Proof From The Zohar

The Ketzot (siman 7) discusses if one is allowed to grab a mashkon from a lender if he is denying the loan.  The Ketzot assumes that it is forbidden for the Torah forbids one from taking a mashkon from a lender even though one is allowed to generally take matters in their own hands to enact justice, so even if the lender denies it, one can't take a mashkon. What is interisting is that his main proof to the din he brings from a Zohar, מדברי הזוהר מבואר דהוא איסור גמור עיין שם פרש' במדבר פתח ואמר ה' אורי וישעי כו' ובר נש בעי לאקדמ' ולמפקד בידי' פקדונא דנפשי' כפקדונ' דב"נ דיהיב פקדונ' לאחרא דאף על גב דאיהו אתחייב לגבי' יתיר מההיא פקדונ' לאו כדאי לאתאחד' בי' הואיל ופקדונ' אתמס' לגבי' ואי יסרב בי' ודאי נבדוק אבתרי' דלאו מזרעא קדיש' הוא ולאו מבני מהימנות' כו' ע"ש.

Becoming Part Of You

Why does the parsha open אשר תשים לפניהם, speaking in plural terminology and then immediately switch to כי תקנה, speaking to the individual?  why do the mishpatim interrupt between the two halves of the mattan Torah tale in Yisro and the end of Mishpatim? 

Why does it say ואלה המשפטים if the Torah goes on to list off mitzvot that are chukim as well?  The title mishpat is not referring only to the mishpatim themselves but is a paradigm as to how how to view the mitzvot.  A mishpat it that which can be grabbed by the human mind, it can  become absorbed entirely into the individual.  The opening line of the parsha, ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם, introduces the goal, the mission statement.  The Torah, the mitzvot should become entirely engrained and part of the makeup of an individual.  לפניהם, into the pnemius of the person.  That is the general message given over to the body of Klal Yisroel.   

Why does the Torah open the many dinim of the parsha with that of slaves? The parsha of slaves according to Chassidut represents the different levels in the service of Hashem.  The Torah starts off with the parsha of eved ivri.  This is one who at times struggles to do his service but does it faithfully and even at most points with a desire.  This is the typical starting point of a Jew.  S/he is born with the desire to do Hashem's will but it is a struggle to adhere to the pressures beckoning form the outside world sometimes one will have to force themselves.  From there sometimes one loses the struggle sometimes and may lower to be an eved kenani who's sole desire is to be be free to do whatever he wants but forces himself to do the work or one may elevate themselves to that of the amah who's sole desire is to serve her master and may even become one with her master.  This parsha is said to the individual according to their level of avodah there will be a slow order of progression.  Every individual will have their own path.  

The parsha of Mattan Torah of Yisro is Hashem coming to meet mortal man on Earth.  The pasrsha of Mishpatim is man meeting Hashem.  It is the naaseh v'nishma of Klal Yisroel.  This is the message of mishpatim.  The person takes the mitzvot and Torah and absorbs it into themselves.  That is why  Mishpatim is the preface to the second half of Mattan Torah.  

Kofer Obligation

ואם שור נגח הוא מתמל שלשם והועד בבעליו ולא ישמרנו והמית איש או אשה השור יסקל וגם בעליו יומת אם כפר יושת עליו ונתן פדין נפשו.  Rashi explains that the יומת is מיתה בידי שמים (which is then atoned for by paying kofer.)  Rashi in Ketubot (37b) says the same thing as well.  However, Rashi Bava Kammah (2b) says that יומת means to pay money as it does not literally mean the owner gets killed.  Why does Rashi there deviate from his interpretation in the other places? 

Why does the Torah use the terminology of אם כופר if it is an obligation?  Rashi says that this one example (of a few) where the word אם means an obligation.  The Ramban says that this tells us something about the nature of kofer.  בעבור היות הכופר כפרה כענין הקרבנות, ואם הוא אינו חפץ בה אין מכריחין אותו לבא לבית דין לחייבו בכך, ואפילו אם חייבוהו אין ממשכנין אותו, בעבור זה אמר: אם.  It is not an obligation that will be forced upon the offender, if he wishes the atonement he will pay, if not, he will not be forced.  The Ramban brings support from the Gemorah Bava Kammah (4oa) that says Beis Din will not seize the estate to pay kofer.   We see that it is not a monetary obligation on the individual but rather an atonement which is upon him to decide if he wants or not.  This seems to be in line with what the Ramban writes in Maakot (2b) that adim zommimin on the obligation of kofer are not obligated in any punishment because they are not making any money obligation on the accused party.  They are merely coming to inform the accused that he should pay kofer but are not in actuality levying any obligation up on him.  The Achronim ask that if we are ממשכנין for kofer is a question of the Gemorah and is not resolved so how can the Ramban explain the possuk according to one opinion?

Driven By Truth

Harav Hagaon Yosef Elefant Shlita

Why was the parashah of Yisro’s arrival chosen as the introduction to Mattan Torah? We know that Yisro was zocheh to a parashah in the Torah, but the fact that his arrival is deemed worthy of serving as the opening stage for Mattan Torah certainly needs our attention.

Regarding the words וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ, Rashi comments: מה שמועה שמע ובא קריעת ים סוף ומלחמת עמלק. The question of what Yisro heard seems out of place, as the Torah states clearly that he heard about Yetzias Mitzrayim and about all that Hakadosh Baruch Hu had done for Klal Yisrael. Why ask what he heard? Furthermore, if the passuk says that he heard about Yetzias Mitzrayim, why do Rashi, and Chazal, answer that he heard about something else — Krias Yam Suf and Milchemes Amalek?

The meforshim note that Rashi’s question is מה שמועה שמע ובא — what did Yisro hear that made him come? The entire world heard about Yetzias Mitzrayim and Krias Yam Suf, as the passuk says: שָׁמְעוּ עַמִּים יִרְגָּזוּן חִיל אָחַז יֹשְׁבֵי פְּלָשֶׁת. אָז נִבְהֲלוּ אַלּוּפֵי אֱדוֹם אֵילֵי מוֹאָב יֹאחֲזֵמוֹ רָעַד נָמֹגוּ כֹּל יֹשְׁבֵי כְנָעַן. When, then, was Yisro the only one who came? What triggered him to pick himself up and leave, when no one else in the world did that?

Chazal answer that he heard about Krias Yam Suf and Milchemes Amalek. Yisro, perhaps like the rest of the world, heard about Yetzias Mitzrayim and was amazed, and maybe even inspired to emunah. But then he noted an interesting phenomenon: He saw that after Krias Yam Suf, there could be a Milchemes Amalek immediately.

The power of Amalek is אֲשֶׁר קָרְךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ — he jumps into the hot bath and cools it off. Yisro saw that a person could experience a tremendous spiritual hisorerus, and be spurred to emunah, yet that inspiration could fade dramatically, as evidenced by the juxtaposition of Krias Yam Suf and Milchemes Amalek.

In last week’s parashah, this phenomenon is evident as well. At the beginning of Parashas Beshalach, Klal Yisrael reached incredible heights of emunah, to the point that they declared: זֶה קֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ, and even a maidservant beheld visions that Yechezkel Hanavi was not privy to. Yet by the end of the parashah, Klal Yisrael are already questioning: הֲיֵשׁ ה' בְּקִרְבֵּנוּ אִם אָיִן. Rashi cites the famous mashal of the child riding on his father’s shoulders and calling out, “Did you see my father?” The polar opposites of the parashah are very striking.

The baalei mussar observe that such is the nature of bechirah. If a person’s emunah would remain a straight line, without wavering, then the person would not have bechirah; he would always do the right thing. Therefore, it’s possible to go within a short time from זֶה קֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ to הֲיֵשׁ ה' בְּקִרְבֵּנוּ אִם אָיִן. And when a person cools off, that’s when Amalek comes.

Yisro witnessed this regression and noted that a person can experience a hisorerus and then rapidly lose that hisorerus. He then concluded that if he didn’t come now, the effect of his inspiration would fade, and he would never come. That is the meaning of the question: מה שמועה שמע ובא — what did he hear that prompted him to come immediately, when no one else did? And Chazal explain that the specific trigger of his arrival was his observation that Krias Yam Suf could be followed by Milchemes Amalek.  Yet the question remains: Why was he the only one who made this calculation and decided to come?

Chazal make several interesting observations about Yisro. One of them, cited by Rashi, is that there was no avodah zarah in the world that he did not worship. Similarly, the Ramban (Shemos 6:23), notes that Putiel, whom the Torah names as the maternal grandfather of Pinchas, is identified by Chazal as either Yosef — שֶׁפִּטְפֵּט בְּיִצְרוֹ, or as Yisro — שֶׁפִּיטֵּם עֲגָלִים לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, and that his name is included as a shevach.What kind of praise is it that Yisro fattened calves for idolatry? That’s a yichus?

The answer is that Yisro was an ish emes. He was looking for the truth, and therefore he worshipped every avodah zarah in the world. Imagine that a person would go through town after town in India and Africa and worship every last idol. That was Yisro.

His quest for truth was manifest in two ways. One was his worship of every single deity. The second was his ability to identify what is sheker and what is emes. His search was unending. Most people would give up after encountering a couple of false gods, but Yisro kept on searching, rejecting one deity after another. Finally, when he heard about Klal Yisrael and Yetzias Mitzrayim, he came.

Yisro’s fattening calves for idolatry reflected his search for emes. Whatever he did, he did right, investing his full heart into it because at that time he believed this was the truth — and if it’s the truth, you have to go all the way with it, with no ifs, ands, or buts. That’s why his fattening calves for avodah zarah is viewed as admirable.

This same quest for truth was evident right after he joined Klal Yisrael, when he gave Moshe Rabbeinu mussar. To him, emes was emes, and the truth needed to be spoken.

His descendant, Pinchas, was reviled by the shevatim because he descended from Yisro, who fattened calves for avodah zarah, but in truth, he was motivated by the same yearning for emes as his grandfather Yisro. What Pinchas did was neither comfortable nor pleasant, but he learned from the Zeide Yisro to do what’s right, not what’s pleasant.

We can now understand why Yisro was the only one spurred to join Klal Yisrael after hearing the same reports that the rest of the world heard. He heard the emes, and he also saw how quickly recognition of the emes could fade — so he picked himself up and came. Having heard about Krias Yam Suf, and having identified the emes, he would not take a chance of losing that hisorerus, as he learned from Milchemes Amalek. That’s why he came, while the rest of the world stayed home. They, too, experienced a hisorerus, but the emes they saw was not that important to them.

This also explains why Yisro’s arrival serves as the introduction to Mattan Torah. What creates the receptable for Mattan Torah is a person’s dedication to seeking the truth, and the willingness to be moser nefesh for that truth. Hashem gave us Toras emes, and the precondition to receiving that Torah is the quest for emes that Yisro personified. When he heard the truth, he came running, refusing to let the inspiration fade.

Similarly, the Gemara in Yoma teaches that a talmid chacham must be tocho k’baro, the same inside and out, like the aron, because you can’t absorb the Torah, which is emes, unless you yourself are emes inside and out. Therefore, Yaakov Avinu, whose middah was emes, was the ultimate yoshev ohalim. A person who is driven not by emes, but by other agendas, is not a receptacle to internalize Torah, and a person must therefore constantly ask himself, “Am I driven by emes? is that what characterizes my life, my actions, my aspirations?”

Giving Kedusha

Why does the parsha of Yisro precede that of Mattan Torah? Why was there a need for a great spectacle of sounds, lights etc. at Mattan Torah?  Why is there a need to remember the event of Mattan Torah according to the Ramban?  

The giving of the Torah was not a mere giving of national laws to a new nation.  It was a form of establishing kedusha in Klal Yisroel.  The purpose is וְאַתֶּ֧ם תִּהְיוּ־לִ֛י מַמְלֶ֥כֶת כֹּהֲנִ֖ים וְג֣וֹי קָד֑וֹשׁ.  The Or Hachayim already notes that the Torah records the story of Yisro before Mattan Torah to teach us that even though there may be very smart gentiles with innovative ideas such as Yisro, nonetheless they are not part of Klal Yisroel.  The nature of the great spectacle that was Mattan Torah was to establish the proper mood that is necessary for learning Torah in order for the kedushat haTorah to permeate through the individual.  As the Gemorah Berachot (22a) says מה להלן באימה וביראה וברתת ובזיע אף כאן באימה וביראה וברתת ובזיע.  Part of the studying of Torah is the necessity of the proper state of mind.  If the point was a pure study of information why is this a requirement?  Because it is not about a pure analysis of information but is rather a means of instilling proper kedusha in the individual.  That is why one must remember the event of Har Sinai to recall the meaning behind the study that one is doing. 

Seder Is A Prerequisite

 From Rav Moshe Tzvi Neriah.

Where Is It

The Daas Zekanim (14:2) asks how can Hashem tell Moshe לפני בעל צפון נכחו תחנו על הים if the Gemorah Sanhedrin (63b) says one can't give the place of somethnig by using an avodah zarah?  נכחו תחנו. תמה להרב רבי יהודה היאך אמר לו שיחנו על הים לפני בעל צפון והא אמרינן אסור לאדם לומר לחבירו המתן לי בצד ע"ז פלונית צ"ע. ולי נראה דדוקא לאדם אבל להקב"ה לא שהרי מצינו שהקב"ה יושב ודן את כל העולם אפילו בשבת ואפילו בר"ה ויום הכפורים אע"פ שלישראל אסור (וכה"ג כתב רש"י ז"ל בר"ה (דף ל' ע"א) ד"ה א"נ דאבני בליליא וכו' ה"מ בנין בני אדם וכו' יע"ש). ועוד נ"ל דעדיין לא נתנה התורה אין לחוש אע"פ שכבר הוא כתובה ומונחת לפני הקב"ה:  

The question is difficult as the Or Sameach Laws of Avodah Zarah points out the Gemorah itself says that an avodah zarah mentioned in the Torah one can mention the name of the avodah zarah?  If one looks carefully at the Gemorah the Gemorah says that heter is for mentioning the name of an avodah zarah but not regarding using an avodah zarah to indicate a place which the Daas Zekanim may have held is still forbidden.  

The first answr tat hashem doesn't have to keep the laws is also difficult as the Midrash Shemos (30:9) says Hashem only commands what He keeps?  See discussion about that in the torah forum. 

Sally Forth

דבר אל בני ישראל ויסעו.  Why did Klal Yisroel have to take a step of their own if the entire process of geulah was a sit back and watch process?  What is the message of the debate between the 4 groups in Klal Yisroel if to return to Egypt, to drown, to daven or to fight?  And what is the answer, a fifth option, to go forth?  The Yam Suf represents the G-dliness that is covered over in the world.  The water covering the path to freedom is concealed and hidden.  This represents the G-dliness that is covered over by the external experience of the world.  The debate that existed between the various sections in Klal Yisroel was how to deal with the battle that exists between the world and the Power behind it.  Some said one must drown themselves in the sea, in the sea of Torah and purity to stay above the world.  Others said that is not possible, lets admit defeat and go back to Egypt.  Some said its in the hands of G-d and lets daven and yet others said we must fight against the great cover up of the world.  Hashem said that when one is on a journey to Mattan Torah, nothing else must stand in the way, go forward.  With all the problems that exist externally and internally of a person, you must still sally forth on your own.  In order to get out of the quagmire of Egypt, it was necessary to be pulled out miraculously.  However, for the end of the geulah to happen, to finally be free of Egypt, it was necessary to take all of one's problems, failures and quandaries and just move forward.  This allows for one to see that all of the makeup of the eprosn is not a defect but can become part of illuminating the world (based upon Torat Menachem 5722.)   

Drowned In Nature

למען שתי אתתי אלה בקרבו.  What does it mean אלה as if the makkot were in front of him when they were not?  

Pharaoh said (Shemot 5:2) מִ֤י י״י֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶשְׁמַ֣ע בְּקֹל֔וֹ.  Pharaoh understood the G-d rooted in nature but that there could be a G-d that controls and manipulates nature he denied.  Pharaoh was hinting to this in his words, מי ה.  The name of אלקים has the same numerical value as הטבע.  It is the name of ה that represents the control of nature.  The puppet master, ה, is covered up in the guise of nature.  The name אלקים is made up of two words, אלה and מי.  The word מי means who, it is unknown, who done it?  The word אלה is these, it is open, revealed.  At first glance it looks like מי, nature functions by itself, but upon further examination there is אלה, there is someone behind it all.  Pharaoh said מי ה.  I recognize only מי but I don't see Hashem behind it.  That was the essence of מצרים, a contraction of the words מצר ים.  They placed a boundary around מי.  They were not able to see see beyond that. Hashem told Moshe that Pharaoh has to recognize the אלה that goes with the מי (see Meor Einayim.)  The power that controls the laws of nature that he is accustomed to have  Controller.  That is why the ultimate destruction of the Egyptians and salvation of the Jews occurs at קריעת ים סוף.  The Egyptians get stuck in the ים of מי, they can't see the paths that can opened up through the sea that is only available for those that recognize and acknowledge the One who runs nature.

Shining Through

 וְהָיָה֩ לְךָ֨ לְא֜וֹת עַל־יָדְךָ֗ וּלְזִכָּרוֹן֙ בֵּ֣ין עֵינֶ֔יךָ לְמַ֗עַן תִּהְיֶ֛ה תּוֹרַ֥ת י״י֖ בְּפִ֑יךָ כִּ֚י בְּיָ֣ד חֲזָקָ֔ה הוֹצִֽאֲךָ֥ י״י֖ מִמִּצְרָֽיִם.  What does tefillin have to do with Torah?  And what does that have anything to do with yitziat mitzraim?  And why say the Torah is in your mouth?  Tefillin gives one the ability that the נשמה should be able to have dominion over the body.  But more than just being able to control the animal instincts of a person, tefillin allows for the soul to express itself.  How does a person express themselves?  Via talking.  The person's ability for the soul to shine forth is present in speech which is the meeting point of רוחני  and גשמי.  That is why it is tefillin that allows for Torah, the ruchni to be able to come to fruition בפיך, in the Torah שבעל פה, in the interaction between a person's own physical being and Torah.  This idea was expressed in yitziat mitzraim where the ruchni took control over the gashmi world and transformed it.  This is what it means that in mitzriam the דעת or דיבור was in golut and it became redeemed.  As slaves, one has no self expression, there is no תורה בפיך, there was no unique Torah of the individual.  Yitziat mitzraim allowed for that to happen.  The tefillin allows the neshama of a person to shine through (Sfas Emes 5635 and other years.)   

Be Happy

From the sefer Derech Tzaddikim (its also in Siach Sarfey Kodesh ענינים שונים - שמחה.) 

Soul Emerging

Why do we have so many mitzvot to commemorate leaving Egypt?  Why is it such a central point of our avodah?  What does it have to do with Rosh Chodesh Shvat which fell out this week?   

Rav Tzaddok in Pri Tzaddik (Vaeschanan 5) explains וענין של זכרון יציאת מצרים שהוזהרו עלי' כמה פעמים הוא כדי שלא יפול האדם בעצמו אחרי שיחשוב וידע נגעי לבבו ושלא יתייאש ח"ו ע"ז בא זכירת יציאת מצרים שאף שהיו משוקעים שם בקליפה כ"כ כעובר בבטן אמו מ"מ הוציא ה' אותנו משם וכן יעזור השי"ת לכל מי שירצה לשוב באמת.  He continues to explain that is why Hashem says אנכי ה אלקיך and not אשר בראתי שמים וארץ.  Rav Tzaddok (Or Zarua L'tzaddik #1) views this not as a commandment (for this is no command,) but rather as a description of the natural emunah, the natural faith and connection one has to Hashem.  That is proven at yitziat mitzraim, not from the creation of the world.  One is always connected to Hashem, ה אלקיך even if one is found in the tumah of Egypt.  This supreme connection was established during yitziat mitzraim.  How?  Rav Tzaddok writes in Likktay Maamarim (#11, 16) that until yitziat mitzraim the kedusha of Kal Yisroel was because of their relationship to the Avos.  They were a nation apart but not every individual stood out as unique.  Those that left Egypt did so despite the fact that they were up to their necks in Egyptian culture, הללו עובד ע"ז והללו, לקחת לו גוי מקרב גוי means that spiritually the Jews were not much better off.  That is only possible because innately there is a connection to Hashem that was not severed.  That is the yesod of yitzias mitzraim.  This is the message of Shevat.  Despite the cold and bleak look, the trees start awakening and a new season of blossoms and fruits emerges.  The fruitfulness of the soul which is covered by snow and ice, cold and gloomy can always stir and emerge free from the bondages it finds itself in.

Pesach Of Conversion

Rashi Behalscha (9:14) says וכי יגור ועשה פסח – יכול כל המתגייר יעשה פסח מיד? תלמוד לומר: חקה אחת וגו׳. אלא כך משמעו: כי יגור גר ועשה פסח, ובא עת לעשות פסח עם חבריו,א כחקה וכמשפט יעשה.  Rashi in Bo (12:48) says ועשה פסח – יכול כל המתגייר יעשה פסח מיד, תלמוד לומר: והיה כאזרח הארץ – מה אזרח בארבעה עשר, אף גר בארבעה עשר.  Why is there a הוא אמינא that one who becomes a convert must offer a pesach immediately?  

To answer this question we will ask another question.  Rashi (12:6) says one of the mitzvot given to Klal Yisroel so they would have a merit to leave Egypt was the mitzvah of milah.  Why is there a need for a new commandment of milah if this commandment existed from the time of Avraham?  The milah wasn't given as the mitzvah of milah for Klal Yisroel, it was given as part of the process of a concert.  One of the processes one must go through to become a convert is milah.  That is how the Gemorah Kresus (9a) learns the obligation of milah in conversion (in one opinion) from here. In this vein we can understand that just as the milah was the milah of gerut, so too the korban pesach offering was not just for the pesach obligation but was also part of the gerut process of Klal Yisorel and I may very well think every convert will have to offer a pesach (Harrerey Kedem siman 57, see also Birchat Yitzchak (R' Gnack.))  What still needs to be explained is why Rashi have a derash to exclude from this הוא אמינא  twice and why do I need two derashot?