Parshat Pinchas
In 27:3, as the daughters of Tzelafchad ae presenting their case why they should be allowed to inherit the lands of their deceased father, they say, "[Our father] was not among the congregation..."
Rashi explains their words that Tzelafchad had died for a private sin, not for participation in the sin of Korach or that of the complainers.
The daughters of Tzelafchad are making a very important distinction for us. There is a big difference between doing something in public and between doing something in private.
What is the difference? Either way it was a sin whose punishment was that of death!
They are telling us that when a sin is committed in public, where it can possibly influence other people, that is so much more serious. When done in private, it is between man and God and nobody else is involved or influenced.
Therefore a private sin, while still deserving of death, will have less serious consequences and ramifications.
And ultimately their claim was accepted by Hashem
Friday, July 18, 2008
Pinchas: The Nobel Peave Prize for violencc
Pashat Pinchas
In 25:12 Pinchas gets rewarded with Hashem saying, "הנני נותן את בריתי שלום"
Pinchas received the Nobel Peace Prize, so to speak, from Hashem for his actions.
It is ironic that the award of Peace is given to Pinchas when his action, righteous as it was, was one of extreme violence. The award would perhaps have been more appropriately called something else, perhaps the Plague Prevention Award or the Standing up for God Award, or whatever. But the Covenant of Peace?
שלום is not necessarily pacifism - always looking to talk through your disputes and arguments. Sometimes to achieve peace, a violent act might be needed.
It takes a bold and daring man to recognize that. Pinchas recognized that this situation, this public defilement of the nation, could not be resolved by discussion and persuasion. Only by one method would the situation be resolved. His violent act killed two people, but it spurred the Jewish people on to renewing their relationship with Hashem.
That is why Pinchas, despite, nay - because of, his violent act, won the Nobel Peace Prize.
In 25:12 Pinchas gets rewarded with Hashem saying, "הנני נותן את בריתי שלום"
Pinchas received the Nobel Peace Prize, so to speak, from Hashem for his actions.
It is ironic that the award of Peace is given to Pinchas when his action, righteous as it was, was one of extreme violence. The award would perhaps have been more appropriately called something else, perhaps the Plague Prevention Award or the Standing up for God Award, or whatever. But the Covenant of Peace?
שלום is not necessarily pacifism - always looking to talk through your disputes and arguments. Sometimes to achieve peace, a violent act might be needed.
It takes a bold and daring man to recognize that. Pinchas recognized that this situation, this public defilement of the nation, could not be resolved by discussion and persuasion. Only by one method would the situation be resolved. His violent act killed two people, but it spurred the Jewish people on to renewing their relationship with Hashem.
That is why Pinchas, despite, nay - because of, his violent act, won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Balak: Is our faith as strong as Bilaam's?
Parshat Balak
When Balak first tried to persuade Bila'am to join him and curse the Jewish people, Bila'am tried to make very clear that he would only be able to do whatever it is that hashem wants him to do.
Later, after Bila'am's multiple failed attempts, in 24:13, Bila'am, again, says, "If yo give me a house full of gold and silver, I would not beable to go against what Hashem wants me to do..."
I am no ba'al mussar, but I find this situation striking. Bila'am Ha'Rasha, who claims to know how to manipulate Hashem and find the moment He gets angry and take advantage by cursiong the jews at that very moment, he stands up and says that no sum of money, no matter how great it might be, will allow him to act against Hashem.
What about us? How often do we, for even just a small monetary gain, allow ourselves to be lax and derelict in our obligations towards Hashem?
How great it would be if we would have the wherwithal of Bila'am to be able to say with full confidence that no amount of money will make a difference in our allegiance to Hashem!
When Balak first tried to persuade Bila'am to join him and curse the Jewish people, Bila'am tried to make very clear that he would only be able to do whatever it is that hashem wants him to do.
Later, after Bila'am's multiple failed attempts, in 24:13, Bila'am, again, says, "If yo give me a house full of gold and silver, I would not beable to go against what Hashem wants me to do..."
I am no ba'al mussar, but I find this situation striking. Bila'am Ha'Rasha, who claims to know how to manipulate Hashem and find the moment He gets angry and take advantage by cursiong the jews at that very moment, he stands up and says that no sum of money, no matter how great it might be, will allow him to act against Hashem.
What about us? How often do we, for even just a small monetary gain, allow ourselves to be lax and derelict in our obligations towards Hashem?
How great it would be if we would have the wherwithal of Bila'am to be able to say with full confidence that no amount of money will make a difference in our allegiance to Hashem!
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Balak: we quote Bilaam every day during davening
Parshat Balak
Sheva Brachot Drasha
The following is what I said last night when speaking at a 'Sheva Brachos' we were hosting for a cousin who got married.
מה טובו אהליך יעקב משכנותיך ישראך. Bilaam gave this bracha to the Jews, he had this insight about the Jews. I never really understood why we start of our day, every single day, saying, as one of the first things we say in the morning, this verse of Mah Tovu. Bilaam Ha'Rasha said this about the Jews. No matter how good it was, couldn't we find a better quote from someone a little less evil, and quote that everyday? Couldn't we find something that a tzaddik said that we could quote every day?
Why quote this from Bilaam, every day as we start the day?
How is it that Balak pressed on wqith his aim to curse the people. When he saw that his attempts were futile, why did he not give up, realizing that Hashem would not let him curse the Jews, and send BIlaam home - so they would not be cursed, but at least they would also not be blessed! Why did he not just give up and go home?
Truthfully I do not really have an answer to this question why Balak did not just give up. But I do think it provides us with an insight as to how the human mind works.
Balak and Bilaam were totally dedicated to their cause of cursng the Jews. They were focused, and they were determined to acheive their goal. Had they paused, taken a step back for a moment to re-evaluate the situation and look at it objectively, they might have said something like, "This is crazy - let's just go home, have a beer and watch the football game". but they did not. Because they were so focused and dedicated, they did not understand what was happening around them.
This type of devotion and dedication is what Bilaam saw in the Jews when he said Mah Tovu. He saw that despite their hardships - the slavery, the exodus, the travels in the desert, never having enough food and water (at least constantly complaining about it), the Golden Calf, the Spies, and more - they were dedicated to living their family lives in holiness with modesty. He recognized their determination to remain steadfast in their lifestyle of Tznius.
That si why, possibly, we quote Bilaam every day. Because he recognized that in us, and we want to start our day off, every day, reminding ourselves that as a nation our success comes, in part at least, because we are so careful with building our families modeled on tznius and living wih kedusha.
Sheva Brachot Drasha
The following is what I said last night when speaking at a 'Sheva Brachos' we were hosting for a cousin who got married.
מה טובו אהליך יעקב משכנותיך ישראך. Bilaam gave this bracha to the Jews, he had this insight about the Jews. I never really understood why we start of our day, every single day, saying, as one of the first things we say in the morning, this verse of Mah Tovu. Bilaam Ha'Rasha said this about the Jews. No matter how good it was, couldn't we find a better quote from someone a little less evil, and quote that everyday? Couldn't we find something that a tzaddik said that we could quote every day?
Why quote this from Bilaam, every day as we start the day?
How is it that Balak pressed on wqith his aim to curse the people. When he saw that his attempts were futile, why did he not give up, realizing that Hashem would not let him curse the Jews, and send BIlaam home - so they would not be cursed, but at least they would also not be blessed! Why did he not just give up and go home?
Truthfully I do not really have an answer to this question why Balak did not just give up. But I do think it provides us with an insight as to how the human mind works.
Balak and Bilaam were totally dedicated to their cause of cursng the Jews. They were focused, and they were determined to acheive their goal. Had they paused, taken a step back for a moment to re-evaluate the situation and look at it objectively, they might have said something like, "This is crazy - let's just go home, have a beer and watch the football game". but they did not. Because they were so focused and dedicated, they did not understand what was happening around them.
This type of devotion and dedication is what Bilaam saw in the Jews when he said Mah Tovu. He saw that despite their hardships - the slavery, the exodus, the travels in the desert, never having enough food and water (at least constantly complaining about it), the Golden Calf, the Spies, and more - they were dedicated to living their family lives in holiness with modesty. He recognized their determination to remain steadfast in their lifestyle of Tznius.
That si why, possibly, we quote Bilaam every day. Because he recognized that in us, and we want to start our day off, every day, reminding ourselves that as a nation our success comes, in part at least, because we are so careful with building our families modeled on tznius and living wih kedusha.
Balak: his own reality
Parshat Balak
Balak and Bilaam go out a few times to try to curse the Jews. Each time Bilaam tries to curse, it comes out as a blessing. Each time, Balak gets increasingly more upset at Bilaam, screaming at him more and more.
Why did Balak keep trying. Bilaam told him he can only say what Hashem allows himm and after seeing that Hashem would only allow Bilaam to bless, not curse, Balak should have said let's go home and have a beer instead. Why did he keep trying?
The events show that a person can get caught up in what he sees as reality because of his personal interests. He can completely ignore everything else, because he is completely focused on one thing.
Balak was so determined to curse the Jews that he completely blocked out any objective evealuation of the situation. He did not even see that he had no chance of success and that he was accomplishing the exact opposite of his goal. He fooled himself into thinking he could still do it.
Balak and Bilaam go out a few times to try to curse the Jews. Each time Bilaam tries to curse, it comes out as a blessing. Each time, Balak gets increasingly more upset at Bilaam, screaming at him more and more.
Why did Balak keep trying. Bilaam told him he can only say what Hashem allows himm and after seeing that Hashem would only allow Bilaam to bless, not curse, Balak should have said let's go home and have a beer instead. Why did he keep trying?
The events show that a person can get caught up in what he sees as reality because of his personal interests. He can completely ignore everything else, because he is completely focused on one thing.
Balak was so determined to curse the Jews that he completely blocked out any objective evealuation of the situation. He did not even see that he had no chance of success and that he was accomplishing the exact opposite of his goal. He fooled himself into thinking he could still do it.
Balak: 2 sides to every story
Parshat Balak
In 22:5 Balak says to Bilaam, "הנה כסה את עין הארץ" - that Sichon and Og, both of whom we relied upon for protection, were defeated by the Jews, so we would have no chance against them.
So just be peaceful and let the Jews pass and don't make trouble! The Jews did not start up with Sichon and Og - Sichon and Og attacked them! So if you are afraid of the Jews, just leave them be. If you do not attack them, they will ignore you as well. Why look for a better way to defeat them?
Eveybody lives in their own reality. We look back to Parshas Chukas and find the Jews making their way peacefully to Eretz Yisrael when Sichon and then Og both start up and attack them. Balak's reality was that the Jews were powerful warmongers, starting up with all the nations they come into contact with. They aleady defeated them, and we are next in line.
There are two (or three!) sides to every story. Everyone has their own reality and their own perspective, and they act based on their own reality.
In 22:5 Balak says to Bilaam, "הנה כסה את עין הארץ" - that Sichon and Og, both of whom we relied upon for protection, were defeated by the Jews, so we would have no chance against them.
So just be peaceful and let the Jews pass and don't make trouble! The Jews did not start up with Sichon and Og - Sichon and Og attacked them! So if you are afraid of the Jews, just leave them be. If you do not attack them, they will ignore you as well. Why look for a better way to defeat them?
Eveybody lives in their own reality. We look back to Parshas Chukas and find the Jews making their way peacefully to Eretz Yisrael when Sichon and then Og both start up and attack them. Balak's reality was that the Jews were powerful warmongers, starting up with all the nations they come into contact with. They aleady defeated them, and we are next in line.
There are two (or three!) sides to every story. Everyone has their own reality and their own perspective, and they act based on their own reality.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Chukas: sitting in the getaway car
Parshat Chukas
Hashem tells Moshe and Aharon to speak to the rock, and it will give forth water. Moshe hits the rock. Hashem punishes them by not allowing them to enter Eretz Yisrael.
What did Aharon do wrong? He stood there while Moshe hit the rock. He did not do anything. So why did he get punished at all, or at least why the same as Moshe?
We see from here that being an accomplice to a crime is just as bad as having committed the actual crime.
Aharon was the guy in the getaway car. If someone goes in to rob a bank, and his partner sits outside waiting for him in the getaway car, they are both equally responsible for robbing the bank.
So Aharon was like that guy in the getaway car. He was Moshe's accomplice. He stood by Moshe's side while Moshe hit the rock. So sure he did not actually hit the rock himself, but he is equally as guilty.
We have to be very careful with whom and with what we associate ourselves. Just being associated with bad, makes us equally as guilty, even if we did nto actually do anythign wrong.
Hashem tells Moshe and Aharon to speak to the rock, and it will give forth water. Moshe hits the rock. Hashem punishes them by not allowing them to enter Eretz Yisrael.
What did Aharon do wrong? He stood there while Moshe hit the rock. He did not do anything. So why did he get punished at all, or at least why the same as Moshe?
We see from here that being an accomplice to a crime is just as bad as having committed the actual crime.
Aharon was the guy in the getaway car. If someone goes in to rob a bank, and his partner sits outside waiting for him in the getaway car, they are both equally responsible for robbing the bank.
So Aharon was like that guy in the getaway car. He was Moshe's accomplice. He stood by Moshe's side while Moshe hit the rock. So sure he did not actually hit the rock himself, but he is equally as guilty.
We have to be very careful with whom and with what we associate ourselves. Just being associated with bad, makes us equally as guilty, even if we did nto actually do anythign wrong.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Chukas: resting on your laurels
Parshat Chukas
The Parsha concludes with how the Jews smote Og and took over the land of Bashan. Then it concludes with one last passuk, that is even the first of a new perek, and says they traveled to Arvos Moav.
Why does it not conclude the parsha with the battle of Og and start the next parsha with the travel to Arvos Moav? Anyway that is really relevant to the parsha of Balak and Bila'am and not to us in this parsha, so why did chazal make the portion break after that last passuk and not before?
I do not ask why the perek is begun with this passuk rather than the one after it, because the chapeters were delineated not by Jewish sources, so that has less meaning. But the portion itself (the paragraph markers, so to speak) is marked after this passuk, and the parsha concludes with this last passuk. Why?
I would suggest that they could have stopped after what was definitely a big battle with Og. they could have stayed a while and rested, enjoyed a bit of respite, before they moved on.
But no - it says the nest passuk right away to tell us that they right away moved on. They went to Arvos Moav right away and continued on the journey to Eretz Yisrael.
They refused to sit on their success. One must always continue progressing.
The Parsha concludes with how the Jews smote Og and took over the land of Bashan. Then it concludes with one last passuk, that is even the first of a new perek, and says they traveled to Arvos Moav.
Why does it not conclude the parsha with the battle of Og and start the next parsha with the travel to Arvos Moav? Anyway that is really relevant to the parsha of Balak and Bila'am and not to us in this parsha, so why did chazal make the portion break after that last passuk and not before?
I do not ask why the perek is begun with this passuk rather than the one after it, because the chapeters were delineated not by Jewish sources, so that has less meaning. But the portion itself (the paragraph markers, so to speak) is marked after this passuk, and the parsha concludes with this last passuk. Why?
I would suggest that they could have stopped after what was definitely a big battle with Og. they could have stayed a while and rested, enjoyed a bit of respite, before they moved on.
But no - it says the nest passuk right away to tell us that they right away moved on. They went to Arvos Moav right away and continued on the journey to Eretz Yisrael.
They refused to sit on their success. One must always continue progressing.
Korach: Are Egypt and Israel equal?
Parshat Korach
In 16:13-14, Dasan and Aviram are giving their response to Moshe who had called upon them to come talk with him. He was trying to sway them to drop out of the fight. They respond by saying (passuk 13) that he took them out of a land flowing with milk and honey... and (passuk 14) he did not even bring them into the promised land flowing with milk and honey.
Chazal broke up the aliya right in between those two psukkim. That is very unusual - to break an aliya in the middle of a sentence. Really it should even have waited, possibly, to break it up after Moshe's response, but at least wait until Dasn and Aviram finish saying what they were saying?
I would suggest that the reason Chazal put the break there is to cause us to think about what they were saying. Dasan and Aviram used the same exact words to describe Eretz Yisrael and Egypt. They described both as being the land flowing with milk and honey. They were equating the two lands - you took us from one, bring us to the other.
Chazal are making us think about that and saying stop. Dasan and AViram want to equate Eretz Yisrael and Egypt, but you cannot. they are not equal. We will make a division between them to show that.
In 16:13-14, Dasan and Aviram are giving their response to Moshe who had called upon them to come talk with him. He was trying to sway them to drop out of the fight. They respond by saying (passuk 13) that he took them out of a land flowing with milk and honey... and (passuk 14) he did not even bring them into the promised land flowing with milk and honey.
Chazal broke up the aliya right in between those two psukkim. That is very unusual - to break an aliya in the middle of a sentence. Really it should even have waited, possibly, to break it up after Moshe's response, but at least wait until Dasn and Aviram finish saying what they were saying?
I would suggest that the reason Chazal put the break there is to cause us to think about what they were saying. Dasan and Aviram used the same exact words to describe Eretz Yisrael and Egypt. They described both as being the land flowing with milk and honey. They were equating the two lands - you took us from one, bring us to the other.
Chazal are making us think about that and saying stop. Dasan and AViram want to equate Eretz Yisrael and Egypt, but you cannot. they are not equal. We will make a division between them to show that.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Shlach: why were the people destined to die in the desert?
Parshas Sh'lach
In 14:28-38, Hashem announces the punishment for the sin of the spies. - the spies themselves would die in a plague, and the people would be forced to wander the desert for 40 years (1 year per day of the spies trip through Israel), and the people would die in the desert and not enter the land - only their children would be able to.
I do not udnerstand what the people did so bad here to deserve the punishment they received. If one looks at the psukim, all we see is the spies returning, giving their report of the land and their recommendation, even a demand, that they refuse to enter the land.
The people then complained that Hashem brought them up just to kill them in the desert and maybe they should go back to Egypt.
Is this the first time the people complained? Is this the first time the people suggested they return to Egypt? They have been complaining non-stop since they left Egypt, constantly talking about how good they had it!
The punishment of the spies I understand. But the punishment of the people perplexes me. What did they do so bad to deserve what they got? Why is the complaining this time different than any other time?
No answer I have thought has been satisfactory, so if you can suggest anything, I would appreciate it....
In 14:28-38, Hashem announces the punishment for the sin of the spies. - the spies themselves would die in a plague, and the people would be forced to wander the desert for 40 years (1 year per day of the spies trip through Israel), and the people would die in the desert and not enter the land - only their children would be able to.
I do not udnerstand what the people did so bad here to deserve the punishment they received. If one looks at the psukim, all we see is the spies returning, giving their report of the land and their recommendation, even a demand, that they refuse to enter the land.
The people then complained that Hashem brought them up just to kill them in the desert and maybe they should go back to Egypt.
Is this the first time the people complained? Is this the first time the people suggested they return to Egypt? They have been complaining non-stop since they left Egypt, constantly talking about how good they had it!
The punishment of the spies I understand. But the punishment of the people perplexes me. What did they do so bad to deserve what they got? Why is the complaining this time different than any other time?
No answer I have thought has been satisfactory, so if you can suggest anything, I would appreciate it....
Shlach: why Moshe really could not get into the Land of Israel
Parshas Sh'lach
In 14:13 it says "וישמעו מצרים" and Rashi explains that they would then say that "Hashem was able to beat us in war and take the Jews out, but He is not strong enough to beat the יושבי האארץ".
Moshe was calling Hashem out and warning Him that if he kills them out, if He does not let them into the land, then He will have caused a chillul Hashem of sorts.
I would like to suggest that this might be why Moshe later gets punished by not being allowed into Israel upon striking the rock.
Over there it is explained that Moshe did not really do anything wrong, per se. Rather, he could have effected a greater kiddush Hashem by talking to the rock, but he struck the rock instead.
But why is that so bad? So he caused only a smaller kiddush Hashem? For that he deserves such a harsh punishment?
I would suggest that it is a sense of tit for tat. Mida k'negged mida. He got the punishment over there for not effecting a greater Kiddush Hashem, because over here by the spies he used that argument against Hashem to protect the jews. He said "Don't destroy the jews because the Egyptians will say You were not strong enough." By destroying the Jews, You will be preventing the greater Kiddush Hashem of taking them into the land and everyone will recognize Your strength..
Because Moshe used that argument here, so later when he prevented the greater kiddush Hashem, he had to be punished via the argument he introduced here - by not entering the land.
In 14:13 it says "וישמעו מצרים" and Rashi explains that they would then say that "Hashem was able to beat us in war and take the Jews out, but He is not strong enough to beat the יושבי האארץ".
Moshe was calling Hashem out and warning Him that if he kills them out, if He does not let them into the land, then He will have caused a chillul Hashem of sorts.
I would like to suggest that this might be why Moshe later gets punished by not being allowed into Israel upon striking the rock.
Over there it is explained that Moshe did not really do anything wrong, per se. Rather, he could have effected a greater kiddush Hashem by talking to the rock, but he struck the rock instead.
But why is that so bad? So he caused only a smaller kiddush Hashem? For that he deserves such a harsh punishment?
I would suggest that it is a sense of tit for tat. Mida k'negged mida. He got the punishment over there for not effecting a greater Kiddush Hashem, because over here by the spies he used that argument against Hashem to protect the jews. He said "Don't destroy the jews because the Egyptians will say You were not strong enough." By destroying the Jews, You will be preventing the greater Kiddush Hashem of taking them into the land and everyone will recognize Your strength..
Because Moshe used that argument here, so later when he prevented the greater kiddush Hashem, he had to be punished via the argument he introduced here - by not entering the land.
Sh'lach: why only Menashe
Parshas Sh'lach
In 13:8 the passu tells us the name of the spy from the tribe of Efraim - "למטה אפרים הושע בן נון", and then in passuk 11 it tells us the name of the spy from Menashe - "למטה יוסף למטה מנשה גדי בן סוסי".
Why by Menashe does it associate back to Yosef, but not by Efraim?
In 13:8 the passu tells us the name of the spy from the tribe of Efraim - "למטה אפרים הושע בן נון", and then in passuk 11 it tells us the name of the spy from Menashe - "למטה יוסף למטה מנשה גדי בן סוסי".
Why by Menashe does it associate back to Yosef, but not by Efraim?
Monday, June 16, 2008
B'Haaloscha: giving it all up for the truth
Parshas B'Haaloscha
In 10:30 the people had asked Yisro to stay with them but Yisro responds that he will not stay but he will go back home to his land and to his birthplace.
Yisro's response stands, in my mind, in stark contrast to the response of Avraham who was also implored (albeit by God Himself in that case) to leave his family, his birthplace and his land to go to the Land of Israel.
Avraham, as we know, did so because he had found the truth and knew he had to follow it.
Yisro found the truth as well, but he could not give up his personal needs and preferences to follow it. When push came to shove, despite his being so great, and even the father of the Jewish Judicial System, he could not take that step to throw his lot in with that if the jewish People. He could not give up everything to follow and be a part of the truth.
This shows that mo matter how great a person might be, everybody still has negios. They have preferences with internal conflicts that are often difficult to overcome. When they do overcome them, it shows how great that person and his dedication really is.
In 10:30 the people had asked Yisro to stay with them but Yisro responds that he will not stay but he will go back home to his land and to his birthplace.
Yisro's response stands, in my mind, in stark contrast to the response of Avraham who was also implored (albeit by God Himself in that case) to leave his family, his birthplace and his land to go to the Land of Israel.
Avraham, as we know, did so because he had found the truth and knew he had to follow it.
Yisro found the truth as well, but he could not give up his personal needs and preferences to follow it. When push came to shove, despite his being so great, and even the father of the Jewish Judicial System, he could not take that step to throw his lot in with that if the jewish People. He could not give up everything to follow and be a part of the truth.
This shows that mo matter how great a person might be, everybody still has negios. They have preferences with internal conflicts that are often difficult to overcome. When they do overcome them, it shows how great that person and his dedication really is.
Naso: each individual counts
Parshas Naso
Why at the end of the Parsha does it spend so much time and space detailing all the dedications of the various leaders of the various tribes. they were all exactly the same. The Torah should have detailed one, and then said in some way that each one brought his dedication on his appropriate day. Or something similar to that.
So why does it detail each one seperately?
I would suggest that this shows how important each individual is. Yes, they each gave the same thing, but each gave it seperately. Each one put his heart into his gift.
the Torah details each one because it wants to show us that the gift of each individual, the service of each individual, is important in its own right, and not just as part of the group.
Why at the end of the Parsha does it spend so much time and space detailing all the dedications of the various leaders of the various tribes. they were all exactly the same. The Torah should have detailed one, and then said in some way that each one brought his dedication on his appropriate day. Or something similar to that.
So why does it detail each one seperately?
I would suggest that this shows how important each individual is. Yes, they each gave the same thing, but each gave it seperately. Each one put his heart into his gift.
the Torah details each one because it wants to show us that the gift of each individual, the service of each individual, is important in its own right, and not just as part of the group.
Bamidbar: when does protexia get applied?
Parshas Bamidbar
In 1:49 Hashem tell Moshe not to count to tribe of Levi. Rashi explains that Hashem knew that all those counted here would eventually receive a punishment of death in the desert. So why not Levi? because Levi is special. Levi did not sin by the Golden Calf. Levi stepped up to the plate and batted on God's side.
Why is that a reason - did we not learn by the children of Aharon the concept of "בקרובי אקדש" - that Hashem's name gets honored more when people see those who are close to Him being punished?
I am not saying Levi deserved death, but why do they get this special protection just because they were more purely dedicated to God, when we see others do not get that "protexia"?
Anyone?
In 1:49 Hashem tell Moshe not to count to tribe of Levi. Rashi explains that Hashem knew that all those counted here would eventually receive a punishment of death in the desert. So why not Levi? because Levi is special. Levi did not sin by the Golden Calf. Levi stepped up to the plate and batted on God's side.
Why is that a reason - did we not learn by the children of Aharon the concept of "בקרובי אקדש" - that Hashem's name gets honored more when people see those who are close to Him being punished?
I am not saying Levi deserved death, but why do they get this special protection just because they were more purely dedicated to God, when we see others do not get that "protexia"?
Anyone?
Bamidbar: Love is a double edged sword
Parshas Bamidbar
Love. A double edged sword.
In B'cchukosai we read from the Torah the portion of the threats and curses of punishments that will befall us if we do not follow Hashem and the Torah properly. So this week, in Bamidbar, we start out right away with Hashem telling Moshe to count the Israelites, with Rashi explaining it is because Hashem loves us so much that He counts us. Counting us is an expression of love.
But this love is dangerous. Moshe is then told to not count the Levite tribe. Rashi explains the reason to be because Hashem knows that all those counted will later be condemned to die in the desert and not enter the Land of Israel.
So do not count the Leviim because even though counting is an expression of love, it also is a marker for who will later be condemned to death.
So which is it? an expression of love or a sign of condemnation?
anybody have any ideas?
Love. A double edged sword.
In B'cchukosai we read from the Torah the portion of the threats and curses of punishments that will befall us if we do not follow Hashem and the Torah properly. So this week, in Bamidbar, we start out right away with Hashem telling Moshe to count the Israelites, with Rashi explaining it is because Hashem loves us so much that He counts us. Counting us is an expression of love.
But this love is dangerous. Moshe is then told to not count the Levite tribe. Rashi explains the reason to be because Hashem knows that all those counted will later be condemned to die in the desert and not enter the Land of Israel.
So do not count the Leviim because even though counting is an expression of love, it also is a marker for who will later be condemned to death.
So which is it? an expression of love or a sign of condemnation?
anybody have any ideas?
Thursday, May 22, 2008
B'chukosai: remaining positive
Parshas B'Chukosai
At the end of the portion of the Tochacha, it says that we will be chased out of Eretz Yisrael and dispersed among the nations, the foreign lands will consume us, etc.Then it says, in 26:44, that despite that, even while we are in the lands of the enemy, I will not break my promise and I will not destroy you.
Why mention this while delineating all the punishments and curses? It seems counterproductive? Harsh warnings, but don't worry so much. Doesn't make sense!
Maybe the Torah is offering a light at the end of the tunnel. Any period in which these curses are actually brought upon us, would be a very dark period. That can lead to despair and depression. People will give up hope and think there is no way to come out of it, personally or nationally.
The Torah says, despite all that, despite all the curses, I will never break My promise. I will never destroy you. You have a future. Keep trying to improve. There is still hope. Remain positive.
At the end of the portion of the Tochacha, it says that we will be chased out of Eretz Yisrael and dispersed among the nations, the foreign lands will consume us, etc.Then it says, in 26:44, that despite that, even while we are in the lands of the enemy, I will not break my promise and I will not destroy you.
Why mention this while delineating all the punishments and curses? It seems counterproductive? Harsh warnings, but don't worry so much. Doesn't make sense!
Maybe the Torah is offering a light at the end of the tunnel. Any period in which these curses are actually brought upon us, would be a very dark period. That can lead to despair and depression. People will give up hope and think there is no way to come out of it, personally or nationally.
The Torah says, despite all that, despite all the curses, I will never break My promise. I will never destroy you. You have a future. Keep trying to improve. There is still hope. Remain positive.
B'chukosai: a person's worth and value
Parshat B'Chukosai
Someone asked me last night why the section on Erchin (donating one's value to the Temple) comes immediately after the section of the Tochacha and curses? What si the connection between the two?
While other answers were offered, I suggested two possible answers:
1. The Torah is saying that after you have gone through all the curses and admonishment, a person can go into a depression. The Torah then immediately presents the portion on the values to say that despite the curses, despite the admonishment, don't get into a depression. Every person has inherent value. Don't think life is not worth living, you are nobody because you do not do enough mitzvos, etc.
You have value. We all have value.
2. Extending the first thought... somebody poor should not think he is a nobody and somebody rich should not think he is so great and better than other people. At the end of the day we are all worth the same (assuming the same gender and age group). The rich person should say "that poor guy is worth as much as me" and the poor guy should say "I am worth as much as the rich guy".
That will temper any form of depression because you think you are worth less than others, and any form of haughtiness in thinking you are worth more than others.
Someone asked me last night why the section on Erchin (donating one's value to the Temple) comes immediately after the section of the Tochacha and curses? What si the connection between the two?
While other answers were offered, I suggested two possible answers:
1. The Torah is saying that after you have gone through all the curses and admonishment, a person can go into a depression. The Torah then immediately presents the portion on the values to say that despite the curses, despite the admonishment, don't get into a depression. Every person has inherent value. Don't think life is not worth living, you are nobody because you do not do enough mitzvos, etc.
You have value. We all have value.
2. Extending the first thought... somebody poor should not think he is a nobody and somebody rich should not think he is so great and better than other people. At the end of the day we are all worth the same (assuming the same gender and age group). The rich person should say "that poor guy is worth as much as me" and the poor guy should say "I am worth as much as the rich guy".
That will temper any form of depression because you think you are worth less than others, and any form of haughtiness in thinking you are worth more than others.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
B'Har: keeping yourself in line
Parshat B'Har
It says a number of times in the Parsha (25:17, 25:36, 25:43), regarding various instructions of behavior, "And you should fear your God" - ויראת מאלקיך.
Every time it says that, it is referring to a situation in which it is difficult, or even impossible, to know whether the persons actions were done with good intentions or with self-serving motives. In these situations, the Torah reminds us that Hashem knows all and knows what is in our hearts, so even if other people don't know, Hashem still does, so we should do it for the right reasons.
It is easy to be frumm when everyone is looking at you and watching what you are doing. As a matter of fact, it is a common phenomenon that some people who are very frum, when they go away on vacation are much more lax and do things they would never even consider doing back in their own community. This is because they are comfortable with the idea that nobody is watching them and seeing them in this "less frum environment".
That is really when you need the fear of God - the Yiras Hashem. When you are away from your normal setting, around people who don't know you or care what you do. If you have yiras hashem, you will stick to your ideals even then.
Yiras hashem is what keeps you on the line, even when nobody else knows what you are doing.
It says a number of times in the Parsha (25:17, 25:36, 25:43), regarding various instructions of behavior, "And you should fear your God" - ויראת מאלקיך.
Every time it says that, it is referring to a situation in which it is difficult, or even impossible, to know whether the persons actions were done with good intentions or with self-serving motives. In these situations, the Torah reminds us that Hashem knows all and knows what is in our hearts, so even if other people don't know, Hashem still does, so we should do it for the right reasons.
It is easy to be frumm when everyone is looking at you and watching what you are doing. As a matter of fact, it is a common phenomenon that some people who are very frum, when they go away on vacation are much more lax and do things they would never even consider doing back in their own community. This is because they are comfortable with the idea that nobody is watching them and seeing them in this "less frum environment".
That is really when you need the fear of God - the Yiras Hashem. When you are away from your normal setting, around people who don't know you or care what you do. If you have yiras hashem, you will stick to your ideals even then.
Yiras hashem is what keeps you on the line, even when nobody else knows what you are doing.
Emor: earning your keep
Parshat Emor
The Torah talks about the obligations of the farmer to leave in his field various forms of charity for the poor - the fallen stalks, the corner of the field, etc.
Why are we obligated to leave the grains in this fashion? what is wrong with the normal method of giving tzedaka where we give the charity to the poor fellow? Why here is the landowner not allowed to pick it up and distribute, rather he has to leave it for the poor to take?
Nowadays, most of us are not farmers and do not have fields within which we can leave the corner for the poor, so what lesson can we learn from this mitzvah?
Many give an answer to the above question by saying that this is a form of anonymous giving. The poor man can come in the night and take it, when nobody can see. It saves him the embarrassment.
That answer does not seem complete, because even with giving money there are ways it can be done anonymously, even with giving grains the owner could pick it up and do it anonymously. Also, it is not really anonymous. All the poor come together and try to be the first to take the grains. We even see by Boaz that this was the case, as the Megillas Ruth says that Boaz was impressed by how he noticed Ruth wait until the others had finished scavenging and she only took what was left at the end. So these forms of tzedaka are often not really anonymous.
I have an answer I would like to suggest. I think the method is used here to allow the poor man some dignity. We give tzedaka in other ways, with money or chesed. But those forms of tzedaka are, while necessary in order to support the poor, also prone to shame, even if done in the best of ways and with the best of intentions. Nobody likes to take charity, and the poor only do it because they have to.
By setting up this method, we offer the poor charity in a way that is dignified. In this situation, they are working for their food. Not just taking a handout. Here the poor man can go home proud of what he accomplished. He can say he put in a hard days work and earned his bread on that day.
For whatever reason, bad mazal, this fellow is poor. Maybe he lost his job, maybe he has bad health, whatever. he wants to earn his own keep. Everybody does. This gives him an opportunity to feel as though, at least on that day, he has not just taken a handout, but actually earned his keep.
And this can be a lesson to us today as well. Yes, we have to give tzedaka, both of our time and of our money. We are obligated to. But maybe, in addition to that, we can also find ways to help the poor while allowing themselves to feel like they accomplished. Help them find jobs, offer them to work, when appropriate, even on small odd-jobs, and the like. Let him feel proud that he has earned his bread one day.
The Torah talks about the obligations of the farmer to leave in his field various forms of charity for the poor - the fallen stalks, the corner of the field, etc.
Why are we obligated to leave the grains in this fashion? what is wrong with the normal method of giving tzedaka where we give the charity to the poor fellow? Why here is the landowner not allowed to pick it up and distribute, rather he has to leave it for the poor to take?
Nowadays, most of us are not farmers and do not have fields within which we can leave the corner for the poor, so what lesson can we learn from this mitzvah?
Many give an answer to the above question by saying that this is a form of anonymous giving. The poor man can come in the night and take it, when nobody can see. It saves him the embarrassment.
That answer does not seem complete, because even with giving money there are ways it can be done anonymously, even with giving grains the owner could pick it up and do it anonymously. Also, it is not really anonymous. All the poor come together and try to be the first to take the grains. We even see by Boaz that this was the case, as the Megillas Ruth says that Boaz was impressed by how he noticed Ruth wait until the others had finished scavenging and she only took what was left at the end. So these forms of tzedaka are often not really anonymous.
I have an answer I would like to suggest. I think the method is used here to allow the poor man some dignity. We give tzedaka in other ways, with money or chesed. But those forms of tzedaka are, while necessary in order to support the poor, also prone to shame, even if done in the best of ways and with the best of intentions. Nobody likes to take charity, and the poor only do it because they have to.
By setting up this method, we offer the poor charity in a way that is dignified. In this situation, they are working for their food. Not just taking a handout. Here the poor man can go home proud of what he accomplished. He can say he put in a hard days work and earned his bread on that day.
For whatever reason, bad mazal, this fellow is poor. Maybe he lost his job, maybe he has bad health, whatever. he wants to earn his own keep. Everybody does. This gives him an opportunity to feel as though, at least on that day, he has not just taken a handout, but actually earned his keep.
And this can be a lesson to us today as well. Yes, we have to give tzedaka, both of our time and of our money. We are obligated to. But maybe, in addition to that, we can also find ways to help the poor while allowing themselves to feel like they accomplished. Help them find jobs, offer them to work, when appropriate, even on small odd-jobs, and the like. Let him feel proud that he has earned his bread one day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
