Volume I, Issue 15 Parshas Bereishis Parsha Insights

1
1. BERESHIETH
Volume I, Issue 15
Parshas Bereishis
PARSHA INSIGHTS
At the end of the sixth day of creation the Torah states, "And God saw all that he had
made, and behold it was very good" (Bereishis 1, 31). In Bereishis Rabbah, Chazal
say (9,9) that the phrase "it was very good" is referring to the yetzer horah (evil
inclination). It is difficult to understand the concept of "good" when discussing the
yetzer horah. A person once approached the Chofetz Chaim zt"l, lamenting that the
constant pressure of his yetzer horah gave him no rest. The Chofetz Chaim
responded that man should rejoice because of his yetzer horah, for without it, man
would have no purpose on earth.The Chofetz Chaim compares the yetzer horah to a
watch. A watch works by the internal chains pulling against each other, causing the
hands to move, and thereby keeping accurate time. Similarly, man's yetzer tov (good
inclination) pulls him towards good and his yetzer horah pulls him towards evil. This
"tug of war" keeps man focused on the fact that Hashem created us to conquer the
desires, which pull us away from Him. By reestablishing Hashem's dominance over
our lives, we have fulfilled our purpose on earth.A person once praised a talmid
chochom by saying that he possessed no yetzer horah at all. Upon hearing this, the
Chazon Ish zt"l declared that, on the contrary, this talmid chochom is a bal mum
(blemished soul), since true praise is for one who conquers his yetzer horah.Since
the yetzer horah is part of the process that is necessary in crowning Hashem upon
ourselves, the word "good" can apply.The yetzer horah gives each Jew the potential
to reach levels above an angel. On one hand, an angel is a purely spiritual being who
always performs the will of Hashem. However, the angel has no free choice and no
power attempting to distract him from his mission. How could an angel ever sin?
Conversely, in order for a person to discharge Hashem's will, he must overcome a
very powerful force that impedes his desire to do good. Therefore, if man fulfills a
command of Hashem, he has actually raised himself to a new level by conquering his
yetzer horah. With each additional triumph, one attains even higher spiritual planes.
Man is given the opportunity from Hashem to continually defeat the yetzer horah
and soar to levels above angels.
In responding to the snake's question regarding the permissibility of eating the fruit
in the Garden of Eden, Chava said, "Of the fruit of the tree which is in the center of
the garden God has said: 'You shall not eat of it and you shall not touch it, lest you
die' " (Bereishis 3,3). Since Hashem never commanded Adam or Chava not to touch
the Tree of Knowledge (only not to eat from it), Rashi comments, "She (Chava) added
to the commandment, therefore she came to detraction."
Rav Yaacov Kaminetzky zt"l points out that Chava did not know that the prohibition
against touching the Tree was not legislated by Hashem. Had she been aware of this,
the snake's argument, that her not having died after touching the Tree proved that it
was permissible to eat from the tree, would have fallen on deaf ears. In supporting
this assertion, Rav Kaminetzky cites Avos D'Reb Noson who says that Adam actually
told Chava that they were not allowed to touch the Tree of Knowledge. His purpose in
doing this was to make a "fence around" the prohibition against eating from the Tree
of Knowledge, which Hashem did forbid. By telling Chava not to even touch the Tree,
Adam reasoned that neither of them would even venture near the tree, thus assuring
that neither Chava nor himself would eat from it.It is clear from the text of the Torah
that Chava was under the notion that the proscription against touching the Tree was
divinely ordained ("God has said: 'You shall not eat of it and you shall not touch it,
lest you die' "). Chava's misconception provided the snake with the opening to
convince her that it was not improper to eat from the Tree. When the snake pushed
Chava against the Tree and she did not die, he was then able to persuade her that
just as touching the Tree did not cause her to die, so too eating from it would not
cause death. Had Chava known that the prohibition against touching the Tree was an
"additional" fence accepted by Adam upon himself, she would not have expected to
die when she came in contact with the Tree. With this knowledge, she would not
have been induced by the snake's reasoning and would not have eaten the fruit.
When Rashi states that adding to Hashem's word caused Chava's downfall, Rashi
2
does not mean that it was improper for Adam to have placed a "fence around" the
command of Hashem. The legislation of Rabbinical laws is for the purpose of keeping
a Jew away from violating a divinely ordained precept. However, Adam's
transgression of adding "a fence" was his failure to inform Chava, in a clear and
exact manner, the distinction between the prohibition mandated by Hashem and the
"fence" Adam had accepted upon himself.When a person is confronted with a
chumra, which is difficult for him to follow, it may cause him to abandon his
obligation of fulfilling the Torah commandment as well. Therefore, issur (prohibition)
and chumra (stringency or fence) must be clearly delineated and defined when
influencing people in regard to their obligations in fulfilling a positive commandment
or not transgressing a negative commandment.
FROM THE BOOKSHELF
(Thousands of seforim fill the shelves of a Beis Medrash. This section is devoted to
highlighting seforim and their authors, so that every Jew can derive everlasting
pleasure and benefit from the great Torah wisdom contained within them.)
"Iggeres HaRamban" (The Letter of the Ramban)
Although Iggeres HaRamban is not an actual sefer, but a letter, the wisdom and
insights contained in it are more than many multiple volume works. The Iggeres
HaRamban is a letter that the Ramban zt"l wrote while residing in Eretz Yisroel to his
son, Nachman, who lived in Spain.
In the letter, the Ramban instructs his son to read the letter once a week "and
neglect none of it." The letter is aimed at inspiring humility and training youth in fear
of Hashem. As the Chida zt"l states, "Ramban outlines a program for achieving the
qualities of sanctity and humility. The Mussar Masters (Masters of Ethical Teachings)
encouraged their students to study the letter periodically, as the Ramban's holy
words have the power to pierce the innermost recesses of the heart, filling it with a
spirit of sanctity."
The Iggeres HaRamban was first printed in 1579 in Venice, Italy, as part of the classic
mussar sefer, Reishis Chochmo, written by Rabbi Eliyahu de Vidas. Though a second,
expanded version of the letter was also printed, the version that first appeared in
Reishis Chochmo has become the accepted version. Not only did the Ramban's son
derive great benefit and strength from this letter, Jewish People wishing to attain
humility and fear of Hashem have studied this letter throughout the centuries as
well. In concluding his letter, the Ramban states, "Every day that you shall read this
letter, heaven shall answer your heart's desires - Amen, Selah."
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
(What would you do in this situation?)
Boruch's daughter needs a dress to attend a wedding of a friend. The dress she
wants to buy is more than Boruch is willing to pay. The store's policy is that any item
can be returned if the customer is unsatisfied with it. Can Boruch "purchase" the
dress for his daughter and then return it after the wedding?If it is permissible to
"purchase" the dress under these circumstances, what would be the halacha if
Boruch's daughter got the dress dirty and it had to be dry-cleaned? Would Boruch
have to keep the dress or would it be permissible to dry clean the dress and then
return it? (Consult your Rav for a proper halachic ruling)
WHO AM I?
(Guess who I am from the following clues)
1. My father was a letter.
2. I was saved by a little one.
3. I traveled to the other side.
4. I held a "son" but never had one.
(Please send us your answer by e-mail to gkrainess@adelphia.net. The answer will
appear in next week's issue)
3
Last week's clues and answer: I am an antidote to light-headedness; I was almost
concealed; I come from assembled wisdom; My pursuit is purely not physical Koheles
Congratulations to Eli and Dovid Efroymson and Tovie Hoffman.
CAN YOU SAY THAT?
(How well do you know hilchos Shmiras Halashon?)
If one of Reuven's parents speak negatively about Shimon, can Reuven believe his
parent?
Answer: Reuven must not believe his parent. However, a child must always treat a
parent with the utmost respect and Reuven may not tell his parent that they spoke
improperly. Reuven may respectfully say to his parent that even if what they said is
true, doesn't it say in the Torah that we should not speak negatively about another
person? (Apples of Gold citing Sefer Chofetz Chaim)
TORAH RIDDLE
Which person in the history of the world murdered 25% of the world's population?
(The answer will appear in next week's issue)
Last week's question and answer: When would you say a separate brocha on each of
the four species (lulav, hadassim, aravos and esrog)? If each of the four species were
taken separately and the person made an interruption in between taking each of
them, then he would have to make a separate brocha on the lulav, hadassim, aravos
and esrog.
THE KOLLEL FAMILY
MAZEL TOV
-Mr. and Mrs. Harry Newmark on the birth of a son.
-Rabbi and Mrs. Dovid Weinberger on the birth of a son.
WELCOME
-Dr. and Mrs. David Lever.
(Please inform us if you wish to have a happy or solemn occasion or a community or
personal event posted on the Community Bulletin Board - Thank you.)
To sponsor an issue of Oneg Shabbos, please contact Leib Chaim Krainess, Director
of Kollel Development at (216) 559-0638 or gkrainess@adelphia.net
THIS WEEK'S ONEG SHABBOS IS SPONSORED
BY JASON ZUCHOWSKI
IN HONOR OF HIS PARENTS - CHARLES AND DEBBIE ZUCHOWSKI
CEDAR-GREEN COMMUNITY KOLLEL:
2573 LARCHMONT ROAD, BEACHWOOD, OHIO 44122
216-360-9153 / 216-559-0638
2. NOACH
Volume I, Issue 16
Parshas Noach
PARSHA INSIGHTS
"Noach followed in Hashem's ways" (Noach 6,9). The Sforno explains the meaning of
"following in Hashem's ways" in this manner. "Noach went in the ways of Hashem to
be kind to others and rebuked the people of his generation." If Noach gave the
people mussar for one hundred twenty years, why did it have no effect on them?
The answer can be found in the comment of the Sforno on the verse in Bereishis
(6,8) which states, "And Noach found favor in the eyes of Hashem." The Sforno
states that although Noach did reprimand the people of his generation, he did not
teach them about understanding Hashem and following in His ways. This seems
contradictory to the words of the Sforno quoted above, which indicate that Noach did
rebuke his fellow man.
4
The Sforno is teaching us that even though Noach tried to convince the people to
change, he based his words and guidance on logic and "doing the right thing." In
order for admonishment to be effective in convincing someone to alter his lifestyle, it
must be shown that the way of life being proffered is proper because it is the derech
Hashem. Even when one's mind comprehends "the correct way of life," if it is not
divinely inspired, the influence tends to wane and not have the desired effect.
"Then Hashem said to Noach, 'Come to the ark, you and your household, for it is you
that I have seen to be righteous before Me in this generation' " (Noach 7,1). Even
though Hashem specifically commanded Noach to go into the ark with his family
before the rains actually came, Noach did not enter the ark until the water left him
no choice but to seek refuge in the ark. "Noach, and his sons, and his wife, and his
sons' wives with him, went into the ark because of the waters of the flood" (Noach
7,7). It is for this reason that Rashi states, "Noach too, was one of those with little
faith; he believed, yet he did not believe (fully) that the flood would come, and he
did not enter the Ark until the waters compelled him to" (Rashi 7,7). How did Noach
descend from being a man who "did everything that Hashem commanded him" to
being included in "one of those with little faith?"
Rav Yosef of Salant zt"l in his sefer, Be'er Yosef, explains that Noach understood well
that Hashem was merciful and compassionate and would not wish to deal harshly
with people. This concept is found in Rashi (Bereishis 6,3) who relates that Hashem
gave the people of that generation one hundred twenty years to change their ways.
Even when they did not choose the option of repentance, Hashem granted them
once again an additional seven days to mend their ways.
Based on Noach's knowledge of Hashem's merciful ways, he had every reason to
believe that the flood may not happen. First of all, the possibility existed that the
people would repent from their evil behavior before Hashem brought the rains upon
them. Secondly, it was possible as well that Hashem would exercise great kindness
and compassion and decide not to bring the flood upon the earth.
With this in mind, it is even more difficult to comprehend why Noach's actions
classify him as one of "little faith." Even when the rain first fell, Noach had every
right to assume that Hashem forgave the people and the rain was not one of a
destructive nature, rather a sign of blessing.
However, Noach's lack of faith must be understood in his not following through on
Hashem's command. Hashem had ordered Noach to go into the ark, days before the
rain began falling. Even though it was possible that Hashem would retract His
sentence, Noach should not have made any independent decisions contrary to
Hashem's orders.
This is the same "mistake" that Moshe made when he hit the rock instead of
speaking to it. Though Moshe had good reason to strike the rock, this action did not
conform to Hashem's command. This is why Hashem said to Moshe "Because you did
not believe in Me" (Chukas 20,12).
In stating that Noach "believed, yet he did not believe," Rashi means that Noach
believed that Hashem was compassionate and merciful and because of this did not
believe fully that Hashem would actually bring the flood. As a result, Noach failed to
carry out Hashem's exact command and therefore is termed as one of "little faith."
FROM THE BOOKSHELF
"The Kehati Mishnayos"
Throughout the centuries many commentaries on the Mishna have been produced
with the Gemara being the central source for their explanation. Many of these
commentaries, however, are only accessible to the Torah scholar.
Reb Pinchas Kehati z"l authored a commentary on the Mishna which makes its
comprehension attainable to the layman as well. Although he held no Rabbinical
position, his work on the Mishna has become an authoritative work for scholars and
novices alike.
5
Though his commentary allows one to quickly access the simple explanation of the
Mishna, Reb Pinchas Kehati himself stated that his work should not be the only
reference consulted. Many a time he was heard to say that his commentary was not
intended as a substitute for the study of other prominent commentaries, such as the
Rav Bartneura or Tosfos Yomtov.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
(What would you do in this situation?)
Moshe went to a clothing store to buy a new Shabbos shirt. While browsing, he
noticed a very expensive shirt, which was marked for ten dollars. In fact, he found a
pile of similar shirts, also marked for ten dollars. There was no indication, however,
of a "markdown" or "sale" in the shirt department.
Moshe asked the sales person, "Is there any problem with these shirts?" The sales
person answered, "No." Immediately Boruch purchased five of these shirts.
If Moshe suspects that these shirts were mismarked, must he ask a store employee if
the shirts are properly priced before he purchases them at this low price?
If the Rav says that Moshe does not have to check the price, what would be the
halacha if there is only one of these shirts in the store?
Is there a difference if the owner is a Jew or not?
(Consult your Rav for a proper halachic ruling)
WHO AM I?
1. I caused the death of a son.
2. I was different than my ancestors.
3. I publicized my son's exploits.
4. I worked with "precious" stones.
Last week's clues and answer: My father was a letter; I was saved by a little one; I
traveled to the other side; I held a "son" but never had one - Yehoshua Bin Nun
Congratulations to Shimon Berkovic, Shmuel Brown, The Hefter Brothers, Tovie
Hoffman, Ben Tziyon Krainess and Mr. Harvey Schabes
CAN YOU SAY THAT?
Reuven knows that Levi wants to become a business partner with Shimon. However,
Reuven thinks that Shimon will suffer a loss because of this partnership. Is it
permissible for Reuven to tell Shimon his evaluation in regard to the possibility of a
business association with Levi?
Answer: Reuven is obligated to warn Shimon, as long as the following conditions are
met:
1) Reuven must not rush to judgment. He must take time and carefully decide if the
partnership would indeed be damaging to Shimon.
2) When Reuven warns Shimon, it is forbidden for him to exaggerate in the least bit.
3) Reuven's desire to warn Shimon must not be motivated by any dislike Reuven may
harbor against Levi.
4) Reuven can warn Shimon about the hazards of a business relationship with Levi,
only if there is no other way to warn Shimon. (If entering into any partnership at this
time would be detrimental to Shimon, Reuven should try to convince Shimon not to
enter into any partnership at all. This would avoid mentioning Levi's name.
5) Reuven must be certain that the only consequence of his warning will be that the
partnership will not occur and that no actual damage will be incurred by Levi.
(Apples of Gold citing Sefer Chofetz Chaim - Hilchos Rechilus)
TORAH RIDDLE
When is it permissible to wear a garment, which includes shatnez (besides tzitzis)?
6
Last week's question and answer: Which person in the history of the world murdered
25% of the world's population? Kayin
THE KOLLEL FAMILY
MAZEL TOV
-Rabbi and Mrs. Nochum Levitansky on the engagement of their daughter
-Mr. and Mrs. Joel Ratner on the birth of a son.
COMMUNITY BULLETIN BOARD
Although most evening chavrusos at the Cedar-Green Community Kollel reconvened
Sunday evening October 14, the official full program at the Kollel commenced
Wednesday night, Rosh Chodesh Cheshvan, October 17 at 8:00 p.m.
of Kollel Development at (216) 559-0638 or gkrainess@adelphia.net.
To receive Oneg Shabbos by e-mail, please provide us with your e-mail address by
contacting us at (216) 559-0638 or gkrainess@adelphia.net
THIS WEEK'S ONEG SHABBOS IS SPONSORED BY
MRS. ELKA CZAKO
IN HONOR OF THE ENGAGEMENT OF HER DAUGHTER, RIZEL
216-360-9153 / 216-559-0638
3. LECH LECHA
Volume I, Issue 17
Parshas Lech Lecha
PARSHA INSIGHTS
"Avrom took his wife, Sarai and Lot, his brother's son, and all their possessions that they
had amassed, and the souls that they made in Charan." (Lech Lecha 12,5). Rashi
explains the words "the souls that they made" to mean that "Avrahom would convert the
men and Sarah would convert the women. Scripture considers them as if they made
them."
Since Avrom's goal was to bring as many people to the service of Hashem as possible, it
is difficult to understand why he severed his ties with Lot when "there was quarreling
between the herdsmen of Avrom's livestock and the herdsmen of Lot's livestock" (Lech
Lecha 13,7). As the Torah states, "Please separate from me: If to the left, then I will go to
the right, and if to the right, then I will go to the left" (Lech Lecha 13,9). Avrom was
concerned with the spiritual lot of the common man. Therefore, it is difficult to
comprehend why he was not attentive to the spiritual well being of Lot?
In light of this, it is even more perplexing that when Avrom heard that "they captured Lot
and his possessions," he waged war to save Lot - "And Avrom heard that his brother was
taken captive, and he armed his initiates who had been born in his house" (Lech Lecha
14,14). Why was Avrom willing to sacrifice his life for Lot and not amenable to allow Lot to
remain with him, due to their herdsmen's quarrel?
Reb Yechezkel Levinstein zt"l, the Mashgiach of Mir and Ponevez, explains Avrom's
perplexing attitude and behavior towards Lot as follows. Although Avrom's primary
mission was to be mekarev people (bring them close to Hashem), he recognized the
inherent danger involved with this task. When a person, even an Avrom, must deal
closely with people who have not, as of yet, made a commitment to Hashem, it may have
a negative impact on his piousness. Avrom understood the need to keep his spirituality
7
intact and knew as well, that kiruv can bring the "influencer" into contact with situations
that may jeopardize his level of spirituality.
On the other hand, going to war to save Lot from his kidnappers did not involve any
spiritual risks, only physical ones. Avrom felt that he had an obligation to save Lot from
death and was willing to risk his life to accomplish this feat. After all, when Avrom told Lot
that they must separate from each other, he assured Lot that he would always be there
to protect him (Rashi 13,9).
With this in mind, Avrom's seemingly contradictory actions are quite understandable.
Certainly, creating and cultivating people who would serve Hashem was vital to Avrom.
Definitely, Avrom cared for Lot, as he demonstrated by placing himself in harm's way to
save Lot. However, Avrom knew that it is forbidden to forfeit even an iota of one's
spiritual essence, even when the important task of kiruv is at hand.
"I am Hashem Who brought you out of Ur Kasdim" (Lech Lecha 15,7). This verse is the
only mention in the Torah in regard to Avrom's escape from the fiery furnace, and even
this verse only hints to its occurrence. It seems strange that the Torah would not
chronicle Avrom's first act of mesiras nefesh on behalf of Hashem.
Furthermore, it appears that Avrom's willingness to surrender his life in the furnace for
Hashem is a greater test than the akeidah (the sacrifice of Yitzchok). At Ur Kasdim it was
Avrom's life at stake, as opposed to the akeidah, where his son, Yitzchok, was called upon
to sacrifice his life. Additionally, when Avrom was tested with the akeidah, Hashem had
already revealed Himself to Avrom. Avrom was not alone in his belief in Hashem, since
many people already followed in the ways of Hashem. In stark contrast, when Avrom
entered the fiery furnace, Hashem had not yet made Himself known to Avrom, and he
was, at that time, the only person in the world who had attained belief in Hashem.
Nonetheless, the akeidah is clearly stated in the Torah, including a detailed account of
the event, in contrast to a mere allusion of Avram's escape from the fiery furnace.
The Chassid Yavetz explains that the test of the akeidah was greater than the test at Ur
Kasdim. Avrom was not commanded by Hashem to forfeit his life by entering the furnace.
Avrom had reached the truth about Hashem through intelligence and understanding,
which did not allow him to act contrary to the truth he had gained. Willingness to sacrifice
for truth is not unique to Avrom, as we find many philosophers who are "lover's of truth"
that are willing to lay down their lives in defense of it.
The akeidah, however, was an act that was totally contrary to reason. In fact, the Chassid
Yavetz explains that the command of Hashem itself was the test of the akeidah.
Sacrificing his son was not only contrary to Avrom's kind nature, it had the potential to
destroy Avrom's purpose in the world - educating people about Hashem being the Ruler
of the world. Avrom taught them that only idol worshippers sacrifice and that Hashem
abhors such practice. Avrom's only motivation in performing the akeidah was the
fulfillment of Hashem's command.
We now understand why the Torah devotes so much attention to the akeidah and only
intimates to what happened at Ur Kasdim. The akeidah was a far more difficult test
because it seemingly defied all reason and was contrary to Avrom's teachings, therefore,
it is more prominently mentioned in the Torah.
FROM THE BOOKSHELF
highlighting seforim and their authors, so that every Jew can derive everlasting pleasure
and benefit from the great Torah wisdom contained within them.)
"Mishna Berurah"
The Mishna Berurah was written by the Chofetz Chaim zt'l, Rabbi Yisroel Meir Ha'Cohen
Kagen. This sefer is a commentary on the section of the Shulchan Aruch known as Orach
Chaim, which pertains to religious observance year round.
The Shulchan Aruch was written a few centuries ago to codify the Written Law.
Voluminous amounts of commentaries have been written on it. Therefore, it became
virtually impossible for anyone but a Torah scholar to study the Shulchan Aruch and glean
the practical application of the law from it.
With his breadth of knowledge and depth of comprehension, the Chofetz Chaim analyzed
8
works of earlier commentaries and the wealth of commentaries written after them. From
this pain staking and tireless endeavor, the Chofetz Chaim was able to reach a proper
halachic ruling on virtually any point in Jewish law regarding daily, Shabbos and Yom Tov
observance and rituals.
Though the Mishna Berurah is considered the decisive source for proper halachic
adherence, the Chofetz did not intend that it should take the place of a qualified Rav. The
Mishna Berurah acts as a guide, furnishing knowledge to determine if one's actions may
be improper or for one to realize that a question may be present and consultation with a
Rav is necessary prior to acting.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
(What is permitted to do in this situation?)
Moshe needs a new copy machine for his business. A salesman brings a copy machine
("Model A") to Moshe's office, for Moshe and his staff to test for a week. The salesman
tells them that they can make an unlimited amount of copies.
Although Moshe's old copy machine is still working, Moshe uses the "demo" for all of the
large copying jobs. Moshe is really impressed with this machine ("Model A") and is
interested in purchasing it. When the salesman returns to check on the situation he offers
Moshe a different model ("Model B") for a week, in order to compare their different
features. With salesman permission, Moshe uses the second "demo" machine ("Model B")
for all of his large copying jobs. At the end of the week, Moshe decides that "Model A" is
the one that he would like to purchase.
If Moshe calls another copy machine company to see if he can procure a better price for
"Model A," is it permissible for Moshe to "accept" a "demo" machine of "Model A" from
this other company, even though he did not request it? Is Moshe obligated to inform the
salesman of the other company that he has already tested this model?
WHO AM I?
1. My contribution was small in number but large in stature.
2. I traded my happiness for another's tears.
3. I sat "idly" instead of rising.
4. My "presence" gains merit for B'nei Yisroel.
Last week's clues and answer: I caused the death of a son; I was different than my
ancestors; I publicized my son's exploits; I worked with "precious" stones - Terach
Congratulations to Mr. Morry Glicksman.
CAN YOU SAY THAT?
Reuven joined a conversation with a group of friends. At the time Reuven joined the
discussion, his friends were discussing permissible matters. Unfortunately, the
conversation turned to lashon hora, but Reuven was unable to leave the group and
cannot bring himself to put his fingers in his ear, fearing that his friends would ridicule
him. What should Reuven do?
Answer: Reuven must firmly resolve to not:
1. believe the lashon hora spoken;
2. be pleased in any way with what he hears;
3. not make any gestures indicating that he agrees with the speakers.
Additionally, if Reuven is able, it would be better if he expressed his displeasure by
showing an unhappy face. (Apples of Gold citing Sefer Chofetz Chaim - Hilchos Lashon
Hora)
TORAH RIDDLE
Which person in Tanach is called after his mother's name ["So and So ben (his mother's
name)]?
9
Last week's question and answer: When is it permissible to wear a garment, which
includes shatnez (besides tzitzis)? When you are trying on the garment that includes
shatnez or the me'il of the Kohen Gadol.
Congratulations to an unidentified e-mailer who reads "Oneg Shabbos" on the Shema
Yisrael Torah Network on the World Wide Web.
THE KOLLEL FAMILY
MAZEL TOV
-Dr. and Mrs. Jeffrey Gross upon the marriage of their daughter Shoshana.
-Mr. and Mrs. Yitzchok Neuman upon their marriage.
-Mr. and Mrs. Harold Schachter on the birth of a grandson.
WELCOME
-Mr. and Mrs. Yitzchok Neuman
To sponsor an issue of Oneg Shabbos, please contact Leib Chaim Krainess, Director of
Kollel
Development
at
(216)
559-0638
or
gkrainess@adelphia.net.
JACK AND INGRID SMILOVITZ
IN HONOR OF THE SPINKA REBBE SHLITA'S VISIT TO CLEVELAND
216-360-9153 / 216-559-0638
4. VAYEIRA
Volume I, Issue 18
Parshas Vayera
PARSHA INSIGHTS
After the angel told Avrohom "not to send forth your hand at the lad (Yitzchok),"
(Vayeira 22,12), Rashi informs us that Avrohom still wanted to cut Yitzchok. If the
angel instructed Avrohom to stop, why did Avrohom still feel compelled to cut
Yitzchok?
The answer to this question is based upon understanding Avrohom's action prior to
embarking on his journey to sacrifice Yitzchok. The Torah states "And Avrohom took
the wood for the offering, and placed it on Yitzchok, his son. He took in his hand the
fire and the knife, and the two of them went together" (Vayeira 22,6). The Ramban
zt"l questions the necessity of Avrohom's bringing wood; certainly there would be
trees at the designated place of sacrifice. The Ramban answers that since the
akeidah was a korban, one must use "kosher for korban wood." Since this may be
difficult to find, one must search for it immediately and not rely on finding it at a
later time and in another place.
The Noam Elimelech puts forth an alternate explanation as to why Avrohom gathered
wood before going to the akeidah. There definitely would be wood to be found by Har
Ha'Moriah. However, Avrohom understood that when one receives a command from
Hashem, one must immediately put the command into action. To insure that a
mitzvah has effect on a person's neshoma, action is necessary. Deep thought and
devotion alone are not enough to influence one's neshoma. Only acting on that holy
thought will cause an impact on one's soul. Since Hashem commanded Avrohom to
leave his home and go to the land of Moriah to do the sacrifice, it was impossible to
implement Hashem's command of bringing Yitzchok on the altar immediately. In
order to immediately effect his neshoma, Avrohom acted at once by gathering wood
for the altar.
The akeidah was one of Avrohom's ten tests. The purpose of a test is not for Hashem
10
to evaluate the person being tested. On the contrary, its purpose is to effect the
person being tested, so he can reach new spiritual levels. With the understanding
that thoughts are of little value and only action can impact one's neshoma, Avrohom
believed that he had to perform an act. According to Avrohom's calculations, not
performing this action would be tantamount to failure, since it would not
permanently effect him. Therefore, although Avrohom was ordered not to slaughter
Yitzchok, he desired to at least cut Yitzchok, as a means of acting on Hashem's
directive. As Rashi states, Avrohom felt that unless he could at least wound Yitzchok
"I have come here for no reason" (Vayeira 22,12).
"On the third day, Avrohom raised his eyes and he saw the place from afar" (Vayeira
22,4). Hoshea (6,2) prophesized that "we shall live from the two days and the third
day shall sustain and keep us alive before Hashem." This prophecy alludes to the
fact that the akeidah provides merit for B'nei Yisroel in this world, protecting us from
harsh decrees that would otherwise befall us.
What is the meaning of "living" because of "two days" and "sustaining us and
keeping us alive" due to the "third day?" Additionally, the Gaon queries how can the
akeidah benefit us in this world, since there is no reward in this world for a mitzvah
(Chulin 142)?
The Gaon answers that one cannot receive a reward in this world for the
performance of a mitzvah because the currency in this world is physical and cannot
be used as payment for a mitzvah, which is spiritual. However, the Gaon is
mechadesh that one can receive reward in this world for zealousness in preparation
for a mitzvah and for enhancing a "mitzvah object."
Avrohom got up early in the morning, saddled his donkey and collected wood
himself. Avrohom acted in this manner because of his love of Hashem and insatiable
desire to fulfill His will. Avrohom's motivation was not merely to perform Hashem's
decree; it was to satisfy the will of Hashem in the most optimal manner. Attitudes in
discharging Hashem's command is not part of the mitzvah itself and, therefore, if
done "above and beyond the call of duty," can garner reward in this world.
With this understanding, the Gaon explains the words of Hoshea brought by the
Medrash. "The two days" refers to the fervent and exceptional manner in which
Avrohom prepared for performing Hashem's command. For those two days of
exuberance in preparation, "we shall live", meaning B'nei Yisroel will be rewarded
and sustained in this world. "The third day" refers to the day on which the akeidah
itself occurred. The performance of the mitzvah itself cannot be rewarded in this
world; however, it will "sustain and keep us alive before Hashem" - in Olam Habah
(World To Come).
FROM THE BOOKSHELF
"Sifsei Chachomim"
The author of the Sifsei Chachomim, Rabbi Shabsai Meshorer zt"l, was orphaned at
the age of fifteen, when both of his parents were killed al kiddush Hashem
(sanctifying God's name). He owned a printing press and printed other people's
seforim, until the non-Jews destroyed it on the guise that he was printing books that
were against their religion.
Did you ever read one of Rashi's comments on the Torah and wonder what prompted
Rashi to write that comment and why Rashi chose to use those exact words? Did you
ever have difficulty understanding the interpretation that Rashi is trying to convey?
In the general introduction to Mikro'os Gedolos, it is written "the Sifsei Chachomim
explains every concept in Rashi which is difficult to comprehend." The Sifsei
Chachomim clarifies which difficult
word or passage in the Chumash caused Rashi to write his elucidation. He also shows
where Rashi's explanation fits in to the words of the verse. Many a time, the Sifsei
Chachomim quotes from other commentaries, as well. One can also find in the Sifsei
11
Chachomim sources from Chazal on which Rashi bases his thoughts. With further
examination into these sources, an advanced Torah scholar may glean a different
perspective on Rashi's words.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
Moshe works downtown and parks his car in a parking garage. Most days, Moshe
leaves work at 6:00 p.m. and pays the parking attendant on the way out.
When the parking attendant has to leave his booth for more than a minute or two, he
raises the gate so that people do not have to wait for him to return. Obviously, if the
parking attendant is not at his post, there is no one to collect the parking fee as the
car exits. If Moshe is exiting the garage when the parking attendant is not there and
the gate is raised, is it permissible for Moshe to leave without paying the fee?
Even it is permissible for Moshe to leave without paying the parking fee, must he pay
the parking attendant the next day?
At 11:00 p.m., when the parking attendant goes home, the gate is raised. If Moshe
leaves work after 11:00 p.m., does he have to pay that day's parking fee to the
attendant when he returns the next day?
WHO AM I?
1. I have the power to transform.
2. My concepts are deep.
3. The Sages spoke volume(s) about me.
4. My existence emanates from the heavens.
Last week's clues and answer: My contribution was small in number but large in
stature; I traded my happiness for another's tears; I sat "idly" instead of rising; My
"presence" gains merit for B'nei Yisroel.- Rochel I'meinu
Congratulations to Mr. Jeffrey Bookman, Rabbi Hillel Drazin, Miriam Brocha Greenfeld,
The Hefter Family, Eli Mann, Mr. Mordechai Matitia, Mr. Neil Parks, Moshe Rom, Yitzi
Schabes, The Speiser boys, and Avi Zuckerman.
CAN YOU SAY THAT?
Should Reuven avoid praising Shimon in public?
Answer: Yes. Listeners could become jealous and speak lashon hora about Shimon.
There are, however, two exceptions:
1. If Shimon is recognized as a great tzadik; or,.
2. If Reuven knows that the listeners will not criticize Shimon, it is permissible to
praise him. Even in this case, Reuven should not praise Shimon excessively.
(Apples of Gold citing Sefer Chofetz Chaim - Hilchos Loshon Hora)
TORAH RIDDLE
Can a child conceived by a non-Jewish mother be considered a Jew, without a
conversion?
Last week's question and answer: Which person in Tanach is called after his mother's
name ["So and So ben (his mother's name)]? Adoniyahu ben Chagis (one of Dovid
Ha'melech's sons), Besuel ben Milcah and Shaul ben Cnanis.
Congratulations to Rabbi Hillel Drazin, Aliza Krainess, Eli Mann and Neil Parks
THE KOLLEL FAMILY
12
MAZEL TOV
-Mr. and Mrs. Harold Schachter on the birth of a grandson.
-Rabbi and Mrs. Yitzchok Scheinerman on the birth of a grandson
-Rabbi and Mrs. Nochum Sokol on the birth of a daughter
FAREWELL
-David Katz upon leaving to study in yeshiva in Israel
Beginning November 3 and continuing until further notice, Motzoei Shabbos Pirchei
learning for boys (bring your fathers) will take place from 7:30 to 8:30.
*University Heights-Beachwood: Cedar-Green Comm. Kollel
*Cleveland Heights: Agudah Building
A class on stress management, with an emphasis on the Torah perspective on
dealing with life's challenges will be sponsored by Kesher. The class will be given by
Rivka Levitansky and Amy Burzinski, LISW. RSVP REQUIRED 378-3405
Location: Mrs. Esther Goodman, 3725 Severn
Time: Tuesday, November 6. 8:00 - 9:30 p.m.
A weekday minyan for Mincha will be held in Downtown Cleveland.
Location: The office of Ehrenreich & Associates, 1130 Leader Building (corner of East
6th
and
Superior).
Time:
12:40
For information call 861-1070
MR. AND MRS. JOEL RATNER
IN HONOR OF THE BIRTH OF THEIR SON, DOV RAPHAEL
216-360-9153 / 216-559-0638
5. CHAYE SARAH
Volume I, Issue 19
WE MOURN THE DEMISE OF THE GODOL HADOR TOGETHER WITH ALL OF KLAL YISROEL
Parshas Chayei Sorah
PARSHA INSIGHTS
The Torah clearly states that the field of Machpelah and its cave, where Avrohom
planned to bury Sorah, was purchased by Avrohom from Ephron. If Avrohom bought
the field from Ephron, why does the Torah seem to suggest that Avrohom purchased
the field and cave from the children of Heth by stating, "Thus, the field stood, and
the cave, that was in it, as Avrohom's as a holding for a grave, from the children of
Heth" (Chayei Sorah 23,20)? If Avrohom purchased the filed from the children of
Heth, they obviously owned the field. However, from the text it seems that Ephron
had complete ownership of the field?
The Brisker Rav zt"l answers that Ephron definitely had sole ownership of the field,
and Avrohom, through his purchase of the field from Ephron, acquired ownership of
the field. However, although this ownership made it possible for him to bury Sorah in
a field that was owned by him, as is mandated by the Gemora in Bava Basra (112a),
it did not insure that the burial place would remain intact eternally. Avrohom needed
to make the cave of Machpelah an "achuzas kaver" (a holding for a grave, which
means a cemetery), so that the grave would never be uprooted for the communal
needs of the city. Halacha dictates that if someone has a grave on his own property,
the city has the right to usurp the land along with the grave, should the city feel it
would benefit the community. This would eave the family of the deceased with the
unpleasant and traumatic task of reburying the dead elsewhere. Avrohom's
13
designating the cave of Machpelah as a burial place was not enough to prevent the
property and grave from being seized from him by eminent domain.
The only manner in which a property could become exempt from eminent domain is
if it is designated by the town itself as a cemetery. Therefore, Avrohom had to gain
permission from the city (the children of Heth), to designate the cave of Machpelah
as a cemetery. Once the city itself designated it for that use, the permanent
existence of the cave of Machpelah was guaranteed to remain a cemetery. Since it
was necessary for Avrohom to acquire permission from the children of Heth in order
to permanently use the land for a cemetery, Avrohom did acquire the land as a
cemetery from the children of Heth, as well as acquiring the grave itself from Ephron.
It can also be said that even if permission from the city to use the land as a
cemetery would not be required in order to prevent the land from subsequently
being taken by eminent domain, Avrohom would still have sought permission from
the children of Heth to make the sight a burial place. It is clearly derech eretz for one
to be concerned about how his actions may affect his fellow neighbors. It is quite
possible that some of the townsfolk would not want a cemetery in their midst, and
therefore, it would not be proper
etiquette for Avrohom to impose his will upon them. By requesting permission from
the children of Heth, Avrohom taught a lesson, that a person who walks in the ways
of Hashem does not allow himself to be driven by his own need and neglect the
feelings of others.
"His sons Yitzchok and Yishmoel buried him in the cave of Machpelah" (Chayei
Sorah 25,9). Rashi cites the words of Chazal that "from here we see that Yishmoel
repented, and let Yitzchok walk ahead of him. This is the 'good old age' which was
said about Avrohom (in the previous verse)."
Yishmoel traveled on the three day journey with Avrohom and Yitzchok, as the Torah
states, "and he took his two young men with him" (Vayeira 22,3). The Targum
Yonason says that the two young men referred to in this verse are Yishmoel and
Eliezer. Since Rashi does not cite the episode of the Yishmoel's returning to the
family and accompanying Avrohom and Yitzchok on this trip to prove that Yishmoel
did teshhuva, it seem that this is not sufficient proof that he did teshuva. Asks Rabbi
Shimon Schwab zt"l, why is this episode not enough proof that he did teshuva?
Rav Schwab answers that although Yishmoel's returning to live in Avrohom's
household and travelling with him during the akeidah demonstrates that Yishmoel
did return to the proper path, it does not indicate Yishmoel's motivation for his
action. Perhaps his decision to repent was out of respect for his father and not a
genuine desire to return to the ways of Hashem.
Only after Avrohom passes on and Yishmoel does not revert to his evil ways, do we
clearly know that Yishmoel's motivation for repentance was a desire to truly return to
Hashem. The order of the funeral procession is the irrefutable sign that Yishmoel's
teshuva was indeed a heartfelt and complete return to Hashem. The acquisition and
display of humility is genuine proof of true repentance, since someone who does not
fully repent will continue to be arrogant and have a desire for honor. By not insisting
that he walk ahead of Yitzchok, although he was older, Yishmoel demonstrated his
ability to forego his honor in recognition of Yitzchok's greatness. This clear display of
Yishmoel's humility could not be attributed to Avrohom's honor, as Avrohom was no
longer on this earth.. Since this verse demonstrates the complete and permanent
nature of Yishmoel's teshuva, it is undeniable proof that Yishmoel returned to
Hashem and thus is the proof cited by Rashi.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
Moshe works downtown and is a participant in a carpool. The four people in the
carpool pay equally for gas and parking. They use their vehicles on an equal basis.
One morning Moshe, who is normally quite punctual, is running late when the
carpool arrives. Moshe hurries as fast as he can, but by the time he gets to the car,
they are already ten minutes behind schedule. The driver, Levi, starts speeding in
14
order to make up for lost time. One of the other passengers urges Levi to continue
speeding; otherwise he will be late for a meeting. Moshe and the fourth passenger
tell Levi to slow down, so that he won't receive a speeding ticket.
As predicted, Levi is stopped by a police officer and is given a speeding ticket. After
the officer leaves, Levi suggests that it would be fair to split the cost of the ticket
between the four of them, since they equally pay for the other costs of travel. Moshe
and the other two passengers disagree. Who is right?
WHO AM I?
1. A switch sometimes is fine.
2. I am the original forty-niner.
3. My name is a lie.
4. I am proof that family does matter.
Last week's clues and answer: Last week's clues and answer: I have the power to
transform; My concepts are deep; The Sages spoke volume(s) about me; My
existence emanates from the heavens - Mikvah
Sorry, no congratulations this week.
CAN YOU SAY THAT?
Shimon acts toward Reuven in a certain manner; Reuven feels slighted and
admonishes Shimon. Shimon defends himself by saying that Levi acted towards you
in a similar manner and you did not rebuke him. Is it permissible for Shimon to have
said this?
Answer: No. Even though Shimon does not mean to harm Levi, it is likely that he will
cause Reuven to be angry with Levi as well.
(Apples of Gold citing Sefer Chofetz Chaim - Hilchos Rechilus)
TORAH RIDDLE
Did Hashem rain down on Sodom and Gomorrah anything else besides sulfur and
fire?
Last week's question and answer: Can a child conceived by a non-Jewish mother be
considered a Jew, without a conversion? Yes, if the mother converts before giving
birth to the child.
Congratulations to Sheera Krainess and Mr. Neil Parks
A REMINDER FROM
SHLOMO HaMELECH
"Do not rob the poor because he is poor.For Hashem will take up their grievance;
He will steal the soul from those who would steal from them" (Mishlei 22,22-23).
Rashi explains that one who steals from a poor person thinks that the poor will not
have the power to defend themselves. Shlomo HaMelech informs us that this is a
grievous error, since Hashem will defend the poor.
Rashi and Metzudas Dovid add that one who steals from a poor person is punished
with death. We must understand why is the punishment of death meted out to one
who steals from the poor.
The Ralbag explains that since the poor person does not have many possessions,
when one steals from him, he is stealing his life. Therefore, the "midah keneged
midah (measure for measure punishment)" is death to the thief.
Rabbeinu Yonah explains the reason for the punishment of death as follows. Since
the thief steals from the poor thinking that no one will defend them, this in essence
is a greater denial of Hashem. One who denies Hashem on such a level is punished
with death.
15
THE KOLLEL FAMILY

MAZEL TOV
-Mr. and Mrs. Richard Warn on the Bar Mitzvah of their son, Moshe Yechezkel
CONDOLENCES
-Mr. Joseph Shafran on the passing of his mother
The Cedar-Green Community Kollel Friday Evening Parsha Classes will convene this
week at 8:00 at the following location:
*The Huntington-Green Apts.: Contact Rabbi Levi 381-1617
An early afternoon minyan for Mincha will be held in the Cedar-Center Area:
Location: The Schwartz Law Firm, 13967 Cedar Road,
Suite 208 (above Yacov's Restaurant) Time: Monday - Thursday at 1:15
For information call Roger Kozuch at 397-5890
of Kollel Development at (216) 559-0638 or gkrainess@adelphia.net.
THIS WEEK'S ONEG SHABBOS IS SPONSORED BY MR. AND MRS. ANDY LEFKOWITZ
IN HONOR OF THEIR NEW DAUGHTER, BAYLA RIVKA
216-360-9153 / 216-559-0638
6. TOLEDOTH
Volume I, Issue 20
Parshas Toldos
PARSHA INSIGHTS
The Torah's description of the essence of Yacov and Eisav does not recount their
deeds and actions, such as Yacov being constantly involved in learning or that Eisav
was a fearless hunter. Instead, the Torah describes Yacov as being a "yosheiv oholim
(lived in Torah tents)" and Eisav as an "ish yodeah tsayid, ish sodeh (a man who
knew trapping, a man of the field)" (Toldos 25, 27). Why does the Torah choose to
describe them in such general terms rather than detailing their actions?
Before explaining this seeming lack of a sufficient portrayal of Yacov and Eisav, we
must know the meaning of these terms. Yonason ben Uziel explains that "yosheiv
oholim" means that Yacov constantly sought Torah and that "ish yodeah tsayid, ish
sodeh" means that Eisav was idle. Although these words do not provide us with a
portrait of the many accomplishments of Yacov and the deficient actions of Eisav,
they are a window into their very core.
Rabbi Yeruchom Levovitz zt"l, the mashgiach of the Mirrer Yeshiva, expounds this
idea in the following manner. By informing us that Yacov constantly sought Torah, the
Torah is relaying to us the cause of Yacov's actions. Yacov's constant search for
knowledge of Torah was the cause for the outstanding way of life that Yacov lived.
Eisav, on the other hand, did not evolve into a rasha (evil one) because he chose the
life of a hunter. His travels down the "wrong path" are a result of his idleness. Not
only was Eisav not interested in acquiring Torah knowledge, he explicitly sought out
a life of emptiness. Hunting and physical desires were not the root of Eisav's evil. His
nature of "hangin' around" was the source of Eisav's delinquent actions.
When one is confronted with a problem in his personal way of life, Reb Yeruchom
advises that he should always search for the source which caused it. If one has not
16
aspired to G-dliness and spiritual growth, then the "proper path" definitely has
become blurred, eventually leading him on to the "wrong path."
"So he (Yitzchok) drew close and kissed him (Yacov)and blessed him; he said,
'. may Hashem give you of the dew of the heavens and of the fatness of the
earth' " (Toldos 27, 27-28).
This particular blessing that Yitzchok bestowed upon Yacov does not appear to be
unique to Yacov. It seems that Eisav received the exact same blessing, as the Torah
states, "So Yitzchok his father answered, and said (to Eisav), 'Behold, of the fatness
of the earth shall be your dwelling and of the dew of the heavens from above' "
(Toldos 27, 39). Why would Yitzchok bless Yacov and Eisav with the same brocho?
The Chofetz Chaim explains that although both blessings deal with physical
abundance, the manner in which the blessings will be granted, differ greatly. By
mentioning "the dew of the heavens" before "the fatness of the earth" in the
blessing of Yacov, Yitzchok is expressing that the blessing for physical abundance is
contingent on proper spiritual behavior. Therefore, Yacov and his descendants will
only be granted the blessing of material wealth if they properly serve Hashem.
Failure to adhere to Hashem's commandments will result in Yacov's blessing of
wealth not being fulfilled.
On the other hand, the blessing for physical wealth that Yitzchok gave Eisav is in
reverse order, since it mentions "the fatness of the earth" prior to "the dew of the
heavens." This indicates that Eisav's blessing for physical wealth is not dependent on
his service to Hashem. Eisav and his descendants will be blessed with material
success regardless of whether they will comply with Hashem's dictates.
However, it is difficult to understand why Yitzchok made material success contingent
upon the fulfillment of the spiritual, since Yitzchok, at that moment, thought that he
was actually blessing Eisav?
Yitzchok thought that if Eisav would be rewarded with physical wealth for proper
service of Hashem, it would provide the impetus for Eisav to travel the "proper path"
and fulfill his potential. This is consistent with the Rishonim who are of the opinion
that Yitzchok's desire to give Eisav the blessing was borne out of hope that Eisav
would do teshuva. Yitzchok knew that Eisav's potential to reach higher levels in
spirituality were within his power, and Yitzchok wanted to explore all avenues in
assisting Eisav to reach that goal.
However, once Yitzchok realized that Eisav would not become the person that he had
hoped for and envisioned, Yitzchok altered the blessing for Eisav. He no longer
conditioned that the physical be based on the spiritual, since he knew quite well that
Eisav would never be able to fulfill this condition.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
The school that Yisroel attends provides snacks for all of the children. Yisroel's class
is allowed to take these snacks without the supervision of a teacher or other school
official.
Yisroel has a thirty-minute bus ride home and gets very hungry during the ride. Is it
permissible for Yisroel to take some of these snacks for the bus ride home?
Would your answer be different if Yisroel only had a five minute walk to his home?
WHO AM I?
1. My mother is my sister.
2. My brother is my nephew.
3. My grandfather is my father.
4. My sister is my aunt.
Last week's clues and answer: A switch sometimes is fine; I am the original forty-
17
niner; My name is a lie; I am proof that family does matter - Lavan
Congratulations to Mr. Jeff Bookman, Rabbi Avrohom Matitia and Mr. Harvey Schabes
CAN YOU SAY THAT?
Shimon is exploring the possibility of entering into a business partnership with Levi.
Shimon asks Reuven about Levi's business acumen and current resources. If Reuven
knows that Levi is poor or an unsuccessful businessman, can Reuven warn Shimon
and advise him not to enter into a business partnership with Levi?
Answer: No. Reuven should remove himself from Shimon's questioning by saying, "I
cannot advise you, because I do not know Levi's situation very well." (Apples of Gold
citing Sefer Chofetz Chaim)
For Shimon to determine Levi's financial situation and business aptitude, he should
request that Levi submit his financial papers to him for review.
TORAH RIDDLE
Which food grows in plant form or on a tree requires the recital of the brocha of
shehakol?
Last week's question and answer: Did Hashem rain down on Sodom and Gomorrah
anything else besides sulfur and fire? Yes, salt.
Congratulations to Rabbi Yacov Sanders
THE KOLLEL FAMILY
MAZEL TOV
-Rabbi and Mrs. Moshe Stoll on the engagement of their son, Sender
-Rabbi and Mrs. Naphtali Burnstein on the Bar Mitzvah of their son, Mordechai
CONDOLENCES
-Rabbi Yochanon Greenwald on the passing of his mother
The Cedar-Green Community Kollel Friday Evening Parsha Classes will convene this
week at 8:00 at the following locations:
*Beachwood: Contact Rabbi Katz 360-9153
*The Huntington-Green Apts.:
-Rabbi Nadoff's group: Mr. David Keller
14352 Cedar Rd.
-Rabbi Levi's group: Rabbi Benyomin Levi
2200 Milton Rd.
-Rabbi Newman's group: Contact Rabbi Newman
381-4497
*University Hts: Contact Rabbi Charlop 291-8981
THIS WEEK'S ONEG SHABBOS IS SPONSORED BY MR. LENNY GLAZER
IN MEMORY OF HIS FATHER, SHMUEL ben BORUCH MENACHEM
216-360-9153 / 216-559-0638
7. WAJETZE
Volume I, Issue 21
Parshas Vayeitzei
PARSHA INSIGHTS
In the Pesach Haggada it states, "Lavan beekeish la'akor es hakol, which means that
Lavan sought to uproot the Jewish nation.
18
There are two places in Parshas Vayeitzei, which indicate that Lavan planned to
perpetrate some type of mischief upon Yacov. The first instance occurs when
Hashem comes to Lavan in a dream and warns, "Beware lest you speak with Yacov
either good or bad" (Vayeitzei 31,24). The second indication is Lavan's statement to
Yacov that "there is power in my hand to do you harm" (Vayeitzei 31,29). However,
neither of these two passages actually recount that Lavan had any designs to
destroy both Yacov and his entire family. In fact, Lavan says to Yacov, "Yet to my
daughters - what could I do to them this day? Or to their children whom they have
borne" (Vayeitzei 31,43). Why then does the Ba'al Haggada state that Lavan wanted
to destroy the Jewish nation?
Rav Yacov Kaminetzky zt"l explains that the source for stating that Lavan was
interested in eradicating Yacov is contained in the incident of Yacov and Lavan
making the covenant with each other. Upon consummating the covenant, the Torah
relates that Lavan said, "May the G-d of Avrohom and the god of Nachor judge
between us - the god of their father (Terach). And Yacov swore by the dread of his
father Yitzchok" (Vayeitzei 31,53). Rav Kaminetzky observes that upon analyzing the
words of Yacov and Lavan, we find that although Lavan mentions Avrohom while
sealing the covenant, Yacov does not mention Avrohom at all - Yacov swears by
Yitzchok.
Rav Kaminetzky explains the difference as follows. Yacov and Lavan, by choosing
different fathers by whom to connect, were sending clear additional messages to
each other. Lavan desired to have his family and Yacov's family mingle and co-exist.
That is why Lavan connects Avrohom's G-d to Nachor's god, with Terach as the
common denominator. By making this connection, Lavan is stating to Yacov that
since we share the same "yichus (lineage)," we are really one family. Yacov, by
connecting himself to Yitzchok, was declaring that although we originate from one
great grandfather, we are two distinctly different families. With this declaration,
Yacov clearly expressed that he did not desire to associate any further with Lavan,
since he knew quite well that Lavan's influence would corrupt his family and
assimilate them into oblivion. Therefore, although Yacov was making a covenant with
Lavan, he was determined to clarify that it was only a peace pact, not a desire to live
together.
With these observations, we can now understand the Ba'al Haggada's statement that
"Lavan sought to uproot the Jewish nation." Lavan's desire to unite his family with
Yacov's, in essence, is a plan of destruction for the Jewish people.
".he took from the stones of the place and he put them around his head, and lay
down in that place" (Vayeitzei 28,11). In commenting on the verse "and lay down in
that place," Rashi says, "In that place he laid down, but (during) the fourteen years
that he served in the House of Eiver, he did not lay down at night, because he was
occupied with (the study of) Torah."
Rav Chaim Shmulevitz zt"l questions the ability of a person to survive for fourteen
years without sleep? Such a feat is only possible through a miracle, however Rashi
does not mention that a miracle occurred.
Rav Shmulevitz explains that Yacov's ability to remain awake for fourteen years
indeed was a natural occurrence and not the product of a nes (miracle). This
capability was a direct result of Yacov's committed desire to study Torah. Yacov's
total dedication to this goal caused Yacov to be able to focus all of his strength and
efforts towards this objective.
A similar display of "super human" strength by Yacov is found in an additional
episode in this week's Parsha. Yacov travels to Lavan's home and comes upon a well.
The shepherds who are waiting at the well state that "we are unable to (water our
flocks) until all the flocks have been gathered and they will roll the stone from upon
the mouth of the well" (Vayeitzei 29,8). When Yacov saw Rochel coming towards
the well with her flock, "Yacov came forward and rolled the stone from upon the
mouth of the well." (Vayeitzei 29,10). Rashi explains that Yacov's strength was so
great that he removed the rock as if "removing a plug from the mouth of a flask."
Rav Shmulevitz observes that this demonstration of strength by Yacov was not due
to his physical prowess. He bases this opinion on the following verse in the Prayer for
19
Rain (which is recited on Shemini Atzeres) - "yichad leiv v'gal even (he dedicated his
heart and rolled a stone)."
This verse implies that the strength to roll the stone was borne out of his "yichad
leiv". We definitely do not beseech Hashem for rain on the basis of Yacov's physical
strength. Our prayers to receive rain are based on the merit of Yacov's committed
desire to perform His will.
In regard to Yacov's not sleeping for fourteen years, this same characteristic of Yacov
was in play. It was the power of Yacov's "yichad leiv" for the study of Torah that gave
him the strength to stay awake for fourteen years without sleep.
These "super human" acts by Yacov are proof that a person who focuses his power
and concentrates all of his efforts on a certain goal can accomplish deeds which are
beyond normal capabilities. Rav Shmulevitz relates that stories have been told of
people who, rachmona litzlan (heaven forbid), had fires in their homes and through
their focus on saving themselves and others, generated power and energy above
their normal strength. As a result, they were able to perform incredible feats and
move objects that would that normally require several people to lift.
Rav Shmulevitz concludes that everyone is capable of rolling a stone from the mouth
of a well - only lack of focus and determination prevents it from happening.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
A synagogue would like to hire a Rabbi. A committee has been involved in
interviewing a Rabbi for the position. It has never been mentioned that another
Rabbi was being considered. As far as the Rabbi who was interviewed understands,
the only reason for the delay in his hiring was "logistical" problems.
While the synagogue and the Rabbi are attempting to iron out these "logistical"
problems, another Rabbi is recommended for the position. It will take several weeks
until the synagogue can interview and assess whether the second Rabbi is a viable
choice. When must the synagogue notify the first Rabbi that another Rabbi is being
considered for the position?
Would your answer differ if the second Rabbi is a long shot and there is a concern
that the first Rabbi will be alienated by the implication that the synagogue is
considering others for this position?
WHO AM I?
1. I am praised for my praises.
2. My ancestor was from my father.
3. I fired the "shot" heard around the "world."
4. The despised rock became the cornerstone.
Last week's clues and answer: My mother is my sister; My brother is my nephew; My
grandfather is my father; My sister is my aunt - Amon or Ben Ammi
Congratulations to Mr. Shmully Halpern, The Hefter Family, Amram Kaplovitz, Rabbi
Yonah Krainess, The Mendenhall Family, Mr. Neil Parks and Dr. Jeff Solomon.
CAN YOU SAY THAT?
Shimon is not embarrassed if other people know that he does not properly practice a
certain mitzvah, since many people neglect this mitzvah, as well. Is it permissible for
Reuven to tell others about Shimon's neglect of this mitzvah, under these
circumstances?
Answer: No. This would be loshon hora, even if others knowing it would not
embarrass Shimon. (Apples of Gold citing Sefer Chofetz Chaim - hilchos loshon hora)
20
TORAH RIDDLE
Is it possible for a bechor (first born male) not to receive a double portion of his
father's inheritance?
Last week's question and answer: Which food grows in plant form or on a tree
requires the recital of the brocha of shehakol? Palm shoots. Produce that is normally
eaten cooked, however, is being eaten raw (like onions and potatoes), or any
produce that is normally eaten raw but is being eaten cooked (like a banana),
requires a brocho of shehakol.
Congratulations to Mr. Shmully Halpern, The Hefter Family, Yitzi Schabes and Avi
Zuckerman
8. WAJISHLACH
Volume I, Issue 22
Parshas Vayishlach
PARSHA INSIGHTS
At the beginning of the Parsha, Yacov sends angels to Eisav and instructs them to
say, "I have sojourned (gartee) with Lavan and have lingered until now" (Vayishlach
32,5). Rashi cites the words of Chazal which expound on this statement of Yacov as
follows, "The numerical value of gartee is six hundred thirteen, as if to say 'I
sojourned with Lavan, the evil one, yet I kept the six hundred thirteen
commandments and I did not learn from his evil actions.' " How is it possible for
Yacov to have spent so many years with a rasha such as Lavan and leave unscathed
and untainted?
Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik zt"l, Yerushalayim, explains that the Torah actually
provides us with an answer in the very next passage. Yacov further instructs the
angels to tell Eisav that "I have acquired (va'yehee lee) ox and donkey, flock and
servant." (Vayishlach 32,6). Though "va'yehee lee" is commonly translated as "I
have acquired," the literal translation is "and it was to me."
With these words, Yacov was essentially stating his assessment of Lavan. Yacov
viewed Lavan as an animal - an "ox and donkey." Since Yacov considered Lavan no
better than an animal, he was able to protect himself from acquiring the negative
qualities of Lavan. Would a person eat off the ground or roll in the mud because he
observed this behavior in an animal?
Using this insight, the word "it" in the verse "and it was to me" refers to Lavan and
assessing him as having the spiritual value of an ox or donkey.
One must remember, that upon observing someone who relinquishes his status as a
"person" with actions of an animal, he must perceive his essence as that of an
animal. With this approach, one guarantees for himself that he will not learn from
that behavior.
It is important for us to remember that our ancestors which are discussed in the
Torah, were righteous beyond our comprehension. It is, therefore, improper to think
that they were motivated and driven by the same pettiness and trivialities that
control our actions. The manner in which the story of Dina and Shechem is often
understood, places Dina and her avenging brothers in a bad light. The Chasam Sofer,
however, offers some penetrating insights into this incident, casting positive
understanding into Dinah's character and her subsequent actions.
The Torah relates that "Dinah, the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Yacov,
went out to look over the daughters of the land" (Vayishlach 34,1). Rashi comments
that Torah describes Dinah as the daughter of Leah, as opposed to the daughter of
Yacov, because just as Leah "went out," so did Dinah follow in those ways. This
statement can be understood in two opposite ways, one describing Leah and Dinah
negatively and the other in a positive light.
In Parshas Vayeitzei (30,16) the Torah states that "Leah went out to meet Yacov"
after she procured the right to spend private time with him. This action by Leah can
21
be understood as improper, since she was discussing a private matter publicly.
Based on this interpretation, it seems that Rashi is saying that just as Leah "went
out" in open pursuit of private matters, so too Dinah "went out" amongst the
daughters of the land with a similar objective, portraying her in a negative way as
well.
However, upon a closer examination of Leah's "going out," the Torah is actually
revealing the purity of Leah's actions. The Chasam Sofer observes that the outcome
of this incident with Leah was the birth of Yissachar. The tribe of Yissachar became
the talmidei chochomim of B'nei Yisroel. If Leah had acted improperly, then a product
such as Yissachar would not have resulted. Therefore, when Leah "went out" to meet
Yacov, it was not for selfish reasons. Leah's meeting with Yacov was driven by holy
and pure intentions, which produced a major foundation upon which Jewish life is
built.
In comparing Leah to Dina, Rashi is actually informing us that Dina "went out" with
pure motives. The Chasam Sofer explains that Dinah "went out" in order to observe
the "daughters of the land" and learn from their actions which behavior to avoid. A
similar idea is stated in Chazal (Avoda Zora), about a Tanna who stood by the door of
a house of ill repute to learn how "not to behave."
Dinah would not, however, have ventured out "into the world" unless she felt that
her father's merit would protect her, as we find that Avrohom's merit protected
Sorah from Pharaoh and Avimelech. Unfortunately for Dinah, she did not realize that
Hashem would only prevent her from becoming defiled if the perpetrator and not
only the "defiled" merited divine intervention. Sorah was saved because Pharaoh
and Avimelech had merit, which caused Hashem to protect them from sinning.
Shechem, on the other hand, had no merit at all, so Hashem did not prevent him
from acting.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
Boruch was sent by his company to attend a one-day conference. The conference
concluded 3:00 p.m., however Boruch's workday is not over until 5:00 p.m. It is
possible for Boruch to return to the office by 4:00 p.m. In previous similar situations,
Boruch's boss had allowed Boruch to go straight home from the conference.
Today, Boruch would like to return to the office to complete personal work that on
other days he had been doing at the office after the end of the workday. Is it
permissible for Boruch to return to the office at 4:00 and do personal work, since he
did have permission to go home and not return to the office? Is there a problem of
maaris ayin since Boruch's co-workers and boss may think that he is tending to
personal matters on company time?
WHO AM I?
1. My name was my contents.
2. I am an escort into the palace.
3. I am Biblically designated but Rabbinically ordained.
4. I change with the times.
Last week's clues and answer: I am praised for my praises; My ancestor was from my
father; I fired the "shot" heard around the "world;" The despised rock became the
cornerstone - Dovid HaMelech (King David) Congratulations to The Bein brothers,
Morry Glicksman, Yitzchok Matitia, Mr. Neil Parks, Mrs. Ahuva Schabes and The
Solomon brothers
CAN YOU SAY THAT?
Is there ever any circumstance where Reuven may tell others that Shimon had
embarrassed, damaged or robbed another person?
Answer: Yes; based on the following seven conditions:
1) Reuven has first hand knowledge of the misdeed, such as Reuven must have seen
22
it occur himself.
2) Reuven must determine that the act that he saw was indeed improper.
3) Reuven must have first attempted to correct the wrongdoer.
4) Reuven must not exaggerate any part of the story while relying it.
5) Reuven's intention to report the misdeed must be for a good purpose, such as
a) Reuven desires to help the person who was damaged or robbed recover
compensation;
b)
Reuven
wants
to
influence
the
wrongdoer
to
do
teshuva;
c) Reuven wants to discourage others from acting in a similar manner.
6) Reuven has no other way to accomplish this permissible goal.
7) Reuven must be sure that the consequences to the wrongdoer, which will result by
Reuven's discussing the matter with others, will not be more severe than the
penalties that a beis din (Torah court) would impose.
(Apples of Gold citing Sefer Chofetz Chaim - hilchos loshon hora)
TORAH RIDDLE
Is it possible for someone to be half Cohen and half Yisroel?
Last week's question and answer: Is it possible for a bechor (first born male) not to
receive a double portion of his father's inheritance? Yes. If the bechor is an only
child; if the bechor dies before his father and the bechor is childless; or if the bechor
chooses to not take a double portion.
Congratulations to Yosef Hillel Bein
9. WAJESHEV
Volume I, Issue 23
Parshas Vayeishev
PARSHA INSIGHTS
"These are the chronicles (toldos) of Yacov, Yosef" (Vayeishev 37,2). Though the word
toldos generally means "offspring," Rashi interprets this word as a reference to the
wanderings and resettlements of Yacov's kin. However, we must understand why is
Yosef chosen as the representative of Yacov's children when the Torah discusses their
wanderings?
The Chofetz Chaim explains that Yosef was singled out in this verse as the toldos of
Yacov, because more than anyone else, Yosef epitomized the idea that trials and
tribulations of exile ultimately lead to positive results. When Yosef was sold by his
brothers to the Ishmaelites, it appeared that no good could result from it. Yosef was
separated from his father and entered slavery. To further exacerbate the situation,
Yosef is wrongfully accused by Potiphar's wife and is incarcerated. Though at the
time it was impossible to fathom anything positive resulting from his predicament, all
of these occurrences were a precursor to Yosef's rise to power and the fulfillment of
his dreams.
By singling out Yosef as the offspring of Yacov, the Torah is foreshadowing the history
of the Jewish nation, as the Ramban zt"l (Vayishlach 32, 44) teaches us that
everything which happened to our forefathers is an indication of what will occur to
future generations (maaseh avos siman la'bonim). Just as Yacov's immediate
offspring, namely Yosef, endured the pains of exile and wandering, so will Yacov's
descendants face the suffering of exiles and persecutions by the hands of many
nations. However, this legacy is not one of suffering without meaning. It is the
message that at the "end of the day" the Jewish people will benefit from the trials
and tribulations, which they endure. Then the whole world will reach the realization
of the greatness of the one true G-d and the Jewish People.
After interpreting the dream of the sar ha'mashkim (Chamberlain of the Cupbearers),
Yosef says to him, "If only you would think of me with yourself when he (Pharaoh)
benefits you, and you will do me a kindness, if you please, and mention me to
Pharaoh, then you would get me out of this building" (Vayeishev (40, 14). Chazal in
23
Shemos Rabbah state that by Yosef placing his faith in the sar ha'mashkim,
requesting that the sar ha'mashkim mention him to Pharaoh, Yosef demonstrated a
lack of faith in Hashem. As a result of this lack of faith in Hashem, Yosef was
punished by Hashem with two years being added to his ten year prison sentence.
Since a person is not supposed to rely on a miracle but must act in accordance with
the natural workings of the world by doing hishtadlus, why was Yosef punished for
asking the sar ha'mashkim to remember him?
Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l explains that Hashem protects the righteous and personally
delivers their salvation. Therefore, Yosef knew that the entire incident with the sar
ha'mashkim and sar ha'ofim (Chamberlain of the Bakers) was produced by Hashem
for his benefit. It could not be mere coincidence that two officers of Pharaoh's court
would be in jail and both have dreams at the same time that Yosef was there. This
was clearly Hashem's hand and Yosef did not need to enlist the "help" of any human
to gain his release from prison. Yosef did not need to do any hishtadlus, since he
should have realized that he was being taken care of by Hashem. By making any
request at all to the sar ha'mashkim, Yosef demonstrated a lack of faith in Hashem's
ability to release him from prison.
Rav Moshe further comments that the Mishna in Idiyos (2,10) states that Hashem's
maximum punishment in this world (and in Olom Haboh) for the commission of a sin
is one year. Based on this, Yosef should have been imprisoned for only one additional
year. Therefore, one must understand why was Yosef sentenced by Hashem to
remain in prison for two additional years?
Rav Moshe explains that Yosef actually committed two separate transgressions when
he requested the sar ha'mashkim to remember him. Firstly, as explained above,
Yosef should not have made any request of the sar ha'mashkim, and was, therefore,
punished with one additional year of incarceration. Secondly, Rashi states, "Since
Yosef depended upon him (sar ha'mashkim) to remember him, he had to remain
imprisoned for two (more) years, as it says (in Tehillim 40,5), 'Fortunate is the man
who has placed his reliance upon Hashem, and does not turn to arrogant ones.' This
means 'and did not rely upon Egypt,' which is called arrogant one" (Vayeishev
40,23). Since Yosef placed his future in the hands of an arrogant person, this action
was a desperate move by Yosef to free himself, which demonstrates an even greater
lack of faith by Yosef in Hashem. This additional infraction resulted in him being
punished with a second year of imprisonment.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
Boruch's car was not working properly, so he requested the mechanic that he
regularly uses to look at his car. The mechanic told Boruch that the car needed a
new starter and quoted him a price of one hundred eighty dollars. Boruch told the
mechanic that he would bring the car back for repair the next day.
On the suggestion of a friend, Boruch called another mechanic to get a quote on a
starter. The second mechanic gave him a quote of one hundred fifty dollars.
Is it permissible for Boruch to have the second mechanic fix his car, since he already
made a verbal agreement with the first mechanic for him to do the work? Should
Boruch at least give the first mechanic a chance to match the one hundred fifty
dollar quote from the other mechanic?
Even if Boruch has no halachic obligation to the first mechanic, should Boruch still
keep his word, since Chazal (Bava Metziah 44a) state that a person who reneges on
a verbal agreement to buy or sell something will receive the same "payment" as
those who were "paid" during the generation of the flood?
WHO AM I?
1. I have a "poor" foundation.
2. My protection is now only spiritual.
3. I have remained despite the fall of others.
24
4. I contain more notes than an entire opera.
Last week's clues and answer: My name was my contents; I am an escort into the
palace; I am Biblically designated but Rabbinically ordained; I change with the times
- The Shemoneh Esrei
Congratulations to Mr. Mordechai Matitia
CAN YOU SAY THAT?
Shimon receives tzedaka from the community charity fund. A rumor has surfaced
that Shimon actually does have money, and is only pretending to be poor. Is it
permissible to believe this report?
Answer: No. The community fund should continue giving Shimon tzedaka. However,
a proper investigation, under the auspices of Rabbonim, should be conducted to
verify if there is any validity to the rumor.
TORAH RIDDLE
How is it possible for someone to be obligated to recite only an al hamichya after he
had washed, said hamotzi and ate at least a k'zayis?
Last week's question and answer: Last week's question and answer: Is it possible for
someone to be a half Cohen and half Yisroel ? Yes. A shifcha (non-Jewish woman
slave) is owned by two different people and one of the owners frees her. After being
freed by one of the owners she becomes pregnant and the father is a Cohen. When
the child is born the shifcha is still owned by one of the owners. Upon being freed by
this owner, the boy will be a half Cohen from his father and a half Yisroel because
when an eved Canaani (non-Jewish slave) is freed, he becomes a Yisroel.
10. MIKETZ
Volume I, Issue 24
Parshas Mikeitz
PARSHA INSIGHTS
"All the land of Egypt hungered, and the people cried out to Pharaoh for bread. So
Pharaoh said to all of Egypt, 'Go to Yosef. Whatever he says to you, you should do' "
(Mikeitz (41,55). Rashi, citing a Midrash (Bereishis Rabba 9,15), explains that the
verse "Whatever he says to you, you should do'" indicates that Yosef told the
Egyptians that they should have themselves circumcised before he would give them
food.
This command by Yosef is very difficult to comprehend. What did Yosef wish to
accomplish by requiring the Egyptians to be circumcised? Yosef was definitely not
attempting to convert the Egyptians, since a conversion which is forced is not valid,
as Rav Yacov Kaminetzky zt"l explains.
The Yifeh To'ar states that Yosef did not actually circumcise the Egyptians; he
preached to them about the evils of their licentious behavior. Since Egyptian society
was more promiscuous than all other societies, as documented by the Torah (Lech
Lecha 12,19 and Achrei Mos 18,3), Yosef sought to eradicate this behavior. Why was
Yosef so interested in uprooting promiscuity from Egyptian society?
Rav Kaminetzky states that the Mekubalim write that the reason Hashem arranged
for Yosef to precede his family to Egypt was for the sole purpose of making their
living in exile as easy and comfortable as possible. An environment which fosters and
encourages improper behavior would definitely make life difficult, spiritually
speaking. In order to accommodate his family's sensitivity to holiness, Yosef made it
a point to correct and uproot the Egyptians' promiscuous behavior.
This concept that Hashem desired to reduce the pains of exile is found elsewhere in
the Parsha, as well. The attitude towards the Jews, which existed prior to Yacov and
his family's coming to Egypt, was one of ridicule and disdain. This "looking down"
25
upon the Jews by the Egyptians is clearly seen by the fact that the Egyptians would
not allow the Jews to eat with them. The Egyptians also constantly used a derogatory
term - "Ivri," when addressing and referring to the Jews. Potiphar's wife labeled Yosef
an "ish Ivri" (Vayeishev 39,14) and the sar hamashkim called him a "naar Ivri"
(Mikeitz 41,12). This attitude towards the Jews was borne out of the enormous
arrogance of the Egyptian people. This haughtiness would also make it very difficult
for the B'nei Yisroel to lead a comfortable life in Egypt.
Hashem devised a plan by which to eradicate this anti-Jewish sentiment. Since Egypt
was the "breadbasket of the world" (Kesuvos 111a), the Egyptians felt that they were
the source of sustenance to the entire world. This attitude also contributed to the
arrogance of the Egyptians, and therefore, for this reason, Hashem specifically struck
Egypt with a famine. A blow of such proportion would be a sobering wake up call to
the Egyptians that they were not supreme. To further this humiliation, Hashem,
through Pharaoh, placed Yosef in control of the food, so that the Egyptians would
need to come on to a Jew for sustenance. Dispersing the Egyptians all over the land
of Egypt was also a plan by Yosef to reduce the arrogance of the Egyptians over the
Jews, since exile brings humility to man (Rambam Hilchos Teshuva 2,4). Breaking the
conceited attitude of the Egyptians and ridding the Egyptian environment of
promiscuity were actions by Hashem and Yosef to make Bnei Yisroel a bit more
comfortable, spiritually and emotionally, during their exile.
The jug of oil that the Chashmonayim found contained enough oil to burn for one
day. In light of this fact, the Bais Yosef asks why is Chanukah celebrated for eight
days instead of seven?
Although there are a variety of answers, the Gemora (Shabbos 21B) provides an
answer that contains an insight into the indomitable spirit of the Jewish people. The
Gemora states, "For when the Greeks entered the Sanctuary, they contaminated all
the (flasks of) oil that were in the Sanctuary, and when the Royal Chashmonayim
house gained the upper hand and vanquished them, (the Chashmonayim) 'searched'
(the Heichel area) and found only one flask of oil that was lying (out of sight) with
the Kohen Gadol's seal (still intact)." In reality, the word "searched" is unnecessary,
since the omission of "searched" will not alter the meaning of the sentence - "and
when the Royal Chashmonayim house gained the upper hand and vanquished them,
(the Chashmonayim) found only one flask of oil"
The extra word "searched" teaches us that the searching itself was a miracle. The
fact that the Jews had been under Greek domination for fifty three years (Rambam in
Igeres Teiman) would have been sufficient to break their will and desire to perform
mitzvos at all. However, not only did they seek to perform the mitzvah of rekindling
the menorah upon regaining control of the Beis Hamikdash, they desired to execute
this mitzvah in the most desirable way - with pure olive oil sealed by the Kohen
Godol. They searched and explored until they finally found a flask filled with oil
suitable for lighting the menorah. Even after many years of oppression and hardship
under Greek oppression, the Jewish soul had not been extinguished and burned ever
so bright - a true miracle for which we celebrate on the first day of Chanukah.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
Boruch was backing out of his driveway in his mini-van when he heard a cracking
sound coming from his back wheel. Boruch got out of his car and discovered that his
neighbor's six year old child had left a scooter underneath the back wheel of
Boruch's van. The only way possible for Boruch to have noticed the scooter prior to
backing out, would have been to have actually looked behind the back wheel. Is
Boruch obligated to pay for damaging the scooter?
Would you answer be different if the scooter had been left by a teenager?
What would be the halacha if the same scenario happened with one slight difference
- Boruch's mini-van was parked in the street in front of his house and he backed up
over the scooter?
Would the above answer also apply if Boruch was parked a bit down the block, not in
26
front of his house, and backed up over the scooter?
Would your answer be the same if the scooter belonged to a non-Jewish child?
WHO AM I?
1. My existence is mundane but spiritual.
2. I am not equal.
3. When it comes to a mitzvah everyone holds by me.
4. I help safeguard your observance.
Last week's clues and answer: I have a "poor" foundation; My protection is now only
spiritual; I have remained despite the fall of others; I contain more notes than an
entire opera - The Kosel Ha'maaravi
Congratulations to the Bein Brothers, the Brejt Family, Mrs. Miriam Elbaz, the Hefter
Family, Mr. Boruch Kramer, Dovid Kramer, Mr. Eric Mack, the Mann Family and Mr.
Neil Parks
CAN YOU SAY THAT?
Shimon and Levi witness Yehuda stealing and testify about this incident at a beis din
(a Torah court). Can Shimon and Levi repeat this testimony to others outside of beis
din?
Answer: No. This would be loshon hora and it is not permitted to believe their words.
However, those who hear the report should take proper precautions to prevent
damage to themselves.
TORAH RIDDLE
How is it possible for a woman to have two husbands at the same time?
Last week's question and answer: How is it possible for someone to be obligated to
recite only an al hamichya after he had washed, said hamotzi and ate at least a
k'zayis? If someone intends to eat an amount of cake (or any other mezonos food)
that would require him to bentsch, and before eating that required amount decides
not to eat anymore, then he should only recite an al hamichya.
Congratulations to the Hefter Family
11. WAJIGASH
Volume I, Issue 25
Parshas Vayigash
PARSHA INSIGHTS
The Midrash Rabba states that "Abba Cohen Bardelah said 'Woe to us because of the
day of rebuke. If the brothers of Yosef could not withstand the rebuke of the smallest
in their family, what will become of us when Hashem will rebuke each of us (in our
personal Day of Judgment) according to his character?"
The Bais HaLevi zt"l asks why Chazal refers to Yosef's statement that "I am Yosef. Is
my father still alive?" as rebuke, when upon examination we do not find Yosef
chastising his brothers at all? What was the powerful message in Yosef's statement
that caused the brothers to become speechless and frightened?
The Bais HaLevi explains that the Hebrew word for rebuke, tochahcha, implies the
act of convincing and persuading. Proper rebuke is attained when it causes the
person receiving the reproof to realize on his own that his action was wrong.
Yosef indirectly rebuked his brothers that their actions were spurned by impure
motivations. Yosef accomplished this by inquiring from his brothers regarding his
father's welfare, even though they had already informed him that Yacov was alive.
Yosef thereby demonstrated to his brothers the falseness of their claim towards him.
27
For when the brothers pleaded with Yosef not to enslave Binyomin because
Binyomin's loss would cause Yacov's death, Yosef "reminded" his brothers that this
alleged concern for Yacov did not play a role when he was sold into slavery by them.
The statement of "I am Yosef. Is my father still alive?" was a refutation of the
brothers' concern for their father's well being. The brothers immediately understood
that they had acted improperly towards Yosef and as a result were unable to speak
at the thought of their transgression.
The Bais HaLevi explains the Midrash's statement of "what will become of us when
Hashem will rebuke each of us according to his character?" in a similar vain. Man will
be rebuked in Heaven in the same way in which Yosef rebuked his brothers. Hashem
will show a person that his logic did not play through in all circumstances, only in
chosen situations that were to his benefit. Man will then understand and realize,
holding his head in shame, the wickedness of his ways.
The Bais HaLevi extends this idea in a lesson to us. On the Day of Judgment, Hashem
will confront man and say, "When you failed to give charity, you claimed that you
had difficulties with making a living. If this was the case, how did you have enough
money to spend on amusements and pleasures?" By rebuking man "in accordance
with his own deeds," Hashem will make it quite clear that man's excuses for his
improper conduct were lame.
After Yosef revealed himself to his brothers, Yosef "fell upon his brother Binyomin's
neck and wept; and Binyomin wept upon his neck" (Vayigash 45,14). Rashi explains
that Yosef cried "over the two Temples that are destined to be in the portion of the
tribe of Binyomin and will be destroyed, and Binyomin wept "over the Mishkan of
Shiloh which is destined to be in the portion of Yosef (in Ephraim's portion) and
whose end will be destruction."
It is difficult to understand why Yosef and Binyomin would be weeping, while the
other brothers were in a state of euphoria and rejoicing upon discovering that Yosef
was alive and well in Egypt.
Rabbi Yechezkel MeKuzmir zt"l states that the answer can be found by examining the
cause of Yosef's sale. Although the motivating factor for the brothers selling Yosef
was their judgment on him of being a rodef (Sforno) or false prophet (Ibn Ezra), their
hatred and jealousy of Yosef's "elite status" blinded their natural feeling of
compassion for Yacov and Yosef, which would have prevented them from
implementing their verdict on Yosef.
Through prophetic vision, Yosef and Binyomin knew that the Holy Temples and the
Mishkan would be destroyed due to this same baseless hatred of a Jew towards a
fellow Jew. At this moment of meeting, Yosef and Binyomin wept because they knew,
prophetically as well, that generations later the Jewish people would fail to purge
themselves of the destructive force of baseless hatred and jealousy, causing once
again annihilation and devastation to be brought upon them.
It is imperative that this cancerous force be eradicated from the Jewish People. How
can this mission be accomplished? Once again Yosef and Binyomin, through their
weeping for the other's misfortunes, provide us with a timeless lesson. The cure for
the disease of baseless hatred and jealousy is baseless love. When a Jew is more
distressed from others' sorrows and troubles than his own, he has indeed attained
the level of loving for no specific reason.
Every generation which passes without the rebuilding of the Bais Hamikdash has
failed to cleanse B'nei Yisroel of baseless hatred. It is our duty to regard the
happiness of our fellow Jew as if it is our own joy. Once we have accomplished this,
the ruinous force of baseless hatred will dissipate, and we will merit the building of
the Bais Hamikdash. "And Yosef said to his brother's, 'I am Yosef. Is my father still
alive?' And his brothers could not answer him, because they were frightened in his
presence" (Vayigash 45,3).
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
A bus of Orthodox looking passengers turned onto a street and struck a car, which
28
had the right of way. The driver of the car entered the bus and inquired if anyone had
seen the accident occur. When none of the passengers responded, the driver of the
car, a known irreligious Jewish person, cynically exclaimed, "it's nice to know that my
people are here for me when I need them" and promptly stormed off the bus in a fit
of rage.
If any of the passengers had witnessed the accident, were they obligated to speak
up when the driver of the car made his query?
Does the fact that the driver of the car may summon the witness to a secular court,
rather than a Jewish Court, factor into the answer?
WHO AM I?
1. I arrived in Egypt twice.
2. I multiplied perfectly.
3. I counted before I counted.
4. My feat was unparalleled
Last week's clues and answer: My existence is mundane but spiritual; I am not equal;
When it comes to a mitzvah everyone holds by me; I help safeguard your observance
- A shamesh
Congratulations to Rabbi Avrohom Adler, Sheera Krainess and the Solomon brothers
CAN YOU SAY THAT?
Is it permissible for Reuven to tell a friend that Shimon studies Torah for five hours a
day? Or that Shimon contributes ten thousand dollars a year to tzedaka?
Answer: It depends. If Shimon is a businessman, it would be a compliment to say
that he studies Torah five hours a day. However, if Shimon was involved in a full day
Torah study program, then such a statement would be considered loshon hora.
Similarly, if Shimon is a man of modest means, a contribution of such a sum to
charity would be commendable and would be permissible to relate. Conversely, if
Shimon was a wealthy man, such a statement would be derogatory and forbidden to
utter (Sefer Chofetz Chaim)
TORAH RIDDLE
Which mitzvah only applies to someone who is sitting, reclining or lying down?
Last week's question and answer: How is it possible for a woman to have two
husbands at the same time? If a man said to a woman "you are betrothed to me from
now and after thirty days" and then another man came before the end of the thirty
days and betrothed her to be effective immediately, the halacha is that she is
betrothed to both men and therefore needs a get from both (Mishna Kiddushin 58b).
Congratulations to Rabbi Avrohom Adler
12. WAJECHI
Volume I, Issue 26
Parshas Vayechi
PARSHA INSIGHTS
At the end of his days, Yacov summoned his sons to bestow upon each of them a
blessing and said, "Gather yourselves and listen, O sons of Yacov, and listen to
Yisroel your father" (Vayechi 49,2). Why does Yacov use the name "Yacov" when
describing his relationship to his children and then switch to the name "Yisroel" when
referring to himself?
The Avnei Ezel zt"l explains that the answer is based on the origin of Yacov's two
29
names. The name "Yacov" was given to Yacov at the time of his birth. Every Jew is
referred to as a "son of Yacov" simply because he is a descendant of Yacov. Therefore
even a Jew who does not conduct himself properly, retains the title of a "son of
Yacov".
On the other hand, the name "Yisroel" was conferred upon Yacov by Hashem when
he wrestled with and defeated the angel of Eisav ("No longer will it be said that your
name is Yacov, but Yisroel, for you have striven with the Divine and with men and
you have overcome" - Vayishlach 32,29). In essence, Yacov was named "Yisroel" as a
result of overcoming the evil influence, which the angel of Eisav attempted to
implant in him, symbolizing the attainment of a higher spiritual and moral level.
Therefore, the name "Yisroel", when applied to the Jewish people as a whole,
characterizes their holy status as the spiritual heirs of Yacov.
With understanding the sources of Yacov's two names, one can comprehend the
depth of the message that Yacov was conveying to his children. By stating to "Gather
yourselves and listen, O sons of Yacov," Yacov was instructing his sons that they
share the same ancestry and nationality.
However, he warned them that a common theme which lacks a spiritual purpose,
does not insure the survival of the Jewish people. For the purpose of guaranteeing
the eternity of the Jewish people, Yacov ordered his sons to "listen to Yisroel, your
father." By referring to himself as "Yisroel", Yacov was instructing his children that in
order for Jews to receive blessing, their convening together must be with the purpose
of upgrading their spiritual level. This is the underlying theme of the phrase "listen to
Yisroel."
After the demise of Yacov, Yosef's brothers feared that Yosef would act with revenge
towards them "for the evil that we did him" (Vayechi 50,15). They, therefore, told
Yosef that their father instructed him to forgive them. The brothers even offered
themselves as slaves to Yosef. "But Yosef said to them, 'Fear not, for am I instead of
G-d? Although you intended me harm, G-d intended it for good: in order to
accomplish - it is as clear as this day- that a vast people be kept alive. Fear not - I
will sustain you and your young ones.' Thus he comforted them and spoke to their
heart" (Vayechi 50,19-21).
Rabbi Shimon Schwab zt"l points out that Yosef did not verbalize any words of
forgiveness to the brothers; he merely assured them that he would not extract
revenge from them. We must understand why Yosef did not deal directly with his
brothers' request of exoneration.
Rav Schwab answers that Yosef certainly forgave his brothers for the actions
perpetuated against him personally. However, Yosef did not have the ability to
forgive them for the chilul Hashem (desecration of Hashem) that they committed
with their act of selling their brother into slavery. People of spiritual stature acting in
such a manner was an affront to the honor of Hashem, and Yosef did not have the
power to absolve his brothers from this sin.
As support for this contention, Rav Schwab cites the following verse, "but for four, I
will not pardon them - for their selling a righteous man." (Amos 2,6). Chazal state
(Tanchuma, Noach) that this verse refers to the sale of Yosef by his brothers. If this
was a sin of man between man and Yosef forgave his brothers, why would Hashem
not pardon them? Therefore, Rav Schwab concludes that the sale of Yosef by his
brothers included an element of chilul Hashem as well, for which Hashem declared,
says Amos, "I will not pardon."
Based on the above, Rav Schwab adds that the only act which could atone for the sin
of chillul Hashem is an act of kiddush Hashem (sanctifying Hashem). This kiddush
Hashem arrived in the form of the asarah haroogei malchus (the slaying of the ten
sages by the Roman emperor), since the souls of the ten brothers were implanted in
the souls of these ten sages (Rikanti, Vayeishev).
The Kiddush Hashem at the hands of the Roman torturers was a manifestation of
kiddush Hashem of tremendous proportions, since the public was aware of the
occurrence. Only such a massive Kiddush Hashem can counteract the great
defamation of Hashem's name, which was brought about by the sale of Yosef by his
brothers.
30
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
Binyomin was given two weeks to complete a homework assignment of reading a
book and doing a report on it. During Shabbos afternoon Binyomin chose to read an
Artscroll type book for his assignment.
Although reading is a permissible Shabbos activity, is it permissible for Binyomin to
read this book, since he is preparing for a weekday task on Shabbos?
Would it make a difference whether or not Binyomin enjoys the book that he is
reading?
WHO AM I?
1. I failed as a "shochet."
2. I was judge and executioner.
3. My partnership was dissolved.
4. I was the last link to the past.
Last week's clues and answer: Last week's clues and answer: I arrived in Egypt twice;
I multiplied perfectly; I counted before I counted; My feat was unparalleled Yocheved
Congratulations to Rabbi Avrohom Adler, Yitzchok Matitia, Mr. Yisroel Mendenhall,
Rabbi Yakov Sanders, Rabbi Ahron Sikowitz and Avi Zuckerman
CAN YOU SAY THAT?
It is permissible for a person to speak negatively, or express anger and frustration
about someone to his spouse, parent or mentor, in order to obtain sympathy and
reassurance and strengthen his emotional situation. It is also the obligation of the
listener to provide him with emotional support. (Sefer Chofetz Chaim)
In light of the above, is it permissible for the listener to accept the negative report as
true?
Answer: No. The information that the confidant is hearing is secondhand.
Additionally, under such circumstances the report is not objective, since it is being
expressed by a person who is subjective and involved in the situation. (Sefer Chofetz
Chaim)
TORAH RIDDLE
For which sin can any person be punished by a beis din without having first been
warned?
Last week's question and answer: Which mitzvah only applies to someone who is
sitting, reclining or lying down? Rising for a talmid chochom or an elderly person.
Congratulations to Rabbi Ahron Sikowitz, Mr. David Wayntraub (Oak Park, Michigan)
and Avi Zuckerman
13. SHEMOTH
Volume I, Issue 27
Parshas Shemos
PARSHA INSIGHTS
"Moshe replied to Hashem, 'Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and that I should
take B'nei Yisroel out of Egypt' " (Shemos 3,11). Regarding this verse Rashi explains,
"Of what significance am I that I should speak with kings? Even if I am significant
31
(enough to address kings), why is Yisroel worthy that a miracle be done for them and
that I should take them out of Egypt?"
The Bais HaLevi zt"l questions the connection between Moshe doubting his self worth
and his inquiring about B'nei Yisroel's merits for salvation. Additionally, if Hashem
desired to redeem B'nei Yisroel, why would Moshe bring up the issue of B'nei Yisroel
having sufficient merit to receive salvation?
The Bais HaLevi explains that the root of Moshe's queries lie in the fact that B'nei
Yisroel was only a little more than half way through the exile of Egypt when Hashem
first appeared to Moshe. Moshe, as well as B'nei Yisroel, knew that the galus (exile)
was supposed to be four hundred years. This concerned Moshe because if B'nei
Yisroel would be liberated prematurely, he feared that future generations of Jews
would be subjected to additional exiles in order to complete the balance of the four
hundred years. Moshe's worry was supported by his knowledge of the fact that
redemptions which are carried out by a shaliach (an agent) of Hashem are not
permanent, and are followed by another exile (Midrash Tehillim 36).
Moshe's questions were an attempt to insure that the redemption from Egypt would
be a permanent one, so that B'nei Yisroel would not have to suffer any future exiles.
Therefore, Moshe first tried to convince Hashem that he was not worthy of liberating
B'nei Yisroel, and that Hashem himself should perform the redemption. A redemption
carried out personally by Hashem is a permanent one and no other exiles will follow.
However, when it became clear to Moshe that Hashem wanted him to execute the
liberation, Moshe tried to persuade Hashem that He could not redeem B'nei Yisroel
early, because they lacked merit to deserve premature redemption by Hashem. By
stalling their liberation and trying to extend their galus the full four hundred years,
Moshe's ulterior motive was to insure that future generations would not have to
endure any exiles.
This incident demonstrates the greatness of Moshe. Moshe was willing to forego his
"place" in the annals of Jewish history for the benefit of the future of B'nei Yisroel.
Hashem commanded Moshe to "go and gather the elders of Yisroel and say to them,
'Hashem, the G-d of your forefathers, has appeared to me, the G-d of Avrohom,
Yitzchok and Yacov, saying, I have surely remembered you and what is done to you
in Egypt.' " (Shemos 3,16). Moshe's message to B'nei Yisroel, through the elders, was
that Hashem heard their crying, sympathized with their plight and was planning to
emancipate them from their bondage in Egypt.
After Moshe fulfilled this command and convinced B'nei Yisroel that He would deliver
them to the land of the "spiritual" and free of enslavement, Eretz Yisroel, Moshe was
to fulfill another commandment from Hashem - "You and the elders of Yisroel shall
come to the king of Egypt and say to him, 'Hashem the G-d of the Hebrews
happened upon us. And now let us go on a three day journey in the wilderness, and
we shall bring offerings to Hashem, our G-d' " (Shemos 3,18). In this command
Hashem tells Moshe to instruct Pharaoh to release B'nei Yisroel from Egypt.
The Alter of Kelm zt"l questions the order in which these commands were to be
implemented by Moshe. If Moshe was supposed to convince B'nei Yisroel that they
would be freed from Egypt, he should have first demonstrated that redemption was
indeed on the way. Proof that emancipation was clearly beginning would have been
achieved by the miracle of Moshe and Ahron meeting with Pharaoh in the palace. In
general, one cannot walk into a king's court unannounced. Such behavior is deemed
insubordinate and the perpetrator is punished with death. The fact that Moshe was
able to enter the palace, visit with Pharaoh without an appointment and leave with
his life was miraculous in its own right. Therefore, Moshe should have first had his
meeting with Pharaoh, thereby proving that they were on the road to salvation.
Moshe's message of deliverance would then have been easier for B'nei Yisroel to
comprehend and accept. So why did Hashem command Moshe to speak to B'nei
Yisroel regarding their redemption without showing encouraging signs of liberation?
Rav Yechezkel Levenstein zt"l answers that B'nei Yisroel had to first believe in
Hashem's promise of salvation before Moshe was able to actually meet with Pharaoh
regarding his emancipating B'nei Yisroel. A fundamental principle in gaining siyata
dishmaya (help from Hashem) is that one must first awaken himself to believe in
32
Hashem's power of delivery and then he will merit Divine assistance.
For Moshe to have the ability to gain entrance to Pharaoh and demand the release of
B'nei Yisroel, they had to first believe in Hashem's powers on their own, without the
assistance of signs or wonders. Once this unassisted emunah was achieved, B'nei
Yisroel were able to merit Hashem's intervention in "arranging" a meeting between
Moshe and Pharaoh. In fact, the entire redemption from Egypt was predicated on
B'nei Yisroel arousing themselves to self-motivated emunah. Had B'nei Yisroel not
been able to achieve their own awakening, they would not have merited Hashem's
salvation.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
Boruch bought a birthday present for one of his children. As he was wrapping it, the
"birthday child" came into the room and asked him what he was wrapping. To keep
the present a surprise, is it permissible for Boruch to lie and tell the child that it is a
present for someone else?
Would your answer depend on the age of the child?
WHO AM I?
1. My meeting with a fugitive went "well".
2. I came from priestly origins but had no tribe.
3. I saved bloodshed by bloodshed.
4. I was not redeemed from Egypt with B'nei Yisroel.
Last week's clues and answer: I failed as a "shochet"; I was judge and executioner;
My partnership was dissolved; I was the last link to the past - Levi
Congratulations to Ben-Tziyon Krainess, Rabbi Shlomo Newman, Yitzi Schabes and
the Solomon brothers.
CAN YOU SAY THAT?
Reuven's neighbor is a not yet observant Jew, whose lack of observance is due to his
ignorance. Is it permissible for Reuven to make reference, by name, to the life-style
of this person, in order to emphasize to the audience the weaknesses in the behavior
of the not yet observant Jew and its consequences?
Answer: Yes. One should, however, be careful not to condemn the person. As long as
the listeners have previous knowledge that this individual engages in the specific
behavior being discussed and the purpose of the discussion is to offer guidance, it is
permissible. This discussion is also permitted even concerning the fault of an
observant Jew, if the above conditions are met.
However, one may not use examples from the past history of a baal teshuva, without
his permission. (Sefer Chofetz Chaim)
TORAH RIDDLE
What mitzvah in the Torah cannot be fulfilled through an intentional action? (Thank
you to Mrs. Devorah ben Gedalyahu from Eretz Yisroel for providing this week's Torah
riddle)
Last week's question and answer: For which sin can any person be punished by a
beis din without having first been warned? Conspiring witnesses, who were proven
by other witnesses to not have been in attendance during the incident (aydeem
zomemim).
Congratulations to Yehuda Bechor, Shaya Manies, Menachem Neustadt and Rabbi
Shlomo Newman
33
14. VAEIRA
Volume I, Issue 28
Parshas Va'eira
PARSHA INSIGHTS
Regarding the passage "This was Ahron and Moshe to whom Hashem said, 'Take Bnei
Yisroel out of Egypt according to their legions,' " Rashi states that "there are places
where Ahron is mentioned before Moshe and there are places where Moshe is
mentioned before Ahron and this teaches that they were equal" (Va'eira 6,26). Rabbi
Moshe Feinstein zt"l questions how can Ahron be equated with Moshe, who was the
greatest teacher and prophet, through whom Hashem gave the Torah.
Rav Moshe provides the following explanation. First of all, Rashi does not mean that
Ahron and Moshe were equals, since Moshe was certainly greater. However, since
Ahron was a necessary component of Hashem's liberating Bnei Yisroel from Egypt,
his importance is in achieving this undertaking was equal to that of Moshe. Without
Ahron, Moshe would not have been able to secure the freedom of B'nei Yisroel by
himself, therefore Rashi means that in this mission they were equal.
Secondly, Rav Moshe explains that it is actually possible to say that Ahron was
Moshe's equal, even though Moshe's deeds were "greater" than Ahron's. During his
lifetime, Ahron completely fulfilled the will of Hashem and realized his full potential,
as did Moshe. Since both Ahron and Moshe completely fulfilled all that they were
commanded and destined to accomplish, they are indeed equal.
To illustrate this point, Rav Moshe quotes the following incident from the Gemora "Rav Yosef the son of Rav Yehoshua took ill and slipped into a comatose state. When
he regained consciousness, his father asked him, 'What did you see in the next
world?' Rav Yosef said to his father, 'I saw an inverted world. The uppermost in this
world are below in the World To Come and the lowly in this world are above in the
World To Come.' Rav Yehoshua said to him, 'You have seen a well ordered world (for
in the World To Come material possessions and accomplishments have no
significance)' " (Bava Basra 10b). Even before this occurrence Rav Yosef definitely
knew that material wealth and power did not hold importance in the World To Come.
Therefore, Rav Moshe asks why does Rav Yosef seem surprised by what he observed
which prompted him to call the World To Come, which is the true world, an "inverted
world"?
Rav Moshe explains that Rav Yosef was surprised by the fact that some people who
were considered spiritually great in this world did not receive as much recognition in
the World To Come as individuals who were considered less worthy, spiritually
speaking, in this world. To this observation, Rav Yosef's father explained that a
person's greatness is measured by how much of his potential he realizes during his
time in this world. One who has the ability to excel in the performance of great deeds
and Torah study but does not accomplish commensurate with this ability given him,
failed in becoming the "person" he was destined to become by Hashem. On the
other hand, if one only has limited ability to accomplish in Torah study and the
fulfillment of mitzvos and he reached the potential of his ability, then this person has
completely fulfilled his mission in this world.
Therefore, Ahron cannot be faulted for not reaching Moshe's level, since his potential
was as great as Moshe's. Hashem endowed Ahron with the ability to become Ahron
HaCohen and he reached that goal. So too, Hashem endowed Moshe with the ability
to become Moshe Rabbeinu and he accomplished the goal set before him. Since
Ahron achieved the maximum of his potential, as did Moshe, they were indeed equal.
When Nevuchadnezar demanded from Chanania, Mishael and Azaryeh to bow to his
image, they chose to be moser nefesh (give up their lives) and be thrown into the
furnace. They learned the obligation of mesiras nefesh from the action of the frogs
34
during the plague of tsefardeya which was brought upon Egypt. Chanania, Mishael
and Azaryeh reasoned that if the frogs were willing to sacrifice their lives for
Hashem, even though the frogs have no commandment to sanctify Hashem's name,
then they certainly had to sacrifice their lives in order to glorify Hashem (Pesachim
53b).
Rabbi Yeruchem Levovitz zt"l questions how the action of the frogs could provide
proof to man's obligation to sacrifice his life for Hashem? Generally, it is understood
that every creation, other than man, lacks the ability to choose how it wishes to act.
Based on this understanding, the actions of the frogs were not commendable at all,
since they did not choose to jump into the furnaces but were merely programmed by
Hashem to act in this way.
Rav Yeruchem explains that understanding the actions of Hashem's creations in this
manner is erroneous. Chazal state that each creation of Hashem is not merely
created with certain instincts which act without preordained purpose and goal. On
the contrary, each creation is endowed with the objective of performing a specific
desire of Hashem and will use its instinctual nature to accomplish this purpose. In Kel
Odon (Shachris Shabbos) we recite that all Hashem's creations "do with awe their
Creator's will." Nature is not simply wood and stones, devoid of any spiritual
essence. Every blade of grass has its own mazel/angel and grows based on the
dictate of Hashem (Bereishis Rabba 10,7), with a goal for it in the mind of its Creator.
Therefore, when Hashem decreed that the Egyptians were to be punished by the
plague of frogs, the frogs wanted to implement that will immediately. Since the idea
to enslave B'nei Yisroel and embitter their lives emanated from Pharaoh, he was the
initial target of Hashem's wrath. The frogs understood this and in their zeal to do the
will of Hashem immediately went to the palace of Pharaoh before going any other
place - "the river shall swarm with frogs and they shall ascend and come into (1)
your palace and your bedroom and your bed, and into the house of your (2) servants
and of your (3) people" (Va'eira 7,28). If the frogs were simply programmed to jump
indiscriminately, then they would have not been able to plague Egypt in such a
systematic manner. Since the frogs possessed a genuine desire to fulfill the will of
Hashem, they did not even fear entering an oven.
Chanania, Mishael and Azaryeh understood that the purpose of Hashem's creations
is to bring honor and sanctification to Hashem. Once Chanania, Mishael and Azaryeh
realized that the frogs were moser nefesh in order to sanctify Hashem's name, they
knew that it was incumbent upon them, as Hashem's true servants, to surrender
their lives for the purpose of Kiddush Hashem, as well.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
Boruch, with the permission of his supervisor, sometimes takes care of personal
business at his desk during lunch hour. Boruch is permitted to take his lunch hour at
anytime he chooses.
Boruch does not occupy a private office. His position on the floor allows his
"neighbor" to overhear his conversations. Is it permissible for Boruch to make a
personal phone call during lunch hour, since his "neighbor" may think that he is
doing personal business on company time, which would cause a chillul Hashem?
In order to eliminate the potential for chillul Hashem, should Boruch tell his
"neighbor" when he is taking his lunch hour? (Consult your Rav for a proper halachic
ruling)
WHO AM I?
1. I was economical support.
2. I was marked with plagues.
3. I swallowed my competitors.
4. I went from a man of earth to a man like earth.
35
Last week's clues and answer:My meeting with a fugitive went "well"; I came from
priestly origins but had no tribe; I saved bloodshed by bloodshed; I was not
redeemed from Egypt with B'nei Yisroel - Tsiporah
Congratulations to the Bein brothers, Eli & Dovid Efroymson, the Hefter Family, the
Rosato Brothers, Mr. Hyman Roth, Mr. Yudi Silber, the Solomon Brothers and Mr.
David Wayntraub (Michigan).
CAN YOU SAY THAT?
Is it permissible for Reuven to relate to his friends an amusing incident, which
contains derogatory or harmful information, for entertainment purposes only?
Answer: It depends. Reuven may not relate this incident if his telling would cause
any embarrassment to any of the people involved, if it would be told in their
presence. (Sefer Chofetz Chaim)
TORAH RIDDLE
Did Moshe Rabbeinu have any other brothers besides Ahron? If yes, name them?
Last week's question and answer: What mitzvah in the Torah cannot be fulfilled
through an intentional action? Shikcha (Forgotten produce bundle(s) which are left in
the field, and therefore, the Torah designates them for the poor)
Congratulations to the Bein brothers, Moshe Burnstein, the Hefter family, Yitzchok
Matitia and Rabbi Benziyon Sigfried
15. BO
Volume I, Issue 29
Parshas Bo
PARSHA INSIGHTS
Rashi brings that Rav Masya the son of Cheresh used to say, "It is written in
Yechezkel (16,8), 'Now when I passed by you, and looked upon you and behold your
time was the time of love' - the time has come to fulfill the oath which I swore to
Avrohom that I will redeem his children. But they did not have merit in order that
they should be redeemed, as it says in Yechezkel (16,7), 'and you were naked and
bare.' Therefore, He gave them two commandments, the blood of the korban Pesach
and the blood of milah (circumcision), as they circumcised themselves on that night
(the fourteenth of Nissan)" (Bo 12,6). The Maharal says that these two specific
mitzvos of milah and korban Pesach which were chosen by Hashem in order for B'nei
Yisroel to merit redemption were not merely two mitzvos chosen at random, rather
they represent a specific concept. Their intrinsic values are the fundamental upon
which B'nei Yisroel's liberation is predicated.
The Maharal explains that at this point in time, B'nei Yisroel were slaves to Pharaoh
and subservient to him. The yoke of Pharaoh had to be removed from upon their
shoulders and they had to come under the domain of Hashem. Milah represents B'nei
Yisroel becoming servants of Hashem, since every servant has a sign which identifies
him as belonging to his master. As we say in Birchas Hamazon (Grace after Meals),
"for Your covenant which You signed in our flesh."
However, for a person to be considered a total servant it is not sufficient that he
should be under another's control. It is also necessary for him to act in a role of
service. By performing the korban Pesach, B'nei Yisroel were manifesting the act of
service to Hashem, as we find that korban Pesach is designated by the Torah as an
avodah - "what is this avodah to you" (Bo 12,24).
Even though the korban Pesach is the epitome of service to Hashem, its performance
is only a single act. The mere fact that someone performs a single act that he is
commanded to do, does not indicate that the performer is a servant of a
commander. Maybe the person acted because he likes the commander or enjoys
performing the task that was ordered. Even if one's action was the product of his
subservience, an outside observer would not be able to ascertain that he is
subservient, since there is no sign that the commander has acquired ownership of
36
the performer.
Only the combination of a sign that one is owned and his action in servicing proves
one's total commitment to being the servant of another. By marking B'nei Yisroel
with milah and then ordering them to serve Hashem through korban Pesach, Hashem
turned B'nei Yisroel into His servants in the fullest concept of being a servant.
"And you shall keep it (Pesach) a feast to Hashem; throughout your generations you
shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever (Bo 12,14). Since the destruction of the
first Beis Hamikdash, the Jewish People have been in exile and enslaved among the
nations of the world. Therefore, what is the purpose for us in celebrating Pesach, the
Festival of Freedom, when we are not actually free?
The Meshech Chochma answers that this question is only a concern to one who
considers Pesach as the commemoration of the Exodus from physical oppression and
slavery. Understanding the Exodus in its true essence, renders this question moot.
When Hashem freed B'nei Yisroel from Egypt, it was not merely a liberation of the
physical, it was a spiritual emancipation, as well. Hashem took Bnei Yisroel out of a
corrupt Egypt, so that we would become His People. In freeing us from the bondage
of slavery, Hashem placed His Presence upon us in order to make us a holy nation
and His eternal people.
In light of this explanation, the connection between the beginning and end of the
posuk can be well understood. The Torah states "And you shall keep it a feast to
Hashem," meaning that if you shall celebrate Pesach "as a feast to Hashem,"
indicating that indeed this is a celebration of a spiritual liberation, then "you shall
keep it a feast by an ordinance forever," then Hashem promises that you will be able
to observe Pesach even during periods of exile.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
Boruch has to attend a business luncheon at a non-kosher restaurant. The restaurant
offers to provide a kosher meal for Boruch from a kosher caterer. Assuming the
kosher meal is heated and served according to halacha by the restaurant, would it
be a problem of maris ayin for Boruch to eat the kosher meal at that restaurant?
WHO AM I?
1. I am blessed.
2. Women love me.
3. I add to your davening.
4. I am the subject of Rosh Hashana.
Last week's clues and answer: I was economical support; I was marked with plagues;
I swallowed my competitors; I went from a man of earth to a man like earth - Moshe's
mateh (staff)
Congratulations to Chaim Mordechai Barkin, Rabbi Calman Fishman, Amram
Kaplovitz, Chaykie Mann, Dena R. & Hadassah M. Mann, the Mann Twins, the
Solomon Brothers, Yisroel Schwartz, Mr. David Wayntraub (Michigan) and Avi
Zuckerman.
CAN YOU SAY THAT?
Is it permissible for Reuven to praise Shimon in the presence of a large group of
people?
Answer: No. This is due to the fact that in a large group of people there is a good
possibility that at least one person does not like the person being praised. This in
turn will likely bring this person to respond with a disparaging comment. This is
considered avak loshon hora (the dust of loshon hora), because even though Reuven
37
did not speak loshon hora, he did cause loshon hora to be spoken about Shimon.
(Sefer Chofetz Chaim)
TORAH RIDDLE
Yocheved married Elitsafon and gave birth to his children. 1) How was Elitsafon
permitted to marry Yocheved after Amram had divorced her, since Amram had
decreed that everyone should divorce their spouses, in order to avoid more children
being born and the Egyptians killing them? 2) How could Amram have remarried
Yocheved after she had married Elitsafon - this is prohibited under the ordinance of a
man remarrying his divorcee after she had married someone else?
Last week's question and answer: Did Moshe Rabbeinu have any other brothers
besides Ahron? If yes, name them? Yes, Eldad and Meidad. When Amram divorced
Yocheved she married Elitsafon and gave birth to Eldad and Medad.
Congratulations to Chaim Mordechai Barkin, Rabbi Calman Fishman, Amram
Kaplovitz, the Solomon Brothers and Mr. David Wayntraub (Michigan).
16. BESHALACH
Volume I, Issue 30
Parshas Beshalach
PARSHA INSIGHTS
"It happened when Pharaoh sent out the people that Hashem did not lead them by
the way of the land of the Philistines" (Beshalach 13,17).
The Chofetz Chaim zt"l explains that when Hashem took Bnei Yisroel out of Egypt,
there were two different routes which could lead them into Eretz Yisroel - either
through the land of the Philistines or through the midbar (wilderness). Each route
had its benefits and detriments. The path through the land of the Philistines would
have provided plenty of food and drink for Bnei Yisroel. However, this route was
saturated with tumah (spiritual impurity), caused by the decadence and idol worship
of the Philistines. This negative would have had a terrible impact on Bnei Yisroel,
especially in light of the fact that they had just been extricated from the forty-eighth
level of tumah. Their spiritual status at this point was very fragile, and it would not
be wise to dangle temptation before their eyes.
On the other hand, the route through the wilderness was not marred by tumah, since
it was barren of habitation. However, this desolate environment would cause a major
problem for Bnei Yisroel, since it was difficult to obtain food.
After weighing the positives and negatives inherent in each route, Hashem declined
for Bnei Yisroel the option to travel the impure route through the Philistine's land and
opted for the desolate but tahor (pure) path through the wilderness. As the posuk
says, "that Hashem did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines." In
order to prevent the possibility of Bnei Yisroel plunging again into the depths of
tumah, Hashem decided to deal with the problem of lack of sustenance.
From here we learn that even when one is seeking to improve his spiritual level, such
as going to Eretz Yisroel, he still must be very cautious not to fall prey to the "route"
wrought with spiritual pitfalls and impediments.
"And it came to pass when Moshe held up his hand that Bnei Yisroel prevailed, and
when he let down his hand Amalek prevailed" (Beshalach 17,11).
The Mishna in Rosh Hashana (3,8) states, "but could the hands of Moshe wage a
battle or lose a battle? This is rather to teach us that whenever Bnei Yisroel looked
up and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they prevailed (misgavrim),
but if not, they fell."
The Sefas Emes asks, since the Mishna says that victory was dependent upon the
subjecting of Bnei Yisroel's hearts to Hashem, why does the posuk connect the
victory to the raising and lowering of Moshe's hands?
The Sefas Emes explains that in order to insure a victory for Bnei Yisroel two
prerequisites are necessary. First of all, the subjugation of Bnei Yisroel's hearts to
38
Hashem is necessary. Secondly, the prayers of the tzadik of the generation are also
required in order to deliver victory. The Mishna is discussing the spiritual role of Bnei
Yisroel, which is the subjugation of their hearts to Hashem. However, the posuk is
pointing out the role of the prayers of the tzadik which are necessary in order to
triumph in war.
Since the posuk emphasizes the leader's prayers during the war, the posuk in
conjunction with the Mishna is teaching us that although the prayers of the tzadik
are required for winning a war, the leader is triggered by the degree of subjugation
of Bnei Yisroel's hearts. A leader of Bnei Yisroel derives his strength to act and pray
on behalf of the nation's success and salvation from the people's commitment to
Hashem. Only if Bnei Yisroel properly maintain their focus on Hashem will their
leader be empowered to pray for them.
The idea that Moshe derived his strength to act on behalf of Bnei Yisroel from Bnei
Yisroel themselves is supported from the use of the word misgavrim in the Mishna in
Rosh Hashana that is cited above. The Sefas Emes explains that when the Mishna
states, "whenever Bnei Yisroel looked up and subjected their hearts to their Father in
Heaven, they were misgavrim." Misgavrim is not to be translated that "Bnei Yisroel
prevailed" but that "Moshe's hands were strengthened", by the commitment of Bnei
Yisroel.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
The dry cleaner to which Boruch brings his clothes charges $6.00 to clean a suit
(pants and jacket). If someone brings in a pair of pants and jacket that are not from
the same suit, the dry cleaner charges for each item separately, $5.00 for the jacket
and $3.00 for the pants.
Boruch noticed that recently the dry cleaner charged him the price of a suit, when in
fact the pants and jacket that he brought in only resembled each other and were not
of the same suit. Is it Boruch's obligation to inform the dry cleaner that the pants and
jacket are not of the same suit or may he assume that the dry cleaner decided to
charge him the price of a suit because he brought in the pants and jacket together?
WHO AM I?
1. Mercy to me is failure.
2. I just "happened" to be in the neighborhood.
3. I had Moshe up in arms.
4. "I am a lake."
Last week's clues and answer: : I am blessed; Women love me; I add to your
davening; I am the subject of Rosh Hashana - Rosh Chodesh (New Month)
Congratulations to Mordechai Matitia, Rabbi Shlomie Newman, Yitzi Schabes and the
Solomon Brothers
CAN YOU SAY THAT?
It is permissible for a person to express a preference in "taste", such as, "I don't like
dry wine." This expression is permitted because it is a statement of the person's
personal taste and not a critique regarding the wine itself.
In light of this, is it permissible for Reuven to tell Shimon that he does not appreciate
the oratory style of a particular lecturer?
Answer: No. This statement implies that the speaker lacks effectiveness and is
considered loshon hora. (Sefer Chofetz Chaim)
TORAH RIDDLE
39
Is it possible for Reuven to destroy Shimon's 1812 first issue commemorative stamp
and not be obligated to pay for damaging the stamp?
Last week's question and answer: Yocheved married Elitsafon and gave birth to his
children. 1) How was Elitsafon permitted to marry Yocheved after Amram had
divorced her, since Amram had decreed that everyone should divorce their spouses,
in order to avoid more children being born and the Egyptians killing them? 2) How
could Amram have remarried Yocheved after she had married Elitsafon - this is
prohibited under the ordinance of a man remarrying his divorcee after she had
married someone else?
1) The decree of Amram only applied to men who had fulfilled the mitzvah of peru
urevu (be fruitful and multiply). Elitsafon had not as of yet fulfilled his obligation. 2)
The ordinance prohibiting a man from remarrying his divorcee after she had married
someone else only applies if they had been married with kiddushin the first time.
However, Amram was not given the mitzvah of kiddushin when he married Yocheved
the first time, thus allowing him to remarry her.
Congratulations to the Solomon Brothers
17. JETHRO
Volume I, Issue 31
Parshas Yisro
PARSHA INSIGHTS
"Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy" (Yisro 20,8). Regarding this verse, Rashi
explains that Hashem spoke the two words "remember" and "keep" in one utterance.
Why did Hashem deem it necessary to announce these two words at the very same
time?
The Maggid of Dubno answers that by uttering "remember" and "keep"
simultaneously, Hashem was addressing people that would make a distinction
between "remembering" Shabbos and "keeping" Shabbos.
For instance, the Maggid explains, a poor person would find it very easy to "keep"
the Shabbos since he has no pressing business matters, which would require his
immediate attention, even on Shabbos. However, the poor man may find it difficult
to "remember" the Shabbos because he lacks the funds to purchase proper food and
wine in honor of the Shabbos.
On the other hand, a rich man may find it quite effortless to "remember" the
Shabbos, since he has more than sufficient funds to properly honor the Shabbos by
purchasing wine and food fit for a king. However, a rich person is constantly involved
in business transactions and decisions that demand immediate attention. "Keeping"
the Shabbos would require that these business dealings be placed on hold for an
entire day, including the closing of his shops and factories. The idea of losing a whole
day's production and income may be too much for the rich person to endure and he
may be tempted to violate this section of the ordinance of "keeping".
Since people may attempt to separate the two commands in order to fit their
lifestyle, Hashem verbalized the two dictates of "remember" and "keep"
simultaneously. This "act" by Hashem proved that it is not permitted to separate
these two commands. The wealthy man is obligated not only to "remember" the
Shabbos, but also to "keep" the Shabbos. Furthermore, the rich man is encouraged
to provide financial assistance for the poor man in order to help him in
"remembering" the Shabbos, as well as "keeping" the Shabbos.
"Yisro, the minister of Midian, the father-in-law of Moshe, heard everything that
Hashem did to Moshe and to Yisroel, His people - that Hashem had taken Yisroel out
of Egypt" (Yisro 18,1).
Moshe went out to meet his father-in-law, and he prostrated himself and kissed him,
and each inquired about the other's well being; then they came to the tent. Moshe
told his father-in-law everything that Hashem had done to Pharaoh in Egypt for
Yisroel's sake" (Yisro 18,7-8).
40
Rashi (18,1) states that the reason Yisro came to visit Moshe in the wilderness was
because he heard about the splitting of the Red Sea and the triumph in war against
Amalek. In light of this, it is difficult to understand why Moshe again recounted these
episodes to Yisro (Ohr HaChaim 18,8)?
The tent into which Moshe brought Yisro seemingly refers to Moshe's home.
However, the Targum Yonason ben Uziel translates the word "tent" as bais medrash
(house of study), meaning that Moshe brought Yisro into the bais medrash.
Based on the interpretation of the Targum Yonason ben Uziel, the question of the Ohr
HaChaim can be answered as follows. Although Yisro heard about the miracles
performed by Hashem, the splitting of the Red Sea and the victory over Amalek, he
heard about them from the "street". The comprehension of the "street" in regard to
Hashem's miracles would not do justice to the awesome exhibit of Hashem's powers
and actions. Therefore, Moshe brought Yisro to the bais medrash in order to explain
to him the Torah view and understanding of Hashem's miracles. In this way, the full
spiritual impact which emanated from the wonders which Hashem performed for
Bnei Yisroel would be understood by Yisro in the deepest sense.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
Dovid is taking a course at a local school. All students are required to attend at least
80% of the classes. Over two hundred students are enrolled in the class, therefore
the teacher takes attendance by passing a sign-in sheet around the room during the
lecture.
The teacher lectures for two hours and by the end of the first hour the sign-in sheet
has circled around the room. There is a five-minute break at the end of the first hour,
which allows students to leave the room. Since the sign-in sheet has already been
signed, indicating that the student attended the class, it is possible for one to leave
and not return for the second half of the class without the teacher's knowledge.
Is it permissible for Dovid to skip the second half of a class, since the teacher is
aware of this behavior occurring and still has not devised a better attendance
scheme to prevent it? (Consult your Rav for a proper halachic ruling)
WHO AM I?
1. I gained a palace by defying the king.
2. I prepared for salvation.
3. I carried a lot of "wait".
4. I gave new meaning to running water.
Last week's clues and answer: Last week's clues and answer: Mercy to me is failure; I
just "happened" to be in the neighborhood; I had Moshe up in arms; "I am a lake" Amalek
Congratulations to Rabbi Yonah Krainess, Cheryl Birkner Mack, Mr. Neil Parks, Moshe
Rom, Yitzie Schabes and the Solomon Brothers
CAN YOU SAY THAT?
Is it ever permissible for Reuven to utter a non-derogatory but potentially harmful
statement about Shimon?
Answer: Yes. If Shimon grants others permission to disclose potentially harmful
information about him, they are allowed to disclose this information. provided that it
is not derogatory. (Sefer Chofetz Chaim)
For example, if Shimon regularly discusses his inability to match his clothes due to
color blindness, it would be permissible for others to repeat such a statement, as
long as neither the speaker nor the listener think any less of Shimon as a result of his
color blindness.
41
TORAH RIDDLE
Is it possible for someone to eat bread without saying the brocha of Hamotzi, even
though he washed his hands and recited the brocha of netilas yadayim?
Last week's question and answer: Is it possible for Reuven to destroy Shimon's 1812
first issue commemorative stamp and not be obligated to pay for damaging the
stamp? Yes. If Reuven owns the only two 1812 first issue commemorative stamps in
existence, then the elimination of one of them will cause the remaining one to
increase in value and offset the loss caused by the damaged one.
18. MISHPATIM
Volume I, Issue 32
Parshas Mishpatim
PARSHA INSIGHTS
If a Jew sells himself as a slave to another Jew, his master must free him after six
years of servitude. "But if the servant shall say, 'I love my master, my wife, and my
children - I shall not go free'; then his master shall bring him to the judges and shall
bring him to the door or to the door post, and his master shall bore through his ear
with the awl, and he shall serve him forever" (Mishpotim 21, 5-6)
Rashi comments, "An ear that heard at Mount Sinai, 'for the Children of Israel are
slaves unto Me,' and he went and acquired a (different) master for himself, let it be
bored" (21,6). According to Rashi, the transgression of this person is not a result of a
deficit in his "listening" ability, rather it is for allowing himself to be sold as a slave. If
so, why is he punished by having a hole bored into his earlobe, which symbolizes a
lack of "listening"?
The Sefas Emes zt"l answers as follows. Upon Hashem's offering of the Torah to Bnei
Yisroel had they only answered "we will do", it would have meant that they were
willing to accept the mitzvos upon themselves and perform their obligation according
to the letter of the law. When they added "we will listen", they were accepting upon
themselves a totally new dimension of service to Hashem. They were subjecting
their complete being and essence to the service of Hashem and accepting the yoke
of Heaven in an act of piety - "going beyond the letter of the law". This complete
subservience to Hashem of "going the extra mile" is the definition of the "nishma
(listening)" component.
A person who has sold himself into slavery is able to perform all the mitzvos and it is
indeed possible for him to fulfill all of the mitzvos according to the "letter of the law".
However, since he is subservient to his human master and must concern himself
with the master's needs and desires, it would be difficult for him to totally immerse
himself in the service of Hashem to the point of acting above and beyond the call of
duty. As a result, he is missing the main point of Bnei Yisroel's declaration of
"nishma", which calls for service "beyond the letter of the law".
An initial enslavement is not a total deficiency in the acceptance of Hashem's yoke,
which demands action "beyond the letter of the law", since this is due to financial
pressures or punishment for stealing. However, when a slave decides to voluntarily
remain with his master and of his own volition declares, "I love him," he is willingly
creating a complete deficiency in the desire of "going beyond" and total
subservience to Hashem, which is represented by "nishma". Therefore, he is
punished by boring a hole in his ear, which is the vessel of "nishma".
"He took the Book of the Covenant (the text of the Torah) and read in earshot of the
people, and they said, "Everything that Hashem has said, we will do and we will
listen" (Mishpotim 24,7)
Chazal (Shabbos 88b) state that because Bnei Yisroel uttered "naaseh venishma (we
will do and we will listen)", each person was crowned with two crowns by the angels.
42
If such a statement merited such a reward, it must be the result of an extremely high
level of dedication to Hashem on the part of Bnei Yisroel.
In contrast to this, the Tosefta (Bava Kamma Perek 7,2) states that even though Bnei
Yisroel responded with "naaseh venishma", they had not actually attained such a
lofty spiritual level. In fact, it seems that Bnei Yisroel tried to "fool" Hashem into
believing that they reached that high spiritual level.
According to the Tosefta, it is difficult to understand why Bnei Yisroel would be
rewarded with two crowns for saying "naaseh venishma" when this statement did not
accurately reflect their position? On the contrary, Bnei Yisroel should have been
punished for perpetrating "fraud". How could Hashem be pleased with such a
statement?
These two accounts of Bnei Yisroel's declaration of "naaseh venishma" are not
necessarily in conflict with each other. Although Bnei Yisroel were not at the level of
their declaration, they aspired, however, to attain that level. Their utterance of
"naaseh venishma" was not a ruse to fool Hashem into giving them the Torah.
Rather, it was a statement of their true desire to reach this level in their service to
Hashem.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
Boruch purchases an annual membership to the local zoo, which entitles his family to
one year of free admission to the zoo. When issuing the pass, the zoo lists the first
and last names of all the family members, although the zoo never verifies each
person's identity upon entering the zoo.
One of Boruch's children invites a friend to come along for a visit to the zoo. If one of
Boruch's children does not participate in this family trip, is it permissible for Boruch
to use his family pass to gain free admission for his child's friend?
WHO AM I?
1. I insure a restful day.
2. I am generally of no use.
3. I prevent you from "carrying on".
4. I am a touchy subject.
Last week's clues and answer: I gained a palace by defying the king; I prepared for
salvation; I carried a lot of "wait"; I gave new meaning to running water - Miriam
Congratulations to Sholom and Yehuda Adler, Mrs. Devorah Ben Gedalyahu, Moshe
Chaim Hefter, the Simon Family, Nesanel Speiser and Mr. Neil Parks
CAN YOU SAY THAT?
In what instance would it be prohibited for Reuven to relate information about
Shimon to others that is clearly not derogatory?
Answer: If this information would be stated in Shimon's presence and he would be
embarrassed, then the fact that it is not derogatory is immaterial, prohibiting Reuven
from saying this information about Shimon.
This prohibition applies even if Reuven is not stating this information in front of
Shimon. For instance, it is forbidden for Reuven to relate, even not in front of
Shimon, that Shimon is a baal teshuva if Shimon is sensitive about this fact. This
prohibition would even apply in a community where baalei teshuva are highly
respected and deeply admired, due to Shimon's sensitivity about the issue. (Sefer
Chofetz Chaim)
TORAH RIDDLE
Is it possible for a person to be fulfill the obligation of eating the Friday night seudah
43
without making Hamotzi and eating bread during the seudah?
Last week's question and answer: Is it possible for someone to eat bread without
saying the brocha of Hamotzi, even though he washed his hands and recited the
brocha
of
netilas
yadayim?
Yes.
1) If someone else said the brocha of Hamotzi for him. 2) Reuven recited the brocha
of Hamotzi over two challahs (he does not have any other challahs) at a Shabbos
meal before Shimon had an opportunity to wash. Shimon can be yotzei with Reuven's
brocha of Hamotzi, however before eating the challahs he should first wash his
hands and then recite the brocha of netilas yadayim. This would not be considered a
hefsek between the brocha of Hamotzi and the eating of the bread.
Congratulations to the Solomon Brothers
19. TERUMAH
Volume I, Issue 33
Parshas Terumah
PARSHA INSIGHTS
"You shall make a Menorah of pure gold, beaten out shall the Menorah be made, its
base, its branch, its goblets, its knobs, and its flowers shall be one piece with it"
(Terumah 25, 31).
Rashi comments "It (the Menorah) shall be beaten out (with a hammer), coming out
of the solid block (of gold), and he should not make them separately and attach
them." Why is it necessary for the Menorah, its decorations and adornments to be
constructed as one piece and not be made separately and then connected together?
The Chasam Sofer zt"l answers that the one solid piece from which the Menorah and
its decorations are created teaches Klal Yisrael how to properly interpret and
expound upon the Torah. In every generation there are people who attempt to gain
understanding of the Torah by drawing upon commentaries and examples from
secular literature or works from Jewish heretics. The Chasam Sofer declares that the
only source for interpreting and understanding situations and dialogues which occur
in the Torah is the Midrashim and words of Chazal.
This is alluded to by the Torah in its command that the adornments and decorations
(goblets, knobs and flowers), which symbolize the interpretations of the Torah, must
be created together with the Menorah - the symbol of Torah. It is imperative that all
explanations and insights into the Torah are derived from sacred, holy works and not
be based on foreign sources.
"This is the portion that you shall take from them: gold, and silver, and copper"
(Terumah 25,3)
In connection with the creation of the golden calf the Torah relates, "The entire
people unburdened themselves of the golden rings that were in their ears, and
brought them to Ahron" (Ki Sisa 32,3). The Medrash Tanchuma (Yoshon) states that
Hashem said that the gold which Bnei Yisroel will donate for the Mishkan would be an
atonement for the gold they used in the making of the golden calf. Rabbi Shimon
Schwab zt"l asks, why did the exoneration for the sin of the golden calf have to be
accomplished through the use of gold, specifically, in the building of the Mishkan?
Could forgiveness not have been achieved through the building of the Mishkan with
other materials?
The Ramban (Ki Sisa 32,1) explains that when Bnei Yisroel created the golden calf
their intention was l'sheim shamayim (for the sake of Heaven). They were motivated
by a true desire to obtain a replacement for Moshe Rabbeinu, so that the Shechina
would continue to rest upon them and in their midst. This idea is supported by
Moshe's statement to Hashem that "This people has sinned a great sin" (32,31).
The use of the word "great" by Moshe is not a description of the sin but a
characterization of the pure and lofty intentions that Bnei Yisroel had when they
were fashioning the golden calf. In fact, this virtuous intention was demonstrated by
Bnei Yisroel in their usage of gold - a pure, unadulterated element - in forming the
golden calf, which symbolizes the purity of their mindset during its creation.
Although Hashem revealed to Bnei Yisroel that the construction of the golden calf
44
was not the proper vehicle by which to serve Him, He did concede that their motives
were pure. To illustrate this concession, Hashem commanded Bnei Yisroel to use
these same lofty motives in the building of the Mishkan by using gold as a material
in its formation. The gold itself was not what obtained forgiveness for Bnei Yisroel,
rather the ideal that gold represented - pure, untainted, elevated service to Hashem,
is what gained Bnei Yisroel absolution. By directing these pure motivations, signified
by the use of gold, towards appropriate service to Hashem, Bnei Yisroel counteracted
their earlier, improper use of gold and thereby received atonement for the sin of the
golden calf.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
Boruch purchased a used car at an auto auction. The car has an extended warranty
that can be transferred from the previous owner to a new owner. Upon investigation,
Boruch determines that the balance of the warranty can be cashed in by the
previous owner for four hundred dollars.
Boruch is uncertain whether or not the previous owner is aware that the warranty
can be cashed in. If Boruch is interested in the previous owner signing over the
warranty to him for free, must Boruch inform the previous owner that the warranty
can be cashed in?
WHO AM I?
1. I caused death and destruction.
2. I was the product of miscalculation.
3. I caused the break up of a famous pair.
4. I had a living spirit but was never born.
Last week's clues and answer: : I insure a restful day; I am generally of no use; I
prevent you from "carrying on"; I am a touchy subject - Muktzeh
Congratulations to Mrs. Devorah Ben Gedalyahu, Aliza Krainess, Chezky Millstein, Mr.
Neil Parks and Avi Zuckerman
CAN YOU SAY THAT?
When one hears a negative report or statement about a fellow Jew, he must judge
favorably and not believe the report. Are there any circumstances under which it is
permissible for Reuven to believe the loshon hora that Shimon committed a
particular sin?
Answer: Reuven is allowed to believe a statement of loshon hora concerning Shimon,
if Shimon is a repeated offender of the sin that he is reported to have transgressed.
In fact, if Shimon is known to totally neglect the Torah and its precepts, it is
permissible for Reuven to believe that Shimon committed any sin. (Sefer Chofetz
Chaim)
TORAH RIDDLE
When is it permissible to eat any type of food without first making a brocha or
responding amen to another's brocha?
Last week's question and answer: : Is it possible for a person to fulfill the obligation
of eating the Friday night seudah without making Hamotzi and eating bread during
the seudah? Yes. If someone washed his hands, made Hamotzi, ate bread and began
eating a meal on Erev Shabbos and the meal continued into Shabbos, the person is
only required to interrupt the meal in order to make Kiddush. He would not have to
make Hamotzi or even eat bread during the Shabbos seudah.
45
20. TETSAVEH
Volume I, Issue 34
Parshas Tetzave
PARSHA INSIGHTS
"Remember what Amalek did to you on the way when you were leaving Egypt, that
he happened upon you on the way, and he struck those of you who were hindermost,
all the weaklings at your rear, when you were faint and exhausted, and he did not
fear Hashem" (Ki Seitzei 25, 17-18)."
The magnitude of Amalek's sin is revealed to us by the declaration of the Torah "Hashem maintains a war against Amalek, from generation to generation"
(Beshalach 17, 16). Why is the act of Amalek's waging war against Bnei Yisroel
considered a more severe sin than the act of any other nation who fought with Bnei
Yisroel?
The Brisker Rav, Rabbi Yitzchok Zev Soloveichik zt"l, points out that the Torah clearly
states that the severity of Amalek's sin lies in the fact that "he did not fear Hashem."
How, asks the Brisker Rav, does war against Bnei Yisroel by Amalek demonstrate
their absence of fear in Hashem?
The Brisker Rav explains that the manner in which Amalek waged war against Bnei
Yisroel proved that they had no fear of Hashem. The Gemora (Bava Kamma 79b)
inquires as to why the Torah is more harsh with a ganav (one who steals only by
night) than with a gazlan (one who steals by day or night). The Gemora explains that
the gazlan steals even during daylight, since he does not fear anyone, neither man
nor G-d. On the other hand, a ganav steals only at night in order to avoid man, since
he fears being caught. The fact that he does not even consider that Hashem is
watching shows that he has no fear of Hashem at all. The Brisker Rav asks why
should the gazlan, who is totally not afraid of anyone, not receive a harsher
punishment than the ganav, who does fear people?
The Brisker Rav explains that although the gazlan definitely lacks in his fear of
Hashem, it is not the dominant factor that motivates his actions. The overriding
factor is the gazlan's character deficit of desire for money, which he cannot
overcome. The ganav, however, methodically plans every move, plotting and
calculating the optimum times for success in his illegal endeavors. By making such
calculations in an effort to avoid being apprehended and punished by man, without
ever taking into account that Hashem is always watching, the ganav clearly
demonstrates that he does not fear Hashem at all.
Similarly, the Midrash explains the verse "when you were faint and exhausted"
means that Amalek desired to find the optimum time in which Bnei Yisroel would be
most vulnerable to attack. From the fact that Amalek made such calculations without
even including Hashem in the equation, it is evident that Amalek totally lacked fear
of Hashem. However, other nations who waged war against Bnei Yisroel did not plan
their battles against Bnei Yisroel. They fought with Bnei Yisroel whenever the
opportunity arose.
Calculated moves to avoid Hashem, proves a total lack of fear of Him, a greater sin
than fighting against Bnei Yisroel. Since Amalek believed that they could defeat a
tired and weary Bnei Yisroel, while completely ignoring the power and might of
Hashem, Amalek was punished measure for measure as Hashem, himself, waged
war against them.
"It shall be when Hashem, your G-d, gives you rest from all your enemies all around,
in the land that Hashem, your G-d, gives you as an inheritance to possess it. You
shall wipe out the memory of Amalek from under the heaven - you shall not forget"
(Ki Seitzei 25, 19).
Hashem does not give a command to his creations that is impossible to fulfill (Avoda
Zora 3a). Since it is natural for a person to forget, as well as beyond his control, how
can Hashem command Bnei Yisroel not to forget what Amalek perpetrated upon us?
This command seems to be a set up for failure.
The Telzer Rosh HaYeshiva Rabbi Chaim Mordechai Katz zt"l explains the command of
46
"you shall not forget" in the following manner. Hashem dictated that future
generations should strictly adhere to the commandment that "you shall wipe out the
memory of Amalek from under the heaven," and not develop a philosophy which
teaches that the current Amalekites are a kinder and gentler version. One may
philosophize that the dark age Amalekite carried a hatred for Bnei Yisroel, but the
modern, educated Amalekite desires to live in peace with Bnei Yisroel. No, says the
Torah, the animosity that Amalek harbored for Bnei Yisroel is so ingrained within
them, no matter how many generations elapsed from their first "encounter" with
Bnei Yisroel, the fire of hate still burns in their system. Only by completely
eradicating Amalek from this world, will Bnei Yisroel eliminate the evil influence of
Amalek.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
Boruch works in the computer department of company "A". Company "B", a software
company, wants Boruch to evaluate a new program, hoping that Boruch will
recommend that his company purchases it. The software company has arranged for
one of their technical support staff to answer any questions Boruch may have about
the new program.
Boruch has questions that he thinks Company B's technical support person may be
able to answer concerning a separate project that is totally unrelated to the program
evaluation. Is it permissible for Boruch to ask these questions to this technical
support person?
Would your answer differ if Boruch called this technical support person with a
question concerning the product that is being evaluated and then asks him a
question regarding the unrelated project? (Consult your Rav for a proper halachic
ruling)
WHO AM I?
1. I had the world at my feet.
2. My name was my fate.
3. Me and my big mouth.
4. Family surfing can be dangerous.
Last week's clues and answer: I caused death and destruction; I was the product of
miscalculation; I caused the break up of a famous pair; I had a living spirit but was
never born - The golden calf
Congratulations to Mrs. Nadine Czako, Dr. Eli Fink, Mrs. Shani Hefter, Aliza Krainess,
Ben-Tziyon Krainess, Chezky Millstein, Mr. Neil Parks, Tzippy Resnicoff, Nechemia
Rosenberg, the Schabes Family, the Solomon Brothers, Nachman Teren and Avi
Zuckerman
HOW "VERSE"ATILE ARE YOU?
(1. Find the verse that does not belong 2. Identify its source 3. Identify the story that
contains the remaining three verses)
A. "And the Jews struck at all their enemies with the sword, slaughtering and
annihilating."
B. "Why have I found favor in your eyes that you should take special note of me
though
I
am
a
foreigner."
C.
".the
silver
is
given
to
you,
the
people
also"
D. ".many from among the people of the land professed themselves Jews, for the
fear of Jews had fallen upon them."
(Please send your answer to gkrainess@adelphia.net. The answer will appear in next
week's issue)
TORAH RIDDLE
What was the name of King Achashverosh's horse which Haman lead through
47
Shushan with Mordechai riding on top?
Last week's question and answer: When is it permissible to eat any type of food
without first making a brocha or responding amen to another's brocha?
When one is an onein (After the death of a parent or any of the specified seven
relatives, a person has the status of an onein prior to burial).
Congratulations to Rabbi Calman Fishman, Mrs. Devorah Ben Gedalyahu and Mr.
Nosson Czako.
21. KI TISA
Volume I, Issue 35
Parshas Ki Sisa
PARSHA INSIGHTS
"It happened as he drew near the camp and saw the calf and the dances, that
Moshe's anger flared up. He threw down the Tablets from his hands and shattered
them at the floor of the mountain" (Ki Sisa 32,19).
Prior to breaking the luchos (Tablets), Moshe said, "But the whole Torah is here and
all the Israelites are apostates. How could I possibly give it to them?" (Rashi Ki Sisa
32, 19). This statement by Moshe is difficult to understand - What is the connection
between the observations that "the Torah is here" and "all the Israelites are
apostates"?
The Pardes Yosef answers that when Moshe first learned from Hashem that "your
nation that you have brought up from Egypt has degenerated" (Ki Sisa 32, 7) and
were worshipping the golden calf, Moshe was under the impression that Bnei Yisroel
had been influenced by the other nations and had begun mimicking them in
conducting their own rituals. Since Moshe believed that Bnei Yisroel was merely
imitating the pagan services of the other nations, he was confident that Bnei Yisroel
would quickly realize their error and repent.
However, when Moshe descended from the mountain, he realized that Bnei Yisroel
did not merely adopt the ceremonies of the other nations, they had, in fact, created
their own, unique god - a golden calf. Furthermore, Bnei Yisroel perpetrated this "in
the camp," which means that the contrary was in vogue - Jewish rituals for a different
god. Bnei Yisroel built an altar just like the one used in worshipping Hashem ""Aharon saw and built an altar before him" (Ki Sisa 32, 5). They even uttered "Jewish
prayers" to the idol - "These are your gods, o Israel, who brought you up from the
land of Egypt" (Ki Sisa 32,4). The entire scene "looked" like the practice of Judaism,
with one difference, the object of their worship was a golden calf instead of Hashem.
When Moshe realized that Jewish worship to a foreign god was occurring, he
declared, "But the whole Torah is here", which means that it appears as if Bnei
Yisroel are practicing the Torah, however, the truth is that "all the Israelites are
apostates." Understanding that Bnei Yisroel had incorporated this heresy into the
fabric of the Torah, Moshe was left with no alternative but to shatter the luchos.
Both Parshas Ki Sisa and Parshas Vayakhel contain a discussion about the building of
the Mishkan alongside a section regarding the mitzvah of Shabbos, with one
difference - the location of these mitzvos in these two parshios. In Parshas Ki Sisa,
the segment about Shabbos appears after the discussion concerning the Mishkan,
and in Parshas Vayakhel the section about Shabbos appears before the laws of the
building of the Mishkan. The Bais HaLevi zt"l asks why does the Torah change the
order of appearance of these two subjects from Parshas Ki Sisa to Parshas Vayakhel?
The Bais HaLevi explains the Torah's reasoning with the following illustration. A man
who has a son about to be married and loves him very much, will not only provide
him with the basic necessities for the wedding, he will also shower his son with
fineries and adornments well beyond the essentials of the wedding. Driven by this
strong love, the father will purchase everything for the wedding, both the necessities
and the "extras", simultaneously. However, a father who does not possess an intense
love for his son, will purchase the fundamental requirements for the wedding and will
48
wait to acquire the "extras" for him, depending upon whether the son sufficiently
endears himself to his father.
Similarly with mitzvos, there are two types. There are mitzvos which are fundamental
to the existence of a Jew, such as Shabbos, kashrus, tahara and Torah study, and
there are mitzvos whose purpose is to enhance one's kedusha (holiness), such as
constructing and having a Beis Hamikdash and bringing korbonos (sacrifices). These
two types of mitzvos differ in their ability to create closeness to Hashem. The
"fundamental" mitzvos allow one to become a servant of Hashem, while Mitzvos
which enhance kedusha forge an even closer bond between man and Hashem.
As evidenced by every generation that has lived in exile without the Beis Hamikdash,
a Jew is able to live a proper Torah life, albeit without attaining the highest level of
kedusha. However, it is Hashem's desire for a person to perform these mitzvos in an
upgraded fashion, at least commensurate with the person's pursuit of the finer
things in life and then one can connect to Hashem on a higher level.
Based on the above understanding, the Bais HaLevi explains that before the sin of
the golden calf in Parshas Ki Sisa, Hashem's love for Bnei Yisroel was at its pinnacle.
Due to this intense desire by Hashem for a relationship with Bnei Yisroel, He wanted
to create opportunities for them to achieve this higher level of connection with Him.
Therefore, Hashem gave the mitzvah of building the Mishkan, which fosters
enhanced spirituality, prior to the mitzvah of Shabbos, which is a core requirement.
By commanding the mitzvah of building the Mishkan first, Hashem demonstrated his
fondness for Bnei Yisroel, since this mitzvah represents the opportunity for an
enhanced relationship with Hashem.
However, Parshas Vayakhel was written after the sin of the golden calf was
committed, which caused Hashem's love for Bnei Yisroel to wane. Therefore, Hashem
first instructed Bnei Yisroel in regard to Shabbos, which is a basic requirement for
Jewish life but does not achieve maximum relationship with Hashem. However, it is
possible for a person, after achieving this spiritual baseline, to enhance his level of
kedusha and achieve a greater relationship with Hashem through the building of the
Mishkan. A higher connection with Hashem can be achieved in this day and age as
well, through the performing of mitzvos on an upgraded level.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
Boruch is thinking about purchasing a rental property. To increase the income
potential of the rental property, Boruch would like to convert the basement into a
separate living unit.
The local housing code does not allow a home to have a basement suite unless it is
waived by a variance, which is very rarely granted. Upon further investigation,
Boruch discovers that many houses in the area do have basement suites, although
the owners did not receive proper permission from the zoning board. One of the local
housing inspectors intimated to Boruch that although the law does prohibit
basement suites, the city has not enforced this law in many years.
Is it permissible for Boruch to convert the basement of this rental property into a
separate living unit even though it is technically a violation of the city code?
Would your answer be the same if Boruch discovers that the reason for this law was
to rectify a concern which prevailed over five decades ago and is no longer relevant
in this day and age?
WHO AM I?
1. I was the first to use airmail.
2. I am sound medical advice.
3. My presentation was my demise.
4. I am two-faced but the same.
49
Last week's clues and answer: : I had the world at my feet; My name was my fate;
Me and my big mouth; Family surfing can be dangerous (Hang Ten) - Haman
Congratulations to Mr. Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, Betzalel Freedman, Mr. Shlomie
Glicksman, Sheera Krainess and Mr. Marc Millstein
A. "I have sinned since I transgressed the word of Hashem and your word, for I
feared
the
people
and
I
obeyed
their
voice."
B. "Just as your sword made women childless so shall your mother be childless
among
women."
C. "Whoever has sinned against Me, I shall erase him from My book."
D. "And what is this sound of the sheep in my ears and the sound of the cattle that I
hear?"
week's issue) Last week's clues and answer: A. "And the Jews struck at all their
enemies with the sword, slaughtering and annihilating"; B. "Why have I found favor
in your eyes that you should take special note of me though I am a foreigner"; C.
".the silver is given to you, the people also"; D. ".many from among the people of the
land professed themselves Jews, for the fear of Jews had fallen upon them." Answer:
B - Megillas Ruth. A,C,D - Megillas Esther
Congratulations to Mr. Neil Parks and the Solomon Brothers
TORAH RIDDLE
Is it possible for the Shabbos Haftorah portion to change from the time the Shabbos
Torah reading begins until the Torah reading is over?
Last week's question and answer: What was the name of King Achashverosh's horse
which Haman lead through Shushan with Mordechai riding on top? - Shifregaz
Congratulations to Yehuda Leib Goldfarb, Tova Gittle Max and Dr. Jeff Solomon
22. VAJAKHEL
23. PIKUDEI
24. WAJIKRA
25. TSAV
Volume I, Issue 38
Parshas Tzav
PARSHA INSIGHTS
"A fire shall be kept burning on the Altar continually; it shall not go out" (Tzav 6, 6).
Why does the Torah use redundant language? If the fire on the Altar is supposed to
burn continually, of course it should not be extinguished.
Our Sages explain that the last part of the verse is conveying a separate law
concerning the fire on the Altar. The fire shall continue to burn, even when it travels
(Talmud Yerushalmi Yoma 4, 6).
The Reisher Rav, Rabbi Aharon Levine zt'l, explains the Yerushalmi's elucidation of
this verse homiletically - providing us with an important insight regarding a person's
daily conduct. When a person is conducting his daily affairs in the proximity of his
friends and relatives, it is very difficult to stray from the proper path. Not only will
50
loved ones correct him should he fail to behave according to accepted guidelines,
the discipline and structure of every day life on home turf will keep him from
improper behavior.
However, when a person travels from home and conducts his affairs on foreign
territory, most of his encounters are with people who do not know, nor care for, him.
He is very distant from the structure and watchful, caring eyes of those close to him.
Being in a situation devoid of people who subconsciously control his actions, a
person can easily fall into the traps set in front of him by the yetzer hora. During
such situations, it is possible that a person will surrender to temptation and stray
from the proper path.
Therefore, Dovid HaMelech states, "Happy is each person who fears Hashem, who
walks in his ways" (Tehillim 128, 1). The word "his" in this verse can be understood to
refer to "each person" (and not to "Hashem"), which interprets the verse as follows "Happy is each person who remains G-d fearing (even) when he walks in his ways",
meaning when the person is travelling away from home. The true test of one's
commitment to Hashem is how he acts when he is away from the watchful confines
of his home and community.
With this understanding, the message that the Torah, based on the Yerushalmi's
interpretation, is conveying becomes imminently clear. "A fire shall be kept burning
on the Altar continually" - the fire of love and fear of Hashem shall continually burn
in a person's heart. This fire "shall not go out, even when it travels" away from home.
If a person keeps the flame of Torah and service to Hashem continually ablaze in his
heart, it will not become extinguished even when he is on the road.
With the arrival of the month of Nissan, it is appropriate to discuss the concepts and
lessons of Pesach.
Our Sages (Berachos 33b) teach as follows: "In the presence of Rav Chanina, a man
once began enumerating praises (of Hashem) in his daily prayer (the Shemone
Esrei). He said, 'The Great, Powerful, Awesome, Mighty, Strong, True, Fearful One.'
Rav Chanina said to him, 'Have you completed enumerating all the praises of your
Master? Now, if Moshe had not said these three; 'Great', 'Powerful', and 'Awesome' in
the Torah (Devarim 10, 17), and the Anshe Knesses HaGedolah (Men of the Great
Assembly) had not introduced them into prayer, we would not be allowed to say
them. Yet you have mentioned so many.
This is likened to a king who owned thousands upon thousands of golden dinars, and
you praise him with a gift of a few dinars of silver. This is nothing but a disgrace to
him."
Based on Rav Chanina's statement, the Maharal of Prague zt"l concludes that it is
not permitted for a person to praise Hashem. Our praises are insignificant and can
never do justice to the awesome nature of Hashem. Therefore, one who attempts to
praise Hashem in this limited, mortal manner is actually disgracing Him. The parable
to the king who has thousands upon thousands of golden dinars, and was given a gift
of a few dinars of silver is well understood, since there is a qualitative difference
between gold and silver and a major difference between thousands and a few.
With this being the law, the Maharal asks, how are we allowed to praise Hashem
during the seder? Praises which fall short of the mark are actually degrading.
The Maharal answers that although words of praise are not permitted for the purpose
of praising Hashem, it is permitted to express words of praise for the purpose of
giving thanks to Hashem. Although it is impossible to praise a very rich king, it is
certainly appropriate and proper for the servant to thank the king for sustaining him
and giving him opportunities in life. Therefore, during the seder, although we utilize
expressions of praise, they are with the intention of thanking Hashem for all that he
has done for our ancestors and us. In showing our appreciation there are no
limitations or restrictions, and we are encouraged to express gratitude to Him
without end.
To prove that expressions of praise may be used for a purpose other than praising
Hashem, the Maharal cites the Gemora in Berachos mentioned above. The Maharal
asks, if one is not permitted to praise Hashem under any circumstances, how was it
possible for Moshe to declare to Bnei Yisroel that Hashem is Great, Powerful, and
51
Awesome?
The Maharal says that we learn from here that it is permissible to use words of
exaltation of Hashem for a non-exaltation objective. Moshe's desire was to instill into
Bnei Yisroel fear of Hashem, and he accomplished this goal by describing some of
Hashem's attributes.
The Maharal concludes that since it is permissible to use words of praise in order to
accomplish a goal other than the pure exaltation of Hashem, it is permitted to use
words of praise as a means to thank Him for the good he has bestowed upon us.
Therefore, during the seder we use laudatory expressions for Hashem in order to
thank Him for everything that He has done and does for us.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
Boruch commutes to work everyday by riding the bus. In order to save money
Boruch purchases a monthly bus pass. This pass must be shown to the bus driver
before entering the bus, although it does not have to be punched.
One day Boruch forgot his bus pass. By the time he realized it, the bus had already
arrived at the stop. The bus driver recognized Boruch and told him that he did not
have to pay, because he knew that Boruch had a monthly pass. Is it permissible for
Boruch to take this "free ride"?
During the day, Boruch was telling the story of his forgotten bus pass to one of his
co-workers. Another co-worker, who had a bus pass, overheard this conversation.
Since this co-worker did not need his bus pass for the next couple of days, he offered
to lend it to Boruch so that he would not have to pay for the bus ride home. Is it
permissible for Boruch to use his co-worker's bus pass, since Boruch really does
possess a pass of his own?
WHO AM I?
1. I am holy on many levels.
2. I represent all Jews.
3. I am simple but complex.
4. I am diminished by richness.
Last week's clues and answer: My purpose lies within and without; I hold "sacrifices"
but I am not an altar; I have symbolism over substance; I am taken for interrogation A Seder Plate
Congratulations to Dovid Kramer, Mr. Marc Millstein and Rochel Rina Millstein
A. " Behold now - you are barren and have not given birth; but you shall conceive
and give birth to a son."
B. "Hashem, Master of Legions, if You take note of the suffering of Your maidservant,
and You remember me, and do not forget Your maidservant and give Your
maidservant male offspring"
C. "Had Hashem wanted to put us to death. He would not have accepted from our
hand an elevation-offering and a meal offering.."
D. "The woman hastened; she ran and told her husband; she said to him, 'Behold,
the man who came to me that day has appeared to me.' "
week's issue)
Last week's verses and answer: A. "For three days you are to remain far down and
come to the place where you hid on the day of the incident"; B. "What the two of us
have sworn in the Name of Hashem - saying, 'Hashem shall be a witness between
52
me and you, and between my offspring and your offspring' - shall be forever"; C.
"Please grant me leave, for we have a family feast offering in the city and he - my
brother summoned me now"; D. "Now, I beseech you, swear to me by Hashem, since
I have done kindness with you, that you too will do kindness with my father's
household" Answer: D- Yehoshua 2 (When the spies promised Rachav that they will
spare her and her family) A,B,C - Shmuel I 20
Congratulations to Moshe Hefter and Shani Hefter
TORAH RIDDLE
Is it possible for a person to eat the proper amount of matzoh and morror in the
proper amount of time, with the proper kavana (intentions) and still not fulfill the
obligation of matzoh and morror?
Last week's question and answer: Is it possible for a person not to become an onein
immediately after the death of a close relative? Yes. 1) If someone dies on Shabbos
or Yom Tov, the immediate family does not become an onein until after the
conclusion of Shabbos or Yom Tov. 2) If someone dies in prison, and the authorities
prevent his immediate family from gaining immediate possession of the body, then
they will not become an onein until after they secure the body. (This only applies if
the family knows that they will be able to gain possession of the body). 3) If a person
does not know that their relative died, then he will not become an onein until he
finds out about the death (This only applies if the person found out about the death
prior to the burial). 4) A Kohen Gadol never becomes an onein.
Congratulations to The Hefter Family and Mr. Michael Post
26. SHEMINI
27. TAZRIA
28. METSORA
29. ACHREI
Volume I, Issue 41
Parshas Acharei Mos/Kedoshim
PARSHA INSIGHTS
"This shall be to you an eternal decree to bring atonement upon the children of Israel
for all their sins once a year; And he (Aharon) did as Hashem commanded Moshe"
(Acharei Mos 16, 34).
On the second part of this verse - "And he (Aharon) did as Hashem commanded
Moshe" - Rashi states, "When Yom Kippur arrived, he performed (the services) in this
order, and this is to declare the praise of Aharon for he did not wear them for his own
greatness but as one who fulfills the decree of the King."
Rabbi Shimon Schwab zt'l observes that the garments worn by the Kohen Godol on
Yom Kippur are not ornate, gold vestments, rather they are simple, white clothing
which do not cloak a person in splendor and magnificence. Why, asks Rabbi Schwab,
is Aharon praised for not wearing them for his own greatness, if these clothes do not
posses any qualities of grandeur? Even if one may argue that some sages (Yoma
34b) maintain that these priestly garments are valuable, it is still a fact that white
garments alone are plain and do not indicate greatness of the wearer.
It is well known and understood that proof of a person's greatness is determined by
his humble character. However, Rabbi Schwab says, that if one openly and willingly
displays the trait of humility for all to observe and see, in reality he is acting in a
"show off" manner. It is possible for a person to wear a simple garment in order to
signify "humility", with the intent of utilizing humility to display his greatness.
Rashi is teaching us that Aharon did not wear these white garments on Yom Kippur in
order to be lauded for his humility but simply because it was a command of Hashem,
and therefore, he is praised.
53
"Every man: Your mother and father shall you revere and My Sabbaths shall you
observe - I am Hashem your G-d" (Kedoshim 19, 3).
The Torah connects the ideas of fearing one's parents and keeping Shabbos in the
above verse. Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetzky zt'l inquires as to the relationship between
these two concepts.
Rabbi Kamenetzky explains that other nations and the Jewish heretics believe that
the world has always existed and was not created by the Creator. They also believe
that man, over the course of many centuries, evolved from a lowly animal into a
human being. They, therefore, conclude that each generation, which is farther
removed from the animal origins, is more important and significant than its
predecessors. The result of this erroneous belief dictates that the older generation
should honor and respect the younger generation, since the younger people are
even further removed from their animalistic source.
The Jewish people, however, believe that Hashem created the world and man. This,
therefore, means that every new generation is farther removed from creation and is
more distant from the divine influence and greatness of Hashem. Consequently, the
Jewish people exhibit the utmost in respect and reverence to their elders, since our
elders are a generation closer attached to Hashem's work of creation.
We can now understand the reason why the Torah writes the command of honoring
parents in conjunction with the mitzvah of Shabbos. Since respect for elders is borne
out of the fact that elders are closer to the creation of the world than the generation
following it, when the Torah commands "Your mother and father shall you revere",
the Torah immediately follows with the mitzvah which symbolizes that Hashem
created the world - Shabbos. The review of the concept of Shabbos, which states that
Hashem created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day, signifies that
He is the Creator.
Rabbi Kamenetzky adds that Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman zt'l used to say, "If Charles
Darwin would have had the privilege of seeing the Chofetz Chaim, he would never
have believed that man came from monkeys. Since Darwin only saw people who
acted like animals, it makes sense that he understood that people evolved from
monkeys."
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
One morning Boruch is unable to start his car and needs to have it towed to a
mechanic. Currently Boruch is not a member of the AAA.
Is it permissible for Boruch to join the AAA by phone and then use their service for
towing, even though the problem with the car occurred before he became a
member?
Would your answer differ if Boruch was planning to join AAA even before his car
needed to be towed?
WHO AM I?
1. I am on the cutting edge.
2. Secrets of the Torah were taught on me, "so our" wisdom would increase.
3. I am like the copper serpent.
4. I am brightness between the "mornings".
Last week's clues and answer: I am makeup but not just for women; It's now or
never; No cleaning necessary - just cleanliness; It's like dejavu all over again but
different - Pesach Sheini
Congratulations to Yehuda Bechor, Eli Fink, Mrs. Shani Hefter, Aliza Krainess, Eric
Mack and the Solomon Brothers.
54
A. "Now I know (through) this that you a re a man of G-d, and that the word of
Hashem in your mouth is true."
B. "As Hashem your G-d lives, I have not so much as a cookie, but only a handful of
flour in a jug and a bit of oil in a cruse."
C. "The jug of flour shall not run out and the flask of oil shall not lack, until the day
that Hashem provides rain upon the face of the earth."
D. "The donkeys are for the king's household to ride upon, the bread and the dried
figs are for the youths to eat, and the wine is for the exhausted one in the desert to
drink."
week's issue)
Last week's verses and answer: A. "If I have now found favor in Your eyes, then
perform a sign for me that it is You Who speaks with me."; B. "Take the young bull
that belongs to your father and the second bull, which is seven years old, and break
apart the altar of the Baal that belongs to your father, and cut down the Asheira-tree
that is near it."; C. "My Lord, Hashem/Elokim: Whereby shall I know that I am to
inherit it?"; D. "A flame went up from the rock and consumed the meat and matzos."
Answer: C - Lech Lecha 15, 8. A,B,D Shoftim 6 (The story of Gidon).
Congratulations to Yeshaya, Tzvi Menachem and Gavriel Hefter and Ben-Tziyon
Krainess
TORAH RIDDLE
Is it possible for a person to be called up to the Torah for an aliyah and not be
permitted to read along with the ba'al korei?
Last week's question and answer: If a person does not forget to count sefiras
ha'omer, is it possible for him to be prohibited to recite a brocha? 1) If right before
nightfall, for instance on Wednesday, one crosses over the international dateline, it
will then immediately be Thursday, so he will only be able to count the sefira without
a brocha 2) An onein could count without a brocha. 3) If a person stated the day of
the omer before making the brocha.
Congratulations to Mrs. Shani Hefter
30. KEDUSHIM
31. EMOR
32. BEHAR
Volume I, Issue 43
Parshas Behar/Bechukosai
PARSHA INSIGHTS
"The land will give its fruit and you will eat your fill" (Behar 25, 19).
"I will ordain my blessing for you in the sixth year and it will yield a crop sufficient for
the three-year period" (Behar 25, 21)
Rashi states that the phrase "The land will give its fruit" means that you will not fear
a year of draught, and the phrase "you will eat your fill" means that even within the
intestines there will be a blessing.
Following the promised blessing enumerated in verse 19, the Torah discusses the
person with little faith who asks, "What will we eat in the seventh year?" (Behar 25,
20). The Sforno comments that the fact that verse 19 details the blessings of the
shemitta year, even before the person of little faith is discussed, demonstrates that
verse 19 relates to the person with complete, unquestioning faith that Hashem will
fulfill His promises. Therefore, the Sforno says, the blessing related in verse 19 is
different from the blessing in verse 21 - "I will ordain my blessing for you in the sixth
year and it will yield a crop sufficient for the three-year period."
According to the Sforno, when Hashem says that "the land will give its fruit and you
55
will eat your fill", this implies that in the sixth year the land will not yield anymore
produce than any other normal year. This is a blessing of quality. Despite the fact
that there is only one year of produce for three years, one year's quantity of food will
be sufficient to sustain the true believer for the full three years (the sixth, seventh
and eighth years), because a little amount of food will be as filling as a normal
amount. This is why Rashi says, "even within the intestines there will be a blessing."
As a result of this blessing, the person who possesses complete faith in Hashem will
not have to exert much energy in collecting food for the three-year period.
On the other hand, the one who asks, "What will we eat in the seventh year?", is on a
lower spiritual level, so Hashem has to increase the yield in the sixth year in order
for there to be a sufficient quantity of food to last for the entire three years. Instead
of Hashem stating to the doubter that "you will eat your fill", He promises that "I will
ordain my blessing for you in the sixth year and it will yield a crop sufficient for the
three-year period." This is not a blessing of quality but only one of quantity - a lesser
blessing than the one bestowed upon the person with a greater level of faith.
Even though this person asked a seemingly logical question - "What will we eat in
the seventh year?" - this demonstrates a lack of faith in Hashem. Due to this blemish
in faith, the person is bestowed with an "imperfect" blessing. Although Hashem will
provide this person with three years worth of food, he will have to expend a great
deal of trouble and effort collecting it.
"Then the land will appease its sabbaticals during all the years of its desolation,
while you are in the land of your foes; then the land will rest and it will appease for
her sabbaticals" (Bechukosai 26, 34). Rashi explains this verse as follows, "It will
appease the wrath of Hashem who was angry regarding the sabbatical years."
Rabbi Chaim Henoch HaKohen z'l asks why of all the laws in the Torah, the violation
of the law regarding the Sabbatical Year is specifically enumerated as a cause of Bnei
Yisroel's exile?
The essence of the Sabbatical Year's observance is to teach us that Hashem is the
owner and ruler of the world and all of the land in it. Therefore, Hashem expects his
"tenants" to adhere to certain rules consistent with Hashem's dominion while living
on His land; namely, the Sabbatical Year. If man conducts himself in accordance with
these laws, then Hashem will grant His "tenants" a lease on the land, which is
renewable every seventh year.
However, if man defies Hashem by not observing the Sabbatical Year, man is
declaring his sole ownership of the land. This violation of the "lease term" leaves
Hashem with no choice but to evict man in order to remind him that Hashem is the
sole owner of the world.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
Boruch purchases a very expensive door at half price. The sign posted at the check
out register states that no returns or exchanges will be accepted unless
accompanied with the receipt.
On the way home, Boruch decides that he will purchase another half price door for
his father's house. When Boruch arrives home, he finds out that he chose the wrong
color door.
Boruch wants to return it but he cannot find the receipt. Is it permissible for Boruch
to purchase the door for his father and then use that receipt to return the first door
that he purchased?
Would your answer differ if Boruch did not decide to purchase a second door until
after he discovered the missing receipt?
What would be your answer if Boruch's friend happened to purchase the same door
and Boruch wanted to use his friend's receipt?
WHO AM I?
56
1. I'm all tied up but produce a confession.
2. I am awaiting a comeback, speedily in our days.
3. I am first in Yerushalayim.
4. I am spiritually and physically separated.
Last week's clues and answer: I do a lot for public service; My mother delivers; The
first was the last of his kind; I always have G-d on my mind - Kohen Gadol
Congratulations to Eli and Davida Fink, the Hefter Family, Rabbi Aton Holzer, Rabbi
Mordechai Nadoff and Dr. Sam Salamon
A. The entire assembly removed him to the outside of the camp; they pelted him
with stones outside of the camp."
B. I will not continue to be with you if you do not destroy the transgressor from your
midst."
C. I desired them and took them, and behold, they are hidden in the ground within
my tent, with the silver beneath it."
D. "Why have you caused us trouble? Hashem will cause you trouble this day."
week's issue)
Last week's verses and answer: A. "Please Hashem let us not perish now on account
of this man's soul.."; B. "See now, Your servant has found grace in Your eyes and
Your kindness was great which you did with me to save my life; but I cannot escape
to the mountain lest the evil attach itself to me and I die"; C. "Call to you G-d.
Perhaps G-d will think of us and we will not perish"; D. "and G-d relented
concerning the evil He had said He would bring upon them, and did not do it."
Answer: B - Vayeira 19, 19. A,C, D - Story of Yonah
Congratulations to Eli Fink, the Hefter Family, Rabbi Aton Holzer, Mr. Neil Parks, Dr.
Sam Salamon and Elisheva Schwersenski
TORAH RIDDLE
Was it ever permissible for a healthy person to eat on Yom Kippur?
Last week's riddle and answer: Is it possible for Tisha B'Av to occur during the
winter? Yes. In the Southern Hemisphere (like Australia). Congratulations to Eli Fink,
the Hefter Family, Rabbi Aton Holzer, Aliza Krainess, Mr. Eric Mack, Mr. Neil Parks, Dr.
Sam Salamon and Elisheva Schwersenski
33. BECHUKOTAI
34. BAMIDBAR
Volume I, Issue 44
Parshas Bamidbar
PARSHA INSIGHTS
"Hashem spoke to Moshe in the Wilderness of Sinai." (Bamidbar 1, 1).
"With three things was the Torah given - with fire, with water and in the wilderness"
(Midrash Rabba). Rabbi Meir Shapiro of Lublin zt'l explains the meaning of the
Midrash in the following manner.
Throughout history, Jews have surrendered their lives at the hands of their enemies
rather than forsake Hashem and the Torah. Rabbi Shapiro explains that these three
medium were instrumental in Bnei Yisroel's demonstration of their willingness to
sacrifice for Hashem and His dictates.
Our forefather Avrohom was the first to demonstrate the great strength of selfsacrifice. The fire to which the Midrash refers is the one burning intensely within the
furnace of Nimrod, when he demanded Avrohom to denounce his belief in the one
57
true G-d. Rather than declaring Nimrod the ruler of the world, Avrohom was willing to
be thrown into the burning furnace in order to sanctify Hashem's name. With this act
Avrohom implanted in future generations of Jews the courage and strength of spirit
to make the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of Hashem.
One may argue, however, that this was an isolated act by a great and righteous
individual and is not indicative of the true spirit of the Jewish people as a whole. In
response to this claim, the Midrash points to an incident of self-sacrifice, which
occurred with water, involving the entire Jewish nation. At the Red Sea, the entire
Jewish people, at the command of Hashem, bravely walked into the midst of the sea,
not knowing if they would drown or cross over to the other bank.
These two acts of self-sacrifice may still leave some to question whether Bnei Yisroel
were able to sacrifice themselves long term. To answer this doubt, the Midrash
recounts their willingness to travel through a wilderness filled with wild beasts,
lacking food or water, and not knowing the length of their trip. Hashem's command
was the only motivating factor in their eagerness to undertake this journey. The
prophet Yermiyahu recounts the endearing faith and love for Hashem demonstrated
by Bnei Yisroel in the wilderness, when he stated, "I recall for you the kindness of
your youth, the love of your nuptials, your following Me into the wilderness, into an
unsown land" (Yermiyahu 2, 1).
Rabbi Shapiro concludes that it was by virtue of passing these three tests of fire,
water and wilderness that Bnei Yisroel proved to Hashem their total self-sacrifice in
observing Hashem's dictates. Since these three tests proved Bnei Yisroel's
willingness to sacrifice for Hashem's command under all circumstances, Hashem felt
that they would implement His mitvos no matter the hardship or difficulty. Therefore,
Hashem deemed them to be the worthy recipients of His precious gift - the Torah.
".(mattei Zevulun) the tribe of Zevulun - and the leader of the tribe of Zevulun is
Eliov ben Cheylon" (Bamidbar 2, 7).
The Torah describes the configuration of Bnei Yisroel's camp, with three tribes
occupying each section, as follows:
East - Yehuda, Yissochor, Zevulun
South - Reuven, Shimon, Gad
West - Ephraim, Menashe, Binyomin
North - Dan, Asher, Naphtoli
The Baal HaTurim points out that except for Zevulun, the last name mentioned in the
other three sections is connected with the letter "vav" - 'u'mattei Gad (and the tribe
of Gad), 'u'mattei Binyomin (and the tribe of Binyomin) and 'u'mattei Naphtoli (and
the tribe of Naphtoli). Why, the Baal HaTurim asks, is Zevulun's name not connected
with a "vav" - The Torah only says "mattei Zevulun (tribe of Zevulun)?
The Baal HaTurim explains that the Torah is defining a new interpretation regarding
the relationship between Yissochor and Zevulun. These two tribes had an agreement
whereby Yissochor studied Torah and Zevulun supported them. As a result of Zevulun
supporting Yissochor, Zevulun was rewarded for the learning of Yissochor. Simply
understood, this reward allowed for Zevulun to receive a portion of Yissochor's
reward for learning.
The Torah is teaching us, according to the Baal HaTurim, that the reward for Zevulun
is that he and Yissochor are actually considered as one tribe. They are not merely
partners in receiving a reward for Torah study, rather they truly become part and
parcel of one entity. When one supports Torah, he is not merely an "investor"
awaiting dividends, he becomes an intricate part of the company.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
Boruch unwraps a candy bar that he purchased at a store. Before taking a bite into
the candy bar, he breaks it in half and notices a worm inside.
Boruch returns the candy bar to the owner and the owner tells Boruch to take
another bar of the same type. Before leaving, Boruch again breaks the candy bar
and again finds a worm inside. Understandably, Boruch was not interested in another
58
candy bar, so the owner gave him a refund.
Boruch asked the owner if he would like his assistance in removing the other bars of
the same type from the shelf. The owner tells Boruch that two wormy candy bars
does not mean that all of them are infested and therefore, does not plan on
removing the others bars from the shelf.
Is it permissible for Boruch to report the store to the health department?
Is it permissible for Boruch to inform customers about the incident?
Is your answer dependent on the religion of the storeowner?
WHO AM I?
1. I was restricted but immortality surrounded me.
2. I am lowly but exalted.
3. I contained a burning sanctity.
4. When amount was important, I was the one.
Last week's clues and answer: I'm all tied up but produce a confession; I am awaiting
a comeback, speedily in our days; I am first in Yerushalayim; I am spiritually and
physically separated - Bikkurim
Congratulations to Reva Efroymson, Davida Fink, Ms. Cheryl Birkner Mack and Mr.
Brandon Raff
A. "Then I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I imperil my own inheritance."
B. "Blessed is Hashem who has not left you without a redeemer today."
C. "If a man will have no redeemer but his means suffice and he acquires enough for
its redemption"
D. "Buy it in the presence of those sitting here and in the presence of the elders of
my people."
week's issue)
Last week's verses and answer: A. "The entire assembly removed him to the outside
of the camp; they pelted him with stones outside of the camp"; B. "I will not continue
to be with you if you do not destroy the transgressor from your midst"; C. "I desired
them and took them, and behold, they are hidden in the ground within my tent, with
the silver beneath it"; D. "Why have you caused us trouble? Hashem will cause you
trouble this day." Answer: A - Shelach 15, 36. B, C, D - Yehoshua 7 (The incident with
Achan)
Congratulations to the Hefter Family and Mrs. Nomy Krainess
TORAH RIDDLE
In what instance is the second day of Yom Tov more stringent than the first day of
Yom Tov?
Last week's riddle and answer: Was it ever permissible for a healthy person to eat on
Yom Kippur? Yes. During the dedication of the first Beis Hamikdash, Bnei Yisroel
rejoiced and ate on Yom Kippur.
Congratulations to the Hefter Family and Mr. Brandon Raff
35. NASO
36. BEHAALOTHEKHA
37. SHELACH LECHA
59
38. KORACH
Volume I, Issue 49
Parshas Korach
PARSHA INSIGHTS
"Wherefore, then, do you lift yourselves up above the assembly of Hashem" (Korach
16, 3).
This statement by Korach, in essence, accuses Moshe of actively separating himself
from Bnei Yisroel because Moshe believed that he was superior to them. How could
Korach accuse Moshe, the most humble of all men, of being arrogant? If Korach's
motive was to convince people to rise up in rebellion against Moshe it would have
made more sense for Korach to choose a more believable fault regarding Moshe?
The Rabbi of Kotzk, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Morgenstern zt"l, points out that this is
the common practice utilized by those who engage in controversy with righteous
individuals. Due to their evil nature, they always attribute to the virtuous man a trait
which is the complete opposite of their true nature. Although such tactics do not
harm the pious one, this lesson is important for the bystander and common folk who
hear these accusations. With this insight one will readily recognize that those who
seek confrontation with righteous people conjure up all types of lies when opposing
them.
Many of those who incite controversy against the righteous approach with a different
modus operandi as well, says Rabbi Naphtali of Rupshitz zt"l. In whatever manner a
righteous man behaves, they demand the opposite. If the righteous man withdraws
from the world and spends every moment learning Torah, then the scoffers claim
that he is giving no benefit to the world while holed up all day in the beis medrash.
On the other hand, if the righteous person decides to take an active role in
communal affairs and speaks his mind on matters affecting the community, then
they claim that the righteous man is untrained in the ways of the world and political
matters. They even advise him to mind his own business and "go back to the
Gemora."
Based on this approach of scoffers, Rabbi Naphtali of Rupshitz interprets the
following verse - "They were jealous also of Moshe in the camp, and of Ahron, the
holy one of Hashem" (Tehillim 106) in this manner. "They were jealous also of Moshe
in the camp" means that Korach criticized Moshe for not being sufficiently concerned
and involved with the issues of the public who resided in the camp because Moshe
spent a great deal of his time studying Torah in his tent, which was pitched outside
the camp. Conversely, Korach's criticism of Ahron was just the opposite - "and of
Ahron, the holy one of Hashem."
This alludes to the fact that although Ahron was deeply involved in the affairs of the
community and constantly sought to make peace among fellow Jews, Korach argued
that Ahron, who was designated as holy to Hashem, should not intrude in community
affairs, rather he should remain holy in the bais medrash studying Torah.
These are the ways of the Dosons and Avirams of all generations. They criticize the
pious Jew for remaining aloof and isolated from the community. However, when the
devout enters the "camp" to take an active role in community affairs, the scoffers
are the first to demand that they return to the bais medrash and not meddle in
community issues.
"It shall be that the man whom I shall choose - his staff will blossom; thus I shall
cause to subside from upon Me the complaints of Bnei Yisroel, which they complain
against you" (Korach 17, 20).
What was so miraculous about the flowering stick which caused Bnei Yisroel to
accept it as irrefutable proof that Ahron was indeed chosen by Hashem for the
priesthood?
Rabbi Leib Chasman zt'l answers this question with the following clarification
regarding people's understanding of creation and the true role of Hashem in it. It is
truly miraculous that Hashem renews and revitalizes the world daily, right before our
60
eyes. Man sees trees which are dry and withered grow, flower and produce fruit even
though just days ago the trees were dry and withered Why is this occurrence not
considered wondrous and received with the highest praises to Hashem?
Rabbi Chasman explains that these occurrences are considered mundane and
uneventful because they take place on a regular basis. The missing ingredient
needed in order to view these "natural" events as the miraculous work of Hashem is
contemplation. A person who views this world with an understanding heart and
thinks deeply about the true greatness and wonder of "nature" will begin to realize
that everything is an indescribable, miraculous event. If one, however, does not
involve himself in contemplation, then only "unnatural" events seem wondrous.
Therefore, in truth, there is nothing specifically miraculous regarding the flowering
stick. However, Bnei Yisroel did view it as miraculous because they lacked the
perspective to recognize that nature in general is extraordinary and wondrous. Had
they been people who contemplate Hashem's hand in this world, they would not
have considered the budding staff of Ahron more supernatural than the flowering
trees and plants which grow.
Since Bnei Yisroel considered the flowering stick especially miraculous it caused
them to accept the stick as an undeniable proof that Ahron was the one chosen by
Hashem for the priesthood.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
Brocha borrowed a dress from the local gemach for her brother's wedding. The
gemach director told Brocha that before returning the dress, she should dry clean it.
She also stipulated that the dress must be returned no later than four days after the
wedding.
The day after her brother's wedding, Brocha receives a call from a friend who
desperately needs a dress for her sister's wedding because the airlines lost her
luggage. The friend agrees to pay for the dry cleaning and return the dress within
Brocha's allotted time limit. Brocha cannot locate anyone from the gemach to get
permission for her friend to use the dress.
Is it permissible for Brocha to allow her friend to use the dress without receiving
permission from the gemach? If it is permissible, must the dress be dry-cleaned
before and after the friend uses it or is one dry-cleaning after both uses sufficient?
WHO AM I?
1. We lived on the edge.
2. Fire created our downfall.
3. We were a chaotic collection.
4. We were incite-ful to some.
Last week's clues and answer: My protection was my portion; Though I'm a lion, I
was like a salmon; I was demanded for an encore performance; I traded a family for
salvation - Calev
Congratulations to Eli, Dovid and Reva Efroymson, Moshe Rom and Avi Zuckerman
A. "Have you seen this man who goes forth? He goes forth to disgrace Israel."
B. He spoke of the trees from the cedar which is in Lebanon down to the hyssop
which grows out of the wall."
C. "You, your sons, and your father's household with you shall bear the iniquity of the
Sanctuary."
61
week's issue)
Last week's verses and answer: : A. "Therefore, thus said Hashem, Master of Legions,
concerning these prophets: 'Behold, I shall feed them wormwood and give them
poisonous water to drink"; B. "do not hearken to the words of that prophet or that
dreamer of a dream"; C. "I did not send those prophets yet they ran; I did not
speak to the yet they prophesized"; D. "Therefore, their way shall be for them like a
slippery path in the dark; they will be pushed and fall on it." Answer: B - Re'eh 13, 4.
A, C, D - Yermiyahu 23.
Congratulations to Avi Zuckerman.
TORAH RIDDLE
Is it possible that a biblically ordained mitzvah be more stringent in a case where
there is a doubt whether it is obligatory exists as opposed to an obligation of an
actual mitzvah?
Last week's riddle and answer: Was there ever a period in history when the month of
Sivan contained a public fast day? If so, what was the date and for what purpose?
Yes. The twentieth of Sivan was first instituted as a fast day by Rabbeinu Tam
together with all the French sages of the time because of tragedies which befell their
communities on that day in the year 4931 (1171 CE) After the persecutions in Poland
in the years 5408 and 5409 (1648 and 1649 CE) the sages of that time reconfirmed
the twentieth of Sivan as a public fast day.
Congratulations to Eli and Davida Fink
39. CHUKOTH
40. BALAK
41. PINCHAS
Volume 2, Issue 2
Parshas Pinchas
PARSHA INSIGHTS
"Pinchas, son of Elazar, son of Ahron the Kohen, turned back My wrath from upon
Bnei Yisroel, when he zealously avenged Me among them, so I did not consume Bnei
Yisroel in My vengeance. Therefore, say: 'Behold! I give him My covenant of peace"
(Pinchas 25, 11-12).
Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik of Brisk zt"l asks, why did Hashem reward Pinchas with a
"covenant of peace' for his actions, rather than with a "covenant of zealousness"?
Following a war, observes Rabbi Soloveitchik, a hero receives an award which
reflects the heroic deed that he performed. Therefore, Pinchas should have received
a "covenant of zealousness", since the action which he was being cited for was his
zealousness.
Chazal state that Hashem rewards "measure for measure" (Shabbos 105b).
Therefore, Rabbi Soloveitchik asks, why did Hashem reward Pinchas with peace,
which is the antithesis of zealousness?
Rabbi Soloveitchik points to the above-cited verse for the answer. Since Pinchas'
actions lead Hashem to turn "His wrath from upon Bnei Yisroel", and He "did not
consume Bnei Yisroel", in reality Pinchas performed an act which resulted in peace
for Bnei Yisroel. The fact that Hashem did not consume Bnei Yisroel allowed them to
exist in peace, unharmed by Hashem's wrath. As a result of Pinchas' action, peace
reigned in the camp of Bnei Yisroel, and therefore, Hashem "gave him My covenant
of peace." Pinchas was indeed rewarded measure for measure -- "peace for peace".
This idea is supported by Malachi (2, 5-6) who prophesizes concerning Pinchas, "My
covenant was with him, life and peace..he walked with Me in peace and with
fairness, and turned away many from sin." This means that because "he (Pinchas)
walked with Me in peace and with fairness," Pinchas merited a "covenant of peace."
Rabbi Soloveitchik's principle, in short, is as follows. Midah keneged midah (measure
for measure) does not mean that the reward must match the act; the reward can
62
sometimes match the result of an act, as well.
"because (Pinchas) was zealous on behalf of his G-d" (Pinchas 25, 13).
Why does the verse state that Pinchas was zealous on behalf of his G-d? Did Pinchas
have a personal G-d?
Rabbi Menachem Asch zt"l (Chomas Aish) answers the above question by providing
an insight into the nature of sinners. Many a time sinners justify their conduct by
pointing to others and saying; "That person acted in the same manner as I did."
The proclivity for people to compare their behavior to the actions of others caused
Hashem to address Bnei Yisroel in second person singular - you -- when He delivered
the Aseres Ha'Dibros (Ten Commandments). By addressing Bnei Yisroel in this
manner, Hashem wanted every Jew to understand that the Torah was given to him
personally and therefore, the improper actions of others are not a legitimate excuse
for his behavior.
When Pinchas saw Zimri acting immorally, Rabbi Asch explains, he could have
observed Moshe, Ahron and the elders of Bnei Yisroel's non-reaction and passive
attitude and said, "If they are not taking any action to stop this conduct, why should I
be more zealous than they are?" However, Pinchas did not wait to see how the
others responded -- he acted on his own, with the purpose of upholding the honor of
Hashem.
This is the meaning of the Torah's statement "because he was zealous on behalf of
his G-d." Pinchas acted as if Hashem was his alone and that it was his duty to defend
His honor, despite the fact that no one else stood up for Hashem's respect.
TABLE TALK
THE DILEMMA
Boruch goes to the hospital for outpatient surgery. During recovery a nurse offered
him a couple of packages of crackers, since she knew that Boruch would not be
discharged for a while and had been fasting all day.
The nurse brought him six packages of graham crackers. After eating two packages,
Boruch gave some crackers to his wife who had accompanied him to the hospital.
Is it permissible for Boruch to give some of the crackers to his wife, since she is not
the patient?
Is it permissible for Boruch to bring any leftover packages of crackers home for his
children?
WHO AM I?
1. I did not dispute the authority of Hashem or Moshe.
2. My death caused clarification.
3. I was not a very good postman.
4. My family was all the same.
Last week's clues and answer: Contrary to my description I do not contain words; I
am better than ivory; I am physical but purely spiritual; I am the opposite of welldone - Para Aduma (Red Cow)
Congratulations to Rabbi Avrohom Adler, Chezky Milstein, Mr. Michael Post and
Moshe Rom
A. "Who can possibly stand before Hashem, this Holy G-d? To whom among us can
the
(Ark)
ascend?"
B. "They chopped the boards of the wagon, and offered up the cows as an elevationoffering
to
Hashem."
63
C. "The people mourned because Hashem had smitten the people with a great blow."
D. "Everyone who approaches closer to the Tabernacle of Hashem will die. Will we
ever stop perishing?"
week's issue)
Last week's verses and answer: A. "Let her keep them lest we become a
laughingstock.."; B. "Though you have acted in secrecy, I shall perform this deed in
the presence of all Israel and before the sun"; C. "She is right, it is from me"; D.
"Come if you please, let me consort with you" Answer: B - Shmuel II 12, 12 (The
incident of Dovid Ha'Melech and Bas Sheva). A,C.D - Vayeishev 38 (the incident of
Yehuda and Tamar).
Sorry, no congratulations.
TORAH RIDDLE
What is the technical term for a healthy uncircumcised Jewish child who is more than
eight days old?
Last week's riddle and answer: What brocha is only recited on a Wednesday? Birchas
Hachama (This brocha is only recited once in twenty eight years)
Congratulations to Rabbi Avrohom Adler, Dr. Michael Eleff and Mr. Michael Post.
42. MATOTH
43. MAASEI
44. DEBARIM
45. VAETHCHANAN
46. EKEV
47. REEIH
48. SHOFETIM
49. KI TEITZEI
50. KI TABO
51. NITSAVIM
52. WAJELECH
53. HAAZINU
54. WE ZOTH HABERACHAH

Volume I, Issue 15 Parshas Bereishis Parsha Insights

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Volume I, Issue 15 Parshas Bereishis Parsha Insights

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

1

THE KOLLEL FAMILY

THE KOLLEL FAMILY

Anda mungkin juga menyukai