Posted on

Korach 5783

[Print]

Beautiful exposition prohibition[1]

ויקח קרח בן-יצהר בן-קהת בן-לוי וגו’‏
Korach, the son of Yitzhar, the son of Kehas, the son of Levi, took something[2]

This week’s parsha describes the rebellion of Korach. It starts off by recounting that Korach took, but it doesn’t specify what he took. To this, Rashi comments that: “This parsha is expounded beautifully in Midrash Tanchuma.” While this statement sounds innocuous[3], it bothers many commentators[4]. Why? We are taught by our Sages[5] that it is forbidden to say, “this teaching is good, this teaching is no good”. If so, how could Rashi say that this parsha is expounded beautifully by our Sages? Shouldn’t this be a forbidden thing to record?

Continue reading “Korach 5783”

Posted on

Shelach 5783

[Print]

Avoiding theft[1]

דבר אל-בני ישראל ואמרת אלהם ועשו להם ציצת על-כנפי בגדיהם לדרתם ונתנו על-ציצת הכנף פתיל תכלת
Speak to the Children of Israel and tell them: Make for yourselves tzitzis on the corners of your garments, for all generations, and place on the tzitzis of the corners a blue thread[2]

An interesting episode in the Torah is known as the war between the four kings and the five kings. During this battle, Avraham’s cousin Lot is kidnapped. When Avraham rescues him and the king of Amalek, the king offered Avraham all the spoils of war. Avraham strongly refused, not even taking a thread or a shoelace for himself[3]. Rashi explains[4] that his reasoning was he didn’t want to benefit in any way from theft. Our Sages tell us[5] that in reward for this value system, Avraham’s descendants were rewarded with the blue thread of tzitzis and the leather straps of tefillin. At first glance, this is hard to understand. What does a desire to avoid theft have to do with tzitzis and tefillin? Why are these the two mitzvos Avraham was rewarded with?

Continue reading “Shelach 5783”

Posted on

Bamidbar 5783

[Print]

The greatness of the student. The greatness of the father[1]

ואלה תולדת אהרן ומשה ביום דבר יקוק את-משה בהר סיני: ואלה שמות בני-אהרן וגו’‏
These are the offspring of Aharon and Moshe, on the day that Hashem spoke to Moshe on Mount Sinai. These are the names of the children of Aharon…[2]

The book of Bamidbar earns its English title of “Numbers” by beginning with several numbers. Namely, it details two different censuses that were taken before the Jews departed from Mount Sinai. The Torah introduces the census of the tribe of Levi by listing for us the offspring of Moshe and Aharon. The problem is, the Torah only lists the children of Aharon. What about the children of Moshe? This anomaly prompts our Sages to tell us[3] that we learn from here that one who teaches his friend’s children Torah is looked at as if they had birthed them. Meaning, Moshe taught Aharon’s children Torah, and they are therefore, in a sense, considered Moshe’s children.

Continue reading “Bamidbar 5783”

Posted on

Behar/Bechukosai 5783

[Print]

Maintaining the relationship[1]

אם בחקתי תלכו ואת-מצותי תשמרו ועשיתם אתם
If you will walk in My decrees, and safeguard My commandments, and perform them[2]

Would it be strange to say that Hashem has ta’avos, often translated as desires or lusts? One would be right to think so. However, we find statements from our Sages that indeed, Hashem has ta’avos. Our Sages ask[3] why the foremothers were all barren. The reason was so that they would pray for children, for Hashem desires the prayers of the righteous.

Continue reading “Behar/Bechukosai 5783”

Posted on

Emor 5783

[Print]

Quarrelsome quorum quandaries[1]

ולא תחללו את-שם קדשי ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל אני יקוק מקדשכם
Do not profane My Holy Name, and I will be sanctified amongst the Children of Israel; I am Hashem Who sanctifies you[2]

A fundamental principle in Judaism is that declarations of holiness need a quorum[3]. In other words, kaddish, kedusha, Torah reading, the Kohanic blessings, and the like, all require ten adult male Jews be present. The idea is that when we sanctify Hashem’s name, it needs to be done in a public fashion, with a minimum of ten men. How do we know this? A rather ironic source.

Continue reading “Emor 5783”

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”