Wednesday, June 30, 2021

Leader Of Self

Moshe pleads with Hashem to appoint a new leader, יִפְקֹ֣ד י״י֔ אֱלֹהֵ֥י הָרוּחֹ֖ת לְכׇל־בָּשָׂ֑ר אִ֖ישׁ עַל־הָעֵדָֽה.  Rashi says it is plural, רוחות to indicate that the leader has to be able to deal with the many winds, the left wing, right wing, centrist etc. אלהי הרוחות – למה נאמר? אמר לפניו: רבונו של עולם גלוי לפניך דעתו של כל אחד ואחד, ואינן דומין זה לזה, מנה עליהם מנהיג שיהא סובל כל אחדב לפי דעתו.  Hashem responds  וַיֹּ֨אמֶר י״י֜ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֗ה קַח־לְךָ֙ אֶת־יְהוֹשֻׁ֣עַ בִּן־נ֔וּן אִ֖ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־ר֣וּחַ בּ֑וֹ וְסָמַכְתָּ֥ אֶת־יָדְךָ֖ עָלָֽיו.  He switches to the singular tone, why?  And what does it mean אשר רוח בו? 

The Alter of Novardak explains (in tikkun hammidot pg. 68 of Madregot Ha'adam) that one who rules over their own desires, middot and nature to understand the correct approach to problems is one who can deal honestly with other people's problems, questions and inquiries.  It is because אשר רוח בו, he controls his own winds pushing in various directions that makes him fit to deal with others.  

Taddir Kodam

The Mishna at the beginning of the 10th chapter of Zevachim learns a rule that תדיר ושאינו תדיר תדיר קודם from מלבד עולת הבקר אשר לעולת התמיד תעשו את אלה which teaches us the tammid precedes the mussaf offerings.  Tosfos asks תימה דבפרק תמיד נשחט (פסחים דף נח:) אמרינן מנין שלא יהא דבר קודם לתמיד שנאמר העולה עולה ראשונה ל"ל תיפוק לי מהכא, why do we need this limmud if we have another limmud that teaches us the korban tammid must come first?  The Chazon Eish Menachot (33:10) explains that  there are two distinct dinim.  The Mishna in Zevachim is learning out a din that the tammid comes first because it is taddir.  The Gemorah in Pesachim learns another din that the tammid must be the first offering of the day.  The Rambam Temmidim Umussafin (9:3) says if one shechted the korban that is not taddir before the taddir korban the offering that is not taddir is completed first and only after is the taddir korban offered.  The C.E. says that is true regarding the regular din of taddir kodam but if one shechted a korban before the tammid the tammid would still be offered first.  This is indicated by the terminology of the Rambam in Temmidim Umussafin (1:3) he says שאסור להקריב קרבן כלל קודם תמיד של שחרas opposed to in 9:2 in addressing the din of taddir he says וכיצד סדר הקרבתן.  The din of tammid is a din that the tammid must come first but the din of taddir kodam tells us just the proper order to place the offerings.  This may also be a נ"מ when two korbanot are offered at the same time.  The din of taddir kodam just means something not taddir can't come first but offerings at the same time would be valid but  the tammid must come before all other korbanot (see Mikdash Dovid 9:1.)

Rashi (28:10) says על עולת התמיד – אילו נוספים, לבד אותן שני כבשים של עולת התמיד. ומגיד שאין קריבין אלא בין שני תמידין, וכן בכל המוספין נאמר: על עלת התמיד (במדבר כ״ח:ט״ו,כ״ד, ועוד) לתלמוד זה.  The Mishne L'melech Temmidin Umussafin (1:3) asks why does Rashi need this limmid when we know it from the principle of taddir? In light of this C.E. we can say that Rashi is learning from here not the din that taddir kodam but a dinthat the mussafin have to be bookended by the two korbanot tammid.  (The problem is that Rashi in Tzav (6:5) brings the derasha of העולה עולה ראשונה so we already know the halacha of the tammid being first from there but it is also interesting he never cites the halacha of taddir kodam?) 

The Toras Zeav siman 37 brings a question how is it possible to violate the halacha of taddir kodam and for example bring a mussaf before the tammid, they are both olot so automatically the first korban should become the tammid? He gives a few answers.  One answer is that the korbasn has to be offered for intent of the mussaf or tammid because of the din the mitzvot need kavanah. The Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvot #41 about the mussaf of Shabbos says הציווי שנצטווינו להקריב קורבן בכל יום שבת נוסף על תמיד של כל יום - וזהו מוסף שבת, והוא אמרו יתעלה: "וביום השבת שני כבשים" (במדבר כח, ט).  Why does he need to say וזהו מוסף שבת?  (He says the same thing by other mussafin.)  The Or Avrohom wants to say that the Rambam is alluding to this idea that one needs to have intent for the korban that it is is being offered for.  (In some editions those words do not appear in the Rambam e.g. Sefaria  does not have those words.)

Tuesday, June 29, 2021

Learning From Learning

 From the sefer Shearis Menachem - Ginzey Meyer in parshas Emor. A chasidic interpretation from Rav Chayim. 



Monday, June 28, 2021

Delayed Havdalah (#2)

The Rosh in Berachot Ch.4 # 17 brings from Rabbenu Yona in a scenario where one forgot havdalah at maariv and he doesn't have wine to say havdalah later that night but he will be able to obtain wine tomorrow then he does not repeat the maariv prayer.  Rabbi Akiva Eger (on Shulchan Aruch 299:6) asks why does the Rosh say you don't repeat maariv only if you will get wine Sunday if he paskins in Pesachim that one can say havdalah through Tuesday, he should say it depends if you will be able to obtain wine through Tuesday?  R.A.E. proves from this Rosh that there is a difference between saying havdalah on Sunday as opposed to the days following.  Sunday is considered the proper time of havdalah, it is an extension of motzei Shabbos but the later days are makeup days. Therefore, if one will obtain wine by Sunday one doesn't repeat the prayers since he will be able to say havdalah in the proper time.  However, if one will will only get wine in the makeup days then he must repeat the prayers.  This contradicts the Rosh in Berachot (in the last post) that holds when was an onan motzei Shabbos he does not say havdalah on Sunday and the Minchas Chinuch explained since he is exempt on motzei Shabbos he is exempt from the makeup days as well, which means Sunday is a makeup day also?  

The answer to this contraction lies in another Rosh.  The Rosh in Moad Katan Ch. 3 (#96) has another machlokes with the Maharam.  He discusses a case where one in a katan and their relative dies and before the conclusion of the shloshim the katan becomes a gadal.  The Maharam holds then the new gadol has to observe avelut like one who hears the news of a dead relative within thirty days just like one who hears about a relative that died on the regel.  Since he can't observe avelut at the time he heard about the death, he observes it later when he becomes obligated, so too the katan when he becomes a gadol will be obligated to observe the avelut.  The Maharam asks on himself that there is on comparison because in the case of the regel, the person was obligated in avelut but the day blocks the obligation, when the regel is over then the person observes avelut but the katan that is completely exempt from avelut since he isn't obligated in the beginning of the avelut he should never become obligated?  The Maharam answers that we do not say דיחוי when it comes to mitzvot.  When a mitzvah becomes temporarily unfit we do not say it is unfit forever so even though this katan was not obligated at the beginning, now that he is a gadol he will obligated in avelut.  The Rosh disagrees and holds the question of the Maharam is correct.  He says that principal of אין דיחוי במצות is true when the mitzvah becomes unfit for some reason but when a person is unfit for the mitzvah then we do say דיחוי.  We don't say דחוי regarding the cheftzah but we do say דחוי in the gavra.  He brings a proof to this from the halacha (Chagigah 9a) that if one is lame on the first day of the regel so he is exempt from bringing the korbanot of עלייה לרגל even if he is healed on the second day on the regel he is still exempt from the korbanot if the rest of the days of the regel are a makeup for the first day and not an independent obligation.  We see since the person was not obligated the first day, he does not become obligated later on.  

The Rosh in Berachot cites this same Gemorah in Chagigah as a proof to his shita that since the onan was exempt from havdalah motzei Shabbos he is exempt Sunday as well.  We see from the Rosh in Moad Katan that the reason for the petur is not since the person is not obligated in the main chiuv he is exempt from the makeup like the Minchas Chinuch learnt, rather the reason that one is exempt is because of  the principle of דיחוי.  It is possible that it is one chiuv and still if one is exempt in the beginning they are exempt from the whole mitzvah.  The understanding of the M.C. would be limited to a chiuv with an extension time to make it up.  That would not be applicable by the shloshim of avelut which is one long chiuv, there are no tashlumin days.  From the fact that the Rosh compares that scenario to the Gemorah in Chagigah is because he understands the reason for the exemption is because of דיחוי.  The machlokes Rosh and Maharam in Berachot and in Moad Katan go lishitasam if we say this principle of דחוי אצל מצות when the person was unfit for the mitzvah and subsequently becomes fit. 

Obviously now there is no contradiction in the Rosh.  The Rosh holds like R.A.E. proves from the Rosh in Berachot  Ch.4 that Sunday is the time of the chiuv not a makeup time.  The reason the Rosh holds that one who was an onan on motzei Shabbos is exempt from havdalah even on Sunday is because of דיחוי.  Even in the same chiuv, if one is unfit at the beginning of the mitzvah they became נדחה from the mitzvah. 

There is one more point to hammer out.  It sounds like from the Rosh if one is an onan at the beginning of motzei Shabbos and then does the burial that night, in that case everyone will agree to say havdalah after the funeral.  According to this understanding why, we should still say דחוי?  We must say there are three levels of the havdalah obligation.  On motzei Shabbos itself since that is the real time to say havdalah, even if one can't do at the beginning the rest of motzei Shabbos is the same obligation.  One can't say דחוי in the same frame of chiuv.  Sunday is an extension of the main chiuv but a level less than motzei Shabbos and we can say דחוי.  The rest of the days are mere makeup days.  This point requires some clarification.  (See Teshuvot Chasam Sofer Orach Chayim siman 17, see also Steipler Berachot siman 9.) 

Delayed Havdalah (#1)

The following posts are a series in the understanding of doing havdalah after motzei Shabbos when 9 Av is Sunday based upon shiurim by Rabbi Yosef Elefant.

The Gemorah in Pesachim (106-107) discusses if one did not say havdalah on motzei Shabbas until when can one still do havdalah.  There are two main opinions in the Gemorah if one can do havdalah all of Sunday or through Tuesday night.  The halacha is that one can do havdalah through Turesday night.  There are three ways to understand the machlokes in the Gemorah.

#1 Everyone agrees the time for havdalah is motzai Shabbos.  However one can make up the missed time of the havdalah and the machlokes is how long is the time frame to make it up, to do tashlumin for havdalah. 

#2 There is so such concept as making up a missed havdalah rather the machlokes is what is the time frame for havdalah.  The opinion that holds Sunday is because since the day follows the night, Sunday is connected to motzei Shabbos (Mishna Berurah (299:17).)  The opinion that holds through Tuesday night holds that the first three days of the week are all connected to the previous Shabbos. 

#3 Rabbi Akiva Eger (299:6) says a hybrid approach.  He says everyone agrees that Sunday is a continuum of motzei Shabbos and is the time for havdalah.  The machlokes is if one has a make up time through Tuesday. 

The Rambam (Shabbos 29:4) says וְאִם לֹא הִבְדִּיל בַּלַּיְלָה מַבְדִּיל לְמָחָר וּמַבְדִּיל וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד סוֹף יוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי.  Why does he say you can do havdalah tomorrow and through Tuesday, just say through Tuesday and that includes Sunday?  This Rambam sounds like R.A.E.  He is emphasizing Sunday because that is the proper time for havdalah, and then tells you that one can make up the missed havdalah through Tuesday.  

There are 4 נ"מ between these approaches in the understanding of the halacha. 

#1 Another area where we find the concept of a make up is if one missed a prayer.  The halacha of tashlumin by prayer is only if the prayer wasn't missed wantonly (S.A. 108:7.)  What if one didn't do havdalah on motzei Shabbos wantonly can one still recite havdalah on the following days? 

The Tur (271:8) says if one purposely didn't recite kiddush Friday night the Rambam holds you can make it up Shabbos day but Rav Amram Gaon holds that you can't make it up Shabbos day if you purposely neglected to recite kiddush Friday night.  (The Bach explains that Rav Amram compares making up the kiddush Shabbos day to making up a missed prayer, it can only be done if it was missed unintentionally.  The Rambam holds that you can make it up because the entire Shabbos is the proper time of kiddush, it is just better to recite it at the beginning.)  This would parallel the דיון that we have regarding havdalah.  The S.A. (299:6) says 'שכח ולא הבדיל במוצאי שבת מבדיל עד סוף יום ג.  The M.B. (#15) says the same is true if one intentionally did not say havdalah on motzei Shabbos.  This should depend on what the geder of the havdalah is (it is interesting the M.B. thinks that is the opinion of the Rambam.   See also the Meiri Taanit (30b) mentions making up havdalah even if it was intentionally not said.)

#2 Can one make up the havdalah for Yom Tov that was missed?  It the next day is a makeup day that halacha is only for Shabbos not Yom Tov but if it is considered the proper time because the day follows the night, it would apply to Yom Tov as well.  R.A.E.  says according to his understanding that after Yom Tov you have the next day to say havdalah. 

#3 The Rosh in Berachot Ch.3 #3 brings a machlokes if one was an onan on motzei Shabbos should they say havdalah the next day. The Maharam holds that he says havdalah the next day.  The Rosh disagrees since he was exempt at motzei Shabbas he does not say havdalah Sunday as well. The Minchas Chinuch (31:9) says they argue if extension of havdalah is a makeup or it is considered the proper time.  If it is the proper time, then even one who is exempt motzei Shabbos will still say havdalah the following days but if it is a makeup, one who is exempt from the main obligation can not be obligated in the makeup.  (It is noteworthy according to this understanding that the Rosh holds even Sunday is a makeup day not like R.A.E.)    

#4 Tosfos Pesachim (107a) say since we hold havdalah can be said through Tuesday when 9 Av falls out on Shabbos we do havdalah after the fast is over.  The Maharsha points out that Tosfos holds if havdalah can only be said through Sunday since the fast is over at the conclusion of Sunday, one would not be able to say havdalah. The Behag (cited in Ran Pesachim (21b-22a of dafa Rif) holds even if normally you hold havdalah can only be said through Sunday, in the case when 9 Av is Sunday the time frame for havdalah is extended.  The Ran brings the Rishonim ask how can the Behag say the time frame is extended if Sunday is over?  The Behag holds that you can do havdalah on Sunday as a makeup.  Normally Chazal limited the makeup to Sunday because that gives you ample time to say havdalah but in the case when 9 Av is Sunday and there is no opportunity for havdalah before Monday, the makeup time is extended (that is לכאורא the peshat in the Ran's defense of the Behag.) [The Tur (299:6) brings the Behag holds the halacha that one say say havdalah even if he inappropriately ate beforehand only applies if one says havdalah on motzei Shabbos but if one is saying havdalah on subsequent days then one can no longer say havdalah.  The Tur asks what is the difference? The Amek Beracha (kiddush and havdalah #5) says the Behag is lishitaso that the additional days are makeup days for havdalah.  One can say havdalah even if they ate beforehand inappropriately if it is still the time for havdalah but one is not granted a makeup time if they already misappropriated the havdalah.]

The Ramban in Toras Adam (#111) argues on the Behag and says the complete opposite.  He says that even if normally one would hold havdalah can be said through Tuesday, when 9 Av is Sunday you don't do havdalah following the fast since you couldn't day havdalah motzei Shabbos you can't say it on the following days as well.  (similar to the Maharam held when one is an onan on motzei Shabbos since there was no obligation in the timeframe of the chiuv , there is no obligation in the makeup time.)  The Meiri Taanis (30b) explains there are two ways to understand why Tosfos disagrees with the Ramban.  Either he holds the obligation of havdalah through Tuesday is not as a makeup but that is considered the proper timeframe for havdalah or even if it is a makeup it is not like onan where the individual is exempt from the obligation, here there is an obligation of havdalah but one can't fulfill it because of the fast.  Therefore the obligation of havdalah can be fulfilled after the fast. 

Thursday, June 24, 2021

Above Destruction

The parsha of Balak leads right into the three weeks this year.  What lesson can we derive from the parsha about this time of year? The Gemorah in Bava Bathra (14b) says Moshe Rabbenu wrote ספרו ופרשת בלעם.  The word ספרו would seem to be the Torah that is called תורת משה and פרשת בלעם is the parsha of Balak.  The question has been posed why is the parsha of Bilam singled out?  Why according to some midrashim will Moshiach write Bilam's beast? 

Bilam was able to tap into the opportune moment and find a place cursing would be affective.  He was able to tap into the middat hadin an use it to his advantage.  During the time he tried to curse Klal Yisroel the middat hadin was suspended and he had no power.  It was a time of existence that is not present in the normal order of the world.  Bilam tried to tap into the negative actions of Klal Yisroel to administer a curse but it was to no avail.  Hashem was not employing the middat hadin where one's negative actions have an effect but was looking at the innate kesher that exists between Hashem and Klal Yisroel.  At this level there is no room for any curse to take effect. This type of connection is not something that is present in the normal order of Torah.  That is why the the parsha of Bilam is considered a separate sefer.  It is that connection that will be revealed in the future and hence Moshiach will ride on Bilam's animal (based upon מענה יחזקאל brom Rav Yichezkal Hartman.) 

Many of the Chassidic books stress the hidden good that lurks under the surface during the three weeks.  Even the 17 of תמוז is on the day of 17 which is the numerical value of טוב.  How can we relate to this if it is not present at the current time?  By living on a higher plain of existence than we can see above the destruction.  There is a level above the middat hadin, above the destruction and that is what will lead to the tikkun.  Now this is hard to do all the time but at least once a week, on Shabbos, one can take the time to contemplate.  הנה העם היוצא ממצרים the Emrey Chayim points out that the word הנה can be נוטריקון for השבת נועם הנשמות.  It was the merit of Shabbos that greatly bothered Balak.  A Shabbos can not be disturbed by any sort of evil forces that Balak would try to throw at the Jews.  The Rodomsker says (in Shabbos Chazon and Ki Teitzey) that the Gemorah in Shabbos (10b) says אמר ליה הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה מתנה טובה יש לי בבית גנזי ושבת שמה means that the Shabbos exists on the same level after after the destruction of the Mikdash, "ר"ל גם בבית גנזי שבהמ"ק נגנז יש לנו כח השבת כמו בזמן שהי' הבית על מכונו." He says that is the meaning of  רב לך שבת בעמק הבכה, during the time of the three weeks when it is the עמק הבכה, things are more difficult, then the Shabbos is even greater, רב לך שבת.  By stretching Shabbos observance, both in the x's and o's of the basic halachot (which need constant chizuk as the Mishna Berurah writes in his intro. to the third volume of the Mishna Berurah,) and by focusing on kedushat Shabbos and what it means to have a proper Shabbos.

Monday, June 21, 2021

Bring Out Your Water

Why was Moshe instructed to hit the rock in Beshalach but in Chukas he is told to speak to the rock? The Shir Hashirim Rabbah (4:15) says מַעְיַן גַּנִים בְּאֵר מַיִם חַיִּים, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה פְּעָמִים כְּתִיב בַּתּוֹרָה בְּאֵר בְּאֵר, כְּנֶגֶד אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמֹנָה דְּבָרִים שֶׁנִּקְנֵית בָּם הַתּוֹרָה,.  There are 48 times the word באר in the Torah to correspond to the 48 קנינים  of Torah.  What is the connection? 

Chazal darshin the shirah of the באר as a reference to Torah.  The Netziv and Sfas Emes explain that it is a reference to תורה שבעל פה specifically.  The event of producing the water from the rock was the transfer from the תורה שבכתב mode to the תורה שבעל פה mode.  The Malbim (20:8) notes that in Beshalach Moshe is instructed to hit a צור but in Chukas he is directed to speak to a סלע.  What is the difference between a צור and a סלע? He says a צור is a hard rock but a סלע is a soft rock that contains water inside of it and if the outer rocky shell is pierced water will be found inside.  That is the תורה שבעל פה.  It is the Torah that is חיי עולם נטע בתוכתנו, it is within our souls an d we just need to cut through the rocks outside to bring it out. That is why the acquisition of Torah is called a באר.  There are deep waters within a person and they just need to be drawn out. 

The Shev Shematsah in the beginning of his introduction says the essence of man is to bring forth the waters that are in his באר.  To not be just a בור that receives but to bring forth new waters. 

 אלא דעיקר בריאת האדם על הארץ אם כי הנשמה במחצבה נהנית מזיו התפארת וכלום חסר בבית המלך אולם גזרה חכמתו ית"ש להורידה למטה לנסותה בקיום מצותיו ושמירת תורותיו וכאשר תצדק הרבה כן תרבה וכן תפרוץ ותגדל למעלה עד אשר תשוב אל האלהים אשר נתנה ביתר עוז ורב אונים וכתיב בזהר שתה מים מבורך ונוזלים מתוך בארך כי בהיות הנשמה למעלה אינה אלא בחינת בור שאינו נובע רק מתמלא מאחרים ומצד עצמו הוא ריק ובירידתה אל עולם השפל הזה והשיגה מה שעליה להשיג כגזירת חכמתו ית"ש אזי היא בחינת באר הוא מעין המתגבר ונובע מעצמו ובזה לא יהיה נהמא דכסופא ועיקרא דמלתא דכל דלית ליה מגרמיה כלום עני חשוב כמת כמ"ש בגור אריה דמי באר קרוין מים חיים לפי שהוא נובע מעצמו משא"כ מי בור ולזה עני חשוב כמת ושונא מתנות יחיה ע"ש וא"כ כל זמן היות הנפש במקורה והיא בבחינת בור אין לה חיות, כי מעצמה ריקה היא רק מה שמשפיעין אותה עד רדתה הנה ונובעת מעצמה היא בבחינת באר ויש לה חיות לזה אמר ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים והיינו דעיקר בריאת אדם על הארץ בכדי שתהא הנפש בבחינת באר ותקרא נשמת חיים וזהו אלה המצות אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם. That is the תורה שבעל פה.

In Beshalach, Klal Yisroel have just started their journey out of Egypt.  They are empty inside.  There is nothing to bring out of them and one must produce the water יש מאין.  That was the time for hitting the rock.  After years of wandering in the midbar Klal Yisroel developed a connection to Torah and they were filled with water.  There was a Torah inside their souls waiting to be drawn out.  By instruction Klal Yisroel would be able to tap into the water that was inside of them.  Instead Moshe hit the סלע.  The Tikunay Zohar (#21, 44a) says because of this Torah שבעל פה is difficult, it is full of questions and machlokes.  If it had been spoken to then it would have flowed nicely.  וְהַאי סֶלַע לָא נָפִיק מִינָהּ אֶלָּא טִפִּין טִפִּין זְעִיר שָׁם זְעִיר שָׁם, וְכַמָּה מַחֲלוֹקוֹת עַל אִלֵּין טִפִּין, וּמָאן גְּרִים דָּא, הַמּוֹרִים, דְּאִתְּמַר בְּהוֹן כָּל הַמּוֹרֶה הֲלָכָה בִּפְנֵי רַבּוֹ חַיָּיב מִיתָה, וּבְגִין דָּא שִׁמְעוּ נָא הַמּוֹרִים, וּבְגִינַיְיהוּ וַיַּךְ מֹשֶׁה אֶת הַסֶּלַע בְּמַטֵּהוּ פַּעֲמָיִם, דְּאִם לָא דְמָחָא בָּהּ לָא הֲווֹ טָרְחִין יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתַנָּאִים וְאֱמוֹרָאִין בְּאוֹרַיְיתָא דִבְעַל פֶּה דְּאִיהִי סֶלַע, אֶלָּא אִתְּמַר בּוֹ וְדִבַּרְתֶּם אֶל הַסֶּלַע וְנָתַן מֵימָיו בְּלָא טוֹרַח, וְיִהְיֶה מִתְקַיֵּים בְּהוֹן וְלֹא יְלַמְּדוּ עוֹד וְגוֹמֵר (ירמיה לא, לג), וַהֲוָה נָפִיק מַיָּא בְּלָא קֻשְׁיָא וּמַחֲלוֹקֶת וּפְסַק, בְּגִין דִּשְׁכִינְתָּא דְאִתְּמַר בָּהּ (שם כג כט) הֲלֹא כֹה דְבָרִי כָּאֵשׁ נְאֻם יהו"ה הֲוָה שָׁרִי בְּפוּמֵיהוֹן דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּאִיהִי אוֹרַיְיתָא דִבְעַל פֶּה, דְּאִיהִי סֶלַע עַ"ל ס', דְּאִינוּן שִׁתִּין מַסֶּכְתּוֹת, דְּהָכִי אִיהוּ סֶלַ"ע עַ"ל ס'.  This was a turning point in the development in Klal YIsroel, their ability to tap into the Torah that was inthim and Moshe chose the hard route, to beat it out.

The possuk in the shirah says באר חפרוה שרים כרוה נדיבי העם במחקק במשענתם.  What is the difference between חופר and כורה?  The Malbim says כי כבר הבדלתי (בהתו״ה משפטים סי׳ קט״ז) שיש הבדל בין חפר – ובין כרה – שהחופר הוא החופר בעומק והכורה הוא שכורה מעט ולא בעומק,.  In light of this we can understand that those that are שרים, the great princes of Torah have deep springs full of words of Torah.  Then there are the נדיבי עם, those that desire to come close to Torah.  For them it is כורה, they don't have as deep of a reservoir but they too have a portion in Torah.

Thursday, June 17, 2021

Stare At The Snake

After the snakes came to bite people, Moshe erects a copper snake and places it upon a staff and the people were healed.  The mishna in the end of the second Ch. of Rosh Hashana explains there was no healing power to the copper snake but when one gazed at it, the individual would be inspired to pray.  If there was no power to the snake, what was the point of making the snake at all?

This blog mentioned in the past that in order to conquer pain and problems one can't merely run away but one must stare the problem in the face and tackle it.  When one is looking down, head in the ground, one may temporally avoid the problem but it will always be in the background ready to rear its ugly head.  The only way to solve a problem, to grow from pain is to raise one's head and meet the issue head on.  That is why one had to look up at the snake.  By seeing the snake not merely as a being of destruction but realizing that it was there to correct one's error, to show one the proper path, then one was able to pray to remove the snake because they had properly grown from the snake challenge.
In a more spiritual vein, the Alter Rebbe in Likutay Torah explains that every thing in its spiritual root is inherently good.  It is merely as some things slide through the chute into this world they take a physical form that is not pleasant.   However, by recognizing the good source of the perceived evil one is able to conquer it. (This is even more pronounced in the snake as discussed on the blog in the past here and here, that the snake is representative of all the evil forces in the world.)  It is with that recognition that one can stand and pray to Hashem to bring forth the source of the perceived evil and change it to טוב הנראה והנגלאת. 

I think this idea may be hinted too in the terminology of the possuk, עֲשֵׂה לְךָ שָׂרָף וְשִׂים אֹתוֹ עַל נֵס וְהָיָה כָּל הַנָּשׁוּךְ וְרָאָה אֹתוֹ וָחָי.  Why use the word נס (see Rashi and Rashbam)?  The possuk in Tehillim (60:6) says נָ֘תַ֤תָּה לִּירֵאֶ֣יךָ נֵּ֭ס לְהִתְנוֹסֵ֑ס.  Chassidus explains based upon the Targum there that the peshat is that a person becomes raised up by נסיונות, hardships.  The hardships bring out the potential in a person (as the Ramban (Berashit 22:1) describes. That serves as a banner for the individual.  When one was able to look at the snake and transform the experience into a positive, it raised the person up.  This was a themes the Friedeker Rebbe developed in some of his maamarim on 12-13 Tamuz (coming up this week) where he expressed his understanding for how his own suffering and hardships led to greater horizons. 

The Mishna in Berachot (5:1) says even when a snake is wrapped around one's feet the individual should not interrupt their שמונה עשרה to remove the snake.  Possibly there is an illusion to this idea there as well.  When the snake seeks to bring a person down, when one is overtaken by pain, depression and grief, they should not run away but continue serving G-d and not let one's problems get in the way of living  (see the Nimukay Orach Chayim (104:3) has a very hard time taking this law at face value.)  

Wednesday, June 16, 2021

Fountain Of Growth

Chazal say that the בארה של מרים still exists and it is concealed.  There is a contradiction in Chazal if it is in the Keneret or in the Mediterranean Sea (see Wikipedia,) but it it still around as opposed to the ענני הכבוד and the מן which cease to exist.  Why does the באר continue as opposed to those other gifts of the midbar? 

The Yalkut Shemoni points out a difference between the shiras hayam and the shira of the באר.

א"ר אבין הלוי בשעה שעמדו ישראל לומר שירת הים לא הניחן משה שיאמרו לעצמן, אלא כשם שרבו של אדם אומר עמו פרשתו כשהוא נער כך אמר משה עמהם שנאמר אז ישיר משה ובני ישראל כנער העונה אחר רבו, לאחר ארבעים שנה עמדו על פרקן התחילו אומרים שירת הבאר לעצמן שנאמר אז ישיר ישראל, אמרו רבש"ע עליך להיות עושה לנו נסים ועלינו לומר שירה שנאמר יי להושיעני ונגינותי ננגן:

The generation leaving Egypt were like children being introduced to G-d.  They had to be taught to sing praise to Hashem.  After living in the midbar in a miraculous existence for years, Klal Yisroel had matured and were able to recognize the need to sing praise to Hashem on their own. 

Following in this mashal the Yalkut (763:18) explains why Moshe was instructed to speak the rock as opposed to in Beshalach where he is instructed to hit the rock.  ודברתם אל הסלע. והכיתם לא נאמר, א"ל כשהנער קטן רבו מכהו ומלמדו ביון שהגדיל בדבור הוא מיסרו, כך אמר הקב"ה למשה כשהיה סלע זה קטן הכית אותו שנאמר והכית בצור אבל עכשיו ודברתם אל הסלע שנה עליו פרק אחד והוא מוציא מים מן הסלע.  When Klal Yisroel was a young child they were instructed by beading led to the water, by forcing them to the right path.  However, as they became advanced it was no longer suitable to merely beat them over the head but they must be taught to develop their on their own.  The difference in drawing water from the rocks was determined by the status of Klal Yisroel.  

[Based upon this we can explain that is why the מי מריבה did not allow Moshe to continue to lead Klal Yisroel.  It's not that the sin was so bad that it must lead to his demise but it meant that Moshe was not ready to teach the next generation.  The people had eclipsed the leadership of Moshe.  (Like the basketball coach that can develop the young players but can't be retained to lead the superstars to the championship.)  And that is why Moshe could not lead them to the promised land.  I saw this idea here.] 

Chazal darshin the shiras הבאר as a reference to Torah.  How do we see in the באר a hint to Torah?  The Netziv explains אבל הענין יבואר בספר דברים (א,ה) בפירוש הכתוב ״בעבר הירדן בארץ מואב הואיל משה באר את התורה״ שלימד שם משה לישראל פלפולה של תורה, איך כל הקבלות בתורה שבע״פ מרומזות בדקדוקי המקרא ע״פ י״ג מדות והויות התלמוד. והתועלת מזה הלימוד היא שאפשר להוסיף לקח בכל עת, ונעשית כמעין המתגבר. . . ומשום הכי נקראת בארה — שהיא המבארת התורה שבכתב על הדיוק, וגם מבארת מקור הקבלות בתורה שבע״פ איה מקומם מרומז בתורה שבכתב. The באר represents the Torah שבעל פה.  It has water from another source, the תורה שבכתב but is also able to produce more, the תורה שבעל פה.  The manna and clouds of glory, aspects of the angelic living in the midbar faded away in history.  Those were long replaced by glorious days in the Jewish commonwealth and the tears of golut that followed.  But what always remains is the באר of the תורה שבעל פה.  Klal Yisroel moved on from the spoon feeding existence that carried them through the birth pains of becoming nation but their independent growth represented by the באר grows as time continues.  

Monday, June 14, 2021

How To Rebuke

This is from the Kedushat Levi on this week's parsha.  I just copied the English translation from Sefaria.  You can look here for the Hebrew.  וראוין הדברים למי שאמרם.

‎Numbers 20,8. “you are to speak to the rock in full view of ‎them, etc.”, “because you did not have enough faith in Me to ‎sanctify Me in full view of the Israelites.” ‎

Rashi and Nachmanides disagree with one another ‎concerning what was Moses’ sin. One says the sin was that he ‎addressed the Israelites by calling them “obstinate, rebellious” ‎people, i.e. ‎שמעו נא המורים‎, whereas the other sage claims that ‎Moses’ sin consisted in striking the rock instead of speaking to it.‎

I believe that Rashi and Nachmanides do not really ‎disagree because the cause that Moses was angry enough to strike ‎the rock was the rebelliousness of the people.‎

Rebuking people, especially the Jewish people, calling them to ‎order, can be done by two different methods. Both methods are ‎designed to make the people carry out the will of the Creator. ‎One approach stresses the greatness of the Lord, and presents ‎this as the reason why not obeying His commands is a non ‎starter. It reminds the people that their very souls originate ‎immediately beneath the Creator’s throne in heaven. It reminds ‎people of their duty to provide G’d with the pleasure of observing ‎His people performing His will. When the people listen to this ‎kind of rebuke their hearts will surely be moved in the right ‎direction and they will realize that it is incumbent upon them to ‎accept the yoke of heaven.‎

The other method of admonishing people stresses reminding ‎people of the results of their failure to respond to the rebukes, ‎the penalties in store for them. It is customary that when using ‎this latter dimension of giving mussar, commonly known as ‎the “fire and brimstone” approach, the preacher relies on the ‎feelings of shame in every individual causing him to turn away ‎from doing evil and do good instead.‎

The difference between these two methods is that the first ‎method relies on reminding the subject of his high rank among ‎the creatures G’d has created, a fact that makes it their duty not ‎to go astray. This former method, through constantly pointing ‎out Israel’s great virtues etc., will likely evoke in the listener a ‎desire to conduct himself in a way that will justify the ‎compliments paid to him by the person doing the rebuking. The ‎person using the method of harping on the wrongs the people ‎are guilty of all the time, cannot at the same time arouse the ‎feeling that they are basically highly valued people in G’d’s eyes, ‎and need only to correct a flaw that has been brought to their ‎attention on this occasion. The person who rebukes the sinner on ‎this occasion, by acknowledging that though accused of an error, ‎whether committed through negligence or even knowingly, he is ‎still considered as part of G’d’s people, i.e. part of the elite of the ‎human species, will evoke reciprocal feelings in those whom he ‎addresses. Moses, on this occasion, chose to use the method of ‎belittling the people and to shame them. It was therefore in ‎keeping with this approach that he struck the rock, symbolizing ‎how an obstinate rock has to be treated. ‎

Since G-d had a) not instructed Moses to berate the people for ‎demanding water, and b) would have preferred for him to choose ‎the first method of rebuking, He had thereby missed an ‎opportunity to demonstrate that even words sounding like ‎compliments addressed to an erring Israelite when criticizing a ‎sin, or even all of them at the right time, in the right ‎circumstances, would have the desired effect on people of the ‎spiritual greatness of Israel. This is all alluded to in G’d’s telling ‎Moses about his failure to have grasped the opportunity to ‎sanctify His Name before all the Israelites.‎

Friday, June 11, 2021

A Blossoming Staff

An article from Rabbi Y.Y. Jacobson.

It is a baffling story. The portion of Korach tells of the "Test of the Staffs" conducted when people contested Aaron's appointment to the High Priesthood. G‑d instructs Moses to take a staff from each tribe, each inscribed with the name of the tribe's leader; Aaron's name was written on the Levite Tribe's staff. The sticks were placed overnight in the Holy of Holies in the Sanctuary. When they were removed the following morning, the entire nation beheld that Aaron's staff had blossomed overnight and bore fruit, demonstrating that Aaron was G‑d's choice for High Priest.

In the words of the Torah (Numbers 16):  “And on the following day Moses came to the Tent of Testimony, and behold, Aaron's staff for the house of Levi had blossomed! It gave forth blossoms, sprouted buds, and produced ripe almonds. Moses took out all the staffs from before the Lord, to the children of Israel; they saw and they took, each man his staff.”

What was the meaning of this strange miracle? G-d could have chosen many ways to demonstrate the authenticity of Aaron’s position.

What is more, three previous incidents have already proven this very truth: the swallowing of Korach and his fellow rebels who staged a revolt against Moses and Aaron; the burning of the 250 leaders who led the mutiny; and the epidemic that spread among those who accused Moses and Aaron of killing the nation. If these three miracles did not suffice, what would as fourth one possibly achieve? What then was the point and message of the blossoming stick?

One answer I heard from my teacher was this: The blossoming of the staff was meant not so much to prove who the high priest is (that was already established by three previous earth-shattering events), but rather to demonstrate what it takes to be chosen as a high priest of G-d, and to explain why it was Aaron was chosen to this position. What are the qualifications required to be a leader?

Before being severed from the tree, this staff grew, produced leaves, and was full of vitality. But now, severed from its roots, it has become dry and lifeless.

The primary quality of a Kohen Gadol, of a High Priest, of a man of G-d, is his or her ability to transform lifeless sticks into living orchards. The real leader is the person who sees the possibility for growth and life where others see stagnation and lifelessness. The Jewish leader perceives even in a dead stick the potential for rejuvenation.

How relevant this story is to our generation, especially over this past year.  Following the greatest tragedy ever to have struck our people, the Holocaust, the Jewish world appeared like a lifeless staff. Mounds and mounds of ashes, the only remains of the six million, left a nation devastated to its core. An entire world went up in smoke.

What happened next will one day be told as one of the great acts of reconstruction in the history of mankind. Holocaust survivors and refugees set about rebuilding on new soil the world they had seen go up in the smoke of Auschwitz and Treblinka.

One of the remarkable individuals who spearheaded this revival was the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994), whose 27th yartzeit is this Sunday, the third of Tamuz (June 13). The Rebbe, together with other great Jewish sages and leaders from many diverse communities, refused to yield to despair. While others responded to the Holocaust by building memorials, endowing lectureships, convening conferences, and writing books – all vital and noble tributes to create memories of a tree which once lived but was now dead -- the Rebbe urged every person he could touch to bring the stick back to life: to marry and have lots of children, to rebuild Jewish life in every possible way. He built schools, communities, synagogues, Jewish centers, summer camps, and yeshivas, and encouraged and inspired countless Jews to do the same. He opened his heart to an orphaned generation, imbuing it with hope, vision, and determination. He became the most well-known address for scores of activists, rabbis, philanthropists, leaders, influential people, and laymen and women from all walks of life – giving them the confidence to reconstruct a shattered universe. He sent out emissaries to virtually every Jewish community in the world to help rekindle the Jewish smile when a titanic river of tears threatened to obliterate it.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe urged his beloved people to use the horrors of destruction as an impetus to generate the greatest Jewish renaissance and to create “re-Jew-venation.” He gazed at as dead staff and saw in it the potential for new life.

His new home, the United States, was a country that until then had dissolved Jewish identity. It was, as they used to say in those days, a “treifene medinah,” a non-kosher land. Yet the Rebbe saw the possibility of using American culture as a medium for new forms of Jewish activity, using modern means to spread Yiddishkeit. The Rebbe realized that the secularity of the modern world concealed a deep yearning for spirituality, and he knew how to address it. Where others saw the crisis of a dead staff, he saw an opportunity for a new wave of renewal and redemption.

The past year has been uniquely challenging for each of us. A lot of pain and agony have pierced the serenity of so many. Yet the Jewish people have emulated Aaron's staff: From crisis, our people have created opportunity; from darkness and loneliness, we have grown more confident, united, forgiving, and authentic.

Rabbi Yehudah Krinsky, one of the Rebbe’s secretaries, related the following episode.

“It was around 1973, when the widow of Jacques Lifschitz, the renowned sculptor, had come for a private audience with the Lubavitcher Rebbe, shortly after her husband's sudden passing.

“In the course of her meeting with the Rebbe, she mentioned that when her husband died, he was nearing completion of a massive sculpture of a phoenix in the abstract, a work commissioned by Hadassah Women's Organization for the Hadassah Hospital on Mt. Scopus, in Jerusalem.

“As an artist and sculptor in her own right, she said that she would have liked to complete her husband's work, but, she told the Rebbe, she had been advised by Jewish leaders that the phoenix is a non-Jewish symbol. It could never be placed in Jerusalem!

“I was standing near the door to the Rebbe's office that night, when he called for me and asked that I bring him the book of Job, from his bookshelf, which I did.

“The Rebbe turned to Chapter 29, verse 18, "I shall multiply my days like the Chol."  “And then the Rebbe proceeded to explain to Mrs. Lifschitz the Midrashic commentary on this verse which describes the Chol as a bird that lives for a thousand years, then dies, and is later resurrected from its ashes. Clearly then, a Jewish symbol.  “Mrs. Lifschitz was absolutely delighted. The project was completed soon thereafter.

In his own way, the Rebbe had brought new hope to this broken widow. And in the recurring theme of his life, he did the same for the spirit of the Jewish people, which he raised from the ashes of the Holocaust to new, invigorated life. He attempted to reenact the “miracle of the blossoming staff” every day of his life with every person he came in contact with.

A story:

Rabbi Berel Baumgarten (d. in 1978) was a Jewish educator in an orthodox religious yeshiva in Brooklyn, NY, prior to relocating to Buenos Aires. He once wrote a letter to the Rebbe asking for advice. Each Shabbos afternoon, when he would meet up with his students for a study session, one student would walk into the room smelling from cigarette smoke. Clearly, he was smoking on the Shabbos. “His influence may cause his religious class-mates to also cease keeping the Shabbos,” Rabbi Baumgarten was concerned. “Must I expel him from the school, even with the lack of clear evidence that he is violating the Shabbos?”

The Rebbe’s answer was no more than a scholarly reference: “See Avos Derabi Noson chapter 12.” That’s it.

Avos Derabi Noson is a Talmudic tractate, an addendum to the Ethics of the Fathers, composed in the 4th century CE by a Talmudic sage known as Reb Nasan Habavli (hence the name Avos Derabi Noson.) I was curious to understand the Rebbe’s response. Rabbi Baumgarten was looking for practical advice, and the Rebbe is sending him to an ancient text…

I opened an Avos Derabi Noson to that particular chapter. I found a story told there about Aaron, our very own High Priest of Israel.  Aaron, the sages relate, brought back many Jews from a life of sin to a life of purity. He was the first one in Jewish history to make “baalei teshuvah,” to inspire Jews to re-embrace their heritage, faith, and inner spiritual mission. But, unlike today, during Aaron’s times to be a sinner you had to be a real no-goodnik. Because the Jews of his generation have seen G-d in His full glory; and to rebel against the Torah way of life was a sign of true betrayal and carelessness.

How then did Aaron do it? He would greet each person warmly. Even a grand sinner would be greeted by Aaron with tremendous grace and love. Aaron would embrace these so-called “Jewish sinners” with endless warmth and respect. The following day when this person would crave to sin, he would say to himself: How will I be able to look Aaron in the eyes after I commit such a serious sin? I am too ashamed. He holds me in such high moral esteem, how can I deceive him and let him down? And this person would abstain from immoral behavior.

We come here full circle: Aaron was a leader, a High Priest, because even his staff blossomed. He never gave up on the dried-out sticks. He never looked at someone and said, “This person is a lost cause, he is completely cut off from his tree, of any possibility of growth. He is dry, brittle, and lifeless.” For Aaron, even dry sticks would blossom and produce fruit.

This is the story related in Avos Derabi Noson. This was the story the Lubavitcher Rebbe wanted Rabbi Berel Baumgarten to study and internalize. Should I expel the child from school was his question; he is, Jewishly speaking, a dried-out and one tough stick!

The response of an Aaron is this: Love him even more. Embrace him with every fiber of your being, open your heart to him, cherish him and shower him with warmth and affection. Appreciate him, respect him and let him feel that you really care for him. See in him or her that which he or she may not be able to see in themselves at the moment. View him as a great human being, and you know what? He will become just that.

Springboard For All Greatness

Harav Hagaon Yosef Elefant Shlita

In this week’s parashah, which discusses the machlokes of Korach va’adaso with Moshe Rabbeinu, there’s a side incident that seems a bit trivial but is actually very telling. We know that of Korach’s whole assembly, his own sons did teshuvah at the end. Chazal describe that the bnei Korach were already in the pit, and at the last second they had a hirhur teshuvah and they were saved.

What prompted them to do teshuvah? The Midrash, in this week’s parashah, explains that after Dasan and Aviram said לֹא נַעֲלֶה — we’re not going to Moshe Rabbeinu, Moshe Rabbeinu lowered himself and came to see them. Upon seeing this, the bnei Korach said to themselves, “Our father is busy saying that Moshe Rabbeinu is a baal gaavah, and all he wants is power and control, but we see that he’s mevater on his kavod and he’s prepared to come down to try to placate Dasan and Aviram.” This spurred them to say, “Wait a minute — something’s wrong with our father’s whole narrative. Moshe Rabbeinu is a true anav!”  That is what prompted their teshuvah.

Moshe Rabbeinu’s humility in lowering himself to go to Dasan and Aviram to placate them and not being makpid is not a side point about him, but a central point.

At the end of Parashas Behaaloscha, in middle of the Torah’s account of the tragic incident with Miriam and Aharon, Hakadosh Baruch Hu tells Aharon that Moshe is the greatest anav: וְהָאִישׁ מֹשֶׁה עָנָו מְאֹד מִכֹּל הָאָדָם. There’s something very interesting about the placement of this passuk, as we will explain.

The sefarim explain that Moshe Rabbeinu was mevatel himself by attributing everything to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, and that is what anavah is. Anavah is not something bein adam l’chaveiro, but is, rather, bein adam laMakom, as the Gemara (Sotah 5b) teaches regarding a baal gaavah: אין אני והוא יכולים לדור בעולם.

A baal gaavah attributes all his maalos to himself, whereas an anav recognizes that he has maalos and kochos, but he attributes them all to Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

The Meshech Chochmah, in Parashas Shemos, says that Moshe Rabbeinu’s supreme anavah was a sign of his constant dveikus in Hakadosh Baruch Hu, because the moment a person’s mind wanders away from awareness of Hashem, he automatically sinks into himself. The fact that Moshe Rabbeinu was the anav mikol Adam indicated that he was the most davuk in Hakadosh Baruch Hu of any human being, and his mind never wandered away from Hashem. That’s what kept him in his state of anavah.

Accordingly, say the sefarim, Moshe Rabbeinu’s zechus to receive the Torah, and his unsurpassed level of nevuah, were all the result of his anavah and total, constant hisbatlus to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. That explains why all the other nevi’im prophesied with unclear vision — באספלריא שאינה מאירה — while Moshe Rabbeinu’s prophetic vision was absolutely clear, like looking through a clear glass, because there was no “zich” in the way. Nothing was his own; he knew that everything he had was from Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

R' Chaim Volozhiner, in Ruach Chaim at the beginning of Pirkei Avos, says that Moshe Rabbeinu’s anavah was the cause of his being the one to receive the Torah — so much so, that if someone else in history would achieve as much anavah as Moshe Rabbeinu, that person would be mekabel Torah b’shleimus.

 If Moshe Rabbeinu’s anavah made him a suitable vehicle for receiving the Torah, then why would the Torah mention the critically important fact that he was the anav mikol adam — the only description in the Torah of this maalah — specifically in middle of the story of Aharon and Miriam denigrating him? Why not mention it in the context of Moshe Rabbeinu bringing down the Torah?

The answer can be found in the Rambam, at the end of Hilchos Tumas Tzaraas. The Rambam discusses the sin of Miriam, who spoke badly of Moshe, and he notes that her offense was relatively minimal, considering that she was his older sister, who was moser nefesh for him, and her intention was for his benefit. Her only mistake was to equate him with other nevi’im. The Rambam adds that in any case, Moshe Rabbeinu was not makpid about what she said, as the Torah states that he was anav mikol adam.

The Rambam is telling us something fascinating: that Moshe Rabbeinu’s anavah was the reason he wasn’t makpid. Presumably, the Rambam derives this from the Gemara (Shabbos 35) that states that a person should always be an anav like Hillel and not a kapdan like Shammai, which implies that anavah and kapdanus as polar opposites. In what way are these two attributes opposites?

Kapdanus means that a person is concerned with his own kavod (or perceived lack thereof), or their own opinion, or their own “zich,” while anavah means that a person has nothing of his own, so he has nothing to be makpid about. There’s no “me,” no “I think” or “I say.”

Unfortunately, many people walk around with k’peidos. Some people go as far as to declare that they are makpid in this world and in the next. I always wonder whether they really think that in the next world, when they’re basking in the radiance of the Shechinah, if they’re going to carry their k’peidos with them. In any event, the Rambam is teaching us a remarkable thing: that the reason the Torah stresses Moshe’s anavah in the middle of the story of Aharon and Miriam is to explain that although Miriam spoke negatively about Moshe, he bore no resentment toward her because of his anavah. Since he didn’t feel that he owned anything, there was nothing for him to be makpid about.

Miriam’s only mistake, says the Rambam, was to equate Moshe Rabbeinu to all other nevi’im. When a person hears that someone else considers him just a regular person, and not as great as he thinks he is, then he is typically filled with indignation: “What do you mean? How can you say that?” But because Moshe was such an anav, not owning any of his gadlus and not attributing it to himself, it made no difference to him if Miriam was mistaken about his true level. By mentioning that Moshe was the anav mikol adam in the context of this incident, the Torah is stressing that his anavah was the reason he was not makpid.

Moshe Rabbeinu’s anavah and total hisbatlus to Hakadosh Baruch Hu enabled him to receive the Torah, brought him to the level of פֶּה אֶל פֶּה אֲדַבֶּר בּוֹ, and earned him אספקלריא המאירה — yet the Torah left us to figure that all out. If not for the Maharal, the Sfas Emes, R' Yerucham, and R' Chaim Volozhiner, we wouldn’t know that this is what earned him those levels. But Moshe Rabbeinu’s ability not to be makpid on his own kavod due to his anavah is expressed openly in the Torah. This teaches us just how critical it is not to live with kpeidos and not to be busy with “zich.”

We find a similar idea reflected in last week’s parashah, when Eldad and Meidad were prophesying. Yehoshua’s response was: אֲדֹנִי מֹשֶׁה כְּלָאֵם, to which Moshe answered: וּמִי יִתֵּן כָּל עַם ה' נְבִיאִים — “Let everyone be a navi! What does it bother me that there’s competition, so to speak? I don’t own the nevuah!”

R' Chaim Volozhiner makes an incredible statement in Ruach Chaim, at the beginning of Pirkei Avos, based on the Gemara’s teaching (Bava Basra 75) that Moshe Rabbeinu is compared to the sun, while Yehoshua is compared to the moon. The moon, says R' Chaim, was the one that argued, during Brias Ha’olam, that the sun and moon could not be the same size, because אין שני מלכים משתמשים בכתר אחד. That’s why the moon’s size was reduced. In this sense, Yehoshua was similar to the moon, because he was opposed to Eldad and Meidad having their independent nevuah: אין שני מלכים משתמשים בכתר אחד. Moshe Rabbeinu, however, was not bothered by their having nevuah — just like the sun, which was not bothered by the moon being the same size. Due to his incredible anavah, he was not makpid when someone else also had the ability to prophesy.

Coming back to this week’s parashah, of all the mega-events of the parashah — Korach va’adaso, the ground swallowing them up, the 250 machtos — there’s a little incident that shook the world and changed history. Moshe Rabbeinu didn’t say, “What a chutzpah of Dasan and Aviram that I called them and they don’t come.” Instead, he went to them!

In today’s treifeh world, when a person is mevater and swallows his kavod, that is viewed as weakness. But Moshe Rabbeinu wasn’t weak; he was an anav. And an anav is not makpid, because he doesn’t consider anything to be his own. So Moshe Rabbeinu had no problem going down and trying to placate Dasan and Aviram. And that incredible incident, which on the surface seems trivial, shook the bnei Korach to the core. Upon seeing the true dargah of Moshe Rabbeinu, and recognizing that he was anav mikol adam, they understood why he was Moshe Rabbeinu: because his anavah enabled him to swallow the slight to his kavod and not be makpid on anything. He wasn’t makpid on Eldad and Meidad, he wasn’t makpid during the incident with Miriam, he wasn’t makpid on Dasan and Aviram. The bnei Korach understood that this was Moshe Rabbeinu’s essence, and that prompted their teshuvah: לַמְנַצֵּחַ לִבְנֵי קֹרַח מִזְמוֹר.

Thursday, June 10, 2021

Far Sighted

 The Yismach Moshe at the end of ד"ה במדרש קרח שפיקח היה explains what it means that the eyes of Korach misled him.  ומה שאמר עינו הטעתו, יש עוד כונה עמוקה, דהא קרח השיג בגדולת הבורא, דאם לא כן מנין לו כל הכבוד הזה להיות סוכה ברוח הקודש, ומכל שכן לפי מ"ש לעיל דהיה משיג ענין פרה אדומה, רק בשפלות בן אדם לא ראה. ובהקדים מה שפירש הרב הקדוש מו"ה אלימלך זצק"ל על המשנה (חגיגה, ב' ע"א) סומא באחת מעיניו וכו', היינו שרואה בגדולת הבורא ב"ה ואינו רואה בשפלות עצמו, פטור מן הראיה, כלומר יותר טוב היה אם לא ראה ולא ידע כלל, כי תועבת ה' כל גבה לב (משלי טז ה). והיינו עינו דייקא הטעתו, ר"ל שראה רק בעינו אחת, דאלו היה רואה בשתי עיניו לא היה טועה, והבן. והיוצא מזה דאחר כל הכבוד והמעלה, צריך להתרחק מכל גאה וגאון. וכבר אמרנו הא דאמרו רז"ל (כתובות דף ס"ח.) כל המעלים עיניו מן הצדקה וכו', דהיינו דמעלים עיניו, הוא מחמת גובה וגאון שאין כבודו להשגיח בעניים ושפלים, לכך הוא כעובד ע"א, כמו שאמרו רז"ל (סוטה ד':) כל המתגאה וכו', על כן יש להשגיח על העניים והיה מעשה הצדקה שלום.

I would like ot say a slightly different take.  The parsha of Korach follows after the parsha of tzitzit.  The parsha of tzitzit teaches a person to see beyond the veneer of the world.  The techelet reminds one of  kisay hakavod and that  should be one's focus in life.  One learns from the tzitzit to take a long look at things and peel under the skin to see what really exists.  Korach indeed did that.  He looked far into the future and saw his great descendants.  He was a great philosopher and "saw" the kisay hakavod.  The problem of Korach was that he couldn't see what was right under his nose.  Maybe that's why he was swallowed by the ground right under his feet.  The Kabbilists teach that Korach in the future days will be right.  However, his message was too early to be recognized.  The nation needed a leader and class structure.  Korach failed to take into consideration the time and place of his message and realize that it could not be accepted.  The techelet do night directly remind one of the kisay hakavod but instead go through steps of similar things.  One can lose the נמשל for the משל at times.  The משל is also important. One must be cognizant of the ultimate goal but really that there is a process to  get there and not every message can be accepted by people that are not ready.

Enough Is (Not) Enough

רב לכם בני לוי. The Gemorah Sotah (13b) says Moshe was punished for that utterance. א"ר לוי ברב בישר ברב בישרוהו ברב בישר (במדבר טז, ג) רב לכם ברב בישרוהו רב לך ידדבר אחר רב לך רב יש לך ומנו יהושע טודבר אחר רב לך שלא יאמרו הרב כמה קשה ותלמיד כמה סרבן וכל כך למה תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל לפום גמלא שיחנא.  Moshe was trying to quite machlokes and protect the dignity of Aharon and yet he is punished? The Manchester Rosh Yeshivah says that although Moshe's intent was obviously correct the incorrect words were used.  One should never belittle another individual's desire to climb to greater spiritual heights and say you have enough already.  When it comes to רוחניות it is never enough!  

It is an interesting take because I would have thought that the whole lesson of the parsha is the total opposite. That Korach wanted more that he was entitled to and that even in matters of רוחניות one can't jump to grab more than they are entitled to.  It would seem that one the one hand one must always strive to grow and climb to higher spiritual heights but at the same time one must never lose sight of the fact that they have their own mission and can't use a Aharon Hakohan, their neighbor, chavrusa or other as the barometer of spiritual success. Any thoughts on the matter?

Monday, June 7, 2021

Thursday, June 3, 2021

Selective Vision

 From משלחן רבי אליהו ברוך.










A person has selective vision.  One paints a picture in their mind of what they saw to fit their paradigm of life.  He extends this same principle to explain the sin of the meraglim.  The possuk (14:34) says that the sin of the meraglim would be held for 40 years a year corresponding to each day of their journey.  Why are they punished for their journey, the sin was the report, not the journey itself?  Rav Chayim Shmulevetz explains because as they were traveling they were thinking badly about Eretz Yisroel and one gets punished for the thoughts of loshan harah as well.  Through their travels their opinions were formed because they had already concluded that it was a bad idea to enter Eretz Yisroel.  All of the events that they saw were meant for their benefit (Rashi 13:32) but they were not able to see that because they were painting the picture of what they saw to fit with what they wanted to see.

Think Big

What was wrong with the report of the meraglim, they did their job to give an assessment of the situation?  And what led these great men to stray from the correct path? 

The meraglim were not sent to give an evaluation if to attack or not to attack.  Their mission was just to find the least point of resistance to enter Eretz Yisroel.  While their report of the strength of the people they were trying to conquer may have been accurate, their error was in adding the words לא נוכל לעלות אל העם כי חזק הוא ממנו.  They gave an opinion that it would be impossible to conquer the land (Likutay Sichos volume 13.)  Why did people that saw such great miracles and a destruction of the entire Egyptian nation not feel that they could not be successful?  

The Shmiras Halashon (volume 2 on Shelach) says because the meraglim had something lacking in their emunah.  As it says in Devarim (1:32) וּבַדָּבָ֖ר הַזֶּ֑ה אֵֽינְכֶם֙ מַאֲמִינִ֔ם בַּי״י֖ אֱלֹקיכם.  Despite all that they saw they still did not believe that they would be given the ability to conquer Eretz Yisroel.  The Sfas Emes (5631) echoes the same idea  ובאמת גם חטא מרגלים הי' חסרון אמונה כמ"ש אא"ז מוז"ל ע"ש.  He adds that when one has this perspective of a lack of ability, a lack of believe in one's abilities, it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.  כי ודאי הי' נראה לעיני שכלם שאין בכחם לכנוס שהרי באמת לא נכנסו. אבל אם היו מאמינים ומבטלים הסתכלותם לרצון השי"ת הי' זה עצמו מסייע להם לצאת מהטבע כמ"ש הקב"ה לאברהם צא מאיצטגנינות שלך כו' דכתיב בי' והאמין כו'.  When one thinks small, one will remain small.  It is only by thinking big that one can create new possibilities, new channels and worlds.  As the Sfas Emes (5640) says בפסוק כי לחמנו הם דאיתא ברש"י וכן היינו בעיניהם שהיו אומרים נמלים יש בכרמים כו'. ובמד' איתא החטא שלהם כי מי הגיד להם שמא היו אצלם כמלאכים ע"ש. אבל הכל אמת כי ע"י שהיו שפלים בעצמם כחגבים לכן כן היו בעיניהם כי הכל תלוי בעבודת האדם כמ"ש במ"א בפסוק ולאום מלאום יאמץ.  The meraglim viewed themselves as small and hence everything around them appeared too large to conquer.  Had they fully internalized the strength that was within them because of the commandment of Hashem, things would have become within reach. 

Tuesday, June 1, 2021

Be An Akshan

 From the sefer Noam Hamussar from the vaadim of Rav Nosson Wachtfogel.