abukspan

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 69 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • abukspan
    Participant

    Thank you for this beautiful and informative d’var Torah. Thank you for your kind words

    in reply to: Shmos Dvar Torah, With You in Plight #1935426
    abukspan
    Participant

    very nice, thank you

    in reply to: Dvar Torah Vayigash — Power Should Not Always Corrupt : #1932011
    abukspan
    Participant

    keep answering questions also – good shabbos

    in reply to: Dvar Torah Vayigash — Power Should Not Always Corrupt : #1931912
    abukspan
    Participant

    Thank you as always for adding to the discussion. I had never seen the Dubna Maggid, is it in his sefer ?

    While he may have said that Yosef sent big wagons I think the truth is that Yakov saw the second set of wagons that Yosef sent -not the wagons sent by Paraoh.

    See this vort from Rav Zev Leff (and iy`H in my upcoming published sefer) It is very clear and is masbir many diyukim

    Vayigash 3 — Location/Association
    ויגדו לו לאמר עוד יוסף חי וכי הוא משל בכל ארץ מצרים ויפג לבו כי לא־האמין להם:וידברו אליו את כל דברי יוסף אשר דבר אלהם וירא את העגלות אשר שלח יוסף לשאת אתו ותחי רוח יעקב אביהם
    And they told him, saying, “Yosef is still alive,” and that he is ruler over the entire Land of Egypt; but he had a turn of heart, for he did not believe them. And they related to him all the words of Yosef that he had spoken to them, and he saw the wagons that Yosef had sent to transport him, and the spirit of their father Yaakov was revived (Bereishis 45:26-27).
    Citing a famous Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah 94:3), Rashi writes that Yaakov’s spirit was revived when he heard the message Yosef had sent through the shevatim, along with the wagons. The word עגלות (wagons) is connected to the word עגלה (calf), alluding to the עגלה ערופה ritual described in Parashas Shoftim (Devarim 21:1-9). Yosef reminded his father that this halachah was the last topic they had studied together before Yosef left home years earlier. (See Daas Zekeinim on 45:27.) This reminder convinced Yaakov that Yosef was indeed alive, and that it was he who had summoned Yaakov to Egypt. Even more, it demonstrated that this viceroy was the same Yosef with whom Yaakov had studied Torah twenty-two years earlier.
    Two questions present themselves. First, when you want to transport something or someone from point A to point B, you send moving vans. Agalos are the early equivalent of our moving vans. If Yosef wanted Yaakov to move from Eretz Yisrael to Mitzrayim, what was so special about him sending wagons that Yaakov intuited a coded message upon seeing them?
    Additionally, if we read the pesukim before and after our verses carefully (45:19,21; 46:5), we see that the sending of the wagons was not at Yosef’s behest but at the behest of Pharaoh. So how can we say that Yaakov saw the wagons that Yosef sent and thereby understood his message? The wagons were not a message from Yosef; they were not even sent by him.
    Rav Zev Leff provides an explanation. Pharaoh wanted Yaakov to move to Mitzrayim as soon as possible. He saw the prosperity that Yosef had brought his country and rightly assumed that his father Yaakov could have an even greater positive effect. Rashi (47:10), in fact, tells us that the hunger abated with the appearance of Yaakov in Egypt. Pharaoh therefore sent a message to Yaakov to come down and not worry about a thing: “Leave your stuff behind, and I will furnish and provide all the best that Egypt has to offer. And most important, don’t even worry about your business or means of livelihood, i.e., the shepherding. You come here and I will set you up with everything” (based on 45:18, 20).
    While this may have served Pharaoh’s needs, Yosef was aware that it would be a non-starter as far as Yaakov was concerned. Though the Egyptian monarch was prepared to give us royal treatment, being afforded the opportunity to make ourselves at home in a foreign nation and culture is an invitation to cultural suicide. Moving to a new land without lock, stock, and barrel, where everything from der alter heim (the old home) is left behind, and we are promised swift and easy integration into the new culture, can bring us on a short path to assimilation.
    Yosef knew that Yaakov would never accept moving to Egypt under those conditions. Rather, he planned to bring down his father and his whole family, but with all their possessions and all the accoutrements of the old country. He went about this by sending two sets of agalos, one for the people and one for the belongings. What’s more, after their arrival in Egypt, Yosef instructed his brothers to tell Pharaoh that they were shepherds who earned their livelihood with livestock, something anathema to the Egyptians who worshiped sheep. The intention was to be allowed to live in Goshen, far from normal Egyptian society. To this end, it was vital for them to bring their livestock, as well, as the Torah (46:6) points out. This way, they would be able to continue their Canaan life even in Egypt.
    Now we can answer our questions. It’s true that Pharaoh commanded to send agalos, to transport the people, but Yosef sent an additional set, to transport their possessions: their livestock as well as their personal belongings, which would ensure continuity of their lifestyle. That was the hook for Yaakov Avinu, who wanted to be sure that the descent to Mitzrayim was not a trip down a one-way street toward integration and eventual assimilation.
    When Yaakov saw duplicate sets of agalos, two sets of moving vans, he realized what it was: Pharaoh’s invitation for the people to come down to Egypt, combined with Yosef’s realization that in order for Yaakov to come happily, he needed to bring his original surroundings along with him. That was when Yaakov said, “Ah, Yosef understood the message of the eglah arufah!”
    What is the eglah arufah? If a corpse is found between two cities and it is not known who killed the person, the elders of the city closest to the body break the neck of a calf and declare that they were not responsible for the man’s death. The Gemara (Sotah 45b) asks: Do you think the ziknei ha’ir, the elders of the city, would murder someone? The Gemara then answers that while they certainly cannot be accused of actually murdering the fellow, they may have not accompanied the person as he took leave of their city, hence not fulfilling the mitzvah of levayah, escorting someone embarking on a journey.
    One can ask: And walking him four amos (about eight feet), the requisite distance of levayah, would have saved him? He may have been murdered ten miles outside the city limit, so how would those first eight feet have made a difference?
    We can answer based on the Maharal (Chiddushei Aggados Sotah 45b, 46b), who explains that when you are melaveh, escort, someone, you show that he, as an individual, is connected to the group. He is part of something greater, part of the Klal, even though he has physically left your company and is no longer with you. This creates a spiritual connection, which gives the one accompanied a shared merit and an effective protection against harm.
    Eglah arufah and the need for levayah teach us that a person is not defined by location as much as he is defined by association. Where you are does not define you; who you are identified with defines you!
    When Yaakov Avinu saw that Yosef had sent an additional set of agalos, he understood Yosef’s intentions. It was as if he said to himself, “Not only does he want us to come to Mitzrayim, but he wants us to keep our lifestyle, our associations. We will not be defined as people living in Egypt, but by what we regard as holy and important. Just as Yosef was able to maintain his kedushah, his sanctity, even in the unholy Land of Egypt, we, as well, will be able to maintain our association and attachment to the kedushah of der alter heim, of Eretz Yisrael, even while living geographically in the Land of Egypt.” Seeing the extra set of agalos that Yosef sent, and understanding the message that came along with them, revived Yaakov’s spirit and allowed for him to go to Egypt in a contented state of mind.
    As Yidden, we can survive wherever we are, as long as the proper groundwork is laid to maintain an atmosphere of kedushah.
    Rav Leff has other sources to bolster his point. First, he cites the pesukim later on in this parashah (46:5-6): “Vayakam Yaakov mi’Beer Sheva vayisu bnei Yisrael es Yaakov avihem ve’es tapam ve’es nesheihem ba’agalos asher shalach Pharaoh la’seis oso. Vayikchu es mikneihem ve’es rechusham asher rachshu be’Eretz Canaan vayavo’u Mitzrayimah Yaakov ve’chol zaro ito — And Yaakov arose from Beer Sheva; the sons of Israel carried Yaakov their father, and their young children and their wives, in the wagons which Pharaoh had sent to transport him. They took their livestock and their possessions which they had amassed in the Land of Canaan, and they came to Egypt — Yaakov and all his offspring with him.”
    Though the first pasuk makes it clear that they made use of the wagons from Pharaoh to transport the people, why does it not say the same for the possessions in the second pasuk? According to what we just said, Pharaoh only sent wagons for the people, not the possessions, and the additional wagons were only sent by Yosef. These extra wagons brought a special sense of revival to Yaakov; he knew that he and his family were not moving to another land, but transplanting one holy land into the area of another.
    Rav Leff brings out this point from another source, as well. Yosef told his brothers that he was going to tell Pharaoh (46:31), “Achai u’veis avi asher be’Eretz Canaan ba’u eilai — My brothers and my father’s household who are in the Land of Canaan have come to me.” If by that point Yaakov and the shevatim had already come down to Mitzrayim, why did Yosef say, “asher be’Eretz Canaan — who are in the Land of Canaan”?
    These three words were what Yosef was working toward and what enabled Yaakov to come down happily. Yosef was in effect saying, “My father and brothers came here because they will be able to maintain and transplant the kosher life they had in Canaan to Mitzrayim.” While geographically they were in Mitzrayim, they were, at the same time, back at home in Canaan.
    This was why, before Yaakov went down to Mitzrayim, he could fully appreciate Hashem’s reassurance (46:4), “Anochi aalcha gam aloh — And I shall also surely bring you up.” He and his children would later ascend; they were not going to fall prey to what Mitzrayim had to offer, but would survive and flourish, as they became the am hanivchar, Hashem’s chosen nation.

    in reply to: to tip or not to tip that is the question #1929461
    abukspan
    Participant

    perhaps keep in mind the issue of giving tips too close to a goyashe holyday

    in reply to: Dvar Torah Vayeira — Sense and Sensitivity: #1917400
    abukspan
    Participant

    Reb Eliezer thank you

    in reply to: Dvar Torah Bereishis — Not Without Its Limits. #1909876
    abukspan
    Participant

    Reb Eliezer, I`ll take it as a compliment that you acknowledge the dvar Torah as one that should be subject to the pela yoetz. Thank you! Is it too long for you or are you concerned about other readers? Regarding the size: I just, other than the last paragraph, wrote over what the Kli Yakar says. Thank you

    in reply to: Nitzavim — Not in Heaven: Discussing how Adams Judgement was favorable #1900140
    abukspan
    Participant

    thank you -yetzt is klor

    abukspan
    Participant

    Ksiva v`Chasima Tova

    “this refers tbe adam harishan who sacrifice himself as a karbon on Rash Hashanah ”

    Blame it on my ignorance, but this is kind of scary. Are we saying that he did an Aveira Lishma and sacrificed himself on our behalf by sinning? I have, to my displeasure, read of certain types of alleged “tzadikim” who were “so holy” they needed to sin to have the opportunity to be mekayeim the mitzvah of teshuva.

    I would love to see a source for this. Thank you

    in reply to: Dvar Torah Re`eh: The Need To Be Free #1891766
    abukspan
    Participant

    Wow, great question (gotta look that up) and a nice and meaningful answer. Thank you for both and may Her neshama truly be elevated.

    in reply to: Dvar Torah Devarim – Viewing the Whole Picture: #1885810
    abukspan
    Participant

    This pshat from the Telza Rosh Yeshiva will answer your question. .

    פ הרב יששכר פרנד)

    פרשת דברים מתחילה בסקירת משה רבנו של האירועים העיקריים שהתרחשו בשלושים ותשעה השנים, מאז עזבו בני ישראל את הר סיני. כשמשה מזכיר את דרישתם לשלוח מרגלים לסייר בארץ ישראל, טרם כניסתם אליה, הוא מגנה אותם על הצורה הפרועה בה הם הגישו את בקשתם, אך הוא מודה: “וַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינַי הַדָּבָר” (דברים א, כג).

    הגמרא במסכת סוטה, דף לד: מבינה מדברי משה: “וייטב בעיני הדבר: אמר ריש לקיש, בעיני, ולא בעיניו של מקום (הקב”ה)”. הקב”ה היה מודע, ששליחת המרגלים תסתיים באסון, והוא לא רצה שילכו.

    הדבר קשה להבנה. אם הקב”ה ידע שבסופו של דבר, המרגלים ירעילו את דעתה של האומה, נגד ארץ ישראל, מדוע הוא הסכים שילכו. הקב”ה היה צריך לומר למשה, “אמור להם שאני אלוקים, אני קובע את ההחלטות, ואמרתי “לא!”

    ראש ישיבה מפורסם בשם הרב מוטל כץ מסיק לקח חשוב בחינוך מהאירוע הזה.

    לפעמים, ילדים רוצים לעשות דבר שהוריהם חושבים לבלתי הולם. האינסטינקט ההורי שלנו אומר לנו לקבוע את הרצוי, ולאסור עליהם לעשות את מה שהם רוצים. אנו מנמקים לעצמנו את החלטתנו, בזה שאנו נדרשים לחנך את ילדינו, ולכן אנו לעיתים נאלצים לומר “לא!”.

    אבל, האם תמיד ראוי לומר “לא!”?

    אומר הרב כץ, שאנו לומדים מהמרגלים, שקורה לעיתים שעלינו לוותר, גם אם אנו יודעים שהדבר שילדינו מבקשים לעשות הוא טעות!

    הקב”ה הבין שהעם פשוט לא היה מוכן לקבל את סירובו לבקשתם. אילו משה היה חוזר מאת הקב”ה עם מענה שלילי, הם היו חושבים לעצמם “איך אנו אמורים ללכת ולהילחם נגד מדינה, מבלי לשלוח מרגלים. כולם יודעים שאי אפשר ללחום ללא אינפורמציה מודיעינית. אילו כלל ישראל היה עומד על רמה רוחנית מספקת, כדי לקבל את סירובו של הקב”ה, הוא היה אומר “לא!”. אך הקב”ה הבין שהם לא היו מוכנים לקבל את החלטתו בלב שלם, ולכן הוא לא סירב לבקשתם.

    לפעמים, מעיר הרב כץ, לב החינוך הוא לוותר. אנו חייבים לדעת מתי הילדים שלנו מסוגלים לקבל את ה”לא!”, ומתי הם יותר מדי ממוקדים על הדבר שהם מתכוונים לעשות, כדי לקבל את הסירוב שלנו.

    המושג הזה גם מוזכר באופן ברור בגמרא יבמות, דף סה: “ואמר רבי אילעא משום [בשם] ר’ אלעזר בר’ שמעון: כשם שמצווה על אדם לומר דבר הנשמע, כך מצוה על אדם שלא לומר דבר שאינו נשמע”.

    הרב מוטל כץ מוסיף אנקדוטה אישית, שקרתה לו לפני הרבה זמן.

    “יום אחד היגיעו אלי בחורי הישיבה, ובקשו ממני לשנות את לוח הזמנים של הישיבה, לערב אחד. הם רצו להתפלל תפילת ערבית מוקדם מהרגיל.

    “כששאלתי אותם, מדוע הם רצו להתפלל מוקדם, הם הסבירו לי שבאותו ערב מתקיים קרב אליפות במשקל כבד, והם רצו להאזין למשחק ברדיו. אילו היו מתפללים בזמן הרגיל, הם היו ‘מפספסים’ את הקרב.

    “מובן מאליו, שעצם הבקשה הייתה בלתי הולמת, שלא לדבר על ההתענינות המפוקפקת של בחורי ישיבה המקשיבים לקרב בין שני אנשים שהוכשרו להכות זה בזה, עד שאחד מהם כבר לא יוכל לעמוד על רגליו.

    “הבנתי שאם אסרב, הבנים פשוט לא יבינו מדוע סירבתי. בסביבה שבה גדלו, הם היו רגילים לראות אזרחים טובים ומכובדים שלא חסכו כל מאמץ כדי להיות נוכחים במשחקים כאלה. הם ראו בצפייה ובהאזנה לשידורי רדיו של שני מבוגרים החובטים זה בזה, כאמצעי בילוי נורמלי לחלוטין.

    “החלטתי” סיים הרב כץ, “שמכיוון שהבחורים האלה אפילו לא יתחילו להבין מדוע אני מסרב לבקשתם, עדיף יהיה לאפשר להם להתפלל מוקדם ולהאזין למשחק.

    בטוחני, שזאת הייתה אחת בין הדילמות הקשות הרבות שהרב כץ היה צריך להתמודד איתן. הוא עצמו למד בבחרותו לפני מלחמת העולם השנייה, בישיבת טלז’ באירופה. מה היו חושבים ראשי הישיבה דאז על בקשה כזו?

    הרב מרדכי גיפטר סיפר לעיתים קרובות על זיכרונות הגעתו לטלז’, בו גילה שהדבר היחיד שהיה קיים שם הייתה התורה. כמה קשה היה צריך להיות לאדם שגדל במסירות נעלה כזאת לתורה, להרשות לתלמידיו לסיים את הלימודים בשעה מוקדמת, כדי לצפות במשחק גמר של אגרוף במשקל כבד?

    אבל זה היה עולם חדש. תלמידי הישיבה היגיעו מקהילות קטנות שונות מרחבי המדינה. רבים מהם חונכו בבתי ספר ציבוריים בצעירותם. לא היה ניתן לצפות מהם, להעריך לגמרי את ערך התורה.

    כמובן, ישנם הרבה מקרים, בהם הורים ומחנכים חייבים לומר לא. במקרה שלנו, הרב מוטל למד מהמורה הטוב ביותר. אם הקב”ה אפשר לכלל ישראל לעשות דבר שהוא ידע שאינו ראוי, כאשר הוא הבין שאין ביכולתם לקבל את סירובו, הרי שראש הישיבה היה חייב למצוא בתוך עצמו את האומץ לעשות אותו הדבר.

    ואכן כן, הורים יקרים, גם אנו חייבים!

    בלי וירוסים. http://www.avast.com

    in reply to: Dvar Torah Devarim – Viewing the Whole Picture: #1885258
    abukspan
    Participant

    Well according to the Medresh Rabbah that bnei Yisroel had davened to Hashem by Yam Suf (see Shemos Rabbah on MaTitzak Eilai) i do not see the question. But I always like a good answer to a compelling question. Do you think this one is?

    in reply to: Short & Sweet #1883124
    abukspan
    Participant

    Very sweet.

    in reply to: Masei — The Value of Life #1882158
    abukspan
    Participant

    yes, a famous and somewhat controversial Or HaChaim

    in reply to: Dvar Torah Pinchas: Love Peace and Chase Peace #1882000
    abukspan
    Participant

    Reb Eliezer, Thank you for the address and the comments

    in reply to: Dvar Torah Pinchas: Love Peace and Chase Peace #1882002
    abukspan
    Participant

    Reb Eliezer, thank you for the address of the Ksav Sofer and the comments

    in reply to: Dvar Torah Pinchas: Love Peace and Chase Peace #1880804
    abukspan
    Participant

    Happy to join the Toi fan club.
    I looked today but could not find the ksav sofer in emor. Many websites mention that it is there but i saw it not. do you know where it is?

    thank you

    in reply to: Chukas — Yisrael’s Potential #1878659
    abukspan
    Participant

    yes, i thought that would have been appearent from the totalaty of what I cited from the Rizhiner

    in reply to: Chukas — Yisrael’s Potential #1878550
    abukspan
    Participant

    I always likes The Rizhiner who said that when yaakov bought the Bechora, he said Michra ChaYom…
    He bought a day.
    Yaakov is 182, taking the Bechora -Pi Shenayim, he becomes 364.
    The day he bought from Esav is the 365th day, the day of Yom Kippur. The day that Saro shel esav has no shelita…..

    in reply to: Chukas — Yisrael’s Potential #1878477
    abukspan
    Participant

    very good

    in reply to: Chukas — Yisrael’s Potential #1878162
    abukspan
    Participant

    I was unaware of the chazal כי יעקב היה מחזיק באזני כלב עובר. I see the Tzror HaMor citing a Zohar and giving answers as to why Yaakov did this.

    To paraphrase you: I thought the simplest explanation is that Esav headed towards Ya’akov after being informed of his presence. He had no way of silently going in.

    I always assumed that Esav was the one who started things, as the passuk saysוְגַם֙ הֹלֵ֣ךְ לִקְרָֽאתְךָ֔…” I took it to mean that Esav had heard about Yaakovs return and came out after him. Chicken or Egg.

    I saw this Bechor Shor and thought he was klor like you, that Esav did not come until after the malachim came to him
    וישלח יעקב מלאכים – כיון שקרב אצל עשו דאג מן השטימה שהייתה לעשו עליו, ושלח מלאכים לחפור ולרגל ולהכיר דעתו של עשו. ולא רצה להזכיר שום דרך שנאה, אלא כאדם ששולח לאחיו ולאוהבו לבשרו טוב עניינו
    but I still am not clear. While on the way to him, Esav could have heard that Yaakov was coming – so he and his men went out towards them.

    That is mashma from the Radak: וגם הולך לקראתך – ששמע שאתה בא, ואינו הולך לקראתך לשלום אלא למלחמה, כי הוא בא בארבע מאות איש, נראה כי להלחם עמך בא.

    This Rashbam klor says like you, that Esav only came after meeting with the malachim. Its just amazing that they were coming to be mechabed Yaakov, See also Chizkuni.
    באנו אל אחיך אל עשו – ומצאת חן בעיניו כאשר אמרת,
    וגם הנה הוא מתוך ששמח בביאתך ובאהבתו אותך, הולך לקראתך וארבע מאות איש עמו – לכבודך, זהו עיקר פשוטו. וכן: גם הנה הוא יוצא לקראתך וראך ושמח בלבו (שמות ד׳:י״ד).

    thank you for your questions and good points.

    in reply to: Chukas — Yisrael’s Potential #1878047
    abukspan
    Participant

    thank you for your comment.
    While I have seen or thought about Yaakovs possibility of returning “quitely” or un-noticed, it seems from the pessukim that Esav was already on his way, with the 400 men, even before the malachim came to him.

    in reply to: Shelach — Climbing the Ladder #1874093
    abukspan
    Participant

    nice

    in reply to: Dvar Torah Nasso — Talking to Yourself #1867187
    abukspan
    Participant

    shein

    in reply to: Dvar Torah Bamidbar: Ruling Over Nature: #1862443
    abukspan
    Participant

    thank you

    in reply to: Emor and Mother`s Day Dvar Torah #1858371
    abukspan
    Participant

    Thank you. if you figure out how to contact me by email i can send you a pdf of a pretty nice sefer with many nice verter. and im not at gmail.

    abukspan

    in reply to: Dvar Torah: Emor – Balancing Act: #1857921
    abukspan
    Participant

    yes, you must be referring to the chazal -Niskatzru HaDoros

    in reply to: Dvar Torah: Kedoshim – Proof for Reproof #1855593
    abukspan
    Participant

    wow, your right. i only posted it because on the other one that had to do with another aspect of lo sisna and justified hatred, you started mishing in meforshim about tochacha and sina. i just wanted to show you that those unrelated things were something that i was BH well aware of. My mistake for not realizing that i had even put it up. Hope the Mods do not get upset. thank you

    in reply to: Dvar Torah: Kedoshim — From Justified Hatred to Unjustified Rage #1855506
    abukspan
    Participant

    please see my upcoming post which will address several of the points you brought up

    in reply to: Dvar Torah: Acharei Mos fascinating Chasam Sofer #1855044
    abukspan
    Participant

    “Maybe because of lack of time, Moshe Rabbenu overestimated his children and expected more from them.”

    I would be wary of saying such about Moshe Rabbeinu. It is treating him like you or me. Regarding his sons: it is far from true to say that they were “bad” or not accomplished. Do not have it handy, but Yalkut Lekach Tov (Rav Byfus) in pinchus brings a chusheva pshat based on medroshim that his sons were gedoilei yisroel but they did not accomplish as much as they could. I think the lashon was that they were Chachomim but “were not miyageia”. Far from being failed children do to C’v Moshe’s neglect (as per a favorite sefer of mine, the Ksav Sofer) it was their not working as hard as they could, in contrast to Yehoshua who was Lo Yamush, that led to not being selected for leadership.

    in reply to: Dvar Torah: Acharei Mos fascinating Chasam Sofer #1855042
    abukspan
    Participant

    Vort is complete. Toras Moshe does not say. His point was that that first fact, and loss of its attending lesson, was the goirem of the next two things for which these Kedoshim are faulted.

    in reply to: Dvar Torah: Acharei Mos fascinating Chasam Sofer #1854967
    abukspan
    Participant

    I be honest. I should not have posted the Chasam Sofer because it puts The two Kedoshim in a bad light. Are they like us, they did not have pusheta derech eretz? It is a nice chasam sofer but I hope not true. The Ksav Sofer you mention again sounds nice but is also so uncomplementory. I know the vort very well, I have discussed it with big people. Are we ready really to believe that there must be a trade off. You are either a good father (Aharon) with good kids, or a good Manhig (Moshe) with not great kids? That is clearly the yesod the Ksav Sofer presents and therefore the dilemma that Nadav and Avihu faced. They were to be the next Manhigim (that is his up teich of the gemora in Sanhedrin) so they were stuck about what to do, and ended up choosing to serve as great manhigim f or the Klal and not have children. As a bochur I liked the vort but have been explained and agree that it is hard to believe. Do we not have gedolim who can be machanech their children? Are we saying it is either or? Are we saying Chas VeShalal that Moshe Rabbeinu was a lousy father?

    Reb Eliezer, I am not writing this to criticize you. It’s just that I posted a vort that does go over well, but may truly be insulating and therefore wrong and wrong to say, and you go a cite the one vort that is so much more insulting or disrespectful to Moshe. This has nothing to do with you. It has been what I was mekabel from my rebbeim and which has now been naase.delee

    in reply to: Dvar Torah Acharei Mos – Preaching Without Practicing #1854510
    abukspan
    Participant

    ME
    “what is the point?”
    “I accept that you do not like what was written.”
    ” It would be great if we could shmooze on a phone if you so desire but i cannot keep this up. If you think i am wrong, so be it.”
    “We can disagree. good night”

    YOU
    “thanks for contribution, but we are going in circles.”

    Boruch Shekivanta

    in reply to: Dvar Torah Acharei Mos – Preaching Without Practicing #1854452
    abukspan
    Participant

    ” A similar situation could have occurred over here. ”

    what is the point? Do you need me to agree with you and remove my post? Need I say that the words of chazal -in their entirety are wrong because Rav E. Feigu says a pshat in a gemora in Yoma?

    I accept that you do not like what was written. Bigger people than me have written this pshat and said over
    this pshat.
    Its fine if you dont but perhaps have one more patient go at what was written.

    This point can be proven from a pasuk in Rus and the explanation of the Midrash based on that pasuk: “Vayehi bi’mei shefot hashoftim – And it happened in the days when the judges judged” (Rus 1:1). The Midrash (Rus Rabbah 1:1) explains that in those days, the judges were judged by the population. And the Midrash laments, “Woe to the generation that judges its judges.” The Gemara explains that when the judge would say, “Remove a splinter from between your teeth,” the accused would say, “First remove the beam from between your eyes” (Bava Basra 15b).
    The judges themselves were more corrupt than the people they were judging. The judge would accuse a man of stealing a splinter and demand that he return it, while the accused would respond that the judge himself was guilty of much more than petty theft, since he had in his possession something as large as a stolen beam.
    Thus, the people discounted the reproof the judges gave because the judges were greater sinners. Although the people could claim, “Why listen to him? He doesn’t practice what he preaches,” they were still criticized for judging their judges and discounting their reproof and authority.
    The truth is still the truth, whether from the mouth of a saint or a sinner. It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but if the message being preached is correct, I have no right not to accept it. The Rambam, in his preface to Shemonah Perakim, says, “Shema ha’emes mi’mi she’amrah –Listen to and accept the truth from the one who says it.”

    in reply to: Dvar Torah Acharei Mos – Preaching Without Practicing #1854427
    abukspan
    Participant

    ” A similar situation COULD have occurred over here”

    This point can be proven from a pasuk in Rus and the explanation of the Midrash based on that pasuk: “Vayehi bi’mei shefot hashoftim – And it happened in the days when the judges judged” (Rus 1:1). The Midrash (Rus Rabbah 1:1) explains that in those days, the judges were judged by the population. And the Midrash laments, “Woe to the generation that judges its judges.” The Gemara explains that when the judge would say, “Remove a splinter from between your teeth,” the accused would say, “First remove the beam from between your eyes” (Bava Basra 15b).
    The judges themselves were more corrupt than the people they were judging. The judge would accuse a man of stealing a splinter and demand that he return it, while the accused would respond that the judge himself was guilty of much more than petty theft, since he had in his possession something as large as a stolen beam.
    Thus, the people discounted the reproof the judges gave because the judges were greater sinners. Although the people could claim, “Why listen to him? He doesn’t practice what he preaches,” they were still criticized for judging their judges and discounting their reproof and authority.
    The truth is still the truth, whether from the mouth of a saint or a sinner. It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but if the message being preached is correct, I have no right not to accept it. The Rambam, in his preface to Shemonah Perakim, says, “Shema ha’emes mi’mi she’amrah –Listen to and accept the truth from the one who says it.”

    in reply to: Dvar Torah Acharei Mos – Preaching Without Practicing #1854321
    abukspan
    Participant

    I do not know what to say. The pshat pashut in shfot hashoftim is the the people were judging the judges. However bad they were, and they were, chazal are criticizing -certainly – those who are judging the judges. It would be great if we could shmooze on a phone if you so desire but i cannot keep this up. If you think i am wrong, so be it. I can cite near countless seforim that the people were being criticized for their criticism of the shoftim. is that not correct. Forgive me if I have to now go to class

    in reply to: Dvar Torah Acharei Mos – Preaching Without Practicing #1854109
    abukspan
    Participant

    while true that the judges were not good, the lashon seems to be faulting the dor (namely the baalei dinim) that judge the judges. it is certainly the people that are being criticized -for judging their judges. The gemora explains the nature of why they judged them. We can disagree. good night

    in reply to: Dvar Torah Acharei Mos – Preaching Without Practicing #1854080
    abukspan
    Participant

    And the Midrash laments, “Woe to the generation that judges its judges.” The Gemara explains that when the judge would say, “Remove a splinter from between your teeth,” the accused would say, “First remove the beam from between your eyes” (Bava Basra 15b).
    Both things were occurring. The people judged the judges and were not mekabel thier words and the judges were worse than the people themselves. That is a way that the chazal can be understood. We see that even though the judges were perhaps hypocrites, the people are still wrong for judging them -d`hynu, not listening to them. Yes, a chiddush and not how we all were taught. see if it fits into the words of chazal.

    in reply to: Dvar Torah Acharei Mos – Preaching Without Practicing #1854043
    abukspan
    Participant

    2 of the 3 chazalin you mentioned are in my piece. I bavornad exactly what you were bringing up. The medresh, that notwithstanding, is saying otherwise. I am not saying it is easy or that i can easially do it. (Even though, I truly believe that I and many others have been in such a situation and at least recognized the truth) The etzem teich, as mentioned, is from Rav Dovid Soloveichik. Chazal are saying that they were guilty of not going to get advice from one onother. Dus heist, that someone who is doing the same aveira, can see the truth for another and tell him to do the right thing. At the same time, I am responsible to be mekabel the truth even from a hypocrite. . It is not supposed to be easy, a very high madreiga. But chazal, (according to Rav Dovid) are faulting them and the dor of Avimelech of just that. One may not like the pshat, there may be other ways to account for the lashon in chazal. I would be happy to hear an alternative. And this is by far , not the only case where are Kedoshim are held to a high standard. What it may mean for me is between me and my Rav,Mashpia…..

    I do see that you disagree, but I have yet to hear a kashya that disproves what is a yesodesdica upteich of two Chazalin and mistameh the truth about human nature.

    in reply to: Dvar Torah Acharei Mos – Preaching Without Practicing #1854000
    abukspan
    Participant

    As I wrote: “Although the ideal is “Keshot atzmecha ve’achar kach keshot acheirim – Adorn yourself and after that adorn others” (Bava Basra 60b), it does not mean that the other sinner’s advice can be discounted and ignored, even if the other brother does not practice what he is preaching.”

    While it is appropriate to first correct yourself then others קשוט עצמך ואחר כך קשוט אחרים, that is the optimum. Yet, those same words are the criticism of a person who is unwilling to take tochocha. Tul Korah m`bein einecha…., why should I listen to you when you are no better or even worse.

    But chazal are here, by nadav and avihu, saying (and as understood by Rav Dovid Soloveichik and others) that they are faulted for not hearing the tochocha of the other -even when the other, on his own, was doing the same wrong thing. that is the whole point/chidush here. and the same thing is seen from the medresh in Rus.

    in reply to: Etymology of "Day of Atonement" #1853998
    abukspan
    Participant

    oh, yes. Both the Shunamis and Bilaam teach us the same message. ty

    in reply to: Etymology of "Day of Atonement" #1853940
    abukspan
    Participant

    thanx for responding. teaching a class now, will look at later.

    in reply to: Chidushim on Daf Yomi Shabbos 30 #1853716
    abukspan
    Participant

    a good point. The lower water did have a tyneh on being lowered. ultimately, they all are elevated to one place

    in reply to: Megillas Esther Interpretation #1853715
    abukspan
    Participant

    thank you for letting me see myself and my actions in hindsight.

    in reply to: Dvar Torah: Metzora #1853698
    abukspan
    Participant

    What do you mean it was named after Balak? Where can I find that? Ty

    in reply to: Megillas Esther Interpretation #1853673
    abukspan
    Participant

    Regarding your post feb.26 at 10.13. Are you saying it must “be read in order” in order to chap that we had the tzoros and only then the yeshua? I recently heard from a rabbi Luban that that is the pshat in HAKOREI…..LIMAFREIA.LO.YUTZA. It is easy to look back through the meggilah and see in retrospect where Hashem was directing things all along. That it no kuntz. The avodah is to live a life where we do not chap His hand in everything and still have trust. You have to read it straight and not LIMAFREIA. I did not do justice to what I think is a chusheva yesod. Sorry for my lack of clarity ad for my arrogance before.

    in reply to: Chidushim on Daf Yomi Shabbos 30 #1853670
    abukspan
    Participant

    What you wrote regarding machlokes and accepting others with different opinions reminded me of the following.

    It says in Midrash Tanchuma (Pinchas 10), “ Ke’sheim she’ein partzufoseihem shavin zeh la’zeh, kach ein daasam shavin zeh la’zeh, ella kol echad ve’echad yeish lo daas bifnei atzmo – Just as people’s faces are not the same, their thoughts are not the same; each one has his own way of thinking.”
    The Gerrer Rebbe asks: Why does the Midrash prove its point by mentioning the fact that no two people look alike? We all know that our thoughts and feelings are unique to ourselves. After just two minutes with a person, we can usually size him up and realize where we differ and disagree. Why do Chazal have to prove this point by pointing out that we all look different? Additionally, why is there a need to make the second half of the statement – that each has his own thoughts? What is being added that we don’t know on our own?
    He explains that the emphasis is in our response to the other person’s differences. No two people look alike, and we should not hold that against our friend. I may not like seeing a certain feature on a person, but that should not give me cause to think less of him. Likewise, we should not be critical of a friend who does not share our opinions and sensitivities.
    A person whose ideas are different from mine, or a person I find too thin-skinned, should be accorded no less respect and be treated no less pleasantly than my doppelganger.

    in reply to: Dvar Torah: Metzora #1853642
    abukspan
    Participant

    You are right. It all adds. . It was a very wrong of me to write what I did. I hope you will not stop adding to the discussion because of my arrogance. Sincerely sorry.

    in reply to: Dvar Torah: Metzora #1853467
    abukspan
    Participant

    Dear Rebbe Eliezer,
    It seems we keep trying to add unrelated things to what was said. I believe that more would be gained if we bring a nice tzu-shtell or a valid question to the subject rather than presenting important and nice points that distract from the vort being said. This way, all our fellow coffee drinkers can shteig from the enhanced vort that results from people working together. Relatedly, many of your added points weold make for nice topics for you yourself to post.

    Avraham

    in reply to: Dvar Torah: Metzora #1853262
    abukspan
    Participant

    In truth, even chirping or speech cannot be at one extreme. We warn from the dead chirping bird to not have bad speech but the living one sent away teaches the need to have good and correct speech. Please read below.

    Metzora 1 — Two Chirping Birds
    וצוה הכהן ולקח למטהר שתי צפרים חיות טהרות ועץ ארז ושני תולעת ואזב: וצוה הכהן ושחט את הצפור האחת אל כלי חרש על מים חיים: את הצפר החיה יקח אתה ואת עץ הארז ואת שני התולעת ואת האזב וטבל אותם ואת הצפר החיה בדם הצפר השחטה על המים החיים:והזה על המטהר מן הצרעת שבע פעמים וטהרו ושלח את הצפר החיה על פני השדה
    The Kohen shall command; and for the person being purified there shall be taken two live, pure birds, cedar wood, a crimson tongue of wool, and hyssop. The Kohen shall command; and the one bird shall be slaughtered into an earthenware vessel over spring water. The live bird, he shall take it and the cedar wood and the crimson tongue of wool and the hyssop, and he shall dip them and the live bird into the blood of the bird that was slaughtered over the spring water. Then he shall sprinkle seven times upon the person being purified from the tzaraas; he shall purify him, and he shall set the live bird free upon the open field” (Vayikra 14:4-7).
    The metzora’s purification process includes two birds, one of which is slaughtered and one of which is sent away alive. Rashi (v.4) explains why birds are used in the purification of the metzora: Like the person who spoke lashon hara, birds are constantly twittering. Accordingly, chirping birds are used as a kapparah for the one who “chirped too much” and shared derogatory information about others.
    Unlike all other occasions when two birds are required, here the Kohen does not kill both; the second one is released. As mentioned earlier (Vayikra, Tzav), the Ramban (Vayikra 1:9) maintains that animal sacrifices are intended to cause the one bringing the korban to imagine that he is the one slaughtered, for this will bring him to repent. But what value is there in setting one of the birds free?
    The Kli Yakar (v.4: “Ve’taam lishtei tziporim…”) writes that the two birds represent two types of speech: that which is forbidden and that which is a mitzvah, that which must not be said and that which must be said. By engaging in proper and positive speech, the metzora remedies the sin of the improper speech. The forbidden speech, as represented by the first bird that is killed, must cease and desist. True expiation of sin requires that the sinning stop. But that is only half the battle. To atone for the misuse of speech, what is now required is the proper use of speech.
    The Kli Yakar specifies just what kind of speech will bring kapparah to the metzora. By using his mouth for Torah and tefillah, he is able to undo the ill effects of causing hurt and harm through that mouth. So while the bird that represents the harmful speech is killed, the second bird must live on, to demonstrate that the antidote for lashon hora is not a vow of silence but a commitment to speak properly. The second bird represents judicious and good chirping: engaging one’s mouth in Torah, tefillah, and constructive talk, which must be strengthened and nurtured.
    In his sefer Apirion (cited in Yalkut Lekach Tov), Rav Shlomo Gantzfried brings the same point; to that end, he cites the Gemara (Chullin 89a), where Rabbi Yitzchak quotes the pasuk, “Ha’umnam eilem tzedek tedabeirun — Is there indeed silence when you should be speaking righteousness?” (Tehillim 58:2). While it is true that at times a person is obligated to be silent like a mute (eilem), this does not apply to a discussion of Torah, as it says, “Tzedek tedabeirun — Speak righteousness,” meaning the words of Torah. This is as we see in the Gemara (Erchin 15b): What is the remedy for one who has spoken lashon hara? If he is a talmid chacham, he should toil in Torah. As Shlomo teaches us (Mishlei 15:4): “Marpei lashon eitz chaim —The remedy for the tongue is the Tree of Life”; the tongue is referring to lashon hara and the Tree of Life is the Torah. So we see that one cure for lashon hara is limud Torah.
    The Zohar (Vayikra 46b) adds another dimension. Just as a person is punished for malicious gossip and speaking inappropriately, he is also punished for not speaking appropriately. The Zohar quotes the words of Tehillim (39:3) to corroborate this: “Ne’elamti dumiah hechesheisi mi’tov u’cheivi nekar — I became mute with stillness, I was silent even from good; my pain was intense.” According to the Gemara (Berachos 5a), “tov — good” means the Torah. Thus, David HaMelech is telling us that because he was silent and did not speak words of Torah, he was punished, his pain intense.
    The Sfas Emes (Metzora 5661) brings the words of the Zohar, along with the words of Shlomo HaMelech in Mishlei (18:21), “Mavess ve’chaim be’yad lashon — Death and life are in the power of the tongue.” He then adds that a person must be careful not only to avoid lashon hara, but to stay away from any speech that will take him away from his true objective — of learning Torah. The two birds are there for two separate purposes: The slaughtered one removes the sin of unnecessary talk, and obviously lashon hara, while the other one is sent away in order to prepare the mouth of the metzora to be used only for divrei Torah.
    When stating that death and life are in the hand of the tongue, Shlomo HaMelech is informing us that just as the tongue can cause death and destruction when not used properly, it also brings life, when used for Torah and mitzvos. Words not only take away life, but also give life. This concept is illustrated in a well-known Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 33:1). Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel sent his servant to the market, instructing him, “Bring me the best thing you can find.” The servant brought him a tongue. On another occasion, Rabbi Shimon told the same servant to purchase the worst thing he could find. This time, too, the servant returned with a tongue. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel was startled and asked his servant, “How can the same item be the best thing and also the worst?” The servant responded, “There is nothing better than a tongue that speaks good and nothing worse than a tongue that speaks evil.”
    This brings us to another famous incident mentioned in the Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 16:2). As a peddler made his way through the towns near the city of Tzipori, he called out, “Who would like to purchase a life-giving potion?” People crowded around him to see what he had to offer. Rabbi Yanai, who was nearby and heard and saw the commotion, told the peddler to come show him his wares. At first, the peddler answered, “Neither you nor those like you have need for it.”
    When Rabbi Yanai persisted, the peddler quoted from Sefer Tehillim (34:13-15), “Mi ha’ish he’chofetz chaim oheiv yamim liros tov. Netzor leshoncha mei’ra u’sefasecha mi’daber mirmah. Sur mei’ra va’aseih tov bakeish shalom ve’radfeihu — Who is the man who desires life, who loves days of seeing good? Guard your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit. Turn from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it.”
    The Kli Yakar (v.4: “Aval rocheil zeh… “) points out that this peddler, this rocheil, had himself been a baal lashon hara, one who peddled his wares of gossip, causing arguments and breaking up friendships along the way. But now he had resolved to do teshuvah and he had succeeded. As such, he wanted to share his success with others and bring merit to the tzibbur and help them do teshuvah, as well. Therefore, he went to the cities surrounding “Tzipori,” meaning those cities that were similar to a tzipor — the bird that chirps and chatters — with the express purpose of educating those towns where people had stumbled through evil speech and were chattering like birds. Thus he used his tongue for good instead of bad, and went from being the itinerant gossip to the itinerant maggid. He killed his bad bird by releasing his good bird.
    We see that this peddler, this recovering gossip, did not merely stop speaking. Rather, he taught others the lessons he had learned. The end of the pesukim the peddler cited instruct: “Sur mei’ra va’aseih tov bakeish shalom ve’radfeihu — Turn from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it.” As mentioned, “tov” refers to Torah, so once again, as the Kli Yakar posits, the way to veer from evil is through learning and speaking words of Torah.
    But there is more: We must also seek peace and pursue it: “Bakeish shalom ve’radfeihu.” If we constantly look for the good in others and look for ways to make peace, we will find that we automatically avoid evil speech and nasty gossip.
    With this in mind, we can understand a citation in the Magen Avraham (Orach Chaim 60:2) when discussing the berachah of Ahavah Rabbah in Tefillas Shacharis. There we find a reference to Kavannos U’Kesavim, where it is taught that the Sheish Zechiros, six events we must constantly remember, are alluded to in Ahavah Rabbah. One of these events is: “Zachor eis asher asah Hashem Elokecha le’Miriam ba’derech be’tzeis’chem miMitzrayim — Remember what Hashem, your G-d, did to Miriam, on the way when you departed from Egypt” (Devarim 24:9). As Bnei Yisrael were traveling in the Midbar, Miriam spoke lashon hara to Aharon about Moshe and was punished with tzaraas (Bamidbar 12), and this is what we are to remember every day lest we, too, fall into the trap of lashon hara. The words that correspond to this reminder in the tefillah of Ahavah Rabbah are: “le’hodos lecha — to offer praiseful thanks to You.” As it says in the Kavanos U’Kesavim, “The mouth was only created to express gratitude and not to speak lashon hara, and this is the remembrance of the incident of Miriam.”
    I heard from Rav Aharon Dovid Willner that lashon hara and expressing gratitude are flipsides of the same coin. One who speaks lashon hara is a person who focuses on the negative side of things, never looking at what is good and praiseworthy. He can’t appreciate that all Hashem does is for the good, and he feels entitled to have everything his way. Such a person will also be bothered by the faults he sees in man and will speak ill of him. On the other side of the coin, we have the person who lives up to the ideal of “le’hodos lecha,” of focusing on feeling grateful for all he does have, and of appreciating all of mankind. Such a person will be free from the bottomless pit of negativity — even if things don’t go his way or he finds something unfavorable in another individual. Consequently, he will never feel the need to express something negative about another, let alone Hashem, even at times when his expectations are not met.
    Rabbeinu Yonah (Shaarei Teshuvah 1:18) cites the verse in Mishlei (28:12),”Ba’alotz tzaddikim rabbah sifares u’ve’kum reshaim yechupas adam — When the righteous exult, there is much splendor, but when the wicked rise, victims are sought.” Tzaddikim praise and honor others for every virtue and positive quality they find in each individual, while reshaim seek every blemish and fault within others in order to degrade and demean them.
    Lashon hara… or divrei Torah? Critique and complaints… or praising Hashem and others? The choices are ours. Which will it be?

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 69 total)