In 13:10-17, the passukk says if a nega tzoraas is brought to the kohein, and he sees it and it has raw flesh, the tzoraas is old in the flesh, the kohein (declares it) impure, and iof it flourishes and covers the skin, etc etc etc..
Parshat Tazria
Rashi says "tzoraas is old" means it is an old wound that looks healed but underneath it is full of pus, you should not say because on top it is healing so it is tahor, but it is still tamei..
If you get into an argument, for example, with someone (your wife, husband, friend, etc.), and you let it slide. You let it go, maybe 5 years, 10 years 20 years, a week, whatever. So you have built over it many new experiences and relationships. You might think that because on top everything looks good and healthy, so everythign is fine.
but that is not true. Until the original wound is actually dealt with and repaired, it is beneath the surface festering,. You can only ignore it for so long.
The tzoraas is tamei despite the signs of healing above, because the original wound was never dealt with.
If you fight with your spouse and move on without repairing that wound, you will always bear some ill will. Even if it looks like everythign is healed, that is only on the surface, but down below the wound is festering. You have to get rid of it at the source and nip it in the bud.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Tazria: creating a rift
Parshat Tazria
At the end of tazria, the passuk in 13:46 says "All the days he has the Nega, he will surely be impure, he shall sit isolated, outside of the camp will he sit."
Rashi on the passuk says that he has to be isolated even from other people who are tamei sitting outside the camp. Even outside the camp he is by himself. Rashi asks what is different about the tzoraas that he cannot even be with other tamei people?
Rashi brings from Chazal that because he spoke Lashon Ha'Ra, thereby causing a division between husband and wife (and between person and friend), he therefore has to sit isolated, separate from others.
A husband and wife are meant to be together. Even if they do not always agree on everything, and they will not, there should not be a division among them. Despite different opinions on some matters, they need to work together for a unified purpose. They are one.
Anything that comes between that, anything that causes a division between them and makes a break in their unity, anything that causes a rift between them, has to be rejected.
And that is why Rashi says a Metzora is so bad. Because he caused a rift between man and wife. He broke that unity that is so essential for marriage, for Jewish continuity.
At the end of tazria, the passuk in 13:46 says "All the days he has the Nega, he will surely be impure, he shall sit isolated, outside of the camp will he sit."
Rashi on the passuk says that he has to be isolated even from other people who are tamei sitting outside the camp. Even outside the camp he is by himself. Rashi asks what is different about the tzoraas that he cannot even be with other tamei people?
Rashi brings from Chazal that because he spoke Lashon Ha'Ra, thereby causing a division between husband and wife (and between person and friend), he therefore has to sit isolated, separate from others.
A husband and wife are meant to be together. Even if they do not always agree on everything, and they will not, there should not be a division among them. Despite different opinions on some matters, they need to work together for a unified purpose. They are one.
Anything that comes between that, anything that causes a division between them and makes a break in their unity, anything that causes a rift between them, has to be rejected.
And that is why Rashi says a Metzora is so bad. Because he caused a rift between man and wife. He broke that unity that is so essential for marriage, for Jewish continuity.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
VaYakhel: two types of donors
Parshat Va'Yakhel
In 35:21, it says, "כל איש אשר נשאו לבו וכל אשר נדבה רוחו אותו הביאו"
There seems to be two different types of people donation to the Mishkan. There are those who are donating from their heart, and those from their spirit.
Those donating from their heart, the passuk says, "whose heart leads him" - it is an emotional donation. He is being overly generous, giving more than he otherwise would.
Those donating from their spirit are giving more in control - he wants to give but has to limit it.
The passuk equates these two types of people - It is not important how much one gives, but how one gives. The person who can allow himself to donate with no limit, just because he wants to is great. If a person gives wholeheartedly, even if he can only give less, but he gives what he can and he really wants to, he and his donation are just as important as the guy who gives millions, and even better than the guy who gives begrudgingly.
ובלבד שיכוון לבו לשמיים
NOTE: After I thought of this, I found the first part, describing the two different types of people donating explained on the Ohr HaChaim, much more eloquently than I could explain it.
In 35:21, it says, "כל איש אשר נשאו לבו וכל אשר נדבה רוחו אותו הביאו"
There seems to be two different types of people donation to the Mishkan. There are those who are donating from their heart, and those from their spirit.
Those donating from their heart, the passuk says, "whose heart leads him" - it is an emotional donation. He is being overly generous, giving more than he otherwise would.
Those donating from their spirit are giving more in control - he wants to give but has to limit it.
The passuk equates these two types of people - It is not important how much one gives, but how one gives. The person who can allow himself to donate with no limit, just because he wants to is great. If a person gives wholeheartedly, even if he can only give less, but he gives what he can and he really wants to, he and his donation are just as important as the guy who gives millions, and even better than the guy who gives begrudgingly.
ובלבד שיכוון לבו לשמיים
NOTE: After I thought of this, I found the first part, describing the two different types of people donating explained on the Ohr HaChaim, much more eloquently than I could explain it.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Ki Tisa: not accepting Lashon Ha'Ra
Parshat Ki Tisa
In 32:19 Moshe gets down the mountain and is shocked by what he sees.
Why is he shocked? Hashem told him what was going on..he already davened on their behalf, so why the surprise and anger?
Even though he had acted on the info on their behalf, he did not really believe it. he could not believe it. In a sense it was Lashon Ha'Ra. No matter how reliable the info, how reliable the source, you cannot accept Lashon Ha'Ra except "l'toeles".
Moshe had a "toeles" - he had to daven for them. So he accepted it for that much, so he could daven for them. But that is it. To actually believe it, which had no other toeles, he had to assume it was not so bad or there was a mistake or something.
therefore he was surprised when he actually saw what was going on.
In 32:19 Moshe gets down the mountain and is shocked by what he sees.
Why is he shocked? Hashem told him what was going on..he already davened on their behalf, so why the surprise and anger?
Even though he had acted on the info on their behalf, he did not really believe it. he could not believe it. In a sense it was Lashon Ha'Ra. No matter how reliable the info, how reliable the source, you cannot accept Lashon Ha'Ra except "l'toeles".
Moshe had a "toeles" - he had to daven for them. So he accepted it for that much, so he could daven for them. But that is it. To actually believe it, which had no other toeles, he had to assume it was not so bad or there was a mistake or something.
therefore he was surprised when he actually saw what was going on.
Ki Tisa: calm down first
Parshat Ki Tisa
In 32:11 Moshe begins davening on behalf of the people. He had not yet even seen what they did. he simply heard from Hashem that they had done bad and he right away begins pleading for them.
What chutzpah. How can he ask for forgiveness on their behalf when he does not even know what they did? he has not seen the extent of their sin but he is already asking for mercy???
You do not need to delay your assistance just to find out details. if there is a way to help immediately, do so and worry about the details later.
Moshe first davened. he offered his immediate solution to calm the situation. Only after the tension is broken does he need to go get the details and deal with the specifics.
In 32:11 Moshe begins davening on behalf of the people. He had not yet even seen what they did. he simply heard from Hashem that they had done bad and he right away begins pleading for them.
What chutzpah. How can he ask for forgiveness on their behalf when he does not even know what they did? he has not seen the extent of their sin but he is already asking for mercy???
You do not need to delay your assistance just to find out details. if there is a way to help immediately, do so and worry about the details later.
Moshe first davened. he offered his immediate solution to calm the situation. Only after the tension is broken does he need to go get the details and deal with the specifics.
Ki Tisa: upper management
Parshat Ki Tisa
In 32:10, Hashem tells Moshe, "Leave me alone and let my anger consume them. I will destroy them and make a great nation out of you."
Why does Hashem need Moshe's advice or permission? Moshe had not been pleading with him at that point. It was Hashem who came to Moshe, as if Moshe was not allowing it and Hashem wanted to convince Him to allow it...?
Unilateral actions are never good. You do not just do something and spring it on your people. Share the information. Consult. Ask advice. Invite the participation of others in the decision making process.
No matter how powerful a person is, such as the CEO of a company or the manager of a division or whatever, you have to confide in your managers before making big moves. That is what Hashem did with Moshe.
In 32:10, Hashem tells Moshe, "Leave me alone and let my anger consume them. I will destroy them and make a great nation out of you."
Why does Hashem need Moshe's advice or permission? Moshe had not been pleading with him at that point. It was Hashem who came to Moshe, as if Moshe was not allowing it and Hashem wanted to convince Him to allow it...?
Unilateral actions are never good. You do not just do something and spring it on your people. Share the information. Consult. Ask advice. Invite the participation of others in the decision making process.
No matter how powerful a person is, such as the CEO of a company or the manager of a division or whatever, you have to confide in your managers before making big moves. That is what Hashem did with Moshe.
Ki Tisa: Question: what is shabbos a sign for?
Parshat Ki Tisa
In 31:13 it says about Shabbos that it is a sign "Between Me and you... that I have made you holy (separate)".
In 31:17 it says about Shabbos that "Between Me and Israel it is a sign forever.."that I created the world in 6 days and on the 7th day I rested".
So what is Shabbos a sign for? That God rested on the 7th day or that the Jews are a holy and separate nation?
In 31:13 it says about Shabbos that it is a sign "Between Me and you... that I have made you holy (separate)".
In 31:17 it says about Shabbos that "Between Me and Israel it is a sign forever.."that I created the world in 6 days and on the 7th day I rested".
So what is Shabbos a sign for? That God rested on the 7th day or that the Jews are a holy and separate nation?
Ki Tisa: not standing on ceremony
Parshat Ki Tisa
In 30:18 It says, "And you should make the basin (for washing) from copper".
All the vessels in the mikdash were made from gold. Why is the washing basin the exception? Why copper?
The Seforno asks why this vessel is mentioned here at the beginning of Ki Tisa when all the other vessels were mentioned in Teruma (and a couple in Tetzaveh)?
The Seforno explains that this vessel, the washing basin, did not have the purpose of effecting Divine Presence in the Mishkan, as did all the other vessels. The basin was simply for the Kohanim to be able to prepare for the service. It was functional. Therefore, it is not mentioned with the others - because it has a different purpose.
This idea also answers my question.. The basin did not have the same purpose as the others.
The other vessels all had to made of gold because they were effecting השראת השכינה - Divine Presence. We know "there is no destitution int he place of wealth" which is why they had to be very strict about not using broken vessels, using only gold, etc.. so as not to give the appearance of any level of "עניות" - because in the process of effecting the Divine Presence, a certain level of כבוד was needed, and that required the vessels to be made of gold.
Yet the basin did not have that as its purpose. The basin was simply functional. It was not there for glory and respect. They simply had to wash their hands and feet. To do that, the basin did not have to be gold.
In 30:18 It says, "And you should make the basin (for washing) from copper".
All the vessels in the mikdash were made from gold. Why is the washing basin the exception? Why copper?
The Seforno asks why this vessel is mentioned here at the beginning of Ki Tisa when all the other vessels were mentioned in Teruma (and a couple in Tetzaveh)?
The Seforno explains that this vessel, the washing basin, did not have the purpose of effecting Divine Presence in the Mishkan, as did all the other vessels. The basin was simply for the Kohanim to be able to prepare for the service. It was functional. Therefore, it is not mentioned with the others - because it has a different purpose.
This idea also answers my question.. The basin did not have the same purpose as the others.
The other vessels all had to made of gold because they were effecting השראת השכינה - Divine Presence. We know "there is no destitution int he place of wealth" which is why they had to be very strict about not using broken vessels, using only gold, etc.. so as not to give the appearance of any level of "עניות" - because in the process of effecting the Divine Presence, a certain level of כבוד was needed, and that required the vessels to be made of gold.
Yet the basin did not have that as its purpose. The basin was simply functional. It was not there for glory and respect. They simply had to wash their hands and feet. To do that, the basin did not have to be gold.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Trumah: acheiving wisdom
Parshas Trumah
In 25:32 it says, "מקשה תיעשה המנורה" - the Menorah should be made of a solid piece.
Rashi explains that you should not make it in pieces that you then attach together, but from one solid piece.
The menorah is symbolic of wisdom - Torah knowledge. חכמה, wisdom, cannot come from partial information, knowledge in piecemeal fashion, putting things together. If you have bits and pieces of information, you might know some things, but that does not make you into a חכם.
You have to work hard and get the whole picture. learn it all, get the whole Torah, get the whole of whatever it is you are studying, understand it completely, the whole concept.
That is the way to acheive wisdom, just as the Menorah had to be of one piece.
In 25:32 it says, "מקשה תיעשה המנורה" - the Menorah should be made of a solid piece.
Rashi explains that you should not make it in pieces that you then attach together, but from one solid piece.
The menorah is symbolic of wisdom - Torah knowledge. חכמה, wisdom, cannot come from partial information, knowledge in piecemeal fashion, putting things together. If you have bits and pieces of information, you might know some things, but that does not make you into a חכם.
You have to work hard and get the whole picture. learn it all, get the whole Torah, get the whole of whatever it is you are studying, understand it completely, the whole concept.
That is the way to acheive wisdom, just as the Menorah had to be of one piece.
Trumah: promises of donations
Parshat Trumah
In 25:3 it says, "וזאת התרומה אשר תקחו מאתם" - this is the donation that you should take from them.
Rashi comments that it was all בנדבה - given generously. If that is the case, why does it keep says "Tikchu" you should take from them? they are donating it? They are coming and giving it to Moshe, so why does he have to go take it?
People make donations, during an appeal in shul for example, but they are lazy about actually getting around to making good on it. The Treasurer has to remind people that they have not yet paid. He has to keep nudging and even to take it from them.
When you are building the Beis Hamikdash, the Mishkan, a Shul, a Tzedaka project, etc., you cannot just sit back and rely on the promises people make as to whether they will donate and how much. If you rely on their promises, your project will never get off the ground.
You have to go get the money. Make them actually pay up. People promise to donate, but when they have to pay, they get reluctant,. It is difficult to pay out.
They donated generously, but you still have to go take it from them.
In 25:3 it says, "וזאת התרומה אשר תקחו מאתם" - this is the donation that you should take from them.
Rashi comments that it was all בנדבה - given generously. If that is the case, why does it keep says "Tikchu" you should take from them? they are donating it? They are coming and giving it to Moshe, so why does he have to go take it?
People make donations, during an appeal in shul for example, but they are lazy about actually getting around to making good on it. The Treasurer has to remind people that they have not yet paid. He has to keep nudging and even to take it from them.
When you are building the Beis Hamikdash, the Mishkan, a Shul, a Tzedaka project, etc., you cannot just sit back and rely on the promises people make as to whether they will donate and how much. If you rely on their promises, your project will never get off the ground.
You have to go get the money. Make them actually pay up. People promise to donate, but when they have to pay, they get reluctant,. It is difficult to pay out.
They donated generously, but you still have to go take it from them.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Mishpatim: temporary positions
Parshas Mishpatim
In 24:14 it says, "והנה אהרן וחור עמכם מי בעל דברים יגש אליהם" - Behold Aharon and Hur are with you. Whomever is part of a dispute should approach them.
Moshe was not going away for a long time. He was going for 40 days. Couldn't they just wait until he got back if they would need a beis din? They probably would have no need for it anyway, because "theyw ere all camped as one" - they were not fighting.. so whyw as it so important for Moshe to appoint Aharon and Hur as the people in charge?
A leader cannot leave things vague.
If Moshe was away and was needed, it would create chaos among the people. He had to be very careful to appoint replacements, even though his departure is only temporary and short-term. Even if just for appearance sake, so the people would know that they have not been abandoned.
A leader has to make sure the people are taken care of, and he has to make sure the people feel they are being taken care of.
In 24:14 it says, "והנה אהרן וחור עמכם מי בעל דברים יגש אליהם" - Behold Aharon and Hur are with you. Whomever is part of a dispute should approach them.
Moshe was not going away for a long time. He was going for 40 days. Couldn't they just wait until he got back if they would need a beis din? They probably would have no need for it anyway, because "theyw ere all camped as one" - they were not fighting.. so whyw as it so important for Moshe to appoint Aharon and Hur as the people in charge?
A leader cannot leave things vague.
If Moshe was away and was needed, it would create chaos among the people. He had to be very careful to appoint replacements, even though his departure is only temporary and short-term. Even if just for appearance sake, so the people would know that they have not been abandoned.
A leader has to make sure the people are taken care of, and he has to make sure the people feel they are being taken care of.
Mishpatim: Don't play with fire
Parshas Mishpatim
In 22:5 it says, "כי תצא אש ומצא קוצים ונאכל גדיש..." - When a fire goes out and finds thorns and the silo will be consumed....
When you light a fire, it is going to do damage. It will find something to burn.
A person has to be careful with his anger, and with his fire. As soon as he lights it, as soon as he lets his anger get out, it is very hard to control. Once let out, it is sure to do damage.
In 22:5 it says, "כי תצא אש ומצא קוצים ונאכל גדיש..." - When a fire goes out and finds thorns and the silo will be consumed....
When you light a fire, it is going to do damage. It will find something to burn.
A person has to be careful with his anger, and with his fire. As soon as he lights it, as soon as he lets his anger get out, it is very hard to control. Once let out, it is sure to do damage.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Yisro: coveting for its own sake
Parshat Yisro
In 20:13-14 the Torah says, "לא תרצח לא תנאף... לא תחמוד" - do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal.. do not covet that which belongs to others.."
I would think that "do not covet" should be placed earlier in that list. After all, coveting somebody else's stuff is what leads to stealing, it can lead to murder and adultery... so why is "do not covet" mentioned last? In order it should be first!?
The Torah is giving us a value - do not covet that which is in someone else's possession.
If the Torah would write that first, a person could understand that coveting is bad because it leads to theft, murder and adultery. In other words, if he feels strong enough to withstand, or if he puts safeguards in place to control himself, he will allow himself to covet as he knows he will not steal.
So the Torah puts it on its own. Do not steal, do not murder, do not commit adultery... and do not covet. Even if coveting will not lead you to the other transgressions, on its own it is bad.
In 20:13-14 the Torah says, "לא תרצח לא תנאף... לא תחמוד" - do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal.. do not covet that which belongs to others.."
I would think that "do not covet" should be placed earlier in that list. After all, coveting somebody else's stuff is what leads to stealing, it can lead to murder and adultery... so why is "do not covet" mentioned last? In order it should be first!?
The Torah is giving us a value - do not covet that which is in someone else's possession.
If the Torah would write that first, a person could understand that coveting is bad because it leads to theft, murder and adultery. In other words, if he feels strong enough to withstand, or if he puts safeguards in place to control himself, he will allow himself to covet as he knows he will not steal.
So the Torah puts it on its own. Do not steal, do not murder, do not commit adultery... and do not covet. Even if coveting will not lead you to the other transgressions, on its own it is bad.
Yisro: second or first
Parshat Yisro
In 18:4 it says "ושם האחד אליעזר" - the name of the one is Eliezer. Eliezer was the second child, so why does it not say "the name of the second was Eliezer"?
Even though in the order of children he was born second, but Eliezer was not "second" to Gershom in any respect. The Torah gives equal importance to both children, to both Gershom and Eliezer.
We should treat all our children with equal respect and not treat was as "number one" and another as being "second" No child should feel as if he is second class.
In 18:4 it says "ושם האחד אליעזר" - the name of the one is Eliezer. Eliezer was the second child, so why does it not say "the name of the second was Eliezer"?
Even though in the order of children he was born second, but Eliezer was not "second" to Gershom in any respect. The Torah gives equal importance to both children, to both Gershom and Eliezer.
We should treat all our children with equal respect and not treat was as "number one" and another as being "second" No child should feel as if he is second class.
Yisro: perspective or fact
Parshat Yisro
In 18:3-4 the Torah tells us about Moshe's two children. It says, "אשר שם האחד גרשם כי אמר... ושם האחד אליעזר כי אלקי אבי"
Why by Gershom does it say "And ones name was Gershom because he said..." while by Eliezer it says his "name was Eliezer because God saved us.." why not "because he said" by Eliezer as well?
There is a difference between perspective and fact.
By Gershom's birth, Moshe felt like an outsider. he felt like a stranger in a strange land. Even if he had received citizenship and had been there for a long time and was not considered a stranger, he still felt like a stranger. So he named his child Gershom because he said he was a stranger in a strange land. It was based on his perspective.
When he named Eliezer, it was based on fact, not perspective. Moshe said, I was n danger and Hashem saved me. So he named his kid Eliezer. It was not a matter of perspective, so it is not his viewpoint that is the basis for the name.
In 18:3-4 the Torah tells us about Moshe's two children. It says, "אשר שם האחד גרשם כי אמר... ושם האחד אליעזר כי אלקי אבי"
Why by Gershom does it say "And ones name was Gershom because he said..." while by Eliezer it says his "name was Eliezer because God saved us.." why not "because he said" by Eliezer as well?
There is a difference between perspective and fact.
By Gershom's birth, Moshe felt like an outsider. he felt like a stranger in a strange land. Even if he had received citizenship and had been there for a long time and was not considered a stranger, he still felt like a stranger. So he named his child Gershom because he said he was a stranger in a strange land. It was based on his perspective.
When he named Eliezer, it was based on fact, not perspective. Moshe said, I was n danger and Hashem saved me. So he named his kid Eliezer. It was not a matter of perspective, so it is not his viewpoint that is the basis for the name.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
B'Shalah: watching from the sidelines
Parshat B'Shalah
After the splitting of the sea, the pasusk tells us in 14:31 "ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו" - and they believed in Hashem and Moshe His servant.
It took them this long to come to the level of believing in Hashem? Only now do they see His strength because He split the sea - what about the various plagues they witnessed with all the relevant miracles? What about specifically the Plague of the First-Born where Hashem's tremendous strong hand was on display?
Why only now?
There is a difference between watching something and being a part of it.
Until now, with all teh plagues, all the signs, all the discussions, the Jews were on the sidelines. They were watching God take it out on the Egyptians. Sure they had faith in Hashem because of all they had witnessed.
By the splitting of the sea it was a whole new experience. They were part of it. They were being chased. They walked through the split sea. It was not just watching something happen to someone else. They were now a part of it. they experienced the "strong hand" first hand. Now they came to a whole new level of recognition and faith.
Being active, being part of an experience is different than just watching it happen from the side. That is what brought them to the level of emunah now that it says "And they believed in Hashem and Moshe His servant"
After the splitting of the sea, the pasusk tells us in 14:31 "ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו" - and they believed in Hashem and Moshe His servant.
It took them this long to come to the level of believing in Hashem? Only now do they see His strength because He split the sea - what about the various plagues they witnessed with all the relevant miracles? What about specifically the Plague of the First-Born where Hashem's tremendous strong hand was on display?
Why only now?
There is a difference between watching something and being a part of it.
Until now, with all teh plagues, all the signs, all the discussions, the Jews were on the sidelines. They were watching God take it out on the Egyptians. Sure they had faith in Hashem because of all they had witnessed.
By the splitting of the sea it was a whole new experience. They were part of it. They were being chased. They walked through the split sea. It was not just watching something happen to someone else. They were now a part of it. they experienced the "strong hand" first hand. Now they came to a whole new level of recognition and faith.
Being active, being part of an experience is different than just watching it happen from the side. That is what brought them to the level of emunah now that it says "And they believed in Hashem and Moshe His servant"
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Bo: the mighty hand
Parshat Bo
In 13:3,9,14,15,17, etc. the passuk says "For with a mighty hand I brought you out of Egypt".
Why keep repeating so many times that He took us out with a mighty hand? we got the point already! And why is it so relevant? The Torah is giving us a few mitzvos, why not just say "remember I took you out of Egypt, why the "mighty hand" so many times?
Strength is obviously an important facet of rule and leadership. Strength is deterrence. That strength is what kept most of the hostile nations away from attacking the Jews in the desert. the strength had to be stressed to keep everyone else at bay.
Strength is important, and not just to the outside. It is also important internally. People rally around and follow a strong leader. In the psukim here it is being used internally. It is being used to explain the reason for the mitzvos being given here; tefillin, redeeming the first-born, Pesach. We need to see the strength of our leader and that gives us what to follow. Nobody wants to follow a weak leader. By knowing that we put on tefillin because of the strong hand, it gives us reason to continue putting on tefillin.
In 13:3,9,14,15,17, etc. the passuk says "For with a mighty hand I brought you out of Egypt".
Why keep repeating so many times that He took us out with a mighty hand? we got the point already! And why is it so relevant? The Torah is giving us a few mitzvos, why not just say "remember I took you out of Egypt, why the "mighty hand" so many times?
Strength is obviously an important facet of rule and leadership. Strength is deterrence. That strength is what kept most of the hostile nations away from attacking the Jews in the desert. the strength had to be stressed to keep everyone else at bay.
Strength is important, and not just to the outside. It is also important internally. People rally around and follow a strong leader. In the psukim here it is being used internally. It is being used to explain the reason for the mitzvos being given here; tefillin, redeeming the first-born, Pesach. We need to see the strength of our leader and that gives us what to follow. Nobody wants to follow a weak leader. By knowing that we put on tefillin because of the strong hand, it gives us reason to continue putting on tefillin.
Bo: Let my people go!
Parshat Bo
Why did Moshe need to keep using the cover story of "Let us go out to the desert for three days to worship our God" - why not just say "Let us go free", or the more popular "Let my people go!"?
Pharoah knew what Moshe really wanted as he said in 10:11 that only the men should go - he knew they really just wanted and were planning to leave under the guise of religious ceremony, and Moshe probably knew he knew. So why the game of "let us go serve our God for three days"?
I can understand initially they asked for three days because maybe then asking to leave was too much and there was no way Pharoah would have ever approved. But now, after a number of plagues have already decimated Egypt? After so much hositility? Just say "Let my people go!"???
Anybody?
Why did Moshe need to keep using the cover story of "Let us go out to the desert for three days to worship our God" - why not just say "Let us go free", or the more popular "Let my people go!"?
Pharoah knew what Moshe really wanted as he said in 10:11 that only the men should go - he knew they really just wanted and were planning to leave under the guise of religious ceremony, and Moshe probably knew he knew. So why the game of "let us go serve our God for three days"?
I can understand initially they asked for three days because maybe then asking to leave was too much and there was no way Pharoah would have ever approved. But now, after a number of plagues have already decimated Egypt? After so much hositility? Just say "Let my people go!"???
Anybody?
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Va'Eira: hakaras hatov is forever
Parshat Va'Eira
Hashem told Moshe that Aharon should strike the ground. Rashi says the reason is because the ground had protected Moshe so it would be inappropriate for Moshe to strike the ground.
Was gratitude to an inanimate object so important that the leadership situation had to be altered, even temporarily, because of it? The plagues could have been considered such an important goal and need that perhaps that should have overridden the necessity of gratitude? I am sure, anyways, that had they been asked, the Nile and the ground would have agreed to allow Moshe to perform the plagues, considering how important the job was.
Hakaras Ha'Tov, gratitude, is not just "Thank you" and then you move on with your life. Hakaras HaTov is forever. Hakaras Ha'Tov creates a new relationship - it is something that cannot be ignored, even if there is somethin g important happening.
Moshe could not strike the ground, he could not strike the water, even though the purpose was very important. He could not do it because he had this unique relationship with those that had saved him.
If something needed to be done that is in contrast and conflict with that relationship, he could not just ignore the relationship and perform the act, an alternate method had to be found.
Hashem told Moshe that Aharon should strike the ground. Rashi says the reason is because the ground had protected Moshe so it would be inappropriate for Moshe to strike the ground.
Was gratitude to an inanimate object so important that the leadership situation had to be altered, even temporarily, because of it? The plagues could have been considered such an important goal and need that perhaps that should have overridden the necessity of gratitude? I am sure, anyways, that had they been asked, the Nile and the ground would have agreed to allow Moshe to perform the plagues, considering how important the job was.
Hakaras Ha'Tov, gratitude, is not just "Thank you" and then you move on with your life. Hakaras HaTov is forever. Hakaras Ha'Tov creates a new relationship - it is something that cannot be ignored, even if there is somethin g important happening.
Moshe could not strike the ground, he could not strike the water, even though the purpose was very important. He could not do it because he had this unique relationship with those that had saved him.
If something needed to be done that is in contrast and conflict with that relationship, he could not just ignore the relationship and perform the act, an alternate method had to be found.
Va'eira: the graveyard is full of people who thought they were irreplaceable
Parshat Va'eira
We find that some of the plagues and earlier tricks used to sway people and/or Pharoah were performed by Aharon rather than by Moshe. Hashem specifically told Moshe on those occassions that Aharon should be the one to effect the specific plague.
It is true that these situations were symbols of gratitude - the earth had protected Moshe when he struck the Egyptian, so he hsould nto strike the earth. The Nile had protected Moshe when he was a baby, so he should not strike the waters, etc.. So Aharon performed those.
But it also shows us that the specific person is not so important. Moshe, in this case, was chosen to lead Israel out of Egypt because of specific qualities he had within him. But Hashem bringing these plagues via Aharon instead of via Moshe shows that Moshe was just as replaceable as anyone else. Hashem was not bound to Moshe.
The saying goes, "The graveyard is full of people who thought they were irreplaceable" (it is sourced as "Unknown").
Moshe was important and was an important part of the plan and an important part of the exodus from Egypt. But Hashem shows that if necessary, other people can fill the spot. It was not dependant on Moshe.
Aside from this being a lesson to Moshe or to each one of us individually that we are replaceable, it was a message to Pharoah that Moshe is leading the show here, but he is not really so important. If you think you can knock Moshe off and derail the whole thing, he is easily replaced.
We find that some of the plagues and earlier tricks used to sway people and/or Pharoah were performed by Aharon rather than by Moshe. Hashem specifically told Moshe on those occassions that Aharon should be the one to effect the specific plague.
It is true that these situations were symbols of gratitude - the earth had protected Moshe when he struck the Egyptian, so he hsould nto strike the earth. The Nile had protected Moshe when he was a baby, so he should not strike the waters, etc.. So Aharon performed those.
But it also shows us that the specific person is not so important. Moshe, in this case, was chosen to lead Israel out of Egypt because of specific qualities he had within him. But Hashem bringing these plagues via Aharon instead of via Moshe shows that Moshe was just as replaceable as anyone else. Hashem was not bound to Moshe.
The saying goes, "The graveyard is full of people who thought they were irreplaceable" (it is sourced as "Unknown").
Moshe was important and was an important part of the plan and an important part of the exodus from Egypt. But Hashem shows that if necessary, other people can fill the spot. It was not dependant on Moshe.
Aside from this being a lesson to Moshe or to each one of us individually that we are replaceable, it was a message to Pharoah that Moshe is leading the show here, but he is not really so important. If you think you can knock Moshe off and derail the whole thing, he is easily replaced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
