Torah Down Under

Parshas Be'shalach: Did the Leviim have a bris at Yetzias Mitzraim?

2012-02-03T16:22:00.001+11:00

The Rambam says in the YadHaChazakah (הלכות איסורי ביאה פרק יג);

(הלכהא') בשלושה דברים נכנסו ישראל לברית: במילה וטבילה וקרבן.

(הלכה ב') מילה היתה במצרים, כשנאמר: "כל ערל לא יאכל בו"(שמות יב מח). מל אותם משה רבנו, שכולם ביטלו ברית מילה במצרים חוץ משבט לוי. ועלזה נאמר: "ובריתך ינצרו" (דברים לג ט).

“The benei yisrael entered into a covenant with Hashem through threethings; Bris milah, tevilah andbringing a korban.

The bris milah was in Mitzraim. Because the halacha is that an arelcannot eat from the Korban Pesach, Moshe commanded the benei yisrael to perform brismilah, because all of them stopped doing bris milah in Mitzraim besides the tribe of Levi.”

The Ramban in Yevamos (46a)asks;

אם כן שבט לוי איך נכנסו תחת כנפי השכינה ? אלא הטיפו ממנו דם-ברית. ולינראה דמדין מילה אינם חייבים להטיף - דהא מלו, ולא דמי לערבי מהול וגבעוני מהול,כיוון דלא מפקדי כמאן דלא מלו דמי

“If the tribe of Levi did bris milah before Moshe commanded them,how did they enter into the covenant with Hashem?

You must say that they did hataphas dam bris.

However this would not have countedtowards them entering into a briswith Hashem because they already had brismilah and doing a further hataphasdam bris would not have added anything.

This is not similar to a non-Jewwho already has a bris who performs hataphasdam bris if they become a ger,because there seeing as they were not previously commanded to do bris milah it is as if they have not hadmilah at all so the hataphas dam bris that they do is a newentry into a covenant with Hashem.

However in the case of theLeviim in Mitzraim, seeing as the bristhat they already had was a bris thatwas performed because of a mitzvah, doing hataphasdam bris would not have added anything and could not have been a sign of thementering into a new covenant with Hashem.”

· If so,according to the Rambam, how did the Leviim enter into a bris with Hashem atthe time of Yetzias Mitzraim?

The gemara says in Shabbos(87b);

…דכתיב (דברים ה, יא) כאשר צוך ה' אלהיך ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב כאשרצוך במרה

“The passuk says שָׁמוֹר אֶת יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לְקַדְּשׁוֹכַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה אֱלֹקֶיךָ –‘Guard the day of the Shabbos to sanctify it was Hashem your G-d commandedyou.’ Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav, ‘This means as Hashem commanded youin Marah.’”

Tosafos asks;

The gemara says in Shabbos(118b);

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אלמלי שמרו ישראל שבת ראשונה לא שלטה בהן אומהולשון שנאמר (שמות טז, כז) ויהי ביום השביעי יצאו מן העם ללקוט וכתיב בתריה ויבאעמלק

“Rav Yehudah said in the name ofRav – had the benei yisrael only keptthe first Shabbos then no nation or language would ever have been able to ruleover them, as the passuk says, ‘And it was on the seventh day that some of thepeople went out to gather man,’, andit says after this, ‘And Amalek came…’”

· If thebenei yisrael were already commanded to keep Shabbos in Marah then the Shabboswhen the people went out to gather manwas not the first Shabbos. Why then does the gemara (118b) say that the benei yisrael did not keep the first Shabbos?

The Maharal (Shemos 15:25) answersas follows;

1) TheRambam says that the reason that we keep brismilah and gid hanashe is notbecause these mitzvos were given toAvraham and to Yaakov. Rather we keep them because they were re-commanded toMoshe at Har Sinai.

We see from thisthat there are two types of mitzvah,there are mitzvos that are giventhrough a Navi, such as the sheva mitzvosbenei noach, and there are mitzvosthat are part of the Torah. Even if the mitzvahis ultimately included as part of the Torah and becomes a mitzvas ha’Torah, it may still have been a mitzvas navi from the time that it was originally commanded until matan torah.

2) Even ifa mitzvah is part of the Torah, it is only Torahsheh’biksav if the details of the mitzvah are explicit in the Torah. Forexample, the passuk says in Devarim (12:21);

וְזָבַחְתָּ מִבְּקָרְךָ וּמִצֹּאנְךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן ה לְךָ כַּאֲשֶׁרצִוִּיתִךָ

“And you shouldslaughter from your cattle and your flocks that Hashem has given to you as Ihave commanded you.”

We learn from thispassuk that there are Hilchos of shechitahthat were given to Moshe. However even although there is a reference to Hilchos shechitah in the passuk, theystill remain torah shebaal peh because the Torah did notspecify the details of any of these halachos.

The only reason thatwe know that the benei yisrael werecommanded concerning Shabbos in Marah is because the passuk says in Devarim - שָׁמוֹר אֶת יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לְקַדְּשׁוֹכַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה אֱלֹקֶיךָ.

The Maharal explainsthat this ‘kaasher tzivechah’ is notbetter than the reference of ‘ka’ashertzivischah’ concerning Hilchosshechitah. Just as Hilchos shechitahare not torah shebikesav, so too, fromthis reference to Shabbos, the mitzvah to keep Shabbos given in Marah couldonly be at best Torah shebaal peh butnot Torah shebiksav.

3) Therefore,had the mitzvah to keep Shabbos that was given in Marah been part of the Torah(a mitzvah of the Torah and not just a mitzvah given by a navi), then it wouldturn out that the torah shebaal pehof Shabbos came before the torahshebiksav of Shabbos (Shabbos is only referenced explicitly later in theparshah of man.)

However, torah shebaal peh is an explanation of torah shebiksav and not the other wayround. Therefore it is impossible that the mitzvah to keep Shabbos given inMarah was a mitzvas hatorah and itmust only have been given to the benei yisrael as a mitzvas navi (like gid hanashewhen it was commanded to Yaakov).

4) Whenthe gemara in Shabbos (118b) says that the first Shabbos that the benei yisraelhad was the Shabbos when they were given the man, it means that this was the first Torah commanded Shabbos thatthey had. The previous command that they had been given to keep Shabbos inMarah was not part of the giving of the Torah but was rather a mitzvas navi that was given to them inorder to make them used to keeping Shabbos.

Rb Yitzchak Hutner z”l (Pesach 36) explainsthat you see from this Maharal that if a mitzvahwas commanded before Har Sinai, then as long as it was written in the Torah itwas a mitzvos ha’Torah even before matan torah at Har Sinai.

Therefore you can say that accordingto the Rambam the Leviim were able to do hataphasdam bris in order to be nichnastachas kanphei ha’shechinah because the mitzvahthat Moshe gave to the benei yisraelin Mitzraim to do milah was a Torah mitzvah that superseded the mitzvas navi to do milah that was given to Avraham.

Therefore with respect to the mitzva of Moshe, the Leviim did not havethe status of having milah and wereable to do hataphas dam bris.

Parshas Va'era: The strength of Yitzchak Avinu

2012-01-20T18:07:00.001+11:00

The passuk says in this week’s sedrah;

וַיְדַבֵּר אֱלֹקִים אֶל מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֲנִי ה׳. וָאֵרָא אֶל אַבְרָהָם אֶל יִצְחָק וְאֶל יַעֲקֹב בְּקֵל שַׁקי וּשְׁמִי ה׳לֹא נוֹדַעְתִּי לָהֶם. וְגַם הֲקִמֹתִי אֶת בְּרִיתִיאִתָּם לָתֵת לָהֶם אֶת אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן אֵת אֶרֶץ מְגֻרֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר גָּרוּ בָהּ

“Elokimspoke to Moshe and He said to him, ‘I am Hashem.I appeared to Avraham, to Yitzchak and to Yaakov through the name Kel Shakai but through my name Hashem Iwas not known to them. I have also established my covenant with them to give tothem the land of Kenaan, the land of their sojournings within which they dwelled.’”

The name Elokim refers to the middas hadin, the strict judgement of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. The name Hashem refers to the middas harachamim, the kindness shown by Hakadosh Baruch Hu. How can the passuk say, ‘Vayedaber Elokim el Moshe vayomer elav ani Hashem’? If Hashem appeared to Moshe with strict judgement then He did not come to Moshe to show him the kindness of the middas harachamim?

The Baal Ha’Turim comments;

וארא. בגימטריא יצחק. כדאיתא במדרש (פסי"ר פמ"ג) שיצחק גרם להם לישראל שיצאו ממצרים

“Va’era hasthe same gematria as Yitzchak (208),as the medrash says; Yitzchak caused the beneiyisrael to come out of Mitzraim.”

The passuk says that Hashem told Moshe that the benei yisrael would be redeemed in the zechus of all of the avos. How can the Baal Ha’Turim say that they were redeemed specifically in the zechus of Yitzchak?

The passuk says in Vayigash;

וַיִּסַּע יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכָל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ וַיָּבֹא בְּאֵרָה שָּׁבַע וַיִּזְבַּחזְבָחִים לֵאלֹקֵי אָבִיו יִצְחָק

“And Yisrael travelled and all that belonged to himand he came to Be’er Sheva, and he brought korbanosto the G-d of his father Yitzchak.”

Why did Yaakov specifically bring korbanos to the G-d of his father Yitzchak? Why did he not bring korbanos to Hashem, the G-d of Avraham and Yitzchak?

Rb Dessler z”l explains as follows;

Each of the avosperfected themselves in a different character trait. Avraham Avinu perfectedhimself in the middah of chesed, Yitzchak perfected himself inthe middah of gevurah (din) and Yaakov perfected himself in the middah of emes.

Notwithstanding this fact, the middah of each of the avosis included in the middos of theother avos. For example, AvrahamAvinu was able to understand the Torah, which is emes, through his perfection of the middah of chesed. Yaakov,through his middah of emes, stopped the famine in Mitzraim,which is chesed. Each of the avos also acquired the middos of the other avos to perfection, but from the viewpoint of the middah in which they excelled.

Yaakov knew that when the benei yisrael went down to Mitzraim, the shibud would begin and the beneiyisrael would become slaves.

It is not possible for a slave to perfect themselvesin the middah of emes as he is not free to learn Torah. It is also not possible fora slave to practice the middah of chesed because he is not free to helpothers. However it is possible even forsomeone who is subjugated as a slave to excel in the middah of gevurah by resisting the temptation toact dishonestly or improperly as other slaves do.

Therefore the most appropriate middah for the benei yisraelto cleave to in Mitzraim was the middahof gevurah of Yitzchak. Throughremaining a pure people even through slavery, the benei yisrael also preserved the middos of chesed ofAvraham and emes of Yitzchok. Inother words, the middos of the other avos were encapsulated and included inthe middah of Yitzchak.

Therefore;

When going down to Mitzraim, Yaakov brought korbanos to the G-d of Yitzchak, his father, because at this stage he sublimated his middah of emes to the middah of gevurah of Yitzchak.
The Ba’al Ha’Turim says that the benei yisrael were redeemed in the zechus of Yitzchak. Even although the passuk says that the benei yisrael were redeemed in the zechus of all the avos, this zechus only survived through the yiras shamayim of Yitzchak during the time that the benei yisrael were slaves in Mitzraim.
The passuk in Va’era says that Elokim appeared to Moshe and He said to him, I am Hashem. The reason that the benei yisrael merited the geulah is because they kept the traits of truth and kindness through applying the middah of strict din to themselves. Therefore, middah keneged middah, Hashem rewarded them by judging through the middas hadin that the benei yisrael should be rewarded with rachamim and redeemed.

Parshas Vayeshev: Yosef and Shechem

2011-12-16T18:31:00.002+11:00

The passuk says in this week’s sedrah (37:14);

וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ לֶךְ נָא רְאֵה אֶת שְׁלוֹם אַחֶיךָ וְאֶת שְׁלוֹם הַצֹּאן וַהֲשִׁבֵנִי דָּבָר וַיִּשְׁלָחֵהוּ מֵעֵמֶק חֶבְרוֹן וַיָּבֹא שְׁכֶמָה

“And he said to him, ‘Go please, see the welfare of your brothers and the welfare of the sheep and come back and tell me.’ And he sent him from the valley of Chevron and he came to Shechem.”

Rashi explains;

(סוטה יא) מקום מוכן לפורעניות שם קלקלו השבטים שם ענו את דינה שם נחלקה מלכות בית דוד שנאמר (מ"א יב) וילך רחבעם שכמה

“Shechem is a place prepared for punishment. There the brothers sold Yosef, there Dinah was assaulted, there the kingdom of David Ha’Melech was split as the passuk says, ‘And Rechavam went to Shechem.’”

The passuk says in Vayechi (48:22);

וַאֲנִי נָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׁכֶם אַחַד עַל אַחֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר לָקַחְתִּי מִיַּד הָאֱמֹרִי בְּחַרְבִּי וּבְקַשְׁתִּי

“(Yaakov said to Yosef) and I have given you can extra portion more than your brothers which I took from the hand of the Emori with my sword and with my bow.”

Rashi explains;

שכם ממש היא תהיה לך חלק אחד יתירה על אחיך

“This refers to Shechem. This will be to you an extra portion more than your brothers.”

Why would Yosef have wanted Shechem specifically, which is a place prepared for punishment?

The passuk says in Vayetze (30:25);

וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה רָחֵל אֶת יוֹסֵף וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל לָבָן שַׁלְּחֵנִי וְאֵלְכָה אֶל מְקוֹמִי וּלְאַרְצִי

“And it was when Rachel gave birth to Yosef and Yaakov said to Lavan, ’Send me and I will go to my place and to my land.”

Rashi explains;

משנולד שטנו של עשו שנא' (עובדיה א) והיה בית יעקב אש ובית יוסף להבה ובית עשו לקש אש בלא להבה אינו שולט למרחוק משנולד יוסף בטח יעקב בהקב"ה ורצה לשוב

“Once the adversary of Esav was born (Yaakov decided to return) as the passuk says (that Yosef is Esav’s adversary), ‘And the House of Yaakov will be as fire and the House of Yosef will be as a flame and the House of Esav will be as straw.’ Fire without a flame does not spread far. (Yosef who is compared to the flame of Yaakov’s fire will enable the benei yisrael to overcome Esav.) Once Yosef was born Yaakov trusted Hashem and wanted to return.”

How does Yosef spread the flame of Yaakov to overcome Esav?

Rb Yitzchak Hutner z”l explains as follows;

There is a common denominator between all of the bad things that happened in Shechem;

- Dinah was abducted by Shechem: Here there was a joining that was wrong; the benei yisrael should be separated from the umos ha’olam but Shechem wanted to marry Dinah.

- The brothers selling Yosef: Here instead of the brothers being joined peacefully there was a split between them.

- Splitting the malchus beis David: Here again instead of there being unity under a king from the House of David there was a split into two kingdoms.

In the first case, there was a joining where there should have been a division. In the second two cases there was a split where there should have been unity.

Yosef was tested in both the attribute of being split off where this is correct and also in the attribute of joining where this was the correct thing to do.

- He withstood the temptation of eshes Potiphar to intermarry with and thereby join the umos ha’olam.

- He withstood the temptation to use the malchus in Mitzraim against his brothers when they came into his power and

- He did not bear a grudge against his brothers for selling him.

Yosef maintained his identity as one of the sons of Yaakov in Mitzraim, and he used his position as the king of Mitzraim to re-unify the benei yisrael.

Yaakov is the bechir ha’avos, he is the chosen of the avos and the foundation of the benei yisrael. However even after Yaakov reached this madregah it was still not certain that the benei yisrael could grow to be a nation. The kedushah of Yaakov cannot spread and the benei yisrael cannot grow if either;

a) The benei yisrael would intermarry, because then their children would not be considered as the benei yisrael anymore

b) If the benei yisrael were not able to join together and form a unified nation.

Yosef showed that he was able to both remain separate from the umos ha’olam and also that he was able to unify the benei yisrael even when the other brothers had tried to split him off from the family of Yaakov Avinu by selling him as a slave. Therefore the most appropriate place in Eretz Yisrael that Yosef should be given was Shechem because it was exactly in regard to the nisayon of Shechem echad – being one lot - that Yosef showed his greatness.

Parshas Vayishlach: Yaakov's victory over Esav

2011-12-09T18:59:00.001+11:00

The passuk says in this week’s sedrah;

וַיְצַו אֹתָם לֵאמֹר כֹּה תֹאמְרוּן לַאדֹנִי לְעֵשָׂוכֹּה אָמַר עַבְדְּךָ יַעֲקֹב עִם לָבָן גַּרְתִּי וָאֵחַר עַד עָתָּה

“And he commanded them saying, ‘So you should say tomaster, to Esav, “So says your servant Yaakov, I have stayed with Lavan and Ihave delayed till now.”

Why did Yaakov have to tell Esav that he had stayed delayed till now, obviously he had delayed till now because this is when he was returning?

When Yaakov bought the bechorah from Esav, the passuksays;

וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב מִכְרָה כַיּוֹם אֶת בְּכֹרָתְךָ לִי

“And Yaakov said, ‘Sell me your bechorah like today.’”

Why did Yaakov specify that the sale should be like today?

When Yehoshua fought Amalek, Moshe told him;

וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּחַר לָנוּ אֲנָשִׁיםוְצֵא הִלָּחֵם בַּעֲמָלֵק מָחָר אָנֹכִי נִצָּב עַל רֹאשׁ הַגִּבְעָה…

The gemara says in Yuma (52) that this is one of fivepessukim in the Torah where it is indeterminate how the passuk should be read.You can either read the passuk;

“And Moshe said to Yehoshua, ‘Choose men for us and goand fight with Amalek. Tomorrow I will stand on the hill…”

or you can read the passuk

“And Moshe said to Yehoshua, ‘Choose men for us and goand fight with Amalek tomorrow. I will stand on the hill…”

Why is there no one absolute way to read this passuk?

Rb Yitzchak Hutner z”l explains as follows;

The medrashsays that Yaakov and Esav divided olamhabah and olam hazeh betweenthem. Yaakov took olam habah and Esavtook olam hazeh. Therefore Yaakov’s completevictory over Esav only comes with mashiach,as Yaakov said to Esav;

יעבור נא אדוני לפני עבדו ואני אתנהלה לאיטי לרגל המלאכה אשרלפניולרגל הילדים עד אשר אבוא אל אדוני שעירה

“Let my master pass before his servant and I will travelslowly at the pace of the work before me and at the pace of the children untilI come to my master to Seir.”

Rashi explains;

…ואימתי ילךבימי המשיח שנאמר (עובדיה א) ועלומושיעים בהר ציון לשפוט את הר עשו …

“When will he go? In the times of Mashiach as the passuksays, ‘And saviours will go up on the mountain of Tzion to judge the mountainof Esav.’”

Therefore the success of the benei yisrael in olam hazehdepends on the degree to which the benei yisrael connect themselves to the yemos hamoshiach. Whereas Esav’s successlies in the present in olam hazeh,Yaakov’s success lies in the degree to which he connects himself to the future machar of the mashiach.

Yehoshua’s victory in the battle against Amalek depended on the extent to which the benei yisrael would connect themselves to the machar of mashiach, therefore the passuk which refers to machar is indeterminate.

Moshesaid, if you can fight with an attitude of machar– then you will win. If not, then Amalek will win. The reading of the passuk is indeterminate because this itselfwas the battle: Would the machar ofthe benei yisrael win or would the hayomof Amalek win?

When Yaakov bought bechorah from Esav he specified that the sale was kayom – like today. Yaakov did not buy the bechorah on Yaakov’s terms of machar – that the sale would only take effect when mashiach came – instead he entered Esav’s jurisdiction and bought the bechorah from him even in olam hazeh – so he said kayom – it is a sale of ‘today’.

This is also why Yaakov told Esav that he had tarried till now. The victory of Yaakov over Esav comes from Yaakov connecting himself to the future more than to the present. Yaakov told Esav – until now I have had to run away from you because I was only Yaakov and had not come to be klal yisrael who would merit the coming of mashiach. But now I have become the camp of the benei yisrael and therefore I merit the coming of mashiach in the merit I will eventually overcome you, as the passuk says - ועלו מושיעים בהר ציון לשפוט את הר עשו

Parshas Vayetze: The dream of the ladder

2011-12-02T18:42:00.002+11:00

The passuk says in this week’s sedrah;

ויחלום והנה סולם מוצב ארצה וראשו מגיע השמימה והנה מלאכי אלקים עולים ויורדים בו

“And he dreamt and behold there was a ladder based on the ground and its top reached the heavens and malachim of Hashem were going up and down on it.”

The Medrash Tanchuma explains;

.. מלמד שהראהו הקב"ה ליעקב אבינו שרה של בבל עולה ויורד, ושל מדי עולה ויורד, ושל יון עולה ויורד, ושל אדום עולה ויורד, א"ל הקדוש ברוך הוא ליעקב יעקב למה אין אתה עולה, באותה שעה נתירא אבינו יעקב ואמר כשם שיש לאלו ירידה, כך אני יש לי ירידה, א"ל הקב"ה אם אתה עולה אין לך ירידה, ולא האמין ולא עלה…א"ל הקדוש ברוך הוא אלו עלית והאמנת לא היתה לך ירידה לעולם, אלא הואיל ולא האמנת הרי בניך משתעבדין בהללו ד' מלכיות בעה"ז במסים ובארנוניות ובגולגליות, א"ל יעקב יכול לעולם א"ל אל תירא עבדי יעקב אל תחת ישראל …כי אעשה כלה בכל הגוים אשר הפיצותיך שם באומות העולם שהן מכלין את שדותיהן אבל ישראל שאין מכלין את שדותיהן ואותך לא אעשה כלה אלא מיסרך ביסורין בעולם הזה בשביל לנקותך מעונותיך לעתיד לבא …

“This teaches you that Hashem showed Yaakov Avinu the malach of Bavel going up and coming down, the malach of Maddai going up and coming down, the malach of Yavan going up and coming down and the malach of Esav going up and coming down.

Hashem said to Yaakov, ‘Yaakov, why do you not go up?’

At that time Yaakov Avinu was afraid and said ‘Just as these fall so too I will fall if I go up.’

Hashem said to him, ‘If you go up you will not fall.’

Yaakov Avinu did not believe and did not go up.

Hashem said to him, ‘Had you gone up and believed you would never have come down, however because you did not believe your children will be subjugated to these four kingdoms in olam hazeh through profit taxes, land tax and skull tax.

Yaakov asked Hashem, ‘Is this forever?’

Hashem replied, ‘Do not be afraid my servant Yaakov and do not tremble Yisrael…because I will destroy all the nations that I scattered you amongst.’

[This means, I will destroy] the nations that finish off their fields. But regarding Yisrael who do not finish off their fields [because they keep shemitah and rest their fields every seven years and in yovel] – I will not destroy you. Rather I will chastise you with yissurin in olam hazeh in order to cleanse you from your aveiros for the future…”

Why was Yaakov afraid to go up the ladder?
What is the connection between the umos ha’olam finishing off their fields and their fall?

The Baal ha’Turim gives another explanation in addition to the Midrash Tanchuma and says that the malachim on the ladder that Yaakov saw were malachim that were able to ascend to shamayim because of Yaakov Avinu’s tefillos. The Baal Ha’Turim explains this is similar to the malach that went up in the flame of the korban that Shimshon’s parents brought the second time that he appeared to them. Tefillah is in the place of korbanos, and malachim are able to rise through both tefillah andkorbanos. Hashem showed Yaakov that the malachim were able to ascend the ladder because of his tefillos.

Why do the malachim represent both the umos ha’olam and also the koach of Yaakov Avinu’s tefillos?

Rav Yitzchak Hutner z”l explains as follows;

Every empire begins in a natural way, with people seeking out a livelihood from the land. At this stage they are close to the land and they are close to the natural feeling of what is correct and what is incorrect; as the malachim of the nations showed when they started off from the ground.

As a nation grows it is able to leverage its own accomplishments to build roads, cities, an economy, an army and so on. Each part of the nation is now able to use other parts of the national structure to achieve greater things that it would have been able to accomplish by itself. This is when the nation starts climbing the ladder. However, as the nation climbs the ladder, it becomes separated from the ordinary values that it was aware of as an agrarian society.

Just as the umos ha’olam overfarm their land and seek to extract more from it than it can reasonably produce, so too they now try to extract more from olam hazeh than it is possible to in an honest manner. Eventually the nation falls back down the ladder because the forces on the nation from the rest of the world that has not climbed the ladder together with it cause the nation to fall apart. Yaakov was afraid that just as the umos ha’olam lose their integrity as they become greater so too if klal yisraelwould become as great as them they would also lose their basic values and would misuse olam hazeh.

Hashem explained to Yaakov that he did not need to fear this. Klal yisrael keep shemitah and yovel where they show their bitachon in Hashem and therefore refrain from taking more from olam hazeh than it can reasonably produce. So too when klal yisrael becomes great it does not become proud and always maintains its standards of integrity and honesty, unlike the umos ha’olam.

Hashem showed Yaakov that although the nations rise up the ladder of olam hazeh and eventually fall, the benei yisrael rise up the ladder of olam hazeh more gradually through bitachon (as shown through their keeping shemitah) and tefillah so that they never lose their honesty and sense of proportion. This is why the benei yisrael will outlast the umos ha’olam to merit the days of mashiach and olam habah.

Parshas Toldos: Loving your friend more than yourself

2011-11-25T17:02:00.000+11:00

The Rambam says in Hilchos Avel (14:1-2)

מצות עשה של דבריהם לבקר חולים ולנחם אבלים ולהוציא המת ולהכניס הכלה וללוות האורחים ... ואלו הן גמילות חסדים שבגופו שאין להם שיעור. אף על פי שכל מצות אלו מדבריהם, הרי הן בכלל ואהבת לרעך כמוך...

“It is a mitzvah mi’derabanan to visit ill people, to comfort mourners, to bury a mes, to marry off a kalah and to accompany guests. These are kindness done with the body that have no limit. Even although all of these mitzvos are mi’derabanan, they are included in the mitzvah of ve’ahavta le’reachah kamochah.”

According to the Rambam, if someone visits an ill person he is doing two mitzvos. First of all he is doing a mitzvah de’oraisoh of ve’ahavta le’reachah kamochah; secondly he is doing a mitzvah mi’derabanan of bikkur cholim.

Why did the chachamim enact mitzvos de’rabbanan of gemillus chasadim if the same actions are already included in the mitzvah de’oraisoh of gemillus chasadim?

The passuk says in Yisro;

וְהִזְהַרְתָּה אֶתְהֶם אֶת הַחֻקִּים וְאֶת הַתּוֹרֹת וְהוֹדַעְתָּ לָהֶם אֶת הַדֶּרֶךְ יֵלְכוּ בָהּ וְאֶת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשׂוּן

“And you should warn them concerning the statutes and the laws and you should make known to them the way that they should go in and the actions that they should do.”

The gemara in Bava Metziah (30b) comments on this passuk;

אמר מר ילכו זה ביקור חולים היינו גמילות חסדים לא נצרכה אלא לבן גילו דאמר מר בן גילו נוטל אחד מששים בחליו ואפי' הכי מבעי ליה למיזל לגביה בה זו קבורה היינו גמילות חסדים לא נצרכה אלא לזקן ואינו לפי כבודו…

“Yelchu – this refers to bikkur cholim. [The gemara asks, why is it necessary for the passuk to refer to bikkur cholim], this is included in the general mitzvah of gemillus chasadim? [The gemara explains that] the passuk comes to include an obligation to visit the ill even if the visitor is a ben gilo (born under the same mazal) as the person who is ill.

In this case the visitor takes away 1/60^th of the illness by accepting the illness upon himself. You might think that seeing as the visitor will lose by visiting the ill person; he has no obligation to visit him. The passuk therefore comes to exclude this havah aminah and says that even in this case there is an obligation to visit the sick.

Bah – this refers to kevurah. [The gemara asks; why is it necessary for the Torah to hint to this?] Kevurah is included in the general obligation to do gemillus chasadim? [The gemara explains that] the passuk refers to an obligation to do kevurah even in the case of a zaken ve’eino le’phi k’vodo – even if it is not in accordance with the honour of the zaken who the obligation falls on.”

Rb Yitzchak Hutner asks; Once the gemara says that kevurah is incumbent even on a zaken in a case where this is eino le’phi kevodo (not according to his honour), why did the gemara also not say that the case of visiting the sick which the passuk includes is also where it is not in accordance with the honour of the person paying the visit? (We know that in this case the halacha is that there is an obligation to do bikkur cholim as the gemara says in Nedarim that the obligation to visit the sick applies even to a greater person visiting who has to visit someone who is not as great as them.)

Rb Hutner z”l answers as follows;

The source of the general chiyuv to do gemillus chasadim is the passuk of ‘ve’ahavta le’reachah kamochah’ – ‘You should love your friend as yourself.’

If the chiyuv to visit the ill and to do kevurah was only based on the mitzvah of ve’ahavta le’reachah kamochah then a ben gilo would not have to do bikkur cholim because the passuk says ve’ahavta le’reachah kamochah –you should love your friend as yourself - but not more than yourself. Seeing as the ben gilo will become ill from doing bikkur cholim he is doing something that is bad for himself but good for his friend, so it comes out that he is loving his friend more than he loves himself.

The chiyuv mi’derabanan (which is alluded to in the passuk) tells us that even in such a case there is still an obligation to do gemillus chasadim.

Once the gemara has been mechadesh that the obligation of the chiyuv de’rabbanan goes beyond the obligation of the chiyuv de’oraisoh, so that even if the person doing the chesed loses out he is still obligated to do chesed, then the gemara is also mechadesh that even in the case of zaken ve’eino le’phi kevodoh, where the zaken loses out, there is a chiyuv de’rabbanan of gemillus chasadim. However before the gemara says that there is an obligation of a ben gilo to do bikkur cholim - we would not have known that there is a chiyuv for a zaken to do gemillus chasadim in a case where he loses out because it is eino lephi kevodoh. This is why the gemara did not originally say that the case of bikkur cholim referred to in the passuk is a case where it is eino lephi kevodoh of the person performing the visit.

Generally we say – kol de’tikun rabannan ke’eyn de’oraisoh tikkun – everything which the chachamim instituted is similar to the miztva de’oraisoh. What is the basis for the chachamim to enact a chiyuv of gemillus chasadim which goes beyond the chiyuv of ve’ahavta le’reachah kamochah?

Rb Hutner explains that our obligation to do chesed is based on the obligation to emulate the chesed that Hashem does with us – mah hu rachum af atah rachum… - just as He is merciful so to you should be merciful.

The first gemillus chasadim that Hashem did with us was to create the world that we live in. The gemara says in Chagigah (12a) that one of the names of Hashem is Shakai because שאמר לעולמו די - Hashem said to his world ‘Enough!’ When Hashem created the world it began to expand too much. In order to make the world suitable for us to live in, Hashem limited its size. So too when we come to do gemillus chasadim, we limit the size of our world in order to be able to do gemillus chasadim to other people.

Parshas Chaye Sarah: The kindness of Avraham Avinu

2011-11-18T18:24:00.004+11:00

The gemara in Kesuvos (8b) says;

א"ל קום אימא מלתא כנגד מנחמי אבלים פתח ואמר אחינו גומלי חסדים בני גומלי חסדים המחזיקים בבריתו של אברהם אבינו

“He said to his meturgeman, get up and say something for those who comfort aveilim. He began and said, ‘Our brothers who do kindness the sons of those who do kindness who keep the covenant of Avraham Avinu.’”

Rashi explains;

בבריתו של אברהם - שגמל חסדים דכתיב (בראשית כא) ויטע אשל ר"ת אכילה שתיה לויה

“The covenant of Avraham Avinu – who did kindness as the passuk says, ‘And he planted an eshel – this is an acronym for eating, drinking and accompanying.’”

· Why does Rashi bring the acronym of vayita eshel to show that the bris of Avraham Avinu is doing chesed? Rashi could have brought a passuk that says explicitly that the bris of Avraham Avinu is to do chesed as the gemara in Yevamos (79) says;

… שלשה סימנים יש באומה זו הרחמנים והביישנין וגומלי חסדים … גומלי חסדים דכתיב (בראשית יח, יט) כִּי יְדַעְתִּיו לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יְצַוֶּה אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בֵּיתוֹ אַחֲרָיו וְשָׁמְרוּ דֶּרֶךְ ה׳לַעֲשׂוֹת צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט...

“…there are three signs in this nation, they are merciful, they are modest and they do kindness… They do kindness, as the passuk says ‘Because I know him because he commands his sons and his household after him that they should guard the way of Hashem to do charity and justice…’

Why did Rashi not bring this passuk instead of the acronym in the passuk of vayita eshel?

· Why is the praise of the meturgeman specific to menachamei aveilim? Surely you could apply the same praise to any sort of gemillus chasadim, as we see that thegemillus chasadim referred to in the passuk is that of inviting guests?

Rb Yitzchak Hutner z”l explains as follows;

The bris of Avraham Avinu

The passuk of vayita eshel is the reverse of the passuk of le’maan asher yetzaveh;

· The passuk of vayita eshel says;

וַיִּטַּע אֶשֶׁל בִּבְאֵר שָׁבַע וַיִּקְרָא שָׁם בְּשֵׁם ה׳ קל עוֹלָם

“And he planted an eshel in Be’er Sheva and he called in the name of Hashem the G-d of the universe.”

First Avraham Avinu did gemillus chasadim, then through this he publicised knowledge of Hashem.

· The passuk of le’maan asher yetzaveh says;

כִּי יְדַעְתִּיו לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יְצַוֶּה אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בֵּיתוֹ אַחֲרָיו וְשָׁמְרוּ דֶּרֶךְ ה׳ לַעֲשׂוֹת צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט...

“Because I know him because he commands his sons and his household after him that they should guard the way of Hashem to do charity and justice…”

Avraham Avinu told his children to do chesed because this is the way of Hashem.

In the first passuk, the Torah says that knowledge of Hashem comes through gemillus chasadim. In the second passuk, we are obliged to do gemillus chasadimbecause this is the way commanded by Hashem. Avraham Avinu initially recognised Hashem and publicised knowledge of Hashem by doing gemillus chasadim. After Avraham recognised Hashem, he understood that gemillus chasadim is the way of Hashem that we should go in.

Nichum Aveilim

The purpose of nichum aveilim is to bring the avel back into the klal. Where do menachamei aveilim get this ability from? They cannot bring the avel back into the klalsimply be expressing their own gemillus chasadim, because this would only draw the aveilim closer to them but it would not bring them back into the klal? Rb Hutner z”l explains that it is only possible for the menachamei aveilim to bring the aveilim back into the klal by expressing the gemillus chasadim that has been handed down to each generation all the way back to Avraham Avinu, because Avraham Avinu was the progenitor and starting point of the klal.

A bris is an agreement which forms the basis of a society. The bris of chesed of Avraham Avinu is the core of klal yisroel. Menachamei aveilim hold on to and strengthen the bris of Avraham Avinu by expressing the chesed to the aveilim that enables them to reintegrate into the klal.

Because the gemara is referring to the chesed that formed klal yisroel originally and which is at the core of klal yisrael, Rashi explains that the bris of chesed that the gemara is referring to is the chesed which came even before Avraham’s covenant of chesed with Hashem. It is the original chesed of;

וַיִּטַּע אֶשֶׁל בִּבְאֵר שָׁבַע וַיִּקְרָא שָׁם בְּשֵׁם ה׳ קל עוֹלָם

where first Avraham did gemillus chasadim and then he called in the name of Hashem.

Choshen Mishpat: Chazakah when using your neighbour's area

2011-11-13T15:54:00.000+11:00

The first mishna in the 3^rd perek of Bava Basra says that it takes three years to gain a chazakah on land. This means that if someone farms a field for 3 years, and then the previous owner claims that the field belongs to him and that he never sold it, we believe the current occupier that he bought the field seeing as he has occupied the land for 3 years without the previous owner complaining.

In addition to being in the land for 3 years, the current resident also has to have a ta’anah – that is, he has to explain how the land came to be his. So for example, he may say that the previous owner sold the land to him or that he gave it to him as a present.

The Shulchan Aruch in Hilchos Nizkei Shecheinim (Choshen Mishpat, 153:16) says that in addition to chazakah applying to acquiring land or other property, it also applies to acquiring rights to make use of a neighbour’s property.

The Shulchan Aruch says;

חפר שמעון בכותל זה והכניס בה קורה אחת ושתק ראובן ולא מיחה בו החזיק במקום הקורה…

“If Shimon made a hole in a shared wall and used it to support a beam, and his neighbour Reuvain was silent and he didn’t protest then Shimon has a chazakah on using the wall to hold the beam.”

This means that if the neighbour did not initially protest when the beam was placed on the shared wall, then the person who put the beam in place gains a chazakah and can keep his beam in place. The Ketzos HaChoshen (s”k 3) brings a machlokess rishonim if the halacha of chazakah for using a neighbour’s property is the same as a normal chazakah. Do you need 3 years and a ta’anah?

- According to the Rashbam, it depends if your use of your neighbour’s property will limit their own use or not. For example, if you want to have a drainpipe installed on the outside of your house whose water will flow through your neighbour’s property, that will diminish your neighbour’s use of his land and in this case you have to have 3 years and a ta’anah in order to gain a chazakah.

However if you have use your neighbour’s property in a way which does not affect him, such as in the case of a beam on a shared wall, then you do not need 3 years to gain a chazakah but you do need a ta’anah.

- The Geonim, on the other hand, say that in the case of neighbours using each other’s land, the chazakah takes effect immediately and there is also no need for a ta’anah. This is because as soon as the neighbour does not protest, we say that he was mochel the right to the other neighbour. Once he has been mochel, he cannot take his mechilah back.

The Ketzos HaChoshen asks on the Geonim as follows;

In order for a right to be transferred from one person to another, first the owner of right has to relinquish his ownership of the right and then, secondly, the second person has to acquire the right. In our case, even if the neighbour whose property is being used was mochel the right to use his property, nevertheless the second neighbour did not perform a maaseh kinyan to acquire this right and therefore does not own the right permanently.

As long as he has not acquired the right, the mechilah of the first neighbour can be taken back. This is similar to a case where someone allows someone else to damage his property. Seeing as the second person has not acquired the right to damage his property, the first person can always change his mind and if the second person then goes ahead and damages the property he has to pay for the damage.

Even if it as the Geonim say, that the neighbour whose property is intruded on is mochel the right to use his property, he should still be able to change his mind seeing as the other neighbour who is using the right has not made a maaseh kinyan?

Making the kinyan

The mishna says that you can acquire land with money, through a document or by doing an act which shows that you are taking possession of the field, such as by locking the gate to the field.

There is a machlokess between the Rambam and the Raavad whether or not eating the produce from a field also constitutes a maaseh kinyan. According to the Rambam this is a maaseh kinyan, according to the Raavad (also the Rosh, the Ran and other rishonim) this is not a kinyan. The Ketzos HaChoshen explains that according to the Rambam we can understand the opinion of the Geonim. The same way that you can acquire land by eating its produce, you can also acquire the right to use your neighbour’s property by using his property.

For example, if you have a drainpipe installed that runs into your neighbour’s garden and he is mochel the right to have the water flow into his garden to you, then you acquire the right by having the drainpipe installed there because the installation uses the right which you want to acquire.

The problem is that there are Rishonim who agree with the Raavad, that eating produce is not a kinyan, but who also pasken like the Geonim and say that regarding a chazakah to use your neighbour’s land, as soon as he has been mochel the right to use his land he cannot go back. According to these rishonim, how did you acquire this right?

The Ketzos answers as follows;

The gemara in Bava Basra (100a) brings a machlokess between Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim if you can acquire land by walking through it. The gemara says that everyone agrees that you can acquire a path through a vineyard by walking through it;

א"ר יוסי בר' חנינא מודים חכמים לר"א בשביל של כרמים הואיל ונעשה להילוך נקנה בהילוך

“Rebbi Yosi Bar Rabbi Chaninah says, ‘The chachamim agree to Rebbi Eliezer with a path through a vineyard that since the person acquires it only for walking through it (and not for cultivating it) that he can acquire it by walking through it.”

The Ketzos explains that the Rambam and the Raavad only argue if you can acquire land by eating its produce in a case where you want to acquire the whole land, not just the right to eat the fruit. However in a case where you only want to acquire the right that you use, such as in the case of the path through the vineyard where you only want to acquire the right to walk down the path, and this is what you did, everyone agrees that this is a valid kinyan.

In the case of using a neighbours’ property, you only want to acquire the right which you are using, therefore everyone agrees that you can make a kinyan in this way. This is why, according to the Geonim, the owner cannot change his mind once he has been mochel his right to his neighbour.

Parshas Lech lechah - Doing mitzvos lishmah

2011-11-04T12:50:00.002+11:00

The passuk says in this week's sedrah;

וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל אַבְרָם לֶךְ לְךָ מֵאַרְצְךָוּמִמּוֹלַדְתְּךָ וּמִבֵּית אָבִיךָ אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַרְאֶךָּ

"AndHashem said to Avraham, go for yourself from your land and from your birthplaceand from your father's house to the land that I will show you."

Rashiexplains;

"לך לך" - להנאתך ולטובתךושם אעשך לגוי גדול כאן אי אתה זוכה לבנים ועוד שאודיע טבעך בעולם

"Go for yourself: Foryour benefit and for your good and there I will make you into a great nation [but]here you will do not merit children and furthermore I will make your natureknown in the world."

- Whydid Hashem tell Avraham to go for his benefit, surely Avraham would have goneeven had this not been for his benefit?

The mishna says in Pirkei Avos (3:1);

אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אִישׁ סוֹכוֹקִבֵּל מִשִּׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אַל תִּהְיוּ כַעֲבָדִיםהַמְשַׁמְּשִׁין אֶת הָרַב עַל מְנָת לְקַבֵּל פְּרָס, אֶלָּא הֱווּ כַעֲבָדִיםהַמְשַׁמְּשִׁין אֶת הָרַב שֶׁלֹּא עַל מְנָת לְקַבֵּל פְּרָס, וִיהִי מוֹרָאשָׁמַיִם עֲלֵיכֶם

"Antigonosfrom Socho received the Torah from Shimon ha'Tzaddik. He used to say, 'Do notbe like slaves who serve their master in order to receive reward, rather belike slaves who serve their master not because they want to receive reward, andthe fear of Hashem should be on you."

- If we should not serve Hashem in order toreceive reward, why did Hashem specifically tell Avraham to travel to EretzYisrael in order that he should be rewarded?

The passuksays in Vayera (Bereishis 18:19);

כִּי יְדַעְתִּיו לְמַעַןאֲשֶׁר יְצַוֶּה אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בֵּיתוֹ אַחֲרָיו וְשָׁמְרוּ דֶּרֶךְ ה'לַעֲשׂוֹת צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט לְמַעַן הָבִיא ה' עַל אַבְרָהָם אֵת אֲשֶׁרדִּבֶּר עָלָיו

“Because Iknow him because he commands his children and his household after him that theyshould guard the way of Hashem to do charity and justice in order that Hashemshould bring on Avraham that which he spoke about him.”
Rashiexplains;

"לְמַעַן הָבִיא" -כך הוא מצוה לבניו שמרו דרך ה' כדי שיביא ה' על אברהם וגו'...

This iswhat he commands his children; Guard the way of Hashem in order that Hashemshould bring on [the house of] Avraham [that which he spoke about him]…”

- This also seems to contradict the mishna in Avos which says that we shouldnot do mitzvos in order to receivereward?

The gemara inSotah (14a) says;

דרשרבי שמלאי - מפני מה נתאוה משה רבינו ליכנס לא"י, וכי לאכול מפריה הוא צריךאו לשבוע מטובה הוא צריך? אלא כך אמר משה הרבה מצות נצטוו ישראל ואין מתקיימין אלאבא"י אכנס אני לארץ כדי שיתקיימו כולן על ידי. אמר לו הקב"ה כלום אתהמבקש אלא לקבל שכר, מעלה אני עליך כאילו עשיתם שנאמר (ישעיהו נג, יב) ' לָכֵןאֲחַלֶּק לוֹ בָרַבִּים וְאֶת עֲצוּמִים יְחַלֵּק שָׁלָל תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱרָהלַמָּוֶת נַפְשׁוֹ...' ... שמסר עצמו למיתה שנאמר (שמות לב, לב) ואם אין מחני נא וגו'

"Rebbi Simlai explained;Why did Moshe want to enter Eretz Yisrael? Did he need to eat its fruit or besatiated from its goodness? Rather this is what Moshe said; 'There are many mitzvosthat the benei yisrael were commanded that can only be kept in EretzYisrael – I will enter Eretz Yisrael so that I will be able to observe them.'Hashem said to him, 'The only reason that you want to keep these mitzvos is inorder to receive reward, I will consider it as if you did them. As the passuksays (Yeshaya 53:12): "Therefore I will give him a portion with the greatand he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he poured out his soulto death..." This refers to Moshe who handed himself over to death as thepassuk says '...and if you will not forgive the benei yisrael (for making the egelha’zahav) then wipe me out from Your book.’"

- Whydid Moshe only want to keep the mitzvos hateluyos ba’aretz in order toreceive reward, surely this also contradicts the mishna in Avos that says this should not be our motivation?

- Whydid Hashem consider it as if Moshe entered Eretz Yisrael and kept the mitzvoshateluyos ba’aretz specifically in the merit that he said mecheni namisiphrechah?

Rb ChaimVolozhin z”l (Ruach Chaim, PirkeiAvos 3:1) explains as follows;

Hashem gave usthe Torah in order that we should receive reward. Therefore really the best kavanahwe can have when keeping the mitzvos is that Hashem will reward us,because this fulfills the will of Hashem. However, we can not be sure that ourintention to be rewarded is to fulfill the will of Hashem to reward us or if itis really to receive personal benefit.

The proof ofthe purity of a person’s intentions is if they are told that they will not berewarded for keeping the mitzvos but someone else will be instead. If they continueto keep the Torah then this shows that they really are keeping the Torah inorder that someone, regardless of it this is them or someone else, will receivereward, which was Hashem’s intention in giving the Torah. However, if when toldthat someone else will receive the reward for their mitzvos and not them theystop keeping the Torah – then this shows that their observance of the Torah is forthemselves and not lishmah.

Moshe said “mecheinina misiphrechah” – “please erase me from the Torah”. This means that he wasprepared to give away his own portion in the Torah for the sake of the benei yisrael. Therefore we can see thathis intention in keeping the mitzvos was entirely selfless and thereforeit was appropriate for him to do the mitzvosfor the lishmah reason of receivingreward. Because Moshe was ready to giveaway the reward for mitzvos that hehad done, middah keneged middah hereceived the reward even for the mitzvoshateluyos ba’aretz that he was unable to do because he never entered EretzYisrael.

AvrahamAvinu was also on this level of selflessness and therefore he also kept theTorah for this reason, as Rashi explains;

"לך לך" - להנאתך ולטובתך

‘Go for yourself – for your benefit and foryour welfare.’

Most peopleare not on this level however, so for them mishna advises;

אַל תִּהְיוּ כַעֲבָדִים הַמְשַׁמְּשִׁין אֶת הָרַב עַל מְנָתלְקַבֵּל פְּרָס

"Do not be like slaveswho serve the master in order to receive reward…"

Parshas Nitzavim - Vayelech; Our connection to Moshe Rabbeinu

2011-09-24T22:26:00.000+10:00

The gemara says in Bava Basra (12:2);

אמר רבי אבדימי דמן חיפה מיום שחרב בית המקדש …אע"פ שניטלה מן הנביאים מן החכמים לא ניטלה … אלא אמר רב אשי תדע דאמר גברא רבה מילתא ומתאמרא הלכה למשה מסיני כוותיה. ודלמא כסומא בארובה? ולאו טעם יהיב?

“Rebbi Avdimi from Chaifa said, ‘From the day the Beis ha’Mikdash was destroyed…even although nevuah was taken away from the neviim it was not taken from thechachamim. Rav Ashi said, ‘You can know that this is true because a talmid chacham might say something and you will find that the halachah le’Moshe mi’Sinai is stated like him.’

[The gemara asks…] Maybe it is like a blind person groping for the way down from an attic? (He happened to guess the right halachah.)

[The gemara answers: This is not possible because] did he not give a reason?”

Rashi explains;

…וכיון דאמר טעמא … סברת הלב היא הבאה לו בנבואה וזכה להסכים להלכה למשה מסיני

“Since he said a reason – [we can see that] it is a sevara of the heart that came to him in nevuah and he merited to understand the halachah le’Moshe mi’Sinai by himself.”

How is it possible for the talmid chacham to achieve a level of nevuah which will endow him with the same level of Torah understanding as Moshe, if he is not on the same level of nevuah as Moshe?

Rb Dessler z”l explains as follows;

The first mishna in Pirkei Avos says “Moshe kibel torah mi’sinai” – “Moshe received the Torah from Sinai.”

Rb Chaim Volozhin (Ruach Chaim) asks: Why does the mishna say; “Moshe received the Torah at Sinai,” surely the mishna should rather say “from Sinai?”

Rabbi Chaim Volozhin answers as follows;

There are two places in the Torah where people have their names repeated. At the Akeida the malach called to Avraham;

וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֵלָ֜יו מַלְאַ֤ךְ ה' מִן־הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אַבְרָהָ֣ם׀ אַבְרָהָ֑ם וַיֹּ֖אמֶר הִנֵּֽנִי

“And the malach of Hashem called to him from shamayim and he said ‘Avraham, Avraham!’ And he said, ‘Here I am.’”

At the sneh, Hashem called to Moshe;

וַיִּקְרָא֩ אֵלָ֨יו אֱלֹקִ֜ים מִתּ֣וֹךְ הַסְּנֶ֗ה וַיֹּ֛אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֥ה מֹשֶׁ֖ה וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הִנֵּֽנִי

“And Hashem called to him from within the bush and he said, ‘Moshe, Moshe!’ And he said, ‘Here I am.’”

At the Akeida, there is a pesik between the two occurrences of Avraham’s name. At the sneh there is no pesik to split the two occurrences of Moshe’s name, why is this?

Rabbi Chaim Volozhin z”l (Ruach Chaim, Pirkei Avos, 1:1) explains that there are two portions to the neshama. The main portion of the neshama remains in olam habah even when a person is alive. The body acts as clothing to the lower portion of the neshama which is present in olam hazeh.

Both Avraham and Moshe were on the madregah that they were aware of their neshama in olam habah even when they were in olam hazeh. This is why the passukrepeats their names, once for their neshama of olam hazeh and once for their neshama of olam habah. Nevertheless there was still a difference between the madregahof Avraham Avinu and the madregah of Moshe Rabbeinu.

With Avraham Avinu, there was still a small division between the two parts of his neshama. That is why there is a pesik that divides between the two names - Avraham. However, with Moshe Rabbeinu, there was no interruption between the two parts of his neshama at all, that is why there is no pesik between the two mentions of Moshe’s name.

In what way was Moshe greater than Avraham?

The gemara says in Chullin (89a);

אמר רבא ואיתימא ר' יוחנן גדול שנאמר במשה ואהרן יותר ממה שנאמר באברהם דאילו באברהם כתיב ואנכי עפר ואפר ואילו במשה ואהרן כתיב ונחנו מה

“Rava said, some say it was Rabbi Yochanan. ‘That which is stated concerning Moshe and Aharon is greater than that which is said concerning Avraham Avinu. Regarding Avraham it is said, “And I am dust and ashes.” But regarding Moshe and Aharon it is written, “And we are nothing.”’”

Because Moshe was so humble that he considered himself as nothing at all, he was able to fully perceive olam habah and receive nevuah through an aspeklariah meirah – a clear lens. On the other hand, all other neviim were on the level of Avraham, so that there was some interruption in their perception of olam habah. Therefore they received nevuah at a level of aspeklariah she’eino meirah – an unclear lens.

This is why the mishna says Moshe kibel Torah mi’sinai. The mishna means that Moshe received the Torah through his middah of Sinai. Just as Har Sinai was the lowest of the mountains and was therefore worthy that the Torah be given on it, so too Moshe was the humblest of men and therefore merited that the Torah be given through him. Because he considered himself to be nothing at all, the Torah was able to be transmitted through him clearly, as through an aspeklariah meirah.

Eliyahu ha’navi

The passuk says in Malachim 2 (2:9);

וַיְהִי כְעָבְרָם וְאֵלִיָּהוּ אָמַר אֶל אֱלִישָׁע שְׁאַל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לָּךְ בְּטֶרֶם אֶלָּקַח מֵעִמָּךְ וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלִישָׁע וִיהִי נָא פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּרוּחֲךָ אֵלָי

“And it was as they passed and Eliyahu said to Elisha, ‘Ask what I should do for you before I am taken from you.’ And Elisha said, ‘May there please be double of your spirit to me.’”

Eliyahu answered;

וַיֹּאמֶר הִקְשִׁיתָ לִשְׁאוֹל אִם תִּרְאֶה אֹתִי לֻקָּח מֵאִתָּךְ יְהִי לְךָ כֵן וְאִם אַיִן לֹא יִהְיֶה

“And he said, ‘You have asked a difficult thing. If you see me taken from you it will be to you so, and if not, there it will not be.’”

The beraisa of שלשים ושתים מדות דרבי אליעזר בנו של רבי יוסי הגליל in מדה א' (p.96 at the back of the gemara ברכות) says that Elisha (who was present when Eliyahu was taken away in a chariot of fire) did receive double Eliyahu’s spirit because you find that Eliyahu performed 8 miracles whereas Elisha performed 16.

Why did Elisha have to be present when Eliyahu was taken away in order to receive double his spirit?

How was it possible for him to receive double his spirit? How could he receive more from Eliyahu than Eliyahu had himself?

Surely Eliyahu was truly greater than Elisha. If so, how is it possible to say that Elisha had double the inspiration of Eliyahu and therefore was able to perform double the number of miracles?

Rb Dessler z”l explains that the full extent of a tzaddik’s neshama is revealed when he leaves olam hazeh, at this time the two halves of his neshama are combined together. If a talmid is close to his rav then he is drawn towards olam habah together with him. Even after the passing of the rav, the talmid remains drawn to olam habah through his connection to his rav. That is why Eliyahu Ha’Navi said to Elisha that if he would follow him through his being taken, he would receive double Eliyahu’s ruach.

Eliyahu did not mean that Elisha would be physically present at his departing, he meant that Elisha would be able to remain connected to him as he left olam hazeh and entered olam habah. If so, he would be able to perceive the portion of Eliyahu’s neshama that had always remained in olam habah. Elisha did merit this, and therefore he was able to perform double the number of miracles that Eliyahu had performed. Even although Elisha was not on the actual level of Eliyahu, because he always remained attached to Eliyahu even when Eliyahu Ha’navi was in olam habah, he achieved a greater level of elevation than Eliyahu had accomplished.

We can similarly understand how it is possible for a talmid chacham to achieve a level of nevuah and understanding that is equivalent to Moshe’s level at Har Sinai. Just as Elisha remained always attached to Eliyahu, klal yisrael remains always attached to Moshe Rabbeinu. As the passuk says in Malachi (3:22);

זכרו תורת משה עבדי

“Remember the Torah of Moshe My servant.”

Because we always remain talmidim of Moshe Rabbeinu, we are able to achieve a level of understanding of the Torah which is beyond our own level through our unbroken connection to Moshe Rabbeinu.

Parshas Kisavo: The merit of future mitzvos

2011-09-18T12:13:00.001+10:00

At the beginning of the tochacha, the passuk says that the reason for the tochacha is non-observance of all of the mitzvos.

וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל ה' אֱלֹקֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת כָּל מִצְו‍ֹתָיו וְחֻקֹּתָיו אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם

“And it will be if you do not listen to the voice of Hashem your G-d to do all His mitzvos and his statutes which I command you today.”

However, at the end of the tochacha the passuk says that the benei yisrael will be sent into galus;

תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר לֹא עָבַדְתָּ אֶת ה' אֱלֹקֶיךָ בְּשִׂמְחָה וּבְטוּב לֵבָב מֵרֹב כֹּל

“…because you did not serve Hashem your G-d with rejoicing and with a good heart from an abundance of everything.”

Why do the punishments of the tochachah come if we did not serve Hashem be’simchah?

The Yerushlami says in Peah (1:1);

מחשבה טובה המקום מצרפה למעשה, מחשבה רעה אין המקום מצרפה למעשה... הדא דתימא בישראל, אבל בגוים חילופין: מחשבה טובה אין הקב"ה מצרפה, מחשבה רעה הקב"ה מצרפה

“Hashem considers a good thought as if the person had performed the mitzvah, Hashem does not consider a bad thought as if the person had done the aveirah. This is in relation to a Yisrael, but with other nations it is the reverse, Hashem does not complete a good intention to be considered as an act but He does complete a bad intention to be considered an act.”

Why is there a difference between the way that Hashem rewards the benei yisrael and the way Hashem rewards the other nations? Surely we knowein Hakodosh Baruch Hu mekapeach schar kol beriyah?

The Meshech Chochmah explains as follows;

The halachah is that a get is only valid if it is given willingly by the husband. In a case where beis din has to force a man to divorce his wife, they give him malkos until he says that he wants to make a get.

If the husband does not really want to divorce his wife and only tells beis din that he does because they are giving him malkos, how can this be considered to be a get that is given willingly?

The Rambam in Hilchos Gerushin (2:20) says that the get is valid because;

שאין אומרין אנוס אלא למי שנלחץ ונדחק לעשות דבר שאינו מחוייב בו מן התורה לעשותו, כגון מי שהוכה עד שמכר או נתן. אבל מי שתקפו יצרו הרע לבטל מצוה או לעשות עבירה, והוכה עד שעשה דבר שחייב לעשותו, או עד שנתרחק מדבר שאסור לעשותו, אין זה אנוס ממנו, אלא הוא אנס עצמו בדעתו הרעה. לפיכך זה שאינו רוצה לגרש, מאחר שהוא רוצה להיות מישראל, רוצה הוא לעשות כל המצות ולהתרחק מן העבירות, ויצרו הוא שתקפו. וכיון שהוכה עד שתשש יצרו, ואמר רוצה אני, כבר גרש לרצונו

“We only say that the person was forced [and therefore the transaction is invalid] if he was forced to do something which he was not obligated to do by the Torah, such as if someone who was hit until he agreed to sell something or he agreed to give something away.

But if someone’s yetzer hara overpowered him and caused him not to do a mitzvah or to do an aveira and then he is hit until he performed his obligation or refrained from the thing that he was not meant to do, the aveirah was not forcibly removed from him, but rather he forced himself originally [to do the wrong thing] with his bad intention.

If a person does not want to give a get, seeing as he wants to be part of klal yisrael [we know that] he wants to do all the mitzvos and keep away from the aveiros; only that his yetzer hara forced him [not to abide by the ruling of the beis din]. Once he is hit until his yetzer hara is weakened and then he says he wants to give the get, he has divorced by his own will.”

Based on the Rambam, the Meshech Chochmah explains that Hashem favours a yisrael who wanted to do a mitzvah and ended up being unable to do it is because the yisrael really wanted to do the mitzvah. If he was unable to do the mitzvah this was only because they did not have the opportunity to do so, therefore is still rewarded for the mitzvah. On the other hand in the case of other nations who do not have the inner desire to do mitzvos, even if they wanted to do a mitzvah, there is no proof if they did not do it in the end that their will to do it was so strong that only an ones would have prevented them from doing the mitzvah so they are not rewarded.

We find that this applies at a national as well as at an individual level. The passuk says in Shemos (3:12);

וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ וְזֶה לְּךָ הָאוֹת כִּי אָנֹכִי שְׁלַחְתִּיךָ בְּהוֹצִיאֲךָ אֶת הָעָם מִמִּצְרַיִם תַּעַבְדוּן אֶת הָאֱלֹקים עַל הָהָר הַזֶּה.

“And He said, ‘Because I will be with you and this will the sign for you that I have sent you; When you bring the people out of Mitzraim you will serve Hashem on this mountain.”

Rashi explains;

… וששאלת מה זכות יש לישראל שיצאו ממצרים דבר גדול יש לי על הוצאה זו שהרי עתידים לקבל התורה על ההר הזה לסוף ג' חדשים שיצאו ממצרים…

“And concerning that which you asked, ‘What merit do the benei yisrael have that they should go out of Mitzraim?’ I have an important matter that will come from this redemption because they will in the future accept the Torah on this mountain at the end of 3 months after they come out of Mitzraim…”

Hashem rewarded the benei yisrael for something they had not yet done because

the inner will of the benei yisrael is to do the mitzvos. The reason that they were able to receive schar for the Torah that they would accept is because they would certainly do so were they to be given the opportunity by being redeemed from Mitzraim.

However, we only receive the reward for future mitzvos if we do mitzvos be’simchah. This is because the simchah that we have when we do mitzvos shows that our inner will is to do mitzvos. Subsequently when we are able to do mitzvos we are be’simchah because we have managed to do what we wanted to do. However if thebenei yisrael do not serve Hashem be’simchah, this shows that they do not have an inner will to do mitzvos, in which case they do not receive the reward for mitzvos that they are going to do in the future.

With this we can explain why the passuk initially says that the benei yisrael will go into galus for not keeping all the mitzvos, and then the passuk says they will go into galus for not serving Hashem be’simchah.

Even if they did not keep all the mitzvos, they could still have the merit of future mitzvos that they would do, which would prevent them from going into galus. However, if the benei yisrael do not serve Hashem be’simchah then they loose this future merit, and if they are not currently keeping the Torah then they are left with no zechuyosat all.

This is why the tochacha ends;

וֶהֱשִׁיבְךָ ה’ מִצְרַיִם…

“Hashem will return you to Mitzraim…”

If the benei yisrael do not serve Hashem be’simchah, then they no longer have future zechuyos as they had in Mitzraim which were the zechus for them to be redeemed in the first place.

Parshas Ki Setze: The hidden weapon against Amalek

2011-09-09T15:02:00.000+10:00

The passuk says in this week’s sedrah;

לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ בְּכִיסְךָ אֶבֶן וָאָבֶן גְּדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה...זָכוֹר אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְךָ עֲמָלֵק בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם.

“You should not have in your pocket a large weight and a small weight (a large weight to use when you buy and a small weight to use when you sell)… Remember what Amalek did to you on the way when you came out of Mitzraim.”

Rashi explains;

אם שקרת במדות ובמשקלות הוי דואג מגרוי האויב שנאמר (משלי יא) מאזני מרמה תועבת ה' וכתיב בתריה בא זדון ויבא קלון

“If you lied in weights and measures be worried about the attack of the enemy as the passuk says in Mishlei (11:1); ‘Deceitful scales are the abomination of Hashem’ and it is written after this; ‘The wanton sinner comes and with him comes disgrace.’”

· Why do we need to be concerned about the attack of the enemy specifically if we cheat with weights and measures?

The passuk says about Amalek;

אֲשֶׁר קָרְךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ..

“Who met you on the way...”

Rashi explains;

…לשון קור וחום צננך והפשירך מרתיחתך…

“…The passuk means that he cooled you down from your warmth.”

Rav Yitzchak Hutner explains that Amalek attacked the excitement of the benei yisrael to go and accept the Torah.

If Amalek attacks the excitement of the benei yisrael to accept the Torah, what is the antidote to Amalek? How can the benei yisrael make themselves continue to want to serve Hashem enthusiastically and stave off Amalek’s attack?

Rb Yitzchok Hutner z”l explains as follows;
The Medrash Tanchuma says in Parshas Vayera (Perek 5);

... א"ר יהודה בר שלום בקש משה שתהא המשנה אף היא בכתב, וצפה הקדוש ברוך הוא שאומות עתידין לתרגם את התורה ולהיות קוראין אותה יונית והן אומרין אנו הן של ישראל, א"ל הקב"ה למשה אכתב לו רובי תורתי וא"כ כמו זר נחשבו (הושע ח) וכ"כ למה מפני שהמשנה היא מסטורין של הקדוש ברוך הוא ואין הקב"ה מוסר מסטורין שלו אלא לצדיקים שנאמר סוד ה' ליראיו (תהלים כה)

”Rebbi Yehudah bar Shalom said, Moshe asked that Mishna should also be written, and Hakodosh Baruch Hu saw that the nations were going to translate the Torah and read it in Greek and they would say, ‘We are the benei yisrael!’.

Hakodosh Baruch Hu said to Moshe, ‘If I write for them the majority of My Torah they (the benei yisrael) will be considered as strangers.’

Why is this? Because the Mishna is the secret of Hakodosh Baruch Hu and Hakodosh Baruch Hu only hands his secrets over to tzadikim as the passuk says ‘The secret of Hashem is to those who fear Him.’”

Why would the benei yisrael have been considered as strangers had the Greeks translated the Mishna? Even if the Greeks would have said that they were also the benei yisrael, then that just means that they would have been considered as the benei yisrael together with the actual benei yisrael. Why would it have meant that the benei yisrael themselves would have been considered as foreigners?

Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner z”l explains that in order for people to be close to each other there has to be something exclusive between them that they share and that they know about. The Torah shebaal peh was given as a keepsake from Hashem to the benei yisrael and it encapsulates the hidden closeness between Hashem and the benei yisrael. Because the Torah shebaal peh is only accessible to the benei yisrael, the benei yisrael are considered as the children of Hashem. If the Greeks would learn Torah as the benei yisrael do, then there would nothing special about the closeness between Hashem and the benei yisrael. In this case, the benei yisrael would be considered as zarim, strangers, because there would be no exclusive secret binding the benei yisrael to Hashem.

The passuk in Mishlei which Rashi quotes about the attack of Amalek being caused by cheating in weights and measures continues;

בָּא זָדוֹן וַיָּבֹא קָלוֹן וְאֶת צְנוּעִים חָכְמָה

“The wanton sinner comes and with him disgrace, but with the modest is wisdom.”

You see from the end of the passuk explains that the antidote to the attack of Amalek is the wisdom that comes with modesty. The Mishna, which is the hidden secret of Hashem and the hidden wisdom of the benei yisrael, is the antidote to Amalek becuase Amalek can only seek to hold back the benei yisrael from things that he can see. However, Amalek cannot attack something that is invisible to him. When the benei yisrael learn Torah shebaal peh, this strengthens the hidden relationship between Hashem and the benei yisrael and causes Amalek to be unable to attack them.

However, the hidden relationship amongst the benei yisrael themselves is a pre-requisite to the hidden relationship between Hashem and the benei yisrael and the existence of Torah shebaal peh. Therefore Rashi says;

אם שקרת במדות ובמשקלות הוי דואג מגרוי האויב

“If you lied in weights and measures be worried about the attack of the enemy…”

If the benei yisrael cheat each other in a hidden way, this uproots the hidden relationship between them and correspondingly it becomes impossible for them to maintain their special hidden relationship with Hashem. In this case there is nothing to stave off Amalek’s attacks anymore. On the other hand, if the benei yisrael are tzenuim and internalise the wisdom of the Torah, Amalek is unable to attack them and they are shielded by Hashem.

This week's parsha: Shoftim - The dynasty of David

2011-09-01T15:53:00.001+10:00

The passuk says in this week’s sedrah;

שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה' אֱלֹקֶיךָ בּוֹ

“You shall surely place over yourselves a king whom Hashem will choose…”

In Hilchos Melachim (perek 1, halacha 7) the Rambam says;

…ומאחר שמושחין המלך הרי זה זוכה לו ולבניו עד עולם שהמלכות ירושה שנאמר למען יאריך ימים על ממלכתו הוא ובניו בקרב ישראל …ולא המלכות בלבד אלא כל השררות וכל המינויין שבישראל ירושה לבנו ולבן בנו עד עולם והוא שיהיה הבן ממלא מקום אבותיו בחכמה וביראה היה ממלא ביראה אף על פי שאינו ממלא בחכמה מעמידין אותו במקום אביו ומלמדין אותו וכל מי שאין בו יראת שמים אע"פ שחכמתו מרובה אין ממנין אותו למינוי מן המינויין שבישראל.

כיון שנמשח דוד זכה בכתר מלכות והרי המלכות לו ולבניו הזכרים עד עולם שנאמר כסאך יהיה נכון עד עולם ולא זכה אלא לכשרים שנאמר אם ישמרו בניך בריתי אף על פי שלא זכה אלא לכשרים לא תכרת המלוכה מזרע דוד לעולם הקדוש ברוך הוא הבטיחו בכך שנאמר אם יעזבו בניו תורתי ובמשפטי לא ילכון ופקדתי בשבט פשעם ובנגעים עונם וחסדי לא אפיר מעמו

“After the king has been anointed he acquires the monarchy for himself and his sons forever. This is because the monarchy is an inheritance as the passuk says ’למען יאריך ימים על ממלכתו הוא ובניו בקרב ישראל’ – ‘In order that his rule should endure, he and his sons in the midst of the benei yisrael.’

Not only the monarchy but also all offices and all positions in klal yisrael are passed on as an inheritance to sons and grandsons forever. This only applies however where the son is fitting to take his father’s place and is equal to him in wisdom and in yiras shamayim. If he was equal to his father in yiras shamayim even if he is not equal to him in wisdom, we place him in his father’s position and teach him [how to fill the role]. Anyone who does not have yiras shamayim even if he has acquired much wisdom may not be appointed to any position in klal yisrael.

Once Dovid was anointed he merited the royal crown and subsequently the monarchy belongs to him and to his male sons forever as the passuk says ‘כסאך יהיה נכון עד עולם’ – ‘Your throne will be established forever’. He only merited this for his descendants who act correctly as the passuk says ‘אם ישמרו בניך בריתי’ – ‘If your sons guard My covenant’.

Even although Dovid only merited the monarchy for his descendants who act correctly, the monarchy will never be cut off from his descendants permanently. Hashem promised him concerning this as the passuk says ‘אם יעזבו בניו תורתי ובמשפטי לא ילכון ופקדתי בשבט פשעם ובנגעים עונם וחסדי לא אפיר מעמו’ – ‘If his children forsake my Torah and do not walk in My judgments. Then I will punish their sin with the rod and their iniquity with plagues but I will not remove My kindness from him.’”

Why does the Rambam need to bring the passuk from Shmuel of כסאך יהיה נכון עד עולם to prove that Dovid merited the throne forever? He has already brought a passuk from the Torah of למען יאריך ימים על ממלכתו הוא ובניו which says that the throne is hereditary?

The Rambam says in Hilchos Talmud Torah (perek 3, halacha 1):

בשלושה כתרים נכתרו ישראל - כתר תורה, וכתר כהונה, וכתר מלכות: כתר כהונה - זכה בו אהרון, שנאמר "והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו, ברית כהונת עולם" (במדבר כה,יג). כתר מלכות - זכה בו דוד, שנאמר "זרעו, לעולם יהיה; וכיסאו כשמש, נגדי" (תהילים פט,לז)...

“Klal Yisroel were crowned with three crowns, with the crown of Torah, with the crown of Kehunah and with the crown of Royalty. Aharon merited the crown of Kehunah…Dovid merited the crown of Royalty…”

How can the Rambam say that Dovid merited the keser malchus to the exclusion of anyone else? Yeravam was appointed as a king by a navi after Dovid was appointed, so you see that it is still possible to have someone else become a melech even after Dovid was anointed?

Rabbi Shneur Kotler z”l (HaPardes, Year 56, Volume 6) explains as follows;

The Rambam compares Aharon meriting kehunah to Dovid meriting royalty. This implies that the nature of Dovid's malchus is similar to kehunah. Just as we understand that once Aharon merited the kehunah, it cannot be taken away from his family because they are now cohanim, so too once Dovid merited royalty it cannot be taken away from his family because his descendants are melachim.

In other words, just as Aharon achieved the madregah of kehunah, and therefore received a gift from Hashem that made this level permanent for himself and for all his generations, so too Dovid achieved the madregah of malchus and therefore was given the madrega of malchus as a permanent acquisition for himself and for all his descendants.

Although another king, such as Yeravam, may still be appointed, this does not mean that he becomes a true permanent melech. Rather it means that he has a role to fulfil in the position of melech. However with this appointment, just as with any other position of authority in klal yisrael, if the heir is not worthy of continuing the position then the family looses the position.

That is why the Rambam says that Dovid merited the crown of royalty. Even although other people can still be appointed as king. Dovid's lineage are essentially kings, whereas any other king who may be appointed simply fulfills a function for as long as they or their family merits to do so.

The Royal Lineage

The reason that the Rambam in Hilchos Melachim brings two different pessukim to prove that positions are hereditary is becuase he is describing two different types of inheritance;

למען יאריך ימים על ממלכתו הוא ובניו: In the first type of transmission of position, the role is handed from father to son, but only as long as the son is meritorious. If he is not, then the chain is broken and the family looses the position. The position is a right that the family possesses only as long as someone in the family is able to occupy it.
כסאך יהיה נכון עד עולם: In the case of the malchus beis david, this was not just a position that Dovid and his descendants occupied but rather Dovid merited that he and his family would be permanently elevated to the madregah of meluchah. Therefore the continuation of the meluchah does not depend on the position of melech being occupied, even if the reason that the throne is not occupied becuase the heir apparent is unworthy.

Therefore the Rambam introduces the discussion concerning Dovid by saying "כיון שנמשח דוד זכה בכתר מלכות". This is becuase the Rambam is not simply describing Dovid's receiving a position. Rather he is saying that Dovid reached the madrega of malchus yisrael and therefore merited that he and his descendants should always intrinsically be kings, just as Aharon attained the madrega of cohen gadol.

This week's parshah: Re'eh - sanctifying the place of the Beis Ha'Mikdash

2011-08-23T20:33:00.000+10:00

The passuk says in this week’s sedrah (12:14);

כִּי אִם בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה בְּאַחַד שְׁבָטֶיךָ שָׁם תַּעֲלֶה עֹלֹתֶיךָ וְשָׁם תַּעֲשֶׂה כֹּל אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּךָּ

“Rather in the place which Hashem will choose in one of your shevatim there you will bring your olos and all there you will do all that I command you.”

Rashi explains;

"באחד שבטיך" – בחלקו של בנימין ולמעלה הוא אומר מכל שבטיכם הא כיצד כשקנה דוד את הגורן מארונה היבוסי גבה הזהב מכל השבטים ומ"מ הגורן בחלקו של בנימין היה

“In one of your shevatim – this is in the portion of Binyamin. But previously it says ‘from all of your shevatim’? How is this so? When Dovid bought the granary from Aravnah the Yevusi he collected the gold from all of the shevatim, nevertheless the granary was in the portion of Binyamin.”

Rashi in Zevachim explains that not only did Dovid buy the place where the Beis HaMikdash was going to be, but he was also mekadesh it:

The gemarain Zevachim (24a) says that the floor of the azarah is mekadesh the cohen to be able to do the avodah. Rashi explains;

...שהרי דוד קידשה בשתי תודות ובשיר של פגעים כדאמרינן לקמן בשמעתין כיקדיש דוד כו'

“…Dovid was mekadesh the azarah with two korbanos todah and by saying yoshev beseser elyon (Tehillim 91) as we say later on in the gemara…”

There are a number of difficulties with this Rashi;

Tosafos asks that Rashi has not quoted the correct way to be mekadesh the azarah;

...ומה שפירש בקונטרס שקידשה בשתי תודות ובשיר אינו כן דעזרה אינה מקדשה בשתי תודות אלא בשירי מנחה כדאיתא בשבועות (דף טו.)

“…that which Rashi says that Dovid was mekadesh the azarah with two korbanos todah and by saying yoshev beseser elyon is not correct because the azarah is not sanctified with two korbanos todah, rather it is sanctified with a korban minchah as the gemara says in Shevuos (15a).”

The passuk says in MelachimAlef (8:64);

בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא קִדַּשׁ הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת תּוֹךְ הֶחָצֵר אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי בֵית ה' כִּי עָשָׂה שָׁם אֶת הָעֹלָה וְאֶת הַמִּנְחָה וְאֵת חֶלְבֵי הַשְּׁלָמִים...

“On that day the King [Shlomo] was mekadesh the inside of the courtyard before the House of Hashem because he made there the olah and the minchah and the fats of the shelamim…”

You see in this passuk that Shlomo was mekadesh the azarah, not Dovid?

The gemara says in Shevuos (15b)that you can only be mekadesh the azarah when the Beis Ha’Mikdash is built;

...נבנייה מאתמול וניקדשיה האידנא בעינן קידוש בשעת הבנין

“…should we build it from yesterday and be mekadesh it today? We need kiddush at the time it is built.”

If you have to be mekadesh the azarah when you build the Beis ha’Mikdash, how can Rashi say that Dovid was mekadesh the azarah long before Shlomo built the Beis Ha’Mikdash?

The gemara in Shevuos (16b) explains that if kedushah rishonah kidshah leshaatah vekidshah leased lavo then Ezra did not need to be mekadesh the makom hamikdash. Rashi comments;

...קסבר קדושה ראשונה דדוד ושלמה לא בטלה ולא הוצרך עזרא לקדש...

“…he is of the opinion that the first kedushah made by Dovid and Shlomo was never nullified and Ezra did not have to be mekadesh the place of the Beis ha’Mikdash again.”

It seems from Rashi that both Dovid and also Shlomo were mekadesh the makom ha’mikdash. This is difficult to understand. If Dovid was mekadesh the azarah, what did Shlomo have to add?

Rabbi Simchah Elberg z”l (HaPardes, Year 46, vol. 5) explains as follows;

The Mechilta says in Shemos (12:1);

עד שלא נבחרה ירושלים, היתה כל ארץ ישראל כשרה למזבחות, משנבחרה ירושלים יצאת ארץ ישראל. שנאמר 'השמר לך פן תעלה עולותיך וכו' כי אם במקום אשר יבחר' [דברים יב']. עד שלא נבחר בית עולמים, היתה ירושלים ראויה לשכינה, משנבנה בית עולמים יצאת ירושלים שנאמר (כי בחר ה בציון) ואומר 'זאת מנחתי עדי עד' [תהילים קלב]

“Before Yerusholayim was chosen, it was possible to make a mizbeach anywhere in Eretz Yisrael. Once Yerusholayim was chosen, Eretz Yisrael was excluded, as the passuk says ‘הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן תַּעֲלֶה עֹלֹתֶיךָ בְּכָל מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר תִּרְאֶה. כִּי אִם בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר’ – ‘Be careful not to sacrifice your olos in any place that you see. Only in the place that Hashem will choose…’

Before the Beis HaMikdash was chosen all of Yerusholayim was fitting to have the shechinah rest there, once the Beis HaMikdash was built, Yerusholayim was excluded, as the passuk says ‘זאת מנחתי עדי עד’ – ‘this is My dwelling place forever.”

You see from the Mechilta that the place of the Beis Ha’Mikdash was chosen as a part of Yerusholayim. First Yerusholayim was chosen and then the place of the Beis Ha’Mikdash was chosen from the rest of Yerusholayim. Therefore, in order to be able to select the makom ha’mikdash, first the place where the Beis ha’Mikdash would be had to become part of Yerusholayim.

Rabbi Elberg z”l explains that when Rashi says that Dovid was mekadesh the place of the Beis Ha’Mikdash, he does not mean that he gave it the kedushas ha’azarah, rather he means that he gave it the kedushah of Yerusholayim. This was necessary in order for Shlomo Ha’Melech to be able to later be mekadesh the place of the Beis Ha’Mikdash with the kedushas ha’mikdash.

This is why the Beis Ha’Mikdash did not have to be standing when Dovid was mekadesh the place of the mikdash, because he only gave the makom ha’mikdash the kedushah of Yerusholayim.
This is also why Rashi says that Dovid was mekadesh the granary of Aravnah ha’Yevusi with two korbanos todah and yoshev beseser elyon, which is the way that you extend Yerusholayim. This is because Rashi is not saying that Dovid gave the place kedushas ha’azarah, rather he is saying that Dovid made it a part of Yerusholayim which was a pre-requisite to it becoming the makom ha’mikdash.

However, we now have difficulty in understanding Tosafos. If Rashi was never saying that Dovid gave the makom ha’mikdash the kedushas ha’azarah, why does Tosafos asks on Rashi that the correct way to be mekadesh the azarah is with a korban minchah?

Rabbi Simchah Elberg z”l explains according to Tosafos in Zevachim (60b, d”hmaikasavar).

The gemara in Zevachim asks if you can eat a bechor behemah tehorah in Yerusholayim after the destruction of the Beis Ha’Mikdash according to the opinion that kedushah rishonah kidshah leshaatah ve’lokidshah le’asidlavo.

Tosafos asks, what case is the gemara referring to?

If the korban was brought in the Beis ha’Mikdash and then the Beis ha’Mikdash was destroyed, then even if the walls of Yerusholayim were still standing it would not be possible to eat the bechor in Yerusholayim because the kedushah of Yerusholayim only comes from the Beis Ha’Mikdash? (and this opinion holds that the kedushah does not continue after the churban.)

You can see from Tosafos' question that Tosafos is of the opposite opinion to the Mechilta.

The Mechilta says that the kedushah of Yerusholayim came first and was a pre-requisite to the kedushah of the Beis Ha’Mikdash.
Tosafos on the other hand are of the opinion that the kedushah of Yerusholayim only comes from the kedushas ha’mikdash and that without the Beis Ha’Mikdash, even if the walls of Yerusholayim are still standing, you cannot eat korbanos there.

Therefore according to Tosafos it is not possible to say that Dovid gave the granary of Aravnah the kedushah of Yerusholayim and then later Shlomo gave it the kedushah of the azarah because according to Tosafos it is the other way around. Yerusholayim only receives its kedushah when the place of the Beis Ha’Mikdash is sanctified.

Therefore Tosafos asked on Rashi, if Dovid was mekadesh the place of the mikdash this must mean that he gave it the kedushah of the mikdash, in which case he would have used a korban minchah, which is appropriate for the azarah, and not two korbanos todah, which are the correct way to extend Yerusholayim.

This week's parsha - Ekev: Loving the proselyte

2011-08-16T10:38:00.001+10:00

The passuk says in this week’s sedrah;

וַאֲהַבְתֶּם אֶת הַגֵּר כִּי גֵרִים הֱיִיתֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם

“You should love the ger because you were gerim in Mitzraim.”

The Rambam says in Hilchos Deios (6) explains;

הלכה ג': מצוה על כל אדם לאהוב את כל אחד ואחד מישראל כגופו שנאמר ואהבת לרעך כמוך לפיכך צריך לספר בשבחו ולחוס על ממונו כאשר הוא חס על ממון עצמו ורוצה בכבוד עצמו...

הלכה ד': אהבת הגר שבא ונכנס תחת כנפי השכינה שתי מצות עשה אחת מפני שהוא בכלל ריעים ואחת מפני שהוא גר והתורה אמרה ואהבתם את הגר צוה על אהבת הגר כמו שצוה על אהבת עצמו שנאמר ואהבת את ה' אלהיך הקב"ה עצמו אוהב גרים שנאמר ואוהב גר

הלכה ג': “It is a mitzvah for everyone person to love everyone from klal yisrael as himself as the passuk says ‘ואהבת לרעך כמוך’ – ‘you should love your friend as yourself’. Therefore he has to speak of his praise and be concerned about his money just as he is concerned for his own money and wants himself to be honoured… “

הלכה ד': “The love of the proselyte who has come and has entered beneath the כנפי השכינה is two mitzvos, one because he is included in the ‘friends’ and another mitzva is that he is a proselyte and the Torah said ‘You should love the proselyte.’ The Torah commanded concerning loving the proselyte just as it commanded concerning loving Hashem as the passuk says [in Shema] ‘ואהבת את ה' אלהיך’. Ha’kodosh Baruch Hu Himself Loves proselytes as the passuk says ‘ואוהב גר’ – ‘Hashem loves the proselyte [to give him bread and clothing]’.”

The Rambam is difficult to understand;

In הלכה ג', the Rambam begins “It is a mitzvah on every member of klal yisrael…” In הלכה ד' the Rambam begins “The love of the proselyte…” Why does the Rambam change from defining the mitzva in the first halacha, to describing the context of the mitzva in the second halacha?
Why does the Rambam repeat the mitzvah of ואהבת לרעך כמוך in the second halacha? The Rambam could have said in the first halacha that the mitzvah of ואהבת לרעך כמוך includes proselytes. Then the Rambam could simply have said a second halacha that there is an additional mitzvah of אהבת הגר for the proselyte. Of course we could count for ourselves and we would know that for the ger there are two mitzvos?
Why does the Rambam mention in the second halacha the fact that the proselyte came and was ונכנס תחת כנפי השכינה? Why does the Rambam mention that Hashem commanded us to love the proselyte as He commanded us to love Him? Why does the Rambam say that Hashem loves proselytes? In Mishneh Torah the Rambam does not talk about the extent of the obligation that we have to perform mitzvos, he simply tells us the halacha?
Why does the Rambam in הלכה ג' describe actions that a person is obligated to do because of the mitzvah of ואהבת לרעך כמוך, but in הלכה ד' he just says there is a mitzva to love the ger and does not describe any actions that we are obligated to do because of this?

The Rambam in Igros Ha’Rambam (chelek 1, pg. 240) says;

דע שחובה שחיבתנו תורה לגרים גדולה היא: על האב ועל האם נצטוינו בכיבוד ובמורא, ועל הנביאים לשמע להם, ואפשר שיכבד אדם ויירא וישמע ממי שאינו אוהבו, ועל הגרים צונו באהבה דבר המסור ללב "ואהבתם את הגר" כמו שצונו לאהוב את שמו "ואהבת את ה' אלוקיך"...

“You should know that the obligation that the Torah gave us towards gerim is a great obligation. Concerning parents we are commanded to respect and honour them, concerning neviim we are commanded to listen to them, and it is possible that a person could honour, respect and listen to someone whom they do not love. However concerning gerim we are commanded to love them, which is a thing that relates to the heart. The passuk says “You should love the ger” just as we are commanded to love Hashem as the passuk says “You should love Hashem.”

Why does the Rambam say that the obligation to love the ger is great because it is something that relates to the heart? The mitzva of ואהבת לרעך כמוך also relates to the heart?

Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner z”l (Pachad Yitzchak, Pesach 8) explains as follows;
There is a grammatical difference between the passuk of ואהבת לרעך כמוך and the passuk of וַאֲהַבְתֶּם אֶת הַגֵּר. In the first passuk the Torah uses a lamed - לרעך, in the second passuk the Torah says אֶת. The difference is that in the first passuk the Torah is saying that you should act towards your friend amicably, in the second passuk the Torah is telling you that you have an obligation to actually love the ger - אֶת הַגֵּר.

That is why in the first halacha the Rambam lists actions that you are obligated to do because of the mitzva of ואהבת לרעך כמוך, whereas in the second halacha he does not list any actions. This is because regarding ואהבת לרעך כמוך, the obligation is in your actions towards your friend. In the second halacha however the obligation is a chovos ha’levovos, it is a obligation to actually feel love towards the ger.

This is also why the Rambam in Igros Ha’Rambam says that the mitzva of loving the ger is a great mitzva and comparable to the mitzva to love Hashem, because the mitzva of loving the ger is a davar hamassur le’lev – it is an obligation of the heart. We see from the Rambam that the mitzva of ואהבת לרעך כמוך is not a davar hamassur le’lev because it is a mitzva that obligates you to act nicely towards someone else, but there is no obligation to actually feel love for them. Certainly if you do feel love for them this is a great virtue, but it is not the minimal obligation required by the halacha. This differs to the obligation to love the ger which is an obligation to feel respect, admiration and love for them.

How do you feel love?
In order to be able to feel love towards someone, we have to recognize their virtues. Therefore the Rambam explains that the virtue of the ger that we have to recognize is that he is בא ונכנס תחת כנפי השכינה – he has left everything that he had behind in order to come and be close to Hashem.

Even if a person has a virtue, if he is not part of a society the people in that society will not love them. If a society is exclusive, then regardless of the virtues of anyone outside that society, the people within the society will not love them because they do not relate to them personally. Their virtues may generate interest, but these will not be a cause for love.

Therefore the Rambam gives an introduction to the mitzvah to love the ger by reiterating the mitzva of ואהבת לרעך כמוך and explaining that this also applies to the ger;

אחת מפני שהוא בכלל ריעים

“The ger is included in ‘friends’.“

If the ger was not included in friends, it would not be possible to add any further obligation of love towards him because he would not be within the friendship circle at all. The passuk says in Vayikra (19:34):

כְּאֶזְרָח מִכֶּם יִהְיֶה לָכֶם הַגֵּר הַגָּר אִתְּכֶם וְאָהַבְתָּ לוֹ כָּמוֹךָ...

“Like the native from you the ger will be to you, and you should love him as yourself…”

Without saying that the ger will be like a native, it would not be possible to include him in the mitzva of וְאָהַבְתָּ לוֹ כָּמוֹךָ.

After the Rambam has explained that the ger is included in ‘friends’, he adds;

והתורה אמרה ואהבתם את הגר

“And also the Torah says that you should love the ger.”

As the Rambam explains in Igros Ha’Rambam - the mitzva of loving the ger carries a greater obligation than the mitzva of ואהבת לרעך כמוך – because this mitzva is a duty of the heart and is not just an obligation to be nice. Therefore here the Rambam does not list practical actions that are required, becuase this is not an actionable mitzva - rather it is a duty of the heart.

Nevertheless, this mitzva can only start once the ger is included in ‘friends’, because otherwise recognition of his virtue that he has come to be close to Hashem, would not be able to be a cause for love towards him.

Testing Hashem

2011-08-12T13:37:00.000+10:00

The passuk in this week’s sedrah says;

לֹא תְנַסּוּ אֶת ה' אֱלֹקֵיכֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר נִסִּיתֶם בַּמַּסָּה

“You should not test Hashem as you tested Him in Massah.”

The Sma”g (mitzvas lo saaseh 4) explains;

פירוש שלא יאמר אדם אעשה מצוה זו ואראה אם אתברך

“This means, a person should not say, I will do this mitzvah and see if I will receive a berachah.”

The Sma”g brings an exception to this halacha from the gemara in Taanis (9a), the gemara says;

אשכחיה ר' יוחנן לינוקא דריש לקיש אמר ליה אימא לי פסוקיך א"ל עשר תעשר א"ל ומאי עשר תעשר א"ל עשר בשביל שתתעשר ...אמר ליה ומי שרי לנסוייה להקב"ה והכתיב (דברים ו, טז) לא תנסו את ה' א"ל הכי אמר רבי הושעיא חוץ מזו שנאמר (מלאכי ג, י) הביאו את כל המעשר אל בית האוצר ויהי טרף בביתי ובחנוני נא בזאת אמר ה' צבקות אם לא אפתח לכם את ארובות השמים והריקותי לכם ברכה עד בלי די מאי עד בלי די אמר רמי בר חמא אמר רב עד שיבלו שפתותיכם מלומר די

“Rebbi Yochanan found the child of Reish Lakish and he asked him, ‘Which passuk are you learning?’
He replied, ‘I am learning the passuk of “עשר תעשר”.
Rebbi Yochanan said to him, ‘What does the passuk mean?’
He replied, ‘[The passuk means] give maaser in order that you should become wealthy.’
Rebbi Yochanan asked, ‘Is it permissible to test Hashem? Surely we have learnt in the passuk ‘לא תנסו את ה'’ – ‘You should not test Hashem.’
He replied, ‘This is what Rebbi Hoshaya said – except for this case, as the passuk says in Malachi “Bring all the maaser to the storehouse and let there be food for My House and test Me in this”, says Hashem – “if I will not open for you the windows of shamayim and pour out berachah for you ‘עד בלי די’.”’
[The gemara asks;] What does ‘עד בלי די’ mean?
Romi bar Chama said in the name of Rav – it means until your lips are worn out from saying enough.”

How can the passuk in Malachi state an exception to an issur in the Torah if the Torah never hinted to any case which is excluded from the issur?

When the benei yisrael came to Rephidim after coming out of Mitzraim and had no water, the passuk says;

וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם מֹשֶׁה מַה תְּרִיבוּן עִמָּדִי מַה תְּנַסּוּן אֶת ה'. ...וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם מַסָּה וּמְרִיבָה עַל רִיב בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל נַסֹּתָם אֶת יה' לֵאמֹר הֲיֵשׁ ה' בְּקִרְבֵּנוּ אִם אָיִן.

“Moshe said to them, why are you arguing with me? Why do you test Hashem? ...And he called the name of the place Massah and Merivah, because the benei yisrael argued with Hashem and because they tested Hashem saying, ‘Is Hashem in our midst or not?’”

However when the benei yisrael came to Kadesh and complained that there was no water, the passuk says;

הֵמָּה מֵי מְרִיבָה אֲשֶׁר רָבוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת ה'...

”They are the Waters of Merivah concerning which the benei yisrael argued with Hashem…”

• Why does the Torah call Rephidim “Massah and Merivah” (testing and arguing), but in Kadesh only the name Mey Merivah (arguing) was added with no reference to the benei yisrael testing Hashem?

נסיון and בחינה
The Malbim in Malachi (3:10) explains the difference between a נסיון and a בחינה;

ויש הבדל בין נסיון לבחינה, המנסה ינסה אם יש בהמנוסה מדרגה גבוה מן הנודע בו עד הנה, למשל המנסה את הזהב אם יש בו כח משיכת המאגנעט, והבחינה הוא אם בוחן אם הדבר הוא כפי מהותו הרגיל, כמו הבוחן הזהב אם אין בו סיגים

“There is a difference between a nisayon and a bechinah. Someone who applies a nisayon tests to see if there is a quality in the item being tested that exceeds that which was known up until now. For example, someone may test gold to see if it has magnetic properties. However a bechinah is where the person tests the item to see if it has its normal qualities, for instance someone may check gold for impurities.”

A נסיון is a test to see if there is something new that was not previously known, a בחינה is a test to see if the normal qualities of the item are present as would be expected.

Giving maaser
The Malbim (3:10) explains why it is permissible to test Hashem regarding giving maaser.

The passuk says in Malachi (3:10);

הָבִיאוּ אֶת כָּל הַמַּעֲשֵׂר אֶל בֵּית הָאוֹצָר וִיהִי טֶרֶף בְּבֵיתִי וּבְחָנוּנִי נָא בָּזֹאת אָמַר ה' צְבָקוֹת אִם לֹא אֶפְתַּח לָכֶם אֵת אֲרֻבּוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וַהֲרִיקֹתִי לָכֶם בְּרָכָה עַד בְּלִי דָי

“Bring all the maaser to the storehouse and let there be food in My House and test Me please with this says Hashem, if I will not open for you the windows of shamayim and I will pour out berachah for you עַד בְּלִי דָי.”

The Malbim explains;

...שהגם שאסור לנסות את ה' כמ"ש לא תנסו את ה', זה מותר, כי אינו נסיון רק בחינה

“Even although it is forbidden to test Hashem with a nisayon, as the passuk says “לא תנסו את ה'” – “you should not give Hashem a nisayon” this is permitted because it is not a nisayon, rather it is a bechinah.”

Since Hashem promises us that if we give maaser then He will pour out berachah for us, therefore giving maaser on this condition is no longer a nisayon, a test of something which is not known; rather it is a bechinah, a check to see if something expected will occur. That is not included in the issur in this week’s sedrah of לֹא תְנַסּוּ because this is a bechinah, not a nisayon.

Mey Merivah
According to the Malbim we can also understand that in Rephidim, the benei yisrael tested Hashem, because they did not yet know that Hashem would bring out water from a rock for them. Therefore the place was called Massah and Merivah, because they both tested Hashem and also argued with Him.

However in Kadesh the benei yisrael already knew that Hashem would bring water out of a rock for them, so there was no nisayon. As the Malbim explains, a nisayon is only where there is a test to see if there is a quality that was previously unknown. So the Torah only called the place Mey Merivah, because they argued with Hashem.

Lo saguru - Do not be afraid

2011-08-05T16:16:00.000+10:00

After Moshe appointed the judges, he said to them;

לֹא תָגוּרוּ מִפְּנֵי אִישׁ כִּי הַמִּשְׁפָּט לֵאלֹקִים הוּא

“You (the judges) should not be afraid of any man because judgment belongs to Hashem…”

To what extent must the judges not be afraid?

The gemara says in Sanhedrin (6b)

...וריש לקיש אמר שנים שבאו לדין אחד רך ואחד קשה עד שלא תשמע דבריהן או משתשמע דבריהן ואי אתה יודע להיכן דין נוטה אתה רשאי לומר להם אין אני נזקק לכם שמא נתחייב חזק ונמצא חזק רודפו משתשמע דבריהן ואתה יודע להיכן הדין נוטה אי אתה יכול לומר להן איני נזקק לכם שנא' (דברים א, יז) לא תגורו מפני איש

“Reish Lakish says – if two people come to judgment, one is easy to deal with and one is hard to deal with – before you have heard the case or even if you have heard the case and you do not know which is likely to be correct, then you are allowed to say ‘I will not judge the case.’ Perhaps the strong one will become chayav and he will harass the judge. However once you have heard the case and you know which way the outcome is tending you cannot say to them ‘I will not judge this case’ because the passuk says ‘לא תגורו מפני איש’ – ‘You shall not be afraid of any man.’”

Rashi explains that the concern for the judge is;

שמא יתחייב חזק ונמצא רודפו - רודף את הדיין להפך את הדין

“Perhaps the strong one will be chayav and he will harass the judge – the gemara means that he will harass the judge to change the legal decision.”

According to Rashi, the gemara is not talking about a case where there is any perceived danger to the judge. There is merely the possibility that he will harass him to change the judgment. The Bach explains (see ב"ח חושן משפט ס' י"ב אות א') that according to Rashi, if there would be a concern of actual danger then the judge would not need to judge the case, just as in all other mitzvos that we are patur from if there is the possibility of danger.

Tosafos (d”h nimtzah chazak rodpho according to ב"ח חושן משפט ס' י"ב אות א') and the Rambam argue on Rashi and say that even if there is actual possible danger from a litigant the judge still has to judge the case. The Rambam says in Hilchos Sanhedrin (22:1):

שנים שבאו לפניך לדין אחד רך ואחד קשה ...אבל משתשמע את דבריהם ותדע להיכן הדין נוטה אי אתה רשאי לומר איני נזקק לכם שנאמר לא תגורו מפני איש שלא תאמר איש פלוני רשע הוא שמא יהרוג את בני שמא ידליק את גדישי שמא יקצץ נטיעותי...

“If two people come to judgment, one is easy to deal with and one is hard to deal with …once you have heard the case and you know which way the outcome is tending you cannot say to them ‘I will not judge this case’ as the passuk says ‘לא תגורו מפני איש’ – ‘You shall not be afraid of any man.’ This means you should not say that person is a rasha, maybe he will kill my son, maybe he will burn my grain or maybe he will destroy my plants…”

This is difficult to understand, why should the judge ignore the possible danger to his son? Surely the general rule in all mitzvos is v’chai bahem – you should not do a mitzvah if this would cause danger to life?

The Ramban in Bereishis (34:13) says the issur of lo saguru only applies to a Yisrael;

...נראה מכאן שרשאי הגוי לאמר לבעלי הדין 'איני נזקק לכם', כי תוספת היא בישראל (דברים א יז): "לא תגורו מפני איש" - "אל תכניס דבריך מפני איש"...

“..it appears from the Yerushalmi that a non-Jew is allowed to say to litigants, ‘I will not judge your case.’ With the benei yisrael there is an additional mitzvah (besides the mitzvah to judge) of “לא תגורו מפני איש” – “Do not hesitate to say the halachah”…”

The Ramban is difficult to understand. Seeing as lo saguru describes the way the judge has to deliver judgement, and seeing that a non-Jew also has to judge, why does the mitzvah of lo saguru not also apply to a non-Jew?

Rb Moshe Aharon Bleich explains as follows;

The gemara says in Bava Kamma (38a);

ת"ר וכבר שלחה מלכות רומי שני סרדיוטות אצל חכמי ישראל למדונו תורתכם קראו ושנו ושלשו בשעת פטירתן אמרו להם דקדקנו בכל תורתכם ואמת הוא חוץ מדבר זה שאתם אומרים שור של ישראל שנגח שור של כנעני פטור של כנעני שנגח שור של ישראל בין תם בין מועד משלם נזק שלם ממ"נ אי רעהו דוקא אפילו דכנעני כי נגח דישראל ליפטר ואי רעהו לאו דוקא אפילו דישראל כי נגח דכנעני לחייב ודבר זה אין אנו מודיעים אותו למלכות

“The Roman government sent two judges to the chachmei yisrael who said ‘Teach us your Torah!’ They learnt the halachos two and three times. When they left they said to them, ‘We have inspected your Torah and it is true besides the law that says that if the ox of a Yisrael gores the ox of a Knaani then the owner is patur. On the other hand if an ox of a Knaani gores the ox of a Yisrael … then the owner has to pay the entire damage…However we will not tell this halacha to the government.”

The Yam Shel Shlomoh (Bava Kamma, perek 4:9) asks why they told them that this was the halacha? Seeing as this could have endangered klal yisrael they should have either have said that they are both patur or they should have said that they are both chayav?

He explains;

...גם שמעינן מהאי ברייתא דאסור לשנות דברי תורה אף במקום סכנה, וחייב למסור עצמו עליה...הלא לא תמצא דבר קשה כזה לומר בפני האומות שאנחנו פטורין מהיזיקן והם חייבים...וא"כ היה להם לשנות או שניהם חייבים או שניהם פטורין...ואם ח"ו ישנה הדין הוה ככופר בתורת משה...

“We see from this beraisah that it is assur to change the Torah even in cases of danger … Surely this is the worst thing that they could have said to the Roman judges – that we are patur if we cause them damage but the other way around they are chayav! They should have said to them that they are either both chayav or they are both patur?

The reason that it is assur to change the halacha is because [there is no difference between changing one halacha or changing the whole Torah, so that] if someone changes the halacha it is as if he has denied the Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu...”

According to the Yam Shel Shlomoh, the chachamim were obligated to tell the Romans the correct halacha so as not to falsify the Torah, even although this caused possible danger to the entire community.

Rb Bleich explains that similarly the reason that Tosafos and the Rambam say that a judge has to judge even if this may cause danger to himself is for the same reason. Just as it was assur for the chachamim to change the halacha, even when explaining the Torah to a non-Jew, similarly it is assur for a dayan to not judge a case becuase he is afraid as this would mean that he is not passing on the practical halacha for this case.

We can therefore understand that because the basis of the issur of lo saguru is not passing on the practical halachah, this issur does not apply to non-Jews. Although they also have a chiyuv to judge, they do not have a chiyuv to pass on the Torah.

For the benei yisrael the Torah says;

לֹא תָגוּרוּ מִפְּנֵי אִישׁ כִּי הַמִּשְׁפָּט לֵאלֹקִים הוּא

“You (the judges) should not be afraid of any man because the judgment belongs to Hashem..”

The judgement that the dayan rules belongs to Hashem – so he has to issue it and publicise it. However the non-Jewish judge does not have to pass on the Torah, thereefore there is no issur for him not to judge in a case where this could cause him harm.

6 Cities of Refuge and the 42 Cities of the Leviim

2011-07-29T14:00:00.000+10:00

The passuk in this week’s sedrah describes the six arei miklat that were designated for an accidental murderer to flee to;

וְהֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר תִּתֵּנוּ שֵׁשׁ עָרֵי מִקְלָט תִּהְיֶינָה לָכֶם

“And the cities that you give will be six cities of refuge for you.”

Not only did the six cities of refuge allow an accidental murderer to escape to them, but a murderer could also escape to the other 42 cities of the Leviim. The passuk says regarding the cities of the Leviim;

וְאֵת הֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר תִּתְּנוּ לַלְוִיִּם אֵת שֵׁשׁ עָרֵי הַמִּקְלָט אֲשֶׁר תִּתְּנוּ לָנֻס שָׁמָּה הָרֹצֵחַ וַעֲלֵיהֶם תִּתְּנוּ אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁתַּיִם עִיר

“And the cities which you will give to the Leviim are the six cities of refuge which you will make so that a murderer can flee there and in addition to them you will give 42 cities.”

The gemara in Makkos (10a) says that we learn from the words “וַעֲלֵיהֶם תִּתְּנוּ” – “in addition to them you shall give” that just as the six cities of refuge shelter a rotzeach, so too do the 42 cities of the Leviim.

However, the Torah does not mention these 42 cities as cities of refuge in the parshah of the arei miklat and only mentions them in the parshah regarding the cities that are given to the Leviim.

Why does the Torah only talk about the six arei miklat in the parsha of the arei miklat and not mention the other 42 cities which the rotzeach can flee to?

The Rambam says in the Sefer Ha’Mitzvos (aseh 182);

..שנצטווינו להבדיל שש ערי מקלט שתהיינה מוכנות למכה נפש בשגגה, ושמתקנים את הדרך אליהן ומישרין אותה..."

"..[this mitzvah is] that we are commanded to separate six cities of refuge that should be prepared for one who inadvertently kills somebody, and that they should prepare the roads to the city and straighten them…"

Why does the Rambam limit this mitzvah to protecting the rotzeach by allowing him to run to the six cities? Why does he not also include in this mitzvah ensuring that the rotzeach can run to the 42 cities of the Leviim? There should also be a mitzvah to signpost the roads to the arei haleviim so if a murderer is running he can quickly find his way there?

In the next mitzvah (mitzvah 183) the Rambam says;

...שנצטווינו לתן ערים ללויים לדור בהן, כיון שאין להם חלק בארץ...וגם ערים אלו, כלומר: ערי הלויים, הן ערי מקלט וקולטות בתנאים המיוחדים להן, כמו שנתבאר במכות.

"..[this mitzvah is] that we are commanded to give cities to the Leviim to live in because they have no portion in the land…And these cities as well, that is, the cities of the Leviim are cities of refuge and provide refuge under certain conditions as is explained in Makkos.”

The Rambam is referring to the gemara in Makkos (10a) which says;

...אמר אביי הללו קולטות בין לדעת בין שלא לדעת הללו לדעת קולטות שלא לדעת אינן קולטות

"Abaye says – the six cities of refuge protect the murderer whether or not he intends to take refuge there, however the 42 cities of the Leviim only protect the murderer if he intends to take refuge."

· The Rambam does not generally describe details of mitzvos in Sefer ha’Mitzvos. Why does he refer to this specific detail for this mitzvah?

Rb Meir Rozmarin explains as follows;
In the beginning of the parsha describing the cities given to the Leviim the passuk says;

צַו אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתְנוּ לַלְוִיִּם מִנַּחֲלַת אֲחֻזָּתָם עָרִים לָשָׁבֶת

“Command the benei yisrael and they should give to the Leviim from their inheritance cities to live in.”

The parshah continues;

... וְאֵת הֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר תִּתְּנוּ לַלְוִיִּם אֵת שֵׁשׁ עָרֵי הַמִּקְלָט אֲשֶׁר תִּתְּנוּ לָנֻס שָׁמָּה הָרֹצֵחַ וַעֲלֵיהֶם תִּתְּנוּ אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁתַּיִם עִיר.

“And the cities that you give to the Leviim, the six cities of refuge which you give so that a rotzeach can flee there and in addition to them you should give 42 cities.”

At the end of the parshah the passuk says;

וְהֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר תִּתְּנוּ מֵאֲחֻזַּת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֵת הָרַב תַּרְבּוּ וּמֵאֵת הַמְעַט תַּמְעִיטוּ אִישׁ כְּפִי נַחֲלָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר יִנְחָלוּ יִתֵּן מֵעָרָיו לַלְוִיִּם.

“And the cities that you give from the inheritance of the benei yisrael from the many [who have a large area of land] you should take many cities and from the few [who have a small area of land] each man according to his inheritance which they shall inherit should give from his cities to the Leviim.”

It seems from the pessukim that the mitzvah to give more cities to the Leviim from a larger shevet and less from a smaller shevet only applies to the 42 cities of the Leviim, not to the 6 cities of refuge which were spaced evenly in Eretz Yisrael (see gemara makkos 9b on the passuk תָּכִין לְךָ הַדֶּרֶךְ וְשִׁלַּשְׁתָּ אֶת גְּבוּל אַרְצְך).

Rb Rozmarin explains that the primary purpose of the six cities was to be a place of refuge. The Torah gave these cities of refuge to the Leviim. With the 42 cities of the Leviim it was the other way round. The Torah gave these cities to the Leviim because they had no land, these cities also protected a rotzeach. Just as a rotzeach can run to the top of the mizbeach and be sheltered, so too a rotzeach could run to the arei haleviim and be sheltered, however the arei ha’leviim were not arei miklat. This is why the rotzeach had to have intention that the arei haleviim should protect him but not with the arei miklat, because in the case of the arei miklat, the actual place was set aside for a murderer to run to. Therefore as soon as the rotzeach was inside the place, they were protected.

However in the case of the arei haleviim, they were not places that were designated for a rotzeach to run to. Rather the halachah is that a rotzeach can shelter in the arei haleviim, just as a rotzeach can shelter on the mizbeach. Simply being in the place did not protect the rotzeach as this was not the function of the place, rather he had to intend to be protected.

Therefore;

The six cities were evenly spaced as they were designed to protect the rotzeach, not so the 42 cities which were given to the leviim acording to the size of the shevet.
The Torah only talks about the six arei miklat in the parsha of the arei miklat and not the other 42 cities, because the other 42 cities were not specifically designated for a rotzeach to flee to. Rather this is an incidental function of the other 42 cities, just as a rotzeach can flee to the mizbeach.
The Rambam limits the mitzvah of setting aside cities to protect the rotzeach to the six cities because the 42 were set aside for the Leviim, they were not specifically meant for a rotzeach.
The Rambam in the Sefer ha’Mitzvos says that the arei haleviim only protected the rotzeach if he intended to be sheltered there because he is telling you that being sheltered is not the purpose of the arei haleviim, which is why they would not protect the rotzeach automatically.

This is why there is also no mitzvah to prepare the road and signpost the arei haleviim, becuase they are not specifically meant to save the rotzeach bishegagah.

The condition made with Gad and Reuvain

2011-07-22T15:38:00.000+10:00

The passuk says in this week's sedrah;

וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֲלֵהֶם אִם יַעַבְרוּ בְנֵי גָד וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן אִתְּכֶם אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן כָּל חָלוּץ לַמִּלְחָמָה לִפְנֵי ה' וְנִכְבְּשָׁה הָאָרֶץ לִפְנֵיכֶם וּנְתַתֶּם לָהֶם אֶת אֶרֶץ הַגִּלְעָד לַאֲחֻזָּה. וְאִם לֹא יַעַבְרוּ חֲלוּצִים אִתְּכֶם וְנֹאחֲזוּ בְתֹכְכֶם בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן.

"And Moshe said to them, if every soldier from Gad and Reuvain pass over the Yarden with you before Hashem and the land is conquered before you then you should give to them the land of Gilad as their portion. And if they do not pass armed with you then they will settle amongst you in the land of Kena’an."

The mishna in Kiddushin (61a) says;

ר' מאיר אומר כל תנאי שאינו כתנאי בני גד ובני ראובן אינו תנאי: שנאמר ויאמר אליהם אם יעברו בני גד ובני ראובן וכתיב ואם לא יעברו חלוצים

“Rebbi Meir says – every condition that is not like the condition that Moshe made with Gad and Reuvain concerning their portion in Eretz Yisrael is not a condition – as the passuk says ‘And he said to them – If Gad and Reuvain go ahead [then they will receive the land to the east of the Yarden]’, and it says ‘and if they will not pass ahead armed [then they will not receive this land]’.”

Moshe doubled the condition that he made with Gad and Reuvain and specified that if they would pass ahead of the benei yisrael then they would receive the land to the east of the Yarden, he also specified that if they would not pass ahead then they would not receive this land.

Rebbi Meir derives from this that any time a condition is made concerning a legal transaction, the terms of the condition have to be repeated once for what will happen if the person does fulfill the condition and once for what will happen if the person does not fulfill the condition. If this is not done then the transaction will proceed regardless of whether the terms of the condition are met or not.

The Rambam in Hilchos Ishus (6:2 and 14) paskens like Rebbi Meir and says that legal conditions have to be doubled, however, in הלכה‏ י”ז the Rambam says;

כל האומר מעכשיו לא יצטרך לכפול תנאו ...

“If someone says that the contract should take effect from now when the condition is met then he does not need to double the condition...”

For example, if Moshe had said that Gad and Reuvain would own the land of Gilad from the time that he made the condition with them if they fought in Kenaan, then he would not have had to double the condition. The reason that he had to double the condition it is because he said that they would only gain ownership of it in the future after they had conquered Eretz Yisrael.

Sotah
The Mishneh le'Melech asks on the Rambam from the gemara in Kiddushin (62). The gemara asks a question on Rebbi Meir from the first shevuah that the cohen makes a sotah make. The cohen only says that if the woman is innocent then she should not be punished, it does not say that if she is guilty then she should be punished. According to Rebbi Meir the cohen should have to speak out both sides of the shevuah?

The Mishneh le'Melech asks that in this case, the cohen is saying that the onesh should happen to the sotah now if she is chayav. According to the Rambam, in this case even Rebbi Meir would agree that we do not need a double tnai. How then can the gemara ask on Rebbi Meir from this passuk?

The Kehillas Yaakov (Nedarim 11) explains as follows;
The gemara says in Nedarim (11a) that according to Rebbi Meir you do not say miklal hein atah shomeah lav. That means that according to Rebbi Meir you cannot infer the positive side from the negative side or vice versa.

מני מתניתין? אי רבי מאיר, לית ליה מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן, דתנן: רבי מאיר אומר: כל תנאי שאינו כתנאי בני גד ובני ראובן, אינו תנאי.

"Who is the tanna of the mishna [that implies that in nedarim you can infer a positive condition from a negative condition]? If it is Rebbi Meir – he does not hold that you can infer a positive statement from a negative statement as we have learnt Rebbi Meir says - any condition that is not like the condition of Gad and Reuvain is not a condition."

However, this is not enough to explain the halacha of Rebbi Meir. Let us say for example that a man said to a woman that she should be mekudeshes to him on condition that she gives him 200 zuz, and he does not say what will happen if she does not give him 200 zuz. According to Rebbi Meir, even if she does not give him 200 zuz she is still mekudeshes. This cannot be explained wholly by the gemara in Nedarim. Although you cannot infer what will happen if she does not give him 200 zuz, he still did not specify that in this case she should become mekudeshes to him. Although it is not as if he said that if you do not give then you will not be mekudeshes, he also did not say that if she did not give that she will be mekudeshes. Why then does Rebbi Meir say that she is mekudeshes regardless of whether or not she gives the 200 zuz?

The Kehillas Yaakov explains that in addition to the fact that Rebbi Meir says that you cannot infer a positive from a negative (or vice versa) you also have to explain that there is a halacha that in order to be a valid condition for the contract, the condition has to be doubled. If the condition is not doubled, it is as if there is no condition at all.

According to the Rambam, this chiddush only applies where the person who made the condition wants the contract to take effect in the future and not if he wants it to take effect from the time that he made the contract. If he wants the contract to take effect now, then at least the side of the condition that he specified is valid and binding.

However, Rebbi Meir still does not hold that miklal lav atah shomeah hen – that you can infer a positive from a negative or the other way round. Therefore, although in the case of sotah the shevuah concerns a punishment that should take effect now, if the cohen just says that if you are not chayav then you will not receive a punishment, we cannot deduce from this that if the sotah is chayav then she will receive a punishment (because Rebbi Meir does not hold that miklal lav atah shomeah hen.) Therefore the gemara asks a question on Rebbi Meir from the case of Sotah even although there the shevuah takes effect when the sotah makes it.

In other words, the Rambam’s chiddush that you do not need a double t’nai if the contract is binding from the time that it is made, only applies to a case where the person specified the case in which something positively happens. For example, in the case of the benei gad and the benei reuvain, had Moshe given them the land from the time the condition was made then he would only need to have said that if you fight for the benei yisroel you will receive the land, because although you cannot infer the negative from the positive, nothing at all could be inferred for a case where they would not have fought so they would not have received the land.

However in the case of the sotah, the cohen specifies the case where nothing happens, so if you cannot infer the positive from the negative, even although the shevuah takes effect from now, the cohen's statement would be meaningless.

The korban mussaf of Rosh ha'Shanah

2011-07-15T15:25:00.001+10:00

The passuk says in this week’s sedrah;

וּבַחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם ...וַעֲשִׂיתֶם עֹלָה לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַה'

“And in the seventh month on the first of the month it will be a holy convocation to you, you shall not do any work, it is a day of blowing the shofar. And you should make a burnt offering as a pleasant smell to Hashem...”

The Yalkut Shimoni explains;

אמר רבי תחליפא קיסריא בכל הקרבנות כתיב והקרבתם וכאן כתיב ועשיתם אמר הקב"ה מכיון שנכנסתם לפני בדין ביום הזה ויצאתם בדימוס מעלה אני עליכם כאילו היום נעשיתם כאילו היום בראתי אתכם בריה חדשה הה"ד כִּי כַאֲשֶׁר הַשָּׁמַיִם הַחֳדָשִׁים וְהָאָרֶץ הַחֲדָשָׁה אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי עֹשֶׂה עֹמְדִים לְפָנַי נְאֻם ה' כֵּן יַעֲמֹד זַרְעֲכֶם וְשִׁמְכֶם

“Rabbi Tachlifa from Caesaria said - in all other korbanos mussaf the passuk says ve'hikravtem – ‘you should bring’, whereas concerning the korban mussaf for Rosh ha'Shana the passuk says ve’asisem – you should make. Ha’kodosh Baruch Hu said to the benei yisrael – since you entered into judgement before me on this day and you came out and were pardoned I consider it as if today you have been created, as if today I have created you as new beings.

This is what the passuk refers to in Yeshaya (64:22) – ‘As the new heavens and the new earth that I will make stand before Me, says Hashem, so too will stand your children and your name."

Why does Hashem consider as if we have been newly created because we were found meritorious in din?
Why does the passuk say “כֵּן יַעֲמֹד זַרְעֲכֶם וְשִׁמְכֶם” – “So too your children and your name will stand.” The passuk should rather say, “So too you will stand”, or “You and your children”. Why does it refer to your children and your name?

The bris bein ha’besarim
In the Bris Bein Habesarim, Hashem said to Avraham;

וַיֹּאמֶר לְאַבְרָם יָדֹעַ תֵּדַע כִּי גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא לָהֶם וַעֲבָדוּם וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה. וְגַם אֶת הַגּוֹי אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹדוּ דָּן אָנֹכִי וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן יֵצְאוּ בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל. ... וְדוֹר רְבִיעִי יָשׁוּבוּ הֵנָּה ...

"And Hashem said to Avraham – you shall surely know that your children will be sojourners in a strange land and they will enslave them and afflict them for 400 years and also the nation that they serve I will judge and after that they will go out with great wealth…And the fourth generation will return here …"

Why does the passuk describe the number of years (400) for galus, but the number of generations (4) for the geulah?

The Vilna Gaon z”l explains that loss is caused by the passage of time, so for galus the passuk says 400 years. However mending and renewal depends on the work of man, which is symbolised by generations, so for geulah the passuk refers to four generations.

The Gr”a is difficult to understand because in other places we find that the time for geulah is given as a number of years. For example in Yirmiyah (29:10) the passuk says that after 70 years the beis hamikdash will be rebuilt. According to the Gr"a, the navi should have given the number of generations until the second beis hamikdash would be built?

Hallel ha’Gadol
The gemara says in Pesachim (118);

א"ר יהושע בן לוי הני עשרים וששה הודו כנגד מי כנגד כ"ו דורות שברא הקב"ה בעולמו ולא נתן להם תורה וזן אותם בחסדו

“Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi said – the 26 times that the passuk repeats “הודו לה' כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו” in Hallel ha’Gadol corresponds to the 26 generations that Hashem created in His world and did not give them the Torah and sustained them with His Kindness.”

We cannot explain that after the Torah was given the world is not sustained through Hashem’s kindness, because we know “עולם חסד יבנה” – “The world is built through kindness.” So why is “כי לעולם חסדו” only repeated for the generations before Matan Torah?

Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner z”l (Pachad Yitzchak, Rosh ha’Shanah 27) explains that before Matan Torah the world was purely sustained through kindness. The zechusim of the individuals in each generation were not sufficient for the world to be sustained in their merit. After Matan Torah the basis on which the world is sustained is din (judgement) and relates to the degree to which we keep the Torah. This is a greater kindness because it is better to enable people to be meritorious in din (judgement) than to sustain the world through pure kindness as we are then not embarrassed that we receive Hashem’s kindness for no reason.

(Nevertheless, Hashem joins the attribute of kindness to the the attribute of din (justice) after Matan Torah because the world cannot exist in din alone.)

Before Matan Torah when the generations existed through unmerited chesed, there was no connection between the chesed given to the generations and so the passuk repeats “כי לעולם חסדו” twenty six times. Each chesed was a new chesed.

After Matan Torah each generation builds a foundation of Torah and mitzvos in order to be meritorious in din. Not only is this a zechus for them, but it also acts as a basis for the Torah and mitzvos of the future generations. Therefore after Matan Torah we have only one chesed - “עולם חסד יבנה”, because here we are not just given chesed but rather the world is built through chesed as each generation builds on the previous accomplishments of klal yisrael.

We can therefore answer the question on the Vilna Gaon. Before Matan Torah, the passage of time eroded zechusim because each generation did not inherently build on that which the previous generation had accomplished. Therefore the time for galus is given as 400 years. However after Matan Torah, when each generation is provided for by the zechusim of the previous generations and also uses this as a springboard for further accomplishment, time is a cause for kiyum ha’mitzvos, rebuilding and geulah and so the time until the building of the second beis hamikdash is given as 70 years.

Rosh ha’Shanah
The day that links our zechusim together is Rosh ha’Shanah when we begin a new year with the zechusim of the previous year as the basis for the next year. In order that any failings from the previous year should not hold us back, Rosh haShanah is made the first day of the aseres yemei teshuvah.

Therefore Hashem says;
“…since you entered into judgement before me on this day and you came out and were pardoned I consider it as if today you have been created, as if today I have Created you as new beings.

This is what the passuk refers to in Yeshaya (64:22) – ‘As the new heavens and the new earth that I will make stand before Me, says Hashem, so too will stand your children and your name."

Because we stand before Hashem in judgement, the Torah and mitzvos of the previous year are finalised and become the basis of our next year. We are pardoned for any aveiros we may have done, so we are able to live at a new level, hence we are new beings.

The reason that the passuk in Yeshaya refers to “your children and your name” is that since klal yisrael builds each year on the previous year’s mitzvos, a structure is created – “your name” – which serves as the basis and the zechus for “your children” to continue.

Bilaam - blessing and curse

2011-07-07T22:58:00.002+10:00

The passuk says in the week’s sedrah;

וְעַתָּה לְכָה נָּא אָרָה לִּי אֶת הָעָם הַזֶּה כִּי עָצוּם הוּא מִמֶּנִּי אוּלַי אוּכַל נַכֶּה בּוֹ וַאֲגָרְשֶׁנּוּ מִן הָאָרֶץ כִּי יָדַעְתִּי אֵת אֲשֶׁר תְּבָרֵךְ מְבֹרָךְ וַאֲשֶׁר תָּאֹר יוּאָר

“[Balak sent to Bilaam,] and now come please and curse for me this people because it is mightier than I, perhaps I will be able to smite it and divorce it from the land. For I know that whoever you bless is blessed and whoever you curse is cursed.”

The Medrash Tanchuma says at the beginning of Lech Lechah;

ד"א והיה ברכה א"ל הקב"ה משעה שבראתי עולמי הייתי זקוק לברך בריותי ... מכאן ואילך אתה היה עשוי על הברכות...

“You will be a berachah – Hashem said to Avrohom, from the time I created My world I had to give berachos to my creations, from now on you will be appointed on the berachos…”

If Hashem handed the berachos over to Avrohom and to his descendants, how did Bilaam have the ability to give effective berachos?

Rashi says (23:8);

"לא זעם ה'" - (ברכות ו) אני אין כחי אלא שאני יודע לכוון השעה שהקב"ה כועס בה והוא לא כעס כל הימים הללו שבאתי אליך…

“[How can I be angry with those whom Hashem was not angry; My only ability is that I know to accurately identify the time when Hashem is angry and He did not get angry all these days that I came…”

If Bilaam’s only ability was to identify the time that Hashem is angry, then he should only have been able to give kellalos and not berachos? Even if Bilaam meant that his ability to give kellalos depended on his knowing when Hashem was angry, how do we account for his ability to give berachos if he did not even have an independent ability to give kellalos?

The third time that Bilaam gave a berachah to klal yisroel, the passuk says:

וַיַּרְא בִּלְעָם כִּי טוֹב בְּעֵינֵי ה' לְבָרֵךְ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא הָלַךְ כְּפַעַם בְּפַעַם לִקְרַאת נְחָשִׁים וַיָּשֶׁת אֶל הַמִּדְבָּר פָּנָיו

“And Bilaam saw that it was good in the eyes of Hashem to bless the benei yisroel, he did not go like the previous times to seek sorcery and he turned his face to the desert..”

Why does the passuk say that the previous times he went to seek sorcery? Bilaam had only ever previously sought the presence of Hashem? As the passuk says;

וַיֹּאמֶר בִּלְעָם לְבָלָק הִתְיַצֵּב עַל עֹלָתֶךָ וְאֵלְכָה אוּלַי יִקָּרֵה ה' לִקְרָאתִי וּדְבַר מַה יַּרְאֵנִי וְהִגַּדְתִּי לָךְ וַיֵּלֶךְ שֶׁפִי

“And Bilaam said to Balak, stand by your olah and I will go, maybe Hashem will meet me and he will show me something and I will tell you, and he went silently.”

Rb Dessler z”l explains that Bilaam never really gave berachos. When the passuk says; כִּי יָדַעְתִּי אֵת אֲשֶׁר תְּבָרֵךְ מְבֹרָךְ וַאֲשֶׁר תָּאֹר יוּאָר, “For I know that whoever you bless is blessed and whoever you curse is cursed”, it means that Bilaam could only give berachos and also kellalos, he could not only give berachos. Why is this?

The gemara says (Berachos 17b);

...דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב בכל יום ויום בת קול יוצאת מהר חורב ואומרת כל העולם כולו נזונין בשביל חנינא בני וחנינא בני די לו בקב חרובין מערב שבת לערב שבת

“Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav, every day a heavenly echo comes out of Har Sinai and says, ‘The whole world is fed because of my son Chanina, and Chanina my son suffices with a kav of carobs from erev Shabbos to erev Shabbos.’”

The word שביל (בשביל חנינא בני) can be transalated as “a path”, so that we can read the gemara;

“The whole world is fed through the path of my son Chanina.” This is because the tzaddik forms the connection to the higher worlds through which the beracha can come down to this world. If the path is blocked by the tzaddik taking for himself, then he cannot act as a conduit for the beracha to spread to the rest of the world. That is why “וחנינא בני די לו בקב חרובין מערב שבת לערב שבת” – “For Chanina my son, a kav of carobs is enough…”. Because he did not take for himself, Rebbi Chanina was able to act as a source of blessing.

The mishna says in Avos (5:19);

כָּל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים הַלָּלוּ, מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ. וּשְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים אֲחֵרִים, מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל בִּלְעָם הָרָשָׁע. עַיִן טוֹבָה, וְרוּחַ נְמוּכָה, וְנֶפֶשׁ שְׁפָלָה, מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ. עַיִן רָעָה, וְרוּחַ גְּבוֹהָה, וְנֶפֶשׁ רְחָבָה, מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל בִּלְעָם הָרָשָׁע

“Anyone who has these three traits is from the talmidim of Avraham Avinu, and three other traits is from the talmidim of Bilam ha’Rasha. A generous eye and a humble spirit and a lowly heart is from the talmidim of Avraham Avinu. An evil eye and a haughty spirit and a greedy heart is from the talmidim of Bilaam ha’Rasha.”

If so, how could Bilaam give berachos at all?

Rb Dessler explains that even although Bilaam was a navi, this was only an intellectual perception. Personally, he was on a very low level and did not have any connection to the higher worlds to be able to act as a source of berachah. However Bilaam did possess the ability to take away the berachah from people by giving them a kellalah at the time of Hashem’s anger. The beracha that this person had before he received a kellalah from Bilaam did not disappear but rather became available to Bilaam to give to someone else. Therefore it appeared as though Bilaam gave berachos, although this was not really true. The berachas that he gave were stolen from the person whom he had given a kellalah to previously.

Even although Balak only wanted Bilaam to give the benei yisrael a kellalah, he still mentioned his ability to give berachos in his invitation, because both berachah and kellalah were part and parcel of the same thing. The sorcery of Bilaam was his ability to take away the beracha from someone, through giving them a kellalah after he had identified the time when Hashem was angry, which he was then able to bestow on someone else.

Becuase of Hashem's love for the benei yisrael, He never became angry in the days that Bilaam tried to give them a kellalah and Bilaam was forced to give them the beracha that Hashem made him say. The medrash explains that in the end, Pinchas's soldier killed Bilaam with his own sword that had the word "nachash" written on both sides of it. Becuase Bilaam was unable to do what he wanted to the benei yisrael, his evil intentions bounced back on to him, and he was killed with the sword that represented the two sided trick of the tongue (of the nachash) that he had wanted to use against the benei yisrael.

How many camps is the Parah Adumah taken out from?

2011-07-02T22:28:00.000+10:00

The passuk in this week’s sedrah says that the Parah Adumah had to be burnt outside of the camp:

זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה' לֵאמֹר דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה אֲשֶׁר אֵין בָּהּ מוּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא עָלָה עָלֶיהָ עֹל. וּנְתַתֶּם אֹתָהּ אֶל אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וְהוֹצִיא אֹתָהּ אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְשָׁחַט אֹתָהּ לְפָנָיו.

“This is the statute of the Torah that Hashem has commanded; Speak to the benei yisrael and they should bring to you a perfectly red cow that has no blemish and upon which no yoke has been placed. You should give it to Elazar the cohen and he should take it outside the camp and he shouldshecht it there before him.”

The mishna is Parah (3:6) explains that they used to take the Parah Adumah outside Yerusholayim in order to burn it:

וכבש היו עושים מהר הבית להר המשחה...שבו כהן השורף את הפרה, ופרה וכל מסעדיה יוצאין להר המשחה.

“They used to make a ramp from the Har ha’Bayis to Har ha’Mishchah (Har ha’Zeisim) …on which the cohen who burnt the Parah Adumah and the Parach Adumah and all its attendants would go to Har ha’Mishchah.”

The simple explanation of this mishna is that the Parah Adumah had to be taken out of all three camps; the machaneh shechina, the machaneh leviyah and the machaneh yisrael. Accordingly, Rashi and Tosafos (Zevachim 105a) say that if the parah adumah was not shechted outside all three camps then it is passul.

However, the Rambam says in Hilchos Parah Adumah (3:1);

אין שורפין את הפרה אלא חוץ להר הבית שנאמר והוציא אותה אלא מחוץ למחנה ובהר המשחה היו שורפין אותה

“You can only burn the Parah Adumah outside of the Har ha’Bayis as the passuk says “והוציא אותה אלא מחוץ למחנה”, and they used to burn it onHar ha’Mishchah.”

It seems that according to the Rambam, the Parah Adumah only needs to be taken outside of two camps (the beis ha'mikdash and the Har ha’Bayis) although the minhag was to burn it outside of all three camps, outside of Yerusholayim.

Why does the Rambam argue on Rashi and Tosafos?

The Chazon Ish explains as follows;

The mishna in Zevachim (104a) says;

פרים הנשרפים ושעירים הנשרפים ... סובלין אותו במוטות יצאו הראשונים חוץ לחומת העזרה והאחרונים לא יצאו הראשונים מטמאין בגדים והאחרונים אינן מטמאין בגדים עד שיצאו יצאו אלו ואלו מטמאין בגדים רבי שמעון אומר אינן מטמאין עד שיוצת האור ברובן...

“[Korbanos which have their blood sprinkled in the heichal are taken outside of Yerusholayim to be burnt once their avodah is complete. There is agezeras hakasuv that the people who carry these korbanos outside Yerusholayim become tameh.] They used to carry them on poles from the beis hamikdash to the place that they were burnt. Once the people carrying the front of the poles went out of the beis hamikdash even if the people at the back had not yet gone out, the people in the front became tameh and the people at the back remained tahor. Once they both went out they both became tameh. Rebbi Shimon says that they do not become tameh simply by carrying the korban outside of the beis hamikdash, they only becametameh once the fire had taken hold of the majority of the carcass of the korban.”

The gemara (105b) explains:

יצאו אלו ואלו: מה"מ דת"ר להלן הוא אומר חוץ לג' מחנות כאן למחנה אחת לומר לך כיון שיצא חוץ למחנה אחת מטמא בגדים ...ור"ש האי מחוץ למחנה מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתניא רבי אליעזר אומר נאמר כאן חוץ למחנה ונאמר להלן (במדבר יט, ג) חוץ למחנה מה להלן חוץ לג' מחנות אף כאן חוץ לג' מחנות ומה להלן למזרחה של ירושלים אף כאן למזרחה של ירושלים אלא לרבנן היכא שריף להו כדתניא היכן נשרפין לצפון ירושלים חוץ לשלש מחנות ...

“In the case of the par heelam davar shel tzibbur and the par cohen hamashiach (which are burnt) the passuk says that you have to take them outside of three camps, but in the case of the par ve’sair shel yom ha’kippurim the passuk only says that it has to be taken outside of one camp(“וְאֵת פַּר הַחַטָּאת וְאֵת שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר הוּבָא אֶת דָּמָם לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ יוֹצִיא אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְשָׂרְפוּ בָאֵשׁ אֶת עֹרֹתָם וְאֶת בְּשָׂרָם וְאֶת פִּרְשָׁם”)? This teaches you that as soon as the korban goes outside of one camp it makes the person carrying it tameh.

Rebbi Shimon argues with this halacha, so what does he use the passuk of the par ve’sair shel yom ha’kippurim for?

…It says in the par ve’sair shel yom ha’kippurim חוץ למחנה and it says in the parah adumah חוץ למחנה, just as the par ve’sair shel yom ha’kippurim have to be burnt outside of three camps so too the parah adumah has to be burnt outside of three camps and just as the parah adumahhas to be burnt to the east of Yerusholayim so too the par vesair shel yom hakippurim have to be burnt to the east of Yerusholayim.”

But according to the chachamim (who do not make a gezerah shaveh between the parah adumah and the par ve’sair shel yom hakippurim) where are the par ve’sair shel yom ha’kippurim burnt? To the north of Yerusholayim outside of the three camps…”

We can see from this gemara that there is a machlokess whether or not we make a gezerah shaveh between the par ve’sair of yom kippur and theparah adumah. Rebbi Shimon says that we compare them to each other and therefore the parah adumah has to be burnt outside of the three camps whereas the chachamim say that we do not compare them.

It would seem from this gemara therefore that according to the chachamim the parah adumah only has to be burnt outside of one camp and we can explain that the Rambam paskens like the chachamim.

Nevertheless, the Rambam is still difficult to understand. The Rambam says in Hilchos Beis haBechirah (perek 7);

שלש מחנות היו במדבר מחנה ישראל .. ומחנה לויה שנאמר בה וסביב למשכן יחנו ומחנה שכינה והוא מפתח חצר אהל מועד ולפנים. וכנגדן לדורות מפתח ירושלים עד הר הבית כמחנה ישראל ומפתח הר הבית עד פתח העזרה שהוא שער ניקנור כמחנה לויה ומפתח העזרה ולפנים מחנה שכינה...

“There were three camps in the midbar, the machaneh yisrael, the machaneh leviyah and the machaneh shechinah. Correspondingly to these for all generations, from the entrance of Yerusholayim till the Har ha’Bayis is like the machaneh yisrael, from the entrance of the Har ha’Bayis till the entrance to the azarah is like the machaneh leviyah, and from the entrance of the machaneh leviyah and within is the machaneh shechinah…

If according to the Rambam the parah adumah only has to be taken outside one camp then why does the Rambam say that it has to be taken outside of the har habayis which is outside the machaneh leviyah? It should be sufficient to take it out of the beis hamikdash and burn it even on the har habayis?

Perhaps we can explain the Rambam as follows. The passuk says;

...ויקחו אליך פרה אדמה תמימה ...ונתתם אתה אל אלעזר הכהן והוציא אתה אל מחוץ למחנה...

“Hashem told Moshe, ‘Speak to the benei yisroel and they will bring you a parah adumah .. and you should give it to Elazar and he should take it outside of the camp…”

In all other cases where the Torah says that you have to take the korban מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה , the Torah is referring to a korban that has been brought to thebeis hamikdash. Therefore the starting point for 'going out' is the machaneh shechinah.

In the case of the Parah Adumah, the Torah says that the parah adumah should be given to Elazar and then should be taken out of one camp (according to the Rambam). Seeing as there is no reason for Elazar to be in the machaneh shechinah, we can assume that he was in the place that he lived which was the machaneh leviyah. Therefore if he takes it outside of one camp he will be in machaneh yisrael.

That is why the Rambam says that it is sufficient meikar hadin for the parah adumah to be taken outside the har habayis, because this is one camp outside of the machaneh leviyah.

Bechor behemah tehorah - why is it given to the cohen?

2011-06-23T23:06:00.001+10:00

In this week's sedrah, the Torah says that it is a mitzva to give the bechor of a kosher domesticated animal to the cohen;

כָּל פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם לְכָל בָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה' בָּאָדָם וּבַבְּהֵמָה יִהְיֶה לָּךְ... אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר אוֹ בְכוֹר כֶּשֶׂב אוֹ בְכוֹר עֵז לֹא תִפְדֶּה קֹדֶשׁ הֵם אֶת דָּמָם תִּזְרֹק עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְאֶת חֶלְבָּם תַּקְטִיר אִשֶּׁה לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַה'. וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָּךְ כַּחֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה וּכְשׁוֹק הַיָּמִין לְךָ יִהְיֶה.

"The firstborn of all living things which they (the benei yisroel) bring to Hashem whether from man or from animals shall belong to you (the cohanim) …But the firstborn of an ox or the firstborn of a sheep or the firstborn of a goat you shall not redeem for they are holy. You shall sprinkle their blood on the mizbeach and you should burn their fat as a fire offering for a pleasing scent to Hashem. And their flesh will be to you like the chest [which is presented as a] wave offering and the right thigh [of a shelamim.]”

There are כ"ד מתנות כהונה - 24 gifts that are given to the cohanim. These include;

· 10 matanos that are given in the beis hamikdash (עשר מתנות במקדש). These are all parts of korbanos.

· Four matanos that are given in Yerusholayim (ארבע מתנות בירושלים). These are; the hides of kodshei kedashim, bikkurim, the parts that are given to the cohen from the todah and eyl nazir and a bechor.

· 10 matanos that are given outside Yerusholayim (עשר מתנות בגבולים). These do not have the kedusha of a korban at all and include things such as terumah, gezel hager, reishis hagez, etc.

It is not clear what the basis of the obligation to give a bechor to the cohen is. Is it given to the cohen because it is the firstborn, similar to bikkurim and reishis hagez, as the passuk says it is the פטר רחם – the physical firstborn of the sheep or the cow? Or is it given to the cohen because it is a korban, similarly to the eser matanos ba'mikdash, as the passuk says הַיָּמִין וּכְשׁוֹק הַתְּנוּפָה כַּחֲזֵה – it is like parts from other korbanos that have to be given to the cohen?

The Brisker Rov z"l (Chiddushim al ha'Rambam, Hilchos Bechoros) brings a proof from the following gemara;

The gemara in Zevachim (9b) discusses the case of mosar ha’pesach. Mosar ha’pesach is a korban pesach that is left over after pesach, for example, an owner lost his korban pesach, bought a different one to replace it and then found the original korban pesach after shechitah of the new one. The halacha is that mosar ha’pesach is shechted with the intention that it should be a shelamim and this makes it into a korban shelamim.

The gemara suggests other korbanos that the mosar ha’pesach may be shechted as. One of the possibilities is that the mosar hapesach should be able to become a bechor;

אימא שחטיה לשם בכור ליהוי כבכור למאי הילכתא דלא ליבעי נסכים אי נמי דליתביה לכהנים

“Let us say if he shechted it to be a bechor then it should become a bechor - what difference would this make? That it would not require nesachim or that it would have to be given to the cohanim [just as a bechor is given to the cohanim].” - The gemara subsequently rejects this suggestion based on a passuk.

At any rate you see that according to the hava aminah of the gemara that mosar ha'pesach can become a bechor, it would have had to be given to the cohanim, notwithstanding the fact that it is not actually a bechor. The Brisker Rov proves from this gemara that the reason that even a normal bechor is given to the cohen is because it is a korban, not because it is physically a peter rechem.

Temuras bechor

There is a machlokess between the Rambam (Temurah 3:2) and Tosafos (Zevachim 75b, d"h bechor eino niphdeh) concerning a temuras bechor. (This occurs where someone took a bechor and another animal and said that the second animal should become a bechor and be a korban instead of the actual bechor.) According to the Rambam the temurah of a bechor is given to the cohanim just like the original, according to tosafos the owner does not need to give it to a cohen because it is not actually a bechor.

The Brisker Rov asks on Tosafos as follows;

We can see from the case of the mosar ha'pesach that a bechor is given to the cohen because it is a korban, not because it is physically a peter rechem. If so, we should say that in the case of a temurah of a bechor that although the temurah is not a peter rechem, nevertheless, because it is a korban it should still be given to the cohen. How then can tosafos say that because it is only a temurah and not a real bechor that it remains the property of the yisroel?

Two causes

The Brisker Rov answers that there are two causes either of which can obligate the owner to give a bechor to the cohen:

· Either if it is physically a peter rechem even although it is not a korban. For example, the gemara in Bechoros (9b) says that if a yisroel has a partnership with a non-Jew in an animal then it is mutar for the yisroel to use the bechor to do work with the animal and to shear it because it has no kedushah and nevertheless it still has to be given to the cohen.

· If it is a korban even if it is not physically a bechor as in the gemara’s hava aminah of mosar ha’pesach.

Both the Rambam and Tosafos agree that a bechor has to be given even if it is only a korban bechor and not a peter rechem as in the case of a mosar ha'pesach. However there is a difference between mosar ha'pesach and a temuras bechor. Although both of these korbanos have the kedusha of a bechor without being a peter rechem, the mosar ha'pesach (in the hava amina of the gemara) is brought as a korban in the beis hamikdash, but a temuras bechor is not. As the mishna in Temurah (21a) says;

תמורת הבכור והמעשר ולדן ולד ולדן עד סוף העולם הרי אלו כבכור וכמעשר ויאכלו במומן לבעלים

“The temurah of a bechor and maaser, their children and their children’s children forever are like a bechor and maaser and are eaten with their mum to the baalim.” (The animal is left to graze until it gets a mum and is then shechted and eaten by their owner.)

The gemara derives this halacha from a passuk in this week’s sedrah;

רחמנא מעטינהו, לא תפדה קדש הם - הם קריבין ואין תמורתן קריבה

“The Torah excluded these from being brought as a korban – the passuk says ‘they shall not be redeemed because they are holy’ – [the word ‘they’ is extra to teach you that] they are brought as a korban but their temurah is not brought as a korban.”

Says the Brisker Rov – although the kedusha of a korban bechor alone is enough to cause it to be given to the cohen (as with the mosar hapesach), this is only where the animal can be brought as a korban to the beis hamikdash. However, in the case of a temuras korban, tosafos is of the opinion that although it has the kedusha of a bechor, nevertheless, because there is a chisaron in the kedushas ha'korban to the extent that it cannot be brought as a korban – it does not become the property of the cohen. According to the Rambam as long as the animal has the kedusha of a bechor it has to be given to the cohen, even if it can not be brought as a korban.

It comes out that both according to Tosafos and the Rambam the passuk in this week's sedrah means that if an animal is either a peter rechem or a korban bechor then it has to be given to the cohen. The machlokess between Tosafos and the Rambam only relates to a case where the animal is a korban and not a peter rechem and also there is a chisaron in its kedusha which causes it not to be able to be brought as a korban in the beis hamikdash. Is this sufficient to make it a gift to the cohen?

Seperating challah from dough which is tameh

2011-06-16T23:51:00.000+10:00

The gemara says in Pesachim (32a) that if you seperate terumah from chametz on Pesach then it does not become terumah;

...מפריש תרומת חמץ דברי הכל אינה קדושה

“Everyone agrees that if you separate terumah from chametz on Pesach it does not become terumah.”

The gemara in daf 33 explains that this is becuase the passuk says that you have to give terumah to a cohen for him to eat, here the cohen can only use the chametz for making a fire (that is, even according to the ma'an de'amar that chametz on Pesach is mutar behana'ah the maximum benefit the cohen could have is to use the chametz as fire-wood);

...מנא הני מילי? אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר קרא (דברים יח, ד) תתן לו ולא לאורו

“How do we know this? Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said, because the passuk says “תתן לו ולא לאורו” – “You should give to the cohen (to eat) - and not to his fire.”

The asks from a beraisah that says that chametz can become terumah; the gemara explains -

"…התם היתה לו שעת הכושר הכא לא היתה לו שעת הכושר. ודלא היתה לו שעת הכושר היכי דמי? כגון דאחמיץ במחובר”

“Whether or not the grain that is seperated becomes terumah depends on when the grain became chametz;

In a case where the terumah could have been taken before the grain became chametz (היתה לו שעת הכושר) then the terumah is terumah.
In a case where the terumah could never have been seperated without being chametz (לא היתה לו שעת הכושר) then it does not become terumah at all.

How can you find a case where it could never have been seperated? In a case where the grain became chametz while it was still growing.”

If the grain became chametz before the being harvested then, because it was never possible to give the separated terumah to the cohen to eat it does not become terumah. If the grain was harvested and then became chametz then if terumah is seperated, it does become terumah.

The Shaagas Aryeh asks as follows;

The mishna in challah (2:3) discusses the halacha concerning taking challah from dough that is tameh.

מי שאינו יכול לעשות עסתו בטהרה, יעשנה קבין, ואל יעשנה בטמאה. ורבי עקיבא אומר, יעשנה בטמאה ואל יעשנה קבים…

“If someone is tameh and is unable to tovel in a mikvah before he makes his dough, he should split the dough into small amounts of one kav each (this is less than the shiur which is chayav in challah) and he should not make a large dough (so he will not have to destroy the challah which is tameh ). Rebbi Akiva says, he should rather make a large dough and take challah betumah …”

According to Rebbi Akiva it is preferable to make a large dough and take challah, according to the tanna kamma it is preferable to avoid having to take the challah and then burn it. According to everyone however, the dough that is seperated does become challah. This mishna seems to contradict the gemara in Pesachim becuase dough only becomes chayav to have challah seperated from it once it is kneaded, and when this dough was kneaded it was already tameh (as the person who kneaded the dough was tameh). If so, there was never a time when challah could have been taken and given to the cohen to eat and according to the gemara in Pesachim it should not be possible in this case to seperate challah at all. Just as when grain became chametz when it is growing it is not possible to seperate terumah on Pesach becuase there was never a shaas ha'kosher (a time when the terumah could have been seperated and given to the cohen to eat), so too if dough became tameh before it was kneaded it should not be possible to take challah from it at all?

The Kehillos Yaakov (Zeraim 24) answers as follows;

The gemara in Pesachim does not mean that it has to be possible to take terumah after the obligation to take terumah has begun. Rather, even if the produce was not chametz before the pile of grain was smoothed down in the granary (miruach ha'kri) grain that was seperated would still become terumah. The reason that there is a problem in the gemara in Pesachim where the grain became chametz while it was still growing is becuase when a plant is still growing it is not considered to be food at all. If so, as soon as the grain became food (when it was harvested) it was chametz and that is why it never had a shaas ha'kosher (a time when terumah could theoretically have been seperated.)

However, in the case of challah, although the dough was tameh as soon as it became dough (when the obligation to take challah starts), it was still potentially possibly to make dough from the flour before it became tameh and that is enough of a connection to the halachah of challah to say that if challah was seperated from dough which is tameh it will still become challah.

The Steipler proves that plants which are still growing do not have a halacha of food at all from the gemara in Bava Basra (80a). The gemara discusses the halachos of honey which is still in the beehive;

...דבש בכוורת אינו לא אוכל ולא משקה ...רבא אמר רבי אליעזר היא דתנן 'כוורת דבורים ר"א אומר הרי היא כקרקע וכותבין עליה פרוזבול ואינה מקבלת טומאה במקומה והרודה ממנה בשבת חייב חטאת'

“The beraisoh says that honey in a beehive cannot become tameh because it is not considered to be either a food or a drink. Rava explained, this beraisoh goes according to Rebbi Eliezer as we have learnt, ‘A bee hive; Rebbi Eliezer says - it is like ground (so is acquired in the same way as land), you can write a pruzbul on your debts if you own a beehive, it is not mekabel tumah and if someone takes honey from it on Shabbos he is chayav a chatas.’”

The gemara profves from the fact that the hive is considered like the ground that the honey in the hive is not considered to be food at all. Thus you see from the gemara that if something is connected to the ground then it is neither a food or a drink. Therefore we can explain that the problem with grain that became chametz while it was still growing is that when it became food (when reaped) terumah taken could not be eaten by the cohen. However regarding challah that is taken from a dough that was tameh as soon as it was kneaded, becuase it was possible previously to knead the dough be'taharah, the challah that is seperated does become challah.