact, isn't it implicit in the fact that he davened for wheat thinking his sharecropper was planting wheat that he also wants Hashem's bracha for barley if his sharecropper plants barley? Why does he have to spell out the obvious?!
Yet we see a chiddush gadol from this gemara that in fact you do have to spell things out. If you daven for wheat, you stand to gain a bracha on wheat and wheat alone. If you daven for barley, you stand to gain a bracha on barley alone. Words matter. Tefilah is not Hallmark -- it's not just the thought that counts.
The reason why Moshe wanted precise information about Eretz Yisrael, says the Belzer Rebbe, is because Moshe wanted to daven for Bnei Yisrael's success in the conquest of the land. Had Moshe and Bnei Yisrael had a wrong impression, their tefilos mght be completely off base and ineffective. By knowing the nature of the land, they could direct their tefilos like precise missiles. (True, one could be mechaleik between the case of the gemara, where the tefilos were done for the wrong crop, and Bnei Yisrael's situation where they could have still offered general tefilos, but the point remains that tefilah is enhanced by greater specficity.)
Unfortunately it's late and my keyboard is broken, so maybe I'll come back to this post when I have more time and will tie things up. Al regel achas: Were these tefilos a tnai in the battle of conquest being successful, or perhaps the physical battle was just a tnai in these tefilos coming to fruition? I think perhaps Moshe sent the spies with the hope that the latter would be true,while unfortunately the meraglim took the former view. Moshe was aware of the danger of this shift in attitude and therefore he prepared Yehoshua in particular with his tefilos, because it was Yehoshua who already served as general while Moshe stood to the side and davened in the war against Amalek - Yehoshua was the physical arm of the army while Moshe was its spiritual heart.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Abarbanel on Miram's complaint
The Abarbanel always seems to have something interesting to say on difficult parshiyos. From the Ramban down to Achronim, everyone is bothered by what the pasuk, "V'ha'ish Moshe anav me'od..." has to do with Miriam's sin of speaking against Moshe and her punishment. Abarbanel explains that the question only arises because we put the punctuation in the wrong place. The usual reading of the pesukim is,"Vayomru," Miriam and Aharon said, "Harak b'Moshe dibeir Hashem...." Did Hashem speak only to Moshe? -- end quotation marks. New topic: "VaYishma Hashem," Hashem's heard their lashon ha'ra, which is then followed by the enigmatic, "V'ha'ish Moshe anav..." Move the quotation marks, writes Abarbanel, and you have a completely different meaning. "VaYomru" -- start quotation marks -- "Harak b'Moshe...VaYishma Hashem... V'haish Moshe" -- close quotation marks. The entire contents of pesukim 11:2-3, including "V'ha'ish Moshe anav," are Miriam's words!
There are three possible reasons that Moshe might have separated from Tziporah: 1) Moshe did not reallylike her; 2) Moshe's status as a Navi precluded his having a relationship; 3) Moshe was personally disinclined to have a relationship because he felt he should dedicate himself exclusively to Hashem. Miriam's intent was to show that all three of these excuses were invalid.
1) "Ki isha kushis lakach" -- Moshe, you knew she was a kushis when you married her and had two kids. Too late to complain about that now.
2) "Harak b'Moshe... VaYishma Hashem" -- Being a Navi does not preclude having a wife; we are also Nevi'im, Hashem also listens to us, and we remain married.
3) "V'ha'ish Moshe anav me'od?" -- Are you Moshe more humble, more special, than everyone else, that you think you should behave differently than the rest of the world? (The 'hey' of 'ha'ish' is not a 'hey hayedi'ah' but rather is a 'hey' that indicates a question.)
There are three possible reasons that Moshe might have separated from Tziporah: 1) Moshe did not reallylike her; 2) Moshe's status as a Navi precluded his having a relationship; 3) Moshe was personally disinclined to have a relationship because he felt he should dedicate himself exclusively to Hashem. Miriam's intent was to show that all three of these excuses were invalid.
1) "Ki isha kushis lakach" -- Moshe, you knew she was a kushis when you married her and had two kids. Too late to complain about that now.
2) "Harak b'Moshe... VaYishma Hashem" -- Being a Navi does not preclude having a wife; we are also Nevi'im, Hashem also listens to us, and we remain married.
3) "V'ha'ish Moshe anav me'od?" -- Are you Moshe more humble, more special, than everyone else, that you think you should behave differently than the rest of the world? (The 'hey' of 'ha'ish' is not a 'hey hayedi'ah' but rather is a 'hey' that indicates a question.)
Sunday, June 10, 2012
the stigma of not offering korban pesach in the midbar
Rashi writes that even though the opening
parsha of Sefer BaMidbar occurred chronologically later than the the parsha
of korban pesach discussed in Be'ha'alosecha, the Torah reversed the order and placed the later parsha first. Why? There is a stigma attached to the parsha of korban pesach because there was only one korban pesach offered in the midbar -- Bnei Yisrael
failed to bring the korban the other 39 years -- therefore the Torah did not want
to open the sefer on a negative note.
Tosfos (Kid 37b) explains that Bnei Yisrael neglected the korban pesach all those years in the midbar because they held like the view that the mitzvah of korban pesach applied only after yerusha v'yeshiva, after the conquest of Eretz Yisrael. The korban offered in that first year in the midbar was a special hora'as sha'ah command by Hashem.
Tosfos (Kid 37b) explains that Bnei Yisrael neglected the korban pesach all those years in the midbar because they held like the view that the mitzvah of korban pesach applied only after yerusha v'yeshiva, after the conquest of Eretz Yisrael. The korban offered in that first year in the midbar was a special hora'as sha'ah command by Hashem.
If so, what is the stigma attached to the parsha? Bnei Yisrael had no obligation
to offer a pesach, so they didn't -- what's wrong? Tosfos answers
that Bnei Yisrael didn't look good because they should have entered Eretz
Yisrael right away. The only reason they spent 39 years in the desert
was because of the cheit hameraglim.
Tosfos shifts the stigma away from a direct association with korban pesach to the failure to enter Eretz Yisrael in a timely manner. The Maharal, however, stays true to the course and writes that the stigma is directly related to the mitzvah of korban pesach. True, the korban could not be offered because of the extenuating circumstances of ones in that they had not yet reached Eretz Yisrael, but being subject to ones, having an excuse, even a good one, is just not the same as getting the job done. Ones is a ptur onshim, an exemption from punishment, but it does not remove blame or stigma entirely.
Seems that the point of contention between Tos and the Maharal is the classic question of whether ones is a ma'aseh aveirah with a ptur or not a ma'aseh aveira. Tosfos holds that if there is an excuse for not offering the korban pesach, there is no stigma attached with failure -- there is no ma'aseh aveirah. Maharal, however, holds that there still is wrongdoing even sans punishment.
Tosfos shifts the stigma away from a direct association with korban pesach to the failure to enter Eretz Yisrael in a timely manner. The Maharal, however, stays true to the course and writes that the stigma is directly related to the mitzvah of korban pesach. True, the korban could not be offered because of the extenuating circumstances of ones in that they had not yet reached Eretz Yisrael, but being subject to ones, having an excuse, even a good one, is just not the same as getting the job done. Ones is a ptur onshim, an exemption from punishment, but it does not remove blame or stigma entirely.
Seems that the point of contention between Tos and the Maharal is the classic question of whether ones is a ma'aseh aveirah with a ptur or not a ma'aseh aveira. Tosfos holds that if there is an excuse for not offering the korban pesach, there is no stigma attached with failure -- there is no ma'aseh aveirah. Maharal, however, holds that there still is wrongdoing even sans punishment.
Rebbi's humility -- nafka minah l'halacha
Last week I mentioned the gemara (Sota 49) where Rav Yosef said that Rebbi was not the last anav, as he embodied the trait of humility as much as Rebbi did. At first glance the discussion seems to simply a matter of who has which midos tovos, but there is actually a little more to it than that. The gemara elsewhere (Sanhedrin 36) writes that one difference between capital cases and monetary cases is that when it comes to judging capital cases, dinei nefashos, the vote among the judges started with the lowest ranking member of the court. If the senior judge voted first it might prejudice the vote and prevent anyone else from disagreeing, and we want to give the defendant every edge possible when his life hangs in the balance. Not so in cases of dinei mamonos, where the senior judge did give his opinion first. However, the gemara tells us that in Rebbi's court even in cases of dinei mamonos the vote always started from the side, from one of the other lesser judges, and never from Rebbi. Rashi writes that due to his extreme humility Rebbi never wanted to go first. I would like to suggest that perhaps in Rav Yosef's beis din, given that he claimed to possess as much humility as Rebbi, the vote never started with him either.
selfish suffering
Vayishma Moshe es ha'am bocheh l'mishpichosav ish l'pesach ohalo... (11:10)
Thursday, June 07, 2012
Brisker Rav on the meaning of humility
"V'ha-ish Moshe anav me'od."
Was Moshe unaware that he was the greatest of prophets, the greatest leader in Klal Yisrael? Obviously not. Humility does not mean living in blind ignorance of one's abilities or accomplishments; rather, it means recognizing that one's abilities and accomplishments are a gift from Heaven. Humility means divorcing one's accomplishments from one's ego.
The gemara (Sota 49) lists a number of middos that were lost when Rebbi died. Rav Yosef commented that humility should not be on that list, as he lived after Rebbi and he personified that trait.
Maharasha comments: "Ain derech chachamim l'hispaer u'l'hishtabeyach b'ma'alasam," it is not proper for chachamim to boast and sing their own praises, as the pasuk says, "Ye'halelucha zar v'lo picha," let strangers sing your praises, but don't let them come out of your own mouth. Nonetheless, explains Maharasha, Rav Yosef's comment was justified to ensure that the text of the braysa was correct, etc.
The sefer Bad Kodesh writes that someone came to the Brisker Rav and remarked that he had always been troubled by this statement of Rav Yosef. How can one claim to be humble yet at the same time boast of one's humility? Now that he discovered the Maharasha, he had an answer.
The Brisker Rav explained to this individual that he completely misunderstood the Maharasha. There is obviously no contradiction, said the Brisker Rav, between being humble and professing humility, as the truly humble person does not connect achievement with ego -- there is no "I" involved, and hence nothing such a person says constitutes boasting. What bothered the Maharasha is that even if Rav Yosef was not a stira minei u'bei, even if we grant that there is no contradiction between professing humility and actually personifying that same trait, Rav Yosef's still seem to fly in the face of the pasuk, "Yehalelucha zar...?" To this the Maharasha answers the the extenuating circumstance of rectifying the text of the braysa justified Rav Yosef's words.
Was Moshe unaware that he was the greatest of prophets, the greatest leader in Klal Yisrael? Obviously not. Humility does not mean living in blind ignorance of one's abilities or accomplishments; rather, it means recognizing that one's abilities and accomplishments are a gift from Heaven. Humility means divorcing one's accomplishments from one's ego.
The gemara (Sota 49) lists a number of middos that were lost when Rebbi died. Rav Yosef commented that humility should not be on that list, as he lived after Rebbi and he personified that trait.
Maharasha comments: "Ain derech chachamim l'hispaer u'l'hishtabeyach b'ma'alasam," it is not proper for chachamim to boast and sing their own praises, as the pasuk says, "Ye'halelucha zar v'lo picha," let strangers sing your praises, but don't let them come out of your own mouth. Nonetheless, explains Maharasha, Rav Yosef's comment was justified to ensure that the text of the braysa was correct, etc.
The sefer Bad Kodesh writes that someone came to the Brisker Rav and remarked that he had always been troubled by this statement of Rav Yosef. How can one claim to be humble yet at the same time boast of one's humility? Now that he discovered the Maharasha, he had an answer.
The Brisker Rav explained to this individual that he completely misunderstood the Maharasha. There is obviously no contradiction, said the Brisker Rav, between being humble and professing humility, as the truly humble person does not connect achievement with ego -- there is no "I" involved, and hence nothing such a person says constitutes boasting. What bothered the Maharasha is that even if Rav Yosef was not a stira minei u'bei, even if we grant that there is no contradiction between professing humility and actually personifying that same trait, Rav Yosef's still seem to fly in the face of the pasuk, "Yehalelucha zar...?" To this the Maharasha answers the the extenuating circumstance of rectifying the text of the braysa justified Rav Yosef's words.
Monday, June 04, 2012
sotah - a crime of rebellion
The gemara (Sota 7b) derives that a sotah can be tried only in the "supreme court" beis din of 71 people through a gezeirah shava that connects the parsha of sotah to that of zakein mamrei, who we know is tried in a court of 71.
I would like to suggest that the gemara is not simply a technical limud that tells us the number of judges required, but rather reveals that there is an underlying thematic relationship between the two parshiyos. Both sotah and zakein marei are crimes of rebellion against authority -- in the latter case, against the authority of beis din; in the former case, against the authority of the sotah's husband. The parsha of sotah does not use the terminology used for crimes of arayos, "lo tikrivu l'galos ervah," that we are familiar with from other contexts where the Torah discusses forbidden relationships. Instead, the crime is describes as "ma'alah ma'al b'isha," the sotah has sinned against her husband.
This approach makes for a very patriarchal reading of the parsha. Whether that troubles you or not (and how to deal with the issue if it does) is up to you (much has been written about the issue) -- I'm just making the observation.
dor rev'i yashuvu
In David Klinghoffer's book TheL-ord will Gather Me In he quotes (p. 15) the following observation
from TV critic Michael Medved:
...Accoring to Medved, himself a ba'al teshuvah, you rerely find more than four consecutive generations of secular or Reform J s. When a J breaks with traditional Ju ian, his children or grandchildren wither will intermarry and raise their own children as non-J or indiffernet Jws, so that the line of the family disappears from the people of Israel -- or they will return to the Ju ism he thought he helped them escape.
I now have a different perspective on
the pasuk, "V'dor rev'i yashuvu heina..." (That is, if things go right.)
Sunday, June 03, 2012
R' Chaim Volozhiner
14 Sivan is the yahrzeit of R' Chaim Volozhiner. I saw a parsha sheet that had a bunch of stories about R' Chaim in honor of the occasion, and one of them (for me at least) typified the difference between a chassidishe ma'aseh and a non-chassidishe ma'aseh (or a chassidishe outlook vs. non-chassidishe), with no disrespect to either side.
Snow was apparently not uncommon in Volozhin and in the days before snow plows and salt trucks a good snowfall meant the city would literally close down, as roads and streets were unpassable. It was noticed that no matter how had the snowfall, the path to the Volozhiner Yeshiva somehow always remained clear. Bachurim always had a way to get to the yeshiva to learn. A miracle!
Had this been a chassidishe ma'aseh, I think the punchline would be that there was a special segulah to Volozhin, a special merit earned by R' Chaim Volozhiner, and because of that the snow drifted elsewhere. Maybe even the aish of Torah succeeded in melting the snow before it got to earth.
But it's not a chassidishe ma'aseh -- it's Volozhin. One morning after a snowfall some of the bachurim were up out of bed especially early and when they peered out of their window they spied a lone figure out shoveling the snow away from the yeshiva. Who was that lone soul braving the storm to see to it that the yeshiva could remain accessible? It was none other than the Rosh Yeshiva, R' Chaim.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
no ego trip
Why does the Torah repeat the list of gifts
brought by each Nasi to dedicate the Mishkan when the gifts were all identical?
The Torah could have just given the list once and written "ditto"
eleven times? Ramban gives two answers: 1) The Nesi'im agreed
upon the same gifts and brought them all on the first day, but the korbanos
had to be spaced out and offered one per day. The Torah repeats the
list of gifts and offerings brought each day so as to stress that those
which were brought later were just as valuable and important as those offered
earlier. 2) Although the gifts were the same, each was brought with
a slightly different intention in mind; therefore the Torah repeats each
gift seperately.
It seems that Rashi disagrees with this last point, as Rashi only explains the intent behind the gift brought by Nesanel ben Tzu'ar on the second day. He offers no similar explanation as to the intent of the other Nesi'im. If the motivation and intent of each Nasi was different and that is why the Torah repeats the list so many times, Rashi should offer an explanation for each one (as the Midrash in fact does).
Yesh lachkor whether the Nesi'im presented one gift in twelve parts or twelve separate gifts? I would say Ramban holds the second view while Rashi holds the first. The parsha concludes by giving the sum total of all that was presented, suggesting that all that was given should be viewed as one whole unit. According to Ramban, one must read the summation as another way to underscore the theme of equality.
It seems that Rashi disagrees with this last point, as Rashi only explains the intent behind the gift brought by Nesanel ben Tzu'ar on the second day. He offers no similar explanation as to the intent of the other Nesi'im. If the motivation and intent of each Nasi was different and that is why the Torah repeats the list so many times, Rashi should offer an explanation for each one (as the Midrash in fact does).
Yesh lachkor whether the Nesi'im presented one gift in twelve parts or twelve separate gifts? I would say Ramban holds the second view while Rashi holds the first. The parsha concludes by giving the sum total of all that was presented, suggesting that all that was given should be viewed as one whole unit. According to Ramban, one must read the summation as another way to underscore the theme of equality.
The Yalkut Shimoni writes that had the Nesi'im not offered identical korbanos -- had they instead tried to out-do each other -- the korban of day seven would not have been doche Shabbos. Since the Nesi'im respected each other, Hashem said He will in turn show respect to their korbanos and accept them even on Shabbos. The meforshim explain that even though each gift korban was brought by an individual Nasi, the korbanos had the din of a korban tzibur. We see that the "shem" tzibur in a hashkafic sense depends less on how many people are involved than on many egos are involved.
But why specifically is being doche Shabbos the response to the Nesi'im's selflessness? The Shem m'Shmuel in many places explains that the word "vayechal" in the pasuk, "VaYechal Elokim bayom ha'shevi'i," can be interpreted as coming from the root "klal," as in Klal Yisrael. Shabbos is the unification of G-d with creation; it is also the unification of man with his fellow man to create one unit, one klal, one tzibur. All the individual days of creation and their parts come together as a greater whole on Shabbos. The surrender of ego for the sake of the group, the klal, as exemplified by the Nesi'im, is itself the greatest fulfillment of the ideal of Shabbos, hence their korbanos could be offered even on the seventh day.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
a one night stand
After an all night tikun and vasikin davening on the first day of Shavuos,
the very next day of Yom Tov things in most places return to normal, which
usually means davening at 9:00 with most people coming around 9:15 and
missing sof zman krias shema (9:10 or so in NY this past weekend). I
know minhag yisrael is to stay up as a tikun, but let's be honest: How
many people are concentrating on anything at 3:00 AM other than whether
there are any new snacks out and how much longer until shacharis? Wouldn't it make more
sense if instead of pushing for one all-nighter one would spread that dedication to Torah out a bit? Instead of trying
to cram five or six hours of weak learning into one night, wouldn't it be more beneficial to devote
just half-hour a week every week for the next month or two to getting up
earlier on Shabbos to make the zman or maybe have a little seder before
davening when one can fully concentrate?
Maybe it's me, but I don't get it: A guy can push himself to stay up all night round the clock, but the next shabbos he can't push himself to get up at 8:00 to learn a bit or daven b'zman? What's that one night worth if in the overall scheme of life it doesn't produce any net change?
The reason why the all-nighter is so
popular is because it's an event -- it's the thing to do, the place to
be, it's the social happening. It's where everyone is, so there must be something to it. You
don't want to hear the next morning that just after you left they brought
out the ice cream sundaes or sushi platters (these days a little cake and
watermelon just doesn't cut it). Who cares if you are barely awake and can't concentrate on the shiur when just showing up (and eating) is 80% of the goal?
(After writing this post I found the following (link) written by Rav Sorotzkin, which echoes the point I am trying to make. He too wonders why the inspiration of Shavuos night is so short lived. He uses the analogy of mattan Torah to kiddushin and binyan mikdash to nesu'in to suggest that unless the inspiration of Shavuos night is internalized (it is built into one's psychological mishkan) it quickly evaporates.)
no argument
Rashi alludes to the Midrash that Moshe
was hesitant to tell each of the degalim where they should camp. "If I tell tribe X to camp in the North," Moshe
said to Hashem, "They will ask me why not in the South. If I tell
them to camp in the South, they will ask me why not in the North." (Sounds
like your typical shul.) Hashem told Moshe that he
has nothing to worry about because Bnei Yisrael already knew exactly how to arrange the camp, as they had been assigned positions by Ya'akov Avinu
when they carried his coffin out of Mitzrayim.
Moshe Rabeinu must have known that the shevatim had been assigned positions by Ya'akov, and yet he still felt arguments would erupt. Moshe felt that he needed to offer people some kind of explanation, some kind of justification, some reason why one sheivet should camp here and not there, or vice versa. Yet Moshe was wrong. Hashem reassured him that the people will willingly accept their place based simply on the way things were done before, even if he couldn't provide a good reason for it. The anticipation of having to offer rationalizations or explanations that may be difficult to come by is sometimes itself the only obstacle to getting things done. Certain practices are built into our Jewish DNA from way back and need no justification beyond that strength of precedent.
Moshe Rabeinu must have known that the shevatim had been assigned positions by Ya'akov, and yet he still felt arguments would erupt. Moshe felt that he needed to offer people some kind of explanation, some kind of justification, some reason why one sheivet should camp here and not there, or vice versa. Yet Moshe was wrong. Hashem reassured him that the people will willingly accept their place based simply on the way things were done before, even if he couldn't provide a good reason for it. The anticipation of having to offer rationalizations or explanations that may be difficult to come by is sometimes itself the only obstacle to getting things done. Certain practices are built into our Jewish DNA from way back and need no justification beyond that strength of precedent.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
mattan Torah in the present
I hardly have time to write anything, so this will be short.
1. וְכָל-הָעָם רֹאִים אֶת-הַקּוֹלֹת
וְאֶת-הַלַּפִּידִם, וְאֵת קוֹל הַשֹּׁפָר,
וְאֶת-הָהָר, עָשֵׁן; וַיַּרְא הָעָם וַיָּנֻעוּ,
וַיַּעַמְדוּ מֵרָחֹק.
Not only does the pasuk seem to contain
a redundant mention of seeing the kolos of Har Sinai, "ro'im es hakolos,"
and then again, "va'yar," but it also switches tenses from the
present, "ro'im," to the past, "va'yar." What's
going on here?
R' Tzadok haKohen explains that mattan Torah did not just happen over 2000 years ago -- it happens again each and every year. We have the special zechus in the present tense to be "ro'im es hakolos," to see the sounds of Har Sinai with our own eyes, because in the past, "vaya'r... vaya'amdu mei'rachok," our ancestors stood at Sinai and shrunk back in awe at the overwhelming experience.
2. The gemara (Chagiga 13) darshens from the pasuk we say every morning in pesukei d'zimra, "lo asah kein l'chol goy u'mishpatim bal yida'um," that there is an issur of teaching Torah to an aku"m. Tosfos asks why we need a new derasha for this din -- since the gemara elsewhere (Sanhedrin 59) already learns that there is an issur for an aku"m to learn Torah, it follows that teaching an aku"m Torah should be assur because of lifnei iveir, as it enables his crime? Tosfos answers with an ukimta -- we are dealing with a case where there is another way for the aku"m to learn (e.g. someone else wants to teach him), so by your teaching him, you have not enabled him to do what he otherwise couldn't.
The Turei Even gives what sounds like a sharper answer. The source for the prohibition of an aku"m learning Torah is the pasuk, "Morasha kehilas Ya'akov," that refers to Torah as our inheritance. For an aku"m to learn Torah is a theft of our yerusha, an issur of gezel. It follows that if a Jew decides to voluntarily teach Torah to an aku"m, he has in effect given permission to the aku"m to take away his portion -- it's just like a family member giving his slice of inheritance to an outsider. The aku"m has not violated the issur or gezel by taking what is voluntarily offered, and the Jew is not in violation of lifnei iveir. Were it not for for the new derasha of "mishpatim bal yeda'um" there would be no issur in this case. Tos obviously did not accept the Turei Even's approach -- what's the nekudas hamachlokes between them?
R' Tzadok haKohen explains that mattan Torah did not just happen over 2000 years ago -- it happens again each and every year. We have the special zechus in the present tense to be "ro'im es hakolos," to see the sounds of Har Sinai with our own eyes, because in the past, "vaya'r... vaya'amdu mei'rachok," our ancestors stood at Sinai and shrunk back in awe at the overwhelming experience.
2. The gemara (Chagiga 13) darshens from the pasuk we say every morning in pesukei d'zimra, "lo asah kein l'chol goy u'mishpatim bal yida'um," that there is an issur of teaching Torah to an aku"m. Tosfos asks why we need a new derasha for this din -- since the gemara elsewhere (Sanhedrin 59) already learns that there is an issur for an aku"m to learn Torah, it follows that teaching an aku"m Torah should be assur because of lifnei iveir, as it enables his crime? Tosfos answers with an ukimta -- we are dealing with a case where there is another way for the aku"m to learn (e.g. someone else wants to teach him), so by your teaching him, you have not enabled him to do what he otherwise couldn't.
The Turei Even gives what sounds like a sharper answer. The source for the prohibition of an aku"m learning Torah is the pasuk, "Morasha kehilas Ya'akov," that refers to Torah as our inheritance. For an aku"m to learn Torah is a theft of our yerusha, an issur of gezel. It follows that if a Jew decides to voluntarily teach Torah to an aku"m, he has in effect given permission to the aku"m to take away his portion -- it's just like a family member giving his slice of inheritance to an outsider. The aku"m has not violated the issur or gezel by taking what is voluntarily offered, and the Jew is not in violation of lifnei iveir. Were it not for for the new derasha of "mishpatim bal yeda'um" there would be no issur in this case. Tos obviously did not accept the Turei Even's approach -- what's the nekudas hamachlokes between them?
Perhaps
the focus of their dispute revolves around how to understand the concept
of "morasha." There are two types of shared ownership:
a partnership and a cooperation. In a partnership, each partner
is the exclusive owner of some percentage of the whole. In a coorporation,
each shareholder has partial ownership over the entire entity. The Turei Even understood morasha as a partnership. There
is nothing stopping any Jew from "transferring" his portion to
an aku"m by teaching him Torah. Tosfos, however, understood
morasha as being like a corporation. The communal ownership of Torah
by Klal Yisrael is greater than the sum of each individual part, and no
one individual can surrender any portion to an outside party without the
consent of all. (See R' Yitzchok Sorotzkin's sefer on Shavuos for more on this).
I was thinking perhaps another approach is possible. The Turei Even treats morasha exactly like a dinei mamonos halacha,
hence, what the aku"m takes, the Jew loses. It could be that Tosfos
understood it not as a dinei mamonos halacha, but rather as part of the
world of issur v'heter, and that's why there can't be kinyanim or
transfer -- Torah is not a tangible object that can be bought/sold.
When the gemara says the aku"m violates the issur gezel, all it means is
that the gavra has a shem gazlan because what he did is *akin* to
theft.
Monday, May 21, 2012
to infinity and beyond
Rav Dessler (Michtav m'Eliyahu vol II p.26) asks how a mattan Torah could be possible when Torah is infinite, aruka m'aretz midah, and the world by definition is finite. The "tzimtzum" that was necessitated to create a physical world never applied to Torah, which preceded and transcends the creation. How do you fit an infinite peg in a finite hole?
Rav Dessler answers that mattan Torah can only be understood as a nes, a miracle. Hashem has no constraints on what he can do, and so if he wills an infinite Torah into a finite human mind, it will stick. The goal of a person therefore must be to become a worthy vessel for Torah by deflating his ego and correcting his midos and hope that Hashem will award him Torah as a gift, as it is only through Hashem's grace that Torah can fully be absorbed.
shemita and Har Sinai
If the only point of the juxtaposition
of Har Sinai with the laws of shemita in Parshas Behar is to teach that
the details of all mitzvos were given at Sinai, the lesson could have just
as easily conveyed by mentioning Sinai in the context of any number of
other mitzvos aside from shemita and yovel(Ramban). There must be some more fundamental connection
between the two ideas.
The gemara (Shabbos 88) tells us that
Hashem lifted Har Sinai and held it over the heads of Klal Yisrael and
threatened to drop it on them if they did not accept the Torah. From
here, says the gemara, "moda'ah rabbah l'oraysa," Bnei Yisrael had an excuse for not keeping Torah and mitzvos, as their
initial kabbalah was done under duress. Only later, at the time
of Purim, was there a willing re-acceptance.
But how can this be? We just read
in Parshas Bechukosai all the promises of reward for doing mitzvos and
the punishment of galus for disobeying. If mattan Torah was done
under duress and therefore the kabbalas haTorah was not binding, how could
there be punishment for disobeying?
Perhaps this was the question of "Al
mah avdah ha'aretz?" that all the Nevi'im and Chachamim could not
answer (Bava Metziya 85). They could not fathom why Klal Yisrael
was being sent into galus despite the claim of duress that would excuse them from punishment.
The Ramban answers (see Parashas Derachim
derush 22) that there is a difference between all other punishments and
the punishment of galus. Eretz Yisrael is a special gift. You
can use duress as an excuse to get out of punishment, but you can't expect
to get an extra special gift while making excuses. Our stay in Eretz
Yisrael is predicated on our acceptance of Torah, no matter what.
I think this is what the opening to
Parshas Behar is hinting at. The excuse of "moda'ah rabbah"
may work for other mitzvos, but when it comes to shemitah and yovel, mitzvos
that depend on kedushas ha'aretz and yishuv ha'aretz, even if given "b'har
Sinai," with the mountain suspended over our heads and under duress,
there are no excuses.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
schar v'onesh: Rishonim vs. the historians
Parshas Bechukosai promises the rewards of a plentiful harvest, peace, prosperity, etc. for those who observe Torah and mitzvos and all the bad tidings of the tochacha for those who do not. The Rishonim are all troubled by the question of why material benefit and material benefit alone is promised as a reward for mitzvos while the ultimate reward, namely, a portion in the world to come, is never mentioned at all. Ikar chaseir min hasefer!
The Kli Yakar (riding on the coat tails of the Abarbanel) summarizes seven different answers given by the Rishonim that you can look up if interested, but I wanted to take a step back and make one a small observation about the problem itself. The entire premis that there is some "question" here that needs to be resolved is one that a historian would dismiss without a second thought. The problem is only a problem if you assume that the concept of reward / punishment in Tanach is consistant with the concept of reward / punishment accepted by the Rishonim, presumably based on Chazal. Otherwise, the answer is simple: In the good ol' Biblical days, there was no idea of afterlife. Reward and punishment happened to you in this world. Later, the Rabbis, either motivated by what they realized were irresolvable philosophical / theological problems with the Biblical account or by external influences on their thinking, came up with this idea of reward / punishment in an afterlife. Biblical Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism are separated by a difference of hundreds of years (not to mention differences in location and surrounding culture) -- is it any wonder that there exists theological differences between the two?
Baruch shekivanti, it took less that 10 seconds to find the following except ( link) from a very prominent Conservative Rabbi, one with a PhD after his name to boot, so his scholarly credentials trump mine:
I think this argument is mistaken. I think the Rishonim avoided saying halachos or hashkafos were historically conditioned not because they viewed history as one flat space into which everything melds as one, but rather because they viewed the totality of Torah as one flat space into which everything blurs and melds as one. I think the Rishonim held that the truths of Torah, at least and certainly with respect to ikkarei emunah, are akin to logical or mathematical axioms. 2+2=4 whether you live today or lived 2000 years ago or will live 200 years hence. If the concept of reward and punishment entails belief in an olam ha'ba, the necessity of that belief would have been true in the days of Tanach as much as in the days of the Tanaim and Amoraim.
This example is illustrative of a point I've written about here before, but is worth repeating because it au courant even in some Orthodox circles these days to take the opposing position. The tools of the historian are different than the tools of the halachist. Even where the questions they examine happen to overlap, the framework in which those questions are posed is radically different, the methodology of study is different, and the answers and the assumptions that underlie them are also often radically different.
A Brisker who might answer up a kashe of Tosfos with a gavra/chefzta split will undoubtedly defend his Brisker methodology as being rooted in the Rishonim themselves. It's just taking the use of structural categories, ideas the Rishonim use in many places, to the next level. The historian has no such similar precedent to call on. He cannot argue that his approach is an extension of an already existing methodology of Torah study that has been passed on as part of the mesorah. I think this is the reason the "yeshiva" world views with such suspicion the conclusions of the academic world in matters of hashkafa and halacha. It has less to do with the conclusions themselves than with the methodology, with the paradigm.
I'm not an either / or guy, so let me throw in a caveat. That is not to say we should avoid *all* critical or historical inquiry into Torah. We can be tocho achal and toss away the klipah. My point is that before doing so, one must first recognize the difference between the wheat and the chaff and know what to toss and what to keep. An answer to a halachic or hashkafic question that rings "true" to the historian may carry very little weight in the world of Torah, where other Truths reign supreme. It's those Truths alone that count.
The Kli Yakar (riding on the coat tails of the Abarbanel) summarizes seven different answers given by the Rishonim that you can look up if interested, but I wanted to take a step back and make one a small observation about the problem itself. The entire premis that there is some "question" here that needs to be resolved is one that a historian would dismiss without a second thought. The problem is only a problem if you assume that the concept of reward / punishment in Tanach is consistant with the concept of reward / punishment accepted by the Rishonim, presumably based on Chazal. Otherwise, the answer is simple: In the good ol' Biblical days, there was no idea of afterlife. Reward and punishment happened to you in this world. Later, the Rabbis, either motivated by what they realized were irresolvable philosophical / theological problems with the Biblical account or by external influences on their thinking, came up with this idea of reward / punishment in an afterlife. Biblical Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism are separated by a difference of hundreds of years (not to mention differences in location and surrounding culture) -- is it any wonder that there exists theological differences between the two?
Baruch shekivanti, it took less that 10 seconds to find the following except ( link) from a very prominent Conservative Rabbi, one with a PhD after his name to boot, so his scholarly credentials trump mine:
The biblical references are all to divine recompense and retribution in this world, in terms of material prosperity and suffering here on earth. But a remarkable shift of emphasis took place, it is generally held, at the time of the Maccabees, when righteous men and women were being slaughtered because of their loyalty to their faith.Why not embrace this approach? After all, what could be better than not only solving a kashe that plagued the Rishonim, but even more than that -- showing that the kashe never existed in the first place? As to why the Rishonim didn't give that answer if it's so good -- maybe the Rishonim simply did not have the same historical sense of things that we do; perhaps they were more tolerant of anachronisms and the like; perhaps they saw history as a blur rather than a set of discrete time periods, each with its own flavor and character.
In the face of such direct contradiction to the notion of reward and punishment in the here and now, faith could only be maintained by affirming that recompense and retribution were to be the fate of humans in the Hereafter, in the World to Come, as it is called by the Rabbis. In the Rabbinic literature, while this‑worldly formulations are not unknown it is in the World to Come that the doctrine is made to receive its chief application.
I think this argument is mistaken. I think the Rishonim avoided saying halachos or hashkafos were historically conditioned not because they viewed history as one flat space into which everything melds as one, but rather because they viewed the totality of Torah as one flat space into which everything blurs and melds as one. I think the Rishonim held that the truths of Torah, at least and certainly with respect to ikkarei emunah, are akin to logical or mathematical axioms. 2+2=4 whether you live today or lived 2000 years ago or will live 200 years hence. If the concept of reward and punishment entails belief in an olam ha'ba, the necessity of that belief would have been true in the days of Tanach as much as in the days of the Tanaim and Amoraim.
This example is illustrative of a point I've written about here before, but is worth repeating because it au courant even in some Orthodox circles these days to take the opposing position. The tools of the historian are different than the tools of the halachist. Even where the questions they examine happen to overlap, the framework in which those questions are posed is radically different, the methodology of study is different, and the answers and the assumptions that underlie them are also often radically different.
A Brisker who might answer up a kashe of Tosfos with a gavra/chefzta split will undoubtedly defend his Brisker methodology as being rooted in the Rishonim themselves. It's just taking the use of structural categories, ideas the Rishonim use in many places, to the next level. The historian has no such similar precedent to call on. He cannot argue that his approach is an extension of an already existing methodology of Torah study that has been passed on as part of the mesorah. I think this is the reason the "yeshiva" world views with such suspicion the conclusions of the academic world in matters of hashkafa and halacha. It has less to do with the conclusions themselves than with the methodology, with the paradigm.
I'm not an either / or guy, so let me throw in a caveat. That is not to say we should avoid *all* critical or historical inquiry into Torah. We can be tocho achal and toss away the klipah. My point is that before doing so, one must first recognize the difference between the wheat and the chaff and know what to toss and what to keep. An answer to a halachic or hashkafic question that rings "true" to the historian may carry very little weight in the world of Torah, where other Truths reign supreme. It's those Truths alone that count.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
va'yinatzu ba'machaneh -- when things go public
There are multiple explanation in Chazal as to what the mekalal did wrong: According to one view he rejected the idea of lechem hapanim being left out for a week; according to another view is could not tolerate not receiving a spot in the camp just because on his father's side he was related to a Mitzri and not part of any sheivet. Whatever the case may be, the mekalel blasphemized G-d's name and was guilty. He was held in prison until Hashem clarified to Moshe that he deserved the death penalty, after which the Torah tells us that Bnei Yisrael stoned him. The Torah then adds an enigmatic concluding sentence to Parshas Emor: "U'Bnei Yisrael asu ka'asher tzivah Hashem es Moshe," that Bnei Yisrael did what Hashem commanded to Moshe (24:23). The pasuk already told us that the mekalel was judged and executed -- what does the Torah add with this concluding line?
A number of answers are given by the classical meforshim. Rashi explains that not only was the execution carried out, but all the associated halachos involved in the process were fulfilled as well. Ibn Ezra writes that this concluding statement refers back to the other halachos given in the parsha, e.g. the laws of damages. Not only was the mekalel killed, but these halachos too were accepted and fulfilled. Ramban reads the pasuk as addressing the morality of Bnei Yisrael's actions: The execution was carried out only to fulfill G-d's command, "ka'asher tzivah Hashem," without malice or desire for vengence.
Abarbanel has a unique reading of the parsha that sheds a bit of a different light on this pasuk. The mekalel was the son of a Jewish mother and an Egyptian father. This mixed lineage left Bnei Yisrael unsure of how to treat him -- should Torah law be applied equally to this half-member of Klal Yisrael? Was the mekalel fully Jewish and subject to the same halachos as everyone else? (Abarbanel does not get involved in the technical details of whether the child had geirus or not -- see Ramban who discusses.) The "hava amina" of Bnei Yisrael was that this case was different, and the "yichus" of the mekalel to his father the Mitzri was grounds for an exemption from the death penalty.
Moshe Rabeinu decided to investigate further and ascertain whether the whole story of this mixed lineage was correct. He put the question directly to the mekalel's mother: Who is the father of your child? It's a fascinating catch-22: If the mother defends herself and claims the father is Jewish, her son wouldn't have a leg to stand on in terms of avoiding the death penalty. If the mother says the father is not Jewish to get her son off, she blackens her own reputation by admitting to znus with a Mitzri. While Rashi interprets the mekalel's mother's name, Shlomit bas Divri, in a pejorative light -- she called "Shlomit" because she used to say "shalom" to everyone she met; she was called "Divri" from the root d-b-r because she had no constraints in who she spoke with -- Abarbanel interprets the same name in a positive light. She was called "Shlomit" because she wanted to be "mashlim" her son and protect him; she was called "Divri" because she was not afraid to speak out on his behalf, even at the cost of sullying her own reputation.
The Torah ends the parsha by telling us that Bnei Yisrael carried out the death penalty, "ka'asher tzivah Hashem..." Even though Bnei Yisrael held m'sevara that an individual of Mitzri descent should not be put to death, even though in their hearts they thought the law should be different, they nonetheless carried out the sentence as instructed.
In some sense, the behavior of Bnei Yisrael serves as foil to the mekalel himself. The mekalal could not understand the law of lechel hapanim or could not accept the judgment against him in terms of nachala, and therefore rejected Torah. Bnei Yisrael's thought the mekalel should not be subject to the death penalty, but carried out his sentence despite their reservations.
The Abarbanel's introduction of Bnei Yisrael conflicted attitude toward the mekalel sets the stage for the interpretation of the Radomsker. While Abarbanel frames the doubts of Bnei Yisrael as a legal issue -- should an individual with a Mitzri father suffer the same death penalty as a full Jew -- the Radomsker frames the issue as a psychological one. "Vayinatzu bamachaneh," writes the Radomsker, does not simply mean the mekalel's dispute took place in public view -- it means the public itself was torn by the issue. Where there once was complete commitment to Toras Moshe, there was now in the eye of the public two views -- the view of Moshe, and the view of the mekalel -- that stood in conflict. What once would not have even been given a passing thought was now deemed a view that one must at least contend with, even if ultimately rejected.
The idea of "u'bi'arta ha'ra m'kirbecha," is not simply about meting out punishment to wrongdoers. It's about fixing "kirbecha," what's inside of you. It's about uprooting the wrong ideas that take hold after exposure to the mekalel or whatever the outside influence is. "U'Bnei Yisrael asu ka'asher tzivah Hashem es Moshe" -- once the mekalel and his corrupting influence was removed, once the seeds of doubt and / or psychological confusion were removed, Bnei Yisrael returned to their original level of commitment.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
the hint to Rus in our parsha
I was preparing a totally different post on the parsha (which I didn't have time to finish writing yet), but this Ta'ama D'Kra from R' Ch. Kanievsky caught my eye and is too sharp to not mention. Smack in the middle of the parsha of the moados, after talking about the korban ha'omer, the mitzvah of sefirah, and then the shtei halechem, the Torah throws in a mention of the mitzvah of pe'ah and leket (23:22) and then goes back to the topic of the Yamim Tovim. What are these mitzvos of leket and pe'ah doing here?
R' Chaim suggests that perhaps the Torah here is hinting at the story of Rus. Rus met Boaz when she went out to the field to gather leket. The Torah here specifically mentions, "le'ani v'lager ta'azov osam," the need to leave over grain for the poor and the convert. Rus came to Eretz Yisrael at the time of the barley harvest; the parsha of leket and pe'ah comes right after the discussion of the korban ha'omer, a barley offering. "Le'ani v'lager ta'azov" -- take the last letter of "ani" and the first of "ta'azov" and put them together with "v'lager" and it spells "giyores." "Ta'azov" has the same letters as "Boaz" with an additional letter "taf," which can be combined with the reish and vav of "v'lager" to spell Rus. And the final icing on the cake: The gematriya of "l'ani v'lager ta'azov osam" = "zu Neomi v'Rus kalasa."
Even if you don't like remazim, this is pretty impressive.
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
be all that you can be
The gemara (Kesubos 62) relates the famous story of R' Akiva:
R' Akiva was a shepherd who worked for Kalba Savu'a. Kalba Savu'a daughter Rachel saw that he was modest and refined and offered to marry him on the condition that he would go and learn in yeshiva. He agreed, and they became secretly engaged... R' Akiva went and learned for twelve years and returned home with a following of 12,000 students. As he approached, he heard someone criticizing his wife, saying that she was like a widow, as her husband was gone for so long. She answered back that if was up to her, her husband could stay away another twelve years. R' Akiva inferred that he had his wife's permission to continue learning, and so he immediately turned around and returned to yeshiva. After another twelve years he returned home again, this time with 24,000 students. R' Akiva's wife came out to greet her husband, now the great Tanna, and fell at his feet. The students tried to push her away, but R' Akiva told them to leave her, as all his Torah and theirs came through her merit alone.
Its' clear from the gemara that R' Akiva assumed he could spend at least twelve years learning, enough time to attract 12,000 students. But why? Where did he get this idea from? All his wife told him was that she was getting married on the condition that he learn in yeshiva. Imagine a kollel husband and his wife to be discussing their future plans before the wedding. Together, they decide that he should continue in yeshiva. Right after the wedding, he leaves home and is not heard from for the next twelve years. I imagine that any wife faced with such a situation would say this is certainly not what she bargained for!
R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi explains that R' Akiva and his wife understood that yeshiva is not just a place that you spend a few days/months/years accumulating knowledge. It's not about becoming an expert in some particular discipline, an expert in the "field" of Talmud or Jewish law. Yeshiva is about becoming what you are capable of becoming -- "Be all that you can be," to borrow the slogan from elsewhere. When R' Akiva's wife set as a condition of her marrying him that he go to yeshiva, implicit in her "tnai" was the fact that she wanted him to fulfill his potential -- that's what yeshiva is for. Had he come come home after a year, after five years, after even ten years, even with as many hundreds or thousands of students that might have joined him by that point, R' Akiva would still not have accomplished all that he was meant to. His potential would still have been unfulfilled.
R' Akiva was a shepherd who worked for Kalba Savu'a. Kalba Savu'a daughter Rachel saw that he was modest and refined and offered to marry him on the condition that he would go and learn in yeshiva. He agreed, and they became secretly engaged... R' Akiva went and learned for twelve years and returned home with a following of 12,000 students. As he approached, he heard someone criticizing his wife, saying that she was like a widow, as her husband was gone for so long. She answered back that if was up to her, her husband could stay away another twelve years. R' Akiva inferred that he had his wife's permission to continue learning, and so he immediately turned around and returned to yeshiva. After another twelve years he returned home again, this time with 24,000 students. R' Akiva's wife came out to greet her husband, now the great Tanna, and fell at his feet. The students tried to push her away, but R' Akiva told them to leave her, as all his Torah and theirs came through her merit alone.
Its' clear from the gemara that R' Akiva assumed he could spend at least twelve years learning, enough time to attract 12,000 students. But why? Where did he get this idea from? All his wife told him was that she was getting married on the condition that he learn in yeshiva. Imagine a kollel husband and his wife to be discussing their future plans before the wedding. Together, they decide that he should continue in yeshiva. Right after the wedding, he leaves home and is not heard from for the next twelve years. I imagine that any wife faced with such a situation would say this is certainly not what she bargained for!
R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi explains that R' Akiva and his wife understood that yeshiva is not just a place that you spend a few days/months/years accumulating knowledge. It's not about becoming an expert in some particular discipline, an expert in the "field" of Talmud or Jewish law. Yeshiva is about becoming what you are capable of becoming -- "Be all that you can be," to borrow the slogan from elsewhere. When R' Akiva's wife set as a condition of her marrying him that he go to yeshiva, implicit in her "tnai" was the fact that she wanted him to fulfill his potential -- that's what yeshiva is for. Had he come come home after a year, after five years, after even ten years, even with as many hundreds or thousands of students that might have joined him by that point, R' Akiva would still not have accomplished all that he was meant to. His potential would still have been unfulfilled.
When R' Akiva returned home and heard his wife agreeing that he could spend another twelve years in yeshiva, this was not a new "matir," not additional permission she was granting him on top of her original consent. This was part and parcel of their original marriage agreement. When you are capable to having 24,000 students, to have only 12,000, as great an achievement as that may be, is nonetheless to stop halfway. R' Akiva's wife did not want a half-way solution -- she wanted her husband to be R' Akiva, in the fullest sense of what he was capable of becoming.
(Interestingly, it was not his sharp mind that attracted R' Akiva's wife to him and led her to recognize his potential, but it was his midos tovos, and in particular, his tzniyus -- the gemara describes him as "tzani'a u'ma'alei." On that basis alone, R' Akiva's wife was able to discern that he had the seeds of becoming the gadol hador. Apparently lomdus alone doesn't cut it.)
Thursday, May 03, 2012
the kodesh kodashim within
R' Shimshon Dovid Pincus makes a simple but beautiful point on P' Acharei. The avodah of Yom Kippur done by the kohein gadol was the highlight of the year. You would think that maybe it should be done at Citi Field, Met Life Stadium, or maybe [substitute your local sports arena here]. But no -- the most intense avodah of the day, the offering of ketores, is done inside the kodesh kodashim with no one, not even a malach, present to observe! There is certainly a value to b'rov am hadras melech, but often times we assign too much weight to public displays of piety and lose sight of the fact that it's what happens in private, in the 4 amos of yours that no one but you and G-d can see, that can make all the difference in the world.
The truth is this idea is already found in the first sicha in Ohr Tzafun of the Alter of Slabodka, who takes it a step further. The Alter notes that given two people, one who is shuckling away while learning or davening, visibly involved in what he is doing, and one who is quiet and introverted, the natural tendency (except for those of us who ourselves are introverts) is to think the first person is more "into it" than the second. The knee-jerk assumption is based entirely on what we see on the outside but ignores what is going on in the kodesh kodashim inside.
The gemara (Nedarim 81) tells us that the Chachamim and Nevi'im could not figure out why the churban habayis was warranted until Hashem himself revealed that it was because people were lax in reciting birchas haTorah. The Ran explains that the lack of birchas haTorah demonstrated a lack of "lishma," of proper intent and motivation in learning. The Chachamim and Nevi'im, explains the Alter, saw all the learning taking place, saw the shmiras hamitzvos people had -- on the outside everything looked kosher. They could not see in the kodesh kodashim of people's hearts. But Hashem can see there, and Hashem judges us precisely on what no one else is aware of and no one else can see but ourselves.
The truth is this idea is already found in the first sicha in Ohr Tzafun of the Alter of Slabodka, who takes it a step further. The Alter notes that given two people, one who is shuckling away while learning or davening, visibly involved in what he is doing, and one who is quiet and introverted, the natural tendency (except for those of us who ourselves are introverts) is to think the first person is more "into it" than the second. The knee-jerk assumption is based entirely on what we see on the outside but ignores what is going on in the kodesh kodashim inside.
The gemara (Nedarim 81) tells us that the Chachamim and Nevi'im could not figure out why the churban habayis was warranted until Hashem himself revealed that it was because people were lax in reciting birchas haTorah. The Ran explains that the lack of birchas haTorah demonstrated a lack of "lishma," of proper intent and motivation in learning. The Chachamim and Nevi'im, explains the Alter, saw all the learning taking place, saw the shmiras hamitzvos people had -- on the outside everything looked kosher. They could not see in the kodesh kodashim of people's hearts. But Hashem can see there, and Hashem judges us precisely on what no one else is aware of and no one else can see but ourselves.
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
mikra kodesh
The Chayei Adam (132) quotes the minhag of the GR"A to eat chadah immediately after 16 Nissan in order to demonstrate that the reason he refrained from eating new wheat earlier was not because he preferred his Cheerios made from old grain, but rather because he did not want to violate the issur of chadash. The GR"A wanted to actively demonstrate that his behavior was motivated only by the desire to fulfill the lav. We see an interesting chiddush: Just like there is a din of mitzvos tzerichos kavanah when it comes to the positive performance of a mitzvah, there is also an idea of obeying a lav with the right kavanah as well.
Where did the GR"A get this idea? The gemara in Shavuos (13a) discusses whether someone who does not fast, does not refrain from melacha, does not call the day of Yom Kikkur a "mikra kodesh," gets a kapparah. Rashi interprets the vague idea of not calling the day "mikra kodesh" to mean that the person did not refer to the day as mikra kodesh in his tefilah. Tosfos rejects this interpretation. How can the gemara attempt to derive from a derasha whether someone who does not refer to the day as "mikra kodesh" in davening gets or does not get a kapprah when the whole text of tefilah is only derabbanan? Instead, Tosfos quotes Rabeinu Tam who explains that the gemara is referring to someone who refrains from melacha but does so simply out of sheer laziness. Even though such an individual has done nothing wrong -- he has fully kept the lav of not doing melacha -- nonetheless, since his kiyum is for the wrong reason, it does not count as a full kiyum mitzvah.
(If not for the Chayei Adam quoting this proof, I would have though you could be mechaleik. The din of mikra kodesh is a mitzvas aseh that requires sanctifying the day in some way. I would have thought Rabeinu Tam meant that if one does not do melacha out of laziness, one indeed does get full credit for fulfilling the lav; however, one has failed to fulfill the mitzvas aseh of mikra kodesh. The bad fulfillment of the lav is just a siman that the aseh is lacking, not a sibah in itself to discount any kiyum. That's very different than the case of chadash where, according to the GR"A, the fulfillment of the lav itself is deficient.)
Rav Soloveitchik (link) is quoted as suggesting a brilliant understanding of a well known gemara based on this chiddush of Rabbeinu Tam. The gemara connects the mitzvah of "zachor" on Shabos with the mitzvah of "shamor." Women are obligated in the mitzvah of kiddush even though it is zman gerama because whoever is chayav in the lav of shamor is also obligated in the aseh of zachor. This connection between zachor and shamot is not merely a technical derasha. What Chazal meant is that only though "zachor," by sanctifying the day of Shabbos and declaring in kiddush why we are refraining from work, can we properly fulfill the mitzvah of "shamor." Merely abstaining from work without a sense of being motivated by the kedushas hayom is not sufficient.
What about Rashi's reading of the gemara? Apparently Rashi holds that even though the specific text of tefilah is derabbanan, there is a mitzvah d'oraysa of engaging in tefilah that mentions the kedushas hayom of Yom Kippur / Yom Tov as a means of sanctifying the day. In other words, davening on Yom Tov is not (just) a kiyum mitzvah of the mitzvah of tefilah -- it's a kiyum mitzvah of "mikra kodesh." Failing to daven does not merely undermine the mitzvah of tefilah alone, but it undermines the sanctity of the day, as part and parcel of how we make our Yamim Tovim special is through engaging in tefilah that makes mention of their special distinction.
Ramban writes similarly (VaYikra 23:2) writes that there is a mitzvah on Yom Tov to gather in shul "l'kadesh hayom b'farhesya b'tefilah v'hallel...," i.e. for public prayer and thanksgiving. I believe someone commented on a post here once that even though R' Chaim Brisker held that it is better to daven in private without a minyan in order to make zman kri'as shema, perhaps the same would not apply on Yom Tov where there is a kiyum d'oraysa of tefilah b'tzibur based on this Ramban. (I would think that so long as one davened even a single tefilah at some point during the day b'tzibur it would be sufficient to fulfill this din of mikra kodesh, so tzarich iyun, but it's an interesting idea.)
Where did the GR"A get this idea? The gemara in Shavuos (13a) discusses whether someone who does not fast, does not refrain from melacha, does not call the day of Yom Kikkur a "mikra kodesh," gets a kapparah. Rashi interprets the vague idea of not calling the day "mikra kodesh" to mean that the person did not refer to the day as mikra kodesh in his tefilah. Tosfos rejects this interpretation. How can the gemara attempt to derive from a derasha whether someone who does not refer to the day as "mikra kodesh" in davening gets or does not get a kapprah when the whole text of tefilah is only derabbanan? Instead, Tosfos quotes Rabeinu Tam who explains that the gemara is referring to someone who refrains from melacha but does so simply out of sheer laziness. Even though such an individual has done nothing wrong -- he has fully kept the lav of not doing melacha -- nonetheless, since his kiyum is for the wrong reason, it does not count as a full kiyum mitzvah.
(If not for the Chayei Adam quoting this proof, I would have though you could be mechaleik. The din of mikra kodesh is a mitzvas aseh that requires sanctifying the day in some way. I would have thought Rabeinu Tam meant that if one does not do melacha out of laziness, one indeed does get full credit for fulfilling the lav; however, one has failed to fulfill the mitzvas aseh of mikra kodesh. The bad fulfillment of the lav is just a siman that the aseh is lacking, not a sibah in itself to discount any kiyum. That's very different than the case of chadash where, according to the GR"A, the fulfillment of the lav itself is deficient.)
Rav Soloveitchik (link) is quoted as suggesting a brilliant understanding of a well known gemara based on this chiddush of Rabbeinu Tam. The gemara connects the mitzvah of "zachor" on Shabos with the mitzvah of "shamor." Women are obligated in the mitzvah of kiddush even though it is zman gerama because whoever is chayav in the lav of shamor is also obligated in the aseh of zachor. This connection between zachor and shamot is not merely a technical derasha. What Chazal meant is that only though "zachor," by sanctifying the day of Shabbos and declaring in kiddush why we are refraining from work, can we properly fulfill the mitzvah of "shamor." Merely abstaining from work without a sense of being motivated by the kedushas hayom is not sufficient.
What about Rashi's reading of the gemara? Apparently Rashi holds that even though the specific text of tefilah is derabbanan, there is a mitzvah d'oraysa of engaging in tefilah that mentions the kedushas hayom of Yom Kippur / Yom Tov as a means of sanctifying the day. In other words, davening on Yom Tov is not (just) a kiyum mitzvah of the mitzvah of tefilah -- it's a kiyum mitzvah of "mikra kodesh." Failing to daven does not merely undermine the mitzvah of tefilah alone, but it undermines the sanctity of the day, as part and parcel of how we make our Yamim Tovim special is through engaging in tefilah that makes mention of their special distinction.
Ramban writes similarly (VaYikra 23:2) writes that there is a mitzvah on Yom Tov to gather in shul "l'kadesh hayom b'farhesya b'tefilah v'hallel...," i.e. for public prayer and thanksgiving. I believe someone commented on a post here once that even though R' Chaim Brisker held that it is better to daven in private without a minyan in order to make zman kri'as shema, perhaps the same would not apply on Yom Tov where there is a kiyum d'oraysa of tefilah b'tzibur based on this Ramban. (I would think that so long as one davened even a single tefilah at some point during the day b'tzibur it would be sufficient to fulfill this din of mikra kodesh, so tzarich iyun, but it's an interesting idea.)
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
the city of Shomron
We learn from Parshas Metzora that a person
afflicted with tzara'as must sit alone outside the camp. The
haftarah tells the story of four metzora'im
who, because they were sitting outside the city of Shomron, were the first
one's to discover that the siege placed by Aram on the city was broken. Hashem
caused the army of Aram to think that they were
under attack and so they fled, leaving behind all their food, wealth, and
provisions for Bnei Yisrael to plunder (Melachim II ch 7).
I want to focus on where this story took place -- the city of Shomron. Melachim I 16:24 tells us that Shomron was built by Omri, a king who was "more wicked than all those before him" (ibid 16:25). Despite his wickedness, Omri managed to pass the throne to his son and then to his grandson -- three generations -- certainly outside the norm for malchei Yisrael. Why did Omri merit such a special reward? Chazal answer (Sanhedrin 102b) that it was because he built this new city of Shomron and thereby fulfilled the mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisrael. Omri may have built Shomron for his own personal gain, to serve as his capital city; Omri may have done everything else wrong in his life; yet, Omri's family was zocheh to retain the throne because he dedicated himself to the mitzvah of yishuv ha'aretz. Rav Teichtel in his Aim haBanim Smeicha (p. 61 in the new edition) writes that we can derive from here not to discount or dismiss the contributions to yishuv ha'aretz of those who are notreligious (see the explanation he quotes from R' Yosef Engel as to how Omri's reward was midah k'neged midah). Is the chiloni or chofshi zionist who puts his strength into building and protecting our country any worse or any less deserving of credit than the wicked Omri? (Consider this a belated Yom haAtzmaut post.)
Switching hats to halacha, the Mishna in Keilim (1:7) tells us that the din of sending a metzora out of a city applies only to walled cities. Many of the Rishonim (Bartenura, R'Sh) qualify this din and explain that the Mishna means specifically a city that was walled since the days of Yehoshua bin Nun. The problem with this chiddush is it does not fit the story of Shomron. Shomron was built by Omri -- it did not even exists in the days of Yehoshua. So why, as we read in our haftarah, were the metzoraim being expelled from its walls? R' Akiva Eiger on the Mishna answers by quoting the Targum which interprets the pasuk on Melachim to mean that Omri rebuilt Shomron, but was not its true founder (this of course makes all the more remarkable the level of reward he earned for doing so). See Ksav v'Kabbalah who also addresses himself to this issue.
I want to focus on where this story took place -- the city of Shomron. Melachim I 16:24 tells us that Shomron was built by Omri, a king who was "more wicked than all those before him" (ibid 16:25). Despite his wickedness, Omri managed to pass the throne to his son and then to his grandson -- three generations -- certainly outside the norm for malchei Yisrael. Why did Omri merit such a special reward? Chazal answer (Sanhedrin 102b) that it was because he built this new city of Shomron and thereby fulfilled the mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisrael. Omri may have built Shomron for his own personal gain, to serve as his capital city; Omri may have done everything else wrong in his life; yet, Omri's family was zocheh to retain the throne because he dedicated himself to the mitzvah of yishuv ha'aretz. Rav Teichtel in his Aim haBanim Smeicha (p. 61 in the new edition) writes that we can derive from here not to discount or dismiss the contributions to yishuv ha'aretz of those who are notreligious (see the explanation he quotes from R' Yosef Engel as to how Omri's reward was midah k'neged midah). Is the chiloni or chofshi zionist who puts his strength into building and protecting our country any worse or any less deserving of credit than the wicked Omri? (Consider this a belated Yom haAtzmaut post.)
Switching hats to halacha, the Mishna in Keilim (1:7) tells us that the din of sending a metzora out of a city applies only to walled cities. Many of the Rishonim (Bartenura, R'Sh) qualify this din and explain that the Mishna means specifically a city that was walled since the days of Yehoshua bin Nun. The problem with this chiddush is it does not fit the story of Shomron. Shomron was built by Omri -- it did not even exists in the days of Yehoshua. So why, as we read in our haftarah, were the metzoraim being expelled from its walls? R' Akiva Eiger on the Mishna answers by quoting the Targum which interprets the pasuk on Melachim to mean that Omri rebuilt Shomron, but was not its true founder (this of course makes all the more remarkable the level of reward he earned for doing so). See Ksav v'Kabbalah who also addresses himself to this issue.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
sefirah tidbits
1) The Rokeach has the following remez for sefiras ha'omer:
"Im tivakshena ka'kesef u'kmatmonim tachapesna..." (Mishlei 2:4) The word "matmonim" can be read as an acronym: M"T (=49) monim -- counting 49. If we have kisufim, real desire for Torah, and eagerly count down the 49 days of sefirah until the chag of mattan Torah, "Az tavin yiras Hashem..."
2) A bekiyus tidbit: The last Mishna in the second perek of Ediyos has a machlokes how long the wicked spend in purgatory. Tana Kama holds they are judged in geheinom for 12 months, while R' Yochanan ben Nuri says they are judged from Pesach to Atzeres (Shavuos).
Bartenura explains that R' Yochanan ben Nuri means that the maximum length of time spent in geheinom is 50 days, the same amount of time as the number of days between Pesach and Shavuos. The Tiferes Yisrael, however, suggests that perhaps R' Yochanan ben Nuri meant davka the 50 days between Pesach and Shavuos, i.e. every year during this time period there is a new judgment passed on those resha'im who were sent to geheinom. Therefore, he writes, the minhag of Klal Yisrael is to treat these days as days of aveilus.
3) The Rishonim explains that the mitzvah of "U'sefartem lachem..." means each individual is personally responsible to count sefirah, unlike the count of years of shemita or yoveil which are done by Beis Din on behalf of all Klal Yisrael. Achronim add that this means that one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of sefirah through shome'a k'oneh, by listening to someone else count and having in mind to be yotzei.
Why is it that the mitzvah of sefirah has this unique din, different than other counting mitzvah? Ramban explains that the count of sefirah is a preparation for mattan Torah. Each day that we check off as a day closer to mattan Torah is a day that we should be using to further ready ourselves for mattan Torah. The Sochatchover (Ne'os Desheh) explains that every single person has his/her own portion in Torah that he/she must get ready to receive. We each have a mission of our own and a Torah that goes with it. I can't be yotzei by listening to my friend learn his portion of Torah -- I have to do my own learning, I have to find my own cheilek, I have to do my own personal sefirah preparation to receive it.
This is why the students of Rabbi Akiva were punished specifically during this time period. The gemara tells is that the reason for their death is because R' Akiva's students did not show proper respect for each other. Each one viewed his chaveir as just another talmid, one of many who listened to the same shiur, took the same notes, had the same rebbe. They did not appreciate that each one of them had their own unique slant, had their own perspective on their rebbe's Torah, had their own cheilek in learning that was valuable and irreplaceable.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
where's the beef?
I heard the following story on Shabbos, one of my daughters told me that she heard the same story from a teacher at school with some minor variations, and I found it via google as well (link). Here's the short version more or less as I heard it:
A man flying somewhere by plane gets up to wash after his kosher sandwich is brought to him by the steward. As he makes his way back to his seat, it dawns on him that his fleishig sandwich is now basar she'nisalem min ha'ayin (the halacha is that meat left unattended around non-Jews may not be eaten). Despite his hunger, the man does not eat the meal. Seeing that he has made no move to eat the sandwich, his non-Jewish neighbor in the next seat inquires as to whether he is going to eat his food. The man offers some explanation about not really being hungry and tells the neighbor that he can have it. The neighbor then confesses that he has never many Jews and was curious as to what the kosher meal tasted like, so he switched the sandwich with his own.
Aren't Chazal brilliant, coming up with this law of basar she'nisalem min ha'ayin? Even when you think there is no danger, the halacha is smarter than you are, isn't it?
I really, really dislike stories like this.
Had it been my sandwich, I would have taken a big bite out of it. Firstly, the halacha is (Y.D. 118) that if a Jew comes and goes, if he pops in and out of where the food is -- he is yotzei v'nichnas -- so long as the non-Jew does not know exactly when he will come back (e.g. so long as he doesn't say something like, "I'll be back in an hour"), the meat is not basar she'nisalem. Since the person in the next seat had no way of knowing whether his Jewiah neighbor would be gone for 30 seconds or 10 minutes, as far as halacha is concerned, that is enough of a deterrent to remove any suspicion that the meat was switched.
Didn't you ever walk into a restaurant and see the mashgiach sitting out front? Do you think the mashgiach never takes a break -- he just stands there is the kitchen, watching the food every second? Of course not. So how do you know that the non-Jewish cook didn't swap out a slice from his turkey sandwich with the turkey on the plate he is preparing? The answer is yotzei v'nichnas (there are other good reasons, but this is one of them). If you eat out in a deli without worrying that Juan standing behind the counter switched your corned beef with his own when the mashgiach's eyes were elsewhere, then you can eat on the plane without worrying that the Juan sitting one seat over swapped the kosher meal for his own when your back was turned.
(Parenthetically, many folks where I live employ non-Jewish babysitters and housekeepers. As my wife correctly pointed out, the housekeeper or babysitter knows full well no one will be home until the end of the day -- there is no yotzei v'nichnas -- and is alone with a kitchen full of food and utensils. How many people after hearing this story ran over to their Rav to ask how to handle such a situation [see Igros Moshe Y.D. I:61]?)
Secondly, and maybe this is the more basic point, the halacha of basar she'nisalem min ha'ayin does not mean we suspect non-Jews of maliciously switching around food on us (see Aruch haShulchan Y.D. 118:30 "V'hinei haskamas kol raboseinu haRishonim v'haAchronim..."). It's only if the non-Jew will benefit from the switch in some way that we need to worry. I am willing to bet that kosher airline food is in no way superior to or more appetizing than non-kosher airline food (the sandwiches in the story were so alike that the person did not even spot the switch), so why suspect a switch-a-roo when there is nothing to gain? (You do need to have the meal double-sealed until delivered to you to ensure that you get a kosher meal because the airline does have a vested interest in your being a happy customer and would benefit by serving you a treif meal should your kosher one be left behind.)
The moral of the story here is not how smart halacha is and how paying attention to its details pays off -- Nope. The moral of the story is that the price of remaining ignorant of halacha is going hungry, albeit maybe feeling more emotionally fulfilled.
No one would ever tell a story about someone like me who would have no qualms about eating the sandwich because al pi din there is no issue, and as a result would end up eating treif. What would be the lesson there? Where's the feel-good ending? Instead, we tell stories about people who follow their own imagination of what halacha should be, and as a result, are rewarded with a miraculously positive outcome. We love the logical fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam -- a fancy Latin way of saying we judge the truth of things based on how the consequences turn out. If everything works out great, even the worst decision based on irrational nonsense looks like genius. If things go poorly, the greatest strategist who made the best moves looks like a fool. (And we wonder why people are drawn to emotionally appealing segulos and practices instead of just doing what halacha requires. OK, we don't need to beat that dead horse any more.)
I wish there were more stories told of the first variety. To take another example, the story of someone who keeps Shabbos and miraculously sees his business improve does not impress me. What impresses me is the story of someone who chooses to keep Shabbos even as he watches his receipts decline and his business take a hit.
Stories like this airplane ma'aseh substitute a faith of fairy-tales for the real thing. The danger is that either listeners never mature and become adults who live in hashkafic Disneyland where they really believe dreams come true or they realize that reality is so at-odds with what they have been taught that they check out of Torah altogether.
Stories like this are a big fluffy bun with nothing inside. The basar that should be there is nisalem min ha'ayin and the meal in unsatisfying at best, misleading at worst. Dear Meachanchim: Where's the beef?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
