Parshat tazria answers

Tazria-Metzora 5718
Alef.

RaShBaM who normally emphasizes the Peshat of the verses of the Tora, concedes that when it comes to the issues involved in Tzora’at, neither the Peshat nor knowing the “way of the world” is helpful.  Apparently these matters are so supernatural, that without the frame of reference of the Oral Tradition, there is not much that one can say on his own. The only recourse is to rely on the interpretations that are recorded in Rabbinical literature. (This is not altogether surprising considering RaShBaM’s status as one of the most well-known Ba’alei Tosafot.)

With respect to most of the contents of Mishpatim, laws that stand at the opposite end of the spectrum when compared to laws dealing with ritual purity and impurity, i.e., as much as issues like Tzora’at represent the area of Chukim whose rhyme and reason are at best obscure, Mishpatim are the logical and readily understandable rules that comprise a social contract which every civilization must develop in order to maintain civility among its citizenry, once again RaShBaM does not think that an analysis of Peshat will be terribly helpful. The practical Halachot emerge from Derashot of particular words, as well as the Masoret (tradition) of the Oral Tradition, e.g., Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai. However, in the case of Mishpatim, in addition to directing the student to focus upon the commentaries of ChaZaL, he also adds that general ways of the world/society might be helpful to understand the various aspects of the civil law code. Since the laws governing interpersonal relationships within society are man-made and at least in theory are logical, comparisons between law codes including that of the Tora, could be revealing and informative.  (An interesting comparison to make is between Mishpatim and Hammurabi’s Code. Not only can parallels be detected, but also significant differences.)

Beit.

1. Here are the sources that Arachin 16a cites to support its contention:

i. Lashon HaRa (evil speech):

         Tehillim 101:5

Whoso slandereth his neighbour in secret, him will I destroy;¹ whoso is haughty of eye and proud of heart, him will I not suffer.

    ii. Shefichut Damim (spilling blood):

         II Shmuel 3:29

Let it fall upon the head of Joab, and upon all his father's house; and let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff, or that falleth by the sword, or that lacketh bread.

    iii. Shevuat Shav (needless oath):

         II Melachim 5:23, 27

         And Naaman said: 'Be content, take two talents.'…

And he urged him, and bound two talents of silver in two bags, with two changes of raiment, and laid them upon two of his servants; and they bore them before him. The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever.' And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow. 

    iv. Gilui Arayot (sexual immorality):

         Beraishit 12:17

   And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.

    v. Gasut HaRuach (arrogance):

         II Divrei HaYamim 26:16, 19

   But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up so that he did corruptly, and he trespassed against the LORD his God; for he went into the temple of the LORD to burn incense upon the altar of incense…

Then Uzziah was wroth; and he had a censer in his hand to burn incense; and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy broke forth in his forehead before the priests in the house of the LORD, beside the altar of incense.   

     vi. Tzarot HaAyin (envy):

         VaYikra 14:35

   Then he that owneth the house shall come and tell the priest, saying: “There seemeth to me to be as it were a plague in the house.”—The school of R. Yishmael taught: he who would (selfishly) reserve the house for himself. 

    vii. Gezel (thievery):

         VaYikra 14:36

   And the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest go in to see the plague, that all that is in the house be not made unclean; and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house.—in connection with a Tanna taught: Because he had gathered money that was not his own, the priest comes and scatters it.

(Klee Yakar references the following Midrash that lists ten causes for Tzora’at:

ויקרא רבה (וילנא) פרשת מצורע פרשה יז

ג על עשרה דברים נגעים באים על 1) ע"ז ועל 2) גילוי עריות ועל 3) שפיכות דמים ועל 4) חילול השם ועל 5) ברכת השם ועל 6) הגוזל את הרבים ועל 7) גוזל את שאינו שלו ועל 8) גסי הרוח ועל 9) לשון הרע ועל 10) עין רע, על ע"ז מישראל שהעידו עדות שקר בהקב"ה ואמרו לעגל (שמות לב) אלה אלהיך ישראל ומנין שלקו בצרעת שנא' (שם /שמות ל"ב/) וירא משה את העם כי פרוע הוא שפרחה בהן צרעת, ועל גילוי עריות מבנות ציון שנאמר (ישעיה ג) יען כי גבהו בנות ציון ומנין שלקו בצרעת שנאמר (שם /ישעיהו ג'/) ושפח ה' קדקד בנות ציון, ועל שפיכות דמים מיואב שנאמר (שמואל ב ג) יחולו על ראש יואב, ועל חילול השם מגיחזי (מ"ב =מלכים ב'= ה) ויאמר גחזי נער איש האלקים מהו מאומה מן מומא דאית ביה ומנין שלקה בצרעת שנאמר (שם /מלכים ב' ה'/) וצרעת נעמן תדבק בך, ועל ברכת השם מגלית שנאמר (שמואל א יז) ויקלל הפלשתי את דוד באלקיו ומנין שלקה בצרעת שנאמר (שם /שמואל א' י"ז/) היום הזה יסגרך ה' בידי ואין הסגרה האמור כאן אלא לשון צרעת שנאמר והסגירו הכהן, ועל גוזל את הרבים משבנא שהיה נהנה מן ההקדשות ומנין שלקה בצרעת שנאמר (ישעיה כב) הנה ה' מטלטלך טלטלה גבר ועוטך עטה ואין ועוטך עטה אלא צרעת שנאמר (ויקרא יג) ועל שפם יעטה, ועל הגוזל את שאינו שלו מעוזיהו דכתיב (ד"ה =דברי הימים= ב כו) ויהי המלך עוזיהו מצורע עד יום מותו, ועל גסות הרוח דכתיב (שם /דברי הימים ב' כ"ו/) וכחזקתו גבה לבו עד להשחית וימעל בה' אלקיו, ועל לשון הרע ממרים דכתיב (במדבר יב) ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה ומנין שלקתה בצרעת שנאמר (שם /במדבר י"ב/) והענן סר מעל האהל, ועל עין הרע שנאמר (ויקרא יד) ובא אשר לו הבית מי שייחד ביתו לו ואינו רוצה ליהנות לאחרים, כי הא דאמר ר"א שקערורות שקיע ביתו באלין לווטייא לפיכך משה מזהיר את ישראל כי תבאו אל ארץ כנען.

2. i. Lashon HaRa:

        RaShI on 14:4 d.h. Tehorot

        This is to the exclusion of a non-Kosher bird. Since the afflictions come due to evil speech, which is an act of excessive babbling, therefore birds are necessary for his purification, because they are babbling constantly by chirping.:

     v. Gasut HaRuach:

      Ibid. d.h. VeEitz Erez

  (The reason why cedar is included in the mixture with which the purified Metzora is sprinkled is) because the cause for the affliction might have been haughtiness (the cedar tree is extremely tall.)

     (vi. Tzarot HaAyin—the Talmud derives this source from our Parasha.)

3.  It would appear that since it is clear that these afflictions are supernatural—e.g., a) how can the same affliction that affects people also affect houses, clothing and furniture; b) in light of the Kohen only diagnosing the malady during the day, and never during Sheva Berachot or Yom Tov, this is an indication that it was not an affliction that was contagious; c) the obvious cause-and-effect in the cases of Miriam, Na’aman and Uzia suggests that there is a direct relationship between Tzora’at and iniquities, which is not necessarily the case with regard to other infirmities; d) Tzora’at is no longer considered to take place during the period of Hester Panim—it is for this reason that the Rabbis strove to associate the affliction with not only LaShon HaRa, but other transgressions as well.

Gimel.

1.  Sephorno: Tzora’at that is discussed in the Tora is a condition that specifically comes about as a result of some sort of sin, and offers the afflicted the opportunity to atone and repent. This is in contrast to other diseases that are a function of either illness that arises from some sort of imperfection in the human organism or the result of the person not taking care of himself properly. Consequently, in Tzora’at, the quarantine is intended to allow the person to consider how to atone rather than a means to assure the health of others.

     Klee Yakar: The commentator does not rule out that Tzora’at could be a natural disease as well, when he quotes “Yeish Omrim” who make such a claim. Furthermore, with regard to those who understand Tzora’at as a spiritual matter, rather than emphasizing the atonement aspect, he stresses the fact that this is a means by which to publicly expose an individual who has sinned in such a way that he has avoided public scrutiny.

     Buber: The philosopher does not specifically associate sin with Tzora’at, but rather dwells upon the state of Tuma (ritual impurity) that it generates. He states that Tuma in general is an indication that there has been a disruption in the connection between a person and God. That leaves the door open to attribute such a disruption to all sorts of causes, beyond only sinful behavior on the part of the afflicted.

2.  R. S.R. Hirsch on VaYikra 13:2 (Judaica Press, p. 331):

 …The person affected is נגוע, literally “touched” by the Finger of God. It is a weaker form of נגף from which we get מגפה, the sudden stroke of death. The word “disease” by which it is usually translated…by no means expresses the idea of נגע. “Plague” also is scarcely any better; it refers only to the person who is affected and makes no reference, as נגע does, to the idea of its origin. So the Gemora in Horiyot 10a refers to the explicit (VaYikra 14:34) “ונתתי נגע צרעת בבית וכו'” and concludes from it that for נגעי אדם too, all such נגעים are excluded from טומאה which can be referred back to other pathological causes and need not be taken as directly sent by God…

“צרעת”: צרע (related to זרע, זרה, to throw out, and to סרח, to rot), points to a foulness that breaks out from within, whereas נגע indicates its origins from without, and indeed, as already remarked, as the direct Touch of God. Accordingly, when the Tora combines the two words in the expression נגע צרעת, it may want to teach us that not every צרעת is מטמא, but only such that proclaims itself as  a נגע, as sent directly by God; and again only such a נגע that shows itself as a צרעת, as an inner foulness that breaks out from within onto the skin. According to תורת כהנים, in the idea נגע there is also the conception of something objectionable and painful, מלמד שמצטער ממנו, and moreover here to such a degree that אחרים מצטערים ממנו, that its proximity disturbs other people too, as the ראב"ד thereon, says מריחה that its odor is objectionable. Possibly this may be indicated too in the following: והובא (he is brought), others find reason to bring him to the כהן.

3. According to Klee Yakar on VaYikra 13:2—

It seems to me to explain the word “Metzora” as a compound word made up of “Motzee”  (brings forth) “Ra” (evil), that it reveals and brings forth to the outside all of his evil that is within him, the inner rot.

4. According to Klee Yakar on VaYikra 13:2--

And this is the way that one can account for the double language in the verse that states “A person who has on the skin of his flesh a rising…and it was on the skin of his flesh for a Nega Tzora’at “. Why does it have to say twice “skin of his flesh”? To say to you that this is  the rising and the breaking. If this would have occurred to a person who is pure of thought, it would not have been damaging because it could have been cured easily. But because this is on the skin of his flesh, i.e., the sinner, therefore it becomes a Nega Tzora’at .

  5. In II Melachim 5, we learn of the Syrian general Na’aman who is cured by the prophet Elisha of his Tzora’at. In verses 15-19 we see the extent of the Kiddush HaShem that took place once he is cured of his malady and directly attributes that cure to the God of Israel.

Daled.

1. Ba’al Shem Olam states that when I have something described by two or more words, when clarification for each of the words is given, the last mentioned is the first clarified, and only afterwards is there a return to the previous terms. Consequently, at the beginning of VaYikra 13, it states:

ויקרא פרק יג

(ב) אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו שאת או ספחת או בהרת והיה בעור בשרו לנגע צרעת והובא אל אהרן הכהן או אל אחד מבניו הכהנים:

(ג) וראה הכהן את הנגע בעור הבשר ושער בנגע הפך לבן ומראה הנגע עמק מעור בשרו נגע צרעת הוא וראהו הכהן וטמא אתו:

(ד) ואם בהרת לבנה הוא בעור בשרו ועמק אין מראה מן העור ושערה לא הפך לבן והסגיר הכהן את הנגע שבעת ימים:

While Baheret is clarified explicitly in v. 4,  and in v. 3 only the term Nega or Nega Tzora’at appears, nevertheless since v. 3 is providing distinctions in types of Tzora’at, it should be assumed that not only v. 4, but even v. 3 is discussing forms of specifically Baheret.  

2.  a) Shemot 6. The geneology of Moshe is given. We start with the descendants of Reuven and Shimon before getting to Levi. But once we get to Levi, we go into great detail about Levi.

   b) According to RaMBaN, Parashat Mishpatim is a commentary and expansion upon the last of the Ten Commandments listed at the end of Parashat Yitro, i.e., Lo Tachmod (you shall not covet.)

Heh.

1. א. Does “Hafach Lavan” mean the opposite of white, or reversing into white?

It might be possible to think that the hair that started out white, has turned into the opposite of white, i.e., black. All that is connoted is that some sort of inversion from the norm has occurred, indicating the presence of a particular malady.

ב. Ibn Ezra perhaps thought that the literal interpretation of the verse would be that the hair caused the area to turn white, as opposed to itself turning white.

2. Karnei Ohr (commentary on Ibn Ezra) on 13:2 where the word Huva also appears, suggests that one could have thought that perhaps the case rather than the person would be brought to the Kohen, comes the Ibn Ezra to insist that the person himself must be inspected by the Kohen.

3. א. It is possible to think that the process of purification involves some sort of physical treatment of the affected area. Ibn Ezra therefore states that all that is required for purification is the verbal declaration of the Kohen.

ב. Ibn Ezra on 13:3 interprets VeTimei Oto also as nothing more than a verbal declaration.

4.  א. From the examples that Ibn Ezra cites, he believes that sickness, which is his interpretation of Tzora’at, can be Sent by HaShem, as well as plagues such as the hornet, His Word or His Anger. At least with respect to Tzora’at, as indicated by Klee Yakar above, it is something that emanates from within the individual, as opposed to being exclusively a God-Induced state.

ב. The claim from Shemot 23:28 suggests that the verb “to send” can only be used with respect to God when He Sends a living thing, such as the hornet. Sickness which is intangible, would then require a different verb.

ג. The sending of God’s “Word” is similarly an intangible entity and therefore would support the idea that this verb vis-à-vis God would not be exclusively used in connection to living things.

Vav.

ChaZaL appear to feel that when the extreme opposite of the norm takes place, i.e., not only a single hair turns white, but every hair turns white, this becomes an indication that in fact there is no Tuma. With regard to repentance, this is only relevant when there is a contrast, and the majority of the behavior of the individual is appropriate. But if everything about the individual is perverse, repentance is no longer relevant. (The explanation for why a generation that is completely Tameh do not have to be concerned about Tuma and Tahara perhaps reflects a similar perspective.) By extension, when the norms of society are completely overturned in every aspect, things have reached such an extreme that the only way that things can be straightened out is by the advent of the Moshiach. The Gemora says that he will come either when everyone is righteous, or everyone is corrupt. This ChaZaL suggests that latter scenario.

parshat tazria

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/553.html

Parshat Shmini answers

Shmini 5731
Alef.

1. The problem for all three commentators is the antecedent of Moshe’s statement, “this is what HaShem has Said”. Where in fact did HaShem State such a thing that He will Be Sanctified via those who are closest to Him?

2.  RaShI: This was implied in Shemot 29:43 when HaShem States that He will Make Himself known over the course of the dedication of the Mishkan.

     Ibn Ezra: Since HaShem Inspires Fear of Heaven by Carrying out punishments of wrongdoers, it should not be surprising that when someone does something wrong, as did Nadav and Avihu by bringing a strange fire before HaShem, He would Punish them in public to elicit Fear of Heaven.

      RaMBaN: This is an intention that becomes evident as a result of HaShem’s Actions. Anything that happens as the result of God’s Will is by definition something that God has Decided.  “Asher Diber HaShem” = that HaShem Thought/Decided.

3.  

בראשית פרק לב פסוק יג

ואתה אמרת היטב איטיב עמך ושמתי את זרעך כחול הים אשר לא יספר מרב:

רש"י בראשית פרק לב פסוק יג

ושמתי את זרעך כחול הים - והיכן אמר לו כן, והלא לא אמר לו אלא (שם כח יד) והיה זרעך כעפר הארץ. אלא שאמר לו (כח טו) כי לא אעזבך עד אשר אם עשיתי את אשר דברתי לך, ולאברהם אמר (כב יז) הרבה ארבה את זרעך ככוכבי השמים וכחול אשר על שפת הים:

In this case, it would appear that RaShI assumes that what is attributed was actually said at a previous time. Yaakov’s prayer is referencing something that was said to Avraham.

שמות פרק יד פסוק יב

הלא זה הדבר אשר דברנו אליך במצרים לאמר חדל ממנו ונעבדה את מצרים כי טוב לנו עבד את מצרים ממתנו במדבר:

רש"י שמות פרק יד פסוק יב

(יב) אשר דברנו אליך במצרים - והיכן דברו, (שמות ה כא) ירא ה' עליכם וישפוט:
The people prior to the splitting of the sea are repeating what was said to Moshe after his first attempt to request from Pharoah to let the Jews leave, resulted in the workload being increased for the Jews, i.e., HaShem should Judge whether you have done us a disservice or not (the irony of course is that HaShem was the one who insisted that the reluctant Moshe undertake this mission in the first place.)

שמות פרק לב פסוק כז

ויאמר להם כה אמר יקוק אלקי ישראל שימו איש חרבו על ירכו עברו ושובו משער לשער במחנה והרגו איש את אחיו ואיש את רעהו ואיש את קרבו:

רש"י שמות פרק לב פסוק כז

(כז) כה אמר וגו' - והיכן אמר, (שמות כב יט) זובח לאלהים יחרם, כך שנויה במכילתא:

It would have been inappropriate to execute people without prior warning that they are engaging in a capital offense. Consequently a prohibition against idolatry with the punishment of destruction is pointed out as already having been established In Parashat Mishpatim.

דברים פרק ה פסוק יא

שמור את יום השבת לקדשו כאשר צוך יקוק אלקיך:

רש"י דברים פרק ה פסוק יא

כאשר צוך - קודם מתן תורה במרה:

Shabbat is considered one of the three or four Mitzvot that were given to the Jewish people at Mara, prior to Sinai in order to help them adapt to the idea of structuring their lives in accordance with Halacha. See Shemot 15:25.

דברים פרק יב פסוק כא

כי ירחק ממך המקום אשר יבחר יקוק אלקיך לשום שמו שם וזבחת מבקרך ומצאנך אשר נתן יקוק לך כאשר צויתך ואכלת בשעריך בכל אות נפשך:

רש"י דברים פרק יב פסוק כא

וזבחת וגו' כאשר צויתך - למדנו שיש צווי בזביחה היאך ישחוט, והן הלכות שחיטה שנאמרו למשה בסיני:

While in this case RaShI assumes that the rules of Shechita were part of the Tora SheB’Al Peh given to Moshe at Sinai, in contrast to the four previous cases, this time there is no earlier reference in Tora SheB’Ktav to this information. Consequently it is relegated to being part of the Oral Tradition, that was first written down when R. Yehuda HaNasi began to compile the Mishna.

3.  From Amos 3:2, Ibn Ezra demonstrates that due to God’s Intimate Relationship with the Jewish people, it is to be expected that He will Punish them for transgressions, in order for them to develop Fear of Heaven, and this is why Nadav and Avihu received the punishments that they did.

4. 

שמות פרק יד פסוק יב

הלא זה הדבר אשר דברנו אליך במצרים לאמר חדל ממנו ונעבדה את מצרים כי טוב לנו עבד את מצרים ממתנו במדבר:

Ibn Ezra assumes that when the Tora states (Shemot 6:9) that the people did not listen to Moshe when he came to them a second time, after causing them so much grief during his first visit, that they said something to this effect, even though it is not explicitly stated. In this way he is consistent with the passage in VaYikra 10:3 in the sense that something to this effect is written generally somewhere and therefore lends itself to such an interpretation somewhere else.

שמות פרק טז

(כג) ויאמר אלהם הוא אשר דבר יקוק שבתון שבת קדש ליקוק מחר את אשר תאפו אפו ואת אשר תבשלו בשלו ואת כל העדף הניחו לכם למשמרת עד הבקר:

HaShem Informs Moshe in Shemot 16:5 that there would be a double portion on Friday so that on Shabbat they would not have to go out and gather the Manna; the fact that he now says to them that this is what HaShem has Said indicates that he had omitted that detail in his previous discussions with them on this matter. Consequently, once again there is a text to rely on when Ibn Ezra mentions his understanding of this particular verse.

6. 

בראשית פרק כד פסוק נא

הנה רבקה לפניך קח ולך ותהי אשה לבן אדניך כאשר דבר יקוק:

אבן עזרא

(נא) דבר ד' גזר, וכן בדבר ד' שמים נעשו (תה' לג, ו). או הוכיח בחלום:

Once again there is an instance where the verse lends itself to an interpretation that something was Said by God, without there being a clear referent for that Statement.

In this instance, since there is no verse which even remotely suggests such a thing, Ibn Ezra resorts to either a reinterpretation of the word (HaShem didn’t Articulate this, He Simply must have Decreed it if it took place—similar to RaMBaN’s own interpretation of VaYikra 10:3) or the assumption that there was a prophetic communication via a dream with Eliezer that is simply unstated in the text.

7.  Kur HaBarzel’s change in the words of RaMBaN by omitting the “Vav” that preceeds “במכובדי” suggests that the word is not referring to the people who are witnessing this event, but rather to Nadav and Avihu who were the victims of the Divine Punishment—they were individuals whom I Honored, in the sense perhaps of holding Tzaddikim accountable to a higher standard than others—כחוט השערה.

8.  While a distinction could be made with respect to human will vs. carrying that will out, with respect to God, His Will is synonymous with His Decree. Consequently, whether God Wills something or Decrees something is the same thing and therefore RaMBaN is consistent in his interpretation.

9.  I Melachim 16:34

     “In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho; with Abiram his first-born he laid the foundation thereof, and with his youngest son Segub he set up the gates thereof; according to the word of the LORD, which He spoke by the hand of Joshua the son of Nun.”

     Yehoshua 6:26

      “And Joshua charged the people with an oath at that time, saying: 'Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city, even Jericho; with the loss of his first-born shall he lay the foundation thereof, and with the loss of his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it.' “

     Although there is no record of this being said to Yehoshua by God, apparently God was behind the Decree in light of its being carried out when someone deigned to defy it during the period described in I Melachim.

10. BaMidbar 16:5

      “ And he spoke unto Korah and unto all his company, saying: 'In the morning the LORD will show who are His, and who is holy, and will cause him to come near unto Him; even him whom He may choose will He cause to come near unto Him.”

     Although, at least according to ChaZaL, there are instances where Moshe decides something and HaShem Approves and Allows the thing to happen, e.g., Shabbat 87a re the breaking of the Tablets containing the Ten Commandments, separating from Tziporra, adding a day to the days of separation prior to the Tora being Given on Sinai, the instance of making an arrangement with Reuven, Gad and half of Menashe so that they could reside on the far side of the Jordan could only have been done with God’s explicit prior Approval, although the Tora does not record this. Consequently, RaMBaN invokes the principle that the Tora does not always spell out God’s Instructions to Moshe or Moshe’s instructions to the people, and it is for us to assume that the interchange has taken place. (The matter of the Egyptian plagues is a case in point with respect to HaShem’s Prediction on the one hand, and Moshe’s conveying the warning to Pharoah on the other.)   Therefore in VaYikra 10:3, Moshe could be saying something that was explicitly Told to him previously by HaShem, but of which we first hear in this verse.  

     BaMidbar 32:31

     And the children of Gad and the children of Reuben answered, saying: 'As the LORD hath said unto thy servants, so will we do.

      RaMBaN on VaYikra 10:3 redefines “Spoke” as “Decreed” suggesting that no previous communication had taken place on this subject between God and Moshe. However in the case of the land distribution RaMBaN posits that it must be assumed that Moshe received explicit authorization from HaShem before he proposed the deal to the 2 ½ tribes.  In the former case, it is a formulation of something after the fact, whereas in the latter situation, in order for there to be a proposal that is seriously considered, Moshe had no authority to make such an offer on his own.

Beit.

1. Abrabanel—Aharon was devoid of all emotion.

    Shem Olam—Aharon had emotion, that of being at peace and accepting what had happened as the Will of God.

    The text suggests that Aharon’s response (or lack thereof) comes about as the result of Moshe’s words to him. Therefore it would make more sense that Aharon accepted Moshe’s words and therefore was at peace, as opposed to assuming that Aharon was cold and unfeeling with Moshe’s words having no effect.

2.  Tehillim 37:7

      “Resign thyself unto the LORD, and wait patiently for Him; fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass.”

      This would seem to be an argument for engaging in Tzidduk HaDin, which according to Shem Olam, Aharon did at this point.

    

Parshat Shmini

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/1404.html

parshat tzav answers

Tzav 5717
Alef.

1. Tehillim 50

ח  לֹא עַל-זְבָחֶיךָ, אוֹכִיחֶךָ; וְעוֹלֹתֶיךָ לְנֶגְדִּי תָמִיד.	8 I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices; and thy burnt-offerings are continually before Me.
ט  לֹא-אֶקַּח מִבֵּיתְךָ פָר;    מִמִּכְלְאֹתֶיךָ, עַתּוּדִים.	9 I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he-goats out of thy folds.
י  כִּי-לִי כָל-חַיְתוֹ-יָעַר; בְּהֵמוֹת, בְּהַרְרֵי-אָלֶף.	10 For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.
יא  יָדַעְתִּי, כָּל-עוֹף הָרִים; וְזִיז שָׂדַי, עִמָּדִי.	11 I know all the fowls of the mountains; and the wild beasts of the field are Mine.
יב  אִם-אֶרְעַב, לֹא-אֹמַר לָךְ: כִּי-לִי תֵבֵל, וּמְלֹאָהּ.	12 If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is Mine, and the fulness thereof.
יג  הַאוֹכַל, בְּשַׂר אַבִּירִים; וְדַם עַתּוּדִים אֶשְׁתֶּה.	13 Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?
יד  זְבַח לֵאלֹקים תּוֹדָה; וְשַׁלֵּם לְעֶלְיוֹן נְדָרֶיךָ.	14 Offer unto God the sacrifice of thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the Most High;
טו  וּקְרָאֵנִי, בְּיוֹם צָרָה; אֲחַלֶּצְךָ, וּתְכַבְּדֵנִי.	15 And call upon Me in the day of trouble; I will deliver thee, and thou shalt honour Me.’

It seems to me that HaKetav VeHaKabbala’s interpretation of v. 15 is not in accordance with its simple meaning. Whereas the commentator attempted to line up the two elements in v. 15 with the corresponding two elements in v. 14, I believe that the contents of v. 15 appear to relate to a third context of if not offering sacrifices, then at least reaching out to God for assistance via prayer or some other medium. Consequently, the three proper intentions for reaching out to God are: (v. 14) a) thanksgiving/subservience; b) honoring commitments that have been made to donate offerings/materiel to the Temple or other holy purposes; (v. 15) c) an appeal for Divine Help when beset by troubles.

2. 

כ  הֵיטִיבָה בִרְצוֹנְךָ, אֶת-צִיּוֹן; תִּבְנֶה, חוֹמוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם.	20 Do good in Thy favour unto Zion; build Thou the walls of Jerusalem.
כא  אָז תַּחְפֹּץ זִבְחֵי-צֶדֶק, עוֹלָה וְכָלִיל; אָז יַעֲלוּ עַל-מִזְבַּחֲךָ פָרִים.	21 Then wilt Thou delight in the sacrifices of righteousness, in burnt-offering and whole offering; {N} then will they offer bullocks upon Thine altar. {P}

א. Sin offerings are not brought as the result of doing good. They are means for atonement should one have transgressed. Consequently, if we are discussing what will be justified following good deeds, it will be those sacrifices that are not associated with sin or repentance.

ב. Since a quality of the Shelamim offering is that portions are not only burnt and given to the Kohanim, but there is a portion that is returned to the individual bringing the sacrifice, there is more of a sense of reciprocity which is one connotation of the term “Tzedek.”

Beit.

1. The first time “תודה” is mentioned, it is referring to the human emotion that precipitated the desire to bring a sacrifice. The second time “תודה” is mentioned, it is referring to the sacrifice itself that is named “תודה”.

2. The first time “על” appears, it connotes “for, due to”. The second time “על” appears, it means “in addition to, along with”.

3.   It would appear that R. Hirsch is closer to the Peshat in light of how he translates the first “תודה”, i.e., a feeling of thanksgiving, as opposed to Mendelsohn’s rendition, i.e., a thanksgiving sacrifice.

Gimel.

1.  Since these four cases are only examples and not exclusively the situations where a Thanksgiving sacrifice is called for, if RaShI’s comment would have begun with “for a miracle that was done on his behalf”, it would suggest that the only proper context for such a sacrifice is where there is some sort of extreme experience in which one considers himself to have been saved from an overwhelming threat. By starting with “for a matter of thanksgiving”, which parallels RaShI’s comment on Tehillim 100:1, the point is made that even if someone feels thankful after something much less dramatic has happened to him, this could also be occasion for the presentation of such a sacrifice.

2.  RaShI: 1) those who go down to the sea; 2) those who travel in the desert; 3) those who were imprisoned within a prison; 4) those who have recovered from a serious illness.

      Tehillim 107: 1) those who were imprisoned within a prison; 2) those who have recovered from a serious illness;  3) those who go down to the sea; 4) those who travel in the desert.

Perhaps the order in Tehillim reflects the degree of personal responsibility for the situation, i.e., you choose to be a sailor or a member of a caravan. However, when someone else decides to imprison you—I suppose it depends upon whether you did something criminal or this is political or even the whim of the head of government—this is none of your doing. And as for sickness, once again there might be certain precautions that one can take, but still in all, sickness strikes without visible causes of irresponsible behavior.

The order in RaShI’s commentary possibly reflects the degree of threat, i.e., when someone goes to sea or travels in the desert, forces are brought to bear that sometimes are irresistible or impossible to prevent. So you are truly at the mercy of the situation. Thisis not the case with respect to someone who is imprisoned—while you might be deprived of choice, luxury or other amenities, there isn’t necessarily phenomenon that threaten your very existence. As for sickness, granted there are some illnesses that are fatal, but there are many from which one standardly recovers. While one is ill, even if the sickness has a good prognosis, one often feels terrible and wonders if there will ever be a solution. But such feelings do not necessarily stem from the objective situation in the long term, but rather from the subjective manner in which the patient regards what is presently happening to him.

3. The first three situations usually involve a number of people who are being subjected to the danger. While there are some people who sale “solo” most are part of a crew. Similarly, those manning a caravan are numerous and are in whatever situation arises “together”. Usually a prison is an institution where numerous inmates are held simultaneously. These three are in contrast to sickness, which could be part of an epidemic and therefore many people are suffering from the same disease simultaneously, but just as commonly, this is a single instance of infirmity which stands alone from other cases of the illness.

tzav questions

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/475.html

parshat vayikra answers

VaYikra 5718
1. In Moreh Nevuchim 3:32, RaMBaM discusses the general tendency of human beings to become routinized in their actions to the point where sudden change is very difficult for them. If a change is to be introduced, it must be done so gradually. Since the world had become accustomed to worship via sacrifices, it would have been impossible to suddenly command the Jewish people to engage in a completely abstract form of worship. However, there is an implicit assumption that over time, the desire for sacrifices will wane, and then a “purer” form of worship will be accepted. See R. Jonathan Sacks’ discussion of the evolution of slavery from the Jewish point of view in http://www.ou.org/torah/article/gds_nudge .
     In Moreh Nevuchim 3: 46, RaMBaM specifically discusses how the sacrifices that were offered via domesticated animals constituted a direct attack on the forms of idolatry that were prevalent in Egypt where these very animals were deified.
2.  The Midrash cited at the beginning of the Gilayon would appear to precisely support RaMBaM’s approach in the sense that although “Neveilot and Tereifot” are highly undesirable from the king’s point of view, he will allow these foods to be present in his home so that his son will be able to engage in his desires but within a controlled environment, and that eventually we will find himself losing interest in such foods. The Nimshal is clear.
     In Abrabanel’s attempt to support RaMBaM from this very Midrashic source, it is interesting to note the difference in text:
         Midrash appearing at the beginning of the Gilayon:

      This will always be on my table, and on his own he will distance himself.

Midrash cited by Abrabanel:

         Let him eat them on my table continually and one his own he will distance himself.

There is a decided difference between having something that is considered repugnant present, but still prohibiting its consumption, as opposed to allowing it to be eaten. While part of the attraction might be the illicitness of the food, and knowing that one’s parent objects to it, so simply having it around in the presence of the parent removes some of the food’s symbolic rebellious aspect, if the father allows the child to eat it under his nose, couldn’t that be taken as tacit approval? Is it likely under such circumstances that the child will eventually tire of these foods? If the child is a contrarian, perhaps, but if he simply likes this type of food, then isn’t the father’s lack of objection considered acquiescence, in the spirit of “שתיקה כהודאה דמי”?
3.  In the Moreh 3:32, RaMBaM had said that people had to be gradually brought around to higher forms of worship. With regard to the issue of Basar Ta’ava (meat that would not be part of a sacrifice that was allowed to be eaten once the land of Israel was settled, and it became impractical to always go to a central Tabernacle or Temple when a person wished to consume meat), while the ideal might have been to only eat that was originally part of a sacrifice in order to insure that the slaughtering was not done for the sake of some idolatrous belief, nevertheless, to insist on such a rule not only while travelling in the desert where the Tabernacle was at the center of all encampments, but even after settling in Israel where the Jewish people would be far more spread apart, was simply impractical and therefore some leeway had to be provided to allow for the fulfillment of personal needs, even if the context is not the most spiritual.

4. RaMBaN posits that RaMBaM’s problem with sacrifices due to their close resemblance to idolatry is not so easily solved by simply saying that it is necessary to make concessions to human nature. If something is truly wrong, you can’t concede anything. E.g., if we were to presume that it is part of human nature to gossip, do we allow some gossip to be permitted? Some thievery to be allowed? Some murder to go unprosecuted? If we are ready to make extreme statements in these areas, why isn’t the same true about the trappings of idolatry? Furthermore, such a position forces the concept that what is allowed in the end is really not Desired by HaShem, making the entire sacrificial cult something that is less than optimal in God’s Eyes. People will come to lose respect for sacrifices and it is difficult to understand why HaShem would Require such rituals to be performed if there is no positive spiritual aspect to their observance.
5.  The fact that the sacrifices are described as giving rise to a “ריח הניחוח” (Beraishit 8:21; Shemot 29:25, 41; VaYikra 2:12; 3:16; 4:31; 8:21, 28; VaYikra 17:6; BaMidbar 15:24; 18:17; 28:6, 27; etc. as far as HaShem is concerned suggests that He is Pleased with the practice, rather than Trying to discourage it.
6. RaMBaN further states that since there was no one to emulate when Kayin and Hevel offered their sacrifices, this is an indication that inherently, sacrifices should not be assumed to represent an action that in essence is similar to the materialism inherent in idolatry. And even if Noach lived at a time when prior to the Flood, idolatry had been rampant, it does not follow that when Noach offers sacrifices, HaShem Decides that man has positive potential and He Swears that He will never again Bring a flood to destroy humanity. Consequently, it has to be concluded that these actions were genuine religious expressions by human beings looking to symbolically indicate their desire to connect to the Divine.
7.  RaMBaM could answer RaMBaN’s attack by saying that while relatively speaking, these were primitive attempts on the parts of Hevel and Noach to connect to God, nevertheless there are better ways to do this. If HaShem was Seeking an indication that the intentions of these individuals were good, He Found such an indication. However in terms of delineating what the ideal type of Divine Worship might be, conclusions should not be drawn from Hevel or Noach.

8.  Since according to RaMBaN, the thoughts of man are as much a part of his sin as his words and actions, therefore some aspect of sacrifice has to reflect this seat of thinking. He therefore posits that this is the reason for the immolation on the altar of in the innards and the kidneys, for these areas are from where thoughts emanate.
9.  According to RaMBaN, the symbolism of sacrifice focuses upon the human elements that comprise sin—soul, thought, speech, action—and that therefore require atonement. R. Hoffmann looks upon the sacrifice as representing the awareness that all life is in God’s Hands, and that we should devote our entire beings to God’s Service.

Parshat Vayikra

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/550.html

Parshat Pekudei answers

Pekudei 5727.
Alef.

1. R. Hirsch hypothesizes that the Mitzva to give a half Shekel is meant to put into perspective how a person justifies his existence and sees himself as part of the greater community. It is not a function of what a person has, or even what he has given in the past, but rather what he is prepared to give at this time in accordance with his ability. If you don’t give when you are required to, you don’t “count”, you’re not considered part of the greater group.

2.  It would seem to me that if R. Hirsch is emphasizing that a person must continually see himself as obligated to contribute to the greater group, then he should understand that he has never completed his obligation. Consequently, if you give a half shekel, there is the clear symbolism that the other half will eventually be due as well.

3.  The first “בפקד אותם” means “when they are counted”, i.e., in a census, while the second “בפקד אותם” connotes when HaShem Remembers them, Looks into their credits and debits, Determines whether they are deserving of reward or punishment in terms of their belonging or not belonging to greater Kellal Yisrael.

Beit.

1. Beno Jakob does not see the half shekel donation as an act of atoning for sin, but rather as a reminder to people not to act badly in upcoming wartime contexts.

2. Whereas R. Hirsch sees the half shekel donation as justifying an individual’s existential existence as part of the Jewish people, Beno Jakob is concerned with possible bad acts when an individual is tempted to unjustiably kill or steal during a time of anarchy and base survival. The half shekel will hopefully remind him to suppress or sublimate such temptations.

3.

במדבר פרק לא

(א) וידבר יקוק אל משה לאמר:

(ב) נקם נקמת בני ישראל מאת המדינים אחר תאסף אל עמיך:

(ג) וידבר משה אל העם לאמר החלצו מאתכם אנשים לצבא ויהיו על מדין לתת נקמת יקוק במדין:

(ד) אלף למטה אלף למטה לכל מטות ישראל תשלחו לצבא:

(ה) וימסרו מאלפי ישראל אלף למטה שנים עשר אלף חלוצי צבא:

(ו) וישלח אתם משה אלף למטה לצבא אתם ואת פינחס בן אלעזר הכהן לצבא וכלי הקדש וחצצרות התרועה בידו:

(ז) ויצבאו על מדין כאשר צוה יקוק את משה ויהרגו כל זכר:

(ח) ואת מלכי מדין הרגו על חלליהם את אוי ואת רקם ואת צור ואת חור ואת רבע חמשת מלכי מדין ואת בלעם בן בעור הרגו בחרב:

(ט) וישבו בני ישראל את נשי מדין ואת טפם ואת כל בהמתם ואת כל מקנהם ואת כל חילם בזזו:

(י) ואת כל עריהם במושבתם ואת כל טירתם שרפו באש:

(יא) ויקחו את כל השלל ואת כל המלקוח באדם ובבהמה:

(יב) ויבאו אל משה ואל אלעזר הכהן ואל עדת בני ישראל את השבי ואת המלקוח ואת השלל אל המחנה אל ערבת מואב אשר על ירדן ירחו:

(יג) ויצאו משה ואלעזר הכהן וכל נשיאי העדה לקראתם אל מחוץ למחנה:

(יד) ויקצף משה על פקודי החיל שרי האלפים ושרי המאות הבאים מצבא המלחמה:

(טו) ויאמר אליהם משה החייתם כל נקבה:

(טז) הן הנה היו לבני ישראל בדבר בלעם למסר מעל ביקוק על דבר פעור ותהי המגפה בעדת יקוק:

(יז) ועתה הרגו כל זכר בטף וכל אשה ידעת איש למשכב זכר הרגו:

(יח) וכל הטף בנשים אשר לא ידעו משכב זכר החיו לכם:

(יט) ואתם חנו מחוץ למחנה שבעת ימים כל הרג נפש וכל נגע בחלל תתחטאו ביום השלישי וביום השביעי אתם ושביכם:

(כ) וכל בגד וכל כלי עור וכל מעשה עזים וכל כלי עץ תתחטאו: ס

(כא) ויאמר אלעזר הכהן אל אנשי הצבא הבאים למלחמה זאת חקת התורה אשר צוה יקוק את משה:

(כב) אך את הזהב ואת הכסף את הנחשת את הברזל את הבדיל ואת העפרת:

(כג) כל דבר אשר יבא באש תעבירו באש וטהר אך במי נדה יתחטא וכל אשר לא יבא באש תעבירו במים:

(כד) וכבסתם בגדיכם ביום השביעי וטהרתם ואחר תבאו אל המחנה: פ

(כה) ויאמר יקוק אל משה לאמר:

(כו) שא את ראש מלקוח השבי באדם ובבהמה אתה ואלעזר הכהן וראשי אבות העדה:

(כז) וחצית את המלקוח בין תפשי המלחמה היצאים לצבא ובין כל העדה:

(כח) והרמת מכס ליקוק מאת אנשי המלחמה היצאים לצבא אחד נפש מחמש המאות מן האדם ומן הבקר ומן החמרים ומן הצאן:

(כט) ממחציתם תקחו ונתתה לאלעזר הכהן תרומת יקוק:

(ל) וממחצת בני ישראל תקח אחד אחז מן החמשים מן האדם מן הבקר מן החמרים ומן הצאן מכל הבהמה ונתתה אתם ללוים שמרי משמרת משכן יקוק:

(לא) ויעש משה ואלעזר הכהן כאשר צוה יקוק את משה:

(לב) ויהי המלקוח יתר הבז אשר בזזו עם הצבא צאן שש מאות אלף ושבעים אלף וחמשת אלפים:

(לג) ובקר שנים ושבעים אלף:

(לד) וחמרים אחד וששים אלף:

(לה) ונפש אדם מן הנשים אשר לא ידעו משכב זכר כל נפש שנים ושלשים אלף:

(לו) ותהי המחצה חלק היצאים בצבא מספר הצאן שלש מאות אלף ושלשים אלף ושבעת אלפים וחמש מאות:

(לז) ויהי המכס ליקוק מן הצאן שש מאות חמש ושבעים:

(לח) והבקר ששה ושלשים אלף ומכסם ליקוק שנים ושבעים:

(לט) וחמרים שלשים אלף וחמש מאות ומכסם ליקוק אחד וששים:

(מ) ונפש אדם ששה עשר אלף ומכסם ליקוק שנים ושלשים נפש:

(מא) ויתן משה את מכס תרומת יקוק לאלעזר הכהן כאשר צוה יקוק את משה:

(מב) וממחצית בני ישראל אשר חצה משה מן האנשים הצבאים:

(מג) ותהי מחצת העדה מן הצאן שלש מאות אלף ושלשים אלף שבעת אלפים וחמש מאות:

(מד) ובקר ששה ושלשים אלף:

(מה) וחמרים שלשים אלף וחמש מאות:

(מו) ונפש אדם ששה עשר אלף:

(מז) ויקח משה ממחצת בני ישראל את האחז אחד מן החמשים מן האדם ומן הבהמה ויתן אתם ללוים שמרי משמרת משכן יקוק כאשר צוה יקוק את משה:

(מח) ויקרבו אל משה הפקדים אשר לאלפי הצבא שרי האלפים ושרי המאות:

(מט) ויאמרו אל משה עבדיך נשאו את ראש אנשי המלחמה אשר בידנו ולא נפקד ממנו איש:

(נ) ונקרב את קרבן יקוק איש אשר מצא כלי זהב אצעדה וצמיד טבעת עגיל וכומז לכפר על נפשתינו לפני יקוק:

(נא) ויקח משה ואלעזר הכהן את הזהב מאתם כל כלי מעשה:

(נב) ויהי כל זהב התרומה אשר הרימו ליקוק ששה עשר אלף שבע מאות וחמשים שקל מאת שרי האלפים ומאת שרי המאות:

(נג) אנשי הצבא בזזו איש לו:

(נד) ויקח משה ואלעזר הכהן את הזהב מאת שרי האלפים והמאות ויבאו אתו אל אהל מועד זכרון לבני ישראל לפני יקוק: פ

4. Just as only those men who are twenty or more contribute the half shekel, so too only those who are that age are considered candidates to fight in the army. A census was necessary for these people to know how many soldiers could be mustered in time of need.

במדבר פרק א

(ג) מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה כל יצא צבא בישראל תפקדו אתם לצבאתם אתה ואהרן:

Gimel.

1. Moshe was concerned that with regard to making a Tabernacle to “contain” the Divine Presence, for the Jews to achieve personal atonement, and to offer up satisfactory sacrifices to HaShem, these would all prove impossible for the Jewish people, thereby setting them up for failure. God reassures Moshe that in all three instances, what will be required of the Jewish people will be doable by even average people.

2. Whenever the term “זה” and the like are used within a biblical context, it is assumed that there is a visual aid involved. Since it is not assumed that God would have Contact with human currency, if he is to indicate to Moshe what is to be given, he must take a spiritual representation of it, namely something that is comprised of fire. The additional association of this fiery coin and the Throne of Glory suggests that there is holiness inherent in a coin given for this purpose, and it therefore can bring the giver to a state of atonement, rapprochement with God. (In his introduction to the Tora, RaMBaN states that HaShem Showed Moshe a Tora that was black fire written on white fire. When shown the Menora, [BaMidbar 8:4; Menachot 29a], R. Yose b. Yehuda states that it too was made of fire.)

3.  Only in the case of the half shekel is there a specific object involved that could be shown. With respect to the Mishkan overall (as opposed to the individual components that make up the Mishkan) and the number of sacrifices to be offered, no single image presents itself for consideration.

4. In the cases that R. Yosef Shimon Kara cites, a process is implied, i.e., Shemot 16:16—the manner in which the Man is to be gathered; Beraishit 6—how the Ark is to be built; Shemot 29:38—the procedure for offering a certain type of sacrifice on the Altar. In all of these cases, the shape or nature of the object being discussed is not at issue, merely the procedure that HaShem Wishes people to follow. In the case of the half Shekel, the process is spelled out; however the actual object involved appears to be the antecedent of the word “זה” and therefore RaShI interprets that a Divine Vision was shown to Moshe.

Daled.

1. The opening word “כי” in this context means “when”, suggesting that taking the census is an optional rather than obligatory action. While collecting the half shekel might be necessary for the purchase of communal sacrifices and the upkeep of the Mishkan, knowing how many men above the age of twenty are to be found among the Jewish people, unless ordered by HaShem, is not something that is obligatory and therefore RaShI adds the word “כשתחפץ”.

2.  RaShI seems to interpret “ראש” as “number” rather than literally the “headcount” of the people, because this is exactly what the indirect method of collecting half shekalim is intended to avoid, literally counting heads. (This could be explained as a desire to avoid reducing human beings to numbers, something that would objectify them and cause them to not be considered as people. This appeared to be the intent of the Nazis when they assigned numbers to people and tattooed the numbers on their bodies, insisting that they be exclusively known by their numbers.

3.  The fact that the verse mentions that using the half shekel method for obtaining the number of people would “avoid there being a plague” suggests that an alternative method incurs such a danger. RaShI wishes to delineate what such an alternative method might be that is considered so potentially dangerous.