Parshat T'Tzaveh
In 28:29-30 the passuk tells us, " וְנָשָׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת-שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחֹשֶׁן הַמִּשְׁפָּט, עַל-לִבּוֹ--בְּבֹאוֹ אֶל-הַקֹּדֶשׁ: לְזִכָּרֹן לִפְנֵי-ה', תָּמִיד...וְנָתַתָּ אֶל-חֹשֶׁן הַמִּשְׁפָּט, אֶת-הָאוּרִים וְאֶת-הַתֻּמִּים, וְהָיוּ עַל-לֵב אַהֲרֹן, בְּבֹאוֹ לִפְנֵי ה'; וְנָשָׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת-מִשְׁפַּט בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל-לִבּוֹ, לִפְנֵי ה'--תָּמִיד" - And Aaron shall bear the names of the children of Israel in the breastplate of judgment upon his heart, when he goeth in unto the holy place, for a memorial before the LORD continually. And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the LORD; and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually.
The passuk tells us two issues about Aharon carrying Bnei Yisrael on his heart. Once about the names and once about their concerns.
The names of Bnei Yisrael indicate something personal. Aharon has to think about every Jew all the time. Whenever he goes into the Holies, he must have the welfare of every individual Jew in his heart.
The judgement of Bnei Yisrael refers to the concerns of the people. When Aharon goes into the Holies, he must bring with him the worries and concerns of the people.
The act of Aharon (or any Kohen) entering into the Holies and performing the obligations, is not a power trip, nor is it an act limited to the benefit of himself or the nation on some sort of macro level. Aharon must have at the top of his concerns the needs, the worries, the concerns of every individual Jew.
That is a lesson for anybody in leadership positions. You are there representing the people. You are not in place in order to personally benefit, though that might very well be a result of such positioning. You are there in order to look out for the needs of the people. You are there to remember each person and his concerns, and you are to bear them on your heart at all times. That should be what drives and motivates you to act.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
details of the construction
Parshat T'rumah
Why does the Torah have to describe in such great detail the contruction specifications of the mishkan? This was a one-time requirment, as the Beit Hamikdash was contructed differently.
Why was it so important go inform us of all the specifics? Unless you are an engineer or an architect, it is all pretty boring. Why not write down the generals - build x for this and y for that, etc. use these materials, etc.. Why all the specifics?
We often find many things transmitted without having been specifically written in detail in the Torah. Why was this written in such great detail?
Why does the Torah have to describe in such great detail the contruction specifications of the mishkan? This was a one-time requirment, as the Beit Hamikdash was contructed differently.
Why was it so important go inform us of all the specifics? Unless you are an engineer or an architect, it is all pretty boring. Why not write down the generals - build x for this and y for that, etc. use these materials, etc.. Why all the specifics?
We often find many things transmitted without having been specifically written in detail in the Torah. Why was this written in such great detail?
removing the poles
Parshat T'rumah
When describing the construction specifications of the Aron, the Torah says poles must be made to carry the Aron and placed in the rings on the side of the Aron. In 25:15 it says, "בטבעות הארון יהיו הבדים לא יסורו ממנו" - in the rings of the aron will be placed the poles, they should not be removed from it. Rashi adds "Forever" meaning the poles have to remain forever in the rings of the aron.
This means there is always going to be a prohibition against one removing them, even when the aron is sitting in the Beit Hamikdash and is not in transit.
What is the purpose of the poles during this majority of the time where the aron is not in transit? Why are they so important that there is a specific issur against removing them?
Furthermore, why require such an issur when physically they were constructed in a way that made them impossible to remove (the tips were wider than the size of the ring, so there was no way the poles could be removed)?
Why are these poles so important?
Do you have any thoughts on this?
When describing the construction specifications of the Aron, the Torah says poles must be made to carry the Aron and placed in the rings on the side of the Aron. In 25:15 it says, "בטבעות הארון יהיו הבדים לא יסורו ממנו" - in the rings of the aron will be placed the poles, they should not be removed from it. Rashi adds "Forever" meaning the poles have to remain forever in the rings of the aron.
This means there is always going to be a prohibition against one removing them, even when the aron is sitting in the Beit Hamikdash and is not in transit.
What is the purpose of the poles during this majority of the time where the aron is not in transit? Why are they so important that there is a specific issur against removing them?
Furthermore, why require such an issur when physically they were constructed in a way that made them impossible to remove (the tips were wider than the size of the ring, so there was no way the poles could be removed)?
Why are these poles so important?
Do you have any thoughts on this?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
how hard is it to count to 70?
(this post is cross-posted at Yontiff Thoughts and at DafNotes)
We recently learned in daf yomi the calculations, and miscalculations, of the 70 years of exile after the destruction of the first Beis Hamikdash and prior to the rebuilding of the second Beis Hamikdash.
One would think that 70 years is not too difficult to keep track of, especially when you are living within the thick of it. However, we see Ahashverosh miscounted the 70 years. So did other people. Nobody knew from when to begin the count of 70, therefore everybody's count was skewed and nobody had the correct target date. It was only after the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash began that we could look back and say we know when the count of 70 years of exile began.
The same is true in the upcoming parsha regarding the creation of the golden calf. The Jews knew Moshe was going to be on Mt. Sinai for 40 days. How hard is it to count 40 days? Yet they miscounted and that led them to making the mistake of creating the golden calf.
We have many dates and calculations throughout tanach and Jewish history. Great Rabbis have calculated with varying conclusions the dates of the coming of Moshiah, the end of the world, the redemption, etc. These dates come and go. We then question how the great Rabbis could be wrong and lose faith (sometimes) or simply become cynical when hearing such things.
We have to realize that we never know where to begin the count, and therefore our counts and calculations are always wrong. It is only in hindsight we can look back and say where the count began.
The gemara says the world will only last 6000 years. That is pretty good reason to start getting nervous. We are now in the year 5767 (of the Jewish calendar). That only leaves 233 years left to go before armageddon!
But considering the fact that pretty much every count in the Torah and Jewish history was found to be miscalculated, we have to consider that we have no idea when the count of 6000 years begins. Did the 6000 years begin from the first day of creation? Maybe from Avraham recognizing monotheism? Maybe from matan Torah? Maybe from the jewish nation entering Eretz Yisroel? Or maybe from multitudes of other placemarks in jewish history. We have no idea when the count begins, and will only know after it actually happens.
I think it was the Rambam who said not to bother calculating the coming of the mashiah, as doing so only causes people to lose faith when the predicted event does not happen. Instead of worrying about specific dates and calculations that will almost definitely be wrong anyways, we should heed the advice of the great masters and be "mefashfesh b'maasav" - look at our ways and correct our actions and try to prepare in that way for the days of Mashiah.
We recently learned in daf yomi the calculations, and miscalculations, of the 70 years of exile after the destruction of the first Beis Hamikdash and prior to the rebuilding of the second Beis Hamikdash.
One would think that 70 years is not too difficult to keep track of, especially when you are living within the thick of it. However, we see Ahashverosh miscounted the 70 years. So did other people. Nobody knew from when to begin the count of 70, therefore everybody's count was skewed and nobody had the correct target date. It was only after the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash began that we could look back and say we know when the count of 70 years of exile began.
The same is true in the upcoming parsha regarding the creation of the golden calf. The Jews knew Moshe was going to be on Mt. Sinai for 40 days. How hard is it to count 40 days? Yet they miscounted and that led them to making the mistake of creating the golden calf.
We have many dates and calculations throughout tanach and Jewish history. Great Rabbis have calculated with varying conclusions the dates of the coming of Moshiah, the end of the world, the redemption, etc. These dates come and go. We then question how the great Rabbis could be wrong and lose faith (sometimes) or simply become cynical when hearing such things.
We have to realize that we never know where to begin the count, and therefore our counts and calculations are always wrong. It is only in hindsight we can look back and say where the count began.
The gemara says the world will only last 6000 years. That is pretty good reason to start getting nervous. We are now in the year 5767 (of the Jewish calendar). That only leaves 233 years left to go before armageddon!
But considering the fact that pretty much every count in the Torah and Jewish history was found to be miscalculated, we have to consider that we have no idea when the count of 6000 years begins. Did the 6000 years begin from the first day of creation? Maybe from Avraham recognizing monotheism? Maybe from matan Torah? Maybe from the jewish nation entering Eretz Yisroel? Or maybe from multitudes of other placemarks in jewish history. We have no idea when the count begins, and will only know after it actually happens.
I think it was the Rambam who said not to bother calculating the coming of the mashiah, as doing so only causes people to lose faith when the predicted event does not happen. Instead of worrying about specific dates and calculations that will almost definitely be wrong anyways, we should heed the advice of the great masters and be "mefashfesh b'maasav" - look at our ways and correct our actions and try to prepare in that way for the days of Mashiah.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
new blog
Feel free to check out my newest blog called Yontiff Thoughts.
As its name indicates, it will be dedicated to my thoughts, chiddushim, and lessons extrapolated regarding the various Jewish holidays.
With Purim on its way, along with daf yomi currently and conveniently learning masechet megilla, the first holiday to be discussed will be Purim and Megillat Esther, with pesach coming right on its heels!
Check it out and feel free to keep coming back for more if you enjoy it...
Hag Sameah!
As its name indicates, it will be dedicated to my thoughts, chiddushim, and lessons extrapolated regarding the various Jewish holidays.
With Purim on its way, along with daf yomi currently and conveniently learning masechet megilla, the first holiday to be discussed will be Purim and Megillat Esther, with pesach coming right on its heels!
Check it out and feel free to keep coming back for more if you enjoy it...
Hag Sameah!
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Even Hashem takes risks
Parshat Mishpatim
hashem continues promising His support if the Jews continue serving Hashem and not turning away to other gods. Hashem says in 23:29, "I will not chase [the enemy nations] out [of Israel] in one year, lest the land become desolate and the wild animals will overtake you."
In 23:33 He implores them to not make treaties with the various enemy nations and not let them continue living in Israel. He says, "Do not let them live in your land, lest they will lead you astray..."
First Hashem says He will only get rid of them slowly so as not to put you in physical danger but then he warns you against letting them continue living in Israel.
Look at the great risk Hashem was taking in order to protect the Jewish people. There was a basic inherent risk in letting the nations stay in Israel with the Jews. It was clear and obvious that they would cause the Jews to sin. But Hashem was willing to ignore that, at least in the short term, just so that the Jews would not be in danger physically from animals.
hashem continues promising His support if the Jews continue serving Hashem and not turning away to other gods. Hashem says in 23:29, "I will not chase [the enemy nations] out [of Israel] in one year, lest the land become desolate and the wild animals will overtake you."
In 23:33 He implores them to not make treaties with the various enemy nations and not let them continue living in Israel. He says, "Do not let them live in your land, lest they will lead you astray..."
First Hashem says He will only get rid of them slowly so as not to put you in physical danger but then he warns you against letting them continue living in Israel.
Look at the great risk Hashem was taking in order to protect the Jewish people. There was a basic inherent risk in letting the nations stay in Israel with the Jews. It was clear and obvious that they would cause the Jews to sin. But Hashem was willing to ignore that, at least in the short term, just so that the Jews would not be in danger physically from animals.
bread and water
Parshat Mishpatim
Hashem tells the Jews that he knows they will eventually sin and He warns them not to. In 23:25 Hashem concludes, "If you serve Hashem, he will bless your bread and your water and remove sickness from amongst you."
Why is that the reward for following Hashem faithfully? Why bread and water? Why not say I will give you wealth, or whatever. Why bread and water?
Bread and water are the basic staples needed to survive. The Jews already learned from the incident by Mara that wealth and other promises do not matter, if the basics such as bread and water are not covered.
That is why Hashem promises them if they serve Him, He will ensure their health and their supply of bread and water. Anything beyond that is extra, but these are the basic needs.
Hashem tells the Jews that he knows they will eventually sin and He warns them not to. In 23:25 Hashem concludes, "If you serve Hashem, he will bless your bread and your water and remove sickness from amongst you."
Why is that the reward for following Hashem faithfully? Why bread and water? Why not say I will give you wealth, or whatever. Why bread and water?
Bread and water are the basic staples needed to survive. The Jews already learned from the incident by Mara that wealth and other promises do not matter, if the basics such as bread and water are not covered.
That is why Hashem promises them if they serve Him, He will ensure their health and their supply of bread and water. Anything beyond that is extra, but these are the basic needs.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
going on vacation
Parshat Mishpatim
The parsha begins by talking about different types of slaves and their terms of bondage. The Torah talks about the slaves and maidservants finishing their terms, and says they will go free. The term the Torah uses for the freedom is "חופש" - hofesh.
Hofesh is generally used to mean "vacation". Was the slave finishing his years of service and then going to Miami Beach to relax for a few weeks?
I would like to suggest that Hofesh is not really meant to be used as "vacation". Rather, going on hofesh means one is liberated from his servitude and can get back to dealing with his normal responsibilities.
Maybe "balashon" blog can analyze the word and discuss the actual meaning, or maybe he has and I missed it.
So next time your boss gives you hofesh, ask for time off to relax instead!!
The parsha begins by talking about different types of slaves and their terms of bondage. The Torah talks about the slaves and maidservants finishing their terms, and says they will go free. The term the Torah uses for the freedom is "חופש" - hofesh.
Hofesh is generally used to mean "vacation". Was the slave finishing his years of service and then going to Miami Beach to relax for a few weeks?
I would like to suggest that Hofesh is not really meant to be used as "vacation". Rather, going on hofesh means one is liberated from his servitude and can get back to dealing with his normal responsibilities.
Maybe "balashon" blog can analyze the word and discuss the actual meaning, or maybe he has and I missed it.
So next time your boss gives you hofesh, ask for time off to relax instead!!
Thursday, February 08, 2007
preceding the relationship with Hashem
Parshat Yisro
At the end of the parsha in 20:22-23 we have two interesting lessons learned directly from the construction of the mizbeiah:
At the end of the parsha in 20:22-23 we have two interesting lessons learned directly from the construction of the mizbeiah:
- Stones do not hear, see or have feelings, yet the Torah says not to use metal in hewing the stones for the mizbeiah because metal is the source of strife and disharmony (weapons for war), so how much more so someone who actually effects peace between different people will avoid tribulations.
- These stones have no concerns, yet the Torah says not to make steps so as not to shame the stones with the (semi-)nakedness of the Kohen, how much more so one should be careful not to shame a person who does have feelings and concerns and is created in the image of Hashem.
It is interesting that we learn such direct lessons from the construction of the stones for the mizbeiah. The various other parts of the mishkan all teach us things by their representation (e.g. table represents wealth, candelabrum represents wisdom, etc..). Yet only here do we see a specific lesson being directly taught.
I think the mizbeiah is representative of our relationship with Hashem. It is the focal point of our relationship. That is where we directly relate and interact with Hashem.
The place that is such a focal point needs to be constructed at such a level of complete purity. Our relationship with Hashem is dependant on our relationship with our fellow man. If we do not treat our fellow man with the respect he deserves, we will never be able to fully develop the relationship with Hashem.
Because the mizebiah is the focal point of our relationship with Hashem, that is why it directly tells us these important lessons, so that we will be able to develop our relationship with Hashem by first perfecting our relationship with man
a similar lesson
Parshat Yisro
At the end of the parsha in 20:23, Hashems warns them to make a mizbeiah but not to make steps, "אשר לא תגלה ערותך עליו" - so your nakedness should not be uncovered upon it.
Rashi tells us that despite the fact that it is not really erva because the Kohen was wearing pants under the robe (gotchkas of sorts) but it is similar to gilui erva.
People sometimes hear things that make them uncomfortable. They then look for ways to disassociate themselves from those statements, in order to remove the guilt. One of the ways of doing this is by saying that the comparison is not valid for reasons x, y and z and therefore the lesson is not valid.
I recently wrote some articles, among others, in which I made comparisons to derive certain lessons. It is true that the items compared are not 100% exact. They rarely are. Yet, I felt, the lessons are valid, at least t consider and think about.
Yet, people find ways of saying the comparison is completely invalid. That way they do not have to consider the ramifications of such lessons.
We see here such an approach of making lessons is completely valid. The Kohen was not exposed over the stones. He was not shaming the stones with his nakedness. After all, he was dressed. Yet the Torah still considers it as if the Kohen was shaming the stones, just because it was similar.
At the end of the parsha in 20:23, Hashems warns them to make a mizbeiah but not to make steps, "אשר לא תגלה ערותך עליו" - so your nakedness should not be uncovered upon it.
Rashi tells us that despite the fact that it is not really erva because the Kohen was wearing pants under the robe (gotchkas of sorts) but it is similar to gilui erva.
People sometimes hear things that make them uncomfortable. They then look for ways to disassociate themselves from those statements, in order to remove the guilt. One of the ways of doing this is by saying that the comparison is not valid for reasons x, y and z and therefore the lesson is not valid.
I recently wrote some articles, among others, in which I made comparisons to derive certain lessons. It is true that the items compared are not 100% exact. They rarely are. Yet, I felt, the lessons are valid, at least t consider and think about.
Yet, people find ways of saying the comparison is completely invalid. That way they do not have to consider the ramifications of such lessons.
We see here such an approach of making lessons is completely valid. The Kohen was not exposed over the stones. He was not shaming the stones with his nakedness. After all, he was dressed. Yet the Torah still considers it as if the Kohen was shaming the stones, just because it was similar.
Fountain of Youth
Parshat Yisro
In 20:12 in the middle of the Ten Commandments we encounter the commandment to honor one's parents. The passuk then adds, "למען יאריכון ימיך על האדמה" – so that you should extend your life on the land.
There is a debate among the commentators whether this is one promise, that you will achieve longevity in the land, or two promises, that you will achieve longevity and will have Eretz Yisrael to live in.
What does this have to do with honoring one's parents? Why is this reward promised here rather than by any of the other commandments? What is unique about honoring one's parents above all the other commandments that this one gets a specific promise of reward while the others do not? And why is the reward longevity of all things?
My thoughts are that this is because honoring one's parents is such an integral commandment and is really the basis of almost everything that it deserves extra, to show its importance. By honoring your parents you are showing the importance of tradition, which is what parents teach the children, and your connection to your past and to Hashem.
Naturally, that will also lead to longevity, and longevity in Eretz Yisrael. A person who honors his parents shows his connection to tradition and his dedication to continuing that tradition. Such a person will ensure that, aside from him continuing the tradition, he makes sure the tradition continues in his future generations. That will give his life longevity, as his life will be extended through his children.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
A bitter lesson
Parshat B'Shalah
After the sea split and went back to normal, the Jews move on through the desert and they encounter a place with only bitter water. In 15:22-23 the pessukim tell us, "ויסע משה את ישראל...ויבאו מרתה ולא יכלו לשתת" - Moshe urged the Israelites to travel... and they came to Marah and they were not able to drink...
Rashi tells us that Moshe had to push them to travel from the edge of the sea. He explains that all the jewels and wealth of Egypt washed up on the bansk and the people were busy scavenging the wealth and they did not want to leave. Moshe had to tell them that enough was enough and it was time to move on.
I find the contrast stark. They finish the story of splitting the sea and immediately begin the story of the bitter waters.
I think, maybe, part of the reason hashem took them to Marah right now was specifically because of the greed they displayed at the edge of the sea. They preferred to sit there collecting money and Moshe had to force them to move.
Hashem brought them to Marah to show them that all that money they were so worried about does them no good anyway. All the money in the world could not buy them a drink of water. They needed to improve their emuna and be less concerned about the money.
Thinking about this some more, I developed it a bit further....
After the events at the splitting of the sea and then the bitter waters, the rest of the parsha deals with a number of other stories; the manna, the fowl (slav), the water coming from the rock, the battle with Amalek.
All these are events that are completely dependant on emunah. They were all there to teach Bnei Yisrael emunah in Hashem and that even when they put forth effort it is really Hashem making their efforts successful.
So, they showed their greed by preferring the money. Hashem showed them the money is not the most important. Then hashem taught them multiple lessons in emuna.
After the sea split and went back to normal, the Jews move on through the desert and they encounter a place with only bitter water. In 15:22-23 the pessukim tell us, "ויסע משה את ישראל...ויבאו מרתה ולא יכלו לשתת" - Moshe urged the Israelites to travel... and they came to Marah and they were not able to drink...
Rashi tells us that Moshe had to push them to travel from the edge of the sea. He explains that all the jewels and wealth of Egypt washed up on the bansk and the people were busy scavenging the wealth and they did not want to leave. Moshe had to tell them that enough was enough and it was time to move on.
I find the contrast stark. They finish the story of splitting the sea and immediately begin the story of the bitter waters.
I think, maybe, part of the reason hashem took them to Marah right now was specifically because of the greed they displayed at the edge of the sea. They preferred to sit there collecting money and Moshe had to force them to move.
Hashem brought them to Marah to show them that all that money they were so worried about does them no good anyway. All the money in the world could not buy them a drink of water. They needed to improve their emuna and be less concerned about the money.
Thinking about this some more, I developed it a bit further....
After the events at the splitting of the sea and then the bitter waters, the rest of the parsha deals with a number of other stories; the manna, the fowl (slav), the water coming from the rock, the battle with Amalek.
All these are events that are completely dependant on emunah. They were all there to teach Bnei Yisrael emunah in Hashem and that even when they put forth effort it is really Hashem making their efforts successful.
So, they showed their greed by preferring the money. Hashem showed them the money is not the most important. Then hashem taught them multiple lessons in emuna.
showing compassion
Parshat B'Shalah
After Moshe leads Israel in songs of praise after the splitting of the sea (az yashir), Miriam leads the women in similar song.
The passuk in 15:20 says, "ותקח מרים הנביאה אחות אהרון את התף" - And Miriam the prophetess, sister of Aharon, took the drums in her hands, etc..
Why does the Torah relate to us that she is the sister of Aharon? We know who she is.
Rashi explains that she said her prophecy before Moshe was born so it relates her to Aharon, along with a second explanation that Aharon risked his life for her when she had tzoraas, so it relates her to him.
That is very nice, but does not explain why it needs to be said at all. That explains why she is considered Aharon's sister and no mention of Moshe.
But why say anything? We know who she is!
The Ramban says an answer that we already have seen Moshe leading Israel in songs of praise, now we see Miriam doing the same. The only one we do not see is Aharon. So the Torah relates Miriam to Aharon so he would not feel left out.
I find it funny that the Torah would say that just so Aharon does not feel left out. Is this a personal family diary that the author needs to be concerned with hurting one members feeligns over another?
I asked this question to someone and he suggested that it is teaching us a lesson. He said that if the Torah showed concern and compassion for someone who might feel left out when his brother and sister got all the attention, how much more so do we need to show compassion to others and be concerned for their feelings.
After Moshe leads Israel in songs of praise after the splitting of the sea (az yashir), Miriam leads the women in similar song.
The passuk in 15:20 says, "ותקח מרים הנביאה אחות אהרון את התף" - And Miriam the prophetess, sister of Aharon, took the drums in her hands, etc..
Why does the Torah relate to us that she is the sister of Aharon? We know who she is.
Rashi explains that she said her prophecy before Moshe was born so it relates her to Aharon, along with a second explanation that Aharon risked his life for her when she had tzoraas, so it relates her to him.
That is very nice, but does not explain why it needs to be said at all. That explains why she is considered Aharon's sister and no mention of Moshe.
But why say anything? We know who she is!
The Ramban says an answer that we already have seen Moshe leading Israel in songs of praise, now we see Miriam doing the same. The only one we do not see is Aharon. So the Torah relates Miriam to Aharon so he would not feel left out.
I find it funny that the Torah would say that just so Aharon does not feel left out. Is this a personal family diary that the author needs to be concerned with hurting one members feeligns over another?
I asked this question to someone and he suggested that it is teaching us a lesson. He said that if the Torah showed concern and compassion for someone who might feel left out when his brother and sister got all the attention, how much more so do we need to show compassion to others and be concerned for their feelings.
fear and belief
Pasrhat B'Shalah
The sea has been split. The Jews go through while the Egyptians are washed away. The passuk tells us in 14:31, "וירא ישראל את היד הגדולה...וייראו העם את ה' ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו" - Israel saw the great hand that which Hashem had done to Egypt and the nation feared Hashem and they believed in Hashem and in Moshe His servant.
Did they not believe in Hashem prior to this? After all they saw HAshem do to get them out of Egypt, only now do they believe in Him?What is different now that we say they believed in Hashem rather than the blief they had before?
I suspect my rebbe Rav Gamliel Rabinovitch would say that why they did not have emuna before this is not what matters. Rather, he would say, if the Torah says they have emuna now and not before, after everything they have seen and experienced, how much more so would we be considered people without emuna and how much more do we need to work on improving our emuna.
To answer the question though, it must be a different level of emuna based on what they just saw in how Hashem took out His wrath and vengeance on the Egyptians, relative to what they saw before which was much less. This level of emuna is based on their fear of Hashem, as it immediately attributes it to that by saying "They feared Hashem and they believed...".
Prior to this they might have believed based on what they saw, but it seems like they did not have the yirah that they have now.
Any suggestions?
The sea has been split. The Jews go through while the Egyptians are washed away. The passuk tells us in 14:31, "וירא ישראל את היד הגדולה...וייראו העם את ה' ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו" - Israel saw the great hand that which Hashem had done to Egypt and the nation feared Hashem and they believed in Hashem and in Moshe His servant.
Did they not believe in Hashem prior to this? After all they saw HAshem do to get them out of Egypt, only now do they believe in Him?What is different now that we say they believed in Hashem rather than the blief they had before?
I suspect my rebbe Rav Gamliel Rabinovitch would say that why they did not have emuna before this is not what matters. Rather, he would say, if the Torah says they have emuna now and not before, after everything they have seen and experienced, how much more so would we be considered people without emuna and how much more do we need to work on improving our emuna.
To answer the question though, it must be a different level of emuna based on what they just saw in how Hashem took out His wrath and vengeance on the Egyptians, relative to what they saw before which was much less. This level of emuna is based on their fear of Hashem, as it immediately attributes it to that by saying "They feared Hashem and they believed...".
Prior to this they might have believed based on what they saw, but it seems like they did not have the yirah that they have now.
Any suggestions?
Sunday, January 28, 2007
the familiar tzorres
Parshat B'Shalah
The Jews are leaving Egypt. The route seems a bit roundabout, so the passuk describes in 13:17 that Hashem did not lead them through the short route via the land of the Philistines, lest they should see the potential for a war breaking out and that would frighten them to running back to Egypt.
Why would they want to go back to Egypt? After all the suffering they went through, after the beatings, the hard work, the oppression, etc. They have finally broken out and are free, yet we are still concerned that they might want to go back at the slightest threat of violence?
Also, let's say they went via the land of the Philistines. Let's say they would be afraid of battle. Woudl they want to go back and not trust Hashem after all they have seen Hashem do until now? Was it really such a concern that they would want to return to Egypt? Would they not think Hashem could/would help them be victorious?
People prefer what they are familiar with. In Egypt they had their routines. True, it was not pleasant. But they knew what to expect. They had gotten used to it.
To go into the desert and find yourself in a situation of possible war, they very well might prefer the evil with which they were already familiar rather than the new concerns.
Because of that, Hashem had to be concerned they might want to go back, despite all that He had already done for them.
The Jews are leaving Egypt. The route seems a bit roundabout, so the passuk describes in 13:17 that Hashem did not lead them through the short route via the land of the Philistines, lest they should see the potential for a war breaking out and that would frighten them to running back to Egypt.
Why would they want to go back to Egypt? After all the suffering they went through, after the beatings, the hard work, the oppression, etc. They have finally broken out and are free, yet we are still concerned that they might want to go back at the slightest threat of violence?
Also, let's say they went via the land of the Philistines. Let's say they would be afraid of battle. Woudl they want to go back and not trust Hashem after all they have seen Hashem do until now? Was it really such a concern that they would want to return to Egypt? Would they not think Hashem could/would help them be victorious?
People prefer what they are familiar with. In Egypt they had their routines. True, it was not pleasant. But they knew what to expect. They had gotten used to it.
To go into the desert and find yourself in a situation of possible war, they very well might prefer the evil with which they were already familiar rather than the new concerns.
Because of that, Hashem had to be concerned they might want to go back, despite all that He had already done for them.
pleasant weather in the desert
Parshat Bo
At the end of the parsha this week Moshe tells the Jewish people that they should remember this day that they are leaving Egypt and not eat chametz, etc.. He then says in 13:4, "היום אתם יוצאים בחודש האביב" - This day you are leaving in the month of the spring.
Rashi points out that we already know when they are leaving, so why does it need to be siad specifically in this fashion?
Rashi explains that it is telling us the great chessed that Hashem did for them that He took the nation out in the spring when the weather is pleasant, rather than in hot or cold weather when it would have been less pleasant.
My question is, why is this such a big chessed - we know the Jews were encircled and protected by the ananei hakavod - the clouds of glory - and they were a form of climate control. We know they were not affected by the weather and elements because of the clouds. So who cares what the weather was like when they left?
My initial thoughts are that while it is true that when they left Egypt they were not affected by the weather, however they did not know that would be the case. They knew they were about to leave Egypt and maybe they were nervous that they were running out in the heat or cold. So Moshe, to allay their concerns told them that Hashem scheduled it as a chessed that they are leaving in pleasant weather. Even though the facts are that it would not matter later. It was to calm their fears.
Answer: I still think there might be something to the above answer I suggested, I now have a better answer.
My 7 year old son gave me an answer that I think is correct. I asked the question at the shabbos table and he answered right away.
The ananei hakavod were only put into place when bnei yisroel travelled from Sukkos, which at the beginning of parshat B'Shalach we see was on the second day after having left Egypt. The first day they travelled from Ra'amses to Sukkos and did not yet have the clouds of glory or the pillars of fire.
That being the case, they needed the good weather for that cloudless day.
At the end of the parsha this week Moshe tells the Jewish people that they should remember this day that they are leaving Egypt and not eat chametz, etc.. He then says in 13:4, "היום אתם יוצאים בחודש האביב" - This day you are leaving in the month of the spring.
Rashi points out that we already know when they are leaving, so why does it need to be siad specifically in this fashion?
Rashi explains that it is telling us the great chessed that Hashem did for them that He took the nation out in the spring when the weather is pleasant, rather than in hot or cold weather when it would have been less pleasant.
My question is, why is this such a big chessed - we know the Jews were encircled and protected by the ananei hakavod - the clouds of glory - and they were a form of climate control. We know they were not affected by the weather and elements because of the clouds. So who cares what the weather was like when they left?
My initial thoughts are that while it is true that when they left Egypt they were not affected by the weather, however they did not know that would be the case. They knew they were about to leave Egypt and maybe they were nervous that they were running out in the heat or cold. So Moshe, to allay their concerns told them that Hashem scheduled it as a chessed that they are leaving in pleasant weather. Even though the facts are that it would not matter later. It was to calm their fears.
Answer: I still think there might be something to the above answer I suggested, I now have a better answer.
My 7 year old son gave me an answer that I think is correct. I asked the question at the shabbos table and he answered right away.
The ananei hakavod were only put into place when bnei yisroel travelled from Sukkos, which at the beginning of parshat B'Shalach we see was on the second day after having left Egypt. The first day they travelled from Ra'amses to Sukkos and did not yet have the clouds of glory or the pillars of fire.
That being the case, they needed the good weather for that cloudless day.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
no logic or rationale
Parshat Bo
At the height of the final plague, the plague of the firstborn, Pharoah calls Moshe and Aharon and tells them he agrees to let the Jews leave Egypt unconditionally. Before they leave, one of the things needed to be done is to acquire the wealth of Egypt. Moshe tells the Jews to go to their Egyptian neighbors and borrow/take their jewellery from them. In 12:36 the Torah says, "וה' נתן את חן העם בעיני מצרים וישאלום" - Hashem gave the people favor in the eyes of the Egyptians, and they lent to them [their jewels].
Why was this חן necessary? The Egyptians would have given the jews whatever they wanted at that point, just to get rid of them!
The חן does not even make sense - the Jews were just responsible for the decimation of Egypt and the Egyptians culmiating in the horrific death of a large percentage of Egyptians and all of the sudden they find favor and like the Jews? For Hashem to do that seems to have no purpose nor any logic and rationale!!??
Any ideas?
At the height of the final plague, the plague of the firstborn, Pharoah calls Moshe and Aharon and tells them he agrees to let the Jews leave Egypt unconditionally. Before they leave, one of the things needed to be done is to acquire the wealth of Egypt. Moshe tells the Jews to go to their Egyptian neighbors and borrow/take their jewellery from them. In 12:36 the Torah says, "וה' נתן את חן העם בעיני מצרים וישאלום" - Hashem gave the people favor in the eyes of the Egyptians, and they lent to them [their jewels].
Why was this חן necessary? The Egyptians would have given the jews whatever they wanted at that point, just to get rid of them!
The חן does not even make sense - the Jews were just responsible for the decimation of Egypt and the Egyptians culmiating in the horrific death of a large percentage of Egyptians and all of the sudden they find favor and like the Jews? For Hashem to do that seems to have no purpose nor any logic and rationale!!??
Any ideas?
whose team are you on?
Parshat Bo
What was the purpose of putting blood on the doorposts? The common (mis)perception is that it was to differentiate between Jewish and egyptian houses, so Hashem would only slay the firstborn in Egyptian houses, but not in Jewish ones.
Did Hashem really need their assistance in order to differentiate the houses? Would Hashem not know which house belonged to a Jew and which to an Egyptian?
That can't be the reason for the blood. On the verse in 12:13 "ולא יהיה בכם נגף" Rashi explains to us that if an Egyptian firstborn was in a Jewish house, that would not protect him and he would still be smitten and a Jew in an Egyptian home would not be harmed..
So what was the purpose of the blood on the soorposts?
Rashi says the blood was to show Hashem that they were busying themselves with the mitzvos and then Hashem would skip over them.
There are times where a person can just quietly do his thing and move along. There are other times where that is not enough. One, sometimes, needs to stand up and be counted. One needs to say out loud which team he is on and who he is loyal to.
This is one of those times. Put the blood on your doorpost. That will show Hashem that you are declaring you are on Gods team.
What was the purpose of putting blood on the doorposts? The common (mis)perception is that it was to differentiate between Jewish and egyptian houses, so Hashem would only slay the firstborn in Egyptian houses, but not in Jewish ones.
Did Hashem really need their assistance in order to differentiate the houses? Would Hashem not know which house belonged to a Jew and which to an Egyptian?
That can't be the reason for the blood. On the verse in 12:13 "ולא יהיה בכם נגף" Rashi explains to us that if an Egyptian firstborn was in a Jewish house, that would not protect him and he would still be smitten and a Jew in an Egyptian home would not be harmed..
So what was the purpose of the blood on the soorposts?
Rashi says the blood was to show Hashem that they were busying themselves with the mitzvos and then Hashem would skip over them.
There are times where a person can just quietly do his thing and move along. There are other times where that is not enough. One, sometimes, needs to stand up and be counted. One needs to say out loud which team he is on and who he is loyal to.
This is one of those times. Put the blood on your doorpost. That will show Hashem that you are declaring you are on Gods team.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
The end-game is near
Parshat Bo
By the plague of חשך - darkness, the plague brings thick darkness for three days. Then Pharoah calls Moshe and tells him that he has reconsidered and is letting them go to pray in the desert, but only with the animals they need for sacrificing to God. The rest of the cattle needs to stay behind in Egypt (sort of a gaurantee that they will come back). Moshe rejects that and insists that they be allowed out with no restrictions.
In 10:27, one verse later, Hashem hardens Pharoah's and Pharoah no longer wants to let them go, and then throws Moshe and Aharon out of the palace.
This whole discussion between Moshe and Pharoah must have taken place after the plague had already concluded. During the plague itself, we know nobody was able to move, so this could only have taken place after the plague had finished.
This is different than by all the other plagues. In the other plagues, while it was ravaging Egypt, Pharoah pleaded with Moshe to remove it, and he agreed to let them out and then changed his mind after the plague. Or Moshe removed the plague on his own and then brought a new plague, with no discussion between him and Pharoah.
For Pharoah to agree to his demands (in theory) after the plague had concluded is something new.
By the other plagues it was clear he was agreeing to let the Jews go just as a way of gettng the plague cancelled. When the plague was no longer, he was then open to having his heart hardened and change his mind.
This time is different as the plague concludes, then Pharoah agrees to Moshe, then he changes his mind. There is no change from when he agreed to when he changed his mind.
It is clear from the plague of darkness that all semblance of "free will" is gone. While Hashem has been hardening Pharoah's heart, until now He has done it in a way that looks natural. Now he is dropping all appearances. The end-game is near. The level has been ratcheted up a couple of notches. We are in the bottom of the ninth and it is time to get serious.
By the plague of חשך - darkness, the plague brings thick darkness for three days. Then Pharoah calls Moshe and tells him that he has reconsidered and is letting them go to pray in the desert, but only with the animals they need for sacrificing to God. The rest of the cattle needs to stay behind in Egypt (sort of a gaurantee that they will come back). Moshe rejects that and insists that they be allowed out with no restrictions.
In 10:27, one verse later, Hashem hardens Pharoah's and Pharoah no longer wants to let them go, and then throws Moshe and Aharon out of the palace.
This whole discussion between Moshe and Pharoah must have taken place after the plague had already concluded. During the plague itself, we know nobody was able to move, so this could only have taken place after the plague had finished.
This is different than by all the other plagues. In the other plagues, while it was ravaging Egypt, Pharoah pleaded with Moshe to remove it, and he agreed to let them out and then changed his mind after the plague. Or Moshe removed the plague on his own and then brought a new plague, with no discussion between him and Pharoah.
For Pharoah to agree to his demands (in theory) after the plague had concluded is something new.
By the other plagues it was clear he was agreeing to let the Jews go just as a way of gettng the plague cancelled. When the plague was no longer, he was then open to having his heart hardened and change his mind.
This time is different as the plague concludes, then Pharoah agrees to Moshe, then he changes his mind. There is no change from when he agreed to when he changed his mind.
It is clear from the plague of darkness that all semblance of "free will" is gone. While Hashem has been hardening Pharoah's heart, until now He has done it in a way that looks natural. Now he is dropping all appearances. The end-game is near. The level has been ratcheted up a couple of notches. We are in the bottom of the ninth and it is time to get serious.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
making Pharoah a friar
Parshat Va'Eira
In Chapter 9 we encounter Moshe bring upon the Egyptians the plague of "Dever" - plague/disease . Moshe approaches Pharoah and warns him that if he refuses to "Let my people go" he will bring about the next in the series of plagues. He goes on to describe it saying the hand of God will smite your cattle, horses, etc., a very serious plague. In 9:4 we see Moshe add a discrimination. he says, "Hashem will distinguish betwene your cattle and the cattle of the Jews and none of the Jews' cattle will die".
Why did he have to add this remark? He never added it by any of the previous plagues, so why now? Anyway, Pharoah probably aready realized that no Jew would be affected, just as they were not affected by any of the previous plagues. So why did Moshe have to mention it this time?
After seeing Pharoah change his mind after each of the previous plagues, Moshe felt it was time to up the ante. Killing animals might not even have been such a big deal in Pharoahs eyes. Sure it is bad, and the financial loss could have been devastating, but thinking of what the Egyptians had already suffered through and were going to suffer through, the animals dropping dead does not seem like such a big deal.
It might well have been easier, at least psychologically, for Pharoah to have gotten through this one than any of the others.
So Moshe "dug it in". He rubbed salt in Pharoah's royal wounds. He told Pharoah that not only are your cattle and animals going to drop dead, but the Jews will not lose even a single head of cattle. That is an infuriating thing to be told. It would have enraged Pharoah. In today's terms, nobody wants to look like a "friar" and that is exactly what Moshe is doing to Pharoah.
That statement of Moshe's might have been even worse than the actual plague.
In Chapter 9 we encounter Moshe bring upon the Egyptians the plague of "Dever" - plague/disease . Moshe approaches Pharoah and warns him that if he refuses to "Let my people go" he will bring about the next in the series of plagues. He goes on to describe it saying the hand of God will smite your cattle, horses, etc., a very serious plague. In 9:4 we see Moshe add a discrimination. he says, "Hashem will distinguish betwene your cattle and the cattle of the Jews and none of the Jews' cattle will die".
Why did he have to add this remark? He never added it by any of the previous plagues, so why now? Anyway, Pharoah probably aready realized that no Jew would be affected, just as they were not affected by any of the previous plagues. So why did Moshe have to mention it this time?
After seeing Pharoah change his mind after each of the previous plagues, Moshe felt it was time to up the ante. Killing animals might not even have been such a big deal in Pharoahs eyes. Sure it is bad, and the financial loss could have been devastating, but thinking of what the Egyptians had already suffered through and were going to suffer through, the animals dropping dead does not seem like such a big deal.
It might well have been easier, at least psychologically, for Pharoah to have gotten through this one than any of the others.
So Moshe "dug it in". He rubbed salt in Pharoah's royal wounds. He told Pharoah that not only are your cattle and animals going to drop dead, but the Jews will not lose even a single head of cattle. That is an infuriating thing to be told. It would have enraged Pharoah. In today's terms, nobody wants to look like a "friar" and that is exactly what Moshe is doing to Pharoah.
That statement of Moshe's might have been even worse than the actual plague.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
