Posted on

Acharei Mos/Kedoshim 5783

[Print]

The crack in the diamond[1]

ואם האכל יאכל ביום השלישי פגול הוא לא ירצה
If he shall surely eat it on the third day, it is pigul, and it will not be desired[2]

The Torah prohibits something known as pigul. When the Kohen is slaughtering an offering, even if he does the procedure correctly, he can invalidate it. How so? He has to have the correct intent when slaughtering the animal. If he simply thinks in his mind[3] that this offering is going to be eaten outside the Temple, when in fact it is only permissible to eat it in the Temple, he has invalidated the offering. Alternatively, if he thinks that this offering is going to be eaten in a few days, when in fact every offering has a short time period when its consumption is permitted, he has invalidated the offering. These thoughts create a status on the offering known as pigul. Not only does the offering become invalid, but if someone were to eat it, they would incur kares, spiritual excision[4]. We see that pigul is a very grave sin.

Continue reading “Acharei Mos/Kedoshim 5783”

Posted on

Tazria/Metzora 5783

[Print]

Seeing the full picture[1]

ואם-פרוח תפרח הצרעת בעור וכסתה הצרעת את כל-עור הנגע מראשו ועד-רגליו לכל-מראה עיני הכהן
If the tzra’as spreads on the skin and the tzara’as covers the entire skin, from his head to his feet, the full view of the Kohen[2]

This week’s double parsha mostly deals with the laws of tzara’as, most commonly translated as leprosy. While being a whitish skin condition, in reality it’s a totally unrelated spiritual malady[3] with physical symptoms. Chazal tell us[4] that someone who contracts tzara’as, known as a Metzora[5], usually committed a certain sin[6]. One example is that of loshon hara, evil speech. As a result of his sin, he is infected with a disturbing skin condition, and has to have his status established by a Kohen. If the Kohen determines he is spiritually pure, then he is. The opposite is also true.

Continue reading “Tazria/Metzora 5783”

Posted on

Tzav 5783

[Print]

Less culpable, harder atonement[1]

צו את-אהרן ואת-בניו לאמר זאת תורת העולה וגו’‏
Command Aharon and his sons, saying: “This is the law of the Olah offering”…[2]

This week’s parsha begins with a discussion of the Olah offering. This offering is often voluntary, and can be used to atone for failing to fulfill positive precepts[3]. The offering is totally burned on the altar, not to be consumed by man. It’s entirely “elevated” to Hashem, and is thus called an Olah. One can ask why the parsha begins discussing the Olah offering when the Chatas offering, brought for certain severe sins, always[4] precedes an Olah[5].

Continue reading “Tzav 5783”

Posted on

Vayikra 5783

[Print]

Honey and leaven; the golden rule[1]

כל-המנחה אשר תקריבו ליקוק לא תעשה חמץ כי כל-שאר וכל-דבש לא-תקטירו ממנו אשה ליקוק: קרבן ראשית תקריבו אתם ליקוק וגו’‏
All flour offerings that you bring to Hashem should not become leaven. For all leavening and honey shall not be burned on the altar as a fire for Hashem. [However], you shall bring [from] them [for] first offerings[2]

The Rambam teaches us[3] what’s become known as his golden rule. Extremes are never good. A person should always act in a balanced way, neither leaning to one extreme or the other. Arrogance is abhorrent, but a lack of self-worth can lead to depression. Someone who gives things away uncontrollably is unstable, yet someone stingy is looked down upon. A healthy balance is key. The Rambam suggests that if someone is leaning to one extreme, they should act in the other extreme, in order to end up somewhere in the middle.

Continue reading “Vayikra 5783”

Posted on

Vayakhel/Pekudei 5783

[Print]

Kindling traits of passion[1]

לא-תבערו אש בכל משבתיכם ביום השבת
Do not kindle a flame on the Sabbath day in any of your dwelling places[2]

Of all of the 39 forbidden categories of creative activities which are forbidden on Shabbos, the Torah finds the need to specify one of them. It says that it is forbidden to kindle a flame. Why was this activity singled out? Rashi brings[3] that it’s a dispute amongst our sages[4]. One opinion is that it’s to teach us that kindling a fire is for whatever reason considered a lower-level prohibition in comparison to the other forbidden creative activities. It gets downgraded to a regular transgression. The other opinion says it’s to teach us that even someone who performed one creative labor has desecrated Shabbos, as opposed to thinking it takes performing all of them to be guilty. This latter opinion still requires analysis. If this is the intent of the Torah, why was specifically the activity of kindling a flame chosen to teach this lesson? Seemingly the Torah could have chosen any other of the 38 forbidden activities.

Continue reading “Vayakhel/Pekudei 5783”

Posted on

Tetzaveh / Zachor 5783

[Print]

Regretful royal recalcitration[1]

נחמתי כי-המלכתי את-שאול למלך כי-שב מאחרי ואת-דברי לא הקים וגו’ ויבא שמואל אל שאול ויאמר לו שאול ברוך אתה ליקוק הקמותי את דבר יקוק: ויאמר שמואל ומה קול הצאן הזה באזני וגו’‏
“I have regretted coronating Shaul to be King, for he has turned away from Me and he did not uphold My words”…Shmuel came to Shaul, and Shaul said to him: “Blessed are you to Hashem! I have upheld the word of Hashem.” Shmuel said: “Then what is this sound of sheep I hear in my ears?”[2]

King Shaul was tasked with the command to eradicate the memory of the wicked nation of Amalek. The entire nation, as well as their animals, were to be destroyed. Shaul was mostly successful, except that he left the King Agag alive, as well as the Amalekite sheep. When the prophet Shmuel came to rebuke Shaul for his failure, Shaul said: “I have upheld the word of Hashem!” This is astounding, for he surely must have realized that he didn’t. He didn’t follow the command as he was told. What was he thinking? Also, he uses an unusual expression. Shouldn’t he have said “I have fulfilled the word of Hashem”? Shmuel responded that he heard the sound of sheep. Why did he choose to rebuke Shaul this way?

Continue reading “Tetzaveh / Zachor 5783”

Posted on

Mishpatim / Shekalim 5783

[Print]

Unreceived benefits[1]

ואל-משה אמר עלה אל-יקוק אתה ואהרן נדב ואביהוא ושבעים מזקני ישראל והשתחויתם מרחק
[Hashem] said to Moshe: “Go up to Hashem, you, Aharon, Nadav, Avihu, and the seventy elders of Israel. And they shall prostrate from afar”[2]

The Torah describes the giving of the Torah in a striking fashion. Moshe is told to go up to Mount Sinai, and he is to be followed by the generation’s leaders and elders. Aharon is told to follow, and Aharon’s sons Nadav and Avihu soon after[3]. The seventy elders come next. They each had their boundary of how far up the mountain they could go. However, something glaring is missing in the verse. Or rather, some people are missing. As is known, Aharon had two other sons: Elazar and Itamar. Why are they seemingly excluded[4]? Why didn’t they get the honor to go up Mount Sinai? This is a problem which bothered many commentators, as these other two sons were definitely prominent in the nation[5].

Continue reading “Mishpatim / Shekalim 5783”

Posted on

Yisro 5783

[Print]

The unknown kindnesses[1]

ויאמר יתרו ברוך יקוק אשר הציל אתכם מיד מצרים ומיד פרעה אשר הציל את-העם מתחת יד-מצרים: עתה ידעתי כי-גדול יקוק מכל-האלקים כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם

Yisro said: “Blessed is G-d! [The one] Who saved you all from the hands of Egypt and from the hands of Pharaoh. [The one] Who saved the nation from under the grasp of Egypt. Now I know that Hashem is greater than all the gods, from to the matter that they “zadu” upon the Jews”[2]

One of the first people to declare Baruch Hashem, Blessed is G-d, was Yisro, Moshe’s father-in-law[3]. Yisro ends his exclamation of praise by explaining what prompted this outburst[4]. He uses an unusual word and says it is because of the matter that they “zadu” upon the Jews. Rashi says it’s a word which means “evil”. Meaning, Baruch Hashem because of the evil that the Egyptians committed against the Jews. This is hard to understand. Onkelos takes a seemingly different approach, and says the word means “thought”. Meaning, Baruch Hashem because of what the Egyptians thought to do to the Jews. Can we make sense of this?

Continue reading “Yisro 5783”

Posted on

Beshalach 5783

[Print]

Songs of praise, songs of death[1]

ויבא בין מחנה מצרים ובין מחנה ישראל וגו’ ולא-קרב זה אל-זה כל-הלילה
[The Angel] went between the Egyptian camp and the Israelite camp…and they didn’t get close to each other the entire night[2]

As the Jews were journeying towards the Reed Sea, the Egyptians were following closely in pursuit. Hashem prevented the Egyptians from reaching the Jews by sending an Angel to act as a sort of interposition between the two camps. The Torah testifies that the two camps didn’t get close to each other the entire night. What’s interesting to note is the expression זה אל זה, to each other, appears only twice in all of Tanach. One instance is here, in reference to the fact that the two camps did not get close to each other (לא קרב זה אל זה) the whole night. The other instance appears in the Kedusha prayers, and is a quotation from Isaiah’s description of the Angels. The verse says that the Angels call to each other (וקרא זה אל זה) and sing praises of G-d[3]. Is there any connection between these two instances?

Continue reading “Beshalach 5783”

Posted on

Bo 5783

[Print]

Problematic pascal prohibitions[1]

בבית אחד יאכל לא-תוציא מן-הבית מן-הבשר חוצה ועצם לא תשברו-בו
It shall be eaten in one house. Don’t take from the meat from the house to outside. And don’t break a bone from it[2]

This week’s parsha introduces the mitzvah of the korbon Pesach, the Passover offering. It was to be prepared and consumed in a very specific way. There are thus many mitzvos associated with the korbon Pesach. One of them is the meat from the offering had to be consumed in one house, and it was prohibited to even take it outside. Another mitzvah is that one wasn’t allowed to break the bones of the Pesach offering, for example to get to the marrow inside. These two mitzvos are written in the same verse, but for some reason there’s an inconsistency. The prohibition to not take the meat outside is written in the singular (תוציא); one shouldn’t do it. However, the prohibition to not break the bones is written in in the plural, speaking to many people (תשברו). Why are they written differently?

Continue reading “Bo 5783”