Parshas Balak 5773 S. Rabinowitz, MD
June 17, 2013
Parshas Balak 5773
Moshiach
S. Rabinowitz, MD B”H
Parshas Balak is the seventh of ten parshios in Sefer BaMidbar. The parsha contains 104 verses, containing neither positive mitzvos nor prohibitions. Chapter 24 contains four prophecies of Bilam. The last of these begins as follows (translation adapted from R. Chaim Miller who bases it on Rashi):
R. Chayim haLevi Soloveitchik of Brisk (1853-1918) discusses the Sifrei in Parshas v’Zos haBrocho, which states that HaShem gave Bilam a prophetic ability equal to Moshe’s. If He had not done so, the nations of the world could have argued that their poor conduct was due to their disadvantage, the lack of a great prophet. HaShem therefore gave them a prophet of great stature, whose prophecies were incorporated into the Torah, but who aimed to use his powers only for curses and ruin.
Onkelos (35-120 C.E.), say Rabbis Drazin and Wagner (present day), understands this prophecy to refer to the near future. The “star” of our verse 17 means a king who will kill the princes of Mo’av. He and most others take “the descendants of Sheis” to refer to the third son of Odom and Chava, the ancestor of all mankind. Targum Yerushalmi (also called Pseudo-Yehonoson, probably compiled after Rashi’s lifetime) takes this to mean the people of Magog who will fight against Yisroel at the end of days.
Gemara Sanhedrin 105b points out the table-turning irony that Balak, King of Mo’av, who hired Bilam to curse Yisroel, became the ancestor of Dovid haMelech and Melech haMoshiach. In merit of the 42 offerings that Balak made to HaShem (a bull and a ram on each of seven altars set up in each of three locations), and despite the fact that he did so with a negative motive, Balak was the ancestor of Rus, who became the great-grandmother of Dovid and ancestress of Moshiach.
Ibn Ezra (1092-1167) and Chizkuni (1200s) deem our passage to refer to a time about 400 years into the future, to Dovid haMelech, who conquered Mo’av. The city in verse 19 means every city in Edom.
Rashi (1040-1105) says that the part of the prophecy relating to Mo’av refers to Dovid haMelech, but the subsequent portion refers to Melech haMoshiach, who will end the exile caused by the Roman Empire. The city in verse 19 is Rome.
Rambam (1135-1204) in Laws of Kings, sees in these verses a foretelling of Dovid haMelech, the first Moshiach, and his descendant, Moshiach ben Dovid: “I see him, but not now” is Dovid; “I perceive him, but he is not near” is Moshiach. “A star will shoot forth from Ya’akov” is Dovid; “A scepter-bearer will arise from Yisroel” is Moshiach. “He will crush the princes of Mo’av” is Dovid; “he will devastate all the descendants of Sheis” is Moshiach. “Edom will be a conquest” is Dovid; “Se’ir will be a conquest of his enemies” is Moshiach. Moshiach will be a devout Torah scholar, a divinely-inspired king, who will gather in the exiles, fight HaShem’s battles, rebuild the Beis haMikdosh, restore the full observance of Torah, bring knowledge of HaShem and reverence for our Creator to all the world’s people, and repair and perfect the world.
Ramban (1194-1270) says that this fourth of Bilam’s prophecies relates to the era of Moshiach. Bilam’s first prophecy, in verses 23:7-10, stated that Bnei Yisroel are G-d’s portion and His inheritance. The second prophecy (23:19-24) added that Yisroel would conquer Eretz Yisroel and kill its kings. The third (24:5-9) showed Yisroel living and multiplying in the Land with prosperity. They would appoint Sha’ul haMelech who would conquer Amalek and be further exalted with Dovid haMelech. These prophecies concern successively later dates, until this fourth section, which foresees HaShem’s plan for the end of all days. Just as a star crosses through the entire sky from east to west, Moshiach will sweep through the earth and bring all of the exiles back to Eretz Yisroel. Edom means Eisov, whose grandson Tz’fo ben Elifaz (BeReishis 36:11) founded Rome and is the ancestor of the Romans, who drove us into exile. Amalek was a half-brother of Tz’fo on their father’s side. The city in verse 19 is every city in the world that has waged war against Yisroel.
The Kli Yakar (1550-1619) says that HaShem does not permit anyone to be cursed who does not curse Him. Even those who might deserve a curse are protected if they do not cross that line. Yisroel, as a nation, has accepted devastating hardships without rejecting Him, and has always thanked Him for all favors, however small. In that way, we merited that Bilam could not curse us.
R. Yeshaya haLevi Horowitz, the Sheloh haKodesh (1565-1630) notes that Bilam begins verse 17 by saying that he sees, meaning clearly, and immediately adds “not now,” meaning less clearly. We should learn from this that every single passing day contains elements of the eventual total Redemption. The continued existence of Am Yisroel is part of the proof that the Redemption is an ongoing process. HaShem has fixed a date for it, a date that can be advanced if we deserve it (Sanhedrin 98a). Or haChayim (1696-1742) adds that the “star shooting forth from Ya’akov” refers to a spectacular arrival of Moshiach if Yisroel merits his early arrival. The “scepter-bearer arising” refers to a prosaic political process unfolding when we approach the fixed date. But, however the process begins, the end result will be spectacular.
R. Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) on verse 17: Stars go along appointed courses and are therefore signposts by which people find their way on earth. Ya’akov has until now had little respect because of his weakness, but a star will emerge from Ya’akov that will keep to a course appointed by
HaShem and show the Torah way for all of mankind. This star will also be a scepter with a governing influence over the nations, proclaiming HaShem’s sovereignty.
Korach by Dr. Mark Gersten
June 3, 2013
KORACH- THE TALE OF TWO WIVES
(in memory of a special wife-Helene) by Mark Gersten
The decision which a man makes in picking a wife probably has more impact than any other decision he makes in life.. Korach’s wife pushed him to challenge Moses for the role of leadership and Ahron for the role of High Priest. She derided him for letting Moses embarrass him by picking him up and shaking him even though Moses did the same to all the Levites including his own sons. In order to pacify his wife and gain respect in her eyes he challenged Moses’ authority. This eventually led to Korach’s demise. Ohn ben Pelis, on the other hand, originally planned to back Korach in his battle with Moses.. His wife dissuaded him, protected him, prayed that G-d forgive him and saved his life THE CHOICE MOST VITAL IN HIS LIFE
IS WHO A MAN PICKS FOR HIS WIFE
IN THE BIBLE WE CAN SEE
THE WRONG WIFE LED TO MISERY
KORACH’S WIFE DESERVES THE BLAME
SHE DROVE HIM TO SEEK STATUS, FAME
BY CLAIMING SELF RESPECT HE LACKED
HIS WORTH AND MANHOOD SHE ATTACKED.
IN AN ATTEMPT TO PLEASE HIS WIFE
KORACH WOULD FORFEIT HIS LIFE
HIS RIFT WITH MOSES ILL ADVISED
FOR IT WAS MOSES WHO G-D PRIZED
SWALLOWED BY THE EARTH G-D SPLIT.
KORACH’S END WOULD BE THAT PIT
OHN BEN PELLIS HAD A WIFE
WHO ABSOLUTELY SAVED HIS LIFE
ABSENTED HIM FROM KORACH’S FIGHT
WITH MOSES WHO WAS IN THE RIGHT
SHE SAT BEFORE THEIR OPEN TENT
WHEN FOR OHN SOME MEN WERE SENT
NO HAT OR COVER ON HER HEAD
OHN INSIDE WAS DRUNK IN BED
THE MEN WERE MODEST STAYED OUTSIDE
THEN WENT AWAY WHILE OHN DID HIDE
THE ISRAELITES SAW WRATH FROM G-D
KORACH’S JUDGEMENT SWIFT AND HARD
FIRST BURNED, THEN HE FELL THROUGH THE GROUND
BUT OHN WAS NOT THERE TO BE FOUND
ALTHOUGH OHN’S TENT, BEGAN TO TILT
HIS WIFE PRAYED, SO G-D CLEANSED HIS GUILT
A MIRACLE DID SAVE OHN’S LIFE
THAT MIRACLE WAS HIS WISE WIFE
Parshas B’Ha’aloscho 5773 S. Rabinowitz, MD
May 20, 2013
Parshas B’Ha’aloscho 5773 Eldod & Meydod S. Rabinowitz, MD B”H
Parshas B’Ha’aloscho is the third of ten parshios in Sefer BaMidbar. The parsha contains 136 verses, including three positive mitzvos and two prohibitions. Chapter 11, verses 24-29, presents the story of two men, Eldod and Meydod (translation adapted from R. Chaim Miller who bases it on Rashi):
The Gemara Sanhedrin17a, Sifrei 95-96, and Tanchuma B’Ha’aloscho 12 relate that Moshe had a political problem in choosing 70 elders from the 12 tribes to form a Sanhedrin which could lift some of the administrative burden from his shoulders (with Moshe presiding, the Sanhedrin would have 71 members). If he took six elders from each tribe, he would have 72. If he took six each from ten tribes, and five from each of the two remaining tribes, he would cause resentment, especially if they were to rule on a dispute between tribes. Moshe therefore selected a list of six men from each tribe, took 72 lots, wrote “elder” on 70 of them, and left two blank, intending to tell the two men who drew blanks that HaShem did not want them on the Sanhedrin. He then had the 72 candidates draw lots. Eldod and Meydod remained in the camp and declined to draw, saying they were not worthy; an alternative explanation is that they feared rejection. The two blanks were drawn by other men, but Eldod and Meydod did not know this, so their lots remained in the box. HaShem said that Eldod and Meydod had humbled themselves, so He would add greatness to their greatness, by permitting them to continue as prophets for the rest of their lives, long after the others had stopped. Three opinions are offered as to the content of their prophecy: 1) Forecasting about 38 years, they said “Moshe mes, Yehoshua machnis (Moshe will die, Yehoshua will lead (the nation into Eretz Yisroel)).” 2) Forecasting just a few days, they prophesied about the imminent arrival of the quails. 3) Forecasting until the end of time, they prophesied about Gog, King of Magog, who will attack Yisroel before the arrival of Moshiach. The Gemara considers that Yehoshua may have objected to the content of the prophecy if it concerned Moshe’s death, or he may have objected to any lesser person prophesying in the presence of the greater prophet, Moshe Rabbeinu. Ramban (1194-1270) adds that Yehoshua may have thought Eldod and Meydod to be false prophets or madmen. In our verse 28, the word kilo’aym may mean “destroy them” derived from the root chof-lamed-heh/destroy, or it may mean “imprison them,” derived from chof-lamed-aleph/prison, or it may mean that they should be given burdensome communal responsibilities. The spirit of prophecy only rests on happy people, so the burden would disqualify them from prophecy. If relatively small communal responsibilities did squelch their prophecy, the superior prophetic status of Moshe Rabbeinu, who bore enormous responsibilities, would be clear to all.
Rashi (1040-1105) questions whether Eldod and Meydod had committed a sin worthy of the death penalty. If they were not guilty of such a sin, and had been commanded by HaShem to publicize their vision, the burdening might be a legitimate way of silencing them. If, however, they received a vision of Moshe’s death, but were not commanded to publicize the information, and did it on their own initiative, this might constitute treason against Moshe, their King, and might merit the death penalty.
Targum Yerushalmi (probably compiled after Rashi’s lifetime, since he doesn’t mention it) and Yalkut Shimoni (13th century) say that Eldod and Meydod were maternal half-brothers of Moshe and Aharon. Amram divorced Yocheved because he didn’t want to bring more children into the world after Paroh ordered all Jewish boy infants drowned. She then married Elitzofon ben Parnach, Prince of Zevulun, and gave birth to Eldod and Meydod. Later, at Miryam’s urging, Yocheved was divorced from Elitzofon, remarried Amram, and bore Moshe. Da’as Zekenim mi Ba’alei haTosfos (probably in 1200s) say that Eldod and Meydod were paternal half-brothers of Moshe and Aharon. When Amram learned prophetically or from Moshe that the Torah would prohibit marriage with one’s aunt, he divorced Yocheved, married another woman, and they had Eldod and Meydod.
Rabbeinu Bachya (1255-1340) provides proofs that Eldod and Meydod were superior in prophecy to the other 70 elders. First, the Torah names them, but none of the other 70. Second, their prophetic spirit came directly from HaShem, without Moshe placing his hands on them, as is implied by our verse 26. Third, they foresaw the distant future, whereas the others foresaw only the imminent arrival of quail. Fourth, their prophecy did not cease after one day. Fifth, the other 70 elders all died in the desert, but Eldod and Meydod entered Eretz Yisroel: in BaMidbar 34:21 and 24, Eldod is called Elidod ben Kislon, the leader of the tribe of Binyomin, and Meydod is called Kemu’ail ben Shifton, leader of Efrayim (also found in Tanchuma and in BaMidbar Rabboh 15:19). R. Bachya also suggests their failure to obey Moshe’s order to present themselves at the Tent provides another basis for Yehoshua’s request to punish them.
Alshich (1508-1600) says that Moshe Rabbeinu, in our verse 29, points out that Yehoshua is personally involved in the Eldod/Meydod prophecy, and therefore, he, of all people, is legally prohibited from taking a position on it. Or haChaim (1696-1742) says that Yehoshua’s request to punish Eldod and Meydod may itself be an instance of a student rendering a halachic opinion in the presence of his teacher. The penalty for this, according to Gemara Eruvin 63 is the offender not leaving any children in the world when he dies, which appears, according to Divrei haYomim I 7:27 to have been the case for Yehoshua. Another offense may be that Yehoshua called his teacher by his name, Moshe (Shulchan Orach, Yorah Dei’ah 242:15, Shach quoted by R. Moshe Bogomilsky (contemporary)).
R. Avrohom Yehoshua Heschel (1595-1663) in Chanukas haTorah asks, “How did Rashi know that the prophecy was “Moshe mes, Yehoshua machnis,” which is not stated in the Torah?” He answers that the baby Moshe was rescued from the Nile by Basya, daughter of Paroh, who named him Moshe, saying “Ki min ha’mayim mishisihu (for I drew him from the water) (Shmos 2:10).” Since the Torah appreciates brevity, she should have more succinctly said, “mi’mayim mishisihu,” eliminating the letters nun and heh. She chose not to do this, because mi’mayim, spelled mem-mem-yud-mem is an acronym for “Moshe mes, Yehoshua machnis.” Our verse 26 begins by saying that two men remained in the camp (ba’machaneh) and ends by stating they became prophets, unnecessarily adding “ba’machaneh.” The word machaneh can be divided into “mach,” meaning mechikoh/erase, and the letters nun and heh. So, in this extra word “ba’machaneh,” the Torah tells us that Eldod and Meydod were testifying that the nun and heh added by Basya would be erased. This explanation is also provided by Maharil Diskin (1818-1898).
R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) saw Eldod and Meydod as advocates for democracy as opposed to rule by an oligarchy. They preferred to remain among the people. In the prophecy about Gog, who appears to be a dictator, they herald the triumph over him by the hamonoh/City of the Masses (Yechezkel 39:16). In the eyes of Eldod and Meydod, no man, not even Moshe, is irreplaceable.
The Netziv (1816-1893) looks at our verse 25, at the last words “v’lo yosofu (which could mean ‘they didn’t add’),” and derives a special understanding. Ordinarily, each prophet tells his story in his own unique style (Gemara Sanhedrin 89a). But all of the elders who received a portion of Moshe’s spirit prophesied in exactly the same words that Moshe would have used, adding nothing. Eldod and Meydod were independent, and spoke in their own styles. Yehoshua’s task was to perpetuate Moshe’s administration, so, to mix metaphors, he was comfortable with carbon copies, but troubled by “loose cannons.”
Meshech Chochmoh (1843-1926) says that the prophecy that Moshe would die and Yehoshua would lead, a prophecy that went without rebuke by Moshe, terrified the people. They tried to deify Moshe, and couldn’t imagine entering Eretz Yisroel without him. This form of idolatry fed into the sin of the spies.
R. Zalman Sorotzkin (1881-1966) says that the prophecy that Yehoshua, a member of the tribe of Efrayim, would rule after Moshe, was granted to Eldod and Meydod because they represented the tribes of Binyomin and Efrayim, descendants of Rochel Imeinu, thereby consoling those tribes for the loss of two seats on the Sanhedrin that they would have occupied, had they not been so modest.
R. Moshe Bogomilsky quotes the seven-volume Torah commentary Iturei Torah by R. Aharon Ya’akov Greenberg (1900-1963), who in turn quotes the Vilna Gaon (1720-1797): A saying in Gemara Megillah 18a informs us, “mila b’sela, mishtoka b’trein (a word is worth a sela, silence is worth two).” The Gaon puns on the word “sela,” which can refer to a unit of Talmudic-era currency, but can also mean a rock. In this light, if Moshe had spoken one word, “mayim/water,” to the rock, he would have been spared the prophecy of the two, Eldod and Meydod. Or, as Iturei Torah says, if Moshe had spoken the one word to the rock, he would have been spared striking two blows.
Peace of Parsha- Bamidbar -Dr. Laura Danoff
May 10, 2013
Peace of Parsha- Bamidbar -Dr. Laura Danoff
The Book of Bamidbar is also called Sefer Hapekudim (The Book of Numbers) because in it a census of the Jewish people is taken not only once but twice. The Hebrew term for census- taking is s’u es rosh, which means, ” lift up the head”. By counting, Hashem reminds us how each one of us is important and how each one of us is given a special purpose in life that only we can fulfill.
The parsha opens with G-d’s commandment to Moshe and his brother Aharon to go ahead and conduct a counting of the Jewish people. The Children of Israel had already been counted numerous times before; once when they went down to Egypt, a 2nd time upon their exodus and then after the incident of the sin of the golden calf in order to know the number of survivors.
Does G-d who is absolutely omniscient need to count the Jews to determine their actual population if he already knows it? Rashi states that Hashem repeatedly counted the Jewish people because of his love for them. Hashem commands Moshe to count each Jew as “one” so each person is considered significant and equal before Hashem since each one possesses a spark of his neshomah. Ramban says that the Hebrew word for count “pakod” can also mean to be concerned with or remember.
G-d commanded that the Jews be counted to show us that each man rich or poor, learned or ignorant are all equal members of the Jewish nation. Every Jew and at any level has an equal share in the Torah.The census taken in Bamidbar though was different than those taken prior. Here, Moshe was commanded to” take a census of the entire assembly of the Children of Israel according to their families of their paternal household.” Rashi says that each person (male from ages 20-60) had to present his genealogical documents and witnesses so that each person could be registered in his tribe and family. The family unit thus constituted the foundation of the Jewish nation and each person registered according to his own Hebrew name.
After being introduced to Moshe and Aharon by name and background, Moshe gave each person a blessing. According to Rav Alpert, this was Hashem’s way of trying to give confidence to a nation of former slaves.
In Parsha Bamidbar it states: “Each man of the Children of Israel shall encamp alongside his banner according to the insignia of their father’s house”. The names of Avraham, Yitzhak, and Ya’acov were written on the banners. The total number of letters of the names of our forefathers is thirteen which is the numerical value of the word Ehad (one). This reminds us that all Jewish people should be united as one and it is this unity that will raise the Children of Israel to absolute greatness.
There were 603,550 men available for military service. The tribe of Levi, which numbered 22,300, was exempt from military service because of their special responsibilities as religious leaders and were commanded to serve in the sanctuary and guard its vessels. Originally, this honor belonged to the firstborn males of the Children of Israel who were spared by Hashem during the plague of the firstborn in Egypt. This privilege was taken away from them because of their participation in the sin of the golden calf and thus this distinction was given to the Levites. All Levite males were counted from the age of one month and older. This explains why the pidyon ha- ben is done at 30 days for the firstborn males who are not of Levite descent.
The Torah portion of Bamidbar is usually read the Shabbat before the holiday of Shavuot, when G-d gave us the Torah. Shavuot is the only holiday for which the Torah did not establish a specific day of the month. It is celebrated on the 50th day, after counting the Omer for a period of seven weeks. We prepare for Shavuot by counting numbers.
We should all be “counting” our blessings that we were given the Torah. Each of us must recognize our important role in committing ourselves to the Torah to follow its laws, and study its endless wisdom bringing its application into our daily lives. Our boundaries and rewards are endless just like the desert where the Torah was given. Without the Torah nothing would count!
This Peace of Parsha is dedicated to my husband Scott in honor of our wedding anniversary. Thank you for always making each day count!
Behar/Bechukotai by Mark Gersten
April 30, 2013
BEHAR/ BECHUKOTAI by MARK GERSTEN in memory of HELENE
BEHAR:
WHY OF ALL MITZVOT WAS SHMITAH PICKED TO BE SINGLED OUT IN OUR SEDRAH AS THE ONE GIVEN TO THE PEOPLE ON HAR SINAI? PERHAPS BECAUSE MOST MITZVOT ONLY HELP US HONE AND DEVELOP ONE MIDAH AT A TIME. SHMITA HELPS US DEVELOP TWO:
1)FAITH: FAITH IN HASHEM THAT HE WILL PROVIDE FOOD FOR US FOR 2 ½ YEARS (THE SIXTH SEVENTH AND START OF THE EIGHT) , SINCE WE CAN’T PLANT OR HARVEST ON SHMITA, THE SEVENTH YEAR.
2)HUMILITY- THE LAWS OF SHMITA REQUIRE THAT WE OPEN OUR FIELDS TO ANYONE TO GLEAN ANY PRODUCE THE FIELD DOES HAVE. WE PROUD, LANDOWNERS. MUST LET ANYONE COME ON OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY AS IF IT WAS ALSO THEIRS AND NOT JUST OURS
FIRST AT SINI ,MOSES CHOSE
THE MITZVAH “SHEMITA” TO DISCLOSE.
WHY OF ALL THE ONES HE COULD
HE FELT THIS WAS THE ONE HE SHOULD?
TWO MAJOR LESSONS DOES IT SHOW
THROUGH IT OUR FAITH IN G-D CAN GROW.
FIRST, ONE CANNOT PLANT HIS FIELD
THE SEVENTH YEAR TO TAKE ITS YIELD.
SHABBAS YOU CAN’T WORK ONE DAY,
WITH SHEMITAH ONE WHOLE YEAR’S DELAY.
NO CHANCE TO EARN YOUR DAILY BREAD,
FULL FAITH IN G-D YOU NEED INSTEAD.
AND SECOND, HUMBLE YOU MUST BE.
NOT SHOWING ANGER ,JEALOUSY,
WHEN PEOPLE TRAMPLE ON YOUR FIELD
AND TAKE TO EAT ITS MEAGER YIELD.
ANYONE CAN COME OR GO,
ONTO YOUR FIELD YOU CAN’T SAY NO.
THIS ANCESTRAL LAND FROM HASHEM
THIS YEAR MUST SHARE WITH ALL OF THEM
BECHUKOTAI
G-D PROMISES THAT IF WE LISTEN TO HIS TORAH OUR LIFE WILL BE BLESSED. LATER THE SEDRAH TELLS US THAT ALLTHE CURSES CAME UPON US BECAUSE WE DID NOT SERVE HIM WITH JOY
G-D SAYS:
IF YOU FOLLOW MY DECREES,
COMMANDMENTS YOU PERFORM,
YOUR BREAD WILL BE ABUNDANT
AND YOUR VINYARDS OUTPERFORM.
YOU WILL HAVE AN INNER PEACE
FROM FAMILY AND FROM FRIENDS.
THE FEAR OF HOSTILE NATION’S DANGER
WILL COME TO AN END.
BUT DO IGNORE MY STATUTES
AND TREAT ME CASUALLY,
NINETY-EIGHT HARSH PUNISHMENTS
WILL COME TO YOU FROM ME.
BUT ASIDE FROM DOING MITZVOT
PLEASE BE VERY SURE
THAT YOU APPROACH ME HAPPY,
JOYFUL, FEELING QUITE SECURE
REALIZE ALL THE GOOD I GIVE
TO YOU EACH DAY THAT YOU LIVE
APPROACH ME AS BOTH FATHER,KING
PRAISE ME WITH THE SONGS YOU SING
IN THIS WAY BLESSINGS WILL UNFOLD
AND BENEFITS IN WAYS UNTOLD
OUR ANSWER SHOULD BE
When with words of psalms we start
Approach the Lord with gladdened heart
We prove our joy with words of song
What the Lord wants all along
And when we’re happy as we should
We thank Hashem for all the good
It makes him want to give us more
That’s what man was created for
For G-d could sit upon his throne
King of the world supreme, alone
But chose to make things grow and live
Because of his great wish “to give”
… GOOD SHABBAS
Parshas Acharei-Kedoshim Revenge Stephen Rabinowitz, MD
April 17, 2013
Parshas Acharei-Kedoshim 5773 Revenge Stephen Rabinowitz, MD B”H
Parshas Acharei, the sixth of the ten parshios in Sefer VaYikra, contains 80 verses. The parsha contains two positive mitzvos and 26 prohibitions. Parshas Kedoshim contains 64 verses, including 13 mitzvos and 38 prohibitions. This year the two parshios are read together.
Parshas Kedoshim begins with the statement that Bnei Yisroel should or will be holy or sanctified, meaning that we will be placed in a distinct category separate from other people, dedicated to a special purpose, and required to adhere to a code of conduct beyond just “doing what comes naturally.” We may not simply indulge our appetites and convenience; but, rather, in every situation, we must be detail-oriented, read the label, and make specific, informed choices. We can only get through the maze of life by making the right choices. Two of the prohibitions included in this code forbid taking revenge (nekimoh) and bearing a grudge (netiroh) (VaYikra 19:18, and verse 17 is provided for context) (translation adapted from Rabbi Chaim Miller, based on Rashi (1040-1105)):
| יז לֹא-תִשְׂנָא אֶת-אָחִיךָ בִּלְבָבֶךָ; הוֹכֵחַ תּוֹכִיחַ אֶת-עֲמִיתֶךָ, וְלֹא-תִשָּׂא עָלָיו חֵטְא. | 17 You should not hate your brother in your heart. You should continually rebuke your fellow, but you should not bear sin (by embarrassing) him (in public). |
| יח לֹא-תִקֹּם וְלֹא-תִטֹּר אֶת-בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ, וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ; אֲנִי יְקוָק. | 18 You should neither take revenge nor bear a grudge against the members of your people. You should love your fellow as (you love) yourself; I am HaShem. |
Most of the commentaries on these verses relate to loving one’s fellow, but this dvar Torah will focus on the aspects of “revenge” and “grudge.” The Gemara Yoma 23a and the Midrash Sifra 4:10-11 define these terms. Here is the example of revenge: One man said to another, “Lend me your sickle.” The second man said, “No.” The next day the second man said to the first, “Lend me your hatchet.” The first man replied, “I am not lending it to you just as you did not lend me your sickle.” Here is the example of a grudge: One man said to another, “Lend me your hatchet.” The second man said, “No.” The next day the second man said to the first, “Lend me your shirt.” The first man replied, “Here it is for you; I am not like you; you did not lend me your hatchet.”
Strictly speaking, someone who was subjected to personal suffering, more than just a denied loan of a utensil, may be permitted revenge, but the Rabbis say he should not take it. The Gemara considers the special case of a Torah scholar who has been insulted or disgraced, particularly in public, and particularly on a religious rather than a personal issue. This insults not only the scholar, but also HaShem and the Torah, and cannot be ignored. The Torah scholar may not take personal revenge or look for personal benefit, but he should keep the incident in mind, and not interfere when someone else avenges the honor of HaShem and the Torah. King Saul was punished because he prevented others from avenging the King’s honor.
The Netziv (1816-1893) was fond of quoting the Talmud Yerushalmi Nedarim 9:4: A man was cutting a piece of meat with a knife. He slipped and stabbed his hand. Would he avenge this injury by stabbing the hand that held the knife? That would be absurd. Similarly, since klal Yisroel is one entity, one Jew shouldn’t even consider taking revenge on his fellow Jew. It would be like stabbing himself. We must see ourselves as members of one nation, HaShem’s nation. Revenge is like “friendly fire” or a so-called “blue on blue” incident, wounding our own troops. We can take this idea a step further. When we put aside our egos (admittedly hard to do) and think of ourselves as connected to HaShem, it becomes absurd for any of us to sin against HaShem. It is like stabbing ourselves. The Chofetz Chaim (1838-1933) had a similar example. Someone was desperately looking for a fellow named Reuven. While searching, he came upon a man named Shimon. Should he get angry at Shimon just because he is not Reuven? That would be crazy! When HaShem wants him to find Reuven, he will find him. Likewise, when HaShem wants him to receive some benefit, he will receive it, and no one will deny him.
Ibn Ezra (1092-1167) notes that these mitzvos deal with private thoughts and emotions, but collectively they set the tone for the whole nation. Yisroel as a nation is only permitted to live in Eretz Yisroel when these mitzvos are observed. The second Temple, says Gemara Yoma 9b, was destroyed because of unjustified, unwarranted hatred, even though the people were occupied with Torah, mitzvos, and acts of kindness. Sadly, the unwarranted hatred persists to our day.
Maimonides (1135-1204): A person who has been wronged should try to eliminate the matter from his mind. When asked for forgiveness, one should sincerely and willingly forgive and be easily pacified. Violations of the laws on revenge and grudges cannot, however, be punished with flogging, because the essence of the crime is a thought, not an action.
Chizkuni (1200s): The Torah does not obligate a person to lend possessions. Even though a person should try to be generous, and not stingy, refusing only becomes a sin when it is based on hatred, which is far worse than miserliness. On the other side, the person whose request was denied has no right from the Torah to demand the loan of another person’s property and should not resent a refusal.
Ramban (1194-1270) explains limitations to the law: no money is involved in the Gemara’s examples of lending articles. When damages, theft, or other monetary issues are involved, one is not required to release a claim, and is permitted to sue in a Jewish court. This is not called revenge. In cases of murder or manslaughter one should definitely bring the perpetrator to court. Revenge is only authorized within the rules of the Torah and the Jewish court, which transform it from revenge to justice.
R. Leon of Modena (1571-1648) in his Tzemach Tzaddik quotes Pythagoras (570-495 BCE), “If your finger poked your eye, or your teeth bit your tongue, you wouldn’t take revenge on your finger or your teeth, since they are parts of yourself. So should you treat your fellow.” He also quotes Plato (427-347)(who met the prophet Yirmiyohu at the ruins of the First Temple, according to the Rema (1520-1572) in his Toras haOloh), “If one avenged every wrong, his Lord would soon return the world to chaos.”
Or haChaim (1696-1742) says that all Jewish souls are branches of the Holy Name of HaShem. This Kabbalistic concept informs us that a unification of the individual hearts of Bnei Yisroel enhances HaShem’s Own unity. The Torah therefore advances a four-step program to achieve this goal: 1) one must not hate a fellow Jew; 2) one must not take revenge against a fellow Jew who offended; 3) one must not even bear a grudge; and, 4) one is to love one’s fellow Jew.
R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, the Ramchal (1707-1746) in his Mesilas Yesharim cautions that revenge is sweeter than honey. The yetzer horoh/evil inclination always tries to seduce us with anger, with outrage at the wrongs done to us, driving wedges between ourselves and others. It is almost as difficult as becoming an angel to avoid this trap, but a person who understands can succeed.
Meshech Chochmoh (1843-1926) looks for a reason for the prohibition of revenge and grudges. He finds it in the word komocho/as yourself. Love your fellow because he is similar to you, one of HaShem’s Am Yisroel, just as you are. The paradigm of not bearing a grudge is Yosef haTzaddik. Yosef repaid the enormous injury done to him by his brothers with kindness, not revenge. He had the ability to see the hand of HaShem in the events, to recognize the good in his brothers despite their faults, and to take the high road. We should strive to emulate Yosef’s example.
Parsha Tazria and Metzora by Dr. Laura Danoff
April 10, 2013
Parsha Tazria and Metzora-Peace of Parsha
Dr. Laura Danoff
King Solomon said, ” Life and death are in the hands of the tongue” (Proverbs 18:21). The Talmud explains that negative speech, Lashon hara, is even worse than a sword- it kills many people, even at great distances.
This week’s double torah reading of Tazria and Metzora emphasize the importance of avoiding Lashon hara. Tzarat, a skin disorder commonly mis-translated as leprosy comes specifically as a result of Lashon hara- negative speech about another. The word metzorah is a contraction of motzi raah- meaning to speak evil of others.
Tzara’at was only acquired because one spoke badly of other people. The physical skin disorder was caused by a spiritual defect. The “metzora,” the one afflicted with tzara’at had to stay outside the city until he or she was spiritually pure.
The Talmud tells us that the punishment of the metzora is imposed “measure for measure”: his gossip build walls of bad feelings and mistrust between people thus isolating them from each other, therefore he too is isolated and separated from society.
The purification process for the healed metzora included a branch of cedar wood, a thread of scarlet, and a bunch of the small hyssop plant. The cedar is the tallest and strongest of all trees around. The cedar wood reminds of how arrogance is the root cause of tzara’at. The scarlet represents the sin and the eizov, the hyssop is the lowliest of the herbs. In order for repentance one must recognize his arrogance and realize people who say bad things about other people typically don’t recognize their own faults.
In a few words, we can ruin someone’s life and often we think it is nothing. Lashon hara will harm three people. It will harm you, the person listening, and the person you are talking about. The sin of Lashon hara is dangerous and boundless.
It is very interesting that Tazria, the title of the parsha, which describes the impurity of the metzora, actually means conception or the beginning of a new life. The name of the parsha, which is devoted mainly to something so negative, denotes fertility and goodness!
Maimonides tells us that tzara’at was a miraculous sign from G-d. The main symptom was that a patch of skin turned white. It gave warning to the person that he was speaking badly of others. There were different levels: 1st there was an affliction of one’s house, then of one’s clothing, and finally on one’s body. The Kohen would decide if the afflicted person had to live outside the city to think over his attitude to other people and to do teshuvah. When the skin disorder healed he returned to normal life. G-d showed this person that he was doing wrong. It showed G-d’s presence among the Jewish people. It forced the person to take a good look at himself and improve and make things right. By making teshuvah his “inside” condition was corrected, thus making him a better person. The negative was turned into a positive, a mark of growth.
The power of speech is tremendous. A person may have a negative characteristic but his good nature will suppress it and redirect it for good purposes. When someone speaks about this person’s negative trait it becomes much more real, brings it out in the open, and gives it a sense of validity and substance in a far greater matter. When we speak poorly of others, we are less inclined to perfect and improve ourselves.
Without Lashon hara, people would be more honest, nicer and the world would be a better place. We need G-d’s help and therefore complete ever Amidah service with “My G-d, guard my tongue from evil and my lips from speaking deceitfully.”
Shabbat Shalom!
This d’var torah is dedicated in honor of the memory of my mother Sasha Fagela bat Yosef. May her neshama have an aliyah.
TZAV by Dr Mark Gersten
March 19, 2013
TZAV by Dr Mark Gersten in memory of Helene
Imagine if you lived in the days of a powerful king who made an edict that no commoner could for example do commerce on Sundays (under penalty of death.) You woke up one Sunday morning, by accident, forgot it was Sunday, and sold a bushel of your corn to somebody passing by who was happy to buy it from you. Later you were arrested, The king had sent that passerby to test you. Your claim that you ignored his law by accident would not work. You would be executed. Hashem the King of Kings made a law that we cannot do work on Shabbas. If we err forgetting it is Shabbas or not realizing that an action is work, he gives us “an out”. We bring an animal instead of ourselves to be killed and sacrificed to him. We see what our fate should have been. This helps us remember to be more careful with G-d’s laws next time. Our G-d is most merciful and his institution of an animal sacrifice to replace our punishment is a great kindness to us.
DO INADVERTANT SINFUL THINGS
YOU MUST BRING “CHATAS” OFFERINGS,
PROTECTS YOU FROM YOUR EVIL ACT,
TO HOLD G-D’S RETRIBUTION BACK.
BUT YOU MUST FIRST THINK AND SURMISE
AND THEN FOR SURE INTERNALIZE,
HOW THIS SINGLE ACT OF SIN
CAN HARM THE SOUL YOU HAVE WITHIN.
A SHEEP OR KID BROUGHT TO CORRECT.
FIRST SLAUGHTER THEN ITS BLOOD COLLECT.
TO SPRINKLE IN A HOLY WAY
SO G-D FORGIVES YOUR SIN THAT DAY.
ALTHOUGH A DEATH SHOULD BE YOUR FATE
A GENTLE G-D WITH KINDNESS, GREAT
ACCEPTS THE SHEEP AS PROOF AND SIGN
YOU’LL BE MORE CAREFUL THE NEXT TIME.
Parashat Vayikra by Jeroen Reuven Bours.
March 15, 2013
Parashat Vayikra by Jeroen Reuven Bours. Lessons in fundraising.
You can say that one lesson we are learning this week is the art of fundraising. Rashi points out that the words: “Adam ki yahk-riv mi-chem karban…” - When a man from among you brings a sacrifice…” - mean that HaShem is not ordering to make an obligatory sacrifice, but rather a voluntary one. Rashi goes on in vayikra rabbah (2:7) to emphasize the use of the word “adam” - “man”. It is to point out that just as Adam never used property that wasn’t his - since everything technically was at the time, so should no one else ever use stolen property to make a sacrifice. The word sacrifice itself has over the years grown into a double meaning: you sacrifice for HaShem with something you have to give up - which is your personal sacrifice. With other words, to do it right you have to “sacrifice in order to sacrifice.” In a way, this is a lesson in how to do Tsedakah properly. Is this not really a lesson in how to voluntarily give? How to give from the heart? HaShem is asking for volunteers without pointing them out. And the word: “Karbaneichem…” - “your sacrifices…” - in plural, also teaches us that if the means aren’t there to make your own voluntary gift or offer, you may do it as a community. Rashi states (Shev. 12 a) that each year every twenty year old was asked to give a half-shekel - with which a communal offering could be bought. This was done to prevent the altar from being “empty” from sacrifices in case there were no individual donations. What we see here, are the first ground rules in membership fees and donation structure. Every synagogue has its membership fees and on top of that we use professional schnorrers to ask for more. Same thing. What is fascinating is the lengthy dissertation that follows wherein the Torah describes what can be offered and how. Judging by the various animals that are accepted and their different values, one can conclude that no matter how big or how small the animal, the sacrifice is the same. The value is not called out to be of importance. Today, we cherish donors who donate the most. We put them on pedestals. We name buildings after them. Yet, no one points out that one hundred dollars coming from one donor can be a bigger sacrifice than one million dollars from another. Rashi points out: “…one may bring even a single bird” (Torath Kohanim 1:77). The Torah makes no clear distinction between “…from animals, from cattle or from the flock.” And it is interesting to see how the order is presented. Sometimes, at a fundraising we will see the smallest amount presented first: usually 18 followed by 36 followed by larger and larger amounts as if to protect those who can only give a little. The Torah works the other way. The word animals include the largest animals; the word cattle, also means large to medium sized animals, and lastly the word flock, means somewhat smaller animals. But all words are in plural not to stop anyone from giving more. And as Rashi points out, the Torah makes sure that anyone can give, even if it is just one bird. And may you not be able to do that, than give as a group (Olaht Kitz HaMizbach). It is not the size, nor the amount that is important here; it is the voluntary act of giving. It is not about celebrating the givers, but rather celebrating the giving.
VaYakhel-Pekudei 5773 Stephen Rabinowitz, MD
March 6, 2013
Parshas VaYakhel-Pekudei 5773 Auditing Stephen Rabinowitz, MD B”H
Parshas VaYakhel, the tenth of the eleven parshios in Sefer Shmos, contains 122 verses. The parsha begins with Moshe Rabbeinu reminding all of Bnei Yisroel that no work may be done on Shabbos, and no fire may be kindled. This is stated so that the people would know that Shabbos takes priority over work to be done on the building of the Mishkon and its vessels. But no positive mitzvos are given in the parsha, and only one new prohibition is issued, that the court may not execute a convict on Shabbos. Parshas Pekudei, the final parsha in Sefer Shmos, contains 92 verses, with no mitzvos or prohibitions. These two parshios are usually read together, which is the case this year.
Parshas Pekudei relates an accounting of the materials Bnei Yisroel donated for Mishkon construction (Shmos 38:21) (translation adapted from Rabbi Chaim Miller and based on Rashi (1040-1105)):
| אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן, מִשְׁכַּן הָעֵדֻת, אֲשֶׁר פֻּקַּד עַל-פִּי מֹשֶׁה: עֲבֹדַת הַלְוִיִּם, בְּיַד אִיתָמָר בֶּן-אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן. | These are the accounts of the Mishkon, the Tabernacle of the Testimony, which were counted at Moshe’s command. (All these items) were serviced by the Levites under the direction of Isomor son of Aharon the priest. |
This episode recalls one of many indignities that Moshe Rabbeinu suffered while leading our nation. The Torah tells us the amount of gold used for the Mishkon, but not the specific amounts used for specific purposes. The amount of silver is noted and the use of it is broken down to one hundred sockets of one kikar each, plus 1775 silver shekels used to make hooks and caps for the pillars. The total of copper is noted, as is the list of objects made from copper.
The Midrash Tanchuma and Shmos Rabboh tell us that Moshe, Isomor, and the Levi’im conducted an audit at the conclusion of the work on the Mishkon to demonstrate that all donations were accurately tracked, and to show that nothing was embezzled. The audit of silver appeared to show that 1775 silver shekels were missing. Everyone seemed to have forgotten that these shekels were used to make hooks and caps for the pillars of the Mishkon. People began to slander Moshe, saying he must have taken the missing silver for himself. To preserve the reputation of Moshe Rabbeinu, a heavenly voice announced the fact recorded in our parsha, that the silver was used for the hooks and caps. Also, the audit was supervised by both Moshe and Isomor, because halacha requires at least two people to administer public funds.
Ibn Ezra (1092-1167) and the Kli Yakar, Rabbi Shlomo Ephraim Luntschitz (1550-1619), Chief Rabbi of Prague for the last 15 years of his life, asked why the Torah details the disposition of the silver and copper, but not the gold. Kli Yakar suggests a variety of answers. One answer is that all the work with silver and copper was finished, but that work on the priestly garments requiring gold was not yet done. Moshe wanted to issue the audit report for the silver and copper as soon as possible. Why then did Moshe not report on the gold when that work was finished? Kli Yakar answers that the heavenly voice had spoken, testifying that Moshe was trusted in all of HaShem’s house, so that no one wanted any further accounting. Another answer cites our verse, which states that Moshe himself ordered the accounting, so that no one suspected him. Still another answer hinges on the fact that the weight of silver and gold usually dwindles upon smelting, since impurities are removed. In our instance, the actual weight remained intact “in the hand of Isomor.” The Or haChaim (1696-1742) calls this a miraculous occurrence that contributed to the Mishkon being called the “Tabernacle of Testimony,” namely, testimony that HaShem was with them.
Ramban (1194-1270) is another who felt the need to explain the lack of detail for the use of the gold. He says that some of the gold was used under the supervision of Isomor, for the plating of the beams and bars of the walls of the Mishkon, and some was used under Isomor’s brother Elazar, such as the plating of the Ark and its cover, the menorah, the plating of the table, and the gold altar. The plating of the copper altar was also Elazar’s responsibility. An exact accounting of plating material would have been difficult.
Rabbi Yehonoson Eibeschutz (1690-1764) notes that the silver was given in the form of half-shekels during the census, a mandatory contribution requiring precise accounting, while gold and copper were voluntary contributions, whose generous donors required less reporting. The most generous, who gave gold, were less demanding than those who gave only copper.
Rabbi Zalman Sorotzkin (1881-1966) points out the irony that the Mishkon represented forgiveness for the sin of the Golden Calf, and yet no one asked for an accounting of the donations of gold used to make the Calf. He says that people who donate for worthy causes want every penny to go for that cause, so that they will reap the full benefit of giving. People motivated by an evil impulse to spend for tawdry purposes are inwardly ashamed and may be pleased when money is diverted, so that the damage is minimized and their own sin lessened. Gold and copper were used for coatings, not just discrete objects, and therefore had a different sort of accounting. This is the reason that Moshe only commanded that the work of the Levites under the charge of Isomor, the tribes of Gershon and Merari, be calculated, but not the work of the tribe of Kehos, who carried fully wrapped gold items.
Rabbi Hirsch (1808-1888) quotes the Sforno (1470-1550) saying that the purpose of displaying the amounts of precious materials used is to show how much less they are than those used in the first and second Temples. But neither Temple achieved the eminence of the Mishkon, where the Shechina appeared to all in the clouds of glory, which stood longer than either Temple, and which was never destroyed by an enemy. Rabbi Hirsch adds that the uses of gold were not listed because it was used only for items that were kodesh/holy. The accounting for silver mentions only the portion collected in the census, but not voluntary donations. Silver was used in items required to be made of silver, but also in service vessels that could have been made of copper but were permitted to be made of silver. Copper not only formed service vessels, but also sockets for the pillars supporting the entrance curtain. The water basin was fashioned of women’s copper mirrors not part of the general donation. All of this goes to the point that we are not given the raw data of an audit.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe (1902-1994) says that the Kli Yakar’s reasons for the lack of accounting for the use of the gold are not fully satisfying. For one thing, if the heavenly voice testified to Moshe’s honesty about the silver, so that no accounting was needed for the gold, why is there an accounting for the copper? Another point - how could everyone forget about the silver hooks and caps of the pillars? The Rebbe cites Rashi on Shmos 34:1, where we learn that Moshe was extremely wealthy since HaShem told him to keep the sapphire chips left over from carving the second set of tablets. The Rebbe observes that a large amount of gold was needed, including a whole kikar just for the menorah, and plating for 48 beams, each 10 cubits in length, and for the Aron and its lid. The Rebbe estimates that the 29 kikars and 730 shekels of gold listed in verse 24 would have been less than 50% of the amount needed. He concludes that Moshe donated the remainder from his own pocket! This is the best explanation why no audit was needed. One question remains. Verse 36:7 states that donations were more than required and produced a surplus of materials. The Rebbe says that the surplus was of materials available to Bnei Yisroel. His proof is the Rashi for verse 35:27, which says they did not have Shoham stones, and yet the Torah describes a surplus. Surplus is therefore meant in the general sense, but does not preclude a deficit of specific items, such as gold.
Recent Comments