Geshmack Dvar Torah of the Week

2010-03-26T20:48:00.002+03:00

We've moved full time to gTorah.com . this blog is effectively closed.

We're shutting down

2010-03-23T03:43:00.004+02:00

nah not really! just moving to gtorah.com - catchy isn't it? :)

things are going to be a mess for a few days til we decide what it should look like!

And they embittered their lives

2010-03-22T18:29:00.007+02:00

"וַיְמָרְרוּ אֶת חַיֵּיהֶם" - and they embittered their lives... (Shemos 1:14)

Hashem told Avraham that his children would be in Egypt for 400 years, and yet they left after 210! Where are the missing 190 years?

There is an answer suggested that Egypt treated the Jews much worse than they should have, so as we say in ברוך המקום:

ש"הקבה חשב את הקץ - Hashem reckoned the end. What is this talking about? Hashem hastened the גאולה and reckoned off קץ - 190 (from 400)- leaving us with 210!

The problem with the suggestion that the slavery was overly bad (if such a term can be used by slavery!) is that we don't see it anywhere - but the Vilna Gaon deals with this!

The notes on וַיְמָרְרוּ אֶת חַיֵּיהֶם are קדמא ואזלא, the numerical value of which is 190! They were embittered to a value of 190!

R’ Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld points out that the גאולה from Egypt was only completed 7 days after it began, when the Red Sea when Paroh and his army were destroyed, so where is this reflected in events?

He answers that Isaac was only circumcised 7 days after his birth – so only then he became Jewish, and only 400 years from then were the Jews really free.

False start

2010-03-21T20:02:00.002+02:00

Looking at the 15 steps of the Seder, ורחץ- “and we wash our hands” – is out of step with the rest. It is seemingly linked to the previous step of Kadesh. But this results in a further problem – the order is wrong! Shouldn’t we cleanse ourselves of the negative, symbolised by washing our hands, before sanctifying ourselves with positive, through kiddush?

We can ask the same question about Matza and Maror, shouldn’t we get the negative (slavery) out of the way before commemorating the positive?

R’ Moshe Feinstein answers that sometimes we are in so deep that we can’t cleanse ourselves of the negativity. We have to jumpstart the process of growth by diving in and doing positive acts despite the fact we still have negative baggage. Then we build up the spiritual strength to be able to cleanse ourselves of and be rid of that baggage – which is exactly what happened in Egypt.

There is a Chassidic analogy of a man with dirty boots in a muddy field. He must walk to the end of the field before he can clean his boots.

This is an exceptionally deep משל, but on a basic level, what it means is that when we have a problem that we can’t avoid (dirty boots), we must change the situation we are in (leaving the field). Once we have changed and grown, when we find ourselves with “muddy boots” we will no longer be in the “muddy field”. We can even take this analogy further – people can look around at the world (muddy field) and wonder how they can have faith when there is so much evil (mud) in the world. The answer is that the muddy field isn’t the problem – your boots are!

The reason we start the Seder in this way is to show us that we just need to take the initiative – Kaddish - and then ורחץ – we will be cleansed!

Pesach for Pesach’s sake

2010-03-21T18:48:00.003+02:00

The eating of the Korban Pesach was meant to commemorate the great miracle of the firstborn in Jewish households being "passed over" in Egypt.

If we think about this, this makes no sense. The 10 plagues were punishments for the Egyptians who had enslaved the Jews, whom Hashem calls "the sons of My firstborn (Avraham)". If the punishments were for Egyptians, why should there have been any threat to the lives of the Jewish firstborn, to the extent that we celebrate that they were spared?

In addition, by the other plagues, the Pasuk explicitly mentions that the Jews were wholly unaffected. At the splitting of the sea this is the case too. The common denominator is that no special "sign" had to be made to G-d (כביכול) that He should leave them be, and no special sign is remembered today. So why is the salvation of the Jewish firstborn different, so much so that it required demonstrable acts that they were Jews by spreading blood on their doors, and later generations then had to remember this act by eating the Korban Pesach? (Abarbanel and R’ Yitzchak Meltzen)

(Our more hawkish readers will find this familiar, these questions having been asked here)

The Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 72:2) says: Alas for the wicked who turn מדת הרחמים (Mercy) to מדת הדין (Judgment).

R' Yitzchak Blaser, a student of R' Yisrael Salanter, explained this in the following way. The Gemara (Yuma 86a) states that even though repentance alone cannot atone for a violation of a מצות לא תעשה - (a negative commandment), nevertheless, on Yom Kippur the flood of מדת הרחמים - Mercy - is so great that if a person repents, he can hve a כפרה (forgiveness) - even if he might not be worthy!

R' Yitzchak Blaser explains that what the Midrash means is that if a person had this opportunity to obtain forgiveness for sins he couldn't erase the entire year, and he turned his back on this chance, his disdain for מדת הרחמים rebounds back onto him, and it becomes מדת הדין.

Although the Jews had served the Egyptian idols, it hadn't been out of choice. But with the Exodus over, and Hashem having saved them countless times, they had the chance to throw off any trace of idol worship and show their commitment and dedication to Him by taking a lamb, an Egyptian deity, and in their faces, roast it, eat, and put it's blood on display.

If they turned their backs on this ideal opportunity they would have incurred Hashem's wrath and מדת הדין.

The other plagues were specific punishments that the Jews were not deserving of, but the 10th plague was not “just” a punishment for the Egyptians, unlike the previous plagues, as it had a secondary function. Whilst all the plagues were punishments in that they revealed Hashem’s hand in nature to the Egyptians, the Jews were not meant to be punished in this way. But here they had an opportunity to throw off the yoke of idol worship, and had they not used this opportunity, they would have incurred a מדת הדין, and the Korban Pesach we take is a remembrance of the kindness we were shown, that led to us being saved.

This explains why the Mechilta says that the Jews were as deserving of destruction in the final plague as the Egyptians, up until the final Korban Pesach was brought.

Also, in Pirkei d’R’ Eliezer, it says that some people would not undertake circumcision, the merit of which was needed for the גאולה as well (דם פסח ודם מילה). So Hashem told Moshe to make the Korban Pesach, and Hashem sent a breeze from Gan Eden, which caused people to faint at the irresistible aroma, at which point Moshe said כל הערל לא יאוכל , and they immediately underwent circumcision.

All this shows Hashem’s great mercy, as the Targum translates ופסחתי (Shemos 14:13) as a word meaning “compassion”.

Addition

2010-03-18T16:01:00.004+02:00

The Pasuk says:

וְשִׁלַּם אֹתוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וַחֲמִשִׁתָיו יֹסֵף עָלָיו – ….he shall pay its main, adding its fifths to it… (5:24)

Chazal teach us that all expenses are calculated and apportioned from Rosh Hashanah to Rosh Hashanah, with the the exceptions of monies spent towards: – Shabbos, –Yom Tov, –teaching one’s children Torah, and the Medrash Rabbah adds Rosh Chodesh to the list as well.

The Tzemach Tzvi says that this is alluded to in this Pasuk. וְשִׁלַּם אֹתוֹ- all his money, whatever he pays and whatever he earns, is earmarked בְּרֹאשׁוֹ - on Rosh Hashanah - וַחֲמִשִׁתָיו יֹסֵף עָלָיו – and his fifths will be added to him. What are these חֲמִשִׁתָיו of which which we speak? חוץ מהוצאות שבת, תורה, יו”ט, ור”ח - with the exception of expenses for Shabbos, Torah, Yom Tov and Rosh Chodesh. These will be יֹסֵף עָלָיו - added to him as the year goes on, subject to his actions.

(This is my addition, feel free to disagree)

It is worth pointing out that the וְ of ור”ח is used as part of the initials, rather than the ר of Rosh chodesh, and the end result is that the initials are a perfect reflection of the way (diyuk) the Medrash Rabba explained this concept, that Rosh Chodesh too is part of the list.

(end of my addition)

There is a story told about the Pnei Menachem, who once sent his son to school with an envelope for his Rebbe. The Rebbe refused to accept the envelope, as he did not feel he could take money from the Pnei Menachem. A few nights later, the Pnei Menachem called up his son’s Rebbe, and said that he was obliged to accept it, as זה נהנה וזה לא חסר , (literally, this one gains, and the other does not lose) a mechanism that enables someone to use something that the owner is not using and had no use for, for free. He explained with this Dvar Torah that this money was not normal money and could come into reckoning, as money spent on teaching your son Torah is not included in your “annual salary”. Presumably, the Rebbe accepted the envelope.

The significance of the Yamim Tovim

2010-03-18T12:47:00.004+02:00

There is a Mishna in Pirkei Avos (4:28) that says:

רבי אליעזר הקפר אומר, הקנאה והתאווה והכבוד, מוציאין את האדם מן העולם – Rabbi Eliezer said: jealousy, lust and pride removes men from the world.

The Chiddushei Harim explains that the Shalosh Regalim atone for these three. Pesach makes up for תאווה , lust, as we eat לחם עוני , poor man’s bread, which is the basest (and therefore purest?) of all foods, which should theoretically be considered wholly undesirable, and yet it is all we eat for a week, showing how we marginalise our desires, because Hashem asks us to.

Shavuos atones for קנאה , jealousy, as we say that the Torah was given בעין טוב , with a good eye, as opposed to the evil eye, which caused the deaths of R’ Akiva’s students. The submission to keep the Torah shows how the Jews were not looking at what they could get from others, as this was a unique opportunity that Hashem had offered them.

Succos atones for כבוד , pride, as it commemorates our reliance on the ענני הכבוד , the clouds Hashem surrounded us with in the desert. This also shows how we are marginalising ourselves, in that we remember our reliance on Hashem, the opposite of pride, whereby someone tries to make out how independent and great he is.

Geshmack!

Matza and Maror – chalk and cheese

2010-03-16T16:41:00.003+02:00

The Chiddushei Harim (biography here) wonders why Matzah is done in the seder before Maror. Matzah is meant to remember that we were redeemed with such haste that the Jews’ bread did not have time to rise, and the Maror is meant to remember the bitterness of the slavery. Why don’t we reflect the way events unfolded, and do Maror first, and then appreciate the redemption with Matzah? He explains with a parable.

There was a king who had an only son, the prince. One day, the prince was drunk in the royal court and embarrassed the king greatly, for which he was banished. Day after day, and week after week, the king’s grief at what he’d done – he’d banished his only son! He sent his ministers out into the kingdom to find the prince and bring him back. A minister finds the prince, dishevelled and a wreck, in a barn in the middle of nowhere, with torn clothes and dirt everywhere. The minister says, “my prince, the king has requested your immediate return to the palace, are you missing anything?”

“You, know, I really miss my jacket, I sold it to buy some food,” says the prince.

What’s the prince talking about?! He’s the PRINCE! He’s missing EVERYTHING – he is living in a barn! His entire life is missing, and he only wants his jacket?

The Chiddushei Harim explains to us the nimshal. We can’t understand how bad the slavery was until we’d experienced redemption. This is simple to understand – if you put your face an inch from this text you can’t read it, you can only see the word right in front of your face. To appreciate something, we need to be away from it. From darkness we understand light, and vice versa. Light is brightest coming in from the dark, and dark is darkest when the lights go out.

We need to start with redemption, as that teaches us that anything but that is what we are really lacking.

Chametz and Matza

2010-03-16T16:12:00.005+02:00

שבכל הלילות, אנו אוכלין חמץ ומצה, הלילה הזה כולו מצה – Who on other nights do we eat chametz and matza, whereas tonight we only eat matza?

The Abarbanel (biography here)explains that this is question is deeper than it appears. With a normal קרבן תודה, a thanksgiving offering, the sacrifice is brought with chametz and matza as part of the offering. The Korban Pesach is also a thanksgiving offering, that our houses were “passed over” in Egypt. This being the case, why are we differentiating what we bring with the Korban, we should bring chametz with the Pesach, just as we do by a regular thanksgiving offering!

The Chasam Sofer (biography here) explains the answer, that chametz is compared to the bad, and matza to the good. When we give a regular thanksgiving offering, we are thanking Hashem for the G-d He has done to us, but also the bad from which we learn and appreciate the good. But by Pesach there is no such thing as bad; even being enslaved served a “good” purpose – and it would have to – as it wasn’t a punishment for anything the slaves had done! The purpose was so that when they were offered the Torah the Jews would be able to understand and accept the concept of service. Pesach is a night where כולו מצה – there is no such thing as bad, so there can only be good.

The Chafetz Chaim (biography here) in Tetzaveh asks why Moshe was unable to build the Menorah, a problem he had not had when building everything else he had been asked to. The Menorah is compared to to the Torah – and this where the phrase “the light of Torah” originates – and it’s eternity. Moshe’s problem was that he did not understand how he could create something that was meant to reflect the Torah , as he could not understand it’s eternity. How could the Jews keep the Torah forever? Won’t there be exiles, Holocausts, Inquisition, expulsions and pogroms?

Hashem’s answer is a perfect piece of mussar about Jewish identity. “Put it in the fire, and look what comes out”. We always perform better as a nation when facing adversity – it is from the fire that something pure comes out.

Pleasant Aromas

2010-03-14T19:35:00.013+02:00

Make sure you check the main page - we just added a new Parsha sheet link, you can't miss it!

The Pasuk says “ וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה עֹלָה אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ לה…. - Then, the kohen shall cause to [go up in] smoke all [of the animal] on the altar, as a burnt offering, a fire offering, [with] a pleasing fragrance to the Lord” (1:9)

Rashi explains what a “pleasing fragrance” is

ניחוח: נחת רוח לפני, שאמרתי ונעשה רצוני - pleasing: Heb. נִיחוֹחַ [This word stems from the same root as the expression נַחַת רוּחַ, “contentment.” God says: “This sacrifice] gives Me contentment, for I said [My commandment], and My will was fulfilled!”

This leaves us with three questions on the logic in this Rashi. Why specifically with the Korbanos (sacrifices) are we told that doing Hashem’s will gives a pleasing fragrance? If the mechanics of pleasing Hashem involve doing His will, then, why don’t all mitzvos give off a ’ רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ לה – a pleasing fragrance?

Secondly, the sacrifice we are discussing is actually voluntary! If the pleasing fragrance is achieved by doing what Hashem commanded us, why would a voluntary sacrifice please Him, if He didn’t command us to bring it?

The final question is that when Noah offered sacrifices after the Flood, his offerings were called רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ לה, but he wasn’t commanded to bring sacrifices either!

We can ask another question on the language used – why does the expression change? It should remain consistent – it should say שרציתי ונעשה רצוני or שאמרתי ונעשה אמרי – I wanted and My will was done or I said and My words were fulfilled. The language should remain constant, so why does it change?

To get the answer, we need to understand what רצון - “will” – means. Every morning, women recite the blessing “ שעשני כרצונו – who made me according to His will”. This requires explanation, as clearly, everything exists because G-d wants it to. We know that every second, G-d is sustaining existence just by willing it - so each moment existence is being sustained, this is the same as it being re-created, as it would cease to be the moment this ceased to the case. R’ Tzadok Hakohen (biography here) points out that the word for “thing” in Hebrew - דבר or חפץ - translate as say or desire – the Hebrew reflects it’s essence; things exist because Hashem desires them to and because He says so.

The Taz (biography here) in Orach Chaim explains that this blessing is praising the positive aspects of being a woman. This is perplexing - what specific aspects of being a woman is the blessing referencing as being more "virtuous" than other aspects of being a woman?

R' Moshe Shapiro (biography here) tells us that from the Patriarchs, we have חסד, אמת, וגבורה, but what do we have from their wives, the Matriarchs? Sarah saw that her son was being negatively influenced by Yishmael, and she insisted that her husband send Yishmael and his mother back to the land she came from. Rivka was weary of Esav, and made sure that he did not receive the blessings from Isaac, as he was unworthy, whereas Yakov was righteous. Rachel and Leah both told Yakov it was time to return to Israel after years in Lavan’s house. There is a consistent theme. We say שמע בני מוסר אביך ואל תיתוש תורת אימך- listen my son, to the advice of your father, and do not forsake the teachings of your mother. It’s a subtle point, but an inherent quality of women is that they preserve the way things ought to be.

We see this when Hashem created the first woman: וַיֹּאמֶרְ הֹ’ אֱ־לֹהִים לֹא טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ אֶעֱשֶׂה לּוֹ עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ - And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man is alone; I shall make him a helpmate opposite him."

on which Rashi says: עזר כנגדו: זכה עזר, לא זכה כנגדו להלחם - a helpmate opposite him: If he is righteous, she will be a helpmate. If he is not worthy, she will be against him, to fight him (ie to return him to righteousness).

This essentially means that Eve was created to prevent a state of לֹא טוֹב. There is a novel explanation of this. If Adam had no “other” people would say G-d is not the only one, Adam was also only one of a kind! So he needed a mate to show he was fallible, so literally, our wives remind us we are not G-d! The Chiddushei Harim (biography here)writes that the only two you can’t bluff are G-d, and your wife.

But we see that the point of Creation was for the רצון ה , that Hashem wanted people to receive the Torah, and that the woman was created to preserve His רצון, literally, שעשני כרצונו , "I was created to preserve His will”.

Now that we understand what רצון means, we can see why Rashi said ונעשה רצוני. G-d created the world by saying it should (ברוך שאמר והיה העולם) and by doing His will, the world is becoming a מקום עבודת ה – a place for service of Hashem. This means the world is fulfilling it's purpose. This is actually a Rashi in Zevachim (2b). As such, it is clear that only by bringing sacrifices can we say it is a pleasing fragrance to Hashem, as the only thing called עבודה is the Korbanos! This explains why a voluntary sacrifice is also included, and Noah’s too! The Medrash Rabba points out that since no idol worship existed when Noah offered his sacrifices, his was the most pleasant of all.

Start your day...

2010-03-11T02:37:00.008+02:00

For a cracker from our archives, click here

"נְדָבָה בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר....gifts every morning" (36:6)

The Sfas Emes (biography here) explains that sharing and giving has to be our first instinct, at the beginning of every day.

The Vilna Gaon (biography here) expounded further on this point. The final bracha in Tfilas HaShachar is Hamaavir Sheina - Who removes sleep from our eyes - and what follows is the Yehi Ratzon - May it be Your Will - that lists various mitzvos we would like to be able to do. We do not pause between them to say Amen. The Vilna Gaon explains that we must start as we mean to continue - we thank Him for removing sleep from our eyes, and immediately pray for opportunities to do mitzvos.

There is a story about R' Meir Schapiro (biography here), who was fundrasing for his yeshiva in pre-war Europe. He had made his way through a new town, and heard stories about a man who lived there, who was fabulously wealthy. He knocked on the door, and requested to meet with the gentleman. He was informed that the gentleman was asleep, so R' Meir requested to come inside and learn, until the owner arose. When he finally did wake up, he flatly refused to donate to the yeshiva, and R' Meir gave a sad smile, and said "You shouldn't have woken up then. I understand this pasuk now".

The emphasis on every morning is a clear piece of mussar and a lesson for us that we must strive to help, share and give at every opportunity, even (especially?) at times that are inconvenient.

Shabbos Kodesh

2010-03-03T15:31:00.007+02:00

A fantastic piece from the Meshech Chochma, R' Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (bigraphy here).

The Pasuk says: וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הִוא לָכֶם מְחַלְלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת כִּי כָּל הָעֹשֶׂה בָהּ מְלָאכָה וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִקֶּרֶב עַמֶּיהָ - Keep the Sabbath, for it is a sacred thing for you. Those who desecrate it shall be put to death, for whoever performs work on it, that soul will be cut off from the midst of its people. (31:14)

The concept of being put to death for breaking Shabbos is odd from a logical perspective - one is commanded to break Shabbos to save another Jew's life, and even in a case where there is only a possibility of there being a danger to someone, one is still commanded to break Shabbos. So it is clear that a human life is more precious than Shabbos, but this being the case, how can we put someone to death who breaks it? Isn't this counter-intuitive?

R' Meir Simcha explains the answer beautifully. Shabbos is less sacred than a Jew, as without a Jew observing Shabbos, Shabbos essentially isn't there. As such, everything about Shabbos, including the very purpose of Creation, is solely remembered by a Jew who observes it, and this means that Shabbos is "indebted" to the Jew, and we therefore forego it to save a Jew's life.

Not so by someone who desecrates Shabbos. Such a person cuts himself off from the the connection to Hashem and the Torah, and it is better for this person to die and get atonement like that than for him to survive and continue in his ways.

So this is what the Pasuk is telling us: "וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הִוא לָכֶם - Keep the Sabbath, for it is a sacred thing for you", ie it is vitally important for Jews to honour and observe Shabbos, because if they don't, who will? Therefore " מְחַלְלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת - Those who desecrate it shall be put to death", because someone who desecrates it has lowered themselves to below the level of Shabbos, the sign Hashem gave us. "כִּי כָּל הָעֹשֶׂה בָהּ מְלָאכָה וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִקֶּרֶב עַמֶּיהָ - for whoever performs work on it, that soul will be cut off from the midst of its people" - this person has lowered himself beneath Shabbos by desecrating it, and has therefore alienated himself from what made his people special - that their lives were holier than Shabbos, by keeping it. Only a person who cuts himself off by desecrating Shabbos is suitable to be put to death in the name of Shabbos, so we see that it is not counter intuitive at all to put someone to death in the name of Shabbos.

This shows the level of detail in the Pasuk, that the Torah explains the mechanics of why someone is put to death for breaking Shabbos.

Geshmack!

Tribal lands

2010-03-01T20:42:00.007+02:00

Twice in our history Hashem has said He wanted to destroy the Jews, and twice Moshe "argued" with Hashem and won: by the Golden Calf and the spies.

The Midrash (Shemos Rabbah 44:9 + Bamidbar Rabba 16:22) have 4 stage conversations with Moshe and Hashem:
1. Hashem says He wants to destroy the Jews
2. Moshe says that Hashem made a promise to the Patriarchs
3. Hashem says that He will let Moshe be the sole survivor, and fulfil the promise through Moshe

Here is where they differ - at the Golden Calf Moshe says that he cannot become a nation, as he only represents one tribe - Levi! Moshe says that all the Tribes have an assurance, at which point Hashem concedes the argument and lets the Jews live.

By the spies, this fourth point is different - Moshe says that letting the nation continue through him would be a Chillul Hashem - a desecration of G-d's Name - that people would speculate that Hashem could not sustain them in the desert, and so they died. Hashem replies that these people will have heard of His miracles in Egypt, so this would have no basis! Moshe counters by saying that perhaps people will say that the kings of Canaan were too great for the G-d of the Jews, at which point G-d concedes the argument and lets the Jews live.

R' Yehoshua Hartman points out that it is clear that the Golden Calf argument was better - life continued as normal. The spies arguments clearly wasn't so great - all the Jews of that generation died out and they wandered in the desert for an additional 39 years as a result! Why didn't Moshe use the tried and tested winning argument, that the Tribes also had an assurance?

In our Parsha, Ki Sisa, Moshe says: זְכֹר לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לָהֶם בָּךְ וַתְּדַבֵּר אֲלֵהֶם אַרְבֶּה אֶת זַרְעֲכֶם כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמָיִם וְכָל הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר אָמַרְתִּי אֶתֵּן לְזַרְעֲכֶם וְנָחֲלוּ לְעֹלָם - "Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your very Self, and to whom You said: 'I will multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens, and all this land which I said that I would give to your seed, they shall keep it as their possession forever'" (32:13)

Where is the assurance about the Tribes? And why mention the promise about the land, out of all the promises He had made to the Patriarchs?

The Gemara (Bava Basra 122a) discusses how the land was divided up, and concludes that it was divided up amongst the tribes. The Brisker Rov points out that mentioning the land is therefore a mention of the tribes, which answers a point that may be bothering the more astute reader - what assurance to the tribes were we referring to?)

Armed as we are with this knowledge, the Ramban (14:17) answers why Moshe could not winning argument that had worked so well by the Golden Calf again when he argued with GHashem about the spies - he could not mention the land - as the spies had explicitly stated that they did not want it!

R' Yehoshua Hartman points out the difference between the question and answer stage. When we asked why Moshe could not use the winning argument, we thought that the assurance was independent of anything, at the answer stage we realised that the assurance is tied and intrinsic to the land.

Inherent Similarities

2010-02-26T02:33:00.008+02:00

This week's Parsha begins by detailing the garments that the Kohen Gadol would wear when serving in the the Beis HaMikdash.

וְיִרְכְּסוּ אֶת הַחֹשֶׁן מִטַּבְּעֹתָיו אֶל טַבְּעֹת הָאֵפֹד בִּפְתִיל תְּכֵלֶת לִהְיוֹת עַל חֵשֶׁב הָאֵפוֹד וְלֹא יִזַּח הַחֹשֶׁן מֵעַל הָאֵפוֹד - And they shall fasten the breastplate by its rings to the rings of the apron with a blue cord, so that it may be upon the band of the apron, and the breastplate will not move off the apron. (28:28)

Why is the Torah particular that there should be no separation between the choshen and the eiphod?

There is a Gemara in Erchin 16a that explains how each of the garments that the Kohen Gadol wore would atone for a different sin. The eiphod atoned for idol worship, while the breast-place atoned for dishonesty in monetary matters (judicial and business).

R' Moshe Feinstein (biography here) answers our question with a very sharp piece of mussar. He explains that someone who worships idols does not believe that Hashem controls the world. This is obvious. But he adds something surprising - that someone who is prepared to distort monetary matters is guilty of the same crime! How is this so? Distortion and dishonesty regarding monetary matters shows that a person thinks that he has the ability to add to a person's wealth, and more than that, he truly believes no-one knows, or otherwise he would never do such a thing. He thinks that through his illegitimate behaviour he can control financial affairs, but what he fails to realise is that this is not in his power. Only Hashem can influence and control the financial status of a person.

R' Moshe Feinstein explains that the root of both sins is the same - a belief that Hashem lacks control over the world. Therefore, since they are inherently similar, the Torah specifies that they are inseperable.

Courtesy of R' Kirsch from the JLE - thanks!

The Uniqueness of Purim

2010-02-26T00:37:00.005+02:00

The Midrash Mishlei states that after Moshiach comes, we will cease to observe all the Yomim Tovim, except Purim. Many commentators have asked why this should be? Surely the miracle of Purim was not as momentous as the Exodus from Egypt, or the giving of the Torah at Sinai? Furthermore, Purim is a Yom Tov deRabanan (Rabbinically instituted), so why should it be celebrated when Yomim Tovim deOraisa (Torah instituted) are not?

The Sfas Emes asks another question. The Megilla clearly states that Purim is "עַל-שֵׁם הַפּוּר" - "because of the lottery" (performed by Haman). Why then do we use the plural form - Purim to refer to this Yom Tov which celebrates a single lottery? And surely Haman's lottery was not the primary part of the nes of Purim. Why would we choose to name the Yom Tov after an incidental and perhaps even un-miraculous event?

The Sfas Emes explains that we would only use the name Purim if the "pur" was an integral part of the nes. When Haman cast his lots, it was "לְהַשְׁמִיד לַהֲרֹג וּלְאַבֵּד" - to utterly destroy the Jews. Yet, as the eternal nation, the Jews cannot ever be completely destroyed, meaning that Haman's plot was doomed to fail from the very beginning. The "pur" therefore was dual in nature. On the surface it appeared to be detrimental for the Jews, yet by it's very design condemned Haman to fail and thus lead to the Jews' salvation. To reflect this duality, we refer to Purim in the plural to underline that even events that seem 'bad' are a part of Hashem's plan and turn out for the good of Klal Yisroel.

The Vilna Gaon in his commentary on Esther explains that this is why we will celebrate Purim after Moshiach. Previous miracles where Hashem has revealed Himself and performed supernatural miracles will be eclipsed by the miraculous events surrounding the coming of Moshiach. The Yomim Tovim commemorating these events will no longer be celebrated because the events they recall will be of secondary importance in comparison to those we will witness in the future. Purim however, occupies a unique space amongst the other Yomim Tovim. It recalls that Hashem's hand guides our lives and that all events are controlled by Him even if we do not openly see Him. Thus we will continue to celebrate this unique Yom Tov that offers us a glimpse of His master plan that guides nature even when Yomim Tovim celebrating supernatural events are no longer celebrated.

Have a Geshmacke Purim!

The Kruvim

2010-02-18T02:06:00.004+02:00

There is a Gemara in Baba Basra 99 that discusses the Kruvim (cherubs). It brings down conflicting psukim, that faced each faced the other, or whether they faced the wall ie away from each other. The Gemara concludes that when the Jews were righteous they faced each other, and when they sinned, they turned away. The symbolism is clear.

There is a Gemara in Yuma 54 that when the Temple was destroyed, the Gentiles who burst in found them hugging. Many commentators query this: the only reason the Temple was destroyed was because the Jews sinned, so why were they even facing each other, let alone hugging?

There are three answers, which have overlapping themes.

The Ritva explains that Hashem punishes us exactly, and when the punishment is finished He loves us again, we have gotten our due. The Temple was destroyed, and G-ds anger had subsided.

The Klausenberger Rebbe says that this occurred so as not to disgrace the Jews, as clearly the position of the Kruvim was noteworthy, so if the punishment was to see the destruction of the Temple, then further embarrassment would be pointless if word spread that the Kruvim were facing opposite direction, ie that G-d was angry with the Jews.

The Arizal says that the Gentiles were not the subject of G-d' anger, the Jews were. As such, the Gentiles, who were just the objects through which G-d implemented His judgement. In this regard, they were insignificant, and could not hold a candle to the Jews, as it were.

During the destruction, there was a traitor called Yosef of Meshisa who informed for the Romans. As a reward for his treachery, he was allowed to walk into the Temple and take a treasure for himself. He went in and took the Menorah, but was informed that the Romans were unaware of the aesthetic beauty the treasures, so he could not have it, but could go back in and take something else. He refused, and said it had been bad enough he'd angered his G-d once, and would nto do so again. He was tortured, and killed, but it is noteworthy that just going into the Temple had affected him so much so that he was now willing to die rather than betray his people and religion again. There was something that was supernatural about the Temple, that Gentiles were not party to.

What is money for?

2010-02-09T16:04:00.008+02:00

In the part of the Parsha that discusses the way one should treat others, the monetary law mentioned explains that one must take care of the needy. The pasuk (22:24) says אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי אֶת הֶעָנִי עִמָּךְ...... - When you lend money to My people, to the poor person with you....

There is a slight difficulty in interpreting the word עִמָּךְ - with you - in the context. There are explanations by the Alshich, Vilna Gaon, and Kli Yakar, among others, regarding the way money and charity are perceived.

The Alshich (biography here) explains that money is not ours, it is merely deposited with us by G-d. We are given the privilege of having money in order to share it with people who are less fortunate. He explains that the pasuk is telling us that אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי - when we lend money - אֶת הֶעָנִי עִמָּךְ - it belongs to the poor, it just happens to be with you. This is a lesson we can certainly take aboard, that nothing is really "ours", and we should therefore take great responsibility and care for it.

The Vilna Gaon (biography here) explains that the pasuk is alluding to a standard monetary law: loans are done before witnesses to prevent unscrupulous activity, whereas charity is done in solitude, and no-one needs to know. אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה - When you lend money - אֶת עַמִּי - do so before My people - אֶת הֶעָנִי - the poor however - עִמָּךְ - do it alone. This is certainly the correct way to give charity, in secret.

The Kli Yakar (biography here) explains that when a person gives charity or a charitable loan, all good deeds and benefits resultant from it are credited to the person who financed the good deeds and actions. אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי אֶת הֶעָנִי - If you lend/give money to my people or the needy - עִמָּךְ (all the merits that result) are with you too!

We can certainly incorporate all these ideas when we give charity, that the money is not ours to begin with, that we should do it in secret, and that the merit of charity does not stop once you've given it, you still receive all resultant merits performed as a result of your kindness.

Cross posted on The Living Torah Weekly

All over the place

2010-02-04T02:00:00.006+02:00

This is courtesy of D. It is a bombardment of questions, with answers that tie and unify the themes of the questions.

The Orach Chaim asks at Shemos 3:5, when G-d reveals Himself to Moshe, why G-d waits until Moshe is on the mountain and at the burning bush (the bush was on Mt Sinai, this episode occurred there) to tell him he must take his shoes off as he is on sacred ground. But why not warn him before he climbs the mountain?

At 3:11, he asks "who am I take them out?", and G-d responds (3:12) that "וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ וְזֶה לְּךָ הָאוֹת כִּי אָנֹכִי שְׁלַחְתִּיךָ בְּהוֹצִיאֲךָ אֶת הָעָם מִמִּצְרַיִם תַּעַבְדוּן אֶת הָאֱ־לֹהִים עַל הָהָר הַזֶּה - And He said, "For I will be with you, and this is the sign for you that it was I Who sent you. When you take the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain." "

The first question: how is this remotely helpful as a reply to a slave in Egpyt querying his would-be saviour's legitimacy? It's not a proof, it's a statement about the future, but does not ascertain anything at the time the proof is warranted.

The second question, where does תַּעַבְדוּן - worship, enter the equation? Apart from their acceptance, weren't the Jews entirely passive? What worship did they perform on Mt Sinai?

In Beshalach, 17:1, the pasuk informs us that when the Jews camped in Refidim, they had no water. 5 verses later, G-d tells Moses to strike a rock at Horeb (Mt Sinai). Refidim is far from Horeb, so what's going on?

In Yisro, 19:12, instructions are issued to build a boundary around Mt Sinai, and the next pasuk specifies laws "לֹא תִגַּע בּוֹ יָד כִּי סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל אוֹ יָרֹה יִיָּרֶה אִם בְּהֵמָה אִם אִישׁ לֹא יִחְיֶה בִּמְשֹׁךְ הַיֹּבֵל הֵמָּה יַעֲלוּ בָהָר - No hand shall touch it, for he shall be stoned or cast down; whether man or beast, he shall not live. When the ram's horn (Shofar) sounds a long, drawn out blast, they may ascend the mountain."

Why is it that no one, not even an animal, can stray into the mountain, nor were they even allowed to touch it 3 days before the Torah was given?

There is a concept with Kadshim (sacred items and laws) about there being a permit, a mattir, to use something something that was once Kodesh(sacred). Why is it that there is such a requirement here?

Lastly, after the Ten Commmandments, there is an instruction to build a Mizbeach Adama, an earthen altar (20:21). What is the connection between G-d giving us the Torah and building an altar there?

End of questions.

The Rambam (Maimonides) explains that all instance of G-d speaking to a person are through messengers/angels and the like. The only "face to face" meeting with G-d was with Moshe

To answer our question of why wait until he is there to tell him to remove the shoes, the answer is simple once pointed out; וַיֵּרָא מַלְאַךְ ה' אֵלָיו בְּלַבַּת אֵשׁ מִתּוֹךְ הַסְּנֶה וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה הַסְּנֶה בֹּעֵר בָּאֵשׁ וְהַסְּנֶה אֵינֶנּוּ אֻכָּל - An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from within the thorn bush, and behold, the thorn bush was burning with fire, but the thorn bush was not being consumed." (3:2)

Only at 3:4 does G-d appear - וַיַּרְא ה' כִּי סָר לִרְאוֹת וַיִּקְרָא אֵלָיו אֱ־לֹהִים מִתּוֹךְ הַסְּנֶה וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּנִי - The Lord saw that he had turned to see, and God called to him from within the thorn bush, and He said, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am!"

So this explains why he was only warned once he was there; as he ascended, there was no prohibition, G-d wasn't there, an angel was! Only once G-d appeared did the land become holy so he would need to take off his shoes.

Bearing in mind that the land itself, Mt Sinai, was already holy from that moment, we can further understand the "proof" that Moshe was meant to tell people, which Targum Yonasan ben Uziel explains at 19:5 that the mountain of G-d was the proof; that there was a place waiting for the Jews where the Torah would be given, and the Mishkan would be built, they were now a nation in waiting.

So it has been established that the land was holy before the Torah was given, and the Chizkuni explains that in Refidim, when they had no water, Moshe went to Horeb, and brought back a rock from there, and it was this rock from Mt Sinai that he struck to make water.

What about the permit/mattir to use the land? Where does that enter the equation? The Ibn Ezra quotes R' Hai Gaon that the Shofar was blown when the command to build the Mishkan was given, and this Shofar, coupled with the sacrifices brought on the Mizbeach Adama (earthen altar), transferred the holiness from the mountain to the Mishkan .

So the mountain was forbidden and holy once G-d revealed Himself at the burning bush. In shachris (morning prayers), in the section regarding the sacrifices, we say "olas hatamid ka'asuya b'har sinai" that we bring the Tamid sacrifice like on Mt Sinai. So when did we bring sacrifices on Mt Sinai? At the time the Mishkan was consecrated for the first time, on Mt Sinai!

With this we can understand why the pasuk said תַּעַבְדוּן - worship. They did worship at Mt Sinai, when they consecrated the Mishkan by bringing the sacrifices, using the earthen altar and blowing the Shofar, which transferred the innate holiness of Mt Sinai that had been there since G-d had revealed himself to the Mishkan.

I think that ties up all the loose ends. :)

An eighth of an eighth

2010-02-04T01:09:00.009+02:00

There is a Gemara in Sota 5a says that it is good to be humble, and quantifies this as an eighth of an eighth (1/64). This is seemingly arbitrary as the number is random, and how would we measure 1/64th of arrogance to find the suitable degree of humility?

The Vilna Gaon (biography here) has classic answer, that the 8th pasuk in the 8th parsha (Vayishlach) says "קָטֹנְתִּי מִכֹּל הַחֲסָדִים וּמִכָּל הָאֱמֶת אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ אֶת עַבְדֶּךָ - I have become small from all the kindnesses and from all the truth that You have rendered Your servant" - on which Rashi elaborates " קטנתי מכל החסדים : נתמעטו זכיותי על ידי החסדים והאמת שעשית עמי - I have become small: My merits have diminished because of the kindnesses and the truth that You have rendered me". This is a classic answer to what the Gemara is referencing, that we should assume that our merits have become small and that we are not actually all that, considering all G-d has done for us.

The Koheles Yitzchak delves deeper into the number 64, and says that the Gemara in Megila 29 tells the story of how all the mountains spoke to G-d, as it were, and competed for the right to have the Ten Commandents given on them, and Mt. Sinai "won" the right, and we are informed that one of the mountains was call Tabor.

In a Gemara in Bava Basra 73, the measurements of Tabor are listed, that it was 4 parsa tall, which is 16 mil, and a mil is the distance a person can walk outside a poulated area on Shabbos - 2,000 amot (cubits), so 16x2,000 cubits = 32,000.

There is a Mishna in Midos 2:1 that says that Mt Sinai was 500 cubits high. 500 fits 64 times into 32,000, ie Mt Sinai was 1/64th as tall as Tabor, and it was selected.

There is a third answered suggested by the Maharsha (biography here), that the word for arrogance in Hebrew - גס - has the numerical value of 63. Being a part of something greater (1/64th) is the way we should perceive things.

Prayers... work!

2010-01-27T03:08:00.012+02:00

A piece from R' Yehoshua Hartman, from the Maharal (biography here), on a diyuk in Rashi.

וּפַרְעֹה הִקְרִיב וַיִּשְׂאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת עֵינֵיהֶם וְהִנֵּה מִצְרַיִם נֹסֵעַ אַחֲרֵיהֶם וַיִּירְאוּ מְאֹד וַיִּצְעֲקוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל הֹ - Pharaoh drew near, and the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and behold! the Egyptians were advancing after them. They were very frightened, and the children of Israel cried out to the Lord. (14:10)

ויצעקו: תפשו אומנות אבותם. באברהם הוא אומר (בראשית יט כז) אל המקום אשר עמד שם, ביצחק (שם כד סג) לשוח בשדה, ביעקב (שם כח יא) ויפגע במקום: - cried out: They seized the craft of their ancestors [i.e., they prayed]. Concerning Abraham, it [Scripture] says: “to the place where he had stood before the Lord” (Gen. 19:27). 2 Concerning Isaac, [it is stated] “to pray in the field” (Gen. 24:63). Concerning Jacob, “And he entreated the Omnipresent” (Gen. 28:11).

The way this is first understood, this is a wonderful praise of the Jews. No doubt some people this week will focus on this point, that the Jews turned to their heritage, lineage and values in their time of need, and they prayed for salvation. You'd assume that this Rashi is singing the praise of the Jews, that they were so righteous to have prayed as their forefathers had.

There is a problem with this. What is Rashi really saying to us? What prayer is, the way our forefathers did? This is incorrect, as at 2:23 the pasuk says וַיְהִי בַיָּמִים הָרַבִּים הָהֵם, וַיָּמָת מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם, וַיֵּאָנְחוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן-הָעֲבֹדָה, וַיִּזְעָקוּ; וַתַּעַל שַׁוְעָתָם אֶל-הָאֱלֹהִים, מִן-הָעֲבֹדָה - Now it came to pass in those many days that the king of Egypt died, and the children of Israel sighed from the labor, and they cried out, and their cry ascended to God from the labor.

Rashi does not explain that their cry was prayer (it obviously was), and does not explain the tradition of prayer that dates back to the Patriarchs. So what is our Rashi saying? To reinforce the question of what Rashi is trying to tell us by saying their fathers prayed, the very next pasuk is quite possible the most snide and sarcastic in Tanach: וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל מֹשֶׁה הַמִבְּלִי אֵין קְבָרִים בְּמִצְרַיִם לְקַחְתָּנוּ לָמוּת בַּמִּדְבָּר מַה זֹּאת עָשִׂיתָ לָּנוּ לְהוֹצִיאָנוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם - They said to Moses, Is it because there are no graves in Egypt that you have taken us to die in the desert? What is this that you have done to us to take us out of Egypt? (14:11)

followed by

הֲלֹא זֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְנוּ אֵלֶיךָ בְמִצְרַיִם לֵאמֹר חֲדַל מִמֶּנּוּ וְנַעַבְדָה אֶת מִצְרָיִם כִּי טוֹב לָנוּ עֲבֹד אֶת מִצְרַיִם מִמֻּתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר - Isn't this the thing [about] which we spoke to you in Egypt, saying, Leave us alone, and we will serve the Egyptians, because we would rather serve the Egyptians than die in the desert (14:11)

These people are clearly not the most righteous people; they go from prayer to wishing themselves back into slavery and rejecting G-d and Moshe in a heartbeat.

That is the point Rashi is bringing out here.
They did not pray because it was what they felt they should have done, they prayed because it was what their fathers would have done.

If we re-analyze Rashi's words, this is explicit, once we think about it from this angle; תפשו אומנות אבותם - They seized the craft of their ancestors? Their prayer was craftsmanship; it was work, not service!

R' Yitzchok Hutner (biography here) queries this; we say in morning prayers (in Vecharos, just before Az Yashir) how Hashem listened to our cries. But we have established that these crise were hardly the most noble, so what are mentioning this for in our prayers?

He answers with a parable, about a king who has a good friend, whose son is close to the prince. One day, whilst visiting the prince in the royal palace, he bursts into the king's chamber and starts running his mouth off about the area he comes from and things it needs. The king acquiesces, but it's not because of what the prince's friend said: it's because his father is the king's friend.

This also happens to be an explanation as to why we mention zchus avos in the opening paragraph of Shemona Esrei, that in spite of our lack of merit, our lineage should set us in good stead.

Night-night!

2010-01-20T02:49:00.006+02:00

וַיָּקָם פַּרְעֹה לַיְלָה, הוּא וְכָל-עֲבָדָיו וְכָל-מִצְרַיִם, וַתְּהִי צְעָקָה גְדֹלָה, בְּמִצְרָיִם: כִּי-אֵין בַּיִת, אֲשֶׁר אֵין-שָׁם מֵת. - 30 - And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.

וַיִּקְרָא לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְאַהֲרֹן לַיְלָה, וַיֹּאמֶר קוּמוּ צְּאוּ מִתּוֹךְ עַמִּי--גַּם-אַתֶּם, גַּם-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וּלְכוּ עִבְדוּ אֶת-ה', כְּדַבֶּרְכֶם - And he called for Moses and Aaron by night and said: 'Rise up, get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve the Lord, as ye have said.
(12:30-31)

As made abundantly clear by the bold letters, there is a repetition of the time the sequence of events that took place in light of the imminent arrival of the 10th plague. If Paroh only wanted to tell them to "rise up and go forth from among my people", then there was no need to repeat that this occurred at night, as obviously it is established from the previous Pasuk that this is the case. So why the repetition?

An intriguing answer by the Griz, R' Yitzchak Ze'ev Soloveitchik (biography here) and the Ohr Hachayim, R' Chaim ibn Attar (biography here) that shows how the various Psukim link.

The previous time that Paroh had met Moshe and Ahron, their meeting did not go well. It (10:28) concluded וַיֹּאמֶר-לוֹ פַרְעֹה, לֵךְ מֵעָלָי; הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ, אַל-תֹּסֶף רְאוֹת פָּנַי--כִּי בְּיוֹם רְאֹתְךָ פָנַי, תָּמוּת - Pharaoh said to him, "Go away from me! Beware! You shall no longer see my face, for on the day that you see my face, you shall die!"' Pretty bad meeting, but it got worse. After his final prophecy after this event, the Pasuk (11:8) says וַיֵּצֵא מֵעִם-פַּרְעֹה, בָּחֳרִי-אָף "And he went out from Pharaoh in hot anger." In Zevachim 102a Resh Lakish explains that this means that Moshe slapped Paroh.

With their prior meeting fresh in his mind Moshe would understandably have been loathe to see Paroh, "for on the day that you see my face, you shall die". If they hear him calling them, they weren't going to come running.

Paroh understood this, and shouted "לַיְלָה"!! "It's night-time!". His threat had been "for on the day that you see my face, you shall die", and perhaps was suggesting that he did not want to see them by day, but by night it was different.

So to answer our original question of why לַיְלָה is repeated, the answer is, it isn't! If we add punctuation:

"!וַיִּקְרָא לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְאַהֲרֹן "לַיְלָה - And he called Moshe and Ahron saying "It's nighttime!"- {my threat isn't relevant now!}

So in fact, the second time isn't a description of the setting, it is actually what he said!

Who we are

2010-01-18T03:51:00.007+02:00

The following is from a drasha by R' Yehoshua Hartman, adapted from the Maharal.

וַיֵּלְכוּ וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה' אֶת מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן כֵּן עָשׂוּ - So the children of Israel went and did; as the Lord commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did. (12:28)

כאשר צוה ה' את משה ואהרן: להגיד שבחן של ישראל, שלא הפילו דבר מכל מצות משה ואהרן. ומהו כן עשו? אף משה ואהרן כן עשו - as the Lord commanded Moses and Aaron [This comes] to tell Israel’s praise, that they did not omit anything of all the commandments of Moses and Aaron. And what is the meaning of “so they did” ? Moses and Aaron also did so. (Rashi)

It is quite perplexing as to why the Torah would insert כֵּן עָשׂוּ, talking about Moshe and Ahron, as on what grounds might we have thought that they might not perform the Mitzva of Korban Pesach? This is illogical, as the Pasuk doesn't specify whether or not they kept Shabbos, yet does here.

Additionally, why by this 10th plague is human input necessary? The first nine did not affect Jews in the slightest. By the first plague for example, blood, even a Jew drinking from the same cup as an Egyptian with straws would not be affected, whereas the Egyptian would. Why by the final plague is there a requirement to partake and perform this Mitzva and smear the door posts and lintel in order to be saved?

Furthermore, the Korban Pesach was not the only Mitzva given on the night they set aside the goats, circumcision was instituted that night too. What is particularly special about these two mitzvos that they needed to be instructed to perform them on the night of the Slaying of the Firstborn?

It says in Ezekiel (16:4) that the Jewish People were born in Egypt. There are two aspects of the Jewish People - the doing, and the being.

Every person born to a Jewish mother is a Jew from the moment they open their eyes unitl the moment they close them. This is the being aspect. There is not a thing that can change this. People can convert and practice other religions, but halacha states that they remain Jews. There is no free will in the matter. The reason for this is simple. G-d chose us, and there is nothing anyone can do about that. This is simple to understand: just as you can't change your friend's decision, how much more so are you powerless to change G-d's decisions?

The second aspect, of doing, is much more down to personal choice, to do as we were commanded.

Bris Milah is a Mitzva of being - it is performed 8 days after a boy is born and they have no say in the matter. It is G-d's sign on our flesh, and cannot be undone. Korban Pesach is a personal choice (though not a great one as those who didn't do it died...). It is the only Mitzva in the entire Torah where the word עבודה, service, is used. Interestinly, these are the only two positive commandments who's punishment for not performing them is Kareis, spiritual excommunication.

This is why these Mitzvot were given, at the time that the Jewish People were born. They gave us our identity, of being and acting as Jews. This answers the final question.

So why did the Jews have to work to be saved from the 10th plague? As Hashem performed it Himself. Whereas with the other 9, angels and messengers were used, are unable to harm Jews as Jews are on a higher spiritual level than angels, and as such were unable harm the Children of Israel. But Hashem is above this instruction; He is above everything! He was looking for people to actually bind themselves to Him through the Mitzvos Hegave them; it wasn't like the other 9 where it had been enough to be born to a Jew. They had to demonstrably show they were on G-d's "side" to be saved.

With this in mind, we can answer the first question. If people had to prove they were with G-d, you'd have thought that being G-d's mouthpiece to Egypt and the Jews was enough for Moses and Ahron, they'd shown who their lot was cast with. This is inaccurate. The doing/being aspect has another paralel, to a servant for example. A servant has to serve, and his service is proven by the fact that he serves 24/7. Moses and Ahron were not servants, as they only did what G-d asked them when they were asked, but it was only a 9 to 5 job, so to speak, but whenever they weren't in His service, they were just normal people. So the pasuk said כֵּן עָשׂוּ to explain that actually, Moshe and Ahron also performed the Mitzva, and they too only became servants, עבדים of G-d after performing the עבודה of the Korban Pesach.

The doing/being has another relevancy to us. The mitzvot of Tfilin וּקְשַׁרְתָּם לְאוֹת עַל-יָדֶךָ וְהָיוּ לְטֹטָפֹת בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. The brachos we make show this, one is "lehaniach" - on the binding, one is "al mitzvas" - passive, on the mitzva. This is further shown in the fact that if one puts on Tefilin before sunrise, one must retie the arm Tefilin to make the bracha, but does not need to adjust the head Tefilin. The reason for this is that our arms are what we use to do, so they must be active, and perform actions. Our heads are passive, our minds are who we are, and as such no new bracha is required.

Why do things happen?

2010-01-17T16:49:00.007+02:00

In the memory and zchus of the members of the Saba family who died last week

The following is one I came up with last week, and I didn't think it was too great, but some people told me to wrote it anyway. Since the Parsha is still about Moshe and Egypt I hope it won't matter that it is a week late.

אמר לו הקב"ה חבל על דאבדין ולא משתכחין הרי כמה פעמים נגליתי על אברהם יצחק ויעקב באל שדי ולא הרהרו על מדותי ולא אמרו לי מה שמך אמרתי לאברהם (בראשית יג) קום התהלך בארץ לארכה ולרחבה כי לך אתננה בקש מקום לקבור את שרה ולא מצא עד שקנה בד' מאות שקל כסף ולא הרהר על מדותי אמרתי ליצחק (בראשית כו) גור בארץ הזאת ואהיה עמך ואברכך בקשו עבדיו מים לשתות ולא מצאו עד שעשו מריבה שנאמר (בראשית כו) ויריבו רועי גרר עם רועי יצחק לאמר לנו המים ולא הרהר אחר מדותי אמרתי ליעקב (בראשית כח) הארץ אשר אתה שוכב עליה לך אתננה ביקש מקום לנטוע אהלו ולא מצא עד שקנה במאה קשיטה ולא הרהר אחר מדותי ולא אמרו לי מה שמך (Sanhedrin 111a)

There is a Gemara in Sanhedrin (brought above if you are that way inclined), that explains that G-d got angry when Moshe asked His name, as the Patriarchs had diffculties, yet did not question G-d. Rashi in 6:9 quotes it. When Abraham sought to bury Sarah, he could not bury her until he bought a plot for a very high price from Efron. Similarly, with Isaac, he sought to use wells his own father had dug and was not allowed to by the local shepherds. And also with Jacob, “And he bought the part of the field where he had pitched his tent from the sons of Hamor” (Gen. 33:19).

These are the examples used of Moshe's ancestors not questioning the nature of G-d. But these would seem to be bad examples. If you want to tell me about faith, tell me about the Akeida, he binding of Isaac! Abraham was promised children through Isaac yet was told to murder him. Isaac was told absolutely nothing by G-d, yet did not question anyone and told his father to bind his hands so he would not struggle. Tell Moshe how Jacob reacted to the incidents with Joseph! These are all exceptionally mundane stories, that all happen to be about money and land (that was theoretically theirs already since it had been promised?).

There was a great tragedy last week in Mexico referenced above, and it was very distressing and I was very upset about it for various reasons. I was quite surprised when I stumbled across an excerpt from the Sefer Hachinuch - "A man should know and take to heart that all that happens to him from good to bad is intended to happen to him from Hashem, and from the hand of man...nothing will happen except His will" (Hilchos Nekama).

I was amazed that I found something so relevant to what I needed to hear at that moment, and when I thought of the original question, why bother to talk about the mundane. The Chinuch quote answers it perfectly. It's relatively easy to accept that all things come from G-d. But when the bad happens to involve another persons free will and choice to cause harm, it is suddenly not the hand of G-d any more, it becomes a problem and someone has wronged you.

The Akeida tells us how Abraham had faith, but that is all! G-d spoke to him, there was nothing to question! But when he gets home having passed his test, his wife is dead. And when he attempts to bury her, he is heckled by Efron. Isaac is thirsty, and can't use wells his own father dug. Yakov needs to pay to pitch a tent.

It is with these examples that we see how much faith they really had. When we know someone is watching, or that we are being tested, we put on the best display of our efforts as possible. But these are inaccurate. The true gauge of faith is in the mundane, where we think we are alone.

Me too!

2010-01-14T00:38:00.011+02:00

A wonderful idea from the Sifsei Cohen, a student of the Arizal.

After Hashem sends down the hail that destroyed all the vegetation of Egypt, Paroh calls for Moshe and Ahron and says "ה' הַצַּדִּיק וַאֲנִי וְעַמִּי הָרְשָׁעִים" This is generally translated as– Hashem is righteous, וַאֲנִי וְעַמִּי הָרְשָׁעִים – and I and my people are wicked. But this pasuk can be split up in a different way, which results in a change in its meaning; !ה' הַצַּדִּיק וַאֲנִי -וְעַמִּי הָרְשָׁעִים – Hashem is righteous - as am I! וְעַמִּי הָרְשָׁעִים – and it is my people who are wicked!" . Paroh is faking innocence – and attempting to side with Hashem, and claims it is his people whom are wicked, not he!

In addition, if we take out וַאֲנִי, the roshei teivos (initials) of the remaining four words spell Hashem’s 4 letter name. The וַאֲנִי is in the center of this; it is interrupting the shem Hashem. He is claiming parity with G-d, and within G-d's Name itself!

Paroh proceeded, and told Moshe that he will allow the Jews to go, so Hashem stopped the hail, yet Parah did not keep his word, and did not allow them to leave. Hashem says to Moshe in the first pasuk of next week's sedra "בֹּא אֶל פַּרְעֹה כִּי אֲנִי הִכְבַּדְתִּי אֶת לִבּוֹ וְאֶת לֵב עֲבָדָיו לְמַעַן שִׁתִי אֹתֹתַי אֵלֶּה בְּקִרְבּוֹ - The Lord said to Moses: "Come to Paroh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, in order that I may place these signs of Mine in his midst" (10:1).

There is a problem with this that is not evident from a translation. Why does Hashem say כִּי אֲנִי הִכְבַּדְתִּי? The אֲנִי is superfluous , as הִכְבַּדְתִּי is in the first person, so there must be more to it than meets the eye. Literally, כִּי אֲנִי הִכְבַּדְתִּי means because of אֲנִי I have hardened – Hashem is saying that it is because of Paroh’s arrogance and usage of the word אֲנִי in 9:27 that הִכְבַּדְתִּי – I have hardened his heart so that שִׁתִי אֹתֹתַי אֵלֶּה בְּקִרְבּוֹ. Except, אֹתֹתַי can mean My signs or My letters. Hashem hardened Pharoah’s heart so that he can see ‘My letters’ in his midst. Which letters are we talking about? The letters that make up the name of Hashem which Pharoah had previously attempted to infiltrate!

So in essence, "because of אֲנִי, I have hardened their hearts to show my letters {ie G-d's name, with all His power,} and showing it in their midst".

This only goes to show how brilliant the Torah is, that it has so many levels of interpretation by just reading the words again.

Cross posted on http://thelivingtorahweekly.blogspot.com/

Why Moshe?

2010-01-07T14:38:00.007+02:00

The book of Shemos starts as one would expect, with a brief conclusion from Bereishis. It explains how Yakov's children thrived in Egypt, and when the brothers had died, only then did the slavery begin. It then continues as one would expect, with the process of how the enslavement began.

But Chapter 2 starts " וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֵוִי - A man of the house of Levi went" - and it is talking about Amram, Moshe's father and the leader of the Jews at the time. But why doesn't Chapter 2 start with the part of the story that matters, Hashem contacting Moshe the shepherd? Would it not make more sense to say "A shepherd of the house of Levi called Moshe etc...."?

Clearly, there is something more for us to learn from the Torah's description of Moshe's early life, as the Torah does not waste ink to tell us stories for the sake of it. We can suggest that we are being told about the nature and personlaity of Moshe, that led to his selection as being suitable to lead the Jews out of Egypt.

When Moshe is first found by Batya, she says " וַתִּרְאֵהוּ אֶת הַיֶּלֶד - and she saw him the child", but then the next words are "וְהִנֵּה נַעַר בֹּכֶה - and behold, he was a weeping lad". He went from being a baby to a lad (a term to describe someone older). Various commentators note that it was a mature cry ie a cry for others, that subsequently led her to conclude " מִיַּלְדֵי הָעִבְרִים זֶה - "This is [one] of the children of the Hebrews." (2:1)

We must note that it is clear that although in 2:10 that he grew up and Batya was like a mother to him, he knew that he was a Jew, as in 2:11 it says" וַיְהִי בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וַיִּגְדַּל מֹשֶׁה וַיֵּצֵא אֶל אֶחָיו וַיַּרְא בְּסִבְלֹתָם וַיַּרְא אִישׁ מִצְרִי מַכֶּה אִישׁ עִבְרִי מֵאֶחָיו - Now it came to pass in those days that Moses grew up and went out to his brothers and looked at their burdens, and he saw an Egyptian man striking a Hebrew man of his brothers". Rashi points out that looking at their burdens distressed him as it was his brothers that were suffering, and yet he was a prince of Egypt! This is derived from the repetition of growing up in 2:10 and 2:11, where the first is in physical stature and the second in greatness, which Rashi interprets as meaning "Pharoh appointed over his house".

This undoubtedly created a schism in his psyche. Here he was, an Egyptian prince, yet he empathised with Egyptian slaves, who were his brothers. He was neither an Egyptian, nor a Jew.

The next Pasuk after we are told how he noticed his brothers suffering "וַיִּפֶן כֹּה וָכֹה וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין אִישׁ וַיַּךְ אֶת הַמִּצְרִי וַיִּטְמְנֵהוּ בַּחוֹל - He turned this way and that way, and he saw that there was no man; so he struck the Egyptian and hid him in the sand." (2:12)

He made the decision to stand with his brothers, and murdered an Egyptian, which inherently means that he ostracised (cut off) himself from the that nurtured him.
I read an unbelievable explanation that supplements this, said over by Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo in his book, Thoughts to Ponder. This Pasuk is describing the internal conflict that we pointed out! "Moses turned {within himself} this way ({Egyptian?} and that way {or Jew?} and saw there was no {complete} man {ie he was neither}. So he struck the Egyptian {within him} and hid him in the sand."

The beauty of this is that it fits in perfectly with the Pasuk, and it fits perfectly with the first answer we gave as well! Whether or not he killed an Egyptian police officer, he chose to side with the Jews, thereby alienating Egyptian society culture within him, as he would be rejected by them (for siding with them and/or for murdering a police officer! Geshmack!

The point we can draw from this is that the history of Moshe Rabbenu made him into who he was. He was a product of Egypt, and he knew Egypt. In a way, he was Egypt! And he made the choice to become a Jew and severed his ties with Egypt, and this choice made him who he was. It is telling that G-d only speaks to Moshe after these events unfold.

Quantifying Rewards

2010-01-06T01:27:00.003+02:00

There is a Tosfos in Sota 11a that quotes a Tosefta. The discussion there is about G-d's kindness and the opening chapters of Shemos. It explains that Hashem punishes for up to 4 generations and rewards up to 2,000, a factor of 500:1 ie G-d rewards 500 times more than he punishes.

Miriam spoke Lashon Hara about Moshe Rabbenu, and got Tzaraas (mis-translated as leprosy) so was sent out the camp, but the Jews waited in the desert for a whole week until she got better before they moved on. And this is not just because it takes a week for someone with Tzaraas to get better, as there is no requirement to wait for their recovery. So why did they wait then?

The Tosfos says that the waiting for a week was a reward for what she did in this week's Sidra:

"וַתֵּתַצַּב אֲחֹתוֹ מֵרָחֹק לְדֵעָה מַה יֵּעָשֶׂה לוֹ - His sister stood from afar, to know what would be done to him." (2:14) - Some commentators point out that there are 7 words in this Pasuk, corresponding to each of the seven days they waited for her.

This is fine, but the comparison is superficial at best, how long did she wait already that they waited a week?

We can quantify this. There are 168 hours in a week ie they waited that many hours for her, and we established that G-d does kindness by a factor of up to 500. 168 divided by 500 is 0.3something or other, or a third, of an hour ie 20 minutes.

Miriam watched Moshe for 20 minutes!

Yesimcha Elokim k'Efraim v'chMenashe

2009-12-31T04:33:00.005+02:00

Why is the bracha we give to our children is that they should become like Efraim and Menashe? It could have been a myriad of other things, so what is notable about them that they were able to inherit from Yakov a portion equivalent to the previous generation, their uncles?

My Zaide explains that Menashe and Efraim were worthy of being considered Yakov's own children and two of the 12 Tribes, and this is because of their being born and raised in Egypt. It is not such a blessing to say that they should become like Reuven, Shimon etc, as they were raised in Yakov's house; it's not so much a big deal to tread the path you're already on, but the fact that 2 boys, born in Egypt, to a father who was the viceroy of Egypt who had left his heritage at 17 (and we could understand if he'd sought to cut off ties with his past, the past that he'd been cut out of by his brothers), that is a massive chiddush, that people can rise from the 49th level of tuma and become one of the Shivtei Ka. This is truly inspirational, that each of us has unlimited potential. This is the blessing we give our children, that they should transcend all obstacles, just like Efraim and Menashe.

D explains this alternately, that Yaakov switched hands, and said that the younger son would become greater. Not a peep was uttered by either, and Yaakov blessed them. There was not a hint of jealousy or animosity to the other, they were content for their lot, and Menashe was happy for Ephraim to get what should have been his. And there was no gloating on Ephraim's part, there was merely acceptance. D explains that the blessing we give to our children is that they should have this relationship with each other (which perhaps leads on to what my Zaide says?).

Forgiveness - Big deal?

2009-12-30T19:27:00.024+02:00

When the brothers apologise to Yosef, he rebutted this by saying "אַל תִּירָאוּ כִּי הֲתַחַת אלֹהִים אָנִי - "Don't be afraid, for am I instead of God?" (50:19). It is unclear what exactly he means, but certainly he is not annoyed.

The Baal Haturim (info here) suggests that this is is poetic justice as this is precisely what his mother had been told when his mother had begged for children from their father, at which point he said "הֲתַחַת אֱ־לֹהִים אָנֹכִי אֲשֶׁר מָנַע מִמֵּךְ פְּרִי בָטֶן - "Am I instead of God, Who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?" (30:2)

The Maharil Diskin (info here)wonders why a simple yes/no answer isn't enough, and we can (and have) explained that he did not actually forgive them, but did not say this. We can look deeper into his words: In Parshas Matos (30:7-9) the pasuk describes a woman who makes a vow, but then her husband annuls it. In an event where she did not know he had annulled it, and she thinks she is deliberately breaking it, the pasuk says "'והֹ יִסְלַח לָהּ" - "...and the Lord will forgive her." This is astounding - she has technically done absolutely nothing wrong - her vow had been annulled at the time of her actions, and yet there is a certain something that requires forgiveness! And the same thing was true here:

The brothers thought they had committed a horrendously evil act onto their brother, and even though circumstantially it turned out for the best in the end, and the family were reunited, just as in the case of a woman who circumstantially did nothing wrong, there was still a certain something that required forgiveness. The Maharil Diskin suggests an alternate explanation to that which the Baal Haturim suggested, that this is exactly what Yosef was saying here, that due to the turn of events they had done nothing wrong, but he was not in the place of Hashem, because as we said by the woman, they needed G-d's forgiveness.

Rabbeinu Bachaye (info here) shares a frightening thought that is not worth waiting until Parshas Bechukosai to share as it is so brilliant. He takes the concept of Yosef not forgiving his brothers a step further, and suggests says this resulted in the Asara Harugei Malchus, one of the greatest tragedies in Jewish history, and one died in lieu of each of the group who'd sold Yosef. Yaakov was not told as an oath was made as a group of 10 (a minyan) to not tell him, and such an oath cannot be annulled.

But why were there 10 martyrs then, as there weren't 10 men present at the sale? Binyamin was not there, Reuven had gone home, and we can't include Yosef as part of such a minyan? There is a concept that a minyan can take place with 9 as Hashem joins in - Hashem was the 10th member of this group.

We can expand the pasuk in Bechukosai - "וְכָל מַעְשַׂר בָּקָר וָצֹאן כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ לַהֹ - Any tithe of cattle or flock of all that pass under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to the Lord" (27:32)- and there is a deeper meaning to this pasuk, in reference to Rabbi Akiva - וכי למא מת עקיבא, שהוא רואה בקר וצאן הכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ לַהֹ - Why did Akiva die? He was just a shepherd! When he passed under the staff (judgement?) he was the tenth, holy for G-d.

There is another allusion to this I found on Google (it's awesome) here on Parshas Vayigash (45:15), (sorry it's late,) that "וַיֵּבְךְּ עֲלֵיהֶם - and he cried on them" - we can break up עֲלֵיהֶם and read it על י ה"ם - for the ten Harugei Malchus.

Scary stuff indeed.

To end on a lighter note, I can quote my Rebbi, R' Hartman, who has an Otzar HaChochma harddrive (it's a sforim library on a hardrive) that can search keywords on a sugya, a bit like Google - about which he said "If I knew Torah like this little machine..."

:)

Vayechi - Handy tips from יעקב

2009-12-28T23:06:00.006+02:00

שכל את ידיו - he maneuvered his hands... (48:14)

I saw a stunning idea from R' Moshe Sternbuch in Ta'am Voda'as. We see that Yaakov switched around his right hand with his left, so that Ephraim was under his right hand. But why did he not just tell Menashe and Ephraim to switch places?

R' Chaim Volozhin explains that the nature of the average person is to talk down the positive attributes of his fellow, but when it comes to the negative side, he is ready to speak up and even exaggerate the other's bad traits. In this way, he will look like a tzaddik compared with his friend.

Indeed, when one stands opposite his fellow, one's left is the other's right and vice-versa. This hints to the fact that his friend's right, or stature, stands opposite his left, traditionally the one seen as weaker, i.e. weakening his friend's strengths (sorry to all those lefties out there - including half of my family!), whereas his friend's left, or weaker side, is opposite his right, i.e. making a bigger deal out of his weaknesses.

Yaakov, as we know, is the ultimate man of truth, not wishing to detract or embellish any point. So what does he do? He only crosses his hands - the result being that his right hand corresponds with the boys' right and his left with theirs!

It teaches us a really important Mussar point, says R' Sternbuch - how careful we must be when relating to the strengths and weaknesses of our friends (and others!), placing our right opposite their right...

He cites the Rambam (Hilchos Dei'os chapter 6 halacha 3) for further proof - ''it's a mitzva upon every person to to love his fellow Jew as himself as it says ואהבת לרעך כמוך. Therefore, he must tell of his praiseworthy points...as himself...'' Geshmack!

As an addendum, Gav C pointed out that the Ohr Hachaim says a beautiful idea associated with the above: it says שכל את ידיו כי מנשה הבכור - he maneuvered his hands because Menashe was the firstborn - surely Menashe being the firstborn would be reason to not cross hands!?
So he answers that just before, we were told that ''Yisrael's eyes were heavy from old age and he could not see''. This indicates that he couldn't see who was Menashe - the firstborn - and who was Ephraim. So when it came to blessing them, he knew who he wanted under his right hand. He worked out in his mind that Yosef would have placed Menashe on his right - therefore he crossed his hands because he knew where the firstborn was, and because Menashe was the בכור. Geshmack!

Dying of Embarrassment

2009-12-22T12:46:00.010+02:00

There is a Midrash that says that when we eventually go up to Heaven and are put on trial we will be as embarrassed as the brothers were in front of Yosef. The Beis Halevi shares with us a marvellous idea on this.

On a superficial level, we can understand this Midrash by simply saying that we cannot bluff someone who sees the bigger picture. The brothers claimed that their brother was not with them, but Yosef knew why he wasn't really with them, and when he revealed himself to them, they actually died of embarrasment according to some commentators. Even if we don't learn this, it's clear what the metaphor is trying to portray. There was nothing they could say.

But we can look at it in a deeper fashion, and admire the nobility Yosef displayed. For one: וְלֹא יָכֹל יוֹסֵף לְהִתְאַפֵּק לְכֹל הַנִּצָּבִים עָלָיו וַיִּקְרָא הוֹצִיאוּ כָל אִישׁ מֵעָלָי וְלֹא עָמַד אִישׁ אִתּוֹ בְּהִתְוַדַּע יוֹסֵף אֶל אֶחָיו - Now Joseph could not bear all those standing beside him, and he called out, "Take everyone away from me!" So no one stood with him when Joseph made himself known to his brothers.

On which Rashi says: ולא יכול יוסף להתאפק לכל הנצבים: לא היה יכול לסבול שיהיו מצרים נצבים עליו ושומעין שאחיו מתביישין בהודעו להם - Now Joseph could not bear all those standing: He could not bear that Egyptians would stand beside him and hear his brothers being embarrassed when he would make himself known to them. [From Tanchuma Vayigash 5].

We must not forget that at this point, from the brothers perspective at least, they had been harrassed and interrogated by a foreign ruler, and they had him on their own; he was unguarded. There was every possibility they'd have murdered him and escaped, but he could not bear to embarass them publicly.

But moreover, from 44:20, Yehudah explains that they have an old father and attempt to explain that they do not want to bring Binyamin to Yosef for their fathers sake.

וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹסֵף אֶל אֶחָיו אֲנִי יוֹסֵף הַעוֹד אָבִי חָי וְלֹא יָכְלוּ אֶחָיו לַעֲנוֹת אֹתוֹ כִּי נִבְהֲלוּ מִפָּנָיו - And Joseph said to his brothers, "I am Joseph. Is my father still alive?" but his brothers could not answer him because they were startled by his presence.

The Beis Halevi points out that the first thing he said to them after telling them who he was, was "is my father still alive?". Clearly he knew he was alive, as Yehudah had spoken at length about him. The fact he asked this question anyway is telling, heartrending and completely ironic. It really means "Is he not my father too? Was he not alive back then for you to not have abandoned and disowned me? Is he only alive to you now?". And they could not say anything, because of course he was right, their hypocrisy had been revealed, which caused them to die of embarrassment, whether we take that literally or figuratively. This is tochacha in its true form (tochacha, usually translated as rebuke, is a form of the word lhochiach, to prove).

There was nothing they could say, but instead of shouting at them he simply said גְּשׁוּ נָא אֵלַי וַיִּגָּשׁוּ - "Please come closer to me," and they drew closer (45:4). He hugged them all, and it is simply unfathomable for any of us to have acted in such a way, even when faced with lesser evils than he'd suffered, and it is no small wonder we call him Yosef HaTzaddik with middos (character traits) such as these.

Vayigash - A New Approach

2009-12-21T22:58:00.008+02:00

ויגש אליו יהודה ויאמר בי אדני - And Yehudah approached him and said, 'please my master...' (44:18)

Another insight into the brilliance of the ta'amei hamikra (cantorial notes): The Vilna Gaon points out that if you look at the notes on these words, you'll see something astonishing - kadma ve'azla, Revi'i, Zarka, Munach and Segol. But what is so amazing about this? Surely these are standard notes in a pretty standard format?

If you look back to Parshas Miketz (43:9), Yehudah guarantees Binyamin's safe return by saying, 'If I don't bring him back to you and place him before you, then...וחטאתי לך כל הימים - I will be sinning against you all the days'. The Midrash explains this last phrase to be referring to Olam Haba.

Now let's have another look at our notes and we will get an insight into what the Vilna Gaon was referring to - firstly, kadma ve'azla, Revi'i - Yehudah, the fourth son (revi'i) went and stepped forward (קדם ואזל) to confront Yosef. Surely Reuven should have been the one to step forward - why Yehudah?
Because he threw himself into a situation where he would be 'rested from being parted from the Am segula, in Olam Haba - (זרק את עצמו מלנוח בתוך עם סגולה). This is Zarka, Munach and Segol - and Yehudah is prepared to give up everything for his brother.

Geshmack!

Postscript: I do intend at some point, to explain my comment from a previous post, where I suggested that the ta'amei hamikra might be the genius of Chazal, as opposed to the widely accepted view (from the Gemara) that they are Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai...

Random searches?

2009-12-17T22:05:00.006+02:00

The Pasuk says "וַיְחַפֵּשׂ בַּגָּדוֹל הֵחֵל וּבַקָּטֹן כִּלָּה וַיִּמָּצֵא הַגָּבִיעַ בְּאַמְתַּחַת בִּנְיָמִן - "He searched; he started with the eldest and finished with the youngest, and the goblet was found in Benjamin's sack" (44:12). You would think this means he searched from Reuven's bag until Binyamin's bag. Not so. The Midrash Rabba says that the eldest referred to was in fact Shimon. And Yosef only searched this eldest and the youngest, Binyamin. The Griz, the Brisker Rav asks how the Midrash reached this conclusion.

He answers in the name of the Maharil Diskin that in 44:8 the brothers said a kal v'chomer, one of ten in the Torah, that" הֵן כֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר מָצָאנוּ בְּפִי אַמְתְּחֹתֵינוּ הֱשִׁיבֹנוּ אֵלֶיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וְאֵיךְ נִגְנֹב מִבֵּית אֲדֹנֶיךָ כֶּסֶף אוֹ זָהָב: - Behold, the money we found in the mouth of our sacks we returned to you from the land of Canaan; so how could we steal from your master's house silver or gold?". However, there are two people who did not make this kal v'chomer: Shimon and Binyamin! Binyamin was not there so he could not say he was as honest as his brothers who returned Yosef's gold, and in 44:24 it says " וַיִּקַּח מֵאִתָּם אֶת שִׁמְעוֹן וַיֶּאֱסֹר אֹתוֹ לְעֵינֵיהֶם - and he took Simeon from among them and imprisoned him before their eyes".

So the pasuk is actually telling us that the only people who were searched were the oldest and youngest of the people whose honesty had not been proven, Binyamin and Shimon!

Is there a hidur mitzva after the mitzva is done?

2009-12-17T18:08:00.013+02:00

There is a concept of hidur mitzva, which means that we can make the mitzvos we do more beautiful. Examples of this are taking nice esrogim on Succos, getting larger tfillin, getting a megillah written by the best scribe, among many countless others.

The basic level of the mitzva of Chanuka is ner ish uveiso, where the man of the house will light one candle each night for his household. A step up is called mehadrin (beautiful), where the man will light progressively as the holiday progresses. The best is called mehadrin min hamehadrin, which is what most tend to do, whereby each member of the household will light progressively.

The Rambam (a Sephardi) says something most interesting that people don't normally notice, but the Griz (The Brisker Rav) points out that the Rambam says the word Madlik, as opposed to Madlikin, which indicates his view is that there is no such step as the final one we mentioned, that the best mitzva one can do is for the householder to light progressively or recessively, but not for each member to.

This is at odds with the Rema (R' Moshe Isserles, whom Ashkenazi Jews tend to hold like) who holds that each person lighting is mehadrin. So whow are we to understand the Rambam's position, and why does the Rema argue?

We can look to a Gemara in Shabbos that can perhaps shed light on this issue. The context is Bris Milah, where the Mohel realises afterwards that he has left something called tzitzin (small piece of skin). There are two types of tzitzin, the type that leaves the baby boy considered uncircumcised, and the type that doesn't matter. The Gemara concludes that eino chozrin al tzitzin she'einon meakvin, that there is no need for the Mohel to perform the Bris again if it is the type which does not matter.

Rashi explains that this is only on Shabbos that the Mohel doesn't return, but that on weekdays he would. The Rambam says that he wouldn't go back to perform the operation again even on a weekday.

So the Brisker Rav, the Griz, explains to us what the issue really is: after the shaas mitzva is gone, you can't make it better. There is no doubt that this is the case on Shabbos, where everyone agrees that you don't break it for the hidur, but the Rambam sas that once the Mohel is finished the Bris, he can't make it any more mehudar than it was, as the Mitzva has been completed.

The Rema and Rashi disagree, and say that yes, you can! This is the difference with regard to lighting Menoras; The Rambam says that once the householder has lit, there is no hidur mitzva for the rest of the householders to perform a hidur, as the mitzva has already finished when the householder lit the first light, so the hidur stops once he has lit additional lights. Any further attempts at hidur ie mehadrin min hamehadrin are after the shaas hamitzva, so are unnecessary.

We hold like the Rema and Rashi, that we can do hidur after the main mitzva has been completed, which is why each of us lights our own Menora.

Cow Spirituality. What?

2009-12-15T01:30:00.011+02:00

I heard this from my Rebbi, Rabbi Yehoshua Hartman Shlita, to whom I owe everything. He is also the inspiration for the blog title, "Geshmack" is his catchphrase you see :)

וְהִנֵּה מִן הַיְאֹר עֹלֹת שֶׁבַע פָּרוֹת יְפוֹת מַרְאֶה וּבְרִיאֹת בָּשָׂר וַתִּרְעֶינָה בָּאָחוּ - And behold, from the Nile were coming up seven cows, of handsome appearance and robust flesh, and they pastured in the marshland. (41:2)

(Rashi)
יפות מראה: סימן הוא לימי שובע, שהבריות נראות יפות זו לזו, שאין עין בריה צרה בחברתה - of handsome appearance: This was a symbol of the days of plenty, when creatures appear handsome to one another, for no one envies his fellow. — [from Gen. Rabbah 89:4]

This describes Paroh's dream as he sees it. But why does Rashi interpret the dream, isn't Yosef about to do that, and differently? Where did Gen. Rabba (source) get this from?

It is interesting to note that the words יְפוֹת מַרְאֶה are used, which we translated as having "handsome appearance". This is an imprecise translation. If we look to 29:17, "וְעֵינֵי לֵאָה רַכּוֹת וְרָחֵל הָיְתָה יְפַת תֹּאַר וִיפַת מַרְאֶה - Leah's eyes were tender, but Rachel had beautiful features and a beautiful complexion." What is the difference between תֹּאַר and מַרְאֶה? Rashi explains that תאר: הוא צורת הפרצוף לשון (ישעיה מד יג) יתארהו בשרד, קונפ"ס בלע"ז [מחוגה]: - features: That is the form of the countenance, an expression similar to (Isa. 44: 13)“he fixes it (יְתָאִרֵהוּ) with planes (בַשֶׂרֶד) ,” conpas in Old French, outline, shape.

So תֹּאַר is a physical beauty. But what is מַרְאֶה ?
מראה: הוא זיו קלסתר - complexion: That is the shine of the countenance.

So מַרְאֶה is more of a spiritual/aura/radiant beauty. However, when Paroh dreamed he dreamed of יְפוֹת מַרְאֶה cows, spiritually beautifully cows. If the idea of spiritual cows sound absurd to you, you're not alone: so did Paroh! When he recounted his dream to Yosef (41:18), he changed what he saw to וִיפֹת תֹּאַר, physically beautiful cows, rather than what he'd seen, יפות מראה spiritually radiant cows!

But Rashi and Gen. Rabba that we quoted ("when creatures appear handsome to one another, for no one envies his fellow") worked out what the dream was when we knew that really they'd been spiritually beautiful. Cows don't have spirits: people do. So clearly, the cows are metaphors for people. This is also how Paroh knew that Yosef's interpretation was right, as he saw that this interpretation accurately describes the nature of people, something he'd seen in his dreams and failed to recount.

But we can answer our original question: why is Rashi interpreting the dream? So the answer is, he isn't! He's pointing out to us that יְפוֹת מַרְאֶה should not theoretically be there, and the fact it is shows that there was more than meets the eye, he is telling us to question this.

This Dvar Torah should be a Zchus for the Neshama of Rut Nechama bat Noam Shlomo (v'Revital)

Geshmack!

Because That If....?

2009-12-11T01:00:00.007+02:00

The Pasuk says: " כִּי אִם זְכַרְתַּנִי אִתְּךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר יִיטַב לָךְ וְעָשִׂיתָ נָּא עִמָּדִי חָסֶד וְהִזְכַּרְתַּנִי אֶל פַּרְעֹה וְהוֹצֵאתַנִי מִן הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה - ??? remember me when things go well with you, and please do me a favor and mention me to Pharaoh, and you will get me out of this house." (40:14). The words כִּי אִם do not really belong here, as the translation above clearly shows - they do not add or change any meaning in the Pasuk. כִּי אִם translates loosely as "because that" and many variations. Certainly this translation isn't helpful in understanding the Pasuk, so what are they there for? As we have seen many times, it is because we have not understood the context clearly enough.

There is a story told by the Brisker Rov in the name of his father R' Chaim Brisker about the Rav of Kovno, (present day Kaunas in Lithuania). The story occurred while General Napoleon was marching through Eastern Europe. The lords and gentry wanted to please Napoleon as his armies passed through their lands, and they wanted to honour him by making a lavish evening whereupon they would bestow gifts and treasures to him. The province's leaders each took their turn to present him and his delegations with their offerings, and after a while, he noticed none of the Jewish community were represented, and he was relatively good to the Jews and questioned how come there were no Jewish leaders at the ball. The pronvince's leaders shuffled around uncomfortably, and explained that they did not feel the Jews to be members of society worthy enough of honouring Napoleon. He flew into a rage and insisted they bring a rabbi, and the gentry grew nervous. They sent for the rabbi from the nearest town, which happened to be the Rav of Kovno. (I couldn't find out who this was at the time of writing...) He was rushed to the ball and Napoleon requested that the rabbi say something truthful, something he'd felt was lacking in the previous speeches. The gentry were quaking at this point.

The Rav said that that week's weekly portion was ours, Vayeshev, and he'd never understood why the Pasuk had said כִּי אִם until the sequence of events that had unfolded that night that had enabled him to have an audience requested by Napoleon. He explained that without context, we don't see the bigger picture, (a concept we discussed regarding Chanuka already,) with regards to what on earth Napoleon was doing in this far flung corner of Europe. He said that things do not just happen "by the way". Everything is ordained, everything is planned in Heaven. Yosef was saying to the butler that he was innocent, and certainly that was the case: how does one prevent a fly falling into the wine as you drink it? But nevertheless he was imprisoned? Loosely applying this with the translation of כִּי אִם, "you are here because ie in order that you must remember me when things go well with you".

The Rav then proceeded to tell Napoleon that the reason he was near Kovno was because the Jews were being oppressed terribly, and he was here to save them. Napoleon applauded, and save them he did - he removed the gentry's stewardship over the Jews (albeit temporarily!).

Geshmack!

Being Thankful - for What?

2009-12-07T13:35:00.015+02:00

I was fortunate to hear this from R' Yaakov Hillel recently, and it is an absolute gem. He asked the Beis Yosef's question, and shared a very sweet idea about gratitude. The question is why we celebrate 8 days of Chanuka and not 7, seeing as there was enough oil for a day, meaning the extra benefit form the miracle was 7 days worth.

Chacham Hillel pointed us to a Rashi (29:35) that is based on a Midrash: הפעם אודה: שנטלתי יותר מחלקי, מעתה יש לי להודות - This time, I will thank: since I have taken more than my share. Consequently, I must offer up thanks. — [from Gen. Rabbah 71:4].
Although simple understanding of this would indicate that her rationale was that each wife would be mother to 3 of the tribes, and now that she had exceeded her fair share, she was grateful for the extra good G-d had done to her, but Chacham Hillel tells us this is not so.

The beauty (and difficulty!) of the Hebrew language is that it is hard to accurately translate as we don't know what the writer's intent was. But we can interpret Rashi differently - I've exceeded my portion (3), now I realise I ought to have been thankful before, ie she realised that there are no cheshboinos (plans), we can't second guess G-d. She realised she was wrong to have assumed that 3 is a "fair share", that even what is natural and makes sense is a miracle. This is a hard hitting idea. Each breath we take - who says that all the mechanisms that enable you to breathe - enable you to breathe? Who says up is up? By what mechanism is water wet? What binds all the atoms that you are made of? These are all absurd examples, but that is exactly the point - we are so familiar with things we consider "normal" and "natural", that we erase the incredibility we should really see this, we see them as "natural".

There is an amazing Gemara (Taanis 25a) about the righteousness and power of R' Chanina ben Dosa, that illustrates this point. He came home one Shabbos and saw his daughter weeping, and he asked why. She informed him that she had lit a lamp for Shabbos, that she had thought was filled with oil, but was in fact filled with vinegar, and she was weeping that they would have no light for Shabbos when the wick reached the vinegar, at which point it would extinguish. The reply: "מי שאמר לשמן וידלוק הוא יאמר לחומץ וידלוק" תנא היה דולק והולך כל היום כולו עד שהביאו ממנו אור להבדלה - "He who said that oil should burn will also say to vinegar to burn." And the lamp burned the entire (night and following) day until they lit a Havdala candle with it. This story speaks volumes about how skewed our perceptions are: nature is not natural.

R' Hillel explains that we celebrate the "extra" Chanuka to teach us something that seems so obviously in our faces that we don't see it - that we must be thankful for every single thing we have and do.

The way of a Jew is "modeh ani" - it's a chiddush, some people don't wake up. Thank you Hashem. "Zokef kfufim", "matir assurim", some people can't walk; paralysis, suddenly, after a lifetime of mobility. Thank you Hashem. When we realise that not only are the "miracles" miracles, but everything in between - "nifle'osecha v'tovosecha sheb'chol es, erev v'voker, v'tzohoroyim" - then we're really on our way to true hodo'oh of HaShem, and a better understanding of Hashem as the constant Boreh Olam.

[And then, just to add some R' Noach Weinberg zt"l (who he didn't mention), this is what really leads you to happiness, in line with Chazal's sameyach b'chelko. If you really understand your chelek, if you really grasp all that you have, if you take nought for granted and truly value the billion good things in your life, if you just stop for one minute a day and actually *try* to count your countless blessings...that's the "Happiness Game".]

Thanks Doniel for clarifying!

Also, Brisk Yeshivish has a post I enjoyed greatly on Chanuka.

A Lame Excuse?

2009-12-03T00:52:00.013+02:00

ויאבק איש עמו עד עלות השחר...ותקע כף ירך יעקב בהאבקו עמו - 'and a man wrestled with him until dawn...and his hip-socket was dislocated when he wrestled with him.'

Once we are told that "a man wrestled with him", isn't the repetition - "when he wrestled with him" a little redundant?

The Ksav Sofer points out that Rashi gives two interpretations on the word ויאבק: firstly, the word is from אבק - dust - that they kicked up a lot of dust through their movements. Or שחבקו ואבקו בזרועתיו - that they were embracing with their arms (which is also an essential part of wrestling, of course).

The first interpretation is in line with the way that enemies fight with each other, whereas the second has echoes of the way that friends embrace. This is precisely what Chazal mean when they discuss Maaseh Avos Siman LeBonim (This is a principle that very basically, histroy repeats itself to people's descendants) - see last week's post by SG for another example: there are two ways in which the enemies of the Jewish people try to bring them down (as is famously noted by Chazal in a number of a places - מיד אחי מיד עשו - he needed to be saved from both aspects of Esau as we are about to discuss). The first is by harsh decrees, pogroms, crusades etc. But what happens when they try this? You only need to hear what the Mossad agent who caught Eichmann (according to some - Isser Harel) stated that Eichmann said upon his capture - שמע ישראל ה' אלקינו ה' אחד - Shema Yisrael!

When questioned about how he knew this, he testified- as did many other Nazis, that it didn't matter which type of Jew was in the gas chamber, this was the constant phrase on the lips of those holy martyrs. When oppressed, the Jew gets closer to G-d. This doesn't work for our enemies. So they try another way - they befriend us, influence us, try to make us one of them. Through this, says the Ksav Sofer, they make us be פוסח על שתי סעיפים - straddling both worlds, so that we have one foot in both worlds and thereby are not totally part of either one, making us unable to walk properly...hence the limp This is the second interpretation of Rashi - because the initial wrestling did not work in overcoming us, they resort to the embrace. Unfortunately, history has shown the second method to be deadlier, as it distances us from G-d. Through this ותקע כף ירך יעקב - the point of the Bris is dislocated!

Amazingly, what follows is ויזרח לו השמש - the sun shone for him - i.e. after the dark period which equates to the harsh treatment of Galus, they attempt the sunshine or friendly treatment. This is the bit that damages us the most and we are פוסח על שתי סעיפים - in two places. And - this is the best part - it is this which indicates the inability to walk properly, or the limp. What are the words which follow ויזרח לו השמש? That he had a limp on his hip, the area of the Bris that signifies are relationship with G-d!

Incidentally, this explains the reason he asked to be saved "miyad achi miyad Eisav", on the one hand the destroyer, on the other, his brother, how could he resist?

Geshmack !

I am indebted to my dear chavrusa Gav C for alerting me to this most beautiful idea. Let us hope that, although we all have our imperfections, we still have the strength to lead each other towards the real sunlight. Remember: In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king!

What's so special about Jewish children?

2009-12-02T01:45:00.012+02:00

The Pasuk says "ה. וַיִּשָּׂא אֶת עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת הַנָּשִׁים וְאֶת הַיְלָדִים וַיֹּאמֶר מִי אֵלֶּה לָּךְ וַיֹּאמַר הַיְלָדִים אֲשֶׁר חָנַן אֱ־לֹהִים אֶת עַבְדֶּךָ - And he (Esau) lifted his eyes and saw the women and the children, and he said, "Who are these to you?" And he (Yakov) said, "The children with whom God has favored your servant." (33:5)

Esau wasn't a fool, he knew Yakov had his family and entourage with him. This is obvious, as he brought a small army with him to kill them all. So why then, does this conversation take the form of a chance meeting, as if it weren't apparent who they were and what their connection to Yakov - the head of the family, was?

Clearly, there is something else afoot. The Chafetz Chaim says that Esau saw something different in these children, and he was correct for identifying this difference. They were the first Jewish children - we are Bnei Yisrael, and Yakov's children were the first of the lot! He saw a difference in them from other children he'd encountered, and we need only look at Yishmael and Esau themselves to see how children behaved in that society, so naturally Yakov's children owuld act differently.

The Chafetz Chaim explains that the answer to what made them different is in Yakov's answer. He answered "אֲשֶׁר חָנַן אֱ־לֹהִים אֶת עַבְדֶּךָ - with whom God has favored your servant". Why did it not say the normal word for giving - נתן, instead it says חָנַן. The Chafetz Chaim teaches us that there is something else to be learned here that what made these children different was the merit of חָנַן- the Roshei Teivos of the 3 Mitzvos only women can perform - חלה ,נר , נידה - the laws regarding the seperation of Challah, lighting Shabbos candles, and family purity. Yakov said within his reply to his brother what made his children special, that his wives observed these laws. (Hamekubal's blog pointed these obligations out just the other day).

There are other interpretations of the נר part of observance, which just translates as light. The Sforno explains it to mean the light of Torah - it is a mother's obligation to ensure her children know Torah - "v'al titosh Toras imecha". How do we see this? There is a Gemara in Niddah which says that every baby in its mother's womb has 2 things - an angel that teaches the baby the whole Torah, which it forgets at birth when the angel taps its lip, and a light above its head. We don't see babies born with lights above their heads, so what does this mean? This means that the mother provided the circumstances through which the light of Torah shone on the child before its birth, and the mother is meant to nurture this "spark" into a full blown flame throughout the child's life.

There is a short story told about R' Yaakov Galinski and the Chazon Ish circa 1953, that explains us what the light or Torah does. They were walking together in the street at night, and were walking under streetlights. The Chazon Ish said "Wow!" every time he walked under a light, and his student, R' Yaakov asked what was going on. The Chazon Ish obliged, and explained a phenomenal lesson that Neil will appreciate. We are not meant to be arrogant people, but how does one work on this character trait if it is innate? The further away from the streetlight/light of Torah we are, the bigger your shadow appear. The closer we get to the streetlight/the light of Torah, the smaller we realise we actually are.

Geshmack ! Feedback appreciated :)

Yakov's Journey

2009-11-26T21:16:00.024+02:00

There are several Divrei Torah this week, click here to see the rest

"וַיֵּצֵא יַעֲקֹב מִבְּאֵר שָׁבַע וַיֵּלֶךְ חָרָנָה - And Jacob left Beer sheba, and he went to Charan"

Why would Yakov leave the kedusha of Eretz Yisroel and go to Charan? A place devoid of spirituality and ruchnius? Furthermore we know where Yakov lived, so why does the Torah stress that he left Be'er Sheva. If he went on a journey, presumably he started at home.

The Sfas Emes explains that Yakov's departure was a preparation for Klal Yisroel's eventual exiles in Chutz La'aretz. Yakov therefore voluntarily traveled to a place where Hashem's presence was more 'nistar', or less visible to show his descendants that even in the darkest of places, the torch of our faith can shine brightly, an example of Maaseh Avos Siman LeBonim.

Furthermore, Yakov Avinu showed us how we can keep our faith throughout our struggles and hardships. Be'er Sheva. the place he left, represents complete spirituality. A be'er is a well of water. Water is the life force of all creatures and figuratively represents the spiritual life force, the connection to G-d that sustains everything around us. Sheva means seven, representing the seventh day of the week - Shabbos.

Shabbos is a time that we distance ourselves from the mundane and unimportant things that occupy our lives. It is a time when we can elevate ourselves to higher spiritual levels. Eating and sleeping are things that we do every day that seem to be the polar opposite of spirituality. Yet on Shabbos they take on a new dimension as a part of oneg Shabbos and allow us to bring spirituality and a higher purpose into the physical aspects of our lives. Thus Be'er Sheva figuratively represents a place where the spiritual source of life and its connection to the physical world are apparent.

Yakov our ancestor showed us how to travel through the darkness. We must always remeber where we came from and do our best to connect to our spiritual source. We may find ourselves in places where G-d seems remote and we do not see his hand guiding events around us. Yet, we have the capacity to serve Him through simple actions and even thoughts. A kind word or deed, a brocho on what we eat, brings G-d into our lives and give us a spiritual lift in even our darkest of hours.

*my thanks to MD Tokayer of http://sfasemes.blogspot.com/ for helping to bring the Sfas Emes to light

What Goes Around...

2009-11-26T17:53:00.011+02:00

There are several Divrei Torah this week, click here to see the rest

The Pasuk says " ....עֵד הַגַּל הַזֶּה - This pile (of stones) shall be a witness..." (31:52)

Many Midrashim mention that Yaakov thrust a sword in to the wall as a second witness. The Da'as Zkeinim mentions this and then points out that Bilam ben Be'or's downfall was with these two, a wall and a sword. Why is this relevant?

He quotes a Gemara in Sanhedrin (105.) that "תנא הוא בעור הוא כושן רשעתים הוא לבן הארמי - Be'or is the same person as Lavan the Aramean and Kushan Reshasaim (an evil king in judges)", both of whom were mockers and scoffers who caused great difficulties for the Jews. Bilam was Lavan's son.

Bilam was damaged by a wall, (Numbers 22:25) as it says "וַתִּלְחַץ אֶת-רֶגֶל בִּלְעָם, אֶל-הַקִּיר - and his foot was crushed against the wall", and killed by the sword (ibid. 31:8) "וְאֵת בִּלְעָם בֶּן-בְּעוֹר, הָרְגוּ בֶּחָרֶב - also Bilam son of Be'or was slain by the sword".

There is a terrifying story in the Gemara quoted by Rashi and Tosfos (Taanis 8.) that a young boy found a girl who'd fallen into a deep pit, and promised to rescue her on the condition that she marry him. She consented, and they made the pit she was in and a passing animal witnesses. He rescued her and they went their seperate ways, and years later he married another woman, who bore him two sons. Unfortunately, one died falling into a pit, and another was killed by this animal. The woman asked why these bizarre misfortunes had befallen them, and he remembered the witnesses and his vow. His wife told him to divorce her and find this girl, which he did.

This is similar to the case of Bilam in that the witnesses came back to "remind" them of their duties, a clear demonstration of measure for measure.

Perhaps we can suggest an additional point to ponder: when Yakov entered Lavan's house, he clearly did not have sons, as otherwise why would he send his daughters to tend the sheep, surely a man's job? (We see this too by Yisro's daughters) Yet in this week's Sedra he clearly has sons (31:1). Lavan only had daughters until the blessing that Yakov brought with him gave him sons, and his own son broke his vow that nothing should befall his daughters.

These are a fulfilment of the Pasuk "יַד הָעֵדִים תִּהְיֶה בּוֹ בָרִאשֹׁנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ - The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death".

Scary stuff! But it is Geshmack to see how all the psukim are inter-connected!

United We Stand

2009-11-24T16:11:00.018+02:00

This week features a gem from R' Shamshon Ostropolier, but this is a contentious point, and has also been attributed to the Vilna Gaon and various Sephardic Baalei Drasha.

The Pasuk says " וַיִּיקַץ יַעֲקֹב, מִשְּׁנָתוֹ, וַיֹּאמֶר, אָכֵן יֵשׁ יְהוָה בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה; וְאָנֹכִי, לֹא יָדָעְתִּי - And Yakov awakened from his sleep, and he said, "I now know the Lord is in this place, and I did not know before." (28:16)

Clearly this means something else, and R' Shamshon Ostropolier obliges us. He explains that we know from Sefer Yechezkel there are 4 images on the Kisei HaKavod(G-d's Holy Throne), a lion, an eagle, a cherub and a man.

He then explains that אָכֵן is Roshei Teivos Aryeh (lion), Cruv (cherub, the angel that appeared on the Aron) and Nesher (eagle), and אָנֹכִי is Roshei Teivos Aryeh, Nesher, Cruv, and Yakov. This is what he was really saying; ""אָכֵן" I already knew were on the Kisei HaKavod, but after I saw the Kisei Hakavod in my dream, I saw "אָנֹכִי" with the additional yud, for Yakov ie that my face was the fourth, fitting enough to be on the Kisei HaKavod, לֹא יָדָעְתִּי".

I heard a very interesting explanation on how he saw himself as fitting from when he woke up and not before. There is machlokes how many stones Yakov took as the pasuk does not say how many. Pirkei D'Rebi Eliezer says that Yakov took 12 stones to put around his head. Before, all the stones were seperate and individual, and Yakov/Yisroel was not fit to be on the Kisei HaKavod. But once he woke up and saw they had combined to make 1 stone, then he was fitting to be on the Kisei Hakavod, and that's why he didn't know before. We can apply this to ourselves by saying that the 12 stones is a metaphor for the 12 Tribes, and clearly from this we can see that divided we are not fit to be on the Kisei HaKavod, but united, we are.

Why did G-d "relent" to Isaac and Rivka's prayers?

2009-11-15T20:19:00.008+02:00

You'll find we've already written a Dvar Torah that explains a Pasuk in Toldos, located here

This Dvar Torah blew me away. When it was clear that they would be unable to have children, Isaac and Rivka prayed, and the Pasuk (21:25) says:

'וַיֶּעְתַּר יִצְחָק לַיהוָה לְנֹכַח אִשְׁתּוֹ, כִּי עֲקָרָה הִו וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה - "And Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and He relented to him"

A gentleman once told R' Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld a short Dvar Torah on this. Why does the Pasuk say "and He relented to him". Does this not seems an odd way of saying that G-d heard and heeded his prayer?

The gentleman explained that there is a tradition that all the Patriarchs were meant to live until the age of 180. Yet Avraham died aged 175 (25:2). We can work this out: Avraham was 99 when he circumcised himself, 100 at Isaac's birth, 137 at the Akeida, at which point Isaac was obviously 37. Isaac was 40 at his marriage, and 60 at the birth of Yaakov and Esau (25:26) making Avraham 160 at their birth. Esau first murdered aged 15, making Avraham 175. There is a Rashi that Avraham would live to see Yishmael repent (25:9), but die before Esau killed someone for the first time (25:30). If he died aged 175, where are the missing 5 years?

The gentleman said to R' Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld that 'וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה is the answer. There was never any doubt that Isaac would have children, his father had been promised "nations", certainly Isaac would have children then, and Rivka would certainly be their mother as she was the one deemed worthy, as evidenced by the miracles Eliezer witnessed. וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה can be interpreted to mean that G-d did not want to give them children just yet, He simply wanted them to wait a bit longer so Avraham would not live to see his grandson become a murderer.

When R' Yosef Chaim heard this, he jumped up and exclaimed that this vort was Emess, because 'וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה is Gematria (numerical value) 748 (686+36+26), which is the same Gematria as חמש שנים - five years - 748, which represents G-d relenting to their prayers to have children at the expense of חמש שנים from Avraham Avinu's life.

R'Yosef Chaim also said that we say " רְצוֹן-יְרֵאָיו יַעֲשֶׂה; וְאֶת-שַׁוְעָתָם יִשְׁמַע, וְיוֹשִׁיעֵם - He will fulfil the desire of them that fear Him; He also will hear their cry, and will save them ". Isn't this in the wrong order? Doesn't Hashem fulfil their desires to placate their cries? R' Yosef Chaim explains that the prayers of a devout person are able to change what is meant to happen to people, which explains fulfilling their desires. But people don't know what's best for them, and sometimes suffer as a consequence of getting what they desire. The pasuk teaches that Hashem will even repair this later cry of suffering that is of their own doing.

Geshmack !

What did Avraham buy?

2009-11-11T16:06:00.000+02:00

This week is in keeping with the theme of the past few weeks, demonstrating the level of intricacy and detail in the Torah. This week's is courtesy of the Vilna Gaon.

The Pasuk says Avraham " וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָהָם, אֶל-עֶפְרוֹן, וַיִּשְׁקֹל אַבְרָהָם לְעֶפְרֹן, אֶת-הַכֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר "בְּאָזְנֵי בְנֵי-חֵת--אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף, עֹבֵר לַסֹּחֵר -" And Abraham listened to Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the hearing of the children of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant." (Gen. 23:16)

How much did he get for 400 shekels? Why are we told about all the specifics in the story, such as the price/negotiations, surely they don't really matter? You'll have to bear with me, as this answer is all literally over the place.

We will go on a tangent for a second, to Kesubos 17, where we are told that since the Torah was given to 600,000 adult men, this is the appropriate amount of people to have at a funeral. The Vilna Gaon proves that the land Avraham bought has this capacity.

First, I need to prove to you how much a se'ah is. A se'ah is a measurement of land size. The perimeter of the Mishkan courtyard was 100x50 amos (cubits - roughly 60 centimetres). It is known sometimes as "Beis Se'asayim", or 2 se'ah. The Mishkan was 100x50. A se'ah is therefore half of this, 50x50 amos. The amount of amos in a se'ah is 50x50, = 2500 square amos.

I now need to explain how much a kur is. It is also a meausrement of land, and is 30 times the size of a se'ah. 30x2500 amos = 1 kur = 75,000 square amos.

In Succah 7 the Gemara informs us that the amount of space a person occupies will standing is 1 square ama. If we are going to say that Avraham purchased land that could hold 600,000 people, it would need to be at least 600,000 square amos.

There is a Gemara in Erchin 25, that explains that when people want to retract donations to the Temple fund (hekdesh), they must pay a fee to redeem the item. The price set by the Gemara for land donations is 50 shkalim per kur.

Avrhaham Avinu spent 400 shkalim, which at the Gemara's price mean he bought 8 kur of land from Efron. We said that a kur is 75,000 square amos. 8 kur = 8x75,000 amos = 600,000 square amos.

This proves there was enough room on the land for 600,000 people to attend the funeral in keeping with the Gemara, but moreover, it further shows there is not a spare word in the Torah, the details of the narrative including the price were not written purely for the story's sake.

(This also proves how lucky we are to have the decimal system! :) )

If you thought this was Geshmack , leave a comment below!

Out of Context

2009-11-03T16:07:00.000+02:00

וַיַּעַן אַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמַר הִנֵּה נָא הוֹאַלְתִּי לְדַבֵּר אֶל אֲדֹנָי וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר - And Abraham answered and said, "Behold now I have commenced to speak to the Lord, although I am dust and ashes."

Rava in Tractate Chulin 88b says that the reward for saying this was that his children would earn the Mitzvah of the ashes of the Para Adumah (Red Heifer) and dust of the Sotah (a woman brought to the Temple accused of adultery was forced to drink a concoction which had dust from the foot of the Altar in it).

Beyond the obvious yet superficial connection of dust/dust, ash/ash, how are Sotah and Para Adumah a relevant reward to Afar v'Efer?

The legendary Dubner Maggid gives a Mashul as only the Dubner Maggid can; there was an upstanding member of society who made a wedding for his son, and all the people and Gedolim were invited. There was the top table for the family, and next to it, another for the Gedolim. The greatest rabbi invited shows up, wishes Mazal Tov, but feels unworthy of sitting in the prescence of the other rabbis, and quietly sits in the corner somewhere. The host feels that the rabbi is not being accorded due respect, and he requested that the whole table of rabbis move to the table in the corner to join this great rabbi. He manipulated the context to make the supposedly unworthy corner into one worthy of having the great rabbi sit there.

This explains the Pshat of the Dubner Maggid, that Hashem took what Avraham said, and changed the context from dust and ash with all their negative connotations, to dust and ash as Mitzvos, the essence of the Torah, the absolute opposite of dust and ash.

A slightly different Pshat was suggested by the Beis HaLevi: Dust of the earth has no past, but tremendous future; it can grow plant life, which itself is alive, can then sustain other life etc, whereas ash has no future whatsoever, but in the past was part of a living thing. Avraham meant Afar V'Efer to be that he had no past, like earth, and and no future, like ash.

Says the Beis HaLevi, Hashem inverted this, by giving the Mitzvah of Sotah, which cleans the woman's past, and Para Adumah which purifies the persons future. Genius, no?

Geshmack !

Breaking the chain

2009-11-02T02:47:00.000+02:00

In some ways, quite a simple one , that some may have heard before, but worth repeating as it shows meaning on every level that חז''ל set out for us...

There is an interesting debut appearance in this week's sedra - in 19:16 - a שלשלת (Shalsheles), a rare cantor's note. It is only to make 3 further appearances in chumash - in Chayei Sarah - 24:12, in Vayeshev 39:8 and in Tzav 8:23 So what is its significance?

Let's see in what contexts it appears...

In next week's sedra, Chayei Sarah, we find that Eliezer, Avraham's most trusted servant, is charged with finding a wife for Yitzchak. He is not allowed to take a wife from Canaan. The Midrash tells us that Eliezer had a daughter and it could have been in his mind that he might 'just not have found' a suitable wife outside Canaan. This could have left the path open for his daughter (although Rashi does point out that Avraham' friends Anar, Eshkol and Mamreh were next in line). Nevertheless, Eliezer overcomes any personal attachments and davens that 'ה should heed his master's request. This triumph over his own desires is signified by the Shalsheles on the word ויאמר - the opening word of his prayer.

In Vayeshev we see the tremendous personal struggle that Jospeh had to overcome. Indeed, by running out and leaving his coat behind, in the hands of his master's wife, it got him into more trouble in some ways. But on a personal level, he could not afford to be in the house a moment longer, refusing his master's wife's advances. That very word - וימאן (and he refused), has a שלשלת on it, denoting the breaking of his own potential negative desires.

As for the final appearance - in Tzav - the Midrash tells us that Moshe Rabbenu was the Kohen Gadol until the end of the Miluim, the first week of the Mishkan's use, at which point he had to hand over the position to his brother Aharon(according to various sources, because he argued at the burning bush). It must have been hard for him. Yet he overcame any personal desires and handed over the baton wholeheartedly. His final act as High Priest was וישחט...no surprises about the musical note on this word, at the point of his breaking with his own emotions...

Looking back at our Sedra, we see from Rashi that the Pasuk tells us that the angels had to grab hold of Lot because he was tarrying...leaving behind all his possessions. The first word of the Pasuk, which means he hesitated, contains a שלשלת - he overcame his physical desire for wealth and grabbed reality with both hands...literally.

It is no accident that Shalsheles actually means a chain. Furthermore, if you listen to its sound, it is elongated (3x a פזר - Pazer, another musicla note - which is long already), yet comes to an abrupt end, thus breaking the chain. See how wise Chazal are, even when ascribing the musical notes to the words...

מתוק מדבש!

Btw - obviously, you have 4 opportunities to use this Dvar Torah!

Geshmack!

לך לך and the sensitivity of syntax

2009-10-29T03:40:00.001+02:00

How about this one for a Shabbos Table pleaser?

At the beginning of this week's sedra, 'ה tells אברם, as he is called at this point, that ואברכה מברכיך ומקללך אאור - I will bless those who bless you and those who curse you, I will curse.
Why does 'ה change around the order of the verbs - following ואברכה מברכיך, it should say ואאור מקללך, thereby keeping the syntax the same?

There are 2 stunning answers that I saw a Rav - whose name escapes me at present - bring:

Firstly, the Vilna Gaon says as follows: we know that a ברכה given by an עשיר is going to be more generous than that of an עני, as he has the experience and comfort with which to issue such a ברכה. Conversely, an עני, who generally is perceived to suffer more, will likely give heavier curses than a wealthy man. Therefore, says the Gaon, it says ואברכה first with regards to ''מברכיך'', so that anyone who is blessing you should already be an עשיר at the point in time that he blesses you, so that the ברכה is maximised. However, when it comes to ''מקללך'', it only says that 'ה will curse him afterwards, so that at the time he curses אברם, he will still be an עשיר and the curse will be minimal!

That's beautiful answer number one...

Now for beautiful answer number two - from the כלי יקר: we have a concept of מחשבה כמעשה, that 'ה treats our thoughts as if they were acted upon. however, חז''ל point out that this is only with regards to our intended מצוות. with regards to our עבירות, Hashem doesn't treat our negative thoughts as having been acted upon.
Therefore, ואברכה - 'I will bless', occurs even before a man is an actual מברך, even at the point that he thinks it. מה שאין כן with regard to the מקלל who will only receive the reciprocal curse from 'ה if he vocalises it. Therefore, אאור only comes after he is established as such!

Now that is stunning!

מתוק מדבש!

Geshmack !

Benefitting from Miracles

2009-10-21T14:45:00.003+02:00

R' Chaim Brisker asks how the jug of oil the Hasmoneans found in the Chanukah story was suitable for use beyond the first day, seeing as it wasn't olive oil after the first day, it was שמן נס, and the commandment to light the Menorah was with olive oil specifically. However you answer the Beis Yosef's legendary question, at the end of the day, 7/8 days were lit with something that might physically have been olive oil, but wasn't from an olive! What was the point of using it after the first day? And secondly, there is a Gemara in Taanis 24 that states that one shouldn't benefit from a miracle:

"...מהא לא תזבנון, דמעשה נסים הוא..."

An example of this maybe the stories of old school Rabbonim in Eastern Europe who didn't have food for Shabbos, and when the Rebbetzin found something for them to eat, the Rabbi would refuse it on the grounds it would diminish from his Olam Habah, perhaps with this Gemara in mind.

Let us go on a tangent for a moment, to R' Yonasan ben Uziel by Parshas Vayakhel, in Shemos 35:27, where it says the princes, הַנְּשִׂאִם, brought הַשָּׁמֶן לְמָאוֹר and spices, but it says הַנְּשִׂאִם without the letter י. which Rashi explains to mean that their intentions were good, but their actions were lacking, in that they underestimated the will of the Jewish people to donate materials for the construction of the Mishkan, so their name was shortened here to teach us to act wholeheartedly. R' Yonasan ben Uziel explains differently, and he read Nesiim with no letters as Neshaim, Aramaic for clouds.

(כז) וענני שמיא אזלין לפישון ודליין מתמן ית אבני בורלות חילא וית אבני אשלמותא לשקעא באיפודא ובחושנא ומחתן יתהון באנפי מדברא אזלין רברבני ישראל ומייתן יתהון לצרוך עיבידתא

(כח) ותיבין ענני שמיא ואזלין לגן עדן ונסבין מתמן ית בושמא בחירא וית משחא דזיתא לאנהרותא וית אפרסמא דכיא למשח רבותא ולקטורת בוסמיא

Essentially, clouds came to the princes, with stones, oil and spices from Heaven! Hafla VaFeleh! (Unbelievable!)

R' Chaim Zevin asks R'Chaim Brisker's question here, how could they use these for the Mishkan, they might have physically been olive oil/stones/spices, but again, they were Maasei Nissim. And again, the Gemara in Taanis.

We can answer this by looking at our Sidra, 8:11

וַתָּבֹא אֵלָיו הַיּוֹנָה לְעֵת עֶרֶב, וְהִנֵּה עֲלֵה-זַיִת טָרָף בְּפִיהָ - the bird came back in the evening with an olive branch in it's mouth.

Hardly earth-shattering.

On this, the Ramban says:

"רבי ביריי אמר, נפתחו לה שערי גן עדן והביאה אות"

that ".....the olive branch was from Gan Eden". Earth-shattering!

Knowing this, R' Tzvi Pesach Franck concludes that we can differentiate between miracles. The cases we are discussing were not Yesh Meayin- something from nothing. These were Yesh MeYesh, something from something, they were in Heaven! They were then moved to Earth. They were thus completely permissible, much like the Manna, which was not a new "thing", rather, it is what the angels grind to make their bread (Tractate Yuma). He draws the conclusion that nothing new was created, which was what the issur by Taanis was referring to. That is to say that the miracle was not their creation, which would be forbidden to benefit from according to Taanis 24, but rather, their miraculous manipulation to be somewhere else at the relevant times.

Sneak peak at Parshas Toldos 27:25, where it says:

"וַיֹּאמֶר, הַגִּשָׁה לִּי וְאֹכְלָה מִצֵּיד בְּנִי--לְמַעַן תְּבָרֶכְךָ, נַפְשִׁי; וַיַּגֶּשׁ-לוֹ, וַיֹּאכַל, וַיָּבֵא לוֹ יַיִן, וַיֵּשְׁתְּ"

"And he said: 'Bring it near to me, and I will eat of my son's venison, that my soul may bless thee.' And he brought it near to him, and he did eat; and he brought him wine, and he drank."

If we read backwards slightly, the more astute reader will note that at no point did his mother prepare wine, and R' Yonason ben Uziel again points out the previous idea of things existing in Heaven and says

ואמר קריב לי ואיכול מצידא דברי בגין תברכינך נפשי וקריב ליה ואכל ולא הוה חמרא גביה ואזדמן ליה מלאכא ואייתי מן חמרא דאצטנע בעינבויי מן יומי שירוי עלמא ויהביה ביד יעקב ויעקב אמטי ליה לאבוי ושתי

".......an angel brought wine made from grapes that were in heaven since Creation......"

We can ask the same questions, Maasei Nissim, and assur to benefit from, and the answer is in the quote. They were in Heaven from creation. No problems! But what a phenomenal Yesod about the nature of Heaven...

Geshmack !

The Nature of Marriage

2009-10-16T18:32:00.000+02:00

R' Shamshon Refael Hirsch explains an idea where the first use of something in the Torah explains how it is used in all other cases. He cites the blessing by a Pidyon Haben "זה קטן, גדול יהיה" - this small one, may he become big". This blessing on the face of it, is pretty odd to say the least. He explains that the first instances of the words קטן/גדול, are in reference to the מאורות, the sun and moon. The moon only reflects light, whereas the sun actually produces light. The blessing thus means, that the baby, at the time, reflects the parents, and is incapable of looking after itself, should become like the sun, or a great person of his own right.

Adam has a problem of finding himslef an עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, a partner, and this problem is concluded when it says at 2:21

"וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר, תַּחְתֶּנָּה" - and He closed the flesh in its place.

This is the first time the letter ס is used in a non-name word in the Torah. Using the previously stated idea, there are several points to draw from here:

1. The letter ס, when spelt out, reads סֶמֶך, a support, meaning that the woman was meant to support the man and be there for him.
2. The letter ס is circular, and in Kabbalah, a woman is like a circle, and a man like a square. The woman is meant to be an עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, around him always. Incidentally, old rings in the cities of mekubalim like Tzfat have had rings found that were used at weddings, which have a square, the Kabbalistic representation of a man surrounded by a circle, illustrating this concept.
3. This circular idea is further demonstrated by the Gematria of עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, which equals 360, which happens to be the amount of degrees in a circle.

Geshmack !

How we have a Yetzer Hara

2009-10-14T11:11:00.000+02:00

וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים, הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ

" And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

ולא יתבוששו: שלא היו יודעים דרך צניעות להבחין בין טוב לרע, ואף על פי שנתנה בו דעה לקרות שמות, לא נתן בו יצר הרע עד אכלו מן העץ ונכנס בו יצר הרע וידע מה בין טוב לרע

and (they) were not ashamed: for they did not know the way of modesty, to distinguish between good and evil (Gen. Rabbah) (Targum Yerushalmi), and even though knowledge was granted him to call [all the creatures] names, he was not imbued with the evil inclination until he ate of the tree, and the evil inclination entered into him, and he knew the difference between good and evil. (Rashi)

It would appear from Rashi's words that prior to eating the forbidden fruit, he had no Evil Inclination. This being the case, how is it that Adam was capable of performing a sin, breaking God's commandment, seeing as he had no inclination to do so?

Furthermore, Chazal teach us that the purpose of creation was to partake in the service of God, by battling the Evil Inclination that tries to prevent one from fulfilling hsi duties and overcoming it. Again, this being the case, what function would the creation have served if there was no Evil Inclination, as we have understood Rashi to have said.

R' Chaim Volozhin explains that certainly Adam had all the faculties, notably free will, instilled within him before the sin, to enable to him to do as he saw fit. What he didn't have, was an internal urge to sin or do evil, rather, this Evil Inclination, Satan, was an external being to Adam, and it had to physically manifest itself as the snake to ensnare Adam and Eve, unlike today, where this battle is an internal battle, choice, decision.

If we review the original quote from Rashi, it would seem that he implies this:

"לא נתן בו יצר הרע עד אכלו מן העץ ונכנס בו יצר הרע"

that the Evil Inclination only became an innate thing in man once he consumed the fruit and it became part of him.

Geshmack !

Welcome

2009-09-18T01:17:00.000+03:00

How many times have you needed a super Dvar Torah at very short notice, and not been able to find one? I can't count the number of times I have... But the answer became clear to me, to start a blog releasing a Dvar Torah every week, hopefully by Thursday night, for Shabbosos and Yomim Tovim, to share the fantastic Divrei Torah I read and hear with the world, so they are not forgotten, especially not by me!

I also intend to have a Motzei Shabbos wrap-up of fantastic Divrei Torah I heard that Shabbos.

Enjoy :)