Parshat B'Haalotcha
In 11:4-5 we are told about the Jews complaining that they did not have meat. They say, "מי יאכלנו בשר. זכרנו את הדגה אשר נאכל במצרים" - who will feed us meat? we remember the fish we ate in Egypt for nothing, the gourd, the melons, etc....
Rashi tells us they had plenty of meat available - the Torah told us earlier about the herds of cattle they took with them out of Egypt, but they were simply looking to complain.
They complain about the lack of meat, but then they remember and refer to what they ate in Egypt and there is no mention of meat. They ate fish and vegetables in Egypt. So why are they complaining about the lack of meat now if they never had meat anyway?
The complaint is "Who will feed us meat". Since they left Egypt, the have gotten used to having everything handed to them on a silver platter. They have not had to do anything. Hashem takes care of all their needs. They put forth no effort at all for anything other than serving Hashem.
They got used to having a free ride and that is why they are not willing to use their own animals for meat. Let Hashem give us meat, why should we use up our own!! Not only that, but when people get things for free on a regular basis, they lose the perception of the giver.
If one works for a living and has to buy food from his own money, he is careful not to overspend, and to buy within his budget and this type of food rather than that type of food. But when somebody gets used to having everything covered and he has nothing to worry about and no responsibilities, he wants the best. After all, it is not his money he is spending - it is someone else's. He loses the perception of what is necessary and what is extra.
In Egypt they never ate meat. But in Egypt they had to work for their food. In the desert they were handed everything with no effort on their part, so now they need meat. On someone else's tab it is easy to insist on luxuries.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
B'Haalotcha: even the small things are important
Parshat B'Haalotcha
At the beginning of the parsha, Aharon is commanded as to the methodology of placing the wicks and lighting them in the menora in the mishkan. In 8:3 the passuk says, "ויעש כן אהרן" - and Aharon did so.
Rashi says on this verse, that it shows us the praiseworthiness of Aharon that he did not deviate from the instructions.
This leaves an opening for the question I have asked a number of times before - We know Aharon never deviated from instructions, especially regarding the mishkan. The passuk has told us so many times already, and Rashi points out each time that this is his praise for not deviating. So, why does Rashi have to say this, and why does the passuk need to praise Aharon for not deviating?
I think the reason might be because of the subject matter involved. The subject matter here is the menora and specifically the wicks of the menora, and their placement. One might think that maybe it is not a big deal exactly how the wicks are put in and lit. It i sa pretty mundane issue. Maybe if the kohen (Aharon in this case) finds it easier to light them in a different order, or to clean the old wicks out or place the new wicks in dofferent orders or methods, maybe he would feel it is such a mundane issue and he can do it as he sees it being most convenient.
After all, it is not like it is such a major thing. It is just the wicks!
But no - even on such a "minor" issue as the wicks of the menora, Aharon still did not deviate from the instructions Hashem had given him. That is his praise - that he totally gave himself up to doing things according to instruction and even on the small things he was "mivatel" his own da'as.
At the beginning of the parsha, Aharon is commanded as to the methodology of placing the wicks and lighting them in the menora in the mishkan. In 8:3 the passuk says, "ויעש כן אהרן" - and Aharon did so.
Rashi says on this verse, that it shows us the praiseworthiness of Aharon that he did not deviate from the instructions.
This leaves an opening for the question I have asked a number of times before - We know Aharon never deviated from instructions, especially regarding the mishkan. The passuk has told us so many times already, and Rashi points out each time that this is his praise for not deviating. So, why does Rashi have to say this, and why does the passuk need to praise Aharon for not deviating?
I think the reason might be because of the subject matter involved. The subject matter here is the menora and specifically the wicks of the menora, and their placement. One might think that maybe it is not a big deal exactly how the wicks are put in and lit. It i sa pretty mundane issue. Maybe if the kohen (Aharon in this case) finds it easier to light them in a different order, or to clean the old wicks out or place the new wicks in dofferent orders or methods, maybe he would feel it is such a mundane issue and he can do it as he sees it being most convenient.
After all, it is not like it is such a major thing. It is just the wicks!
But no - even on such a "minor" issue as the wicks of the menora, Aharon still did not deviate from the instructions Hashem had given him. That is his praise - that he totally gave himself up to doing things according to instruction and even on the small things he was "mivatel" his own da'as.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Naso: not getting out of hand
Parshat Naso
The last section of the parsha goes through the donation of korbanot the nesiim gave at the dedication of the mishkan. All 12 gave the same exact donation.
Rashi tells us why the nesiim were so quick to be the first to participate with a donation at the dedication ceremony. he tells us that for the building of the mishkan the nesiim had said they would let the people give first and they would give whatever was lacking afterwards. It turned out the people gave so much there was nothign left for the mesiim to give. They were upset they missed the oportunity to participate, so now they jumped forward right away.
But why and how did they all give the same exact thing? This was not base don a commandment that they had to bring a specific korban, so how did all 12 individually think of the same exact korban?
I think they must have gotten together and decided what to bring. That way it would not "get out of hand".
Think of it similar to the "wedding takkanos" of Agudas Yisrael in America. Weddings were getting out of hand as each person needed to outdo the one before him. So Aguda made rules and now nobody should feel the need to outdo the other guy and spend beyond his means.
The same here. If they each would bring their own thing, the first guy would bring, let's say, one cow. The second guy would say,"That's all he brought? I will bring 2 cows." The next guy would then bring 5 cows and 2 sheep. The next would bring 10 cows and 15 sheep. etc.
It would get out of hand, so they agreed that they would each bring the same exact ste of korbanos.
I did see a pshat that despite the fact that they each brought their own korbano, they were still brought with the individual style and "kavanos" of the specific tribe.
The last section of the parsha goes through the donation of korbanot the nesiim gave at the dedication of the mishkan. All 12 gave the same exact donation.
Rashi tells us why the nesiim were so quick to be the first to participate with a donation at the dedication ceremony. he tells us that for the building of the mishkan the nesiim had said they would let the people give first and they would give whatever was lacking afterwards. It turned out the people gave so much there was nothign left for the mesiim to give. They were upset they missed the oportunity to participate, so now they jumped forward right away.
But why and how did they all give the same exact thing? This was not base don a commandment that they had to bring a specific korban, so how did all 12 individually think of the same exact korban?
I think they must have gotten together and decided what to bring. That way it would not "get out of hand".
Think of it similar to the "wedding takkanos" of Agudas Yisrael in America. Weddings were getting out of hand as each person needed to outdo the one before him. So Aguda made rules and now nobody should feel the need to outdo the other guy and spend beyond his means.
The same here. If they each would bring their own thing, the first guy would bring, let's say, one cow. The second guy would say,"That's all he brought? I will bring 2 cows." The next guy would then bring 5 cows and 2 sheep. The next would bring 10 cows and 15 sheep. etc.
It would get out of hand, so they agreed that they would each bring the same exact ste of korbanos.
I did see a pshat that despite the fact that they each brought their own korbano, they were still brought with the individual style and "kavanos" of the specific tribe.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Bamidbar: functioning properly and efficiently
Parshat Bamidbar
In this weeks parsha, we see a detailed description of the formation of the Jewish Nation in their tribal groups for the travelling through the desert.
I think we can learn a lesson from the detail. Bnei Yisrael could have travelled in a large mass of people, with everyone walking with their friends and family and whoever they wanted. Nothing really would have been wrong with that. So why didn't they travel like that? Why were the instructions of where everyone should be so specific?
I think we can learn a lesson from thsi that everyone has his place in the community. Everybody has what he is supposed to do and where he is supposed to be. Haphazard is no good. We need order and direction in order to function properly and efficiently.
In this weeks parsha, we see a detailed description of the formation of the Jewish Nation in their tribal groups for the travelling through the desert.
I think we can learn a lesson from the detail. Bnei Yisrael could have travelled in a large mass of people, with everyone walking with their friends and family and whoever they wanted. Nothing really would have been wrong with that. So why didn't they travel like that? Why were the instructions of where everyone should be so specific?
I think we can learn a lesson from thsi that everyone has his place in the community. Everybody has what he is supposed to do and where he is supposed to be. Haphazard is no good. We need order and direction in order to function properly and efficiently.
Bamidbar: Moshe's children
Parshat Bamidbar
during the lineage of the family of Levi, it says "These are the generations (children) of Aharon and Moshe..." and it goes on to list the children of Aharon, and not the children of Moshe.
Rashi tells us that we learn from the fact that it calls the children of Aharon as being also the children of Moshe that one who teaches someone else Torah, it is as if that person is his child. So the children of Aharon were also the children of Moshe, because Moshe taught them Torah.
That is very nice, but what about the actual children of Moshe? Why do they not get mentioned at all? It is listing the children of all the Levite families, so why not list Moshe's children as well?
We did not have an answer for this. I saw one answer about how Moshe's children had stayed behind with Yisro in Midian. I do nto remember why, but I did not like that answer, as they are still Moshe's children and should have been mentioned...
during the lineage of the family of Levi, it says "These are the generations (children) of Aharon and Moshe..." and it goes on to list the children of Aharon, and not the children of Moshe.
Rashi tells us that we learn from the fact that it calls the children of Aharon as being also the children of Moshe that one who teaches someone else Torah, it is as if that person is his child. So the children of Aharon were also the children of Moshe, because Moshe taught them Torah.
That is very nice, but what about the actual children of Moshe? Why do they not get mentioned at all? It is listing the children of all the Levite families, so why not list Moshe's children as well?
We did not have an answer for this. I saw one answer about how Moshe's children had stayed behind with Yisro in Midian. I do nto remember why, but I did not like that answer, as they are still Moshe's children and should have been mentioned...
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
B'chukosai: protection money
Parshat B'chukosai
In the middle of the section of the tochacha, in 26:23-24, Hashem says, "וְאִם-בְּאֵלֶּה--לֹא תִוָּסְרוּ, לִי; וַהֲלַכְתֶּם עִמִּי, קֶרִי. וְהָלַכְתִּי אַף-אֲנִי עִמָּכֶם, בְּקֶרִי; וְהִכֵּיתִי אֶתְכֶם גַּם-אָנִי" - and if despite all this you still walk with Me in happenstance, I will walk with you in happenstance and I will smite you...
That does not exactly sound like בקרי - happenstance. b'keri sounds like whatever happens happens. It does not seem like it should include "I will smite you". This sounds not b'keri, but against. So how does that last phrase fit with what Hashems says that he will go with us b'keri?
The natural result of Hashem not going with us full-time, is our being punished. We have only survived the generations because of Hashem's protection. If we stop doing the mitzvos, and subsequently Hashem stops offering us His portection, but goes with us b'keri, we will be hit.
We deserve to be hit, in that situation, and have no protection from Hashem. So, yes, being hit is a natural result of b'keri.
In the middle of the section of the tochacha, in 26:23-24, Hashem says, "וְאִם-בְּאֵלֶּה--לֹא תִוָּסְרוּ, לִי; וַהֲלַכְתֶּם עִמִּי, קֶרִי. וְהָלַכְתִּי אַף-אֲנִי עִמָּכֶם, בְּקֶרִי; וְהִכֵּיתִי אֶתְכֶם גַּם-אָנִי" - and if despite all this you still walk with Me in happenstance, I will walk with you in happenstance and I will smite you...
That does not exactly sound like בקרי - happenstance. b'keri sounds like whatever happens happens. It does not seem like it should include "I will smite you". This sounds not b'keri, but against. So how does that last phrase fit with what Hashems says that he will go with us b'keri?
The natural result of Hashem not going with us full-time, is our being punished. We have only survived the generations because of Hashem's protection. If we stop doing the mitzvos, and subsequently Hashem stops offering us His portection, but goes with us b'keri, we will be hit.
We deserve to be hit, in that situation, and have no protection from Hashem. So, yes, being hit is a natural result of b'keri.
B'har: on equal footing
Parshat B'har
In 25:35-36 the Torah says, "וכי ימוך אחיך ...והחזקת בו.. וחי אחיך עמך" - when your brother shall become poor.. and you should support him.. that your brother should live with you. The passuk goes on to talk about not charging interest, etc.
It is not enough to give a little tzedakka. You have to support your fellow Jew who became poor. "Your brother should live with you." You have to support him enough that he can live with you. On equal footing.
Don't make him sell his house and move to a lower class neighborhood. Help him get by and back on his own feet while continuing to be part of the community with respect.
The gemara says that one must support a fellow jew with tzedakka to live at the level he is accustomed to.
Your brother shall live with you. Don't just support him to help him live. Supprot him at the level that he can continue living with you. On equal footing.
In 25:35-36 the Torah says, "וכי ימוך אחיך ...והחזקת בו.. וחי אחיך עמך" - when your brother shall become poor.. and you should support him.. that your brother should live with you. The passuk goes on to talk about not charging interest, etc.
It is not enough to give a little tzedakka. You have to support your fellow Jew who became poor. "Your brother should live with you." You have to support him enough that he can live with you. On equal footing.
Don't make him sell his house and move to a lower class neighborhood. Help him get by and back on his own feet while continuing to be part of the community with respect.
The gemara says that one must support a fellow jew with tzedakka to live at the level he is accustomed to.
Your brother shall live with you. Don't just support him to help him live. Supprot him at the level that he can continue living with you. On equal footing.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Emor: from rags to riches
Parshat Emor
The Torah is going through various details of the various holidays. It discusses the Omer offerings and upon arriving at the end of the Omer count (i.e. Shavuos), one has to bring a sacrifice called "shtei ha'lechem" - the two loaves. In 23:17 the Torah tells us, "מִמּוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם תָּבִיאּוּ לֶחֶם תְּנוּפָה, שְׁתַּיִם שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרֹנִים--סֹלֶת תִּהְיֶינָה, חָמֵץ תֵּאָפֶינָה: בִּכּוּרִים, לַיהוָה" or in English, "Ye shall bring out of your dwellings two wave-loaves of two tenth parts of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baked with leaven, for first-fruits unto the LORD."
This korban had a very unusual detail that makes it practically unique. It was made from chametz - leaven. It is one of two korbanos that contain leaven (the second is the korban Toda). All other sacrifices, including all the various mincha offerings, including the lechem ha'panim, including all other dough that would be offered in avrious forms in the mikdash, were leaven free. Kosher for Passover. Matza, albeit it thick and soft usually.
What is the significance of this sacrifice, the "Two Loaves" being made from chametz, unlike almost every other korban?
This offering, the שתי הלחם, is brought at the conclusion of the omer. The Omer count began on Pesach and concludes on Shavuos. In a sense, the Omer is the bridge between Pesach and Shavuos.
Pesach is יציאת מצרים - the Exodus from Egypt. Shavuos is מתן תורה - the giving of the Torah. Omer, the bridge between them, is the process of leaving Egypt and working towards מתן תורה. It is the time to prepare for the receiving of the Torah.
On Pesach we ate לחם עוני - poor man's bread, a.k.a. the Bread of Affliction. We eat the matza to remember the days of slavery and oppression. By doing so we recall the process of leaving Egypt and leaving that oppression behind. Shavuos is when we finally hit the target and got the Torah. That is when we ultimately became free and a nation.
To symbolize this we offer the rare sacrifice with חמץ - the opposite of poor man's bread. This is the bread of the free and the wealthy. The un-oppressed. Rich man's bread, if you must. When we get to Shavuos we can finally say the עוני of מצרים is behind us.
We start with poor man's bread, we work towards our freedom and we end with rich man's bread.
The Torah is going through various details of the various holidays. It discusses the Omer offerings and upon arriving at the end of the Omer count (i.e. Shavuos), one has to bring a sacrifice called "shtei ha'lechem" - the two loaves. In 23:17 the Torah tells us, "מִמּוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם תָּבִיאּוּ לֶחֶם תְּנוּפָה, שְׁתַּיִם שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרֹנִים--סֹלֶת תִּהְיֶינָה, חָמֵץ תֵּאָפֶינָה: בִּכּוּרִים, לַיהוָה" or in English, "Ye shall bring out of your dwellings two wave-loaves of two tenth parts of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baked with leaven, for first-fruits unto the LORD."
This korban had a very unusual detail that makes it practically unique. It was made from chametz - leaven. It is one of two korbanos that contain leaven (the second is the korban Toda). All other sacrifices, including all the various mincha offerings, including the lechem ha'panim, including all other dough that would be offered in avrious forms in the mikdash, were leaven free. Kosher for Passover. Matza, albeit it thick and soft usually.
What is the significance of this sacrifice, the "Two Loaves" being made from chametz, unlike almost every other korban?
This offering, the שתי הלחם, is brought at the conclusion of the omer. The Omer count began on Pesach and concludes on Shavuos. In a sense, the Omer is the bridge between Pesach and Shavuos.
Pesach is יציאת מצרים - the Exodus from Egypt. Shavuos is מתן תורה - the giving of the Torah. Omer, the bridge between them, is the process of leaving Egypt and working towards מתן תורה. It is the time to prepare for the receiving of the Torah.
On Pesach we ate לחם עוני - poor man's bread, a.k.a. the Bread of Affliction. We eat the matza to remember the days of slavery and oppression. By doing so we recall the process of leaving Egypt and leaving that oppression behind. Shavuos is when we finally hit the target and got the Torah. That is when we ultimately became free and a nation.
To symbolize this we offer the rare sacrifice with חמץ - the opposite of poor man's bread. This is the bread of the free and the wealthy. The un-oppressed. Rich man's bread, if you must. When we get to Shavuos we can finally say the עוני of מצרים is behind us.
We start with poor man's bread, we work towards our freedom and we end with rich man's bread.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
a friend and a brother
Parshas K'Doshim
In 19:17 the passuk tells us, "לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך" - Do not hate your brother in your heart, rebuke your friend.
Both parts of the passuk are referring to your fellow Jew - not to hate your fellow Jew in your heart, but to get it out and work things out, and to rebuke your fellow Jew.
So why the change of terminology? Why use the term "brother" and then switch to "friend"?
I think the passuk is telling us that if you are going to hate somebody, hate him like your brother, and if you are going to rebuke somebody, rebuke him like a friend.
In other words, nobody hates their brother secretly while making it look like you get along. if you hate your brother you always fight with him. There is nothing swept under the carpets between brothers. When you rebuke your friend, you do so to help him improve himself and you do it in a constructive manner.
So whenever you might hate a fellow Jew, it should at least be as though he was a brother. Out in the open. Not made to look like love but having the hatred fester beneath the surface.
Whenever you rebuke a fellow Jew it should be as a friend, done constructively.
In 19:17 the passuk tells us, "לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך" - Do not hate your brother in your heart, rebuke your friend.
Both parts of the passuk are referring to your fellow Jew - not to hate your fellow Jew in your heart, but to get it out and work things out, and to rebuke your fellow Jew.
So why the change of terminology? Why use the term "brother" and then switch to "friend"?
I think the passuk is telling us that if you are going to hate somebody, hate him like your brother, and if you are going to rebuke somebody, rebuke him like a friend.
In other words, nobody hates their brother secretly while making it look like you get along. if you hate your brother you always fight with him. There is nothing swept under the carpets between brothers. When you rebuke your friend, you do so to help him improve himself and you do it in a constructive manner.
So whenever you might hate a fellow Jew, it should at least be as though he was a brother. Out in the open. Not made to look like love but having the hatred fester beneath the surface.
Whenever you rebuke a fellow Jew it should be as a friend, done constructively.
licentiousness and idol worship
Parshat Acharei Mos
In 18:21 the Torah warns us of passing our children through the fires of Molech, as a form of idol worship.
The Torah just listed numerous details of the prohibitions of עריות, then it throws in this passuk of idol worship, then it continues with a few more of עריות before it moves on to other topics.
What is the connection? Why in the middle of all this עריות do we throw in the idol worship verse?
The only connection I can think of is that among the commentaries we often find explained (commonly by the Golden Calf for example) how עריות and idol worship are very much connected. We do not understand idol worship that well, because the gemara tells us that the Great Men of Assembly cancelled the desire for idol worship due to what they saw as an increased threat, we often find idol worship going hand in hand with licentiousness.
That could be the reason for the proximity of the psukim here.
Anybody have an explanation?
In 18:21 the Torah warns us of passing our children through the fires of Molech, as a form of idol worship.
The Torah just listed numerous details of the prohibitions of עריות, then it throws in this passuk of idol worship, then it continues with a few more of עריות before it moves on to other topics.
What is the connection? Why in the middle of all this עריות do we throw in the idol worship verse?
The only connection I can think of is that among the commentaries we often find explained (commonly by the Golden Calf for example) how עריות and idol worship are very much connected. We do not understand idol worship that well, because the gemara tells us that the Great Men of Assembly cancelled the desire for idol worship due to what they saw as an increased threat, we often find idol worship going hand in hand with licentiousness.
That could be the reason for the proximity of the psukim here.
Anybody have an explanation?
who would eat blood anyway?
Parshat Acharei Mos
in 17:10-14, we have a span of 5 psukim in which the Torah tells us 5 times not to eat blood and another 3 times that someone who does eat blood will be cut off from Israel.
Isn't that a bit much? Why the need to repeat it so much? Especially considering the general revulsion people have to eating blood - almost nobody eats blood, so why repeat it so much?
Maybe because the severity of eating blood is so high because of its relation to the soul - כי הדם הוא הנפש.
Anybody have a good explanation?
in 17:10-14, we have a span of 5 psukim in which the Torah tells us 5 times not to eat blood and another 3 times that someone who does eat blood will be cut off from Israel.
Isn't that a bit much? Why the need to repeat it so much? Especially considering the general revulsion people have to eating blood - almost nobody eats blood, so why repeat it so much?
Maybe because the severity of eating blood is so high because of its relation to the soul - כי הדם הוא הנפש.
Anybody have a good explanation?
death in the Holies
Parshat Acharei Mos
In 16:2 Hashem tells Moshe to tell Aharon. "ואל יבא בכל עת אל הקדש...ולא ימות" - that he cannot just walk into the Holy of Holies whenever he wants... and he will not die.
Rashi adds that this is so he should not die the way his sons died.
His sons died because they brought unauthorized sacrifices in the Holy. They did not just walk in. Also over there the commentaries search for alternative explanations that were the cause of their deaths. Such as they decided halacha in front of Moshe, or they entered the Holy while inebriated, etc.
So how does this warning compare to the death of Ahaon's sons?
The only answer I can think of offhand is that it is referring to the method of death. The punishment would be the same even though the offense is different (slightly).
In 16:2 Hashem tells Moshe to tell Aharon. "ואל יבא בכל עת אל הקדש...ולא ימות" - that he cannot just walk into the Holy of Holies whenever he wants... and he will not die.
Rashi adds that this is so he should not die the way his sons died.
His sons died because they brought unauthorized sacrifices in the Holy. They did not just walk in. Also over there the commentaries search for alternative explanations that were the cause of their deaths. Such as they decided halacha in front of Moshe, or they entered the Holy while inebriated, etc.
So how does this warning compare to the death of Ahaon's sons?
The only answer I can think of offhand is that it is referring to the method of death. The punishment would be the same even though the offense is different (slightly).
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
integrity
Parshat Mitzora
14:35 "And the owner of the house will come forth and tell the Kohen saying something like a nega I have seen in my house..."
Why would anyone go to the Kohen? The tzara'as is completely dependant on the declaration of the Kohen, so why go to the Kohen? You see a splotch - just ignore it. What is pushing these people to actually go to the Kohen nad clear it up? It is not like a disease that if youignore and avoid the doctor you could die from it. Here it is a matter of purity and impurity and if you do not go the Kohen you have avoided declaring it impure! Who wants to dismantle the bricks of their house or stay in isolation for a couple of weeks - just ignore it!?
I think this is indicative of the integrity required of us. The Torah puts us on the honor system and expects us to act properly. When you see usch a splotch, no matter how inconvenient the timing is, you are expected to drop everything and go to the Kohen. No police or court orders ordering you to do anything.
It is just between you and God. Nobody else even needs to know about it. Maybe the splotch is on a covered part of your skin. Or inside your house. Or on clothes that you do not even need top wear. And despite all that, the person will go to the Kohen and do what needs to be done.
14:35 "And the owner of the house will come forth and tell the Kohen saying something like a nega I have seen in my house..."
Why would anyone go to the Kohen? The tzara'as is completely dependant on the declaration of the Kohen, so why go to the Kohen? You see a splotch - just ignore it. What is pushing these people to actually go to the Kohen nad clear it up? It is not like a disease that if youignore and avoid the doctor you could die from it. Here it is a matter of purity and impurity and if you do not go the Kohen you have avoided declaring it impure! Who wants to dismantle the bricks of their house or stay in isolation for a couple of weeks - just ignore it!?
I think this is indicative of the integrity required of us. The Torah puts us on the honor system and expects us to act properly. When you see usch a splotch, no matter how inconvenient the timing is, you are expected to drop everything and go to the Kohen. No police or court orders ordering you to do anything.
It is just between you and God. Nobody else even needs to know about it. Maybe the splotch is on a covered part of your skin. Or inside your house. Or on clothes that you do not even need top wear. And despite all that, the person will go to the Kohen and do what needs to be done.
defer to authority
Parshat Tazria
In 13: 14-17 the Torah discusses the asic form of tzara'as and says, "He will come to the Kohen...and show the Kohen..if it changes to white he will be pure..the Kohen will declare him impure..etc"
This is a very simple form of tzara'as. Some forms are complicated;different colors, hairs, on clothes, on the walls of the house, etc.. but the form here is very simple and the splotch on the skin is either white or fleshy. What is the big deal that the Kohen is needed for this?
A person has to defer to authority. it could not have been too difficult to recognize this splotch and identify it as either pure or impure - most people probably could have done this one on their own.
But no. ובא אל הכהן- he comes to the Kohen. He has to respect the authority of the Kohen and defer to him and allow the Kohen to do his job.
In 13: 14-17 the Torah discusses the asic form of tzara'as and says, "He will come to the Kohen...and show the Kohen..if it changes to white he will be pure..the Kohen will declare him impure..etc"
This is a very simple form of tzara'as. Some forms are complicated;different colors, hairs, on clothes, on the walls of the house, etc.. but the form here is very simple and the splotch on the skin is either white or fleshy. What is the big deal that the Kohen is needed for this?
A person has to defer to authority. it could not have been too difficult to recognize this splotch and identify it as either pure or impure - most people probably could have done this one on their own.
But no. ובא אל הכהן- he comes to the Kohen. He has to respect the authority of the Kohen and defer to him and allow the Kohen to do his job.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
no preferential treatment
Parshat Sh'mini
The children of Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, enter the Mishkan in the Holy of Holies and offer an unauthorized sacrifice. For it they are punished with immediate death. In 10:3 Moshe says to Aharon, "That is what Hashem said By My close ones I shall be sanctified".
What a wicked person gets punished, people are understanding. They say he deserved it anyway. When a tzaddik gets punished it usually raises questions of faith. Why do bad things happen to good people, and the like.
These guys had heavy duty vitamin P (Protexia). There wer eonly 5 kohanim at the time, and they were two of them. They were the sons of Aharon. the nephews of Moshe. These are two people who are among an elite group and people hand-selected by God to lead the Jewish Nation.
With all that going for them, you would think they would be given a little leeway. Okay, so they did something wrong. We can let it slide. Nobody even knew they did anything wrong anyway - they did it in the Holy of Holies where nobody could see or know. Hashem could easily have slapped them on the wrist and said I will let it go this time just don't do it again.
But no. In My close ones I will be sanctified. When Hashem takes their lives, especially these people, as punishment for their actions, it makes the kiddush Hashem even greater. People see that the rules apply to everybody equally. There is no preferential treatment.
Moshe, Aharon, and families have to perform equally as, or even better than, everybody else. בקרבי אקדש.
The children of Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, enter the Mishkan in the Holy of Holies and offer an unauthorized sacrifice. For it they are punished with immediate death. In 10:3 Moshe says to Aharon, "That is what Hashem said By My close ones I shall be sanctified".
What a wicked person gets punished, people are understanding. They say he deserved it anyway. When a tzaddik gets punished it usually raises questions of faith. Why do bad things happen to good people, and the like.
These guys had heavy duty vitamin P (Protexia). There wer eonly 5 kohanim at the time, and they were two of them. They were the sons of Aharon. the nephews of Moshe. These are two people who are among an elite group and people hand-selected by God to lead the Jewish Nation.
With all that going for them, you would think they would be given a little leeway. Okay, so they did something wrong. We can let it slide. Nobody even knew they did anything wrong anyway - they did it in the Holy of Holies where nobody could see or know. Hashem could easily have slapped them on the wrist and said I will let it go this time just don't do it again.
But no. In My close ones I will be sanctified. When Hashem takes their lives, especially these people, as punishment for their actions, it makes the kiddush Hashem even greater. People see that the rules apply to everybody equally. There is no preferential treatment.
Moshe, Aharon, and families have to perform equally as, or even better than, everybody else. בקרבי אקדש.
even Aharon was not above suspicion
Parshat Sh'mini
In 9:1, the first passuk of the parsha, the Torah tells us, "And it was on the eighth day Moshe called to Aharon and his sons and to the elders of Israel."
Rashi tells us that he did so in order to make sure everybody knew that Aharon entered the Mishkan and served as Kohen by the order of Hashem and not on his own decision.
I find it amazing that after all that has happened until now and after the constant testimony by Hashem in the Torah that Moshe and Aharon performed specifically according to the directives from Hashem, he is still under suspicion. there still needs to be outside confirmation that Aharon is acting faithfully and not on his own initiative.
What does he need to do already for people to trust him and not think he is pulling a fast one?
The lesson, I think, is that nobody is above suspicion. Everybody must behave in a way that raises them above any possible suspicion. Nobody should assume they have people's trust and if they do something, even if it looks questionable they will still have people's unwavering trust and support.
People are naturally skeptical about others, especially about leaders. Leaders must be careful to act in ways that keep them above suspicion. Aharon and Moshe were careful to do so.
In 9:1, the first passuk of the parsha, the Torah tells us, "And it was on the eighth day Moshe called to Aharon and his sons and to the elders of Israel."
Rashi tells us that he did so in order to make sure everybody knew that Aharon entered the Mishkan and served as Kohen by the order of Hashem and not on his own decision.
I find it amazing that after all that has happened until now and after the constant testimony by Hashem in the Torah that Moshe and Aharon performed specifically according to the directives from Hashem, he is still under suspicion. there still needs to be outside confirmation that Aharon is acting faithfully and not on his own initiative.
What does he need to do already for people to trust him and not think he is pulling a fast one?
The lesson, I think, is that nobody is above suspicion. Everybody must behave in a way that raises them above any possible suspicion. Nobody should assume they have people's trust and if they do something, even if it looks questionable they will still have people's unwavering trust and support.
People are naturally skeptical about others, especially about leaders. Leaders must be careful to act in ways that keep them above suspicion. Aharon and Moshe were careful to do so.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
what you say and how you say it
Parshat Bo
In the haggada, The Rasha, the wicked son, asks what is this service to you? The answer we respond to him is by striking him on the teeth and telling him that had he been in Egypt he would not have gone out with the rest of the Jews.
In Parshat Bo, in 12:26-27, the passuk says, "when your children say to you what is this service for you? You will say it is the Pesah sacrifice for Hashem who skipped over the houses of the Jews...etc.
Why is it that in the haggada when the Rasha asks this questions he is punched in the face but in the Torah we give the child an answer. What is the difference? And why in the haggada do we say the Rasha will ask this question when in the Humash it does not differentiate and it seems that it is a valid question?
I think the difference is in the attitude and the setting. In the Humash, the question is being asked out of interest and curiosity. In the haggada the question is being asked out of rejection and scoffing.
When the children ask because they really don't know but want to, the answer is about the Pesah sacrifice. Whenthe children ask and it is clear they are asking in a scoffing and rejecting manner, the answer has to be sharper.
As "they" say, it is not just what you say, but how you say it.
In the haggada, The Rasha, the wicked son, asks what is this service to you? The answer we respond to him is by striking him on the teeth and telling him that had he been in Egypt he would not have gone out with the rest of the Jews.
In Parshat Bo, in 12:26-27, the passuk says, "when your children say to you what is this service for you? You will say it is the Pesah sacrifice for Hashem who skipped over the houses of the Jews...etc.
Why is it that in the haggada when the Rasha asks this questions he is punched in the face but in the Torah we give the child an answer. What is the difference? And why in the haggada do we say the Rasha will ask this question when in the Humash it does not differentiate and it seems that it is a valid question?
I think the difference is in the attitude and the setting. In the Humash, the question is being asked out of interest and curiosity. In the haggada the question is being asked out of rejection and scoffing.
When the children ask because they really don't know but want to, the answer is about the Pesah sacrifice. Whenthe children ask and it is clear they are asking in a scoffing and rejecting manner, the answer has to be sharper.
As "they" say, it is not just what you say, but how you say it.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
so I have commanded
Parshat Tzav
In 8:35 Moshe concludes giving Aharon his instructions and he says to stay in the Ohel Moed for 7 days and you will not die, "כי כן צויתי" - for so I have commanded.
Since when does Moshe talk like that? Why did he not say for so Hashem commanded?
Answers? leave them in the comments..
In 8:35 Moshe concludes giving Aharon his instructions and he says to stay in the Ohel Moed for 7 days and you will not die, "כי כן צויתי" - for so I have commanded.
Since when does Moshe talk like that? Why did he not say for so Hashem commanded?
Answers? leave them in the comments..
precise instructions
Parshat Tzav
In 8:36 it tells us that Aharon and his sons did as Hashem commanded through Moshe.
Rashi tells us that this tells us the praise of Aharon and sons that they did not divert at all from what Hashem told them to do. Everything was followed precisely.
Why does the Torah have to keep telling us this? This is exactly why they were the leaders rather than other people leading the nation - because they followed Hashem's instructions precisely without mixing in their own preferences.
The Torah keeps telling us how they followed precisely what Hashem said. Ok, we got the point already. Why keep telling us?
I do not have an answer at this point. Maybe this will be question of the week.. Do you? If yes, leave it in the comments..
In 8:36 it tells us that Aharon and his sons did as Hashem commanded through Moshe.
Rashi tells us that this tells us the praise of Aharon and sons that they did not divert at all from what Hashem told them to do. Everything was followed precisely.
Why does the Torah have to keep telling us this? This is exactly why they were the leaders rather than other people leading the nation - because they followed Hashem's instructions precisely without mixing in their own preferences.
The Torah keeps telling us how they followed precisely what Hashem said. Ok, we got the point already. Why keep telling us?
I do not have an answer at this point. Maybe this will be question of the week.. Do you? If yes, leave it in the comments..
total dedication
Parshat Tzav
Near the end of the parsha we see Moshe giving Aharon his instructions regarding the preparatory week before the dedication of the mishkan.
In 8:33 Moshe tells Aharon not to leave the Ohel Moed for the full 7 days.
Why can't he leave? What's the big deal if he wants to step out for some air or something?
This is a job that requires complete dedication and complete immersion. One has to give himself over completely and be completely dedicated to the job. The only way for that dedication to be pure and complete is by his total immersion into the job.
He cannot have any distractions. Nothing that might, even slightly, take away his focus and concentration from the mishkan.
Near the end of the parsha we see Moshe giving Aharon his instructions regarding the preparatory week before the dedication of the mishkan.
In 8:33 Moshe tells Aharon not to leave the Ohel Moed for the full 7 days.
Why can't he leave? What's the big deal if he wants to step out for some air or something?
This is a job that requires complete dedication and complete immersion. One has to give himself over completely and be completely dedicated to the job. The only way for that dedication to be pure and complete is by his total immersion into the job.
He cannot have any distractions. Nothing that might, even slightly, take away his focus and concentration from the mishkan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
