Yeshiva World News

Vayisa einav vayar v’hinei shlosha anashim nitzavim alav vayar vayaratz likrasam mi’pesach ha’ohel vayishtachu artzah (18:2)

Avrohom excelled in the mitzvah of hosting guests. Three days after he had circumcised himself at the age of 99, Hashem didn’t want Avrohom to burden himself with caring for guests. He brought a heat wave to deter all travelers on that day. Still, the weak Avrohom’s greatest concern was that the unusually hot weather would deny him the merit of welcoming guests. Avrohom decided to sit at the entrance of his tent in the hopes that he might spy a stray traveler.

When Hashem saw Avrohom’s suffering over the lack of guests, He sent three angels in the guise of people. Rejoicing at this improbable turn of events, the elderly and weak Avrohom ran to personally invite them to his home to serve them, where he proceeded to serve them a lavish and abundant feast.

The Medrash records that initially, Avrohom sent his trusted servant Eliezer outside to search for guests, but he returned to report that he was unable to find any. Avrohom responded by commenting that servants cannot be trusted. In other words, he felt that Eliezer hadn’t tried hard enough and exhausted all of the possibilities, and as proof, Avrohom went outside personally and returned with three guests.

This Medrash is difficult to understand. Eliezer was indeed Avrohom’s trusted and reliable servant. He knew how valuable the mitzvah of hosting guests was to his master, and when he went outside to look for guests, he certainly looked in every possible location, but he was unsuccessful because, unbeknownst to him, Hashem had taken out the hot sun to keep the guests away from the ailing Avrohom. What was Avrohom’s complaint against Eliezer, and what more could Eliezer realistically have done to locate guests?

Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein recounts that when he was growing up in Yerushalayim, he and a group of other boys studied together with a private teacher. At one point, they were studying tractate Shabbos during World War 2. At that time, it was virtually impossible to find complete Talmudic sets, and only the Rav of his neighborhood possessed an entire set of the Talmud, which was shared by everybody.

The teacher requested each of the boys to bring his own Gemora to their class, but every boy returned to say that he had searched throughout the entire neighborhood and was unable to locate an available Gemora, as in fact there weren’t any to be found. However, there was one boy who returned successfully with his own copy.

To the present day, Rav Zilberstein has no idea where the boy found it, but he explains that he was successful because he wanted more than any of the others to locate a Gemora. Because he desired the Gemora with his entire being, Hashem helped him to locate one where everybody else had failed. Not surprisingly, that boy grew up to become a well-known disseminator of Torah.

Similarly, Rav Zilberstein explains that although Eliezer indeed tried his utmost to locate guests, his lack of success emanated not from laziness or a half-hearted effort, but from a lack of desire. Avrohom understood that if Eliezer shared his burning desire to find guests, he would have been successful, as Avrohom subsequently was. Although the circumstances in which we find ourselves are often beyond are control, when we truly want something badly enough and exert ourselves to the fullest, Hashem often miraculously sends us the results for which we yearn

Vatomer l’Avrohom gareish ha’ama hazos v’es b’na ki lo yirash ben ha’ama hazos im b’ni im Yitzchok (21:10)

The Medrash Tanchuma (Chayei Sorah 4) teaches that the chapter in Mishlei known as “Aishes Chayil” was authored long before Shlomo HaMelech was born. Upon the death of his beloved wife Sorah, Avrohom eulogized her (23:2) and composed this beautiful expression of his appreciation for his woman of valor. The Medrash explains how each line was a unique expression of praise for an event which occurred in Sorah’s life. While many of the connections are self-evident, the Medrash curiously teaches that “darsha tzemer u’pishtim” – she seeks out wool and linen – is illustrated by Sorah’s forceful demand in our verse that Avrohom separate between Yitzchok and Yishmael. What could be the connection between looking for weaving materials and insisting that the wicked Yishmael be driven out of her house?

Rav Chaim Soloveitchik brilliantly elucidates the intent of the Medrash. Rashi writes (21:9) that Sorah insisted on sending Yishmael away only after seeing him engaged in idolatry, forbidden relations, and murder. She feared that he represented a negative spiritual influence on Yitzchok, and she was also afraid that he may kill Yitzchok to guarantee his inheritance. Nevertheless, how was Avrohom permitted to send away Yishmael, thereby denying him of his rightful inheritance as the first-born?

On a simple level, we may answer that Avrohom was allowed to do so because Hashem explicitly commanded him (21:12) not to worry about Yishmael and to follow Sorah’s instructions to send him away. Although Yishmael was lawfully considered Avrohom’s first-born, this concern should be outweighed by an explicit command from Hashem.

However, the Gemora in Yoma (28b) teaches that Avrohom observed all of the laws of the Torah. If so, he had a dilemma, as the Torah rules (Devorim 21:15-17) that if a man has two wives and the wife whom he hates bears his first child, he is forbidden to transfer the right of the firstborn to a son who is born subsequently from the wife whom he loves. How was Avrohom to decide what to do when confronted with seemingly conflicting obligations: a positive commandment to listen to Sorah and to send away Yishmael, thereby depriving him of his rightful inheritance, and a negative prohibition forbidding him to do so?

There is a Talmudic principle that “asei doche lo sa’aseh” – when the performance of a positive commandment comes into conflict with observing a negative one, a person should nevertheless fulfill the positive obligation. The Gemora in Yevamos (4b) seeks a source for this rule and concludes that the Torah juxtaposes (Devorim 22:11-12) the prohibition against wearing a garment which contains shatnez (a mixture of wool and linen – tzemer u’pishtim) to the commandment to wear tzitzis to teach this principle.

With this introduction, the Medrash becomes perfectly understandable. Avrohom was torn between obeying Hashem’s positive commandment to listen to Sorah and send Yishmael away and refraining from doing so due to the Torah prohibition against transferring the inheritance of the first-born to a favorite child. He resolved his dilemma by “seeking out” the rule taught by the Torah’s use of wool and linen, from which we derive that a positive commandment should be performed even at the expense of a negative one, and he concluded that he should follow Sorah’s instructions to separate between Yitzchok and Yishmael by banishing Yishmael from the house.

Answers to the weekly Points to Ponder are now available!
To receive the full version with answers email the author at oalport@optonline.net.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):

1)     Rashi writes (18:1) that Hashem came to visit the weak Avrohom on the third day after his circumcision. Must the mitzvah of visiting the sick be performed in person, or may it also be fulfilled by calling the sick person on the phone? (Shu”t Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:223, Shu”t Minchas Yitzchok 2:84, Shu”t Be’er Moshe 2:104-105, Shearim Metzuyanim B’Halacha 193:1)

2)     Avrohom invited his guests (18:5) to join him “v’sa’adu libchem” – and sustain yourselves. Rashi explains that he said “libchem” instead of “l’vavchem” to hint to the fact that angels only have one inclination, the yetzer tov (good inclination). Why did Avrohom speak to them as if they were angels when at that point they hadn’t yet revealed their true identities, and he assumed them to be Arab travelers whom he suspected of idolatry (Rashi 18:4)? (Rabbeinu Bechaye, Gur Aryeh)

3)     Rashi writes (18:9) that the angels asked Avrohom where Sorah was in order to send her the “Kos Shel Beracha” – cup of wine which was used for reciting Birkas HaMazon (Grace after Meals). Why did they recite the Grace after Meals when Rashi writes (18:8) that the bread wasn’t served because it became impure when Sorah touched it? (Maharil Diskin, Derech Sicha, M’rafsin Igri)

4)     Rashi writes (19:31) that Lot’s daughters assumed that the entire world had been destroyed, leaving no man with whom they could have children except their father Lot. How could they think that nobody was left alive when they had fled to the city of Tzo’ar, whose inhabitants were spared as per Lot’s request to the angel (19:18-23)? (Tosefos Rid, Paneiach Raza, P’nei Dovid)

  © 2011 by Oizer Alport.

Vayomer Elokim zos os habris … es kashti nasati b’anan v’haysah l’os bris beini u’bein ha’aretz (9:12-13)

Hashem told Noach that the rainbow will be the sign of His covenant to never again destroy the earth. Does this mean that rainbows never existed prior to the flood and Hashem changed the laws of nature in order to bring about their existence, or that they occurred previously but only now achieved a new symbolic meaning?

A number of our greatest Rabbis disagree about this very question. After initially assuming that if Hashem declared that He was creating the rainbow to serve as a sign, it must have been a new creation at that time, the Ramban proceeds to quote the Greeks, who maintained that their advanced scientific knowledge indicated that a rainbow was a natural result of light shining in moist air.

As a result, the Ramban concludes that rainbows naturally occurred prior to the flood, but only took on new significance at that time. As a proof to this position, the Ramban and Rav Saadyah Gaon note that Hashem didn’t say, “I am placing,” which would indicate that the rainbow was created at that time, but rather, “I have placed my rainbow in the cloud as a sign of the covenant.”

The Derashos HaRan (Derush 1) and the Gur Aryeh disagree. The Ran questions how something which has always existed, such as the rising of the sun in the morning, can suddenly take on symbolic properties. They both write that although scientists teach that a rainbow is a naturally-occurring phenomenon, the laws of nature prior to the flood were such that the sun’s rays weren’t strong enough to create a rainbow. As far as the proof from the past tense of the verb, the Ibn Ezra suggests that it can be reconciled with this opinion by reading it as saying, “I have placed – now – my rainbow in the cloud as a sign of the covenant.”

Vayikach Terach es Avram b’no v’es Lot ben Haran ben b’no v’es Sarai kalaso eishes Avram b’no vayeitzu itam me’Ur Kasdim laleches artza Canaan vayavo’u Charan vayeshvu sham (11:31)

Parshas Noach ends by recording that Terach took Avrohom, Sorah, and Lot, and they set out for the land of Canaan. Curiously, the verse concludes by stating that they arrived at Charan and settled there. As we know that the Torah only records information that is relevant to all generations, what lesson could this seemingly trivial detail about their travel itinerary be coming to teach us? Further, if they set out for the land of Canaan, why did they stop in the middle of the journey before reaching their destination?

The Chofetz Chaim notes that next week’s parsha – Lech Lecha – contains a similar verse. After Hashem commands Avrohom to leave his homeland to go to the land which He will show him, the Torah relates (12:5) that Avrohom took Sorah, Lot, their possessions, and those they had converted and set out for the land of Canaan, and they came to the land of Canaan. Why does the Torah emphasize that they left for Canaan and that they successfully arrived there? Why isn’t it sufficient to simply state that they successfully arrived in Canaan, the land to which Hashem had directed them?

The Chofetz Chaim explains both verses by noting that while our Sages don’t tell us exactly what happened, it’s clear that although Terach set out with a certain itinerary in mind, he wasn’t sufficiently focused and determined to see it to fruition. As soon as the first difficulty arose, his plan was derailed and he aborted it in the middle to settle in Charan.

Avrohom had been traveling with his father and saw what could happen when one’s commitment to a project is deficient. He understood that at any moment an obstacle could present itself and threaten the success of his entire mission. He therefore guarded that initial enthusiasm one has at the beginning of a new endeavor, constantly reminding himself, “I’m going to Canaan, I’m going to Canaan,” not letting his guard down to stop even when he was only a step away from the border of Canaan. The Torah emphasizes that when Avrohom began his journey it was with a clear focus on his objective – to arrive in Canaan – and not surprisingly, he succeeded in doing so.

We all have moments in our lives – an uplifting Torah class, Yom Kippur, or a miraculous “sign” from Heaven – when we see, hear, or experience something which gives us a flash of inspiration and excitement to make changes in our lives or undertake new projects, yet so often the passage of time wears away that enthusiasm and we are left – like Terach – without achieving any of our goals. We should learn from the Torah’s example that the best way to seize such moments is to make concrete resolutions – such as Avrohom’s mantra which kept him focused on his target – which remind us of our initial burst of inspiration so that we may keep it with us forever, and not just set out for Canaan but actually arrive there.

Ki mei Noach zos li asher nishbati me’avor mei Noach od al ha’aretz (Haftorah – Yeshaya 54:9)

The Zohar HaKadosh (Vol. 3 15a) notes that the Haftorah for Parshas Noach curiously makes reference to “the flood-waters of Noach.” If Noach was the only one found worthy of salvation in his generation, wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to refer to the flood of his wicked contemporaries? The Zohar HaKadosh explains that during the 120 years Noach spent building the ark, he neglected to pray for the repentance of his contemporaries. The Medrash compares Noach to a captain who saved himself while allowing his boat and its passengers to drown. Had he been more concerned about them, he could have prevented the flood. Hence, it is memorialized as “the flood of Noach.”

The Arizal writes that Moshe mystically contained within him a spark of the soul of Noach, and part of his life’s mission was to rectify Noach’s mistakes. How did Moshe correct Noach’s lack of concern for others? Although Divine Providence brought him to Pharaoh’s palace where he was spared the fate of his fellow Jews, Moshe felt their pain from his youth and sacrificed his own growth for their sake. In spending the 120 years of his life living completely for others, Moshe perfectly rectified the 120 years that Noach spent building the ark solely absorbed in ensuring his own salvation.

After the sin of the golden calf, Moshe proved the extent of his dedication. Hashem wanted to destroy the people and create a new nation consisting of Moshe’s descendants. Moshe had every right to be furious with the Jews. Instead, he prayed that if Hashem refused to forgive their actions, He should erase Moshe’s name from the entire Torah (Shemos 32:32). This selflessness represented the ultimate correction of Noach’s errors, which is hinted to in the word “m’cheini”é (“Erase me”), whose letters also spell “mei Noach” – the flood-waters of Noach.

The Ponovezher Rav, Rav Yosef Shlomo Kahaneman, understood this lesson well. He was one of the most indefatigable builders of all that was destroyed in the Holocaust. He explained that he was haunted by his inability to save the rest of his generation, accusing himself of falling pray to the error of Noach. Instead of being dejected over his perceived failure, he reasoned that if he was unsuccessful in rescuing the previous generation, he would at least do everything in his power to help save the next one.

The lesson for us is clear. We live in a time when there are numerous “floods” surrounding us – religious, financial, and emotional. We cannot content ourselves with our own personal survival. We must each prepare an answer to the question we will one day have to answer, “Did you do all that you could to help save your contemporaries from their floods?”

Answers to the weekly Points to Ponder are now available!
To receive the full version with answers email the author at oalport@optonline.net.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):

1)     How many rooms were there in Noach’s ark? (Yalkut Shimoni 53)

2)     The Gemora in Bava Kamma (91b) derives from 9:5 that it is forbidden to injure one’s body. Does having plastic surgery for cosmetic reasons violate this prohibition? (Shu”t Igros Moshe Choshen Mishpat 2:66, Shu”t Chelkas Yaakov Choshen Mishpat 31, Shu”t Minchas Yitzchok 6:105, Shu”t Minchas Shlomo 2:86, Shu”t Tzitz Eliezer 11:41, Shu”t Mishneh Halachos 4:246-7)

3)     Rashi writes (9:22) that Canaan was cursed by Noach (9:25) because he saw Noach’s nakedness and told his father Cham about it. As Canaan isn’t listed among those who entered or exited the ark, it must be assumed that he was born just after the flood. How was he able to walk and talk like an adult when he was at most a few months old? (Maharzu Bereishis Rabbah 36:4)

4)     What is the connection between Parshas Noach and Sefer Yonah? (Chizkuni 10:12)

© 2011 by Oizer Alport.

Hanistaros L’Hashem Elokeinu v’haniglos lanu ul’vaneinu ad olam la’asos es kol Divrei haTorah hazos (29:28)

In our verse, the Torah writes the words “lanu ul’vaneinu” – for us and for our children – with dots on top of each letter, something done quite rarely. Although there are rules for interpreting the meaning of such dots (see Rashi), the Chofetz Chaim explains that when writing a book, an author who wants to stress a certain point will draw attention to it by underlining the salient words.

Similarly, when discussing the importance of educating our children and raising them with proper values, the Torah saw no more fitting way to convey this message than to place dots on the words referring to us and our children. In essence, the Torah is “underlining” these words to emphasize the unparalleled significance in Judaism of teaching our children to be G-d-fearing Jews.

The importance which our Rabbis placed on educating their children is illustrated in the following story. One year on the night of Kol Nidrei, the Jews of a large community were assembled in the synagogue, ready to begin the solemn services. However, there was one critical problem: the Rav, renowned for his punctuality, was nowhere to be seen. After waiting several tense minutes, a delegation was dispatched to his house to find out what was causing the delay.

They arrived at the house of their beloved Rabbi, Rav Binyomin Diskin, fearing the worst. They were shocked when they peered through his window and observed him calmly seated by the table, studying together with his young son. Rav Diskin seemed completely oblivious to the congregation which was anxiously awaiting his presence in the synagogue.

Seizing his courage, one of the elders of the community knocked on the door and gently explained that the congregation was concerned about his uncharacteristic delay. The elderly Rav explained that with the arrival of the day on which a person’s fate for the upcoming year is sealed, he found himself nervous about his lack of merits. Desperately seeking to accrue mitzvos which could tip the scale in his favor, he could think of no greater merit than teaching Torah to his young son, who not surprisingly grew up to become the saintly Rav Yehoshua Leib Diskin!

            Parshas Nitzavim is read annually close to Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. At the time when the entire world passes before Hashem in judgment, the Torah uncharacteristically goes out of its way to “underline” a phrase to emphasize to us the importance of looking after our children and raising them properly. Indeed, our Sages teach that a person is judged and held responsible not only for his own actions, but also for those of his descendants (to the extent that he could have influenced them to behave otherwise). At this critical time, let us remember the message of the Chofetz Chaim and the actions of Rav Diskin and accept upon ourselves to redouble our commitment to educating and positively influencing our families.

V’shavta ad Hashem Elokecha v’shamata b’kolo k’chol asher anochi m’tzav’cha hayom atah u’banecha b’chol l’vav’cha uv’chol nafsh’cha (30:2)

            Since the Torah is the blueprint for the entire Creation, it inherently contains within it allusions to everything which will ever exist or occur in the universe. The Vilna Gaon explains that the Torah’s recounting of the episode of Creation contains the events which transpired in the first 1000 years of history, with the second 1000 years hidden in the remainder of Sefer Bereishis, the third 1000 years in Sefer Shemos, the fourth 1000 years in Sefer Vayikra, the fifth 1000 years in Sefer Bamidbar, and the final 1000 years in Sefer Devorim.

Since Sefer Devorim contains 10 parshios (counting Nitzavim and Vayeilech as one, as they are often read together as a double portion), each portion hints to the events of one century of the sixth millennium. Based on this explanation of the Vilna Gaon, it has been noted that the early years of the Holocaust, the greatest national tragedy in modern history, fall out in the century which is hinted to in Parshas Ki Savo, which contains words of rebuke and hair-raising threats of terrible suffering which will befall the Jewish people.

However, consolation may be found by recognizing that we are currently living in the century which corresponds to Parshas Nitzavim-Vayeilech, which is commonly referred to as the portion of repentance. Not surprisingly, the years since World War II have seen an extraordinary wave of uneducated Jews returning to their roots on an unprecedented scale, precisely as predicated by the Torah.

Ki karov eilecha hadavar me’od b’ficha uvilvavcha la’asoso (30:14)

            The Ponovezher Rav once traveled to South Africa to strengthen and encourage the Jews there in their religious observance. Prior to his journey, he asked his teacher, the illustrious Chofetz Chaim, what message he should relate to the Jews there in the name of the leader of the generation.

The Chofetz Chaim replied that he should tell them that it is actually quite easy to do the mitzvah of teshuvah – repentance. The minimum requirements to fulfill this obligation are few and are within the reach of every Jew: ceasing to sin, confessing one’s past actions and expressing regret over them, and accepting upon oneself not to transgress again. Unfortunately, the evil inclination attempts to convince a person that proper repentance is so difficult and involves so many complex components that he will never succeed in correctly doing so, thereby causing him to give up the effort without even trying.

In this vein, Rav Nosson Wachtfogel notes that in our verse, Moshe describes one of the commandments as not being hidden or distant from a person. It isn’t in the heavens or across the sea as one might have thought, but rather it is very close – in one’s mouth and heart. What is this commandment which a person might mistakenly conclude is so far beyond him that its observance requires him to travel thousands or millions of miles, yet in reality the keys to its performance lie inside of him? Not surprisingly, the Ramban writes that the mitzvah to which Moshe is referring is the mitzvah of teshuvah.

            The Gemora in Kiddushin (49b) discusses a case in which a wicked man betroths a woman on the condition that he is completely righteous. Surprisingly, the Gemora rules that she may be legally engaged, explaining that perhaps he had thoughts of repentance in the moment prior to his proposal. We may derive from here that a person can literally transform himself from one extreme to the other in a mere moment of sincere reflection and regret, a lesson which should inspire and motivate us during the approaching Yamim Noraim.

Answers to the weekly Points to Ponder are now available!
To receive the full version with answers email the author atoalport@optonline.net.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):

1)     Moshe reminded the people (29:15-16) of the abominable idols which they saw in Egypt and other lands through which they passed. Why was it necessary to warn them against worshipping these idols if they themselves had witnessed how deplorable they were? (Nesivos Rabboseinu)

2)     Moshe told the people (30:12) that the Torah is not in Heaven. The Gemora in Bava Metzia (59b) understands this to mean that after the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, it is up to the Sages to decide matters of Jewish law, which are no longer within the jurisdiction of Hashem. In numerous places, the Gemora records episodes in which a bas kol – Heavenly voice – descends to inform the Sages with which opinion in a dispute Hashem sides. Why is it referred to as a bas kol – literally, the daughter of a sound – and not as a ben kol – the son of a sound – or simply as the sound itself? (Tosefos Sanhedrin 11a, Tosefos Yom Tov Yevamos 16:6)

3)     The Rambam writes (Hilchos Chagigah 3:1) that the purpose of gathering the people together to hear the public reading of the book of Devorim (31:11) is to strengthen their religious commitment and fear of Hashem. With such important objectives, why is this mitzvah performed only once every seven years and not annually? (Even Yisroel)

4)     How could Hashem tell Moshe (31:16) that he would lie with his forefathers when Moshe was buried on Mount Nevo and the Avos were buried in Me’aras HaMachpeilah in Chevron? (Targum Yonason ben Uziel, Rashi Bereishis 47:30, Ayeles HaShachar, Shaarei Aharon)

5)     Parshas Vayeilech contains the mitzvah to write a Sefer Torah (31:19). The Gemora rules (Gittin 45b) that a Torah which was written by a heretic is invalid and must be burned. If a heretic appoints a non-heretic as his agent to write a Torah on his behalf, may it be used? (Har Tzvi)

  © 2010 by Oizer Alport.

V’anisa v’amarta (26:5)

A farmer is required to bring bikkurim, the first ripened fruits of the seven species for which the land of Israel is praised, to the Beis HaMikdash. There he presents them to a Kohen as a sign of gratitude to Hashem for giving him a successful harvest. He then recites a declaration of appreciation for Hashem’s role in Jewish history. Rashi writes that this proclamation is made in a raised voice. Why does the Torah require the farmer to make this statement in a loud voice?

The following story will help us appreciate the answer to this question. Amuka, located in the north of Israel, is the burial place of the Talmudic sage Rebbi Yonason ben Uziel. Amuka is famous for its mystical ability to help those who are longing to get married find their matches, and people travel there from around the world to pray for a spouse.

Although it is common for people to pray in Amuka with an intensity emanating from personal pain, somebody was once surprised to see a married woman praying there with great happiness. In her response to the onlooker’s curiosity about this, she taught a beautiful lesson.

“I had a very difficult time with dating. Somebody finally suggested that I travel to Amuka, where I poured my heart out in prayer. Shortly thereafter, I was introduced to the man who is now my husband. I felt that if I came here to cry out from pain, it was only appropriate to return here to joyfully express my gratitude.”

The S’fas Emes explains that every person’s livelihood is dependent upon Hashem’s decree. Many times, this correlation is masked by events which make it appear that the person earned his income through his own creativity and perspiration. The farmer, on the other hand, has no difficulty recognizing that his financial situation is beyond his control and precariously rests in Hashem’s hands. As diligently as he plows and plants his land, he realizes that the success of each year’s crop depends upon the frequency and intensity of the rains, factors completely beyond his control. After putting in his own hard work, he prays fervently that the rains should come in the proper amounts and at the proper times.

When the farmer’s prayers are answered and he sees the first “fruits” of his labors, it would be easy for him to take credit for the successful harvest. The Torah requires him to bring his first fruits to the Temple as a reminder that his success comes from Hashem, and he must express the appropriate gratitude for His kindness. One might incorrectly assume that mumbling a quick “thank you” under his breath suffices to fulfill this obligation. The Torah therefore teaches that in expressing appreciation, lip service is insufficient. The feelings of gratitude must be conveyed with the identical intensity with which one initially prayed. Just as the farmer screamed out with his entire heart beseeching Hashem to bless him with a bountiful harvest, so too must he express his thanks with the identical raised voice.

So many times we cry out to Hashem from the depths of our hearts for a desperately-needed salvation – to bear children, to find our spouse, to recover from illness, or for a source of livelihood. When our prayers are answered and the salvation comes, let us remember the lesson of the first-fruits and loudly call out our thanks with the same intensity with which we prayed in our time of trouble.

V’anisa v’amarta (26:5)

A farmer is required to bring bikkurim, the first ripened fruits of the seven species for which the land of Israel is praised, to the Beis HaMikdash. There he presents them to a Kohen as a sign of gratitude to Hashem for giving him a successful harvest. He then recites a declaration of appreciation for Hashem’s role in Jewish history. Rashi writes that this proclamation is made in a raised voice. Why does the Torah require the farmer to make this statement in a loud voice?

The Chanukas HaTorah notes that the farmer bringing his first-fruits begins his review of national history by noting that an Aramean (Lavan) attempted to destroy my ancestor (Yaakov). Rashi explains that this was Lavan’s intention when he set out to pursue the fleeing Yaakov, but Hashem was aware of his malicious idea and warned him in a dream against pursuing his plan (Bereishis 31:23-24). Although Lavan was thwarted from executing his evil scheme, Hashem punishes non-Jews not only for their wicked deeds, but also for their thoughts.

The Gemora in Berachos (31a) derives from Chana’s prayer that one must pray quietly. The Gemora (Berachos 24b) explains that a person who prays loudly demonstrates a lack of faith in Hashem’s ability to recognize the intentions of his heart and to hear him if he whispers. Included in the declaration made by the farmer is a public confirmation that Hashem knows not only the words that a person speaks, but even the thoughts that run through his mind. By proclaiming Hashem’s knowledge of the unspoken, there is no longer any fear that the farmer will be viewed as questioning Hashem’s ability to hear us when we speak quietly, and he may therefore express his gratitude in an appropriately loud voice!

V’rau kol amei ha’aretz ki shem Hashem nikra alecha v’yaru mimeka (28:10)

There is a legal dispute (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 31:2) regarding the wearing of tefillin on Chol HaMoed. Rav Yosef Karo writes that it is forbidden to wear tefillin on Chol HaMoed, while the Rema cites opinions that one is obligated to do so, adding that this was the prevalent custom in his region. The Paneiach Raza and the Maharshal bring a fascinating proof to support the latter opinion.

Moshe blessed the Jewish people that if they act properly and observe the commandments, the nations of the world will see that the name of Hashem is called upon them, and they will fear and revere them. The Gemora in Megillah (16b) understands the concept of the name of Hashem being called upon them as referring to tefillin. Tosefos (Berachos 6a) explains that the tefillin contain an allusion to “Sha-kai,” one of Hashem’s Divine names, with the “shin” represented by the letter “shin” that appears on the sides of the tefillin that is worn on one’s head.

The numerical value of “shin” is 300, which hints to the 300 days each year on which a person is obligated to wear tefillin. Subtracting the 52 Shabbosim on which a person is exempt from tefillin leaves 313 days. One is also exempt from wearing tefillin on four days of Pesach, two days of Shavuos, two days of Rosh Hashana, one day of Yom Kippur, and four days of Sukkos, for a total of 13. If a person doesn’t wear tefillin on Chol HaMoed, he will be left with too few remaining days. In other words, only if one wears tefillin every day of the year except for Shabbos and Yom Tov will he be left with a total of exactly 300 days to correspond to the “shin” on his tefillin.

Answers to the weekly Points to Ponder are now available!
To receive the full version with answers email the author at oalport@optonline.net.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):

1)     The section (26:1-11) detailing the laws governing bikkurim contains every letter in the Hebrew alphabet except for one. Which letter is missing, and why? (Baal HaTurim 26:4)

2)     Moshe instructed the people (27:8) to write on stones all of the words of the Torah well-clarified. Rashi explains that “well-clarified” means that it should be written in all 70 languages, so that it may be easily read by anybody who wishes to do so. Why was it necessary to make the Torah accessible to the other nations of the world when the Gemora in Avodah Zara (2b) teaches that each of them was offered the Torah and refused to accept it? (Meged Yosef)

3)     After the Jewish people initially accepted the Torah while standing near Mount Sinai, why were they required to reaccept it by standing on top of (27:11-26) Mount Gerizim and Mount Eival? (Peninim Vol. 6)

4)     Rashi writes (29:12) that Moshe threatened the Jewish people with a total of 98 different curses if they fail to observe the commandments. Why did he specifically mention this number of punishments? (Tosefos Rid, Yad Av)

© 2011 by Oizer Alport.

וראית בשביה אשת יפת תאר וחשקת בה ולקחת לך לאשה 21:11

The Gemora in Shabbos (130a) states that any mitzvah which was accepted by the Jewish people with happiness, such a circumcision, is still performed to the present day with gladness, but any mitzvah which was accepted with fighting – such as forbidden relationships – is still accompanied by tension, as the monetary issues involved in the negotiation of the kesuva at every wedding involve struggles and discord. Of all mitzvos, why did the people specifically complain about the prohibition against marrying family members?

Dayan Yisroel Yaakov Fisher suggests that when the Jews heard that they would be unable to marry their close relatives, they feared that they would be unable to enjoy successful and compatible marriages. They felt that the ideal candidate for marriage would be a person who was familiar since birth and who would be almost identical in terms of values and stylistic preferences. However, from the fact that the Torah forbids us to marry those most similar to us, we may deduce that the Torah’s vision of marriage and an ideal partner differs from our own.

Parshas Ki Setzei begins by discussing the y’fas toar – a woman of beautiful form – who is permitted to be taken by one who becomes infatuated with her during battle. The Mas’as HaMelech notes that only the most righteous individuals constituted the Jewish army, as somebody who had committed even the smallest Rabbinical sin was sent back from the war (Rashi Devorim 20:8), and questions how such pious Rabbis could be tempted to marry a beautiful non-Jewish woman. Rashi writes (21:11) that one who marries a y’fas toar will ultimately give birth to a Ben Sorer U’Moreh – a wayward son. The Gemora in Sanhedrin (71a) rules that a child may only be punished as a rebellious son if his parents are identical in their voices, appearances, and height.

Even the most righteous soldier will be taken aback upon encountering a woman who looks like him and whose voice sounds just like his, to the point that he may be convinced that Hashem’s will is to convert and marry her, as all external signs point to the fact that she is meant for him. Nevertheless, from the fact that Rashi teaches us that a wayward son will come out of such a union, we may conclude that the ideal marriage isn’t one in which the two partners enter already identical, but one in which they work and grow together over time to understand and respect one another, allowing them to overcome their differences and create a beautiful, harmonious blend of their unique perspectives and experiences.

וראית בשביה אשת יפת תאר וחשקת בה ולקחת לך לאשה21:11

לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע שאם אין הקב”ה מתירה ישאנה באיסור רש”י

The entire concept of the y’fas toar – the woman of beautiful form – is difficult to comprehend. The Torah is replete with warnings against becoming too close and familiar with the non-Jewish inhabitants of the land and against intermarrying with them, yet it explicitly permits a soldier, who spies a non-Jewish woman during battle and becomes infatuated with her, to take her home and marry her. Rashi explains that this apparently counter-intuitive permission was granted as a concession to the evil inclination. Hashem recognized that if He wouldn’t allow the soldier to marry this woman in a permissible fashion, he would do so illegally, so He made an allowance for this exceptional case.

Rav Yechezkel Abramsky derives from here a powerful lesson. Judaism is such an all-encompassing religion, with laws governing virtually every aspect of one’s daily life, that a person will almost surely encounter mitzvos which run counter to his nature. Although which mitzvah seems insurmountable will vary from person to person, it is likely that there will be laws that upon learning of them, one’s instinctive reaction will be to declare them beyond his capabilities. However, from the fact that the Torah permitted a soldier to marry the y’fas toar as an acknowledgement that to forbid him to do so would represent an impossible task, we may conclude that our Maker clearly understands our human limitations and that if He nevertheless commanded us regarding a particular mitzvah, it must be that He knows that we have deep within us the strength to overcome the evil inclination and to properly observe that mitzvah.

כי ישבו אחים יחדו ומת אחד מהם ובן אין לו לא תהיה אשת המת החוצה 

לאיש זר יבמה יבא עליה ולקחה לו לאשה ויבמה 25:5

After tremendous efforts, a couple was given permission to leave communist Russia and move to Israel. The request of the husband’s brother to join them was denied by the government, so he requested that the childless couple claim his daughter as their own and raise her in Israel to be a proper Jew. Unfortunately, shortly after their arrival inIsrael, the couple was involved in a terrible car accident. The wife was left unconscious, although the doctors were optimistic that she would enjoy a full recovery. The husband, on the other hand, was conscious but suffered severe internal injuries and was expected to die shortly, before his wife would likely regain consciousness.

As he would die without any natural children, she would be forbidden to remarry until performing the chalitza ceremony with his brother, but at that time travel into or out of Russia – where the brother was still trapped – was virtually impossible. The husband was also unable to free her by divorcing her, as she must be conscious to receive the divorce document, at which point he will have already died.

The dilemma was brought to the attention of HaRav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, who responded with a most brilliant solution to save her from becoming an agunah who will be unable to remarry. If the brother, Shimon, of the deceased, Reuven, is related to the wife of the deceased, Leah, and is forbidden to marry her, she is exempt not only from yibum but even from the requirement to perform chalitza (Yevamos 3a). Although we follow the ban of Rabbeinu Gershom against polygamy, the Torah permits a man to have more than one wife. In the event that Reuven had a second wife, Rochel, who is not related to Shimon, the Mishnah in Yevamos (2a) rules that not only does Leah exempt herself from both yibum and chalitza, but she also exempts all of her husband’s wives, even those who aren’t related to Shimon.

In this case, Rav Elyashiv suggested that the husband betroth his niece (who wasn’t involved in the accident), as Rabbeinu Gershom’s decree forbidding polygamy applies only to marrying a 2^nd wife but not to betrothing one (Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer 1:10). When the husband dies, both of his “wives” will fall to his brother for yibum, but because one of the wives is the daughter of his brother in Russia, she will be exempt both from yibum and from chalitza, and as per the Mishnah in Yevamos, she will exempt not only herself but also the currently unconscious wife, who will then be free to remarry!

אבן שלמה וצדק יהיה לך 25:15

As the Torah is the blueprint for the entire Creation, it inherently contains within it hints and allusions to everything which will ever exist or occur in the universe. The Vilna Gaon explains that the Torah’s recounting of the episode of Creation (Bereishis 1:1-2:25) contains the events which transpired in the first 1000 years of history, with the second 1000 years hidden in the remainder of Sefer Bereishis, the third 1000 years in Sefer Shemos, the fourth 1000 years in Sefer Vayikra, the fifth 1000 years in Sefer Bamidbar, and the final 1000 years in Sefer Devorim. As Sefer Devorim contains 10 parshios (counting Nitzavim and Vayeilech as one, as they are often read together), each portion hints to the events of one century of the 6^th millennium, beginning from Devorim and ending with V’Zos HaBeracha.

The majority of the years of the illustrious life of the Vilna Gaon, whose name was Eliyahu the son of Shlomo Zalman, fall in the 6^th century of the 6^th millennium, which is represented by Parshas Ki Seitzei. When asked where he, one of the greatest products of that century, is alluded to in Parshas Ki Seitzei, he immediately responded by quoting our verse. The א in the word אבן is short for his name, Eliyahu, with the remaining letters – בן – meaning “the son of,” and the following word is father’s name – Shlomo! He added that the reason his father’s name is spelled out while his is only hinted to through its first letter – א – is because the letter א, when spelled out, is written אלף, which can be rearranged to spell פלא – a source of wonder – which is exactly what the Gaon and his Torah were!

One of his descendants, Rav Isaac Ausband, points out that the name of the Gaon’s mother was טרינה, which has the same numerical value as the three words which follow those which hint to the Gaon and his father – וצדק יהיה לך. Further, the letters which follow the first letter in the first two words of the verse (אבן שלמה) have the same numerical value as Zalman, his father’s middle name!

Based on this explanation of the Vilna Gaon, it has been noted that the early years of the Holocaust, the greatest national tragedy in modern history, fall out in the century which is hinted to in Parsha Ki Savo, which contains words of rebuke and hair-raising threats of terrible suffering which will befall the Jewish nation. However, consolation may be found by recognizing that we are currently living in the century which corresponds to Parshas Nitzavim-Vayeilech, which is commonly referred to as the portion of repentance, and not surprisingly the years since World War II have seen a wave of uneducated and nonobservant Jews becoming fully observant and returning to their roots on an unprecedented scale, precisely as predicated by the Torah, which should be an inspiration for all Jews to examine and correct their ways as Rosh HaShana draws nearer with every passing day.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):

1) A child is declared a בן סורר ומורה – wayward and rebellious son – for stealing and gluttonously consuming meat and wine (Rashi 21:18). Although none of these is itself a capital crime, Rashi explains that he is punished and killed today based on his future actions, for such a child will eventually murder in order to steal money to support his excessive desires. How can this be reconciled with the principle (Rashi Bereishis 21:17) that a person is only judgedבאשר הוא שם – based on his present deeds with no concern for his future actions – by virtue of which Yishmael was saved in the desert? (Tur HeAruch, Matamei Yaakov, Rav Isaac Sher quoted in Peninim MiShulchan Gevoha, Derech Sicha, K’motzei Shalal Rav, M’rafsin Igri)

2) A child is declared a בן סורר ומורה – wayward and rebellious son – for stealing and gluttonously consuming meat and wine (Rashi 21:18). Although none of these is itself a capital crime, Rashi explains that he is punished and killed today based on his future actions, for such a child will eventually murder in order to steal money to support his excessive desires. One who physically murders is put to death by the sword (Rambam Hilchos Rotzeiach 1:1). Even if he is to be punished today based on his future actions, why is he killed by stoning (21:21), which is an even more severe form of execution than that which is used for one who has actually committed the crime? (Paneiach Raza, Chizkuni, Maharil Diskin, Har Tzvi, K’motzei Shalal Rav, M’rafsin Igri)

3) The Gemora in Sanhedrin (69a) states that a child may only be judged to be a wayward and rebellious son during the 3 months after his Bar Mitzvah. One of the accusations made against him (21:18, 20) is that he refuses to listen to his parents’ commands and rebuke. When a boy becomes Bar Mitzvah, his father recites (Orach Chaim 225:2) the blessing ברוך שפטרני מעונשו של זה, as he will no longer be punished for the actions of his son and is now exempt from the mitzvah of educating him (Biur Halacha 37 d.h. V’yeish om’rim). If the father is exempt from rebuking the child, why is the son punished for refusing to listen? (Mishnah Berurah 225:7)

4) The Shu”t Divrei Malkiel and Sefer HaM’tzareif write that calling a child a name which is also used by the opposite gender violates the prohibition (22:5) against use of garments of the opposite sex. Rav Chaim Kanievsky, demonstrating his encyclopedic knowledge, found 38 names in Chazal which are used for both men and women. How many can you identify? (Taima D’Kra)

5) The Torah forbids (22:10) a person to plow with an ox and a donkey together, stating לֹא תַחֲרשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וּבַחֲמֹר יַחְדָּו. The Torah employs a “sh’va” to refer to a generic, heretofore unknown ox, but uses a “pasach” to indicate a reference to “the” donkey, one which is already known. To which donkey could this be referring?

6) If a betrothed girl is raped in the field, the rapist is put to death but she isn’t punished, as it was against her will and although she screamed for help, there was nobody to hear her cries and rescue her (22:25-27). As the man may only be put to death if he transgressed in the presence of two witnesses who warned him before he sinned, why didn’t the witnesses come to her aid, and how can the Torah say that there was nobody present in the field?

© 2010 by Oizer Alport.

V’kol ha’am yishme’u v’yira’u v’lo yezidun od (17:13)

When a person is convicted of a capital crime, the execution is carried out in a public manner. Rashi writes that the Sanhedrin waited to carry out the execution until the next Yom Tov, when people would travel to Yerushalayim to fulfill the mitzvah of aliyah l’regel (ascending to the Temple), so that everybody would hear and talk about it. This was to inspire maximum fear in the populace in the hopes that future executions would become unnecessary.

However, the Mishnah in Makkos (7a) quotes the opinion of Rav Elozar ben Azaria, who maintains that a Sanhedrin which carries out one execution in 70 years is considered violent and bloody. If executions were so infrequent, how were they able to accomplish the desired deterrent effect?

Rav Aharon Bakst answers that this question may be asked only by one who has become accustomed and desensitized to the loss of human life. In the times of the Beis HaMikdash, the Jewish nation understood and appreciated the value of every person and every life to the extent that one public execution in 70 years caused such a national trauma that another one became superfluous for at least that long. If we appreciated life with the proper perspective, we would be so shaken up by events like the Holocaust and recent tragedies in Israel that they would remain in our collective memory forever, inspiring us to proper repentance and rendering future reminders unnecessary.

V’zeh devar harotzeach asher yanus shamah v’chai asher yakeh es re’eihu bivli da’as v’hu lo sonei lo mitmol shilshom (19:4)

The Torah requires a person who accidentally kills another Jew to flee to one of the cities of refuge. In order to be protected from the deceased’s relative and blood-avenger, he must remain there until the death of the Kohen Gadol, at which point he is permitted to return to his community and family. The Meshech Chochmah derives from a verse in Parshas Chukas (20:29) that although this law was applicable during the 40-year sojourn of the Jews in the wilderness, with the accidental killer required to dwell in the camp of the Levites (Rashi Shemos 21:13), an accidental killing never actually occurred during this entire period.

The Torah relates that upon the death of Aharon, every member of the Jewish nation cried and mourned his death. Rashi explains that this was due to his tremendous efforts to make peace between quarreling parties. The Meshech Chochmah notes, however, that had there been even a single accidental murderer during this period, he wouldn’t have cried at the death of Aharon – the Kohen Gadol – but rather would have rejoiced at the event which secured his freedom.

However, the Matamei Yaakov questions this proof. It is entirely possible that there was an accidental killer who was exiled to the Levite camp but who died prior to the death of Aharon, which occurred during the last year of their 40-year sojourn in the wilderness. As such, the fact that at the time of Aharon’s death every living Jew mourned his passing doesn’t constitute an absolute indication that there were no accidental killings during this period.

V’zeh devar harotzeach asher yanus shamah v’chai asher yakeh es re’eihu bivli da’as v’hu lo sonei lo mitmol shilshom (19:4)

The Torah requires a person who accidentally kills another Jew to flee to one of the cities of refuge. In order to be protected from the deceased’s blood-avenger, he must remain there until the death of the Kohen Gadol, at which point he is permitted to return to his community and family. If the king accidentally kills another person, must he flee to a city of refuge?

The Radvaz rules (2:772) that the king needn’t flee in such a case. He bases his opinion on the ruling of the Rambam (Hilchos Rotzeach 7:1) that if a teacher is required to flee to a city of refuge, his yeshiva must come with him so that he may continue teaching them. Similarly, based on the idea that the entire power of a king comes from the people over whom he rules, if a king would be obligated to flee to a city of refuge, the entire nation would be required to relocate and follow him there. Because this would be logistically impossible, it must be that in such a case, the king would be exempt from having to flee.

V’atah t’vaer ha’dam ha’naki mikirbecha (21:9)

If a murdered body is found in a field, the Torah requires the elders of the nearest city to perform a ritual known as eglah arufah (the axed heifer), in which they slaughter a cow in a valley with an axe to atone for the innocent blood which was shed. How does this procedure help rectify the fact that an innocent Jew was murdered?

The Targum Yonason ben Uziel writes that after the elders properly perform this ritual, a large swarm of insects miraculously emerges from the belly-button of the dead cow and flies straight to the house of the murderer of the unidentified corpse. At this point, the Sanhedrin is able to judge him for committing this atrocity.

Rav Menachem Recanati suggests an interesting hint to this concept by noting that the last letters of the words in our verse – which speaks of removing the innocent blood from your midst – spell the word “rimah” (insect). Additionally, the Seichel Tov notes that “ha’agalah” (the cow) has the same numerical value as “ha’toleah ba” – the bug will come.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to understand how the Sanhedrin is permitted to punish a person based solely on the miraculous actions of the insects in the absence of the two required witnesses to the murder. However, this would be resolved according to the version of the Paneiach Raza, who writes that the bugs themselves attack the murderer and put him to death.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):

1)     When the Jewish people asked Shmuel HaNavi to appoint for them a king, he viewed the request as inappropriate and it bothered him greatly (Shmuel 1 8:6). If the Jewish people aren’t supposed to be ruled by a king, why does the Torah make provisions for appointing one (17:14-15), and if it was a legitimate request, why was Shmuel so upset? (Rambam Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:2, Abarbanel, Derashos HaRan 11, Meiri Horayos 11b, Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh Kli Yakar, Malbim)

2)     One who kills accidentally is required to flee to one of the cities of refuge and to remain there until the death of the Kohen Gadol (19:4-5). If he himself then proceeds to kill the Kohen Gadol, does this death free him and permit him to leave the city of refuge? (Minchas Chinuch 410, Parshas Derochim Derush 13)

3)     A close relative of one who is killed accidentally serves as the redeemer of his blood (19:6) and is permitted to kill the unintentional murderer if he finds him outside of one of the cities of refuge. If a person is stricken accidentally in a manner which will cause him to die, is he permitted to serve as the redeemer of his own blood and put the killer to death before he himself dies? (Gilyonei HaShas Makkos 11b)

4)     In the event that a set of witnesses is found to be false through the testimony of a second set of witnesses who claim that the first set were in a different location at the time of the alleged incident, the court punishes the first set by inflicting upon them whatever punishment they would have brought on the defendant through their testimony (19:19). Why is the testimony of the second set of witnesses arbitrarily believed more than that of the first set? (Rabbeinu Bechaye)

© 2011 by Oizer Alport.

Ki y’sis’cha … leimor neil’cha v’naavda elohim acheirim … lo so’veh lo v’lo sish’ma eilav v’lo ta’chos ein’cha alav v’lo sach’mol v’lo t’chaseh alav … ki harog tahar’genu … u’skalto ba’avanim va’meis ki bikeish l’hadich’cha me’al Hashem Elokecha (13:7-11)

The Torah is stricter regarding the treatment of the מסית – inciter – than it is with the transgression of any other sin. The Torah specifically instructs us not to have any mercy on him and not to attempt to prove his innocence, concepts which aren’t found by other suspected sinners.

The Alter of Kelm points out that this stringency is even greater when one considers that in reality, the inciter didn’t actually accomplish anything. Although he attempted to convince another Jew to worship idolatry, he was unsuccessful. The other person turned him in and refused to listen to him. Even so, the desire to intentionally sway another person from the Torah’s path is so severe that it receives this stringent penalty.

Rashi writes (Shemos 20:5) that Hashem’s reward for those who listen to His commandments is 500 times greater than the punishment meted out to sinners. Many times, a person who is engaged in kiruv rechokim – attempting to educate our not-yet-religious brethren – invests valuable time and energy trying to reach out to another person, only to find that his efforts are completely unsuccessful.

As frustrating as this experience must surely be, the Alter of Kelm offers inspiring words of comfort and consolation based on the aforementioned principles. If Hashem reserves His most severe and stringent punishments for one who merely tries to persuade another Jew to leave the Torah path, how much more must be the immense reward lying in store for a person who tries, even unsuccessfully, his utmost to draw our wayward brethren back to their Creator.

Aseir ta’aseir es kol t’vuas zar’echa (14:22)

The Torah commands us to tithe our crops. The Gemora in Taanis (9a) interprets our verse by playing on the similarity between the letters “shin” and “sin.” It renders the words “aseir ta’aseir” in our verse as “aseir bishvil she’tisasher” – tithe and you will become rich. What source is there for the Gemora’s teaching that tithing will make a person wealthy?

The Vilna Gaon notes that the Gemora (Bava Metzia 31a) understands doubled verbs as requiring a person to repeatedly do the action referred to as many as 100 times. In other words, he is not absolved from his obligation by performing it once. He must do the mitzvah as many times as is necessary.

In this light, our verse, with its doubled command to tithe, should be understood as requiring a person to tithe his money as many as 100 times. However, the Gemora in Kesuvos (50a) records that the Sages decreed that a person shouldn’t give more than one-fifth of his money to charity. If so, the Gemora in Taanis questioned how a person could be permitted to tithe by giving one-tenth of his money even three times, as this would require him to give more than one-fifth of his assets to charity. To resolve this concern, the Gemora answered that the Torah guarantees that a person who does so will become rich and will have enough money to continue tithing – even 100 times – without ever falling below the threshold of having given one-fifth of his original possessions to charity.

Ki yih’yeh b’cha evyon me’echad achecha … lo s’ameitz es l’vav’cha v’lo sikpotz es yad’cha me’achicha haevyon ki pasoach tiftach es yad’cha lo (15:7-8)

The Torah exhorts us to be compassionate toward the poor, commanding us not to close our hand to the destitute, but rather to open it. This statement seems redundant. If it is forbidden to close our hand to the poor, doesn’t it go without saying that we are required to open it? What is the Torah trying to teach us by emphasizing this point?

The Vilna Gaon explains that although a person is obligated to give tzeddakah, he is not supposed to disperse it equally to each poor person. There are laws governing to whom one must give precedence when distributing charity, such as family members or people in his community, and the needs of each pauper must be assessed when determining how much to give them.

The Torah alludes to the requirement to take these considerations into account when giving tzedakah. When a person closes his hand and looks at his fingers, they all appear equal in length. Opening one’s hand reveals that this is not the case, as each finger is a different size.

The Torah already commanded us to be merciful to our needy brethren. Our verse takes for granted that we will help meet their needs and is not coming to repeat this point, as it seems at first glance. Rather, it comes to teach that the manner in which we do so should not be one in which we indiscriminately give equal amounts to each beggar, as symbolized by a closed hand. Instead, we should open our hands and realize that each poor person’s needs as well as our obligation to him aren’t the same, and we should disperse our charity accordingly.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):
1)     The Torah prohibits (13:1) adding on to the mitzvos which Hashem gave. Does a person transgress this prohibition if he mistakenly believes that the act he is doing is a mitzvah, but if he would know the truth, he wouldn’t do it? (Maharil Diskin Parshas Vaeschanan)

2)     The Gemora in Sanhedrin (113a) rules that a wayward city which contains even one mezuzah may not be destroyed, as the burning of the mezuzah would violate the prohibition against erasing Hashem’s name (12:4). Why isn’t the burning of the city permitted based on the Talmudic rule that עשה דוחה לא תעשה – one is permitted to perform a positive commandment even if doing so entails the transgression of a negative one? (Toras Chaim Sanhedrin 71a, Minchas Chinuch 142 and 464, Peninei Kedem, MiTzion Mich’lal Yofee, M’rafsin Igri)

3)     The Gemora in Megillah (9b) relates that when the Greek king Ptolemy ordered the Sages to translate the Torah into Greek, they made a number of changes to avoid angering him. For example, because Ptolemy’s wife was named “Arneves,” the word the Torah uses for the non-kosher hare (14:7), the Sages changed the wording so as not to offend him. How were they permitted to do so in light of the ruling of the Yam Shel Shlomo (Bava Kamma 4:9) that a person is required to give up his life rather than alter a single word or ruling of the Torah to appease others? (Taam V’Daas Parshas Shemini)

4)     The Medrash in Tehillim (146) teaches that a pig is called a “chazir” (14:8) because in the Messianic period, it will return (chozeir) to being permitted in consumption. How can this be reconciled with one of the basic tenets of Judaism – that not a single letter in the Torah will ever be negated – when an explicit verse rules that pigs are forbidden (14:8)? (Ritva Kiddushin 49b; Rabbeinu Bechaye, Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh, Pardes Yosef and Taam V’Daas Parshas Shemini)

5)     The Torah requires (15:7-11) a person to be compassionate and merciful toward his poor brethren and to generously open his hand to dispense loans and charity to assist them. The Gemora in Bava Basra (10a) teaches that a person who closes his eyes to the poor and refuses to give them tzedakah is considered as one who worshipped idolatry. Although his behavior is far from commendable, why is it viewed in such harsh terms? (Peninei Kedem)

6)     Why does the Torah require us to remember the Exodus from Egypt twice daily (16:3) while sufficing with remembering Amalek’s wickedness (25:17-19) only once a year? (Darash Moshe)

© 2011 by Oizer Alport.

Ki ha’aretz asher atah ba shamah l’rishtah lo k’eretz Mitzrayim hu asher y’tzasem misham asher tizra es zarecha v’hishkisa b’raglecha k’gan hayarek v’ha’aretz asher atem ovrim shama l’rishtah eretz harim uv’kaos lim’tar haShomayim tishteh mayim (11:10-11)

Moshe stressed to the Jewish people that the land of Israel would be different than the land of Egypt from which they were coming. Whereas the fields of the land of Egypt were watered by irrigation from the Nile River, those in Israel received their water from the rain. Although Rashi notes that a natural water supply is advantageous in that it requires substantially less exertion, what deeper message was Moshe trying to impart?

After tempting Chava to eat from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge, the serpent was cursed that it would travel on its stomach and eat dust all the days of its life (Bereishis 3:14). In what way does this represent a punishment, as other animals must spend days hunting for prey while the snake’s diet – dust – can be found wherever it travels?

The Kotzker Rebbe explains that this point is precisely the curse. Other animals are dependent on Hashem to help them find food to eat. The snake, on the other hand, slithers horizontally across the earth. It never goes hungry, never looks upward, and is totally cut off from a relationship with Hashem, and therein lies the greatest curse imaginable.

Similarly, Rav Shimshon Pinkus symbolically explains that Moshe wasn’t merely relating an agricultural fact. He was teaching that just like the serpent, the Egyptians were a totally “natural” people. Because it never rained in their country, so they never had to look skyward to see what the clouds foretold. As a result, their hearts never gazed toward the Heavens, which effectively cutting them off from perceiving any dependence on or relationship with the Almighty. Everything which occurred in their lives could be explained scientifically and deceptively appeared to be completely “natural.”

In light of this, the Exodus from Egypt to Israel wasn’t merely a physical redemption from agonizing enslavement, but it also represented a deeper philosophical departure. The Exodus allowed the fledgling Jewish nation to exchange a worldview devoid of spirituality, through which everything is understood and explained according to science and nature, for one in which we confidently declare that Hashem runs every aspect of the universe and we are dependent on Him for every detail of our daily lives.

Eretz asher Hashem Elokecha doreish osah tamid einei Hashem Elokecha bah me’reishis ha’shana v’ad acharis shana (11:12)

The Gemora in Rosh Hashana (16b) teaches that any year which is “poor” at the beginning will be rich and full of blessing at the end. This is homiletically derived from our verse, which refers to the beginning of the year as “reishis ha’shana” (leaving out the letter “aleph” in the word “reishis”), which may be reinterpreted as a poor year (“rash” means poor). The Gemora understands the Torah as hinting that such a year will have an ending different than that with which it began (i.e. rich and bountiful).

As Rosh Hashana grows ever closer, what does this valuable advice mean, and how can we use it to ensure that the coming year will be a prosperous one for us and our loved ones? Rashi explains that a “poor” year refers to one in which a person makes himself poor on Rosh Hashana to beg and supplicate for his needs. In order to follow this advice, we must first understand what it means to make oneself like a poor person.

Rav Chaim Friedlander explains that it isn’t sufficient to merely view oneself “as if” he is poor for the day. A person must honestly believe that his entire lot for the upcoming year – his health, happiness, and financial situation – will be determined on this day. In other words, at the present moment, he has absolutely nothing to his name and must earn it all from scratch. This may be difficult to do for a person who is fortunate enough to have a beautiful family, a good source of income, and no history of major medical problems. How can such a person honestly stand before Hashem and view himself as a pauper with nothing to his name?

Rav Friedlander explains that if a person understands that all that he has is only because Hashem willed it to be so until now, he will recognize that at the moment Hashem wills the situation to change, it will immediately do so. Although we are accustomed to assuming that this couldn’t happen to us, most of us personally know of stories which can help us internalize this concept.

I once learned this lesson the hard way on a trip to Israel. Shortly after arriving in Jerusalem, I took a taxi to the Kosel. My enthusiasm quickly turned to shocked disbelief when I suddenly realized that I’d forgotten my wallet in the back seat of the cab. Numerous frantic calls to the taxi’s company bore no fruit, and instead of proceeding to pray at the Kosel, I had to first stop to call my bank to cancel my credit cards. Looking back a few years later, I realize that I painfully learned that just because I had something and assumed it to be firmly in my possession, I shouldn’t rely on this belief and take if for granted.

On Rosh Hashana, Hashem decrees what will happen to every person at every moment of the upcoming year, including what they will have and to what extent they will be able to enjoy it. Each person begins the year with a clean slate and must merit receiving everything which he had until now from scratch. If we view ourselves standing before Hashem’s Throne of Glory like a poor person with nothing to our names, we will realize that our entire existence in the year to come is completely dependent on Hashem’s kindness. A person who genuinely feels this way can’t help but beg and plead for Divine mercy. The Gemora promises that if he does so, Hashem will indeed be aroused to give him a decree of a wonderful year, something that we should all merit in the coming year.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):

1)     How can Hashem promise (7:15) to remove from us all illnesses if we perform the mitzvos when the Gemora in Bava Metzia (57b) teaches that everything is in the hands of Heaven except for sickness? (Tosefos Kesuvos 30a, Paneiach Raza)

2)     In enumerating the seven species for which the land of Israel is praised, why does the Torah refer (8:8) to the extracts of olives and dates and not to the fruits themselves, as it does in reference to the other species for which the land of Israel is praised? (Maharsha Horayos 13b)

3)     Although the Torah requires a person to say the Grace after Meals after eating (8:10), the obligation to recite blessings prior to eating is only Rabbinical in nature. In what way are the blessings said after eating more important than those said before?

4)     The Gemora in Berachos (35b) teaches that eating without reciting the appropriate blessing is considered a form of stealing. Why aren’t non-Jews, who are also forbidden to steal, similarly obligated to recite blessings (8:10) before and after their meals?

5)     The Gemora in Menachos (43b) derives from 10:12 that one is required to recite 100 blessings daily. For the purposes of this mitzvah, does a day begin at sunrise or sundown, and if it begins at sunrise, why is it different than other mitzvos for which the Jewish day traditionally begins at sundown? (Shu”t B’tzeil HaChochmah 4:155, Shu”t Yabia Omer 10:7, Piskei Teshuvos 46:9)

6)     The Gemora in Taanis (2a) derives from 11:13 the obligation to pray to Hashem. It is the opinion of the Rambam (Hilchos Tefillah 1:1) that this is a Biblical obligation, although he maintains that one is Biblically required to pray only one time daily at any time of the day. Why isn’t the Rabbinical enactment to pray three times a day at fixed times considered a violation of the prohibition (4:2) against adding on to the mitzvos? (Halichos Shlomo Tefillah Vol. 1 pg. 1)

7)     Did the Jewish people recite Shema and wear tefillin throughout their 40-year wandering in the wilderness, and if so, from where did they know what to say and write, as the first two paragraphs weren’t taught to them until the end of Moshe’s life?

  © 2011 by Oizer Alport.

Hashem Elokei avoseichem yosef Aleichem kachem elef pe’amim (1:11)

In the middle of his rebuke of the Jewish nation, Moshe blessed them that Hashem should increase their population 1000-fold. The Medrash (Devorim Rabbah 1:11) cryptically comments that our verse is what Dovid HaMelech had in mind when he wrote (Tehillim 5:8) åàðé áøá çñãê àáåà áéúê àùúçåä àì äéëì ÷ãùê áéøàúê – And I (Dovid), through Your tremendous kindness, will come into Your House, and I will prostrate myself toward Your Holy Sanctuary in awe of You – a verse which has no apparent connection to Moshe’s blessing. What is the meaning of this Medrash?

Rav Elyakim Devorkes notes that the Gemora in Yoma (22b) rules that it is forbidden to count the Jewish people, even for the purpose of performing a mitzvah, since doing so could make them subject to an ayin hara (evil eye) which may reduce their numbers. Although one may not perform a head-count of Jews, it is permitted to count them via proxy, as was done in the desert when the census was taken by counting the half-shekels contributed by each person (Shemos 30:12-14).

Before beginning the daily prayer services, one often must look around the room to make sure that a minyan of ten adult men is present. However, it is forbidden to do so by counting the individual people present (Pri Chodosh Orach Chaim 55). Instead, it has become customary to choose a verse which has ten words and to recite one word of the verse when pointing to each person present in the room (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 15:3). If one is able to finish the entire verse, this is an indication that the required quorum is present. One such example of a verse with ten words is the aforementioned verse in Tehillim which is quoted by the Medrash.

Rav Devorkes explains that when Moshe blessed the Jewish people that they should become numerous, the Medrash questioned how this blessing can be fulfilled. Since Jews are required to pray with a minyan, one who performs a head-count to see if the required ten men are present will inadvertently invite an ayin hara to strike the people and reduce their numbers, thereby nullifying Moshe’s blessing. The Medrash resolves this dilemma by answering that instead of counting the individual Jews present, one may count them using the words of the verse in Tehillim, which will spare them from the threat of the ayin hara and allow Moshe’s blessing to come to fruition.

V’atzaveh es shofteichem ba’eis ha’hee leimor shamoa bein acheichem ushfat’tem tzedek bein ish u’bein achiv u’bein geiro (1:16)

Even in his youth, the great Rav Yonason Eibeshutz was known for his remarkable diligence in his studies. While his peers idly passed their free time playing games and acting their ages, Rav Yonason utilized every spare moment for the study of Torah. Somebody once asked him about his behavior, questioning whether he wouldn’t be happier if he spent at least a portion of his free time engaged in more age-appropriate extracurricular activities.

Rav Yonason, demonstrating the sharp mind for which he later became world-renowned, explained his conduct based on a Gemora in Sanhedrin (7b). One opinion in the Gemora cites our verse as the source of the law that a judge may not listen to the claims of one of the litigants if the other party isn’t present to challenge his arguments. This is hinted to by the words ùîò áéï àçéëí – you shall listen between your brothers – which teaches that a judge may only listen to the accusations of one party if the other is present.

The Gemora in Sanhedrin (91b) teaches that a person receives his yetzer hara at birth, whereas his yetzer tov doesn’t enter him until his Bar Mitzvah, at which point he is held accountable for his actions. Even a person who never becomes a judge in a Jewish court still serves as a judge every moment of his life, as he must constantly listen to the arguments of the two “litigants” inside of him – his yetzer hara and his yetzer tov – and sort them out to reach a judgment about the proper course of action to choose.

“While closing my books to indulge in the hobbies and games enjoyed by the other boys may seem quite tempting,” concluded the wise-beyond-his-years Rav Yonason, “this is the opinion of only one of the litigants – my yetzer hara. As a judge, I am forbidden to listen to his claims until my Bar Mitzvah, at which time the other party will be able to present its counter-claims, and I will be able to reach a judgment regarding the proper course of action. However, until that time, the ‘law’ gives me no choice but to ignore him and diligently continue with my Torah studies.”

V’tap’chem asher amartem l’vaz yih’yeh ub’neichem asher lo yad’u hayom tov v’ra
Heima yavo’u shama v’lahem et’nena v’heim yirashu’ha (1:39)

Looking around at the state of Judaism today – decreasing numbers of religiously-educated or even self-identifying Jews combined with a skyrocketing rate of intermarriage – can lead a person to depressing conclusions about its future. As the Torah is the guidebook for every generation, what does it have to say about this matter, and what message of hope and optimism can we find in it?

In the 1930s, European Jewry was under attack from all directions. The twin dangers posed by physical annihilation and spiritual ruin seemed to threaten the future of the Jewish people. In a major address at that time, Rav Shimon Shkop delivered words of comfort based on the prophecies of the Torah, a message which is even more applicable today than it was then.

In the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha, Hashem commands Avrohom to leave his home and set out for the land of Israel, promising him, “I will make you into a great nation, I will bless you, I will make your name great, and you shall be a blessing.” In his commentary on this verse, Rashi quotes the Gemora in Pesachim (117b), which explains: “I will make you into a great nation” refers to that which we refer to Hashem when praying as the “G-d of Avrohom;” “I will bless you” applies to our calling Hashem “G-d of Yitzchok;” and “I will make your name great” refers to our mention of Hashem as “G-d of Yaakov.” As one might think that he should conclude by invoking all three of the Avos, “And you shall be a blessing” teaches that we finish by mentioning only Hashem’s connection to Avrohom.

Rav Shimon explained that Avrohom grew up in a house of idolatry. He had no role model for proper belief in Hashem, and only came to that recognition on his own. In contrast, although Yitzchok added his own unique expression of serving Hashem, he nevertheless had a father who taught him to believe in Hashem, and Yaakov even merited two generations of teachers. One might have expected that throughout time, each succeeding generation would build upon the belief and accomplishments of the previous one until the generation of Moshiach would reach the pinnacle.

Chazal saw that the sad reality would be otherwise. There would come a time when the momentum would be reversed. Each successive generation would only decline further in its commitment to observing the Torah and believing in Hashem. However, just when the level of the Jewish people appears ready to disappear into a bottomless abyss, Hashem will allow the innocent and ignorant children to rediscover Him, just as their ancestor Avrohom did.

This phenomenon is alluded to in the words of Chazal, who suggest that one might have thought that “the end” (of the current era, not of one’s blessings) would come about through continuing to build upon the successes of the previous generations as did Yitzchok and Yaakov. In reality, “the end” will be brought about by an entire generation of those eager to rediscover and reconnect to the truth of their roots.

Rav Shimon concluded by reassuring those assembled that although Judaism seemed at that time doomed to physical and spiritual extinction, the children and grandchildren of those abandoning their traditions would be brought back in an unprecedented spiritual awakening. He prophetically suggested – some 70 years ago – that this is the intent of our verse: And the little children, regarding whom you said “they will be taken (spiritually) captive,” and the children who (aren’t educated to) know the difference between good and evil, those very children of whose futures you despaired will be the ones to come to the land of Israel, and to them will I give it, and they will possess it.

Answers to the weekly Points to Ponder are now available!
To receive the full version with answers email the author at oalport@optonline.net.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):

1)     Rashi writes (1:1) that Moshe mentioned the words Di Zahav – abundance of gold – to hint to the sin of the golden calf, which was produced because of the large amount of gold that they had. Rashi writes (Shemos 32:31) that after the sin of the golden calf, Moshe argued that Hashem had indirectly caused the sin by giving them so much gold when they left Egypt that they had nothing to do with it but sin. How can this be reconciled with Rashi’s comment (Bereishis 3:12) that in blaming Hashem for giving him Chava who caused him to eat from the forbidden fruit, Adam was guilty of a lack of gratitude to Hashem for all of the good that He had bestowed upon him? (Ayeles HaShachar Shemos 32:31)

2)     Masechta Sofrim (1:7) relates that the day King Ptolemy ordered five of the Jewish elders to translate the Torah into Greek was as painful and difficult for the Jews as the day on which they sinned with the golden calf. In what way was this worse than Moshe’s translation of the Torah into all 70 languages (Rashi 1:5), which presumably includes Greek? (HaK’sav V’HaKabbalah, Mishmeres Ariel, Shiras Dovid)

3)     Rashi writes (2:17) that for the duration of the 38-year period in which the Jewish nation was in Divine disfavor due to the sin of the spies, Hashem didn’t speak to Moshe in the manner in which He was accustomed. Did Hashem communicate with Moshe at all during this time, and if so, in what fashion did He do so? (Rashi Taanis 30b, Rashbam Bava Basra 121b, Rabbeinu Bechaye)

© 2011 by Oizer Alport.

V’hikrisem lachem arim arei miklat tih’yena lachem v’nas shama rotzeach makeh nefesh bishgaga (35:11)

A man once traveled from Israel to Europe to collect money for the poverty-stricken yeshivos of Yerushalayim. Unfortunately, try as he might, his efforts at collecting were largely unsuccessful. Disappointing as it was, he was willing to accept Hashem’s decree. However, upon hearing that a non-religious agent collecting for Zionist causes had quickly reached his goal and was already on his return voyage, the man became distraught and frustrated. He approached the Chofetz Chaim for an explanation to help him understand Hashem’s perplexing ways.

The Chofetz Chaim responded by noting that the Gemora in Makkos (10b) rules that signs must be placed along the road indicating which path accidental murders should take to arrive at the cities of refuge. He questioned why we don’t find a similar law requiring that signs be posted pointing the way to Yerushalayim for those on their way to fulfill the mitzvah of ascending to the Beis HaMikdash on Pesach, Shavuos, and Sukkos?

The Chofetz Chaim answered that a person on his way to a city of refuge, even if he is not an intentional murderer, is still not a moral role model to whom we want people to be exposed. Hashem wouldn’t have caused this to happen to a completely righteous person. We therefore provide directions for him so that he won’t have to stop to obtain them by interacting with innocent people.

On the other hand, the Medrash relates (Yalkut Shimoni Shmuel 1:1 77) that each year Elkanah would ascend to the Mishkan in Shiloh and share his plans with those he encountered, thus encouraging them to join him in the mitzvah. Each time he would take a different path so as to enable all Jews to participate in the mitzvah. There are no signs pointing the way to Yerushalayim so that a person ascending there will be forced to ask the locals for directions, thereby enabling them to become exposed to the righteous and join them in the performance of mitzvos.

The Chofetz Chaim concluded his words of comfort by suggesting that the representative of the anti-religious causes would act as a negative influence on all those he encountered. Hashem therefore enabled him to quickly obtain the funds he sought so that he would immediately leave, thus sparing the upright Jews of Europe from encountering his misleading ideologies. The representative of the Israeli yeshivos, on the other hand, was a righteous person representing holy causes. Frustrating and time-consuming as it was, Hashem specifically wanted his collection efforts to be dragged out so as to allow as many people as possible to meet him and become inspired from his stories of the pious Jews studying Torah in Yerushalayim.

V’heishivu oso ha’eidah el ir miklato asher nas shama v’yashav bah ad mos HaKohen HaGadol asher mashach oso b’shemen HaKodesh (35:25)

An accidental murderer is required to flee to a city of refuge and remain there until the death of the Kohen Gadol. The Mishnah in Makkos (11a) teaches that in order to ensure that they wouldn’t pray for the death of the Kohen Gadol, which would free them to return to their homes, the Kohen Gadol’s mother would send them food and clothing. This is difficult to understand. As much as the accidental murderers appreciated the parcels, they surely valued their potential freedom even more. If so, in what way did sending them “care packages” prevent them from eating the food and then proceeding to pray for the death of the Kohen Gadol? Must the two activities be mutually exclusive?

Rabbi Shlomo Eisenblatt derives from here a beautiful lesson in the importance of sincere and genuine prayer. He explains that the goal of the Kohen Gadol’s mother was to make sure that her son remained alive and did not die prematurely through the prayers of the accidental murderers for his death. In other words, her focus was not to guarantee that nobody would pray for the death of her son, which would have been unrealistic, but rather to ensure that even if they did pray, their petitions would be denied. How did she accomplish this?

Rabbi Eisenblatt explains that the power of a pure and truly heartfelt prayer is so great that even if it is uttered by somebody whose carelessness resulted in the death of another Jew, and even if his request is for something as audacious as the death of the Kohen Gadol, if he cries out to Hashem with all of his heart, he may well be answered. Although the feelings of gratitude that the accidental murderers felt toward the mother of the Kohen Gadol may not have been sufficient to stop them from praying altogether, they were enough to ensure that they would be unable to pray with their entire hearts, and the smallest reduction in the purity and intensity of their petitions was enough to prevent them from being answered.

Many times in life we call out to Hashem with tremendous passion and fervor. When doing so, we should remember the lesson of the Kohen Gadol’s mother and examine whether we are indeed doing so with all of our hearts, for the small disparity between 100% and 99% concentration can mean the difference between having our requests granted or denied.

Zeh hadavar asher tziva Hashem liv’nos Tzelafchad leimor l’tov b’eineihem tih’yena l’nashim ach l’mishpachas mateh avihem tih’yena l’nashim (36:6)

Although the Torah seems to require the daughters of Tzelafchad to marry men from their father’s tribe (Menashe), the Gemora in Bava Basra (120a) teaches that this wasn’t a commandment, but rather a piece of good advice that Hashem told Moshe to give them. Nevertheless, although they weren’t obligated to do so, the Torah testifies that they followed Hashem’s “advice,” and each of them found a man from her father’s tribe to marry.

Rav Zalman Sorotzkin notes that one might think that it would be difficult to find an appropriate spouse if a person’s dating pool is artificially reduced by 11/12. We would therefore expect to find that at least some of Tzelafchad’s daughters felt forced to ignore Hashem’s non-binding advice, since the Gemora in Bava Basra (120a) teaches that all of them had already reached the age of 40.

The Torah therefore emphasizes that no matter how restricted they may have felt in their choices, each of them recognized that each match is pre-destined and arranged by Hashem. Only He knows what is best for each person and uses special Divine Providence to bring it about. Each of Tzelafchad’s daughters understood that the apparent reduction in the size of her dating pool needn’t force her to remain single or to marry someone inappropriate for her. Following Hashem’s advice allowed each one to restrict her dating pool … to the one pre-destined bashert who would give her true happiness in life.

Answers to the weekly Points to Ponder are now available.
To receive the full version with answers email the author at oalport@optonline.net.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):

1)     One of our fundamental beliefs is that the Torah isn’t a book of history, but rather only contains that information from which lessons may be derived which are relevant to every Jew in every generation. Why does the Torah relate at length the list of the 42 places to which the Jews traveled on their way from Egypt to Israel, and of what practical significance is this information? (Rabbeinu Bechaye, Peirush Raavad to Mishnayos Eduyos 2:9, Divrei Shaul, Toafos Re’em on Yereim 309, Taam V’Daas, Chavatzeles HaSharon)

2)     Rashi explains (35:14) that although 9½ tribes lived in the land of Israel proper and only 2½ tribes lived on the other side of the Jordan River, the Torah nevertheless required that the 6 cities of refuge be evenly divided between the two regions due to the fact that there were a disproportionate number of intentional murderers living on the other side of the Jordan. Of what relevance is the prevalence of intentional murderers to the cities of refuge, which only provide protection to those who kill accidentally and not to intentional killers? (Ramban, Daas Z’keinim, Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi, Sifsei Chochomim, Gur Aryeh, Taam V’Daas)

3)     One who kills accidentally is required to flee to one of the cities of refuge and to remain there until the death of the Kohen Gadol (35:25). The Gemora in Makkos (9b) rules that two Torah scholars must escort him to the city of refuge in order to protect him from the avenger of the blood should they encounter one another before the murderer reaches the safety of the city of refuge. Why did they send two Torah scholars instead of two strong men, who would presumably be more successful in protecting him from the angry blood-redeemer? (V’HaIsh Moshe)

© 2011 by Oizer Alport.

Ish ki yidor neder l’Hashem (30:3)

Parshas Mattos begins with the laws governing oaths and vows. The concept of taking a vow to Hashem is a difficult one to understand. The Shelah HaKadosh writes that if a person wants to understand the true significance of any idea, he should examine its meaning in the first place it appears in the Torah.

In the case of a vow, Rav Gedaliah Schorr notes that it first appears in the beginning of Parshas Vayeitzei (Bereishis 28:20-22): Yaakov took a vow, saying, “If Hashem will be with me … then this stone which I have made as a pillar will become a House for Hashem.” We similarly find in Tehillim (132:2-5) that the concept of a vow is associated with making a dwelling place for Hashem: He (Dovid HaMelech) swore to Hashem and vowed to the Strong One of Yaakov (Hashem), “If I enter the tent of my home … until I find a place for Hashem, resting places for the Strong One of Yaakov.”

The Torah is teaching us that vows are somehow connected to the idea of a Holy dwelling place for Hashem. In fact, Rabbeinu Bechaye writes that the word “neder” (vow) is linguistically derived from the expression “dirah l’Hashem” – a dwelling place for Hashem. It isn’t a coincidence, then, that Parshas Mattos is always read during the mourning period known as the three weeks, in which our focus must be on recognizing the tragedy of what we lost when the Temple was destroyed and on strengthening ourselves to build a resting place for Hashem within us. Through our individual emphasis on “B’soch libi Mishkan evneh” – I will build a Mishkan within my heart – we should merit seeing the collective redemption with the rebuilding of the true Beis HaMikdash speedily in our days!

 Ishah hafeiram v’Hashem yislach lah (30:13)

The Torah says that in a case where a woman took a vow which her husband subsequently revoked, Hashem will forgive her. This is difficult to understand. Even if she transgressed her promise, why would she need atonement if her husband revoked her vow? The Gemora (Nazir 23a) explains that the Torah is referring to a case in which a woman’s husband revoked her vow unbeknownst to her, such that although the promise was no longer binding, she thought that it was still in effect and that she was violating it, an act which necessitates Hashem’s forgiveness.

The Gemora likens this to a person who thought that he was eating non-kosher meat but in reality consumed kosher meat, yet still must repent his sinful intentions. The Gemora adds that when Rabbi Akiva studied this verse, he began to cry, commenting that if a person requires atonement when he thought that he was sinning even though in reality he wasn’t, all the more so does he need forgiveness if he actually sins. Why did this concept specifically pain Rabbi Akiva more than any of the other Rabbis?

The Arizal writes that the Asarah Harugei Malchus – ten great Rabbis who were brutally and tragically martyred – were killed as atonement for the sin of the sale of Yosef by his brothers. Of the ten Rabbis, Rabbi Akiva died in the most cruel and painful manner because he was a gilgul (reincarnation) of Shimon, who was the primary instigator of the plot to harm Yosef (Rashi Bereishis 42:24) and bore the most responsibility for the sin.

After Yaakov’s death, Yosef’s brothers approached him to ask forgiveness for the sin of selling him into slavery. Yosef responded (Bereishis 50:20) that there was no need for him to forgive them because even though they had intended to harm him, no damage was done and the ultimate result was beneficial, as Hashem brought him to Egypt where he became viceroy and was able to use his position of power to sustain them during the famine.

Rav Shmuel Falkenfeld points out that Yosef’s reasoning is remarkably similar to the case described by our verse, in which a woman thought that she was sinning by violating her vow, but in reality, no transgression was committed because her husband had already revoked it. Nevertheless, the Torah explicitly states that in such a case, the woman requires forgiveness due to her intention to sin.

Although Rabbi Akiva was still alive and did not know what fate would ultimately befall him, there was some part of his soul which was aware of its past incarnation and impending punishment. Therefore, whenever he learned the verse which teaches that a person must repent for an action which he intended to be sinful even if circumstances beyond his control result in no sin being committed, he became afraid of the harsh punishment that Shimon and his brothers would require for their cruel plan to sell Yosef into slavery even though Yosef’s journey ultimately had a happy ending, and it was this subconscious fear which moved him to cry.

V’Yair ben Menashe halacha vayilkod es chavoseihem vayikra es’hen Chavos Yair …
V’Novach halacha vayilkod es K’nas v’es b’noseha vayikra la Novach bish’mo (32:41-42)

Rav Aizik Ausband was once faced with a dilemma. His father-in-law, Rav Avrohom Yitzchok Bloch Hy”d, was one of the leaders of the Telz yeshiva who was tragically murdered in the Holocaust. Rav Ausband’s wife was pregnant, and if the baby was a boy, he wished to commemorate the memory of his father-in-law by naming the baby Avrohom Yitzchok.

The problem was that Rav Ausband’s full name is R’ Yitzchok Aizik. Since the prevalent custom is not to give a child the same name as his parents, Rav Ausband wondered whether he was permitted to have a son named Avrohom Yitzchok. Should this be avoided because both names would contain “Yitzchok,” or does the fact that each would have an additional name make it acceptable?

Rav Ausband presented his query to Rav Eliezer Silver, who replied that the Torah “explicitly” answers this very question at the end of Parshas Matos. Yair conquered the villages in Gilad and renamed them Chavos-Yair – the villages of Yair. Rashi explains that because Yair had no children, he named the villages after himself to memorialize his name.

The Torah continues and recounts that Novach captured K’nas and its suburbs and renamed them Novach in his name. Why isn’t the expression “in his name” also used in conjunction with Yair naming his villages Chavos-Yair? We even find later (Devorim 3:14) that Moshe mentioned that Yair called the cities “al sh’mo” – after his name.

Rav Silver answered that because Novach gave his exact name to his conquered territory, the Torah says that he called them “in his name.” Yair, on the other hand, added an additional name in calling his villages not “Yair” but “Chavos-Yair.” Moshe considered this a memorial to Yair’s name, but the additional name makes it a new name which can’t be considered “in his name.” As a result, the names Yitzchok Aizik and Avrohom Yitzchok, each of which contains an additional name, are considered two different names and may be used by a father and son.

Answers to the weekly Points to Ponder are now available.
To receive the full version with answers email the author at oalport@optonline.net.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):

1)     Why does the Torah allow a father to revoke the vows of his daughter (30:6) but not of his son? (Taima D’Kra Hosafos, Derech Sicha)

2)     Is a non-Jew who converts to Judaism required to immerse all of his utensils in a mikvah, as he is now legally considered a Jew who “acquired” them from a non-Jew, or does this law apply only when the Jew and non-Jew are two different people? (Darkei Teshuva Yoreh Deah 120:4, Zahav Sh’va, Shu”t Tzitz Eliezer 8:19-20, Tevilas Keilim 3:24)

3)     Moshe told (32:22) the tribes of Gad and Reuven that they must fulfill their conditions in order to be clean in the eyes of Hashem and the Jewish people. Chazal derive from here several laws requiring a person to exceed the strict letter of the law in order that he not appear to be doing something inappropriate to those who observe him, often referred to as “maris ayin.” If somebody is doing something only to prevent a case of maris ayin but which would require a blessing if it was required according to the letter of the law, may he recite a blessing? (Shu”t Rashba 525, Ran Shabbos 23a, Besamim Rosh 283, Pri To’ar 19:1, Kreisi U’Pleisi 13:4, Birkei Yosef Yoreh Deah 13:4 and Orach Chaim 571:11, Michtam L’Dovid Orach Chaim 23, Chavatzeles HaSharon)

© 2011 by Oizer Alport.

Pinchas ben Elozar ben Aharon HaKohen (25:11)

At the end of last week’s parsha, the Jewish people began to sin with the non-Jewish Midianites. Even Zimri, the leader of the tribe of Shimon, was caught up in transgressing. Anxious to stem the spread of the sin, Aharon’s grandson Pinchas publicly killed Zimri. Rashi writes that the Jewish people began to embarrass Pinchas. They questioned how a person whose maternal grandfather (Yisro) was an idolater could murder the leader of a tribe. Therefore, the Torah specifically emphasizes Pinchas’s paternal descent from Aharon.

The logic behind the Jews’ argument and Hashem’s response is difficult to grasp. If they knew the law that permitted Pinchas’s actions, why did they insult him? If they were unfamiliar with the law and viewed him as a cold-blooded murderer, of what benefit was it to point out his paternal lineage? In what way did it change the reality that one of his grandfathers served as a priest for idol-worship and that in their minds, he had killed the leader of a tribe without justification?

Rav Meir Shapiro explains that the value of a mitzvah is measured by the degree to which its performance runs counter to a person’s natural inclinations and therefore represents a greater test of his devotion to Hashem. The Jews attempted to minimize the greatness of Pinchas’s actions not by insinuating that he was a cold-blooded killer, but by hinting that it had come easy to him because his grandfather cruelly killed animals as part of his idol-worship.

The Torah therefore emphasizes that this act was performed with great personal difficulty and internal resistance. Pinchas’s natural instincts came not from his allegedly merciless maternal grandfather, but from his paternal grandfather Aharon, a man whose entire life was dedicated to the pursuit of peace. The Lekach Tov derives from this explanation the importance of adapting ourselves to the Torah and not attempting to interpret the Torah’s laws in light of our personal preferences, a lesson illustrated by the following story.

A person once remarked to Rav Yitzchok Hutner that the performance of certain mitzvos is too difficult for him since they run counter to his nature and he is unable to change. Rav Hutner responded by likening the man’s argument to the case of a motorist speeding down the highway who suddenly sees flashing lights in his rear-view mirror. He pulls over, and the policeman approaches and asks why he was driving 83 mph on a highway with a speed limit of 50.

The man foolishly answers that he did nothing wrong, as the car was set to cruise control and he wasn’t even the one driving at that speed. The officer dismisses his specious defense by noting that he was the one to initially set the cruise control to an illegal speed. Similarly, when a person comes before the Heavenly Court and attempts to justify his ways by noting that certain mitzvos ran counter to his very essence, he will have a difficult time explaining who was responsible for creating within himself a nature which runs counter to the Torah.

While every person has different mitzvos that specifically challenge him, the Mishnah in Avos teach that the strong person is one who conquers his evil inclination (4:1) and that the harder a mitzvah is for a person, the greater will be his reward for doing it (5:22), a lesson we should learn from the eternal covenant of peace that Hashem gave to Pinchas for acting counter to his peaceful nature.

V’el B’nei Yisroel t’dabeir leimor ish ki yamus u’ben ein lo v’ha’avartem es nachalaso l’bito (27:8)

A young man suddenly became ill and found himself on his death-bed. He realized that he hadn’t yet prepared a will regarding the division of his estate. Although he didn’t have any children, his wife was pregnant at the time. Uncertain as to the baby’s gender, he instructed that if his wife gives birth to a boy, the son should inherit 2/3 of his possessions, with the remaining 1/3 going to his wife. In the event that she gave birth to a girl, the daughter should inherit 1/3 of the estate, with the remaining possessions belonging to his widow. After he passed away, to the surprise of all, his wife gave birth to twins – one boy and one girl.

Unsure about how to adapt the deceased’s instructions to the strange turn of events, they approached Rav Chaim Soloveitchik for guidance. He explained to them that the solution is simple. The man made it clear that he wanted any son he may have to receive two times the inheritance of his wife, while he also desired that his widow should inherit double the portion of any daughter she may bear. In light of this understanding, the estate should be divided into seven equal portions, with the son receiving four of them, the wife two, and the daughter one … just as the man himself would have wanted it!

Vayomer Hashem el Moshe kach lecha es Yehoshua bin Nun is hasher ruach bo v’samachta es yad’cha alav (27:18)

As the end of Moshe’s life began to approach, Hashem commanded him to appoint his disciple Yehoshua to succeed him. Why wasn’t Pinchas, the righteous “hero” of the parsha, selected to take over the leadership after Moshe’s death? In risking his life for the sake of the nation, didn’t he display the extent of his dedication and commitment to them and to his beliefs, valuable traits for a successful leader to possess?

The following story will help us answer these questions. The Gemora (Shabbos 33b) records that because of disparaging comments he had made, the non-Jewish government decreed that Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai should be executed. He fled with his son, Rebbi Elozar, to hide in a cave. For 12 years, Hashem miraculously provided them with food and drink, and they spent the entire day engrossed in the study of Torah.

After twelve years, Hashem sent Eliyahu HaNavi to announce at the opening of the cave that the person who made the decree had died, and Rebbi Shimon’s life was safe. Rebbi Shimon and his son emerged to see the light of day for the first time in more than a decade. While they spent this time climbing to great spiritual heights, the rest of the world continued in its more mundane fashion.

When Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Elozar saw men “wasting” their time on what they viewed as frivolous non-spiritual pursuits like plowing and planting, the Rabbis looked at them with such anger and disdain that the farmers were immediately burned by a mystical fire. A Divine voice called out, “Have you left the cave to destroy My world?” Rebbi Shimon and his son returned to study Torah in the cave for another year.

At the end of the year, they left the cave. The results were similar, but with one crucial difference. When Rebbi Elozar saw people engaging in earthly matters, he again burned them with his wrath. This time, Rebbi Shimon looked at them and healed them, explaining to his son, “It’s enough for the world that you and I exist.” One Friday afternoon, they saw a man carrying two bundles of sweet-smelling myrtle in honor of Shabbos. Recognizing the devotion of Jews to mitzvos, Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Elozar were pacified.

This episode is difficult to understand. If the initial 12 years in the cave placed such a divide between Rebbi Shimon and the rest of the world, how did an additional year in the cave solve the problem when it should have only exacerbated it? The commentators explain that the additional year brought Rebbi Shimon to true greatness: the ability to understand and relate to those who aren’t on his level and to appreciate them for their good qualities, such as their dedication to honoring Shabbos.

In light of this explanation, we can appreciate the answer given by the Kotzker Rebbe to our original question. The very fervor and passion demonstrated by Pinchas, while appropriate at that time, rendered him ineligible to serve as the national leader. Rashi writes (27:16) that Moshe requested a successor who would be able to understand that every person has his own individual foibles and needs, and who would be able to patiently bear the burden of interacting with each person and his idiosyncrasies. Pinchas’s passionate devotion to truth and righteousness served him well, but would have made him an ineffective leader who was unable to understand and interact with each person on his own unique level.

Answers to the weekly Points to Ponder are now available.
To receive the full version with answers email the author at oalport@optonline.net.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):

1)     The Targum Yonason ben Uziel (25:12) writes that as reward for Pinchas’s reward zealotry, Hashem promised that he would live forever and would herald the final redemption. Our Sages explain that Eliyahu HaNavi was none other than Pinchas. In what way was this an appropriate reward for Pinchas’s actions? (Rabbeinu Bechaye, Toras Chaim)

2)     When Pinchas killed Zimri and Cozbi, the Torah does not identify them, and they remain anonymous until their names are revealed in Parshas Pinchas (25:14-15). If they were going to be identified eventually, why were their identities initially concealed? (Darkei HaShleimus)

3)     How was Serach related to Asher? (Targum, Ramban, Daas Z’keinim, and Chizkuni 26:46)

© 2011 by Oizer Alport.

 Dabeir el B’nei Yisroel v’yikchu aleicha parah adumah temimah (19:2)

The Gemora in Kiddushin (31a) relates the tremendous dedication of a non-Jew named Dama ben Nesina to the mitzvah of honoring his parents. The Sages once came to him to purchase something for a tremendous amount of money, but the key needed to access it was underneath the pillow on which Dama’s father was sleeping. Although Dama would have made a tremendous profit if he woke his father to get the key, he chose to honor his father and refused to inconvenience him.

The Gemora adds that many years later, Hashem rewarded Dama when a rare parah adumah (red heifer) was born in his herd. When the Sages heard about the cow, they came to his home to purchase it. Dama told them that he recognized the cow’s value to them and knew that they would agree to whatever price he demanded for it. Nevertheless, he asked them to pay only the money which he lost as a result of honoring his father. Why did Hashem specifically reward Dama with a parah adumah, and what lesson is the Gemora teaching us through this episode?

The Darkei Mussar suggests that the Gemora is using this incident to teach a fundamental difference between Jews and non-Jews in their approach to doing mitzvos. A Jew would never be willing to sell or trade the reward that he receives for his mitzvah performance, yet Dama had no compunctions about doing so. In fact, he was the one who insisted on it!

Perhaps it is for this reason that he was specifically rewarded with a parah adumah. If the prosecuting angel attempts to use Dama’s exemplary honor for his father to challenge the Jewish people’s dedication to this mitzvah, they can respond by pointing out that he had no reservations about selling his reward for the mitzvah. The Kotzker Rebbe goes one step further, pointing out that while Dama was willing to trade away the logical mitzvah that he performed, the Jewish Sages were willing to spend an exorbitant amount of money to fulfill a mitzvah whose understanding was completely beyond them.

Rav Moshe Leib of Sassov offers an innovative explanation of an expression used in the Mussaf prayers on Rosh Hashana. He begins by noting an interesting difference between the proper attitude toward mitzvos and sins. It is preferable to remember sins constantly (Tehillim 51:5) so as to fully repent them and to be careful not to repeat them. Regarding mitzvos, however, it is advisable not to remember and dwell on one’s successes, which may cause a person to become haughty and complacent. Instead, it is better to leave them in the past and to always focus on future growth and accomplishments.

At the end of the section of the Remembrances section of the Rosh Hashana Mussaf prayers, we say You (Hashem) remember everything that is forgotten. In other words, Hashem remembers whatever we forget and “forgets” whatever we remember. If a person acts properly, remembering his sins and forgetting his mitzvos, Hashem will overlook his misdeeds and focus on recalling his accomplishments. If, however, the person forgets his sins and arrogantly dwells on his mitzvos, Hashem will meticulously remember each sin while overlooking all of his good deeds.

In this vein, the Darkei Mussar writes that although Dama was blessed with the birth of a parah adumah in his herd, several years had passed and there was no reason to assume that this was his reward for honoring his father. The Gemora is teaching us that the non-Jewish approach is to dwell on the past and focus on the good deeds that he has already performed, whereas a Jew looks to the future and is never satisfied with what he has already accomplished.

Vayomer Hashem el Moshe v’el Aharon ya’an lo he’emantem bi l’hakdisheini l’einei B’nei Yisroel lachein lo savi’u es hakahal hazeh el ha’aretz asher nasati lahem (20:12)

As a result of Moshe’s sin at Mei Meriva (the waters of strife), Hashem told him that he would die in the wilderness and wouldn’t merit leading the Jews into the land of Israel. In Parshas Ha’azinu (Devorim 32:51), the Torah seems to give two explanations for Moshe’s actual sin: he trespassed against Hashem, and he also failed to sanctify Hashem’s name among the Jewish people. What are the two different components of this sin, and in what way are they connected?

The Mishnah in Pirkei Avos (3:1) warns a person to remember that he will be required to give a din v’cheshbon – judgment and accounting – before Hashem, the King of Kings. As Chazal don’t waste words or repeat themselves with unnecessary synonyms, a number of commentators question what is the difference between judgment and accounting?

The Vilna Gaon explains that din is what a person visualizes when he imagines the process of Divine justice; it is the punishment that a person will receive for his actions. As if that weren’t scary enough, the Mishnah teaches us that a person must also give a cheshbon. He will additionally be punished for the opportunity cost of the sin, which is all of the good deeds which he could have accomplished with the time and resources that he invested in the sin.

The Meshech Chochmah explains that the Torah is emphasizing these same two concepts. It begins by stating Moshe’s actual sin: he trespassed against Hashem by hitting the rock instead of speaking to it. Additionally, Rashi writes that had Moshe followed Hashem’s orders and publicly demonstrated the rock bringing forth water at Hashem’s verbal command, a tremendous sanctification of Hashem’s name would have occurred. The Torah emphasizes that even the great Moshe had to give a din v’cheshbon and was punished not only for what he did, but also for what he had the potential to do.

Vayishlach Moshe malachim mi’Kadesh el melech Edom koh amar achicha Yisroel … vanitzak el Hashem vayishma koleinu vayishlach malach vayotzieinu miMitzrayim (20:14-16)

Moshe sent messengers to the king of Edom requesting permission to travel through his land. He instructed the messengers to recount to the king their national history, including a mention of how much they suffered at the hands of the Egyptians until Hashem sent an angel to free them. Rashi explains that the angel refers to Moshe. How could the humble Moshe refer to himself as an angel?

The following story will help us appreciate the answer to this question. One of the leading sages of Vilna encountered an ignorant farmer riding in a wagon which was being pulled by a horse and a cow in violation of the Torah prohibition (Devorim 22:10) against coupling two different species for any kind of work. The Rav warned the man that what he was doing was forbidden, but the farmer refused to listen.

After several more attempts to convince the man of the severity of his actions fell on deaf ears, the Rav finally proclaimed, “Do you know who I am? I’m the greatest Rabbi in Vilna, and if you refuse to stop what you’re doing, I will publicly excommunicate you!” Cognizant of the stature of the man whose opinion he had been ignoring and the dire consequences of continuing to do so, the farmer quickly unharnessed his horse and cow.

The Oznayim L’Torah explains that although the nature of a Torah scholar, and certainly one as great as Moshe, is to be humble, he must also realize that there are times when circumstances require him to acknowledge his greatness. By disclosing his true stature to the farmer, the Rav was able to intimidate him into compliance with a mitzvah in a way which no other form of rebuke was able to accomplish.

Similarly, when Moshe wanted to lead the Jewish people through the land of Edom on their way to the land of Israel, he hoped to instill fear and terror into the Edomites so that they would permit the Jews passage through their land. Moshe understood that the odds of his request being approved would increase greatly if he would not-so-subtly inform them that it was being made by no ordinary human, but by one as great as an angel.

Answers to the weekly Points to Ponder are now available!
To receive the full version with answers email the author at parshapotpourri@optonline.net.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):

1)     Rashi writes (20:1) that the death of Miriam is juxtaposed to the section containing the laws of the parah adumah in order to teach that the death of the righteous effects atonement similar to the bringing of sacrifices. Why is the death of the righteous compared to the parah adumah and not to one of the more traditional sacrifices?

2)     In the prayer for rain recited by the chazzan during the Mussaf prayers on Shemini Atzeres, each stanza invokes the water-related merits of one of our righteous forefathers. In the stanza referring to Moshe, we include a reference to the fact that at the time that the Jewish nation was thirsty for water, he struck the rock and caused water to come forth (20:11). Since Moshe was punished for his actions and wasn’t allowed to enter Israel as a result, why do we invoke an action which is considered a sin? (Imrei Daas, Taam V’Daas, K’motzei Shalal Rav, M’rafsin Igri)

3)     Moshe stripped Aharon of the garments of the Kohen Gadol and dressed Elozar in them inside the cave (20:28), as Hashem had commanded him to do, thus inaugurating Elozar as the Kohen Gadol. As a Kohen Gadol is forbidden to become ritually impure even upon the death of his immediate relatives, how was Elozar permitted to remain in the cave in which Aharon died, thus rendering Elozar impure? (Ayeles HaShachar)

4)     Rashi writes (20:29) that upon seeing Moshe and Elozar descend from the mountain, the Jewish people immediately asked regarding Aharon’s whereabouts. Upon hearing that he had died, they refused to believe it, wondering how a person who had successfully stopped an angel killing people in a plague could succumb to the angel of death. Moshe prayed for Divine assistance and the people were shown an image of Aharon lying dead in a bed, at which point they believed that he had indeed died. How did this constitute an adequate proof for them, when they knew that they had also been shown a picture (Rashi Shemos 32:1) of a dead Moshe being carried to Heaven – thus inspiring the sin of the golden calf – which they later found out was completely false and unreliable? (Peninim MiShulchan Gevoha, Yad Av)

5)     Rashi writes (21:1) that when the Amalekites came to attack the Jewish people, they were afraid that the Jews would pray to Hashem to defeat them. In an attempt to thwart the efficacy of their prayers, the Amalekites spoke in the Canaanite language, hoping that the Jews would be tricked into praying for victory over their Canaanite foes. Because they were still wearing the clothing of Amalekites, the Jews were confused regarding their true identity and simply prayed to Hashem for help in defeating “this nation” – whichever it may be – and they prevailed. Why didn’t the Amalekites also change their garments to those of the Canaanites to ensure that their ruse would be successful? (Chiddushei HaRim, Tal’lei Oros, Taam V’Daas, Rashi Divrei HaYamim 2 20:1)

© 2008 by Oizer Alport.

Vayakumu lifnei Moshe v’anashim mi’Bnei Yisroel chamishim umasayim nesi’ei eida kriei moed anshei shem (16:2)

Parshas Korach begins with the tragic revolt led by Korach against Moshe and Aharon in which he questions their claims of being Divinely-chosen in an attempt to overthrow their leadership. Korach was joined in his rebellion by Dasan, Aviram, and 250 followers. The commentators disagree about the identity of these 250 individuals, but a number of them maintain that they included the leaders of each of the tribes. According to this opinion, how is it possible that such righteous leaders stumbled and fell so far as to take part in Korach’s rebellion against Moshe and Aharon?

In Parshas Nasso, the Torah repeats at excruciating length the offerings brought by each of the 12 tribal leaders even though they were all identical to one another. The Chofetz Chaim explains that the first offerings brought in history resulted in bloodshed when Hevel’s offering was accepted and his brother Cain’s was not. Cain became jealous and killed Hevel. The heads of the tribes were worried that each successive leader would try to “one-up” the leader who brought his offering on the previous day. This would result in tremendous jealousy and ill-will. To prevent this from happening, they collaborated and agreed upon a uniform offering which would be brought by each of them. This desire for peace was so precious to Hashem that He wrote each of their offerings in the Torah at great length to reward them.

However, all philosophies and character traits run across-the-board and can be used for good or for bad. Although their desire for equality earned them tremendous reward and Divine favor in Parshas Nasso, it led to their downfall a short while later in Parshas Korach. Korach challenged the leadership of Moshe and Aharon, arguing that the entire Jewish nation is equally holy and has no need for a leader (16:3). This played right into the reasoning and beliefs of the tribal leaders, who were unfortunately swept up in Korach’s rebellion.

As we strive to improve ourselves and our character traits, it is insufficient to simply work on traits such as kindness, patience, and the pursuit of peace. We must be cognizant of the fact that all of them have a time and place not only when they are appropriate, but also when they can lead to disastrous results.

Vatiftach ha’aretz es pi’ha vativla osam (16:32)

Parshas Korach revolves around Korach’s challenge to the authority and leadership of Moshe and Aharon. Korach ultimately leads a full-fledged rebellion against them, one which ends in disastrous and tragic results as he and his followers and all of their possessions were swallowed up by the ground. Judaism teaches that people are punished for their sins measure-for-measure. In what way was Korach’s punishment of being swallowed alive by the earth for rebelling against Moshe and Aharon specifically appropriate for his crime?

Rabbeinu Bechaye explains that Korach erred in seeking to rise to a lofty position for which he was unfit. Therefore, he was punished by being swallowed up by the ground and sent down to the lowest level of Gehinnom (16:33).

Rav Wolf Strickover answers that Korach challenged Moshe and Aharon (16:3), “Why do you exalt yourselves over the congregation of Hashem,” accusing them of arrogance. In reality, the Torah testifies (12:3) that Moshe was the most humble man on earth and viewed himself as no greater than the ground itself. In order to punish him, Korach had to be lowered below Moshe. Since Moshe considered himself equal to the ground, the only choice was for the earth to swallow him up.

Alternatively, the Mishnah in Avos (3:2) teaches that without a leader to make and enforce laws, people would consume and devour one another. Since Korach argued that the entire nation was holy and didn’t need a leader, he was punished by being swallowed up by the ground to hint to the natural consequence of his proposal.

Vayilonu kol adas B’nei Yisroel mimacharas al Moshe v’al Aharon leimor atem hemisem es am Hashem (17:6)

Parshas Korach begins with the tragic revolt led by Korach against Moshe and Aharon in an attempt to question their claims of being Divinely-chosen and ultimately to overthrow their leadership. Moshe suggested that the dispute be resolved by challenging Korach and his 250 followers to prepare incense offerings, which they would offer to Hashem. Aharon would do so as well, and the person whom Hashem truly selected to serve Him would survive, while all of the others would perish.

After Korach refused to back down and accepted the challenge even at the risk of his life and those of his followers, Moshe grew angry and petitioned Hashem not to accept the incense offerings of Korach and his followers. As Moshe had warned, Korach and all of his followers were killed while the offering of Aharon was accepted. The Jewish people reacted by accusing Moshe and Aharon of causing their deaths. This is difficult to understand. Moshe conducted himself with the utmost humility in attempting to dissuade them from their uprising. When this was unsuccessful and with his Divine authority on the line, Moshe was left with no choice but to propose this test, and he warned them of the disastrous results which awaited them. If they ignored his warnings and Hashem punished them, how could Moshe and Aharon be blamed for their deaths?

A student of Rav Yisroel Salanter once approached his saintly teacher. He reverently told Rav Yisroel about a certain Rav who was so righteous that when he became upset by somebody and cursed him, the curse was always fulfilled. Rav Yisroel was far from impressed. He explained that just as we are responsible for causing damage with our hands or actions, so too are we equally accountable for causing damage with our speech.

The student asked Rav Yisroel for a source in the Torah stating that a person is responsible for his speech. Rav Yisroel cited our verse, in which the Jewish people blamed Moshe and Aharon for the deaths of Korach and his followers. He explained that they maintained that it was the prayers of Moshe and Aharon which resulted in this outcome and felt that they must therefore be held accountable. Although they were mistaken, as Moshe and Aharon had no alternative in this situation, we still derive from here that a person is responsible not only for the consequences of his actions, but also of his speech.

We live in a society in which sharp-tongued people are praised and held in high esteem. Although they may occupy the corner office and receive accolades for their witty rebuts, the Torah has a different perspective. One of the 613 commandments is a prohibition against saying something which hurts another person’s feelings (Vayikra 19:33). Although we likely won’t be accused of killing somebody with our speech as were Moshe and Aharon, the Gemora (Bava Metzia 58b) teaches that publicly embarrassing another person is comparable to killing him. The next time we are tempted to roll a sharp line off our tongues as we convince ourselves that it’s only words, we should remember Rav Yisroel’s teaching that words can also kill, and we are held responsible for their effects.

Answers to the weekly Points to Ponder are now available!
To receive the full version with answers email the author at oalport@optonline.net.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):

1)     The Gemora in Sanhedrin (109b) teaches that although On ben Peles was originally one of the leaders of Korach’s rebellion, his sagacious wife convinced him to withdraw from the dispute. She pointed out that he had nothing to gain from the fight, as even if Korach won, he would be just as subservient to Korach as he currently was to Moshe and Aharon. In what way was her argument considered wise and eye-opening, as it seems to be simply telling him things that were self-evident and that he knew already? (Peninim MiShulchan Gevoha)

2)     The Gemora in Yoma (75a) teaches that the Manna fell at the doorsteps of the righteous, far away from the tents of the wicked, and somewhere in-between for the average. Why wasn’t Moshe able to answer Korach’s argument that he was as righteous as Moshe and Aharon by publicly pointing out that Korach’s Manna fell far from his tent, revealing his true wicked core? (Shevet Mussar 37:22, Ayeles HaShachar Shemos 16:4)

3)     When the Jewish people sinned with the golden calf and the spies, Moshe prayed for their forgiveness. Why didn’t Moshe pray that Korach and his followers should repent or be forgiven as he had done previously, and just the opposite, the Medrash Tanchuma (7) teaches that Moshe prayed that they shouldn’t be given an opportunity to repent? (Darkei HaShleimus)

4)     A non-Levite whose firstborn is a male is obligated to redeem him by giving 5 silver shekels to a Kohen (18:16), a mitzvah known as Pidyon HaBen. In order to betroth a woman, a man must give her one perutah in the presence of witnesses. However, the law is that he may also betroth her by giving her anything, including a non-tangible benefit such as dancing in front of her, which gives her the equivalent pleasure as receiving one perutah. May a first-born son be redeemed from the Kohen only with money, or does giving the equivalent pleasure to a Kohen also suffice as it does to betroth a woman? (Minchas Chinuch 392:6, Har Tzvi, Mas’as HaMelech)

© 2011 by Oizer Alport.

Vayotzi’u dibas ha’aretz asher taru osah el B’nei Yisroel leimor ha’aretz asher avarnu bah lasur osah eretz ocheles yoshveha hee (13:32)

The first chapter of Eichah is written in the form of an acrostic, with each successive verse beginning with the next letter in the Hebrew alphabet. Although chapters 2-4 follow a similar form, there is one notable exception. The verse beginning with the letter “peh” precedes the verse starting with the letter “ayin,” reversing their alphabetical order. The Gemora in Sanhedrin (104b) cryptically explains that this is because the spies sinned by preceding their mouths (peh) to their eyes (ayin) and reporting facts which they didn’t actually see. How is this to be understood, and what lesson can we take from it?

Rav Moshe Shapiro explains that in any encounter, a person is able to see or find what he is looking for. Even before he fully takes in and evaluates the new situation, he has already made up his mind. Not surprisingly, he proceeds to find evidence to support his conclusion, a phenomenon referred to as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rav Chatzkel Levenstein explains that the primary sin of the spies was their character trait of “nirganus.” This refers to a person who is constantly full of complaints and has nothing positive to say about anything. Because the spies embarked on their journey already decided that they didn’t want to live in Israel, they interpreted everything they saw through negative lenses and returned with a report shaped by their biases.

The importance of how we view a situation and interpret events is illustrated by the following story. In the early 1950s, a large shoe company with stores across North America wanted to increase sales by expanding to new markets. They sent two salesmen to Africa to explore the prospects of opening branches throughout the large and untapped continent. Less than a week had passed when the first agent sent back a despondent telegram: “I’m coming home at once. No money can be made here. Nobody even wears shoes!” After receiving the bad news, the management felt that they had no choice but to explore other potential options for expanding their business.

Just as they were preparing to send agents to scout out another distant region, they received an important lesson in the power of perspective. More than a month after the first salesman despaired, the firm received an urgent cable from the second salesman: “Ship 15,000 shoes immediately to fill my 5 stores. Africa is a land filled with great opportunity – nobody has shoes, and everybody needs a pair!”

The Jewish people were punished (14:34) with an additional year of wandering in the wilderness for each day of the spies’ journey. Why were they punished for the entire trip and not just for the lone day on which the spies returned and spoke ill of the land of Israel? Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz explains that the Torah is teaching that they sinned not just upon their return but each day of their expedition when they skewed everything that they experienced.

The Arizal teaches that each month is mystically associated with an idea that we are supposed to rectify during that month. Our mission in the month of Tammuz is to rectify the concept of re’iyah – how we view things. Not coincidentally, Parshas Shelach is read just before this month begins, and it revolves around the tragic events which caused the mourning period which begins in Tammuz. The spies sinned by seeking out the bad in every encounter. Let us learn from their mistakes and adopt a perspective of seeking out the good in every life situation, which will in turn become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Dabeir el b’nei Yisroel v’amarta aleihem ki savo’u el eretz moshvoseichem asher ani nosein lachem … v’asisem isheh l’Hashem … v’yayin l’nesech revi’is hahin ta’aseh al haolah o l’zevach l’keves haechad (15:2-5)

The tragic episode of the spies is immediately followed by a section detailing the laws of the meal-offerings and wine libations which accompany certain offerings. The portion begins by stating clearly that it is only applicable after the Jews enter the land of Israel. Immediately after decreeing that the Jewish people would die in the wilderness and never merit entering Israel, wasn’t it tantamount to rubbing salt in their wounds to give them a mitzvah which may only be performed there?

Further, the Medrash (Tanna D’Bei Eliyahu 29) explains that Hashem specifically instructed Moshe to teach them this section in order to comfort them with words of Torah. This is even more difficult to understand. In what way were they able to find comfort in a mitzvah that reminded them of their unfortunate fate? Moreover, the Medrash continues and relates that a dispute immediately erupted among the Jews regarding whether converts are required to bring wine-libations with their offerings. Of what relevance was this to them after they realized that they would all die in the wilderness?

Rav Moshe Shmuel Shapiro derives from here an inspiring lesson. The Jews of that generation were so intense in their love for Torah that any new sugya (topic) which was presented for them to study was so valuable that they were able to “lose themselves” in plumbing the depths of its understanding to the point that they were able to completely forget their own personal suffering. They became so involved in their attempts to fully comprehend this new mitzvah that it didn’t even occur to them that it would never be applicable in their lifetimes. It mattered not what the content of the subject at hand was, but the mere fact that they were now able to engage themselves in studying a new Torah topic was the greatest comfort that Hashem could give them.

V’haya lachem l’tzitzis ur’isem oso uz’chartem es kol mitzvos Hashem v’asisem osam v’lo sasuru acharei l’vavchem v’acharei eineichem asher atem zonim achareihem (15:39)

Rashi writes (Bereishis 9:23) that in the merit of Shem’s alacrity in covering the nakedness of his drunken father (Noach), he merited that his descendants – the Jews – would receive the mitzvah of tzitzis. As we know that Hashem rewards people for their good deeds measure-for-measure, Rav Moshe Meir Weiss points out a number of fascinating parallels between the actions of Shem and the mitzvah of tzitzis.

When reciting the Priestly Blessing, the Kohanim wrap themselves in a tallis. This is because we merited receiving the mitzvah of tzitzis through the actions of Shem and of Avrohom (Sotah 17a), both of whom were Kohanim (Nedorim 32b). Shem acted quickly to cover his father and protect him from being disgraced and humiliated. Interestingly, the minimum size for a four-cornered garment to be obligated in tzitzis is determined by whether it is large enough to cover enough of a person’s body so that he would be willing to wear it outside in public without being embarrassed (Mishnah Berurah 16:4).

When approaching their drunken father with a garment to cover him, Shem walked backward and turned away his face so as not to see or even face his father’s nakedness. As a result, the first thing one does when donning a tallis is to wrap it around his face so that he cannot see. Additionally, the Torah specifically writes the prohibition against lusting after the immodesty viewed his by eyes in the section containing the mitzvah of tzitzis. Not surprisingly, the Gemora in Menachos (44a) tells the story of a man who was about to sin with a harlot when he was saved from his immoral plan by his tzitzis.

Mitzrayim was a son of Cham (Bereishis 10:6), who had the audacity to either castrate or sodomize his passed-out father (Yalkut Bereishis 61). Not surprisingly, the Medrash in Tanna D’Bei Eliyahu (7) teaches that the Egyptians were the most immoral and depraved people in the world. As a result, the section in the Torah containing the mitzvah of tzitzis also contains the mitzvah to remember the Exodus from Mitzrayim, as the mitzvah of tzitzis represents the triumph of morality and decency.

Answers to the weekly Points to Ponder are now available.
To receive the full version with answers email the author at oalport@optonline.net.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):

1)     When else in history did Moshe send Calev as a spy, and where did he send him? (Targum Yonason ben Uziel 21:32)

2)     The Torah records (13:33) that the spies said that they overheard the giant inhabitants of the land of Israel referring to them as being as small in their eyes as grasshoppers. The Gemora in Sotah (35a) teaches that the spies were punished for viewing themselves as trivial and unimportant. As they were merely repeating the words of the inhabitants of the land of Israel, why were they punished? (Amud HaEmes)

3)     What did the Jewish people do wrong in believing the negative report of ten of the spies over the positive report of two of them when the rule is that in legal matters we follow the majority? (Ramban and Maharil Diskin Devorim 1:25)

4)     Did the spies repent their actions before they died? (Beis Yosef Orach Chaim 580)

5)     One of the traditional preparations which are made for Shabbos is the baking of challos in order to perform the mitzvah (15:19) of separating challah (Rema Orach Chaim 242). If a woman has a small family which is unable to consume a large amount of challos, is it preferable for her to bake a small number of challos each week in order to honor Shabbos on a weekly basis or to periodically bake a large number of challos and freeze them in order to perform the mitzvah of separating challah? (Rav Chaim Kanievsky quoted in Likras Shabbos, Shu”t Shevet HaKehasi 4:81, Shu”t Shraga HaMeir 6:16, Bishvilei HaParsha Parshas Beshalach)

© 2011 by Oizer Alport.

Vayitzbat lah kali (Rus 2:14)

After Boaz noticed Rus gathering grain in his field, he begged her to remain in his fields and promised to take care of her. When mealtime arrived, Boaz gave her some parched grain to eat. The Medrash (Rus Rabbah 5:6) comments that if he would have known that his actions would be recorded in Tanach, he would have instead given her fattened calves. Similarly, the Medrash says that if Reuven knew that the Torah would record his efforts to save Yosef from being killed by his brothers (Bereishis 37:21-22), he would have personally carried Yosef home to Yaakov on his shoulder. Also, had Aharon known that the Torah would record that he rejoiced when he heard that Moshe would be the redeemer of the Jewish people (Shemos 4:14), he would have gone out to greet him dancing and playing instruments.

 Rav Yitzchok Isaac Sher questions the comparison of Boaz’s actions to those of Reuven and Aharon. The Medrash correctly notes that Reuven and Aharon should have realized the significance of their actions – saving Yosef from being unjustly killed, and going to greet Moshe as he came to redeem the entire nation from slavery in Egypt – and personally done more to further these lofty objectives, but how can Boaz’s private interactions with Rus be mentioned in the same breath? Moreover, he already gave her preferential treatment by inviting her to his meal and giving her the same food that he himself was eating. Was the leader of the generation really supposed to take a cow and personally slaughter it and prepare it in the middle of the hot field so that Rus could eat from it?

Rav Sher explains that the Medrash is teaching us the tremendous power of every single act of chesed that we do. No matter how small and trivial it may seem, it contains within it tremendous potential if done properly, as Boaz’s actions with Rus, which seem at first glance to be a simple act of kindness with a poor widow, in fact set in motion the events which led to the creation of the Davidic line of kings, no less significant than the rescue of Yosef or of the Jewish people from Egypt.

Vayecherad ha’ish vayilafeish v’hinei isha (3:8)

Boaz was sleeping in the granary in his field when he was started to wake up and discover that he wasn’t alone. Rashi explains that he was afraid that his visitor was a spiritual demon sent to attack and harm him, but before he could scream, Rus pacified and reassured him, and he realized that she wasn’t a demon. Interestingly, the Sefer Chassidim (1155) writes that when he recognized that she had hair, he stopped worrying because he knew that female demons don’t have hair.

Still, Chazal point out how much strength Boaz must have possessed to refrain from screaming at her. He was the elderly leader of the generation, who was forced to sleep with his grain to guard it from thieves, and he woke up in the middle of the night to discover a woman with whom he had done so much kindness putting him in such an awkward situation. He should have cursed her and kicked her out, but because he recognized her sincerity, he was overcome with compassion and blessed her.

The Medrash (Bamidbar Rabbah 15:16) teaches that this episode is what Dovid was referring to when he wrote (Tehillim 119:62), “at midnight I arise to thank you.” Dovid was thanking Hashem for the miracles that He performed for his great-grandmother Rus in the middle of the night. Dovid recognized that had Boaz followed his natural instincts and cursed and rejected Rus, Boaz would have died the next day, and Dovid would have never been born.

The Alter of Kelm explains that a true leader must be a person who lives his entire life and makes every decision with total and complete intellectual clarity, never overcome by emotions. In selecting Boaz as the progenitor of the Davidic line of kings, Hashem was actually testing him by placing him in a situation in which he had every right to be angry at Rus and to respond to her in such a manner, yet he kept his cool and responded appropriately, in contrast to Dovid’s older brother Eliav, whom Hashem told Shmuel not to anoint because he had disgusted Hashem by becoming angry (Rashi Shmuel 1 16:7). In the merit of Boaz passing this test and maintaining his equanimity even under these unusual and unexpected circumstances, he became the forbearer of Dovid and Moshiach.

Shalaf ish na’alos (4:7)

In order to finalize the legal transaction by which Boaz acquired the right to marry Rus and purchase her ancestral land, Boaz and Ploni Almoni used a shoe, with one of them removing the shoe of the other. Why did they use a shoe for this purpose? The Divrei Shaul explains by pointing out that the morning blessing “Who has made for me all of my needs” is associated with putting on shoes (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 46:1). What is the connection between this blessing and wearing shoes?

The Maharshal explains that the Creation can be divided into four categories: inanimate objects, plants, living creatures, and man who can speak. Each level is superior to and rules over the category beneath it. The vegetation derives its nourishment from the inanimate ground, the animals eat the plants, and man can kill or use the animals for his purposes.

The Maharshal explains that when a person takes the skin of an animal and transforms it into leather for the shoes that he wears on his feet, he demonstrates his dominion over other living animals and all the more so over the plants and inanimate objects. In other words, the donning of shoes shows that the entire world was created to serve us, and for this reason, we make the blessing “Who has made for me all of my needs” at this time. The Be’er Yosef explains that for this reason Hashem commanded Moshe to remove his shoes at the burning bush (Shemos 3:5). Because shoes symbolize our dominion in the world, it is inappropriate to wear them when we are in front of the Divine Presence, and for this reason Kohanim must be barefoot in the Beis HaMikdash.

In light of this insight, the Divrei Shaul explains that when transferring ownership of an object from one person to another, the ideal way to demonstrate that the present owner is relinquishing his dominion and control is through the use of a shoe, which symbolizes this concept.

Vayikach Boaz es Rus vatehi lo l’isha vayavo eileha (4:13)

The Medrash (Yalkut Shimoni Rus 608) teaches that on the night after Boaz married Rus, he died. The Gemora in Bava Basra (91b) derives from Boaz the importance of having as many children as possible, as it records that he had 60 children – 30 sons and 30 daughters – all of whom died during his lifetime. Only on the final night of his life did he merit conceiving a child who would live and continue his legacy in creating the foundation for the Davidic line of kings.

Rav Yechezkel Abramsky points out that at the time that Boaz married Rus, there was a tremendous dispute regarding the permissibility of doing so due to her descent from Moab (see Devorim 23:4), as evidenced by the fact that her closest redeemer refused to marry her for precisely this reason (Rashi 4:6). When people heard that Boaz died the night after marrying her, they must surely have assumed that it was because he erred regarding the permissibility of marrying Rus and was punished for this sin. However, in reality, he did nothing wrong, and his natural time to die happened to arrive on that night. The Chasam Sofer even writes that this was the day on which Boaz was born, and Hashem completes the years of the righteous.

Not only did Boaz do no sin in marrying Rus, but he established the foundation for the Davidic line of kings, and the propriety of his conduct was only clarified generations later. Had Boaz lived his life concerned about what people would say about him, he would have refrained from marrying Rus and would have been punished for preventing the birth of Dovid. The lesson that can be derived from here is that we should live our lives focused solely on what Hashem wants us to do in each situation, without concern about what the gossipers will say or think.

V’Chetzron holeed es Ram v’Ram holeed es Aminadav (4:19)

Megillas Rus ends by tracing the ancestry of Dovid. However, there is a glaring difficulty with the record of his lineage. In reward for Yocheved and Miriam refusing to listen to Pharaoh’s instructions to kill the male babies, the Torah says (Shemos 1:21) that Hashem made houses for them. Rashi explains that this doesn’t refer to physical houses, but to spiritual ones, as Yocheved merited the houses of priests and Levites through her sons Moshe and Aharon, and Miriam merited the dynasty of kings through her descendants with her husband Calev. However, in the Megillah’s record of the ancestry of Dovid, no mention is made of Calev. What happened to Hashem’s promise to Miriam?

The verse in Divrei HaYomim (1 2:9) records that Chetzron had three sons: Yerachmiel, Ram, and Calev. Why didn’t the firstborn Yerachmiel merit that the Davidic line of kings be descended from him? The Medrash (Rus Rabbah 8:1) explains that Yerachmiel married a beautiful non-Jewish woman from a royal family, and for this reason he lost this merit, which was passed to his younger brother Ram. However, even if Yerachmiel lost his merit, if it was transferred to Ram and not to Calev, how was Miriam’s blessing and promise fulfilled? The Maharsha (Sotah 11b) raises this difficulty and suggests that one of Ram’s sons married a woman who was descended from Calev and Miriam, in which case Dovid was only maternally descended from Miriam.

Alternatively, an obscure commentary on Megillas Rus by Rav Vidal HaTzarfasi suggests that either Calev or Ram married Miriam but died without children. She then married the other brother to fulfill the mitzvah of yibum – levirate marriage. As such, her child from the second marriage was biologically the descendant of her new husband, but through yibum was also considered a continuation of her first husband. As a result, Dovid was considered a descendant both of Calev, as mentioned by Rashi, and also of Ram, as recorded in the Megillah. Since yibum is considered the highest form of chesed, as it is performed with the dead solely to give them another chance at perpetuating their name, it is most fitting to find yibum at the end of Megillas Rus, which according to the Medrash (Rus Rabbah 2:14) was written for the purpose of teaching us the tremendous reward for those who do kindness with others.

He’anochi harisi es kol ha’am ha’zeh im anochi yelidtihu … me’ayin li basar laseis l’chol ha’am ha’zeh (Bamidbar 11:12-13)

The S’fas Emes was once approached by the son of one of his close chassidim, who came to complain to the Rebbe that his father was uninterested in his economic difficulties and wasn’t doing anything to assist him financially. The next time that he encountered the man’s father, the sagacious S’fas Emes called him over to ask him for an explanation of his unwillingness to help out his struggling son. The father expressed his concern for his son’s well-being, but explained that he was simply unable to do anything to be of material assistance.

The Rebbe replied by asking him why Moshe, in his complaints to Hashem, began by asking whether he had conceived and given birth to the Jewish nation, and only subsequently continued to express his inability to supply them with the tremendous amount of meat necessary to meet their desires. If Moshe knew that he lacked the means to provide them with their request, why was it relevant whether he gave birth to them?

The father remained silent. The Rebbe continued, explaining that we derive from here that only because Moshe didn’t conceive the Jewish nation was he able to excuse himself with the argument that he was incapable of meeting their demands. However, if somebody did give birth to another person, a claim of a lack of means to assist and support them is completely invalid.

Shavuos/Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):

1)     The Gemora in Bava Basra (91a) teaches that Boaz had 60 sons and daughters, all of whom died during his lifetime as a punishment for the fact that he refused to invite the barren Manoach (the father of Shimshon) to the weddings of his children because Manoach would be unable to “pay him back” by inviting him to the weddings of his children. How could the righteous Boaz make such selfish calculations? (Maharsha Bava Basra 91a)

2)     The Medrash (Sifri V’zos HaBeracha 2) relates that before giving the Torah to the Jews, Hashem first offered it to the other nations of the world. Each of them asked what is written in it, to which Hashem responded with the single mitzvah which would be most difficult for the people of that nation to observe. Not surprisingly, they all declined. The Jewish people told Moshe (Shemos 19:8) that everything that Hashem has spoken, we will do. Had they instead asked the same question as the other nations, which mitzvah would have been deemed the most difficult for them and presented to them to determine the sincerity of their willingness to accept the Torah?

3)     The Medrash (Tehillim 8) teaches that when the angels objected to the giving of the Torah to mere mortals, they were reminded of the fact that they had violated the prohibition against eating meat and milk together when they were guests of Avrohom, who served them milk, cream, and the meat of a cow (Bereishis 18:8). As the meat and milk dishes weren’t cooked together, in what way did the angels transgress a Biblical prohibition? (Birkas Peretz Parshas Vaeira)

4)     Rashi writes (Shemos 20:1) that Hashem initially said all of the Aseres HaDibros (Ten Commandments) simultaneously, and then repeated each one individually because the human ear isn’t capable of understanding two things said at the same time. What was Hashem’s purpose in initially stating the Aseres HaDibros in an incomprehensible manner? (Ayeles HaShachar)

5)     The Shulchan Aruch rules (Orach Chaim 756:1) that a person is obligated to spend up to one-fifth of his money to perform a positive commandment. Why is the mitzvah of honoring one’s parents (20:12) different, as the Gemora rules (Kiddushin 32a) that a person is only required to honor his parents using their money but needn’t spend any of his own? (Zahav Sh’va, M’rafsin Igri)

6)     Rashi writes (Bamidbar 10:35) that the Torah wrote a reversed letter “nun” before and after a short section of the Torah to teach that it was written here out-of-place to interrupt between two portions dealing with sin and retribution. Why specifically was the letter “nun” used to convey this message instead of any other letter? (Baal HaTurim, Peninim MiShulchan HaGra, Siddur HaGra)

7)     How is to be understood that the generation which received the Torah at Mount Sinai fell so far so quickly and complained about such mundane matters as the taste of the Manna (11:4-6)? (Darkei Mussar, Peninim MiShulchan Gevoha)

8)     Rashi writes (11:5) that the Manna tasted like whatever the person eating it desired, except for 5 tastes which it couldn’t take on because they are unhealthy for nursing women. The Gemora in Berachos (48b) teaches that after eating the Manna, the Jews recited Birkas HaMazon. Was this the case only when they elected that the Manna should taste like bread, or even if they caused it to taste like a food which doesn’t require Birkas HaMazon? (Taima D’Kra Parshas Beshalach)

9)     After listening to the complaints of the mixed multitude about the Manna and forbidden relationships, Moshe told Hashem (11:15) that the burden of the nation was too much for him and asked Hashem to kill him to spare him from so much suffering. Why was this sin so much greater than the sins of the golden calf and the spies, which Moshe was able to endure and even pray for atonement on behalf of the sinners? (Ayeles HaShachar)

10)  After the Jewish people had complained and demanded meat to eat (11:4), Hashem caused a wind to blow quail from the sea into the Jewish camp (11:31). May one derive from here that poultry is legally considered a form of meat, and if not, why didn’t Hashem satisfy their request? (Shu”t Yehuda Ya’aleh 143, Yad Shaul Hilchos Nedorim 216, Chavatzeles HaSharon)

11)  The Torah praises Moshe (12:3) for being exceedingly humble – “v’ha’ish Moshe anav me’od.” The Mishnah in Avos (4:4) advises a person to be exceptionally humble in spirit – “me’od me’od hevay sh’fal ruach. Why doesn’t the Torah use the word “me’od” two times describing Moshe’s extraordinary level of humility, and if he wasn’t able to reach such a level, how can the Mishnah in Avos advise others to aim for it? (Peninim MiShulchan Gevoha)

© 2011 by Oizer Alport.

Ish o isha ki yaflee lindor neder nazir l’hazir l’Hashem (6:2)

A nazir is a person who accepts upon himself three prohibitions: not to cut his hair, not to consume wine or grape products, and not to come into contact with the dead. While these seem like relatively minor restrictions, Rav Yehuda Zev Segal, the Manchester Rosh Yeshiva, notes that we find spectacular and lofty concepts associated with the nazir. The word “Nazir” itself is derived from the root “Nezer” – crown. What is the connection between a person who takes a Nazirite vow and a crown?

Further, one of the restrictions upon a nazir is the prohibition against contact with the dead. The Ba’al HaTurim explains that this is because the nazir may merit Ruach HaKodesh (Divine Inspiration), and people may attribute his newfound ability to impure and forbidden sources such as the dead. Why should a person who refrains from these three activities suddenly merit Divine Inspiration?

Rav Segal suggests that the answer lies in the words of the Ibn Ezra, who posits that the word connoting the nazir’s separation from these activities (“yaflee”) is rooted in the word “pela” – wonder – because the nazir’s actions are considered peculiar in the eyes of others. Most people are accustomed to innately following their earthly desires without a second thought about keeping them in check. The idea of a person voluntarily relinquishing physical pleasure runs counter to societal norms and is indeed a wonder. Through the nazir’s willingness to defy societal pressures and take action to curb his desires, he becomes a king over them and earns a spiritual crown, to the point that he may even merit Divine Inspiration!

Still, the Darkei Mussar questions why the nazir should earn these tremendous and lofty rewards for such an objectively minor action. He explains that while human nature is to evaluate actions quantitatively and to assume that larger deeds are superior, in Heaven actions are judged by their qualitative purity. Although the nazir remains in the physical world and accepts only three “minor” prohibitions on himself, if he does so purely for the sake of Heaven, he may receive Divine Inspiration.

The Darkei Mussar notes that although Avrohom was known for his frequent hospitality to guests, the Torah records only one such incident in detail (Bereishis 18) while merely hinting to the other episodes through a  reference (Bereishis 21:33) to his planting an “Aishel” (which is an abbreviation for eating, drinking, and escorting). He suggests that while the other episodes may have been done publicly, the encounter with the angels disguised as Arab travelers on a hot day was done privately and revealed a purity of spirit not clearly evident from the other incidents.

This lesson is taught again at the end of the parsha. The Gemora is replete with laws derived from seemingly superfluous words in the Torah, based on the principle that the Torah doesn’t contain even a single unnecessary letter. It is therefore difficult to understand why the Torah repeats at excruciating length the offerings brought by each of the 12 tribal leaders when they were all identical to one another. It would have been much more concise to list the offering brought on the first day and to add that each subsequent leader brought the same offering on the succeeding days.

Rav Dovid Povarsky suggests that although each leader brought an identical offering, each did so after deciding what the proper course of action for him was and following it without looking around to see what others were doing. Similarly, the lesson of the nazir is that if we do what we know is right, regardless of what other people may think, no matter how “small” the action may seem on Earth, in Heaven we will be considered kings and the rewards will be great.

Vayehi b’yom kalos Moshe l’hakim es HaMishkan (7:1)

In Shir HaShirim (3:11), Shlomo HaMelech refers to an event which occurred “b’yom chasunaso uv’yom simchas libo” – on the day of his wedding and on the day of his heart’s rejoicing. The Mishnah in Taanis (4:8) homiletically interprets “the wedding day” as referring to the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, which represents the marriage between Hashem and the Jewish people, and “the day of the heart’s happiness” as a reference to the building of the Beis HaMikdash.

Rav Shach explains the comparison by questioning how Shlomo could refer to the day of his heart’s gladness separately from his wedding day, implying that he didn’t rejoice at his own wedding. He answers that although Shlomo was certainly happy when he married, his joy was limited to the extent that he knew his bride and recognized her positive qualities. Many people get engaged after dating for a few short weeks or months and get married following an engagement of not much longer.

This may be a sufficient period of time to determine that one has found his life partner. However, this stage, due to its brevity and the unnatural relationship that exists, isn’t conducive to fully appreciating the greatness of one’s fiancé or forming a deep relationship based on mutual trust and understanding.

It is only through years of living together, raising a family, and jointly confronting life’s challenges that a person comes to a real awareness of the wonderful decision he made in choosing his spouse. While it is unlikely that any single event will ever bring the same joy that one felt at his wedding, Shlomo is hinting that the lasting period of deep inner happiness resulting from a genuine bond lies in the future.

Similarly, at Mount Sinai the Jewish people demonstrated great faith in their “Groom” (Hashem) by unanimously declaring (Shemos 24:7) “na’aseh v’nishma” – we will do and we will listen. They committed themselves to doing His will without even knowing what it is and were rewarded by being selected as His chosen people for all time.

Nevertheless, there was a certain lacking in the closeness of the bond, as the bride hadn’t yet recognized the greatness of the Groom. It was only after the wedding, when Moshe taught them the mitzvos and they began performing them, that a deeper relationship began to develop.

The pinnacle of that closeness came when the bride built a magnificent dwelling place where she could come to draw near to her Groom. This allowed for a full recognition of her tremendous fortune in being selected as Hashem’s bride. As the Ramban writes in his introduction to Sefer Shemos, the Mishkan was the spiritual culmination of the Exodus from Egypt. The relationship which began centuries earlier with Avrohom and continued through the Exodus and the “marriage” at Mount Sinai was finally consummated with the event which brought true rejoicing to our hearts.

Vayehi ish echad mi’Tzarah mi’mishpachas HaDani u’shemo Manoach v’ishto akarah v’lo yalada (Haftorah – Shoftim 13:2)

More than 60 years ago, a man and his young daughter entered a Beis Medrash in Yerushalayim and announced that they had just arrived from the city of Ostrovtza in Europe. The men gathered there knew that the Ostrovtzer Rebbe was a world-renowned miracle-worker and asked the man if he could share with them a story.

The man replied that he himself had been the beneficiary of one of the Rebbe’s miracles, as his wife had given birth to several children, all of whom died shortly after birth. In despair, he approached the Rebbe for a blessing. The Rebbe advised him to name his next child based on a person mentioned in the parsha to be read the week of the child’s birth. The man concluded by pointing to the living girl at his side as proof of the Rebbe’s powers, and noted that she was born during the week of Parshas Nasso.

However, a quick perusal of Parshas Nasso, or even an in-depth one, will reveal a big problem with following the Rebbe’s advice: there are no women mentioned anywhere in the entire parsha. Armed with this dilemma, the man returned to the Rebbe, who suggested that although there no women appear in the parsha itself, the Haftorah indeed contains a bona-fide woman: Manoach’s wife, the mother of Shimshon.

However, a study of the verses discussing her life reveals another problem: her name isn’t mentioned anywhere. Fortunately, the Gemora (Bava Basra 91a) comes to the rescue by teaching that her name was Tzlalponis. Although not exactly a common name, the Rebbe advised the man that giving this name to his daughter was her best hope for survival. Willing to try anything, the man named his daughter Tzlalponis, and was quite fortunate to be able to point to her as living proof of the Rebbe’s powers.

Answers to the weekly Points to Ponder are now available.
To receive the full version with answers email the author at oalport@optonline.net.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):

1)     The Torah promises (5:28) that a suspected adulteress who is innocent will be blessed to bear children. The Gemora (Berachos 31b) relates that the barren Chana beseeched Hashem for a child, threatening that if she didn’t conceive, she would seclude herself with another man without having relations with him in order to conceive a child as promised by the Torah. How could she threaten to transgress the prohibition again yichud – seclusion between a man and woman – even if she wouldn’t have relations? (Mussar HaNevi’im, M’rafsin Igri)

2)     Is there a mitzvah for a Yisroel or Levi to listen to the Priestly Blessing recited by the Kohen, or is the mitzvah only incumbent upon the Kohen to give the blessing (6:24-26)? (Ritva Sukkah 31b, Sefer Chareidim 12:18, Sefer Hafla’ah Kesuvos 24b, Minchas Chinuch 378, Torah Temimah Footnote 135, Biur Halacha 128:1, Ayeles HaShachar, Ma’adanei Asher 5769)

3)     The Gemora (Berachos (20b) recounts that the angels asked Hashem that if the Torah says (Devorim 10:17) that He doesn’t show favoritism, how can the Torah also say (6:26) that He is partial to the Jews? He replied that He must show us favor since He commanded us to recite Birkas HaMazon only after we are satiated (Devorim 8:10), but we are stringent to do so even after consuming much less. If the Torah commands its recitation only after eating to the point of fullness, why isn’t it a a blessing said in vain to recite it if one ate less, something which shouldn’t incur Divine favor but wrath? (Shu”t Chasam Sofer Orach Chaim 49)

© 2011 by Oizer Alport.

Ish al diglo b’osos l’beis avosam yachanu B’nei Yisroel mineged saviv l’ohel moed yachanu (2:2)

Our Sages teach that everything written in the Torah is recorded because of its relevance to every Jew in every generation. Why are the seemingly trivial details which dominate Parshas Bamidbar, such as the arrangement of the encampments of the various tribes, significant and relevant to us?

Rav Aharon Kotler suggests that although this information seems like historical facts with no practical application to our lives, the parsha is in fact teaching us a very relevant lesson: the value that Judaism places on seder (organization). Instead of allowing the Jewish people to set up their own camping arrangements based on their personal preferences, the Torah insists that they specifically encamp together with other members of their tribe and additionally prescribes the positions of the various tribes relative to one another. This arrangement was in effect for the duration of their 40-year sojourn in the wilderness.

Rashi writes in Parshas Emor (Vayikra 24:10) that the blasphemer was the son of Shulamis bas Divri and the Egyptian taskmaster that Moshe slew. Because his mother was descended from Dan, he attempted to dwell among the tribe of Dan, but they refused him because his father was not from their tribe. Although one person camping out of place (which was still the tribe of his mother) would seem to be insignificant, the tribe of Dan understood the critical value of preserving order and refused to allow him to camp among them. Although the particular laws about the formations and configurations of the encampments do not currently apply to us, the lesson about the value of serving Hashem in an orderly and disciplined fashion is one that we can each apply in our daily lives.

V’nasah Ohel Moed machaneh ha’Levi’im b’soch ha’machaneh ka’asher yachanu kein yisa’u ish al yado l’digleihem (2:17)

In Parshas Bamidbar we are taught that during their 40-year sojourn in the wilderness, the Jewish people had fixed locations for their encampments. Each of the tribes had a specific location relative to the other tribes where its members were to encamp. Three of the tribes encamped in the north, three in the south, three in the west, and three in the east. The tribe of Levi, together with the Ark, encamped in the middle of the circle formed by the other tribes. What lesson can be learned from this setup?

The Chofetz Chaim explains that just as the heart is located in the middle of the body, so too the Ark which contained the Torah and Tablets was located in the middle of the camp so that it would be equidistant from every Jew. Similarly, the Bimah on which the Torah scroll is placed when it is being read is located in the middle of the synagogue. This teaches us that the Torah is equally accessible to every Jew.

The Chofetz Chaim adds that our Sages teach (Taanis 31a) that in the World to Come, the righteous will form a circle to dance around Hashem, who will be in the middle of the circle. Although Jews seem serve Hashem in ways radically different from one another, as long as their intentions are for the sake of Heaven and they keep the mitzvos, they will all celebrate together. At that time we will discover that the Jew who seems diametrically opposed to us is in reality on the other side of the circle but just as close to Hashem.

V’eileh toldos Aharon u’Moshe b’yom dibeir Hashem es Moshe b’Har Sinai (3:1)

The Torah purports to list the descendants of Moshe and Aharon, but proceeds to list only Aharon’s children. Rashi quotes the Gemora in Sanhedrin (19b), which derives from here that whoever teaches Torah to others is considered as if he gave birth to them. Because Moshe taught Torah to Aharon’s children, the Torah considers them as though they were his own progeny. The Gemora similarly teaches that whoever raises an orphan in his home is considered to have given birth to him. This latter statement is used by the great Chacham Tzvi (93) as the basis for a fascinating legal question.

The Gemora in Sanhedrin (65b) records that through the use of mystical Divine names taught in the esoteric Sefer Yetzirah, it is possible to produce a creature commonly known as a golem. In fact, the Chacham Tzvi writes that it was known that his grandfather had also produced such a golem, but when it continued to grow and become even more powerful, his grandfather was scared that it would end up destroying the world. He therefore had no choice but remove the Divine name which was attached to its forehead in order to destroy it and cause it to return to dust, but as he was doing so, the golem managed to strike him and left a painful scratch on his face.

Since the Gemora teaches that somebody who raises an orphan is considered to have given birth to him due to his investment in the child, the Chacham Tzvi questions whether a righteous person who creates a golem might also be viewed as having given birth to it, to the extent that perhaps the golem is classified as a Jew and may be counted as one of the 10 men required to constitute a minyan.

The Gemora records that Rava created a golem and sent it to Rav Zeira. Upon realizing that it was a golem when it was unable to speak, Rav Zeira ordered the creature to return to dust, which it did. The Chacham Tzvi explains that Rav Zeira was permitted to “kill” the golem, because the prohibition against murder is only applicable to people who grow and are formed inside of a woman. Nevertheless, he argues that Rav Zeira would not have destroyed the golem if it served any productive purpose, such as being counted for a minyan, so from the fact that Rav Zeira was so readily willing to eradicate the golem, it must be that it cannot in fact be used as part of a minyan.

Additionally, he notes that the mystic Rav Moshe Cordovero writes that although a golem is alive in the technical sense and looks and acts like a person other than its inability to speak, it lacks a neshama or even the lower and more basic levels of a soul known as ruach and nefesh, in which case it certainly would not be on the spiritual level required to be counted as part of a prayer service. As far-fetched as this entire discussion may seem, the Mishnah Berurah (55:4) took it quite seriously and, citing the Chacham Tzvi, explicitly writes that a golem may not be counted toward a minyan.

Ki li kol bechor b’yom hakosi chol bechor b’Eretz Mitzrayim hikdashti li chol bechor b’Yisroel me’adam ad beheima li yih’yu ani Hashem (3:13)

Until the sin of the golden calf, the role of offering sacrifices to Hashem on private altars was performed by the first-born males. Because the Levites proved their dedication to Hashem by refusing to take part in the sin of the golden calf and by punishing those who did (Shemos 32:26-29), the Divine service was transferred to them.

Hashem introduces the concept of replacing the first-born males with the Levites by stating that all first-born Jews became sanctified to Him on the day that He killed the first-born Egyptians. The verse concludes, “li yih’yu – they shall be Mine.” Since the first-borns were now being replaced by the Levites, wouldn’t it have been more accurate to state “they were mine?” In what way will they be sanctified to Hashem in the future?

Rav Chaim Kanievsky answers based on the fascinating opinion of the Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh (3:45), who writes that although the first-borns lost the right to perform the Divine service after the sin of the golden calf, in the Messianic era they will once again be able to serve in the third Temple. This is alluded to in our verse, which hints that although they were replaced by the Levites at this time, there will come a time in the future when they will once again be sanctified to Hashem and able to serve Him.

Answers to the weekly Points to Ponder are now available!
To receive the full version with answers email the author at oalport@optonline.net.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):

1)     Rashi writes (1:1) that Hashem frequently counts the Jewish people to make His love for them known. Here, after He came to rest His Presence among them, He counted them once again. If the Mishkan was erected and Hashem began to dwell there on Rosh Chodesh Nissan, why did He wait an entire month until Rosh Chodesh Iyar (1:1) to count them? (Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi, Sifsei Chochomim, Tzeidah L’Derech, Oznayim L’Torah)

2)     Why was Aharon instructed (1:3) to assist with the census taken in Parshas Bamidbar but not with the census taken in Parshas Ki Sisa, which was done exclusively by Moshe (Shemos 30:11-12)? (Baal HaTurim)

3)     In relating the number of Jews in each tribe, the Torah records that the population of each tribe was a multiple of 100, with the exception of Gad, whose population was a multiple of 50 (1:25). Was it really possible that every tribe had such a precisely even number of Jews, or did the Torah round the census to the nearest 50 or 100? (Meshech Chochmah 3:16, Derech Sicha, Taima D’Kra Hosafos, Shaarei Aharon, Shiras Dovid)

© 2011 by Oizer Alport.

V’hishbati chaya ra’ah min ha’aretz (26:6)

Although Parshas Bechukosai is commonly referred to as the parsha of “tochacha” – rebuke – it actually begins with a number of blessings promised to those who observe the mitzvos properly. One of the blessings is that “I will cause dangerous animals to cease from the land.” The Toras Kohanim quotes a dispute between two Tannaim regarding the nature of this blessing.

The opinion of Rebbi Yehuda is that deadly animals will simply cease to exist. Rebbi Shimon maintains that they will continue to live, but their natures will change so that they are no longer dangerous. While this appears at first glance to be a mere technical dispute over the translation of a word, the two legendary sages of Dvinsk write that the opinions of the Tannaim in fact stem from their views regarding other issues.

The Rogatchover Gaon notes that the root of the word “v’hishbati” is the same root as the word “tashbisu,” which the Torah uses (Shemos 12:15) in reference to the obligation to remove all chometz from our houses before Pesach. The Mishnah in Pesachim (21a) quotes a dispute about the correct way to dispose of chometz. The opinion of Rebbi Yehuda is that it must be burned, while the other Sages maintain that it is sufficient to throw it into the ocean or scatter it and disperse it in the wind. Rebbi Yehuda, in contrast to the other Rabbis, understands that the only way to properly remove the chometz is to destroy it to the point of nonexistence. It is for this reason that he interpreted this blessing as similarly referring to the complete and utter removal of wild beasts from the land of Israel.

The Meshech Chochmah similarly suggests that the position of Rebbi Shimon emanates from his opinions in other places. The Gemora in Berachos (35b) quotes Rebbi Yishmael as maintaining that a person should study Torah and also work at a profession. Rebbi Shimon argues that the ideal level is to spend one’s every waking moment engaged in the singular study of Torah while relying on Hashem to take care of his earthly needs. The Gemora in Shabbos (11a) relates that Rebbi Shimon didn’t interrupt his learning even to recite the daily prayers, as he had no earthly needs and relied on his Torah study to protect him. It was for this reason that upon emerging from his cave, Rebbi Shimon burned the first farmer he encountered due to his anger over the man’s wasted time (Shabbos 33b).

We find that when a Jew serves Hashem with all of his energy, Hashem in turn protects him from the natural dangers posed by wild animals. The Gemora in Berachos (33a) relates that Rebbi Chanina ben Dosa’s neighbors approached him in fear of a poisonous serpent in the area. He placed his foot on top of the serpent’s hole, inciting it to bite him. The snake immediately died, and Rebbi Chanina explained, “The snake doesn’t kill; sin kills.” Similarly, we find in the Gemora in Makkos (11a) that Eliyahu HaNavi informed Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi that had he been on a sufficiently high spiritual level, he would have protected not only himself but his entire surroundings from wild animals in the area.

However, this level of supernatural protection is provided only to a person who spends his entire day engrossed in the study of Torah. One who leaves his studies to tend to his business affairs is left vulnerable. The blessings in Parshas Bechukosai are addressed to those on the highest spiritual level. Because Rebbi Shimon maintains that this refers to individuals who spend their entire day studying Torah, only he can interpret the verse to mean that the wild animals will still exist but will no longer be able to cause any harm.

Dabeir el B’nei Yisroel v’amarta aleihem ish ki yaflee neder b’erkecha n’fashos l’Hashem (27:2)

This week we conclude the book of Leviticus with Parshas Bechukosai, which is commonly referred to as the parsha of “tochacha” – rebuke. It is full of frightening threats of unimaginable punishment to be meted out to those who brazenly refuse to observe the Torah’s laws. Each curse seems worse than the one before it, and indeed, throughout the generations it has always been a challenge to find someone willing to be called to the Torah for the Aliyah in which these verses are read.

However, it is curious to note that after concluding this terrifying and frightening section of rebuke, the parsha abruptly switches to a section dealing with the laws of “Arachin” – the dedication of the value of oneself or another person to the Temple. This section seems completely misplaced. What is the relevance of these laws to the rebuke which dominates the rest of the parsha?

Rav Mordechai Kamenetzky recounts an inspiring story which will shed some light on this question. During the Holocaust, when many of the horrifying curses of this week’s parsha were manifested before our very eyes, the Germans took a particularly sadistic pleasure in torturing and tormenting the great Rabbis who served as teachers and inspiration for the Jewish people. The suffering endured by these righteous leaders is unfathomable.

In one particularly gruesome incident, a number of merciless Nazi officers beat the Klausenberger Rebbe to the brink of death. After enduring seemingly endless blows, the officers asked the bleeding and only semi-conscious Rebbe if after all of this suffering he still believed that the Jews are G-d’s chosen people. He responded unequivocally in the affirmative.

Amazed at the Rebbe’s seemingly naïve and misplaced faith, they pressed him for an explanation. He replied, “As long as I am not the cruel oppressor of innocent victims, and as long as I am the one down here on the ground maintaining my unwavering faith in my principles and traditions, I am still able to raise my head proudly and know that G-d chose our people.”

Applying the lesson of this story to our original question, the Kotzker Rebbe explains that after reading the terrifying curses contained earlier in the parsha and seeing how they have tragically been fulfilled throughout history, Jews may begin to lose belief in their value and self-worth. As a nation, we have been persecuted more than any other people throughout the ages. Such intense national suffering could easily cause a person to give up hope.

In order to counter this mistaken conclusion, the section outlining the painful times which will befall the Jewish people is immediately followed by the section dealing with the laws of Arachin. This section details how much a person is required to donate if he chooses to dedicate the “value” of himself or another Jew to the Temple. This juxtaposition comes to remind us that even in the darkest times, after enduring the most inhumane suffering fathomable, although we may not be accorded respect by our oppressors, our intrinsic worth in Hashem’s eyes is eternal and unchanging.

Answers to the weekly Points to Ponder are now available!
To receive the full version with answers email the author at oalport@optonline.net.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them): 

1)     There is a Talmudic maxim (Kiddushin 39b) that Hashem doesn’t give a person reward in this world for the mitzvos that he does. How can Parshas Bechukosai begin by stating that if the Jews study Torah and perform the mitzvos properly, Hashem will bless them in this world? (Rambam Hilchos Teshuvah 9:1)

2)     On the blessing that the tree of the field will give its fruit (26:4), the Toras Kohanim explains that if the Jews perform Hashem’s will, trees won’t give forth fruits after years of growing as they currently do, but will immediately bear fruits on the day they are planted, just as they did in the times of Adam HaRishon. In what way will this blessing be beneficial, as the fruits produced during the first three years are considered orlah and forbidden not only to consume but to use for any benefit? (Har Tzvi, M’rafsin Igri, K’Motzei Shalal Rav Parshas Kedoshim)

3)     In the blessings contained in the beginning of Parshas Bechukosai for those who observe the mitzvos, no mention is made of the wealth and material success which are referred to in the blessings in Parshas Ki Savo (Devorim 28:3-5, 11-12). What is the reason for this difference? (Taima D’Kra)

4)     The Torah makes clear (26:21) that many of the horrifying punishments enumerated in Parshas Bechukosai are punishments for behaving casually with Hashem. Which sin is explicitly described as an example of acting casually toward Hashem? (Mishnah Berurah 191:5)

© 2011 by Oizer Alport.

V’kidashtem es sh’nas hachamishim shana u’krasem dror b’aretz l’kol yoshveha yovel hee tihyeh lachem (25:10)

Parshas Behar begins by teaching us about the mitzvah of Shemittah, which requires us to allow the ground to lay fallow every seven years. We are then introduced to the concept of Yovel, which occurs in the 50^th year after every seven Shemittah cycles. In addition to allowing the earth to rest, Yovel also contains one of the most famous requirements in the Torah.

In the Yovel year we are also required to free all Jewish slaves. The verse in the Torah requiring us to “proclaim liberty throughout all the land for unto all of its inhabitants” was immortalized on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia, which was rung in 1774 to announce the opening of the first Continental Congress, and according to legend, on July 8, 1776, to summon citizens to hear the reading of the Declaration of Independence.

Its historical significance notwithstanding, there seems to be one glaring error in this verse. Although it was indeed appropriate for our nation’s Founding Fathers to declare freedom for “all” of America’s inhabitants, why does the Torah tell us to do so? Since the Yovel year represents independence only for the slaves that would be freed, in what way is it considered liberating for “all” of the people?

The following story will help us answer these questions. Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer was once walking home with his nephew on a cold winter day. As he reached his home and started to ascend the steps, he suddenly turned around. Rav Isser Zalman began pacing on the sidewalk, apparently deep in thought. His nephew pressed him for an explanation for his bizarre behavior, but he shrugged him off.

After ten minutes, Rav Isser Zalman again approached the house, but again did an about-face and resumed pacing. As it was growing bitterly cold, his perplexed nephew begged for mercy or at least an explanation. Rav Isser Zalman relented and explained. “As I walked up the steps, I heard the young woman who comes every week to help out in the kitchen singing to herself while mopping the floor. I realized that if I barged in right in the middle, she would be embarrassed and stop singing. I don’t have the right to deny her the pleasure she has of singing while she works, so I decided to wait outside until she finishes.”

In light of this story about Rav Isser Zalman’s sensitivity to his cleaning lady, we can appreciate the answer to our question given by Rav Zalman Sorotzkin. The Gemora teaches (Kiddushin 20a) that whoever purchases a Jewish slave in effect acquires a master for himself. The Torah demands that an employer be responsible for the well-being of his employees.

As Rav Isser Zalman teaches us, he is obligated not just to provide them with a paycheck, but also with a warm and supportive work environment which takes their feelings and welfare into account. By ordering the slaves to go free in the Yovel year, the Torah is in effect lifting a major burden off of their current owners, in essence creating a newfound freedom and liberty not just for the freed slaves but also for their masters.

V’chay achicha imach (25:36)

In the spring of 1943 Rav Yosef Shlomo Kahaneman, known as the Ponovezher Rav, established an orphanage in B’nei B’rak to absorb and care for the many orphaned children who had been rescued from the Holocaust and were sent to Eretz Yisroel. Unfortunately, with the first group of children scheduled to arrive on a Sunday, the Ponovezher Rav found himself without any linens or pillows for the children to sleep on due to the dire situation in Eretz Yisroel at that time. On Friday, with two days remaining until their arrival, Rav Kahaneman announced that he would be speaking on Shabbos afternoon in the largest synagogue in town.

He began his speech by citing the Gemora in Bava Metzia (62a), which discusses a case in which two people are lost in the desert with only one flask of water. If they split the water between them, both will die before they are able to reach the nearest settlement, but if one of them drinks it, he will be able to survive. Rebbi Akiva derives from our verse that “chayecha kodmin” – your life takes precedence over that of your friend, and therefore the one with the water should drink it all.

On the other hand, the Gemora in Kiddushin (20a) teaches that a person who purchases a Jewish slave in a sense acquires a master for himself due to the Torah’s requirement to equate the slave’s standard of living to his owner’s level of comfort. Tosefos adds that sometimes even this is not sufficient, such as in a case when the owner possesses only one pillow. If he takes it for himself, he violates the Torah’s requirement to give his slave equal treatment, and he therefore has no choice but to give his only pillow to his slave, leaving himself with nothing on which to sleep.

Rav Kahaneman noted that this ruling of Tosefos seems to contradict the teaching of Rebbi Akiva. Just as the person who is lost in the desert is permitted to drink all of the water due to the principle of “chayecha kodmin,” shouldn’t this same reasoning allow the master to keep his sole pillow for himself?

The Ponovezher Rav explained that the two rulings are in fact compatible, as the requirement to give the pillow to the slave actually emanates from the Torah’s concern for the primacy of the owner’s well-being. If the master were to keep the pillow and lay down in comfort while observing his slave tossing and turning, his conscience would bother him so much that he wouldn’t be able to enjoy the pillow and a good night’s rest. Therefore, precisely in order to allow the master to be at peace with the arrangement, the Torah requires him to give the pillow to his slave for his own well-being so that he can sleep soundly through the night.

Similarly, the Ponovezher Rav continued, in only one day a large group of Jewish children would be arriving at the new orphanage in B’nei B’rak, which was completely lacking pillows and sheets on which they could sleep. Questioning how any of those present could go home and enjoy a comfortable night’s sleep now that they were aware of this situation, he advised them that for their own well-being, they should immediately donate the only pillows and linens in their possessions, a suggestion which was fulfilled by the inspired and touched listeners as soon as Shabbos was finished.

Es kasp’cha lo sitein lo b’neshech uv’marbis lo sitein achlecha (25:37)

There was once a wealthy Jew in Posen who stingily refused to give any charity and would only extend loans to Jews in need if they agreed to pay him back with interest, despite the Torah’s explicit prohibition against doing so. When the man died, the local burial society decided to demand an exorbitant amount of money from his family as payment for a burial plot in the local cemetery, but before doing so, they first consulted the town Rav, Rav Akiva Eiger, who consented to their plan.

When the man’s family heard about this unprecedented condition, they went to the authorities to complain. Since their grievance seemed legitimate, the local government official summoned Rav Akiva Eiger to defend this seemingly discriminatory policy. Why was the burial society accustomed to charging a relatively small amount for a burial plot for all other dead Jews, and were even willing to forego payment when an indigent community member passed away, yet the Rav had permitted them to demand a massive sum in order to bury the deceased miser?

Rav Akiva Eiger responded by explaining that one of the fundamental tenets of Judaism is a belief in the resurrection of the dead, which we pray for daily and hope will occur imminently. As such, when a Jew is buried, he is only “renting” the burial plot for a short while until Moshiach arrives and brings the dead back to life, and it is appropriate to charge him a token sum for what we hope will be the use of the ground for only a short period of time.

However, our Sages teach (Yalkut Shimoni Yechezkel 375) that somebody who lends money with interest will not merit rising for the resurrection of the dead. Because the dead man in question had consistently lent out his money with interest, his use of the burial plot was not a temporary rental but a long-term purchase, and as such, it was only appropriate for him to pay substantially more than the price charged to other Jews for a burial plot. The official accepted the logic of this explanation and ruled that the man’s family must pay the price requested by the burial society in order to receive his eternal resting place.

Answers to the weekly Points to Ponder are now available!
To receive the full version with answers email the author at oalport@optonline.net.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):

1)     The Torah stresses the importance (25:23-34) of redeeming ancestral land and returning it to its rightful owner. In the Messianic era, will all land be returned to its original owners, or will there be a new division? (Chazon Ish Shevi’is 21:2, Ayeles HaShachar)

2)     The Gemora in Bava Metzia (62a) discusses a case in which two people are lost in the desert with only one flask of water. If they split the water, both will die before they are able to reach the nearest settlement, but if one of them drinks it, he will be able to survive. Rebbi Akiva derives from a verse in our parsha (25:36) that “chayecha kodmin” – the one with the water should drink it all, as his life takes precedence over that of his friend. If three people are lost in the desert and one of them has sufficient water for himself and one other person, it is clear that he should drink one supply of water, but what should he do with the second? (Chiddushei HaRim)

3)     Rashi quotes (26:1) the Gemora in Kiddushin (20a) which explains the order of passages in the parsha as reflecting the increasingly severe punishments meted out to one who works the land in the Shemittah year, one of which is that he will be forced to borrow money and pay it back with interest. How will this punishment ever come to fruition, as it is prohibited for other Jews to lend him money and demand interest even if he has behaved incorrectly? (Darash Moshe)

© 2011 by Oizer Alport.