Showing posts with label Naso. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Naso. Show all posts

Thursday, June 1, 2023

Slowly Straying

Rashi says כי תשטה – תט מדרכי צניעות ותחשד בעיניו.  The Shem MiShmuel asks is this the only issue here, that she strayed from the path of tzinuit, she violated an issur by being miyached with another man?

Rashi says למה נסמכה פרשת נזיר לפרשת סוטה, שכל הרואה סוטה בקילקולה יזיר עצמו מן היין, שהוא מביא לידי ניאוף.  Although it is true that יין מביא לידי ניאוף, there are other things involved as well, why is the acceptance of nazir the appropriate response?    

Rashi says about the korban mincha of the sotah, קמח – שלא יהא מסולת.שעורים – ולא חטים, היא עשתה מעשה בהמה וקרבנה מאכל בהמה.לא יצק שמן – שלא יהא קרבנה מהודר, שהשמן קרוי אור והיא עשתה בחשך.ולא יתן עליו לבנה – שהאמהות נקראו לבנה, אל גבעת הלבונה (שיר השירים ד׳:ו׳), והיא פירשה מדרכיהן.  Rav Bloch asks if the point is to recognize that the sotah is disgraced, why make a few small, barely noticeable differences, put up a neon sign sotah here and that would make a greater difference?  

We say in krias shema וסרתם ועבדתם אלהים אחרים.  The word וסרתם indicates a slight deviation, slightly of the derech, how does that mean automatically avodah zarah?  The Baal Shem Tov says we see that a slight difference can snowball and lead one to stray totally to the other side.  Says the S.M., the sotah that sinned due to the רוח שטות didn't immediately fall off a cliff but rather she started with a mere slight deviation from the proper path of tzniut and this led her to be a sotah.  The woman is called a sotah ע"ש the catalyst for the issue, not what it led too.  Says the S.M. if it is that way in a negative sense, ק"ו in a positive sense.  Hence, the appropriate response is to take upon one's self a kabbalah.  Even though the kabbalah of nezirut, to abstain from a few things for a month is not such a tremendous action, but it is the fact that there is a resolution from the person to go in the right path that will lead one to greater and higher heights.  

In a similar vein in a physiological sense, explains Rav Bloch, it is not the big things that leave a lasting impression upon a person but rather the small things.  When big fanfare is made of a event, all of one's energy is expended in the event and it doesn't become absorbed into the psyche of a person.  It is when there are small little things that one hardly notices and doesn't get all involved in the matter that it the event can take time to take root and get properly absorbed into one's mind.  Hence, it is the small differences in the mincha of a sotah that leave a indelible impression, not a neon sign and great fanfare. 

Friday, June 10, 2022

Silent Song

The Midrash (6:10) says תָּנֵי (במדבר ז, ט): וְלִבְנֵי קְהָת לֹא נָתָן כִּי עֲבֹדַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ עֲלֵיהֶם בַּכָּתֵף יִשָֹּׂאוּ, מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּכָּתֵף, אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁיִּשָֹּׂאוּ, מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר יִשָֹּׂאוּ, אֵין יִשָֹּׂאוּ אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן שִׁירָה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: שְׂאוּ זִמְרָה וּתְנוּ תֹף וגו', וְאוֹמֵר: יִשְׂאוּ קוֹלָם יָרֹנּוּ.  How can the Midrash interpret the word ישאו to mean song if it says בכתף ישאו, what does singing have to do with the shoulder?  And why does the tense in the possuk switch from plural, עליהם to singular, בכתף ישאו and not בכתפיים?  The Emrei Emes says the intent of the Midrash is not to say the לוים actually open their mouths to sing song but rather that the act of carrying itself was a song.  When the Leviem appreciated how their avodah was an act of service to Hashem, their limbs sang songs.  It is when one knows Hashem is with him in his actions that one's actions become praise for Hashem.  When that is joined with one cohesive group acting as a single individual, בכתף, then it becomes a symphony of various instruments combing to give praise.  It is the silent, united song that forms the greatest composition. 

Friday, May 21, 2021

The Shibud Of Torah (שיעבודא דאורייתא)

 Harav Hagaon Shmuel Wolman Shlita

We find ourselves in the tashlumim days after Shavuos, as we reflect upon our aliyah from the Yom Tov and try to take it with us. It’s easy to be swept into the enthusiasm of Zman Mattan Toraseinu and, over the Yom Tov of Shavuos, renew our geshmak in Torah. But now we are tasked with finding ways to hold onto this enthusiasm. Most people are able to be יַעֲלֶה בְהַר ה', but the real test is: וּמִי יָקוּם בִּמְקוֹם קָדְשׁוֹ — who can actually maintain that aliyah and keep it going throughout the year?

The chassidishe sefarim teach that the main avodah of Shavuos is not during the Yom Tov itself, but rather after the Yom Tov, through שׁוּבוּ לָכֶם לְאָהֳלֵיכֶם, taking all the inspiration and commitments back home with us.

I would like to share a fundamental insight that can shed light on our entire approach to limud haTorah.

Parashas Nasso discusses the responsibility of the Levi’im to transport the Mishkan, and the Torah tells us that although most of the Mishkan was transported using wagons, the aron had to be carried on the shoulders of the children of Kehas, as the passuk says: בַּכָּתֵף יִשָּׂאוּ. The Gemara (Sotah 35a) tells us that Dovid Hamelech erred and transported the aron on a carriage, and the Gemara explains that this was a reaction to Dovid’s referring to Torah as zemiros, as he says, in Tehillim: זְמִרוֹת הָיוּ לִי חֻקֶּיךָ בְּבֵית מְגוּרָי. Dovid Hamelech was describing how, in his most vulnerable moments, when he was running away from his enemies, the Torah was like zemiros that provided comfort.

He was faulted for this, however, as the Gemara quotes the Eibishter as saying:

 דברי תורה שכתוב בהן התעיף עיניך בו ואיננו, אתה קורא אותן זמירות? הריני מכשילך בדבר שאפילו תינוקות של בית רבן יודעין אותו.

Clearly, there was something fundamentally wrong with Dovid referring to divrei Torah as zemiros, for as a result Hakadosh Baruch Hu made him err in the halachah of בַּכָּתֵף יִשָּׂאוּ, which even cheder boys know.

This Gemara is puzzling on several counts. First of all, what’s so bad about calling Torah zemiros? Isn’t it praiseworthy to highlight the Torah’s ability to bring comfort and solace to a person’s unsettled frame of mind? Furthermore, why did Hakadosh Baruch Hu respond by causing Dovid to forget the halachah of בַּכָּתֵף יִשָּׂאוּ? How is that middah kneged middah? And lastly, why does the Gemara emphasize that Dovid was made to forget something that even tinokos shel beis rabban know?

It is possible that Chazal are teaching us a very important lesson regarding our approach to limud haTorah. Often, when we observe great talmidei chachamim, we see their incredible ahavas haTorah, and how they view Torah as the most exciting occupation in the world. They could literally “lick” a Tosafos — that’s how intensely they enjoy the sweetness of Torah. Upon seeing this, we think to ourselves: That’s what it’s all about! It’s about cheshkas haTorah! And we understand that if we, too, would enjoy Torah so deeply and make it our most exciting pursuit, then automatically we will do nothing but learn all day and night. That, we assume, is the secret to our relationship with Torah: Just love it and everything else will follow.

The Ponovezher Rav famously pointed out that we find two very distinct references to Torah — one passuk says:  וְעַתָּה כִּתְבוּ לָכֶם אֶת הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת, and another passuk says: תּוֹרָה צִוָּה לָנוּ מֹשֶׁה. The first passuk very much stresses the shirah aspect of Torah — the sweetness, the longing. And that is a vital element in our relationship with Torah — we need to feel desire to learn, we need to open a blatt Gemara because we are thirsty and we can’t wait to enjoy a geshmakeh Tosafos. We need to get intoxicated from R' Chaim Brisker’s two dinim and taste the depth of a Sfas Emes.

But we cannot forget that there’s another dynamic in our relationship with the Torah that’s just as vital, and that is the other passuk: תּוֹרָה צִוָּה לָנוּ מֹשֶׁה. This refers to the mandate to learn Torah, the shibud to Torah, the requirement to learn that does not hinge on our geshmak in Torah. We need to learn even when we are not in the mood. Even when the sugya seems too hard, or we have a hard time relating to it, or we’re distracted by a different shirah, we need to continue to learn because of the obligation: תּוֹרָה צִוָּה לָנוּ מֹשֶׁה.

This idea can be confusing, for when we see gedolei Yisrael’s overarching ahavas haTorah, we can easily conclude that this is the secret of how they reached their madreigah in Torah. And the storybooks often stress that aspect, which typically comes along with spectacular stories. But truth be told, it’s only half the story. The other half is no less pivotal, and that is the steadfast commitment to learn every possible moment, with consistency and devotion that are independent of one’s ahavas haTorah.

The Ponovezher Rav teaches us that Torah is far more than a mitzvah — it is a relationship, and as such it follows the pattern of every relationship, in the sense that it requires passion and commitment.

There’s no question that Torah is geshmak and can have a tremendous impact on a person, lifting his spirits and invigorating his mood — and that is what Dovid Hamelech expressed when he said: זְמִרוֹת הָיוּ לִי חֻקֶּיךָ בְּבֵית מְגוּרָי. Dovid was describing this aspect of Torah that provided that pick-me-up feeling in his most trying and vulnerable moments. Evidently, however, Hakadosh Baruch Hu felt that Dovid Hamelech’s description intimated that Torah is nothing more than an alcoholic’s bottle, as though we learn Torah solely for the pleasure and comfort that it provides.

Although this is indeed an element of Torah, it is a grave error to limit Torah to that alone and forget the fundamental aspect of our shibud to the Torah. Torah is so much more than a geshmakeh pastime that provides intellectual stimulation; Torah requires tremendous commitment and total subordination, both in our willingness to devote every free moment to it and in our making every effort to understand its wisdom.

Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s rebuke to Dovid Hamelech was: Have you reduced Torah to a geshmakeh song? Torah is the pinnacle of chochmos, and a person needs to muster every ounce of mental effort to both understand the Torah and maintain the relentless consistency that limud haTorah requires.

Middah kneged middah, Hakadosh Baruch Hu made Dovid Hamelech err in this very aspect of Torah, by allowing the aron to be transported in a wagon as opposed to on people’s shoulders. The message was that the aron, which represents Torah, is not just a geshmakeh thing that we take along with us; it’s something that we need to carry on our shoulders. We need to undertake the responsibility of Torah and carry its weight on our shoulders.

We can now understand why Dovid was made to err in something that even tinokos shel beis rabban know. The point was not to shame Dovid by showing that he was missing something that was obvious even to little children, but rather to drive home the essence of what he was missing. After years of learning Torah, a person can become very attached to Torah, experiencing such excitement and geshmak in Torah that he can lose sight of the other, fundamental aspect of Torah. Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s message to Dovid Hamelech was: Yes, you have reached an unusual madreigah of geshmak in learning, and you relate to Torah as your favorite pursuit that keeps you afloat — but your shibud and achrayus to Torah is lacking. You’re missing the aspect that even a cheder yingel understands, for while the cheder yingel has not yet reached true ahavah and cheshkas haTorah, he does understand the shibud aspect of Torah: that he needs to go to school, that he needs to sit in class and learn until the bell rings even if he has no cheshek.

That was Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s message to Dovid: Yes, you love Torah, and it’s your song, it’s the lyrics that carry you through your life. But what about your chashivus for the shibud of Torah, which is symbolized by the aron needing to be carried as a perpetual load on your shoulders? This is a concept that even a child relates to, and that is why Dovid was made to err in this halachah specifically.

There’s a critical lesson here that can greatly alter our approach to limud haTorah. On some days, ahavas haTorah will motivate us to learn; in fact, our sheer longing for Torah might propel us to learn even when other responsibilities, such as parnassah or tzorchei tzibbur, might exempt us. But we can never rely on that motivation alone and reduce Torah to a geshmakeh activity that we engage in when we can enjoy it. Rather, like every other relationship, Torah needs to come with loyalty, faithfulness, and dedication even when we don’t specifically feel the geshmak, and even with it is competing with other distractions.

As we try to take our Shavuos hisorerus with us, we must remember that there are two distinct aspects to our limud haTorah, both of which are equally crucial to forging a healthy and complete relationship with the Torah, which will, in turn, create a real dveikus in the Torah’s Giver.

Merry Band

There is a vort from the Vishnitzer (Emrei Chayim) on the possuk צו את בני ישראל וישלחו מן המחנה כל צרוע וכל זב וכל טמא לנפש  that when there is a gathering, צוותא conducted properly with צהלה ורנה then all tumut of the soul are able to be washed away. 

The parsha starts נשא את ראש בני גרשון גם הם.  Why are they secondary and why is נשיאת ראש mentioned by Kehas and Garshon but not Merrari? In light of this vort we can explain.  The word Garshon means those that are divorced, driven out.  That's why they carry the outer parts of the mishkan, the יריעות.  They can also be elevated by joining in, גם הם to the Kehas, those that are gathered close to Hashem ,carrying the vessels of the Mikdash.  However, that is provided that they are willing to come and join in a joyous manner.  That that are bitter, Merari, they will not be able to be raised for they can't join in the simcha of the merry band.  

Thursday, May 20, 2021

Small Deeds Big Heart

 The Gemorah in Berachot (20a) says דרש רב עוירא זמנין אמר לה משמיה דר' אמי וזמנין אמר לה משמיה דר' אסי אמרו מלאכי השרת לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע כתוב בתורתך (דברים י, יז) אשר לא ישא פנים ולא יקח שחד והלא אתה נושא פנים לישראל דכתיב (במדבר ו, כו) ישא ה' פניו אליך אמר להם וכי לא אשא פנים לישראל שכתבתי להם בתורה (דברים ח, י) ואכלת ושבעת וברכת את ה' אלהיך והם מדקדקים [על] עצמם עד כזית ועד כביצה.  What does the fact that we say birchat hamazon on a minimal amount have to do with G-d giving us special favor?  And if its just because we go above and beyond the regular rules, pick any rabbinic enactment, why specifically this one?  And how is it an answer to the contradiction? 

Rav Simcha Bunim explains: 














The Sfas Emes (5631) gives a different interpretation to this vort from Rav Simcha Bunim.









The Arizal teaches כי על כל מוציא פי ה יחיה האדם that it is the nitzutz elokus in the food that gives a person satiation.  When we recognize that it is not the food that satiates us rather the G-dliness then one can say birchat hamazon on a morsel of food.  By focusing on the ruchni part of the food, we show that we are not focused on the small, insignificant, gashmi part of the food but we appreciate all that Hashem gives us.  In the same vein, Hashem looks at our small actions as being significant as well.  What is important is not measured by the only relative small amounts of deeds one may have amassed but instead on the fact that a person desires to come close to Hashem.  It is not that we are favored but are deeds are measured by the size of our heart.

Bichas Kohanim Of Auschwitz

I heard this story in a shiur I was listening to this week. I can only find it written up in Hebrew, so you will have to make through the Hebrew.

את הסיפור הביא אחד משליחי חב"ד בארה"ב שמכהן כרב בית כנסת גדול ופעיל.

בשעת תפילות שחרית, הוא שם לב שאחד המתפללים (ניצול שואה) עוזב את בית הכנסת כל פעם לפני 'ברכת כהנים'. הדבר עורר את תשומת ליבו והוא החליט לברר את העניין עם אותו מתפלל. עלה בדעתו להזמין את אותו מתפלל לסעודת החג בביתו. וכך הוא עשה.

בתחילת תפילה החג, הרב ניגש אליו והזמין אותו לסעודת החג שתיערך בביתו לאחר התפילה. אך גם הפעם,  להפתעתו, קצת לפני ברכת כהנים – היהודי הנ"ל מקפל את טליתו ויוצא מבית הכנסת. הרב הרגיש תחושת החמצה וחשב שהלה עזב את בית הכנסת והלך לביתו. עם סיום בתפילה כשהרב יצא מבית הכנסת,  הוא ראה לתדהמתו את אותו יהודי עומד וממתין בפינת הרחוב. באותו רגע הוא הבין שמשהו בטח מסתתר פה... הוא ניגש אליו וברכו בברכת חג שמח, ושניהם צעדו יחד לבית הרב. לאחר שהם סעדו את ליבם, והלבבות נפתחו, העיז הרב ושאל הרב את אורחו: "מדוע אתה מקפיד תמיד לצאת מבית הכנסת לפני ברכת כהנים?".

האורח החוויר. ניכר עליו שהוא נתון בסערת רגשות. עברו כמה דקות, וכשהוא מעט נרגע הוא החל בסיפורו: "אספר לך משהו שלא סיפרתי לאף אחד", סיפור מצמרר:"בזמן השואה, הייתי באושוויץ. חיינו 800 אנשים בצריף אחד. היינו ישנים 8 אנשים דחוסים על דרגש עץ משופע, בלי שירותים ומקלחת; קצבת האוכל היתה 300 גרם לחם יבש ליום, ולפעמים מרק מקליפות תפו"א. 

אחד האסירים בצריף היה יהודי מיוחד שהחזיק נפשית את כולנו. כולם קראו לו "הרב של המחנה". הוא אהב את כולנו ועודד אותנו. כמעט בכל יום הוא היה יושב ומקשיב לצרותם של האסירים וחיבק אותם מכל הלב.

ערב אחד, הרב נכנס לצריף ואמר: "בעוד שבועיים חג הפסח, אנחנו חייבים לחגוג את ליל הסדר. צריך להשיג מצה שמורה. שכול אחד יפתח את העיניים ואת הלב, ויחפש דרך להשיג מצה כשרה לקיים בה את המצווה".

ניגש אליו אחד האסירים, שהיה משרת בניקיון וסדר בדירתו של נאצי, מפקד המחנה, והציע את עזרתו. הוא סיפר שבשעות הצהריים המפקד עולה לישון, ומאותה עת הוא יכול להשתמש בתנור שבמטבח בכדי לאפות מצות. הרב התרגש מאוד, ובקצרה הסביר ליהודי כיצד להכשיר את התנור ולאפות את המצות. המשרת פחד פחד-מוות מהרעיון המסוכן, אבל בסוף הסכים. בתוך כמה ימים הוא חזר בלילה לצריף כשהוא מחביא אצלו שתי מצות כשרות!

ערב פסח. אחרי מסדר ערב התיישבנו כולנו על הרצפה והתחלנו בעריכת הסדר. הרב קרא את ההגדה בעל פה, ואנחנו הצטרפנו אליו. לאחר מכן הרב חילק חתיכת קטנה של מצה לכול אחד מ-800 האסירים. בין כולנו היתה התעוררת בלתי נתפסת. "מרור" היה בשפע כל השנה... "ארבע כוסות" של יין לא היו, אבל דמעות שתינו לרוב. אולם באותו הלילה זכינו לאכול מצה שמורה, כאן באושוויץ.

לפתע דלת הצריף נפרצה והנאצים יימח שמם נכנסו פנימה, כשהם רואים 800 יהודים יושבים על הרצפה ביחד. תוך רגע כולנו קפצנו ונעמדנו לצד הדרגש. הנאצי הראשי הוציא אקדח, תפס את היהודי הראשון שלידו, הצמיד לו את האקדח לראש, וצעק: "מי ארגן את כל הכינוס הזה? אם לא תגיד מיד – אני הורג אותך!"...אותו יהודי סירב להסגיר את "הרב", והנאצי המשיך לצעוק – "אני אהרוג את כולם, אחד-אחד, עד שאדע מי אחראי לזה!"..."הרב" נעמד באמצע השביל שבין הדרגשים, מול הנאצי, הוא קרע את חולצתו, חשף את ליבו, ופנה לנאצי: "הנה, זה הלב שלי, אני ארגנתי את הכול. אני אשם, הרוג אותי."

הנאצי פסע לעברו כשהוא מכוון את אקדחו אל ליבו של הרב, ובשנייה לפני שהוא סוחט את ההדק, הוא נעצר ומתחיל לחייך חיוך שטני. אנחנו כבר ידענו שמשהו אכזרי יותר עומד לקרות. הנאצי פתח ואמר: "אני לא אהרוג אותך ככה סתם. מחר נאסוף את כל המחנה, נעמיד במה גדולה, ואני אספר לכולם מה עשית, ורק אז אהרוג אותך"...

למחרת כך היה. אספו את כולם, הנאצי סיפר על "החטא" של הרב, והצמיד את אקדחו למצחו. בשניות האחרונות לחייו, הרים הרב את היד וביקש "זכות אחרונה", בקשה אחת לפני הוצאתו להורג.

"בקשה? מה אתה רוצה?" שואל הנאצי בלעג ארסי. "לחם? מרק? בשר?"

"לא", עונה היהודי. "אינני רוצה לא מים ולא בשר ולא לחם או מרק. אני רוצה לתת משהו לאלפי האחים שלי כאן. אני אוהב אותם, אני כהן ואני רוצה לתת להם ברכת כהנים"...

הרב הרים את שתי הידיים, מעמיד אותן בצורה המפורסמת, ומתחיל לברך ברכת כהנים: "יברכך ה'... וישמרך.." את השקט ששרר בין האסירים אפשר היה לחתוך בסכין. היה זה מחזה נורא ומחריד. אלפי יהודים עומדים מורכנים, מורידים את העיניים לארץ, וים של דמעות נשפך... זה היה בכי בלי קול. האדמה הספוגה בדם היתה עכשיו רטובה מדמעות מלוחות רותחות.

"אחרי השחרור מאושוויץ נסעתי לאמריקה", סיים היהודי את הסיפור המצמרר. "עזבתי את היהדות לגמרי, חיפשתי לברוח מהכל. רציתי להתבולל, להתחתן עם מישהי לא יהודייה. אבל המחזה של אותה ברכת כהנים עמד מול עיניי, ופשוט לא יכולתי לעשות את זה... התחתנתי עם אישה יהודייה ונולדו לנו ילדים. רציתי לשלוח אותם ללמוד בבית ספר לא יהודי, אבל הדמות של היהודי, הרב הכהן מאושוויץ עמדה מול עיניי, ופשוט לא יכולתי לעשות את זה... שלחתי אותם לבית ספר יהודי".

"אתה מבין למה בברכת כהנים אני יוצא החוצה?" שאל היהודי את שליח חב"ד. "אני לא רוצה לאבד את הזיכרון של אותה ברכת כהנים של אושוויץ". אני רוצה לא לשכוח אותה, שתישאר חרוטה בליבי לעולמי עד... אני לא רוצה להחליף אותו בשום ברכת כהנים אחרת".

Thursday, June 4, 2020

Bring It

In the previous post we discussed the Meshech Chachma's approach to understanding יביא אותו.  The Seforno takes the same basic approach of יביא עצמו.  He explains that normally for a change to be affected in a person they need someone else to bring them to what will effect the change.  The nazir on the other hand, is different, for he has reached such heights that here is no need, indeed no one capable of raising him.  However, there are other interpretations from the Rishonim in the verse.
The Even Ezra (and Rashbam) explains differently.  He says או: יביא הכהן אותו – בציווי בעל כרחו, להקריב את קרבנו.  The possuk means that the kohan should force him to bring his korbanot.  This would seem to based off the Gemorah in Arachin (21a.)
The Mishna in Arachin (21a) says that we force a person to bring a korban olah but not a korban chatas.  The difference is that we assume a person will come around to bring their chatas in order to obtain atonement.  The Gemorah says that the to offer the chatas of a nazir, which a person may be lax in offering for it doesn't withhold the completion of the nezurit, we will also be forced the person to bring it.
The Ramban in Bava Metzia (3b) brings a proof from the law of אין ממשכנין that the obligation of the chatas is dependent on the person's own knowledge of what s/he did and hence one will even be believed against witnesses to determine if they are obligated in a chatas.  What is his proof,  the reason we don't force the person if practical because the person will end up bringing the korban to obtain kapparah, not because of a lomdus?  And the practical reason is accepted by the Ramban himself in Bava Basra (48,) Milchamos Bava Kama (36b, 18 in daffay haRif,) and seems to be supported from the Gemorah in Bava Kama (40a)?
In every obligation to bring a korban, there is both a mitvah obligation that one is commanded to offer the korban and a monetary obligation to pay the korban to hekdesh (see Kiddushin 13a.)  Both of these obligations are reason enough to force someone to offer their korban.  The Briskor Rav in Arachin shows that indeed it is a machlokes Rishonim as to what din is the cause to force one to bring the olah; to do their mitzvah (see for example Ketubot 86,) or because of the שיעבוד ממוני that exists upon the individual to pay their korban.  Based upon this we can possibly understand the Ramban,  The practical reason is why we don't force the person to bring the korban of the monetary obligation; they will end up doing it.  However, the mitzvah obligation should still require him/her to be forced to bring the korban; it is from there that the Ramban sees that a chatas is dependent on the person wanting to bring the korban.
The opinion of Tosfos in Rosh Hashana (6a) is that after 3 regalim even by a regular chatas we force the person to bring his korban because of the violation of בל תאחר.  Asks the Keren Orah in Nazir, if so, when it comes to the chatas of the nazir of course we should force him to bring it because there is בל תאחר immediately (see Tosfos Nazir (4a))?   
Rav Solevetchik (Igrot HaGrid pg. 197) explains that what בל תאחר tells us is that that after 3 regalim is payday, its time that you must pay your korban.  Tosfos holds when it comes payday, you must be forced to pay your dues.  That is for the בל תאחר of korbanot.  The בל תאחר one violates in Nazir immediately is because the korbanot are a completion of the nezirut, as part of the acceptance of nezurit is to to bring the korbanot of the nezurit as well.  However, this is because of the mitzvah, not because of a monetary obligation and that would not be reason to force the offering to be brought.  Hence, there is a chiddush of the Gemorah in Arachin to force a person to korbanot.
The Ramban in Milchamos Bava Kama (ibid) also suggests that after 3 regalim the individual will be forced to offer their korban chatas.  However, the Ramban compares it to the din of forcing to fulfill a mitzvah, nor because of paying a debt, so the question is back, the בל תאחר of nezirut should be the same mitzvah?
[However, Tosfos in Rosh Hashana  ד"ה יקריב also understands the law of enforcing the bringing of the korban is because of the mitzvah and doesn't hold there is a special din of enforcing here, עיי"ש וצ"ע.]

Wednesday, June 3, 2020

Bring Yourself

 וְזֹ֥את תּוֹרַ֖ת הַנָּזִ֑יר בְּי֗וֹם מְלֹאת֙ יְמֵ֣י נִזְר֔וֹ יָבִ֣יא אֹת֔וֹ אֶל־פֶּ֖תַח אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד׃

What does it mean יביא אותו?  Rashi says he should bring himself; what does that mean?
The Meshech Chachma points out the Torah never clearly mentions the length of nezirut because there is no set prescription.  The point of accepting nezirut is to curb a person's תאוות and the length of time required must be judged on a case by case study.  What is the measuring stick that a person can use to know if its time for nezirut to be up?  The answer lies in this possuk.  If the person reaches the level that he is able to view a question his conduct the same way he would view the question if asked by someone else.  If he has completely eradicated any personal bias, "כשהוא מסתכל על עניני עצמו, כמביט על מפעלות אחרים ולבבו אינו חשוד באהבת עצמו", then it is time for his nezirut to end.  For nezirut isn't the endgame, it is a means to an end.  "כי זה אינו מכוונת הבורא, שלא יהנו מהעולם, רק זה בגדר רפואה."  That is the intent of  יביא אותו, he vies it as if dragging his body to come to the kohan is like dragging someone else there. That is the purpose of the nezirut, for one's soul to be able to determine the conduct of his body.  That is what the Even Ezra (6:7) describes why nezirut is called a נזר אלקיו על ראשו, for the nazir rules over his body and controls its desires.
As the M.C. mentioned, the abstention of the nazir is merely the first step to obtain full control over one's desires.  A few pessukin later, verse 20, the Torah says אחר ישתה הנזיר יין.  Obviously the nezurit is up and he may drink, what are these additional words teaching us?  The Alsich explains that the point of the nezurit is to learn how to drink in the proper place, time and with the proper measurement.  Once that lesson is imbued, then drink!  The Anvei Nezer points out further that he is still called a נזיר.  Why, the nezirut is over?  Because at this point he may reamin a nazir even as he drinks!  His drinking is no longer a contradiction to his nezirut, to his control of his desires, he has broken the colt inside of him.
To take this a step further we may suggest that יביא עצמו doesn't mean to drag the body along, but that the body will naturally follow the will of the soul.  The midrash at the beginning of Bechukosay says אָמַר דָּוִד רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם בְּכָל יוֹם וָיוֹם הָיִיתִי מְחַשֵׁב וְאוֹמֵר לְמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וּלְבֵית דִּירָה פְּלוֹנִית אֲנִי הוֹלֵךְ, וְהָיוּ רַגְלַי מְבִיאוֹת אוֹתִי לְבָתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת וּלְבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: וָאָשִׁיבָה רַגְלַי אֶל עֵדֹתֶיךָ.  If a person is saturated with Torah, their limbs are completely in line with the desire of the Torah and automatically follow suit.  The Alter Rebbe asks why does it say by the korbanot of Shavuot מסת ידך (Reah 16:10,) and not מסת לבך, like the normal expression?  He says because the power of the Torah will allow for one's hand to automatically bring the korbanot.  Through Torah one doesn't just rule over their desires but may attain a level where one's desires be in tune with the desire of the Torah (based on Rav Avrohom Schorr.) 

Thursday, September 5, 2019

Take It Upon Yourself

Rashi (20:3) שמע ישראל – אפילו אין בכם זכות אלא של קריית שמע בלבד, כדיי אתם שיושיע אתכם.  Why is it specifically the merit of krias shema that guarantees success in war?

This blog mentioned before the Even Ezra that to be a nazir is considered a פלא; for a person to control their animalistic desires is considered a פלא.  Rav Leeb Chasman asks why is it considered such a big deal to abstain from some wine and haircuts for thirty days?  It doesn't seem that these are tremendously earth shattering, otherworldly guidelines to adhere to?  He explains its not the content of the nezirus that's the פלא, its the acceptance.  For a person to be willing to accept upon himself even a small measure of abstention runs against the very nature of an individual and it is indeed a פלא to willingly accept such limitations upon one's self.

The Shem M'Shmuel says that's the great merit of shema as well.  It isn't just a mitzvah like any other but it involves a acceptance of malchus shamayim.  It is the acceptance of Hashem's will, even if it hasn't fully been realized in actuality that is the grates merit for success in war.

This is why the baalei mussar put an emphasis on some form of a kabbalah (or hachlatah depending on your lingo,) of special behavior for a person to accept upon themselves  during these times of year.  It's not the point for the actual content of the kabbalah itself, quite the contrary, very small kabbalos are encouraged.  It's is the middah of curtailing a person's free reign in some matter, the need to acknowledge a Higher Presence that is expressing by means of the kabbalah.    

Thursday, June 13, 2019

How To Bless

Why is there a mitzvah for kohanim to bless Yisroel, God can give us the beracha directly?  Why must the beracha be given b’ahavah, why is this condition so critical that it becomes part of the text of the beracha said before the pessukim of birchas kohanim?

Possibly, it is the very fact that another person, the kohanim are able to look at someone else favorably that causes that Hashem will also look favorably upon the recipient.  It is because the kohan expresses such love for another individual that it arouses such love in heaven for the individual as well.

The Gemorah in Chagigah (16b) says that Hashem didn’t learn the Torah of Rebbe Meyer since he learnt from Acher.  After Rabbah bar Shela explained that he merely studied the Torah of acher, not his actions, then Hashem said the Torah of Rebbe Meyer.  Did Hashem not know this beforehand?  It’s the same idea, because Rabbah bar Shela looked favorably upon the actions of Rebbe Meyer it caused that Hashem looked upon them favorably as well (see Tzidkus Hatzaddik of Rav Tzaddok #21.)

Water: בירור or מתיר

The sotah drinks the water and is acquitted.  There are two ways to understand this process.  It may function as a בירור that she is innocent and hence she is permitted to her husband or it may be an automatic מתיר.  What is the difference between these two understandings?  If there is room to suspect that even after surviving the water, she is really guilty.  The Mishna in Sotah 22b brings opinions that if there are possibilities of some good deeds allowing the woman to survive even for up to many years after drinking the water. If the drinking of the water merely serves to determine the status of the woman, but doesn’t create an automatic heter why shouldn’t we suspect that she is really guilty, but there is a זכות  that allowed her to remain alive? Tosfos (6b bottom) brings from the Yerushalmi that has a derash that we don’t have to assume that she is still alive because of some זכות.   

The Rambam Laws of Sotah (3:20) brings the law that if the woman has a zechut she gets weak and eventually dies.  This is the opinion of Rebbe in the Mishna (ibid.)  In Law 21 he says that if she survives the water she is permitted, indicating even when she becomes weak when we know she is tameh.  It is clear the Rambam understands the waters serve as a matir to permit the woman even if we know she is tameh.  On the other hand, Tosfos (ibid) says that if we know that she is tameh because she is growing weaker, then she is prohibited.  Clearly, he holds it functions as a birur.

New Tenufah

Last week we discussed the obligation of תנופה in regard to the shtei halechem if the obligation to wave the parts of the shelamim is a new obligation or part of the regular obligation of a shelamim.  The same chakirah can be made in regard to the shelamim of the nazir.  What is the nature of the obligation to do תנופה on the parts of the shelamim; is it a new obligation or the same obligation as that of a shelamim?

The simple understanding should be that it is a new obligation for the תנופה is part of the טהרה process of the nazir and according to ר"א it is even necessary to allow the nazir to drink wine.  This would seem to be supported by the Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvot #111 that explains that the shaving and korbanot of the nazir are counted as one mitzvah as opposed to that of a metzorah is two mitzvot, because they are two aspects of one purification process. However, the Sifri asks why does the Torah have to tell us the obligation regarding the חזה ושוק if it’s an obligation by every shelamim?  The Sifri learns out from here the principle of דבר שיצא מן הכלל בדבר חדש אי אתה יכול להחיזרו לכלל עד שיחזירנו הכתוב בפירוש.  From the question of the Sifri it is clear that it views the תנופה obligation equal to that of a regular shelamim.  From here the Briskor Rav derives that it is only the additional תנופה said regarding the korbanot of a nazir; the חלה רקיק וזרוע that is part of the טהרה process, but the תנופת חזה ושוק stems from the obligation of a shelamim.

The Mishna in Kiddushin 36b says that a woman is obligated in תנופה regarding the minchas soteh and korbanot nezireh.  The Rogatchover (השמטות תרומות pg. 104) proposes that it she is obligated only on the additional תנופה of the korbanot nezireh but not in the obligation of the תנופה that applies by a shelamim.  He brings support to this from the language of the Rambam that mentions the תנופה of women only regarding the specific תנופות unique to a nazir.  This line of reasoning matches that of the Briskor Rav.

Wednesday, June 12, 2019

The True Crown

The Even Ezra says the word יפליא (6:2) used to describe the acceptance of neziros means פלא.  He explains it is wonderous for a person to be able to control their תואות.  He follows this approach in explaining (6:7) כי נזר אלקיו על ראשו.  He says ואיננו רחוק. ודע כי כל בני אדם עבדי תואות העולם, והמלך באמת שיש לו נזר ועטרת מלכות בראשו, כל מי שהוא חפשי מן התאות.  It is clear from the Even Ezra how strong one’s yetzer is and it requires tremendous effort to be constrained.  Rav Leeb Chasmon asks what is the big deal not to get a haircut or abstain from wine or tumah for 30 days?  It’s just a short time and doesn’t require a great power of abstinent?  He explains that what’s difficult is the kabbalah, the willingness to accept restrictions upon one’s self is the great difficulty.  This is the idea of kabbalos haTorah (we are still within the seven days where one can make up the karbonos of the chag,) to accept the yoke of  Torah.

The Fruit Offering

Last week we discussed the Mishna in Menachos that the shtei halechem should be offered before any other offering or Bikkurim from the new grain.  Why must the shtei halechem precede the Bikkurim; they aren’t offered on the mizbaoch?  There are two ways to understand this din.  Either it is telling us that even though the Bikkurim aren’t a korban the shtei halechem must precede anything that comes into the mikdash.  Or the drasha is telling us that Bikkurim are viewed as a korban.  This view can be supported from the Ramban in this week’s parsha (5:9) that the word והקריבו applies to Bikkurim which are brought toward the mizbaoch.