Pleasant Aromas

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.

Tribal lands

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.

Prayers... work!

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.

Who we are

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.

Forgiveness - Big deal?

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..."

:)

Cow Spirituality. What?

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!